How Centrelink works the 6 Week Rule Scam to rip-off welfare recipients.

Centrelink is trying to recover $3 BILLION in over-payments in order to help the Gillard Government achieve a balanced budget in 2013. The basic technique for working a fraudulent scam is to simply ignore the 6 Week Rule. A copy of this rule is located at the end of this blog. Here is how this scam was applied to a member of my extended family late last year. It is found in part one of a 5 part download of the Social Security Act

[  NOTE the shortlink to this blog is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-2a  ]

  1.  “Tom” (an alias) received an increase in his pension from the British Government.
  2. “Tom” reported this increase to Centrelink using the information provided by the British Government.
  3. Centrelink stuffed up and miscalculated the payment that “Tom” should receive and overpaid him for a year or so.
  4. When Centrelink finally discovered their mistake, they sent “Tom” a letter of demand, pointing out that he had been overpaid and that his Centrelink pension would be reduced by 15% until the “debt” was repaid.
  5. “Tom” could not afford to loose 15% of his pension and went to the Centrelink office at Elizabeth to discuss the letter.
  6. The Centrelink customer service officer (CSO) that he spoke to agreed that 15% was too much and was agreeable to a repayment rate of $20 per fortnight.
  7. “Tom” then popped a copy of the 6 week rule that I emailed to him and asked why the debt should not be waived as per the 6 week rule. (FROM HERE ON THINGS GOT VERY NASTY!)
  8. The CSO called in the big guns, a supervisor, who made it quite clear that he was not going to apply the 6 week rule.
  9. If “Tom” wanted to appeal the debt decision he would have to lodge a formal appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal but if he did, then Centrelink would apply ‘STRENUOUS MEASURES’ to recovery the money!
  10. “Tom” caved in and agreed to the $20 per fortnight ‘repayment’ even though Centrelink had made the mistake and his debt should have been waived by the Centrelink CSOs.

 ISSUES ARISING FROM THIS INCIDENT.

  1. The 6 Week Rule places an obligation upon Centrelink to prove that a debt is owed – this means that the law requires that Centrelink must prove that the error was not their fault, i.e. ‘PROVE THE DEBT’.
  2. By simply claiming that overpayments had been made and demanding repayment, Centrelink was violating the 6 Week Rule and attempted to commit an act of FRAUD.
  3. When the Centrelink supervisor refused to comply with the 6 Week Rule, he also involved himself in this fraudulent activity.
  4. In addition the ‘strenuous measures’ comment probably represents INTIMIDATION for the purpose COERCING “Tom” into agreeing to make the repayments.
  5. Such intimidation represents MALFEASANCE, i.e. the deliberate misuse of lawful authority.
  6. The original letter of demand probably represents NONFEASANCE, i.e. failing to take action when required.

The ‘maths’ of this gutless scam is very simple: NONFEASANCE + MALFEASANCE + INTIMIDATION + COERSION = FRAUD. $3 Billion in fraud if Channel 7’s Today Tonight program is to be believed.

HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS STAND OVER MERCHANT CSO INTIMIDATION IF THE MISTAKE WAS MADE BY CENTRELINK.

  1. Anyone who gets a letter of demand should make 2 photocopies ASAP then file the  letter in a safe place.
  2. Print out two copies of the 6 Week Rule to take to Centrelink – one for yourself and one for Centrelink.
  3. Take the two copies to Centrelink and give one to the CSO along with a copy of the 6 Week Rule.
  4. Point out that the Centrelink letter is evidence of fraud because Centrelink has failed to prove the debt, i.e. prove that the mistake was made by you and not by Centrelink.
  5. Point out that Centrelink has to prove that you were overpaid because of inaccurate information provided by you and Centrelink has not provided that proof – simply being overpaid is not proof of any debt being owed thanks to the 6 Week Rule.
  6. If the CSO does not agree to waive the debt and calls in a supervisor who tries to put the hard word on you, point out that their failure to comply with the 6 Week Rule also constitutes fraud and you will file fraud complaints with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Centrelink and the police if they are unwilling to obey the law and apply the 6 Week Rule.
  7. You may wish to point out that and investigation of their failure to apply the 6 Week Rule would also involve a review of  all prior cases where they had filed to review demands for debt and the 6 Week Rule.
  8. NOTE: It is wise always keep a record of any income info provide to Centrelink. Either type up two copies of this information and/or photocopy pay slips and have the Centrelink CSO stamp your copy of this information. This gives you hard evidence of what info’ you provide to Centrelink.
  9. Never throw this away as some people have been pinged for years of over-payments and Centrelink CSO find it easier to work this scam if you have no documentary evidence of the info’ that you provided. Even if you have no documentation, the legal onus is still on Centrelink to Prove the Debt. It is not up to you to prove that you provided the correct information and that Centrelink made the mistake.

THE BEST DEFENCE IS A GOOD OFFENCE.

Share this email with as many people as possible and even have them use the ‘FORWARD’ button on their email program to sent this email to the 12 senators who represent the state in which they live. One or two emails will simply be ignored but if enough welfare recipients forward this email with an “Explain please”, then the Gillard Government will have to drop this reprehensible scam.

The bottom line is that if Centrelink fails to comply with the 6 Week Rule, you really can file fraud complaints with a number of agencies, including making a complaint of Centrelink’s own fraud reporting hotline! Centrelink does investigate its own staff; however, the most likely outcome is that the staff member will be “counselled” as Centrelink would expose itself to outside investigations if a prosecution revealed that its staff were involved in ripping off welfare recipients by deliberately ignoring the 6 Week Rule.

 Ron Medlicott (Christian advocate for welfare justice .)

THE 6 WEEK RULE THAT ALL Centrelink  CSO’s MUST COMPLY WITH.

Paragraph 1237A:of the Act – Waiver of debt arising from error

 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.

Proportion of a debt

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

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to How Centrelink works the 6 Week Rule Scam to rip-off welfare recipients.

  1. Pingback: ACMA investigation of Gillard Gov’t rip-off plus SAPOL may finally investigate unreported breaching fatalities. | Ronald's space

  2. from my understanding, what they are saying is that a debt cannot be raised within six weeks of it happening merely allows the government to correct a mistake if it is found out within that six week period – and the right of appeal is not to the AAT, it is to and ARO, then the SSAT in the first and second instance.

  3. Richard says:

    This occurred under Howard as well. My girlfriends grandfather experienced the same thing.
    He was diligent in informing Centrelink of an increase in a part overseas pension and they chose to punish him for his honesty.

    • cs says:

      Richard they did not “punish him for his honesty” they would have adjusted his payments to reflect the income from the overseas pension. The idea is that people can’t double dip and still receive full pension which is the RIGHT way for things to be.

      • cs, please note:

        Legally, it is not “double dipping.” The law is quite clear; if a welfare recipient provides the correct information and Centrelink makes a stuff-up and overpays a welfare recipient then they have 6 weeks to find the mistake and ask for the money back. Once the 6 week period expires, the law is quite clear that “The Secretary must waive the debt.”

        How much of the debt MUST the Secretary ( i.e. the CEO) of Centrelink waive?

        The LAW says 100% of the debt. This means that once the 6 week period is up, any demand by Centrelink to repay the debt is fraudulent. In all states other than Victoria, if a fraudulent Letter of demand triggers a suicide or a fatal heart attack, then it is a MURDER. In Victoria, it is “only” Manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

        It is standard operating procedure for Centrelink to mislead people with the sort of information that you have posted. If you are employed by Centrelink and you are passing out this information, then you are committing a crime!

        Did you know that you do not have intend to commit a crime ,or even be aware that you have committed a crime, and you can be found guilty of committing a crime?

  4. CS says:

    You’re an idiot.

  5. yadnarie48 says:

    The law is the law. If Centrelink gets it wrong, Centrelink has 6 weeks to find and fix the problem. There is no lee way in the law which clearly states that “The Secretary MUST WAIVE ” the repayments if Centrelink makes the mistake. However, what Centrelink is doing when such a mistake is discovered is immediately send a ‘Letter of Demand” that falsely states that the law requires that the debt be repaid. Because of the paragraph 1,237a statute, this means that Centrelink is committing fraud and in every state except Victoria, where it is Manslaughter, suicides or stress related deaths caused by these letter of demand are Murders, e.g Section 18 of the NSW Crimes Act (1900).. One of my goals is to have the Centrelink officials responsible for these “Letter of Demand” fraud triggered fatalities investigated and where appropriate, charged with causing these deaths.

    • Vadnarie48 – this is ridiculous, it essentially does say the secretary must – that’s just the way legislation is phrased; fraud in this sense is covered in the federal criminal code not states and the idea that someone can be found culpable for a homicide related incident in this way is just nonsense.

  6. Bruce says:

    I have been informed the 6 week rule (Paragraph 1237A:of the Act – Waiver of debt arising from error) does not apply to famliy tax benifit payments. Is this true or is this Centerlink CSO engaging in fraud?

    Where can I find legal aid representation in South Australia?

    • yadnarie48 says:

      My recommendation is that you set out the details of your case and send this information to Senator Rachel Siewert. ( http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/contact OR senator.siewert@aph.gov.au )

      She is the Greens senator who provided me with the details in regard to the 6 Week Rule rip-off involving “Tom.” Her office is extremely prompt in responding to emails involving this fraud and a letter or email from her office is the sort of documentary evidence that may persuade a legal aid lawyer that you have a viable case.

      LEGAL AID in SA? – Try the Yellow Pages for your nearest lawyer who provides this service.
      However, this is the tricky bit because the last time I went to a legal aid office to challenge the secret senate gag on breaching fatalities, I was told that there is no funding for cases against the federal government! However, Centrelink deliberately ignoring the 6 week rule is a text book case of FRAUD and so your case may qualify for free legal support.

      Have you read my posting in the Saldanha case? Each of these postings is relevant: check out http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bC “The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3h:- The Vice Regal cop-out.” AND http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3j: The statutory declaration.

      Send me a 60 cent postage stamp and your postal address and I will send you certified copies of the statutory declaration and the Governor-General’s letter. Those are also very hard documents for a lawyer to ignore!

      Please note: SURVIVOR SEX (prostitution) was one of the ways that the Salvation Army documented as a technique that was used by breached welfare recipients in order to survive!

    • yes and no – Family Tax doesn’t come from the Social Security Act, it comes from A New Tax, Family Tax or something like that which does have a similar waiver provision. Best people to call is the Welfare Rights Centre http://www.wrcsa.org.au/ 82231338

      • yadnarie48 says:

        espressedlife, like Rose, you also totally miss the basic point and so I shall repeat some of what I stated to her. THE LAW requires Centrelink to waive any debt caused by Centrelink error and Centrelink does not detect this error within 6 weeks. If I send you a Letter of Demand claiming that you owe me $10,000, I have to be able to prove in a court of law that my claim is valid. The same rule applies to Centrelink because of the Waiver of Debt provisions in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act, i.e. BEFORE Centrelink can issue a letter of Demand for repayment of debt, Centrelink must be able to collate the evidence needed to prove that the debt is either partly or solely caused by client error and not Centrelink error. If Centrelink does not have that evidence then the Letter of Demand really is BUREAUCRATIC MALFEASANCE for the purpose of committing FRAUD. Since fraud is a FELONY, any deaths that result from fraudulent Letters of demand are a major crime. Check out: Director Of Public Prosecutions Annual Report 2005-2006 at http://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/03/2005-2006.pdf Page 7, R v Finch. The summary report states:

        “Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder. That is, the learned sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major indictable offense to which he was party.”

        If a fraudulent claim so traumatized a person that they suffer a fatal heart attack or stroke or go and commit suicide, then it is A MAJOR CRIME. Felony Murder in SA, (25 years) Murder in NSW (20 years) and Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence in Victoria. “I was only doing my job” has NOT been a valid excuse since the 1946 War Crimes trials at Nuremberg! (FACT OF LAW: You do not have to know you are committing a crime to found guilty of a crime.)

        Check out my STATUTORY DECLARATION at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX
        Also check out the Governor_General’s response to my activity: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bC “The Governor-General CANNOT become involved.” What does “cannot be involved” mean? It means that even the Governor-General is seriously concerned about what I am doing and the legal implications. She has signed off on unconstitutional legislation and as direct consequence, a lot of very vulnerable people died. If you know our Constitution, then you know that No-ONE is above the Law and therefore the Governor-General is faced with one heck of a legal problem. Consider this; in Australian courts the only defense against Defamation is TRUTH. If what I was doing was inaccurate and defamatory, why hasn’t any politician or bureaucrat sued me for defamation? I have been posting these blogs for 3 years and deliberately violating Senate suppression orders since 1st July 2012 but I am still blogging.

        Finally, why do you think that Malaysia accused Senator Nick Xenophon of being a terrorist and why didn’t the Gillard Government or Tony Abbott angrily deny this charge? Breaching legislation is not only unconstitutional, it violates Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which prohibits governments from depriving people of their only means of sustenance, i.e. Breaching violates the basic right to life and therefore it is an act of state terrorism. That is why Gillard and Abbott kept their mouths shut tight when Senator Xenophon was accused of being a terrorist. Guess which terrorist organization he belongs to? It is called the Australian Federal Parliament!

      • but Mr Finch WAS STILL PRESENT when the deceased was shot in the head – read the case mate – felony murder in this context only provides a mental element for murder, however you still have to actually do something that ends someone’s llife to be charged with murder. and with respect to the Governor General – we have this wonderful thing called the separation of powers here champ –

      • yadnarie48 says:

        Mr Finch was allegedly engaged in the commission of a crime when a person died. Read the judge’s determination, Josiah Finch did not kill anyone as both the prosecutor and the judge acknowledged. The mathematical logic of Felony Murder are very simple: CRIME + FATALITY = FELONY MURDER. The constitutional principle of “Separation of Powers” does not apply in either the Josiah Finch case or in deaths that result from Centrelink staff, be it “The Secretary” in Canberra or a lowly CSO Level 1 at the Elizabeth office; if Centrelink does not comply with the “The Secretary must waive the debt…” statute found in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act (page 604), then “The Secretary” or the lowly CSO 1 are committing a felony (a crime) known as FRAUD. Do the ‘maths’ on this: FRAUD + FELONY = FELONY MURDER in South Australia, Murder in NSW, and Manslaughter due to criminal negligence in Victoria.

        Check out my blog posting at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bC The Governor-General and her highly paid legal staff do NOT dispute my logic; they just don’t want to be involved when the crap finally hits the fan!

        Check out another posting at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX Copies of this statutory declaration have been provided to the Westminster Inquest into the death of Jacintha Saldanha.

        Last Thursday (7th March 2013) the British Government responded by refusing to provide Jacintha Saldanha’s family, husband Ben Barboza, and her children, Lisha and Junal, with legal representation at the inquest! I am not tossing stones in a millpond to make tiny waves. What I am doing is tossing legal hand-grenades in a cesspool and the fallout really is going to stink.

        If you work for Centrelink, your comments on this blog may eventually be tabled in court. Are you aware that you do NOT have have any knowledge, intent or awareness that you have committed a crime to be found guilty of a crime? “I was only following orders” is known as the Nuremberg defense because it was used by rank and file soldiers in Nazi concentration camps. The War Crimes courts tossed out this feeble excuse. IT DOES NOT CUT THE MUSTARD. Why? Because it is unlawful to obey an unlawful order, a fact of which the Governor-General and her staff are fully aware off which is why they are now trying to distance themselves from the legal consequences of breaching legislation. Breaching/Compliance Failure penalties are not only unconstitutional, they violate a United Nations convention that makes it a violation of international law to kill someone by deliberately depriving them of “sustenance”, i.e. in Australia that is the dole.

        2 years ago the SA Government passed tough anti-bikie laws that were intended to smash the bikie clubs in SA. Guess what happened? Unlike welfare recipients, the bikie clubs were not short on cash and so they challenged the legality of the law in the High Court. The High Court tossed the legislation out. This is not the 1st time that this has happened. On May 24th 2012, the Ombudsman’s Office finally acknowledged that Breaching/Compliance Failures legislation is unconstitutional. However, the Ombudsman’s Office is not allowed to mount constitutional challenges to legislation in the High Court and they have advised me to seek out ways to do this myself! Got a spare $500,000 in your back pocket. I do not and so I am going for the Archilles Heel of this legislation; check out the “Grave Digger Documents” posted at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v #2 is Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter in which he admits that “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes…” My solution is to collect all of the Centrelink’s published quarterly and annual reports to “prove” that Neil Skill is correct, i.e. Centrelink bureaucrats have hidden these murders by the simple process of ‘not collecting and reporting the post breaching fatalities. In the same blog posting you will find that the Senate has hit me with a confidential classification and 2 suppression orders. I am NOT supposed to mention these fatalities!

        My legal defense is that these orders constitute a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in order to conceal fraud and mass murder. Since I am not in jail and am still blogging, clearly the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee does not wish to test my defense in the Federal Court, where as part of my defense I will subpoena Centrelink’s data files on both post breaching fatalities and the number of people who died after being issued with a letter of demand.

        BE AWARE: I am not blowing off steam for the sake of blowing off steam. I am trying to ensure that welfare recipients have the legal, constitutional, human rights respected, and if the price of that is politicians and public servants going to jail for having killed welfare recipients, that is what is known as JUSTICE.

        If you are a Centrelink employee, your comments may ultimately help to put some of your bosses in jail. So, on behalf of 4 million potentially grateful compensation receiving welfare recipients, I say thank you for your VERY INFORMATIVE and insightful input.

        A word of advise: If you are a member of a union, you should be putting pressure on your union rep’ to provide a written legal opinion of the stuff that I am posting. If you have a written legal opinion that international law and the constitution have not been broken and that all the breaching triggered deaths(12,000?+) are not unlawful, then you may be off-the-hook if you are cross examined in court because a judge would probably accept that you had made “a reasonable effort” to ascertain the legality of your actions, i.e. if the legal advise is wrong, it’s not your fault!

      • I don’t work for Centrelink, I am a legal advocate who spends my time taking on them and other government departments for people who actually have a decent claim. I worry that what you are saying will ultimately distort people’s understandings of their rights and responsibilities because it is so far from the point of reason and truth.

        Your “Mathematical logic”???? of “CRIME + FATALITY = FELONY MURDER” is simply misinformed. Felony murder is the crime, which has to encompass a fatality. If no one dies, it is not murder duh? The crime is made up of a mental element (Mens Rea) and a physical act (Actus Rea). The fatality happening during, immediately before or immediately after the commission of a crime punishable by more than 24 years in gaol is, in the case of felony murder, the mental element, but you still have to actually do something, or be present when someone does something to end someone’s life. You still have to commit the physical act of ending someone’s life. Admittedly Mr Finch didn’t specifically do that BUT HE WAS THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Fraud is not a serious enough crime to ‘cut the mustard’ as you put it because it doesn’t fit the bill with respect to the amount of time in gaol one can serve if found guilty.

        And the ‘Nuremberg defence’ is part of Australian law and can be relied on in most cases – for example, in the Griffith Code states, there are chapter 5 defences to most crimes surrounding the concepts of voluntariness of actions, duress, intoxication automatism, mental delusions and other things. In the Federal Code it is in section 4.2.

        You would do well to stop pretending that you have knowledge on this subject and stop pretending that what you think you are doing is helping people out or changing things. I have witnessed a lot of people who claim to be ‘taking on the government’, standing up for the little people…’speaking for the trees, for the trees have no tongue…’ and have found that most of the time this type of argument merely detracts credibility from the decent arguments that need to be had by allowing an ‘us and them’ mentality to evolve which divorces action from accountability

      • yadnarie48 says:

        As a job club manager, some of my CES peers misused their lawful authority to engage in breaching competitions. That is an indictable offense known as Malfeasance and any deaths caused by this activity are, under the 1935 Consolidated Criminal Law Act a felony murder. Josiah Finch was charged, tried and convicted under this law in 2006 and copped the mandatory 25 years sentence even though the Crown prosecutor and the judge both admitted that he had not killed anyone. He was just present and allegedly engaged in unlawful activity when the murder occurred. There was no Mens Rea (Deliberate Intent) on the part of Josiah Finch but he still copped the 25 year penalty. (It may be nice to prove motive in a murder trial, but it is not essential to do so.)

        That is just how it works in SA.

        The above mentioned breaching competitions did involve deliberate intent as did the Howard Government’s illegal Performance Indicator Targets back in FY 2000-01. They are just two of many examples of how the misuse of lawful authority can cause fatalities that under SA criminal law can be reclassified as a Felony Murder and that is the goal that I working towards, i.e. I expect to put these views to a court of law, possibly a coroner’s inquest or perhaps a fraud or murder trial. Politicians do not approve of what I am doing for so far I personally have 1 secret Senate confidential classification and 2 “don’t copy – don’t distribute” suppression orders from the Australian Parliament that adds weight to my viewpoint. This begs the question, what are they trying to hide.

        Centrelink really is ignoring the 6 Week Rule and I hope to also prove that in court. Fraud + fatality = MURDER really is a viable ‘sum’ in South Australia. Some of the people that I have advised have even forced Centrelink to repay money that they paid to clear the “debts” that Centrelink had hit them with. Are you going to say that paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act is not statute law? That is what some Centrelink personnel are doing and that is Misrepresentation.

        Check out Grave Digger document #2 at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v and tell our readers why, of the many thousands of data tables produced by the DSS and Centrelink in the last 25 years, the post breaching terminal outcomes, the name we used in 1995-97, are NOT reported in any of the weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual reports? The DSS and Centrelink are supposed to make “full and accurate disclosure” in all of the public quarterly and annual reports but by leaving these deaths out, they have mislead both parliament and the public. Any guesses why that would be happening?

        I am curious: If you are a legal advocate, which law school did you attend? I ask that because your phrase “decent claim” is not exactly the correct use of legal terminology; the correct term that competent lawyers should use is “valid claim.” “decent claim” is a value laden phrase, and your switching the topic to the actions of environmental groups, etc, is also inconsistent with the professional conduct of a qualified lawyer engaged in a public debate.

        Everyone knows who I am and can check my professional qualifications with the SA Teachers Registration Board. Can I do the same with yours?

        Ron Medlicott

  7. Rose Donelly says:

    CSO’s and team leaders do not have the delegation to waive debts and to suggest that they intimidated someone is just ludicrous. How about the intimidation they receive daily for trying to help people. They are just the messengers … a person just doing their job within the legislation. If you bothered to investigate properly you would find that a debt is raised by a debt team – and not a CSO … how did the customer treat the CSO – rudely I expect …. if you had anything to do with it I can just imagine. Post of copy of the letter where it states “Letter of Demand” … Why don’t you get a job in Centrelink if you know so much …

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Rose, you miss the point; THE LAW requires Centrelink to waive any debt caused by Centrelink error is that debt is due to a Centrelink error and Centrelink does not detect this error within 6 weeks.

      You and I are “legal entities.” Centrelink is also a legal entity that has the same legal responsibilities as you and I. If I send you a Letter of Demand claiming that you owe me $10,000, I have to be able to prove in a court of law that my claim is valid. The same rule applies to Centrelink because of the Waiver of Debt provisions in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act, i.e. BEFORE Centrelink can issue a letter of Demand for repayment of debt, Centrelink must be able to collate the evidence needed to prove that the debt is either partly or solely caused by client error and not Centrelink error. If Centrelink does not have that evidence then the Letter of Demand really is BUREAUCRATIC MALFEASANCE for the purpose of committing FRAUD. Since fraud is a FELONY, any deaths that result from fraudulent Letters of demand are a major crime. Check out: Director Of Public Prosecutions Annual Report 2005-2006 at http://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/03/2005-2006.pdf Page 7, R v Finch. The summary report states:

      “Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder. That is, the learned sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major indictable offence to which he was party.”

      Josiah did not kill anyone, but because a felony had occurred, i.e. a drug deal, and someone was killed, Josiah is serving a 25 year sentence for the death of Kasim Morrison! My message to Centrelink staff is that if you commit fraud by sending someone a Letter of Demand for a debt that should be waived, if they are so traumatized by that letter that they suffer a fatal heart attack or stroke or go and commit suicide, then you have have committed a major crime. Felony Murder in SA, (25 years) Murder in NSW (20 years) and Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence in Victoria.

      Check out my STATUTORY DECLARATION at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX
      Also check out the Governor_General’s response to my activity: “The Governor-General CANNOT become involved.” What does “cannot be involved” mean? It means that even the Governor-General is seriously concerned about what I am doing and the legal implications. She signed off on unconstitutional legislation and as direct consequence, a lot of people died. If you know our Constitution, then you know that No-ONE is above the Law and therefore the Governor-General is faced with one heck of a legal problem.

      If the Governor-General is not denying my allegations but is instead back-pedaling as hard as she can go, then you have to give serious consideration to the possibility that what I am posting on the blog is legally accurate. Consider this:- in Australian courts the only defense against Defamation is TRUTH. If what I was doing was inaccurate and defamatory, why hasn’t any politician or bureaucrat sued me for defamation yet? I have been posting these blogs for 3 years and deliberately violating Senate suppression orders since 1st July 2012 but I am still blogging.

      Finally, why do you think that Malaysia accused Senator Nick Xenophon of being a terrorist and why didn’t the Gillard Government or Tony Abbott angrily deny this charge?

  8. no name says:

    i am going to tell give one
    i going to hit the streets would you like to come
    it has happend to me an i am on a disability paymant

  9. Do you mind if I quote a several of your blogposts as long as I provide credit
    and sources back to your site: http://yadnarie48.
    wordpress.com/2012/02/21/how-centrelink-works-the-6-week-rule-scam-to-rip-off-welfare-recipients/.
    Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. Many thanks

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Feel free to so. I have no problem with you copying the blog content for it posted as an educational information service rather than as legal advice. The reality is that i am a teacher who once worked as CES job club manager and (briefly) as a Job Network recruitment consultant. this experience gave a good look at (to use Star Wars language) “the Dark Side of the Force.’

      Knowledge is Power so feel free to share the power.

      Ron Medlicott (yadnarie12)

      PS The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is conducting a (quasi-secret) research project on the way Centrelink treats welfare recipients.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s