Tony Abbott and the unreported Performance Indicator Target fatalities have been referred to the SA Attorney-General

Below is a copy of letter to an ACMA investigator which related to a complaint that the 7 Network may have violated South Australia’s 75 year old Felony Murder by concealing FY 2000-01 Performance indicator target fatalities, i.e. Breaching Quota triggered deaths. Tony Abbott may believe that he will be the Prime Minister after the next election but before that can come to pass, he may have to overcome criminal investigations into his failure to report any of the Performance Indicator Target triggered fatalities that in South Australia may have to be reclassified as Felony Murders.

Like all federal government agencies, the ACMA seems to believe that federal politicians are above the law and therefore the ACMA is not keen to look at how the 7 Network and former Human Services Minister, Tanya Slibersek, never found it necessary to mention these deaths. (Or the fact that Centrelink is supposed to obey paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act, not ignore it. (1,237A requires Centrelink to waive repayment if it is their mistake and they do not correct it within 6 weeks.)

To:       Eileen Haley

Broadcast Investigations Section, ACMA

PO Box Q500, Queen Victoria Building

NSW 1230

Your Ref:         ACMA2011/9-15 C 21620

Dear Ms Haley,

Re: New developments that parallel and interact with my complaints to the ACMA.

Esoterica – (Noun) Secrets known only to a minority.

 In the light of recent developments I suggest that you need to re-evaluate my seemingly over the top statements that you are dealing with our nation’s largest mass murder case.

Assistant Secretary Neil Skill made quite clear in his May 18th 2010 letter, ‘Centrelink does not collect ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes Statistics’. On the flip side of the attached copy of his letter (not shown in this blog) is a single page of data from the Centrelink Customer Database. This is just one of literally thousands of such pages of information published and released over decades. Please note the statement at the very bottom of the data page which states;

“This data was extracted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations from the Centrelink customer data system using SAS (statistical analysis software).”

Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” statement, when combined with the above statement, is a frank admission that Centrelink management deliberately chose not to collect and publish post breaching fatalities data even though it was, and still is, easily accessible in the Centrelink customer database.

An elite ‘few’, politicians, senior bureaucrats, senior police officers and senior members of the mass media knew the about secret death toll caused by breaching activity and they maintained a wall of silence in order to ensure that the public remained unaware of this lethal activity. The simple reality is that by concealing these deaths, a totally avoidable death toll continued to mount over decades. It is my contention that this preventable death toll represented a reckless indifference to the lives of welfare recipients that resulted in as yet uncounted death toll. I believe that in Queensland they represent “Unlawful Killings” and in Victoria they represent “Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence”.

However, in South Australia, the unlawful imposition of Performance Indicator Targets by the Howard Government, may mean that these deaths can (must?) be reclassified as “Felony Murder”.

The Odenwalder Letter.

As you can see from the above copy of a letter by my local MP, Lee Odenwalder, issues of concern about violations of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 have been referred to the SA Attorney-General, John Rau. South Australia’s felony murder statutes are contained in this Act and it is my contention to the ACMA that the 7 Network was in violation of this criminal law statute by opting to conceal its knowledge of post breaching fatalities. Please read the following extract from the 2005-06 Annual report of the SA DPP.

Director Of Public Prosecutions Annual Report 2005-2006

http://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/03/2005-2006.pdf

Page 7

R v Finch – Josiah Finch was charged with the murder of Karim Morrison. Mr Morrison was shot once to the head in the car park of the McDonalds restaurant on Anzac Highway at Morphettville before his body was dumped nearby in one of the entrances to the nearby racecourse. The prosecution case was that Mr Morrison was shot in the course of a drug rip-off gone wrong.  Whilst it was not alleged that Mr Finch was the shooter, it was alleged that he was present when Mr Morrison was shot and was instrumental in the arrangements that led to Mr Morrison being in the carpark at the relevant time. The shooter remains unknown to the prosecution. 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.

In the Finch case, what angered the SA police (and the SA government) was the fact that Josiah Finch allegedly would not reveal who fired the fatal shot. In precisely the same manner, the 7 Network has apparently opted to conceal information about the secret post breaching fatalities and is therefore probably as much in violation of South Australia’s ancient felony murder statute as is Josiah Finch who is serving a mandatory 25 year ‘life’ sentence for concealing the details of just one unlawful killing. With a possible post breaching death toll that may be in the range of 2 – 4 times the ‘9/11’ death toll, it is not unreasonable to believe that the failure of the 7 Network to disclose either breaching fatalities caused by reckless endangerment or by the unlawful imposition of Performance Indicator Targets by the Howard Government constitutes a far greater violation of SA felony murder statute. It is my contention that this ‘editorial’ decision by the 7 Network was neither in the public interest nor was it consistent with compliance with South Australia’s felony murder statute. 7 Network officials knew about breaching fatalities and by not making public disclosure, they were in violation of the felony murder statute found in the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

Freedom of the Press’ may be a US Constitutional right but our constitution offers no such freedom, instead it makes the nation’s laws binding on the people which includes TV producers and media network executives. The 7 Network producers may have been duped by their belief in the principal of ‘Freedom of the press’ and thus falsely believed that failing to disclose the network’s knowledge of post breaching fatalities was a ‘freedom of the press’ editorial issue rather than a violation of any criminal laws. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, neither for the 7 Network producers nor for ACMA broadcasting investigators who may wish to ignore that aspect of my complaints.  That the 7 Network officials may have actually made this ‘freedom of the press’ error is possible for one of the network’s initial responses to the 6 Week Rule Fraud complaint was that it was an editorial issue when, as I have previously pointed out, it is an issue of the network illegally colluding with the (former) Human Services Minister, Tanya Slibersek, and Centrelink officials to defraud welfare recipients of some $3 Billion in erroneous overpayments that, under paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act, must be waived by Centrelink officials if the error was made by Centrelink and not rectified within 6 weeks. Clearly, as the 7 Networks own response shows, they had no problem not revealing the 6 Week Rule for editorial reasons and therefore it is entirely possible that they chose to conceal the Performance Indicator Target Murders for precisely the same reason.

Social Media: (Noun) Electronic communications media that allows individuals with access to the World Wide Web, i.e. the Internet, to communicate with each other for the purpose of sharing information, ideas and images. (As numerous national governments have found out, Social Media is the opposite of Esoterica)

Thanks to the Social Media, a member of Josiah Finch’s family read some of my blogs and contacted me by phone and email. Recently I visited with this family member and provided documents and other details about post breaching fatalities which the SA DPP concealed from Josiah Finch’s defense team during his trial. In doing so, I provided documents that have been classified by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee as “confidential” and are also the subject of two senate committee “don’t copy, don’t distribute” orders. Prior to doing so, I notified Assistant Secretary Matt Hall of the Federal Attorney-General’s Office that it my contention that these attempts to suppress details of post breaching fatalities were unlawful, i.e. deliberate attempts to obstruct justice and therefore to comply with these two orders would in itself be an unlawful act by myself.

As you are aware, Assistant Secretary Hall is, at the request of the Prime Minister’s Department, involved in monitoring my complaints against Ms Slibersek and Centrelink and has not disputed this viewpoint, I believe that his failure to dispute my viewpoint or to legally challenge my actions is an admission of the correctness of my views.

The information provided to the Finch family representative has far wider legal implications, especially for any person convicted of murder or fraud, not only in SA but throughout the nation. I do not know what will happen to the documents provided to the Finch family but I do know that I pointed out that Josiah Finch may wish to make this information known to his fellow inmates as some of these inmates may also be able to also use this information to mount an appeal against their own convictions.

In addition to this, the refusal of the AFP to investigate the Performance Indicator Target Murders raises the question of the motive of senior AFP officers in refusing to investigate these preventable deaths. It is possible that the AFP did a dirty deal with the Howard Government, i.e. no investigation of the breaching quota murders in exchange for the legislation contained in the Anti-terrorism Bill #2 legislation. The possibility of such a deal could potentially render the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation unlawful since it would mean that this legislation was, literally, the proceeds of a crime. Although a jury found Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Nayev El Sayed, and Saney Edow Aweys guilty of conspiring to plan a terror attack on the Holsworthy Army Base, the refusal of the AFP to investigate those murders in exchange for the Anti-terrorism Bill #2 legislation would undermine all prosecutions under that legislation including the recent convictions of Wissam Fattal, Nayev El Sayed and Sanay Edow Aweys

I shall be making every effort to provide copies of the information that I provided to the Finch family to the lawyers who represented these three men who then may be able to use this information in appealing their convictions. At his arraignment, Wissam Fattal was led from the courtroom shouting that Australia was killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and that “You call us terrorists – I’ve never killed anyone in my life”. That is not something that Employment Ministers and DSS/Human Service Minister who deliberately concealed breaching fatalities can say! I believe that Mr Fattal and his two alleged accomplices may also find the title of the secretly classified Submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 inquiry to be of great interest for it was titled “Who are the real terrorists?”

In  2012 the failure of Department of Employment and DSS/Human Services Ministers and senior administrators to report post breaching fatalities is an issue that is of interest to hundreds of people who are now in prison. The AFP refused to investigate the post breaching fatalities that was the direct consequence of  Performance Indicator Target fraud because of the (political and legal) “gravity/sensitivity” and because of the (Howard) “government protocols”. In effect, the AFP allowed the government accused of criminal misconduct to dictate the AFP’s response to my request for an investigation into post breaching murders, i.e. quash any inquiry that might have led to criminal prosecutions of either John Howard or the government ministers and the bureaucrats who were hiding the breaching quota fatalities. One flow-on consequence is that the SA Attorney-General is now likely to be facing legal challenges to a number of high profile murder convictions and the actions of all parties involved in the cover up of breaching quota murders may the subject of close scrutiny in court appeals. At the moment, the ACMA is on the official record as refusing to investigate Tanya Slibersek’s role in colluding with the 7 Network to conceal all breaching fatalities, including the Performance Indicator Target Murders because she is a (federal) politician! How do you think SA appeal lawyers will respond in court to either that or the AFP’s “gravity/sensitivity” logic?

Federal v State

It should be noted that every federal agency challenged on the issue of the secrecy surrounding breaching fatalities has opted out citing nebulous reasons such as the AFP’s ‘government protocols’. Diametrically opposite to this federal approach to dealing with alleged illegal activity by federal MPs is the responses of the NSW and Victorian police forces which had no such qualms about investigations allegations that a member of the Gillard Government, Craig Thomson, may have committed credit card fraud. In a similar manner, the SA Police (SAPOL) had no problems with charging and prosecuting a Liberal Party MP, Senator Mary Jo Fisher, on shop lifting and assault charges.

In the United Kingdom, the News of the World scandal has broadened to encompass public servants, police officers and members of the military. The concealment of post breaching fatalities by media agencies such as the 7 Network is likely to provoke enough public outrage and shock to ensure that anyone who turned a blind to this activity will be called to account for their actions.

If telephone hacking in the UK can attract prolonged world-wide interest, what sort of publicity will the ACMA’s decision to refuse to investigate Ms Slibersek generate? What credibility will the ACMA have once that sort of investigative attitude becomes public knowledge and what damage will it do to previous finding by your investigative unit which in 2010-11 found in favour of plaintiff’s in less than 1 incident in 20 that was reported or queried with the ACMA?

Tony Abbott demonstrated the degree of public concern over government ministers hiding fatalities in February 2010 with his comment that if Peter Garrett had been running a business in New South Wales, he would have been charged with “Industrial manslaughter” for having failed to report the deaths of four ceiling insulation installers. Whilst this was immense short-term political  gain to the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott’s failure to report any of the breaching fatalities during his 1998-2003 tenure as the Employment Minister is likely to have significant negative consequences once this fact is made public either by a SAPOL inquiry, your investigation or legal action by other interested third parties, e.g. Wissam Fattal or Josiah Finch, etc.

Minor Civil Inquiry.

SA courts have an interesting process known as a Minor Civil Inquiry. Available to people who are not represented by a lawyer, this low cost attempt to provide justice to those who cannot reasonably afford legal representation, i.e. pensioners like myself, will enable me to challenge the Attorney-General if he decides to take no action in regard to the issue of the concealment post breaching fatalities. The risk of such an action essentially puts the SA Attorney-General in a no-win position for if he fails to act, the court may order him to act!

Even if the court does not order a SAPOL inquiry, publicity over the esoteric handling of breaching fatalities, i.e. the deliberate failure of government ministers and DSS and Centrelink officials to use the SAS software to “collect” and make public the lethal impact of breaching activity is not an issue that the public will condone especially, given the well known legal precedent of the Queensland “Dr Death” cover up;. (Q v Patel, Qld Supreme Court, March 2010) and Mr Abbott’s “Industrial manslaughter” comments.

A minor civil inquiry action on my part could therefore impact upon decisions already made in the course of your (don’t interview the plaintiff) ‘investigations’. Now would be a good time to review exactly what you are investigating and to provide me with a written update of the precise issues in my complaints that are currently being investigated by your unit. Failure to provide me with at least a summary of what you are investigating re my complaints would provide me with the opportunity to highlight the failure of your unit to even talk to me about the issues that I have raised and that could be viewed with extreme concern by the magistrate conducting the civil inquiry.

In sentencing Wissam Fattal, Justice King King stated,“Your plans were evil. You intended to plan a random shooting of anyone you found on that army base, be it army personnel, civilian, male or female.” From my perspective as a pensioner, the random deaths of welfare recipients over a period of decades because the first fatalities and all subsequent fatalities were never made public is far more evil. Politicians and public servants combined with mass media agencies such as the 7 Network to conceal a massive humanitarian disaster that impacted upon the lives of some 4 million people and resulted in a death toll that may be 2-4 times the appalling ‘9/11’ death toll. Thanks to social media technology, federal agencies such as the ACMA no longer have the option of covering this disaster.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott.

NOTE TO BLOG READERS:

Every minister responsible for either the Employment portfolio or the Welfare portfolio since the first breaching triggered fatality decades ago could face serious criminal charges. The refusal of investigative authorities, federal and state, to do this opens the door to appeals by every person convicted of crimes such as murder, manslaughter, causing death by criminal negligence, fraud, obstruction of justice and similar crimes to lodge appeals against their convictions. Conversely, families of those killed by Breaching may be able to seek compensation and with the WA Government paying $4.3 Million for an unintended but negligent death, compensation for deaths that were considered to an acceptable consequence and “irrelevant” should receive far higher levels of compensation. With the possibility of up to 12,000 fatalities, that could mean a $50 BILLION taxpayer funded legal liability.

When your taxes go up to pay that compensation, remember to say thank you to Tony Abbott and all the other federal MPs who (unlawfully) hid all of those preventable fatalities.

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

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