This is an extract from a letter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, spitting the dummy at have been given until 29th May 2012 to lodge a detailed appeal about the refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the post-breaching fatalities caused by the Howard Government’s fraudulent enforcement of Breaching Performance Indicator target Quotas.
An OCO official pulled the plug on the complaint on May 24th and has refused to rescind this decision and so a formal appeal is now being lodged. Below is part of it:
You and your peers need to understand that when it comes to the issues that I am now raising with your office, the evidence is again good enough to stand up in court.
Because of my previous experiences, EVERY WORD written by over the last 9 years has been written with the background goal of eventually tabling these documents in court in order to prove the depth and the extent of the cover-up that surrounds the post-breaching fatalities.
- In 2003, ADSL2+ was a dream, Social Media simply did not exist and $10/month Smartphones with Internet access also did not exist. This communications technology is a powerful resource for by-passing “The Establishment”.
- As Geoff Bridgman’s terse response to my sending his 24th May letter to Craig Thomson indicates, my capacity to respond to bureaucratic inertia is a very disturbing real-time , ‘Now’, capability that is a new paradigm that has the potential to ensure that bureaucrats who continue to ignore what I believe can accurately be referred to as our nation’s 2nd holocaust.
- Like the SA bureaucrats in 1993, you have to fix the problem, not continue to cover it up before someone, perhaps Craig Thomson or anyone else who decides to query why they have been singled out for prosecution and either posts the Ultra Vires evidence on Facebook or tables it in court.
- I just pump it out. Who will use the information or when is unknown.
- In week one of June, the media was all over Craig Thomson. On the 5th June, Today-Tonight ran a segment that effectively exonerated him from Channel 9 ‘prostitute’ claims. Why the sudden switch? Is it because Craig Thomson now has ‘the goods’ on the 7 Network. Who knows why 7 back-flipped?
Burning up my superannuation to get the post-breaching fatalities statistics is an option that I shall avoid if I can. That means lobbying through official channels as per these complaints/appeals; however, it also means that if I receive a request for my files from someone facing prosecution next week, they will have them!
#1. Geoff Bridgland jumped the gun with “file closed” decision on complaint 2012-109928 and his refusal to reverse that decision was Narrow Ultra Vires. (Readers, that means he did not have the power to do this.)
The facts are fairly straight forward:
11th May 2012: I filed the preliminary complaint and in my subsequent emails made it quite clear that I needed more time prepare a full complaint with supporting documentation.
17th May 2012: Andrew Dewson, a Public Contact Officer with the OCO advised me that I had until 29th May 2012 to get my information in.
21st May 2012: At 2.03 pm (ACST) I filed the “Ultra Vires” complaint via email.
21st May 2012: At about 4.00 pm (ACST) I received a phone call from Geoff Bridgland and we discussed some of the issues that I was raising.
24th May 2012: Geoff Bridgland unilaterally the closed file on complaint 2012-109928 five days before Andrew Dewson’s deadlinefor getting further information, etc to the OCO.
That is manifestly a denial of Justice! The OCO process is supposed to be “nemo iudex in causa sua”, i.e.there must be absolutely no bias in the entire process. It is hard to argue an absence of bias if the case is closed before the due date for lodging the complaint!
The second problem is “audi alteram partem”, i.e . the right to fair hearing before a determination is made, a principle more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Check out the last two pages of Ultra Vires. These pages are the ACMA letter dated 31st March 2012 and on page 2, the writer of the letter, Jenny Brigg, specifically makes reference to having the right to appeal the ACMA decision to the OCO.
Points 1 & 2 of the “Ultra Vires” complaint ARE two valid complaints that Geoff Bridgland did not have the right to refuse to investigate.
How well did his premature closure of complaint 2012-109928 fit in with the OCO motto?
“Assisting the Australian Community by resolving complaints and fostering good government administration?” (Readers: This really is their motto!)
At the very minimum, Geoff Bridgland’s decision was a serious contradiction of that statement.
Complaint #2: The multi-issue “Ultra Vires” Complaint against ACMA Report 2780, the refusal of the AFP to investigate alleged criminal conduct by the Howard government and 144 Members of the Federal Parliament, and the validity of Federal legislation that is inconsistent with what the OCO might consider to be “good administration”.
As stated above, Points 1 and 2 of this document ARE valid complaints.
I readily concede that points 3 and 4 are outside the time frame that the OCO can work with, although I would point that in August 2004, I did raise the issue of the refusal of the AFP to investigate “Travelgate”, “Quotagate” and the unreported death toll that was caused by the enforcement of Breaching [Performance Indicator Target] quotas. In addition, I would point out that I have asked the AFP to review that decision in the light of the prosecution of Craig Thomson. If the AFP does not respond with a constitutionally valid response in the near future, the complaint will be back in your hands for a 3rd time with a lot of prosecutions at risk if Rule of Law is again not upheld.
Points 5 & 6. Geoff Bridgland claims that the OCO cannot handle High Court challenges on behalf of the general public in matters involving the validity of Federal Legislation. That statement seems to be totally at odds with the OCO’s Mission Statement of Assisting the Australian Community by resolving complaints and fostering good government administration?
Is it “good government administration” to have legislation that is unconstitutional and which recklesslyand completely foreseeably places the lives of vulnerable, impoverished people at risk by deliberately making them destitute?
- Is it also “good government administration” to have senior public servants deliberately conceal those fatalities and thus allow more “reasonably foreseeable” post-breaching fatalities to continue to occur for decades?
- Is it “good government administration” that the “reasonably foreseeable” exploitation of Breaching legislation by unscrupulous politicians should not be investigated by the Australian Federal Police because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issues involved?
- Is it “good government administration” that the “reasonably foreseeable” exploitation of Breaching legislation by unscrupulous politicians that may have caused a large “reasonably foreseeable” number of fatalities amongst the vulnerable, impoverished victims of this unlawful activity should not be investigated by the Australian Federal Police because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issues involved?
- Is it “good government administration” that the Auditor-General’s report of the rorting of $4.64 million from the Parliamentary “Entitlements” fund by 144 MPs in 2007 should not be investigated by the Australian Federal Police because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issues involved? (I am sure that Craig Thomson will be most keen to read your response to that question.)
- Is it “good government administration” that the OCO and other Federal Government agencies with investigative powers should also ignore these issues whilst the unconstitutional Breaching of vulnerable, impoverished victims still continues at the rate of approximately 100,000 per year.
- Is it “good government administration” that the Centrelink, the Federal Government’s agent for dealing with vulnerable, impoverished people in the community is issuing Newstart contracts that require welfare recipients to sign away their legal and constitutional rights in order to receive a welfare repayment that Paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) requires be paid to eligible people?
- Is it “good government administration” that Centrelink, the Federal Government’s agent for dealing with vulnerable, impoverished people in the community is issuing Newstart contracts that require welfare recipients to sign away their constitutional right not to have to do “Civil Conscription” work, e.g. “Work for the Dole” in order to receive a welfare repayment that Paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) requires be paid to eligible people without requiring them to engage in “Civil Conscription”?
Complaint #3: ACMA Report 2729. Ditto to all of the above with one more question”
Is it “good government administration” that the Broadcasting Industry Regulator, the ACMA, unilaterally ignores statutory laws and court decisions that deal with the issue of Vilification and totally ignores “Zero Tolerance” standards for dealing with Vilification by enforcing a ‘High Test – Intense Tolerance Standard’ that totally ignores “ errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” and the emotional and psychological impact that ’offends, insults, or intimidates?’
These are all question that can no longer be dodged by either “the Establishment” or the general community because, one way or another, they are headed for a court room in the not too distant future.
Do you know anyone facing a criminal prosecution?
The information in my files may help them to negotiate “an out-of-court” settlement. I give no guarantees on that but if Tony Abbott can get away with the Breaching Performance Indicator Target Quota fatalities without an investigation and if 144 MPs can rip off $4.63 MILLION and not be investigated, then anyone else being investigated may well have a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defense, i.e. “Why pick on me if you are not doing anything about them?”
(Christian advocate of a fair and just welfare system as per the Constitution.)