The need for Australia’s Federal Parliament to conceal the appalling, totally avoidable, death toll caused by unconstitutional Breaching legislation may explain why I have not yet been cited for “Contempt of Parliament” for the previous 3 blog post posting which clearly violate a secret confidential classification and 2 ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders. To do so is to risk world-wide coverage of the no-so-secret ‘secret’ that the parliament does not want publicized.
This posting also violates the ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders given in Grave Digger documents #4 and #5 (See http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v ) by posting yet more information that I hope will cause concern amongst those who believe in civil rights and the democratic principle of ‘freedom of speech’.
Grave Digger #21 ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ – The Australian Constitution.
Can Senate committees prevent citizens from copying and distributing extracts from the Australian Constitution in order that other citizens do not learn about their constitutional rights? That may seem to be a crazy question and yet the following extracts from the Australian constitution are covered by the ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders.
Paragraph 5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;
- Implicit in this paragraph of the constitution is the fact that even Australia’s feral federal politicians are not above the law.
- The flow-on implication is that the Australian Federal Police decisions in Grave Digger documents #1 and #3 are unconstitutional, i.e. the reasons stated by the federal police for refusing to investigate Travelgate, Quotagate and Perksgate are unconstitutional.
- Is it any wonder that the senate committees put a gag on my distribution of those Grave Digger documents and this particular paragraph of the constitution?
PART V.-POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT. Legislative powers of the Parliament. (Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA) The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:
- Lots of stuff in this paragraph including the constitutional obligation to provide welfare allowances to the unemployed that cannot be linked to “civil conscription” programs, i.e. (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription) which means that the current “Work for the Dole” programs and the so-called ‘voluntary work experience’ programs are simply unconstitutional.
- School students doing work experience is one thing, but is it really ‘voluntary work experience’ if adults can be deprived of their constitutional right to an unemployment benefit simply by declining to do two weeks work with no award-rates-payment for this work?
- Surely, voluntary work experience should be a no-strings-attached option for people seeking work if it really is to be a voluntary process?
- The answer is that if it is a compulsory activity, then it is Civil Conscription which, as the above section of the constitution makes quite clear, is unconstitutional.
- The victims of this unconstitutional scam are entitled to be compensated by being paid at award rates for the work that they did, PLUS compound interest, on that unpaid wage for however long they have been unpaid!
- Some employers have offered work experience or work for the dole programs for years and thus have never had to employ wage earning people to do this work. In effect, work experience has been little more than a nice way of saying SLAVE LABOUR!
- It is easy to understand why the senate committees, having approved these unconstitutional activities, do not want this section of the constitution being copied and distributed to welfare recipients who may just decide to sue for compensation and/or vote these politicians out of a job.
CHAPTER III – THE JUDICATURE. Judicial power and Courts.
Paragraph 71. The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.
Original jurisdiction of High Court. Paragraph 75. In all matters–
(i) Arising under any treaty: (ii) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries: (iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:
- In many of my posting I claim that Breaching legislation is unconstitutional and these two paragraphs of the Australian Constitution spell out why this is so.
- Paragraph 71 of the constitution makes it quite clear that Australia’s supreme court is the High Court.
- On of the functions of the High Court is to resolve law suits that involve the Commonwealth Government or Commonwealth agencies and individuals.
- Breaching is a shorthand way of saying “Breaching of Contract” and the Department of Employment (DEEWR) accusing a welfare recipient of breaching their Job-search contract is a classic example of a Breach of Contract dispute.
- Under paragraph 75 of the Australian Constitution, it is quite clearly it is the constitutional responsibility of the High Court to resolve these breach-of-contract disputes.
- It is thereforte manifestly obvious that Breaching/Compliance Failure legislation is all about deliberately depriving welfare recipients of their constitutional right to have the alleged Breach of Contract dispute resolved by the High Court. (As will be shown in a later blog containing classified Australian HREOC correspondence, breaching also violates 2 dozen basic human rights.)
- In FY 2000-01, with about 700,000 unemployed people on Job-search contracts, a mind-blowing 346,078 Breach of Contract claims were made by the Department of Employment and ‘upheld’, not by the High Court, but by clerks working for another Commonwealth agency, Centrelink.
- The entire process is an unconstitutional, gross denial of Justice and its sole purpose is to illegally defraud welfare recipients of the entitlements that paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution requires the Australian Federal Government to pay to eligible people who are unemployed or who qualify for other welfare benefits.
- Under South Australia’s Felony Murder statutes, any deaths that are caused by the commission of a felony are felony murders; a crime that has NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Guess what? Fraud is a felony and therefore breaching fatalities, especially the Breaching Performance Indicator Target quota fatalities (Quotagate) are probably felony murders in South Australia.
- The lesson of the alleged 87 Queensland “Dr. Death” (Dr. Jayant Patel) fatalities is that although Breaching triggered fatalities may not currently be classified as a crime, once the scale of the death toll becomes public knowledge, (4 times ‘9/11’?) a re-evaluation of all of these fatalities will almost certainly see many, perhaps all, eventually be re-classified as Unlawful Killings. (Actus Reus) that involved Deliberate Intent (Mens Rea)?
Is it any wonder that 3 Australian senate committees were prepared to deliberately misuse paraliamentary privilege powers in order to prevent welfare recipients from learning that they have been unlawfully, unconstitutionally ripped off and that the resulting fatalities can be reclassified as crimes such as Reckless Endangerment, Culpable Manslaughter or even Felony Murder?
Grave Digger #22: The Ombudsman’s letter re the Breaching process and a challenge to the constitutional validity of this legislation in the High Court.
Breaching desperately needs to be challenged in the High Court but the Ombudsman is not allowed to challenge unconstitutional legislation! As for me, I do not have a spare $500,000 and so this blog posting and the “grave digger” document postings are my way of spreading the word that Breaching (now called Compliance Failure Penalties) is unconconstitutional and that the decades long concealment of the breaching fatalities toll by politicians, public servants and the Australian Federal Police is a Crime Against Humanity.
The challenge in the above letter is for the Australian legal profession to grasp the nettle and act “Pro Bono”, i.e.‘in the public interest’, on behalf of the millions of welfare recipients who have been unconstitutionally defrauded of billions of dollars worth of legitimate welfare benefits.
PONDER THIS: A Trillion Dollar Tort! Is that just hype or is it a potential reality?
Have a look at the previous blogs and then think about it. Millions of victims defrauded of billions of dollars with the possibility that the unreported post-breaching death toll may be 4 times the 9/11 death toll!!! For the ‘survivors’ of this activity there are complex legal issues such the “SURVIVOR SEX” problem identified by the Salvation Army when reviewing the new-improved-8-week-breaching-penalty introduced about 10 years ago. Keep in mind that Bruce Trevorrow received $750,000 in compensation for his suffering as a member of the Stolen Generation. The legal reality is that the longer the unconstitutional breaching activity continues, then just like the Stolen Generation legal liability which eventually cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, the greater will be the build-up of the legal liability for taxpayers.
Consequently, if you are an Australian taxpayer who does not care two hoots about what happens to welfare recipients, you really should care about your having to personally help pay that massive compensation bill. It is simple, the more you earn, the more tax that you will have to pay to help fund that bill. Corporate Australia should also really be concerned because corporations do not vote and therefore the least electoral damage will come from milking industry and commerce to pay this mega-boggling legal liability. Compared to Breaching compensation, the carbon tax and the mining tax are likely to seem like small change.
The bottom line is that whether you are a welfare recipient or a wage earner, you need to know the truth about Australia’s unconstitutional breaching/compliance failure legislation.
Note: The shortlink for this website is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-4y Please share this web link with as many people as possible.
Ron Medlicott. (Christian advocate of welfare rights.)
P.S. The next blog will look at 3 other humanitarian disasters that were also created driven by greed, political ideology and massive public apathy and which are now hitting taxpayers pockets. As with this and previous Grave Digger blog postings, there will be a ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ document to add to your collection.
ATTENTION LAWYERS: (Wherever in the world you may be.) The documents posted in these blogs are simply copies, i.e. hearsay, but the originals are hard evidence of a deliberate conspiracy by the Australian Parliament, senior public servants, and the Australian Federal Police, to conceal the recklessly callous, unlawful killing of welfare recipients through the deliberate misuse of legislative and administrative powers. The 1st lawyer or law firm to take up the Ombudsman’s challenge gets the original documents as well as the computer files of the original correspondence/emails that produced those responses. Whatever the potential size of the tort, those documents may well prove to be the big money-spinners; for example, what price would a court put on breaching fatalities being classified by the Australian Senate’s Employment oversight committee as being “irrelevant” and “unsubstantiated.” Given that the committee could have substantaited the precise number of deaths way back in November 2005, the repeated failure to do so is going to be very hard to justify from the witness box during cross examination.