“There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous” said Napoleon Bonaparte and Australia’s Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, certainly proved the truth of that statement. Ms Bryce knew precisely what she was doing when in 2011 she signed the documents that made the “statutory fiction” part of Australia’s federal laws.
[Note: the short-link URL for this posting is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hA ]
Quentin Bryce was one of the first women accepted to the Queensland Bar. In 1968, she became the first woman to be a faculty member of the law school where she had studied, and in 1978 she joined the new National Women’s Advisory Council. This was followed by appointment to a number of positions, including the first Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service, the Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner in 1988. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Bryce
- With that impeccably great professional background and experience, it is totally inconceivable that Quentin Bryce did not know that she was violating the constitutional, legal and human rights of 15,000 people who had been convicted of crime that did not exist!
- Why she did so is a perplexing mystery that Ms Bryce needs to explain ASAP.
Below is a letter sent to Quentin Bryce in September 2009 which dealt with the AFP’s repeated refusals to investigate political corruption such as “Travelgate”, the “Quotagate” fraud/murders, and the $4.64 Million Perksgate Rort. What the 2009 response and the more recent 1st February 2013 responses to these issues may both do is to further implicate Ms Bryce in the unlawful official cover-up of these crimes, which violate Section 135.2 of the Criminal Code Act (1995) and numerous state and territory laws which deal with either Felony Murder or Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence.
Section 135.2 is the law used to prosecute welfare recipients at the rate of 10 of day for allegedly not reporting income to Centrelink at a time when there was no legal obligation to so because Howard Government politicians, e.g. Amanda Vanstone, Jocelyn Newman and Tony Abbott, had failed to make sure that such a law existed when they shut down the CES and the DSS!
- The letter may also be legally significant because it further links Ms Bryce to the abusive and illegal exploitation of welfare recipients.
- It also highlights the role and mindset of Ms Bryce and officials at Government House in ignoring the gross violations of human rights that welfare recipients must endure in Australia.
- To all intents and purposes, Government House is “a cathedral of malign intent” inhabited by recklessly indifferent people who who believe themselves to be exempt from the standards of accountability that apply to ‘ordinary’ people like you and I.
- in the 1st February 2013, ms Bryce’s official secretary tried to distance ms Bryce from the legal and human rights violating consequences of her actions with the statement that “…the Governor-general cannot be involved.”
- The beauty of the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision is that it is empirical evidence that Ms Bryce, no matter how distinguished and commendable her career may have been, in the role of governor-General has switched to“the dark side of the Force” when it comes to welfare issues and ensuring that politicians and bureaucrats are treated in the same manner as anyone else.
Perhaps the most significant implication of Ms Bryce’s failure to uphold the Law and the Constitution in September 2009 is that today, while I write this blog, Ms Bryce is swearing in members of the former Howard Government who were involved in the “Quotagate” murders!
- If Ms Bryce had done her job in 2009, or even in January 2013, it is highly likely that some of the people elected into government on September 7th would have either been convicted of the “Quotagate” crimes or be facing criminal charges in relation to those crimes.
- In effect, by doing nothing, Ms Bryce and/or her staff, effectively were “Accessories after the Fact” to what will eventually be classified as the largest case of mass murder since the deliberate, ruthless 18th and 19th centuries efforts to wipe out Australia’s indigenous population.
- Although I estimate that the Breaching triggered death toll may be in the vicinity of 12,000 fatalities, the actual size of the death toll does not really matter for whether there is just 1 murder or 12,000 murders, MURDER IS MURDER, and those responsible must be held accountable, regardless of their social or political status.
To repeat myself, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, “There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous” and the events of today in Canberra are truly ridiculous beyond words; especially given that Ms Bryce was quite prepared to have 15,000 welfare recipients unconstitutionally turned into ‘after the fact’ criminals whilst deliberately ignoring the organized crime within the Federal Parliament! (Otherwise referred in some of my postings as The Canberra Killers Club.)
The 2009 letter to Quentin Bryce:
23 September 2009
To: Her Excellency Quentin Bryce AC
Governor –General of the Commonwealth of Australia
YARRALUMMA ACT 2600
Re: An Absence of Justice.
Enclosed with this covering letter are a letter to the Federal Police Commissioner, Tony Negus, and a discussion paper that I am circulating to academics, lawyers and welfare recipients. I believe that it is in the national interest that you give consideration to the content of these documents and take whatever action you deem is appropriate to ensure that the Constitutional obligations outlined in the discussion paper are fully upheld.
In making that request, I am fully aware that the Constitution is quite explicit that the Law is “Binding …on the people”. Federal politicians are thus not exempt from prosecution for rorting of their “entitlements”. I am also aware that is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister to exonerate or exempt from prosecution any politicians who may have rorted their “entitlements”. Mr. Rudd’s responsibility is clearly set out in the Oath of Office that he took when he became the Prime Minister.
Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Queen’s representative in Australia should be seen to be ignoring Crown Law. To do so would be to plunge our nation’s criminal justice system back 900 years to the age before the signing of the Magna Carta. It could also precipitate a constitutional crisis.
“How terrible are you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You clean the outside of your cup and plate while the inside is full of what you have gotten by violence and selfishness. Blind Pharisee! Clean up what is inside the cup first, and then the outside will be clean too!”
Matthew 23: 25-26. Good News Study Bible.
The words of Jesus Christ very accurately describe the current situation. The Federal Police are diligently assisting Centrelink to achieve and maintain the expensively advertised “10 prosecutions a day” whilst deliberately turning a blind eye to political corruption. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that “There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous”. 2
I would add that it is only one more step from the ridiculous to the farcical.
That the Federal Police should twice turn a blind eye to the endemic corruption in Federal Parliament is truly farcical. Investigating and prosecuting welfare recipients whilst ignored federal politicians who engage in the same activities is a 21st Century example of “cleaning the outside of the cup”.
Each and every one of the 50,000 welfare recipient prosecutions that have occurred over the last 25 years, individually and jointly, provides the baseline legal benchmark for how “Perksgate” must be handled by “the system”. If this rorting is not subjected to Due Process of Law then, as E. Arharidis so eloquently put it in the (now classified as confidential) letter to the editor, “…the system stinks”.
Please note that the discussion paper, An Absence of Justice, the letter to Tony Negus, and this covering letter are all “open” documents. This means that they are already “In the Cloud” on overseas web servers and are also “In the wild” which means that people who have copies can do what they deem is most appropriate. It could only take just one of Centrelink’s “10 prosecutions a day” to push the criminal justice system into chaos. If just one person accused, or already convicted, of rorting decides to seek Exculpation and wins, then there will mostly likely be a tsunami of “me too” appeals for Exculpation. Since I had asked the Federal Police in 2004 to investigate a broad range of issues, even persons accused or convicted of murder or of plotting acts of terrorism may then be able to apply for Exculpation. If nothing else were to be achieved, mass exculpation would certainly solve the pressing problem of our nation’s currently overcrowded prisons.
You should also be aware that if possible, the refusal by the Federal Police in July 2004, to investigate alleged rorting by a Federal MP will be contested in court as will the secret “confidential” classification of Submission 287 to the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry and its companion undated Parliamentary Privilege suppression order which you will find on page 26 of the discussion paper.
To be honest, those two decisions by the legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee are not a defeat but rather are an excellent opportunity to take up Michael Kirby’s challenge to hold Federal Parliament accountable for its actions. Whilst Michael Kirby’s “Rolls Royce Justice” is a substantial barrier that needs to be overcome, I have every confidence that I shall eventually do so.
Leg-Con’s actions are also an opportunity to take up the Micah Challenge, to “See that Justice is done”. (micahchallenge.org.au). I am a Christian and my actions in speaking up to highlight the different standards of justice meted out to welfare recipients and politicians is a compelling religious obligation. That means that until Justice prevails, I shall continue to pursue these issues.
Ronald Medlicott (Concerned Australian Citizen)
TODAY – Wednesday 18th September 2013:- I have just posted off the following text to the office of Quentin Bryce:
I have posted a commentary, “Beyond the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision: From the sublime to the ridiculous – Quentin Bryce knew what she was doing when she signed that “statutory fiction” into Law in 2011″ at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hA
It is my contention that her Secretary’s letter to m,e dated 1st February 2013 is empirical evidence of an attempt by Ms Bryce and/or her staff to distance her from the 2004, 2009, 2011 and 2012 refusals of the Australian Federal Police to investigate the problem of endemic corruption within the Federal Parliament. It is also my contention that the High Court’s May 8th decision in Commonwealth vs. Keating is empirical evidence that Ms Bryce was recklessly indifferent to the plight of welfare recipients to the extent that when she KNOWINGLY signed off on the “statutory fiction'” legislation, she was indifferent to the constitutional, legal and human rights violations that she was permitting against 15,000 welfare recipients.
“Facts do not cease to exist (just) because they are ignored” (Aldous Huxley)
The documentary evidence that the Howard Government illegally defrauded welfare recipients is substantial, i.e. the Howard Government violated section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act by misusing lawful authority to enforce “Performance Indicator Targets’ that resulted in the government, by Act of Commission, receiving a financial advantage that it was not entitled to receive.
Under Felony Murder laws in NSW and SA, any deaths caused by this fraudulent activity are literally “Felony Murders” whilst in Victoria they are Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence. Just as Kelli Keating fought back against the statutory fiction legislation, many others facing prosecution are liable to use the AFP’s repeated refusals to investigate the Quotagate murders as grounds for a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” (MOB) defence. That Ms Bryce herself chose to ignore the AFP’s refusal to uphold the law because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the allegations only adds to the ostensible bias issue as does the appointment of Tony Abbott to the position of Prime Minister.
Regardless of the former and current political sensitivity, para’ 5 of the constitution is quite clear in that the law ids binding on the people, i.e. no exceptions for prime ministers and others who may hold high office. that the AFP has for 9 years ignored this opens the door wide for people to use a ‘MOB’ defence in court.
Readers should not the last point about a MOB defence in court. Because of the continued refusal of the Federal Police to investigate Quotagate, Travelgate, Perksgate and the recent attempted Votegate fraud, the door is wide open for virtually anyone charged with any crime to mount a “manifest ostensible bias” defence using Leck Vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris as a binding legal precedent. Before you decide that this means nothing to you, think about this:
- If your home is robbed and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.
- If you are assaulted or raped and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.
- If you are murdered and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.
If you think that, a re-think is in order. Dr Jayant Patel allegedly killed 87 of his patients and another 106 alleged required major corrective surgery and yet Dr Patel won his appeal in the High Court in August 2012 and in march of this year won his re-trial for 3 of these deaths. the September 1st 2005 Leck Vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris “manifest ostensible bias” decision has had massive ramifications that are as yet largely untested because most lawyers defending their clients do not about the repeated refusals of the Federal Police to investigate the about mentioned issues.
Remember – 15,000 welfare recipients were prosecuted for a crime that did not exist because bureaucrats, federal police officers, Centrelink investigators, Crown prosecutors, judges and even the defence lawyers, all did not know that the law under which prosecutions were being made had lapsed due to an oversight by the Howard Government!
- Once criminal trial lawyers get their hands on certified copies of the ‘we do not investigate politicians’ documents that are now in ‘cold storage’, the legal system could be plunged into chaos.
- How does a prosecutor justify a prosecution given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Police to uphold the law and act to protect politicians who may have literally gotten away with mass murder?
Anyone care to answer that question for me?
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.