The Hanger Royal Commission appears to be politically biased, i.e. pro Tony Abbott and anti ALP.

I believe that the Hanger Royal Commission may be extremely biased and so I have written a statutory declaration that will be passed on to lawyers representing people at this inquiry.

[The short link to this posting is  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ka

(Please Note:- Update re legal ‘stuff’.  Although originally written as a statutory declaration, in South Australia such a declaration must fit on just 1 page. It will be revised to meet the legal requirements of an Affidavit and then be submitted to the Hanger Royal Commission and other vested interest parties.  Ronald Medlicott, 3rd May 2014)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May 16th Update re Peter Garrett’s “I was not told…” statement to the Hanger Inquiry into the 4 Roofgate deaths.

The letter below is independent corroboration that bureaucrats deliberately conceal fatalities from government ministers and the public.

In this instance, with the death toll building up over decades, it is not about 4 deaths but rather a 4 or 5 figure death toll that we can only guess at until the figures are revealed.[ Note that the letterhead has no return address. This is a top down letter from a high ranking bureaucrat who did not want me to respond to his admission that Centrelink has never collected the data on pst breaching fatalities.

Neil Skill 300dpi copyChoke on this letter from the Governor-General written just weeks before Matthew Fuller’s death. It was her official response to a 38 page document detailing the scams that were killing welfare recipients. Mrs Bryce has a lot of explaining to do about why she took no action for had she done so, 4 young men might still be alive today.

Extract of a letter from Quentin Bryce's secretary, Mark FraserAnd how about  the 14 September 2009 refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the rorting of $4.64 million by federal MPs, also just weeks before Matthew Fuller’s death. The attitude within Federal Parliament was “anything goes” with both major parties. It is this refusal to hold politicians accountable for their actions that underpinned the Roofgate Disaster but the Hanger Royal Commission still refuses to look at any of the deaths that preceded the 4 Roofgate fatalities.

AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE STATUTORY DECLARATION TEXT

  [Note: Hyperlinks to supporting web pages with documentary evidence, etc are placed after  this declaration. It is recommended that readers check out these links.]                                                         

I, Ronald Medlicott,

Of 40 Siddall Road, Elizabeth Vale South Australia 5112,

do solemnly and sincerely declare that I have a grave concern that evidence in my possession justifies a reasonable belief that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Home Improvement Program, hereafter the Roofgate Inquiry or ‘the Inquiry’, may be far more biased that Queensland’s Morris Commission of Inquiry which was shut down by order of Mr Justice Moynihan, on 1st September 2005. [QLD Supreme Court, Leck v Morris; Keating v Morris.]

In 2013, a High Court’s decision, ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54) focussed upon the “Dominant Message” in a TPG advertising campaign and in doing so the High Court placed the emphasis on the real-world impact or intent behind the actual words of TPG’s advertisements. Applying this “Dominant Message” principle to the Terms of Reference for the Roofgate Inquiry, I believe that the primary purpose of this inquiry is to accurately determine the circumstances that resulted in the Roofgate disaster, i.e. the Home Improvement Program which resulted in the deaths of Matthew Fuller, Marcus Wilson, Mitchell Sweeny and Reuben Barnes and injury to others e.g. Monique Pridmore.

The Terms of reference specify details such as:

  • the processes by which the Australian Government made decisions about the establishment and implementation of the Program, and the bases of those decisions, including how workplace health and safety and other risks relating to the Program were identified, assessed and managed; and, also
  • whether, in establishing or implementing the Program, the Australian Government failed to have sufficient regard to workplace health and safety or other risks relating to the Program; orfailed to deal adequately with the risks, advice, warnings or recommendations; and,
  • if so, why sufficient regard was not had to the risks, advice, warnings or recommendations, or why they were not dealt with adequately;

I believe that the repeated question of “why” in the Terms of Reference does empower the Inquiry to consider any long-term, underlying factors that may have influenced the Rudd Government’s planning, implementation and management of the Home Improvement Program., i.e. “why” allows the Roofgate Inquiry to scrutinize any prior policies or programs that may have also involved unlawful misconduct and/or mismanagement in other federal government programs that were the responsibility of any other government ministers in other any federal governments that may have placed people in harms way.

The repeated refusal of the Roofgate Inquiry to look at other allegedly unlawful activities that may have resulted in other fatalities and the lack of transparency by previous governments concerning these fatalities, may be evidence of political bias by the Roofgate Inquiry. The refusal to even consider the possibility that other fatalities may have been crucial links in the chain of events that precipitated the Roofgate disaster only adds to the on-going lack of transparency concerning every fatality.

The “Dominant Message” in subpoenaing Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett to explain the Roofgate fatalities whilst declining to consider the role of the Howard Government in the alleged “Quotagate” fraud is a factor that is of major political benefit to Tony Abbott who, as the Employment Minister at the turn of the century may have played a key role in the non-reporting of post-Breaching fatalities.

In FY 2000-01, the Howard Government deprived 340,078 impoverished welfare recipients of their welfare allowance and ‘saved’ $867 million. The Roofgate Inquiry has a copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter, dated 18 May 2010, in which Centrelink’s decision not to “collect” the post breaching terminal outcomes statistical data is clearly acknowledged. The Inquiry is also aware that none of Centrelink’s 16 annual reports and 67 published Quarterly Public Accountability Reports, contain any reference to the death toll caused by Breaching legislation which was legislated for the express purpose of deliberately depriving welfare recipients of their constitutional right to a welfare benefit for a period of 3 months. Until 30th June 2009, even though this benefit was officially acknowledged as being the only means of support for many people in meeting their basic costs of living, there were no human impact risk assessments, either prior to Breaching penalties being applied, or during the 2-3 month penalty period.

On July 4th 2013, the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, was scathing in his criticism of the Rudd Government’s focus upon economic issues rather than public safety. He said These three young men lost their lives because of a chaotic, rushed and underdone Federal Government policy.”

  • This same reckless attitude to monetary issues rather than public safety is clearly evident in Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 Annual Report which contains a “Scorecard” detailing “Savings” of almost$ 1.623 Billion in the 2 year period 1st July 2000 – 30th June 2002, but the “Scorecard” omits any reference to the shocking humanitarian impact that resulted from these “Savings”.
  • Compounding the issue of the unreported fatalities is the possibility that the Howard Government was illegally implementing and enforced a policy of “Performance Indicator Targets”, i.e. breaching quotas, (hereafter referred to as Quotagate.) These were revealed by the Shadow Employment Minister, Cheryl Kernot, in a press release dated 27 June 2000.
  • These alleged breaching quotas, when combined with the official breaching data in Centrelink reports, indicates that the Howard Government may have been in violation of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
  • Consequently any fatalities caused by this illegal enforcement of breaching powers would mean that under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1990) and the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), any quota triggered fatalities can probably be reclassified as Felony Murders in these 2 states.
  • In Victoria and other states, breaching quota-triggered fatalities, once investigated, may have to be re-classified as ‘Manslaughter due to criminal negligence.’

The Inquiry is also aware that on July 7th 2004, the Australian Federal Police, hereafter the AFP, refused to investigate either Quotagate or alleged rorting by a federal MP, Trish Draper, hereafter referred to as ‘Travelgate’, who allegedly had falsely claimed a travel allowance benefit for a person who was not her defacto spouse. This alleged rorting by Ms Draper and the alleged Quotagate fraud were referred to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Keelty for investigation in June 2004:

  • Ignoring both Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, i.e. the law is binding on the people, and Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), the AFP officially declined to investigate these alleged breaches of the law citing “gravity/sensitivity” and falsely implying that the AFP’s case load was too high to permit any investigation of these alleged activities.
  • The “Dominant Message” presented by the AFP’s July 7th 2004 written response was that even if the law had been broken, the AFP would not investigate John Howard or other government MPs.
  • This “politicians are above and beyond the law” Dominant Message was reinforced in 2009 with the AFP’s formal response to investigate ‘Perksgate.’

‘Perksgate’: In September 2009, the federal Auditor-General tabled Report No. 3 in the Federal Parliament. A comment on Page 12 of that report contained the following alarming standard-of-ethics statement:

“As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”(Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation)

In an email that I received on 14 September 2009, the AFP refused to investigate ‘Perksgate’, i.e. the alleged rorting of $4.64 million of tax-payers funds to allegedly fund re-election campaigns in 2007 by ‘a high proportion’ of the 144 federal MPs that the Auditor-General had investigated.

4 of the absurd, Broad Ultra Vires reasons cited by the AFP for declining to investigate these possible violations of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) included:

  • “…gravity/sensitivity”;
  • “…government protocols”.
  • The incidents had been reported in the newspapers;
  • The incidents had been debated in the Federal Parliament.

This spurious, outrageously biased response, was very similar to the AFP’s July 7th 2004 response and again sent the “Dominant Message” that no matter strong or valid the evidence of unlawful actions may be, the AFP would still not investigate federal politicians who may have broken the law.

In addition to being aware of, and ignoring the AFP’s responses to Travelgate, Quotagate and Perksgate, the Roofgate Inquiry is also aware of allegations that 3 Senate committees, the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee (LEGCON), the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee (EWRE), and the Environment, Communications & Arts Committee (ECA) may have abused their Parliamentary Privilege powers for the express purpose of concealing Centrelink’s failure to report any of the post-breaching fatalities.

My specific allegation is that these committees abused their powers for the express purpose of obstructing and perverting the course of justice in order to avoid legal accountability for the breaching triggered fatalities. At this point in time, the view that I have expressed to the Roofgate Inquiry is that the Quotagate fatalities share many similarities with the 4 Roofgate fatalities for they are:

  • Unconstitutional,
  • Unlawful,
  • Unreported and ‘Un-investigated’.
  • On top of this, secretly classified as “confidential” by the LEGCON Committee,
  • and classified as “irrelevant “by the EWRE Committee.

In a letter dated, 1st November 2011, Federal Agent Rochelle Zurnamer, the manager of the Australian Communications & Media Authority’s (ACMA) broadcasting investigations unit, responded to a complaint lodged with the ACMA concerning the role of the 7 Network in aiding Centrelink and the Human Services Minister, Tanya Slibersek, to defraud welfare recipients by concealing the ‘Waiver of debt due to Centrelink error’ provisions found in Paragraph 1,237 (a) of the Social Security Act (1991), with the comment that “The ACMA does not investigate politicians…” In view of Justice Moynihan’s “Manifest Ostensible Bias” determination in Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris, it is quite clear that some federal law enforcement authorities, e.g. the AFP and the ACMA, show extreme bias in favour of federal politicians and little or no regard for Paragraph 5 of the Constitution or for state or federal criminal laws.

It is my expressed view to the Roofgate Inquiry that the lack of transparency and accountability for the Quotagate fatalities, and the other hardships caused by unconstitutional and unlawful Breaching activities that I am personally aware of are crucial factors in the chain of events that resulted in the mindset and events that resulted in the Roofgate disaster. For Commissioner Ian Hanger QC to disregard the Quotagate fatalities and other Centrelink triggered deaths is to be blatantly biased against the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, members of his government and the Australian Labour Party.

It is also my expressed concern to the inquiry that the lack of legal accountability of federal politicians for the harmful consequences of their decisions has fostered a recklessly dangerous culture of risk-taking in which no real consideration is given to the human impact of ideology driven decisions. The colloquial name that I have given to this exceedingly dangerous mindset is “Rinehart Syndrome.”

  • Whilst “Rinehart Syndrome” is not a recognised term legally or medically, I believe that it accurately characterizes a sociopathic mindset that is endemic in Australia’s political and bureaucratic systems and that this mindset now poses a clear and present danger to the public as is evidenced by the 4 Roofgate fatalities and the High Court’s DPP (Cwth) vs Keating decision.
  • As has been highlighted by these fatalities and the unreported, secretly classified post breaching fatalities, it is now standard operating procedure for ideology driven economic and financial considerations to take precedence over the health, welfare and safety of the general public.
  • The unlawful refusal of the AFP, the ACC, and several other federal government agencies to hold politicians accountable for alleged unlawful actions such as Travelgate, Quotagate and Perksgate has served to foster and encourage the false belief that federal politicians are beyond accountability before the law. (Unless some politicians deem it to be politically expedient and advantageous for specific individuals to held accountable for their allegedly unlawful actions.)

In the performance of my duties as a juror at the Adelaide courts in May 2014, I shall at all times keep in mind the following statement from ACMA Report 2729: A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. (Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references omitted)

This decision clearly infers that an ordinary reasonable person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs is adequate in enabling them to ‘read between the lines’, or as the High Court expressed it, can understand the “Dominate Message” that is implicit, but not stated, in issues of importance that they may encounter in their daily lives.

I believe that Justice should be fair and impartial and therefore as a juror, I believe that it is my responsibility to reject the Ultra Vires biased and unconstitutional ‘justice’ of the AFP, and numerous other federal agencies with law enforcement powers and will therefore uphold the Australian Constitution, statute laws, Common Law obligations, and fundamental human rights such as Equality before the Law. I refuse to discriminate on the basis of political or high socio-economic status. With some regret, I believe that the yardstick used by the AFP, for Perksgate and, Quotagate and is an inappropriate baseline standard of Justice that I must now apply to everyone else who may be accused of breaking the law for to do differently would be manifestly biased. As the outcomes of Queen vs Patel in the High Court in 2012 and again in the Queensland Supreme Court in 2013 have demonstrated, no matter how serious the alleged crime or how overwhelming the evidence of guilt, as a juror, I cannot can ignore the crucial principle of Procedural Fairness which I believe takes precedence over the case evidence if Justice is truly to be applied in a fair and impartial manner.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 19336

 Ronald Medlicott

The essence of Truth is PROOF, so check out the documents in these hyperlinks.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-eK High Court May 8th “statutory fiction” decision

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v  1-07-12 Senate classified stuff posted on the web.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3K 2-07-12 Still more senate classified stuff.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3K          16-07-12   More ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ stuff.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-4y     22-07-12 The gag on constitutional rights.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E    How Centrelink works the 6 week rule.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-52 31-07-12 Privacy Act blog

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5k  10-08-12 HREOC blog

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5x  28-08-12 Patel prosecution???

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E 4-09-12 Update of 6 Week Rule

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-8u         Jacintha Saldanha Submission: Part 1

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-8C           Part 2

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-96           Part 3 a

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-9J          Part 3 b  

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ap         Part 3 c  

http://wp.me/P1n8TZ-2           Part 3 d Governor-General letter

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bo         Part 3e Dept Communications downplay Jacintha’s death    

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bu     Brief statement re ACMA Report 2729 quote

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.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bT    The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3i:

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3j: The statutory declaration

YOU TUBE VIDEOS

 5,000 South Australians are dead and an estimated 15,000 more are expected to die but most of these new victims do not know that they were sacrificed to economic and political expediency – check out the 1st video to see if you are a potential victim.

School safety problems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRDZnt8-MQ

Centrelink Prosecutions:

Poniatowska [2011 HCA43] and Keating [2013 HCA20] were two recent High Court decisions that highlight just how far off the rails Justice is in Australia. So jurors need to understand that “Procedural Fairness” is more honoured in the breach than the observance in Australia at the moment:

Bunging a spanner in the works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncpVb6anAg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH3TEMiSNgM

Centrelink and the 6 week Rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBonJY5Z-k&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WEN5ix0Fc

Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSdj5gXsx8  

Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTmc2nA8Kc

SIDDALL ROAD PARKING PROBLEMS – the council that is playing Russian Roulette to raise revenue.

http://youtu.be/ikcaCifJkyQ

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