Part 2: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity: If you receive a letter of demand from Centrelink, DO NOT LODGE AN APPEAL because you can loose more easily than you can win!.

If you receive an “Account payable” from Centrelink, or a phone call asking you to come to the local Centrelink office to “discuss” alleged over-payments:

17-01-13 Centrelink Letter ofDemandIf you ever receive a letter like this, you are being conned. The bad news is that the Federal Police know it is a government con but will not touch it with a 10-foot pole! Letters like this violate your legal rights and you need to realize that it is a way that Centrelink uses to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars in stuff-ups that occur each year. (See the URL link below in (c) for more details of this stuff-up.)

NOTE: The short link for this URL is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-m5

1. – DO NOT lodge an appeal to an Authorized Review Officer. (ARO) They are NOT “independent” as they claim:- They are Centrelink employees who, like the police, can use anything that you say against you in a court or tribunal hearing, e.g. during any SSAT appeals that you may lodge!)

(a) If you do not appeal, then Centrelink has to PROVE that you were in the wrong in a (local) court and that is very expensive for Centrelink. So much so, that it actually may be cheaper for Centrelink to comply with the Waiver of Debt law in paragraph 1,237a of the Social Security Act and waive the debt because it was their mistake!

(b) NOTE: if you appeal, it is a good as saying you were in the wrong and then you have to prove that you were not in the wrong! Dial 13 32 76 and listen for the “This call will be recorded for your security” statement. That call will not be made available to you if Centrelink is in the wrong and you will then get stuck with a bill that should have been waived by Centrelink!

(c) Check this out:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/serious-attention-for-it-system-morrison/story-fnhrvfuw-1227254679789

(d) Centrelink is over-paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year and, despite the waiver of debt law, they try to get every single cent back.

DON’T BE A VICTIM OF CENTRELINK’S  “WAIVERGATE” SCAM:

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.”

2. – POLITELY inform Centrelink that you intend to seek LEGAL advice from a lawyer or welfare rights advocate before discussing the issue with Centrelink.  This is your legal right and if Centrelink try to continue asking questions, DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS – JUST SAY “I HAVE NO COMMENT AT THIS TIME” then hang up the phone before you say something that can be used against you in an appeals tribunal hearing.

Believe it or not, any ‘threat’ to take you to court is actually very good news for you. Why?

Because it is so expensive to do that that it is often a non-option for Centrelink, i.e. the threat is often just a bluff, and in court Centrelink has to prove that you were at fault – you can simply insist that the court listen to the 13 32 76 recording of the phone call in dispute. If they accuse you of fraud, then you are entitled to LEGAL AID and you can point out to Centrelink that your lawyer will want the phone calls PLUS the details of the number of times torts have resulted in fatal outcomes. (See my next posting which should be up within a week.)

If Centrelink do not have the phone call recording of your alleged “mistake” that caused the over-payments, then they have no case.

If Centrelink does have the recording  and it is bad news for you because you made a mistake, you can then point out to the court that it is “poisoned fruit” and is inadmissible as evidence because it violates the Coco v R [1994] HCA 15 BINDING legal precedent. (Coco v the Crown – High Court case 15 in 1994)

This precedent requires that:

Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

Translation: Centrelink has lied to you about the real use of the phone call because they did not record it for your benefit but for theirs. Therefore you could not give informed consent for the conversation to be recorded and it is thus inadmissible by Centrelink in their court case against you.

No phone call recording means no “factual certainty”, i.e. no hard evidence of who was in the wrong and responsible for the over-payment. The above URL link can be used by you to prove that Centrelink was most likely responsible for the error and under the Waiver of Debt law you do not have to pay.

VITAL: You do not have to answer questions so do not ‘take the stand’, i.e. allow yourself to be sworn in.

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”

A core principle in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence that is accorded to the defendant in every criminal trial’.

“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” is one of the fundamental rights found in the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights. ‘No principle is more firmly established in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence of wrong-doing that is right of any defendant in any trial’. Because “The Right to a Fair Trial” includes this presumption that you are innocent, anyone accusing you of doing something must prove it.

SO – ADMIT NOTHING

      – DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS

      – ASK THEM!

In my next posting I will provide shocking evidence of what happens when you get sucked into Centrelink’s deadly game of “Appeal”. You really can wind up dead once Centrelink “stupefies and overwhelms you with a truckload of legal crap!

 Remember, until you know your legal rights as well as Centrelink does, you are fair game – just don’t wind up as ‘dead meat’.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

 

everyone shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Part 2: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity: If you receive a letter of demand from Centrelink, DO NOT LODGE AN APPEAL because you can loose more easily than you can win!.

  1. Gary Looney says:

    Thanks Ronald

    Centrelink Law Reform Australia Group:
    Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/Centrelink.Law.Reform.Australia

    The Members of this Group believe that Private Companies, Government Contracted Companies should be stopped from scamming for illegally obtained Commonwealth monies above human life!

    Gary Looney

    • yadnarie48 says:

      DO NOT BEG FOR CHANGE.

      With a Senate inquiry and a Royal Commission into the 4 Home Improvement Program deaths, the writing off of some 15,000 post breaching fatalities is a matter for the UN Human Rights Commission if the Federal Police continue to ignore these crimes against humanity. If you have a significant group of people involved in the CLRAG, have themn all lobby the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and DEMAND to know why deaths of some 15,000 welfare recipients are (a) Unreported, (b) considered “irrelevant, (c) are secretly classified as confidential.

      Keep an eye for an-coming posting re the fine legal points of law on why these fatalities are crimes against humanity and homicides under Australian laws.

      Lobby the AFP to start protecting lives instead of turning a blind to “lives in peril.” – see up-coming postings for this.
      AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support email address is: AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support@afp.gov.au

      Get hold of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee Hansard minutes for Dept Human Services 26 Feb’ 2015, (Start at page 19 and go through from there) and Dept Social Services hearings for 24th October 2014. (The whole lot.)

      Note carefully who is who at the front of these documents: it identifies who you either need to lobby or who you need to complain about. All of your members should read these 2 highly informative documents and should be demanding to know why Centrelink, having overpaid $4 BILLION, automatically accuses welfare recipients of being rooters?

      Locate: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 209 CLR 597; 187 ALR 117; 76 ALJR 598 (14 March 2002)

      No juisdiction = no decision. The reality is that Centrelink have no legal basis for demanding repayments until a Court of Law determines legal liability – i.e. Centrelink bluffs welfare recipients with its fraudulent claims and the SSAT and the AAT go along with this in far too many cases, e.g. the WR-X case I am currently involved in.

      Look up and download
      (a) R v Faure,
      (b) R v Boughey,
      (c) Kioa v West, (
      d) Coco v R
      (e) Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 209 CLR 597; 187 ALR 117; 76 ALJR 598 (14 March 2002)
      (f) Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [2005] QSC 243
      (g) DPP (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20 2013
      (h) DPP (Cth) v Poniatowska [2011] HCA 43
      (i) ACCC v TPG [2013] HCA 54 – Misleading and deceptive conduct – “Dominant message” and “broad thrust” of perception points of law.
      (h) ACCC v AGL (sa) [2014] FCA 1369 Check out: http://www.globalpowerlawandpolicy.com/2014/12/blog-update-accc-v-agl-south-australia-pty-ltd-2014-fca-1369/

      These are court cases that can be used to lobby politicians police, and even people currently in jail re legal rights, systemic bias and misrepresentation by Centrelink.

      Finally, check out paragraph 51, (xxiii)(A) of the constitution and the 7 Human Rights conventions that apply in Australia:

      (These) “Human Rights are defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 as the rights and freedoms contained in the seven core human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. These treaties are:”
      • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1980] ATS 23
      • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1976] ATS 25
      • International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [1975] ATS 5
      • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [1983] ATS 9
      • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1989] ATS 21
      • Convention of the Rights of the Child [1991] ATS 4
      • Convention on the Rights of people with Disabilities [2008] ATS 12
      Source: Australian Government – Attorney-General’s Department:- http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/default.aspx

      Copy documents from my postings by double clicking on them; print and demand politicians and the mass media explain why 15,000 deaths of welfare recipients are “not newsworthy”?

      Ron Medlicott

  2. Gary Looney says:

    Ronald,

    You have a moral obligation in the defense of others to release related documentation for the percentage of deaths whilst breached against non-breached clients.

    To avert further public harm above cost to the individual as I have gone without service nor label of hypocrite to stand against maltreatment of the many.

    Your contribution should be more then words.

    Gary Looney

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Thank you George. At a federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing last year I made the following statement: “In the 10-year period from the 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides. A significant proportion were unemployed people who had been breached.”

      I then went on to state that I could not specify precise numbers because the Senate had classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”. In addition, reading from Centrelink letter C10/1866, I also stated that Centrelink does not collect the post breaching fatalities statistics and therefore does not report them!

      Now for the legal implications of those statements:
      POINT #1: The South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. (1935)
      Section 257—Criminal defamation.
      (1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—
      (a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and
      (b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not), is guilty of an offence.
      Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

      TRANSLATION: Deliberately defaming someone is a serious crime and if the views expressed in this document were untrue, then I would have committed a very serious crime and be facing 3 years jail time.

      POINT #2 : Commonwealth Evidence Act (1995)
      (Take note of the “abuse of power” clauses in this legislation:

      131 Exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations
      (1) Evidence is not to be adduced of:
      (a) a communication that is made between persons in dispute, or between one or more persons in dispute and a third party, in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute; or
      (b) a document (whether delivered or not) that has been prepared in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
      (k) one of the persons in dispute, or an employee or agent of such a person, knew or ought reasonably to have known that the communication was made, or the document was prepared, in furtherance of a deliberate abuse of a power.
      the court may find that the communication was so made or the document so prepared.
      (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(j), if commission of the fraud, offence or act is a fact in issue and there are reasonable grounds for finding that:
      (a) the fraud, offence or act was committed; and
      (b) a communication was made or a document was prepared in furtherance of the commission of the fraud, offence or act;
      the court may find that the communication was so made or the document so prepared.
      (4) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(k), if:
      (a) the abuse of power is a fact in issue; and
      (b) there are reasonable grounds for finding that a communication was made or a document was prepared in furtherance of the abuse of power;
      the court may find that the communication was so made or the document was so prepared.

      TRANSLATION: C10/1866 and other documents tendered re the death toll caused by breaching relate to the crime of “Abuse of power”. So what was/is their legal status?

      POINT #3 Commonwealth Evidence Act (1995)
      142 Admissibility of evidence: standard of proof
      (1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, in any proceeding the court is to find that the facts necessary for deciding:
      (a) a question whether evidence should be admitted or not admitted, whether in the exercise of a discretion or not; or
      (b) any other question arising under this Act;
      have been proved if it is satisfied that they have been proved on the balance of probabilities.
      (2) In determining whether it is so satisfied, the matters that the court must take into account include:
      (a) the importance of the evidence in the proceeding; and
      (b) the gravity of the matters alleged in relation to the question.

      TRANSLATION: If the evidence is false, it is either admissible, or else it get tossed out under s142 of the Evidence Act.

      My statements were not ruled out as inadmissible or irrelevant. They were allowed to stand, with neither the Crown Law lawyer nor the AAT “judge” challenging either my statements or the corroborating evidence. THEY WERE SILENT AND IGNORED THE EVIDENCE, a fact that provides grounds for review by the Federal Court.

      POINT #4 Commonwealth Evidence Act (1995)
      S138 Discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence.
      (3) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account under subsection (1), it is to take into account:
      (a) the probative value of the evidence; and
      (b) the importance of the evidence in the proceeding; and
      (c) the nature of the relevant offence, cause of action or defence and the nature of the subject matter of the proceeding; and
      (d) the gravity of the impropriety or contravention; and
      (e) whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless; and
      (f) whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

      TWO POINTS TO NOTE:
      (A) If I release documents in other than an “approved” manner, no-one can use them to sue the federal government because they could be ruled “inadmissible” under s138 even though Breaching violates criminal laws, both national and international. I can think of 3-4 million people who would not be pleased if I released the documents, i.e. submission 287 to the Senate Inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation in November 2005.

      (B) Note s138 (3) (1) (f) – “whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. In the AAT proceedings, I pointed out that the welfare recipient had legal rights under international conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The lawyer acting on behalf of the Secretary for the Department of Social Security responded by asking that the human rights issues be set aside for “other courts” to consider. Considering that s138 (3) (1) (f) requires compliance with the ICCPR and the ‘right to a fair trial’ provisions in Article 14 of this convention, that request was outrageous. Even more outrageous – it was not challenged by the ‘judge’.

      FINALLY – try this:
      DIAL 13 32 76 – within 10 seconds you will hear “For your security, this call will be recorded.” Whilst that may sound reassuring, the real-world situation is that if you are overpaid by Centrelink and the recording reveals that it was Centrelink’s fault, the recording will have disappeared once Centrelink initiates TORT ACTION, i.e. steps to recover the alleged overpayment.

      What is happening is know as “obstructing and perverting the course of justice”, a crime that carries a 4 year penalty in South Australian under 256 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) Attempt to obstruct or pervert course of justice or due administration of law

      The bottom line is that whilst the Federal Parliament has been/is literally getting away with fraud and mass murder, holding those responsible requires strict compliance with the laws that politicians are breaking!

      UNFAIR? Yep! But that is how the system ‘works’ (well sort of works) at the moment.

      Have you watched this?

      Posted in April 2014, I have not been charged with criminal defamation; which gives you some idea of its accuracy and legal validity.

      FINALLY, check out this:
      Hansard: Community Affairs Legislation Committee – 26 February 2015.

      (a) Centrelink’s “elephant in the room” dysfunctional computer and the lack of “integrity” of this clapped out 30-year old computer;
      (b) $565,000 in legal costs to recover an alleged overpayment of under $6,000 – 3 government lawyers and a private law firm against one man who represents himself;
      (c) Breaching – taken for granted, even though it violates the constitution, procedural fairness and statute law rights and fundamental human rights.
      This can be downloaded from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au

      I hope that you have found this useful. If so, PLEASE, pass it on to ALL of your Facebook, email and/or Twitter contacts.

      Ron Medlicott.

    • yadnarie48 says:

      The information is in the public domain if you look for it, e.g. the ABS suicide statistics, the 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report – Mental Health, chapter 2 and later mental health reports.

  3. mike says:

    As a general rule, Legal Aid Queensland will not fund a plea of not guilty. In dealing with multiple clients, who were using the previously fee Duty Solicitor, we found a 100 per cent rejection rate of all applications for funding an appeal of not guilty

    • Nick C says:

      Interesting.
      I was refused last month in a southhern state.
      Unable to even contact commnity legal aid aid this month.
      Legail Aid (State based) refused to assist as well.

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