Part 8 (e): Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity:- A request to the Federal Police to investigate whether or not Tony Burke MP rorted the Entitlements Fund.

  1. Did Tony Burke rort the Entitlements Fund with some of his claims which reportedly totaled over $2 million? 
  2. Did Federal Police officers violated s115 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and commit a homicide by proxy when they deliberately exposed the Bali 9 to life threatening danger?

Those are just 2 of several issues contained in the text of an email about to be forwarded to the head of the Australian Federal Police. The email address is:

[Note: The short link URL for this posting is:   ]

========================================================Attention Commissioner Andrew Colvin

Australian Federal Police

 Please note that the following communication is a public document that may be used by persons charged with crimes or by legal entities seeking to hold state or federal entities accountable for tortious or unconstitutional conduct, e.g. persons accused of homicide or alleged organized crime bikie gangs who may wish to challenge South Australia’s most recent anti-bikie laws.

Re the following issues:

Issue #1 – Yet more Perksgate problems!

The latest bout in the Perksgate saga continues to roll on, makes a total fiasco out of Federal Agent Pearce’s statements in his September 14, 2009 email. It appears that Tony Burke MP, whilst a government Minister, managed to plough his way through more than $2 million was entitlements claims.

Amongst those claims there were apparently more than $400,000 worth of claims for chartered travel arrangements. This raises the very serious question, as per Bronwyn Bishop’s ‘Charter-gate’ incidents, as to just how many of these charters complied with the Minister Travel – Charter rules as per 4.6.5 of the Entitlements management handbook.

In the expenditure of over $2 million of taxpayers money in “entitlements” claims, how often did Tony Burke, or a member of his staff acting on his behalf, contact his Entitlements Manager, i.e. Ms Lauren Barons?

  1. Via phone:- 02 6215 3426
  2. Via fax:- 02 6267 3016
  3. Via email:-

If Tony Burke made claims for “entitlements” that he was not entitled to receive and did not check with his Entitlements Manager first, then it reasonable to consider the possibility that, by act of omission, he has violated s134 or s135 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

The need to investigate MP entitlements claims as far back as 1st July 1996 is further validated by this latest round of “who ripped off the most” bickering by MPs.

Haven’t they read the laws that they created?

Or is it a case of federal politicians genuinely believing that because they create the Law, they are beyond accountability?

As you are fully aware, paragraph 5 of the Constitution is quite clear in its statement that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding upon the courts, judges, and the people”. Politicians are people and this means that sections of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act that deal with fraud, or even more serious crimes, apply to politicians in precisely the same way that they apply to other people who are citizens or residents within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The significance of Federal Agent Denley’s letter of July 7, 2004, and Federal Agent Pearce’s email is that these communications may be empirical evidence that the Australian Federal Police, by failing to take action when action is required, may in fact be actively encouraging rorting of the parliamentary entitlements fund. It is possible, in fact it is highly probable, that some Federal politicians may be violating the law with impunity because they genuinely believe that the Federal Police are providing immunity from prosecution by refusing to investigate their actions. Australia actually only has one set of Federal laws and, contrary to apparent AFP policies and practices, the laws that specifically deal with criminal misconduct do not discriminate on the basis of political status. To investigate and prosecute welfare recipients for fraud at the rate of 10 or more people day per day whilst deliberately ignoring the fact that federal politicians may be violating the same laws goes far beyond any apprehension of bias; the failure of the Federal Police to investigate possible rorting by federal politicians who may be involved in the rorting of millions of taxpayer’s dollars is manifestly, I repeat, appalling biased policing.

Whilst you may have been appointed by Tony Abbott is the Federal Commissioner of Police, you have not been up to protect the Prime Minister or any other members of Federal Parliament may have violated provisions within the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

In the latest political bun fight concerning the expenditure of more than $2 million in taxpayers money by Tony Burke MP, one report in the media contain the statement that “Tony Burke is not top of the list” when it comes to such extravagant use of the parliamentary entitlements fund. No matter how logical that statement may sound from the perspective of politicians who use the entitlements fund, when it comes to statute law, particularly paragraph 134 and paragraph 135 of the Commonwealth criminal code act, the statement has no legally valid basis.

In case your memory is as bad as mine, below are is a heads-up refresher concerning these laws:

Division 134—Obtaining property or a financial advantage by deception

134.1 Obtaining property by deception

          (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

          (a)       the person, by a deception, dishonestly obtains property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property; and

          (b)       the property belongs to a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:      Imprisonment for 10 years.

          (2)       Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence.

134.2 Obtaining a financial advantage by deception

          (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

          (a)       the person, by a deception, dishonestly obtains a financial advantage from another person; and (b) the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

(2)       Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence

Penalty:      Imprisonment for 10 years.

Division 135—Other offences involving fraudulent conduct

135.1 General dishonesty

Obtaining a gain

          (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

          (a)       the person does anything with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a gain from another person; and

          (b)       the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:      Imprisonment for 5 years.

          (2)       In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the other person was a Commonwealth entity.

Causing a loss

          (3)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

          (a)       the person does anything with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person; and

          (b)       the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:      Imprisonment for 5 years.

The Entitlements Fund is huge and the opportunities to falsely claim benefits may be tempting, but ignorance of the rules is no excuse for making fraudulent claims.

 Re “Impunity”

I do not use the word “impunity” this communication in a metaphorical sense or as poetic licence; I use this word in its literal sense. An excellent legal example that conveys my use of this word on 12th December 2006 when the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala was established for the express purpose of dealing with corruption in the political and legal systems of that nation. Part of that Commission’s role involved investigating par=military organizations in violating human rights, e.g. corrupt police units. As you may be aware, the La Linea corruption case resulted in the resignations of President Otto Molina and Vice President Roxana Baldetti.

In Australia, the role of the AFP in placing unconstitutional “government protocols’ ahead of statute law when politicians are caught out rorting closely parallels the ‘Banana Republic’ levels of justice that existed in Guatemala prior to the establishment of the Commission against Impunity. As it was in Guatemala, it is not just political corruption for financial gain, e.g. rorting of public monies, that is a major issue with Australian politicians. As stated in ‘The Emcott Report’, the Australian Federal Parliament has a long, abysmal history of human rights violations that dates backto federation in 1901. These abuses have had appalling consequences which have been made manifestly worse by the AFP’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge, let alone investigate the sometimes lethal consequences of these abuses.

Issue #2 – Breaching triggered fatalities.

As I mentioned previously concerning the issue of legislated welfare penalties, commonly known as “Breaching”, under Article 7 (2) (g) of the Rome Statute Breaching is an act of persecution that comes within the scope of this internationally accepted legal definition:

“Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity”.

It is not necessary to look at international laws contained in the Rome statute as the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act contains provisions for dealing with legislated breaching triggered fatalities and fatalities triggered by systemic fraud:

268.23 Crime against humanity—other inhumane act (As in breaching laws)

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

            (a)       the perpetrator causes great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act; and

            (b)       the act is of a character similar to another proscribed inhumane act as defined by the Dictionary; and

            (c)       the perpetrator’s conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

I would draw your attention to Division 5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act which deals with the criminal law issue of “Fault Elements”:

Commonwealth Criminal Code Act: Division 5—Fault elements

5.1 Fault elements

     (1)       A fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.

(2)       Subsection (1) does not prevent a law that creates a particular offence from specifying other fault elements for a physical element of that offence.

5.2 Intention

(1)       A person has intention with respect to conduct if he or she means to engage in that conduct.

(2)       A person has intention with respect to a circumstance if he or she believes that it exists or will exist.

(3)       A person has intention with respect to a result if he or she means to bring it about or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.

5.3 Knowledge

A person has knowledge of a circumstance or a result if he or she is aware that it exists or will exist in the ordinary course of events.

5.4 Recklessness

(1)       A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:

(a)       he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and

(b)       having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(2)       A person is reckless with respect to a result if:

(a)       he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and

(b)       having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(3)       The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.

(4)       If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.

5.5 Negligence

A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

(a)       such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and

(b)       such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;

that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

5.6 Offences that do not specify fault elements

(1)       If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists only of conduct, intention is the fault element for that physical element.

            (2)       If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists of a circumstance or a result, recklessness is the fault element for that physical element.

Note: Under subsection 5.4(4), recklessness can be established by proving intention, knowledge or recklessness.

Division five, Fault Elements, provides a very firm legal basis upon which to consider the legality of legislated welfare penalties and the inhumane, sometimes lethal consequences, of the legislation

5.1.1 lays the framework with the statement “A fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.”

Which of these for key criteria are not present when considering the inhumane and sometimes fatal consequences of this legislation:

  1. intention;
  2. knowledge;
  3. recklessness;
  4. negligence.

Paragraph 5 of the Constitution is clear in its statement that the law is binding on everybody. No-one, including members of Parliament, are exempt from compliance. Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph 23a, places upon the Federal Parliament, and by implication, upon the members of this parliament, an obligation to make legislation for the “provision” of welfare benefits to unemployed people and other people who lack the means to subsist, to survive, to live. There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Parliament to pass laws that deliberately and recklessly deprive people of a welfare benefit if they meet the requirements clearly specified in paragraph 51 (xxiii)(A) of the Constitution. In addition, the international Convention for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes it a violation of human rights to deprive people of their only means of subsistence. That the Federal Parliament should deliberately do so then secretly classify any fatalities that are the direct downstream consequence of this human rights violating legislation is in itself empirical evidence of reckless indifference to the lethal consequences of this legislation.

That the EWRE Senate committee should twice dismissed the death toll as irrelevant and that yet another Senate committee should refuse to consider these fatalities when considering the deaths of four ceiling insulation installers is further evidence of reckless indifference to these fatalities.

Adding even further complexity to the issue of post breaching fatalities are points 2.11 and 2.12 of the report number 12 to the 44th Parliament which was tabled in September 2014. The attempt by the Abbott government to save money by recklessly endangering the lives of young unemployed people was nipped in the bud by the human rights committee. However, the question of how people would be able to subsist for six months with no welfare allowance raises the issue of how did people survive with no means of support for a period of three months under the old breaching legislation or for a period of two months under the current serious compliance failure legislation?

As assistant secretary Neil Skill stated in his letter dated 18 May 2010, “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes statistics” and he was therefore unable to provide them to me. It may therefore be reasonably adduced that Centrelink has also been unable to provide the relevant government ministers and Senate oversight committees with this information. The findings in 14.1.1 of the Home Improvement Program Royal Commission focused upon the failure of the Australian Public Service to play the role of the Devil’s advocate and inform government ministers on the downside or negative aspects in government policies, procedures, and legislated initiatives. Commissioner Hanger considered it inappropriate for APS officials to withhold information that was essential for informed decision making.

The following points should be considered:

  1. Does the Federal Parliament have jurisdiction to enact legislation that violates the Constitution and wilfully places lives in peril?
  2. Does the Federal Parliament have jurisdiction to enact legislation that violates international laws wilfully places lives in peril?
  3. Does the Federal Parliament have jurisdiction to conceal the lethal consequences on legislation that violates both Australian laws and international laws?
  4. ABS statistical data indicated that in the 10 year period from 1 January 1997 until 31 December 2006 them were 23,254 suicides, of which one in three was an unemployed person.
  5. On the balance of reasonable probability, it is highly likely that many of the approximately 7,700 suicides that occurred during this period were triggered by the unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous legislated welfare penalties.
  6. Any investigation of the lethal impact of welfare penalties must begin with of forensic investigation into the number of post breaching fatalities that are contained in the Department of Human Services ISIS computer database.
  7. Senior members of the Australian public service who are responsible for this database and for the preparation of reports using the information contained in this computer must be held accountable for their decisions not to make available to either the Parliament or the public the scale of the death toll caused by legislated welfare penalties.
  8. In addition to Federal laws relating to this death toll, as mentioned previously, all states and territories have statute laws which address the issue of reckless endangerment or criminal activities that result in fatalities. For example, in Queensland article 302 deals with such fatalities whilst in Western Australia article 279 addresses the issue of deaths caused by is a criminal activity or recklessly dangerous conduct.

At this point in time I estimate that the death toll from legislated welfare penalties may be somewhere in the range of 15,000 to 60,000 fatalities since this legislation was first introduced several decades ago. It is imperative that the precise number of times that such a penalty have been imposed and a person never resumed receiving a welfare benefit because they were suddenly deceased be identified.

I would point out that when I put this question to a Crown law lawyer who was acting on behalf of, Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Security, these deaths were dismissed as “irrelevant” as was the death toll that may have been triggered by fraudulent torts to recover Commonwealth error overpayments made to welfare recipients. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as irrelevant fatalities that have been triggered as a consequence of unlawful conduct, even if that unlawful conduct has been undertaken on behalf of the Commonwealth by public servants or Crown law officers.

149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

            (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

            (a)       the person knows that another person is a public official; and

            (b)       the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

            (c)       the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

            (d)       the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years.

There is nothing smart or clever about withholding or destroying evidence in order to recover overpayments made due to Commonwealth error. Such actions are a serious crime as the above federal legislation makes quite clear.

So far the Australian Federal Police have refused to investigate these deaths because of the political “gravity/insensitivity” of these crimes. It is therefore highly probable that the requirements of article 17.2 of the Rome statute have been met and therefore these fatalities can be investigated by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Issue #3 The crime of Murder

Consideration of Article 115 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act is essential. Maybe I am totally wrong in my judgement, but it seems logical to me that if it is a crime to kill an Australian citizen or resident overseas, is also a federal crime to do the same thing in Australia! Am I right or am I wrong? Article 115 of the Commonwealth criminal code act deals with unlawful acts that result in the death of an Australian citizen or an Australian resident:

115.1 Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

            (a)       the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

            (b)       the conduct causes the death of another person; and

            (c)       the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

            (d)       the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:                     Imprisonment for life.

            (2)       Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)       A person is guilty of an offence if:

            (a)       the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

            (b)       the conduct causes the death of another person; and

            (c)       the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

            (d)       the first‑mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

Penalty:                     Imprisonment for 25 years.

As you are well aware, on 29th April 2015, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by an Indonesian firing squad.

In the light of articles 115.1 and 115.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act the question has to be asked do these fatalities represent major crime violations of article 115 laws by senior Federal police officers who were involved in the case of the time and engaged in conduct that resulted in two fatalities? It is beyond my level of expertise and knowledge, but as an ordinary reasonable person has given some considerable thought to these particular statutes, I have very grave concerns the principal officers involved may have placed operational procedures ahead of these statutes. If that is the case, then the conduct of these officers was far more than an appropriate in the families of the two young men died are entitled to far more than either an apology or compensation payments, i.e. they are entitled to Justice.

‘Phelan took responsibility for the decision to pass information to the Indonesian police, but said it was not one he had taken lightly and he “agonised over it at the time”. And he revealed that not all AFP officers involved in the investigation agreed with it.’

“Certainly the vast majority [supported the decision], but I can remember at least one occasion at the time where a request was made by one of the investigators in Brisbane to come off the team,” Phelan said.


  1. I do not care if every officer on the Bali 9 case bar one supported the decision to inform the Indonesian Police; the legality of the situation at that time was clear and simple, i.e. the AFP had no legal jurisdiction to place at risk the lives of the Bali 9 even though they may have been involved in drug smuggling. There was not, and there still is not, any statutory authority to endanger the lives of people who may be engaged in commercial activities that violate criminal laws. From Agent Phelan’s comments on May 4th, it appears that only 1 officer was possibly aware of this statutory fact of law. This apparent ‘vigilante justice’ mindset by AFP officers is something that I find most alarming as it calls into question the competence of the AFP as a whole for it means that life and death decisions by AFP officers are based upon their personal prejudice rather than statutory law.
  2. Paragraph 5 of the constitution applied in the decision making process, i.e. the laws are binding on the courts, judges and the people, which in this case were the AFP officers involved in the Bali 9 case.
  3. Paragraph 138 (3) (f) (g) (h) make specific reference to the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Commission Act. Article 6.1 of that convention, which applies to the AFP, specifically states that everyone has the right to life and no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of that right.
  4. In his findings in the Faure case, [R v Faure [VSCA 166] (24 September 1999), Justice Brooking reiterated one of the points expressed by the 1839 English Royal Commission concerns actions that place life in peril being a crime:

“Where the offender does an act attended with manifest danger to life wilfully, that is with knowledge of the consequences, he may properly be said to have the ‘mens mala, or heart bent upon mischief’…”

It appears that the AFP may have acted with “a heart bent on mischief” for unlawfully to circumvent the Evidence Act, i.e.

138 Discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence

  • Evidence that was obtained:
    • improperly or in contravention of an Australian law; or
    • in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law;
  • is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.

(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; and

What exactly were AFP officers doing when they decided, with what appears to be “a heart bent on mischief” to ignore 115 of the Criminal Code and wilfully place in danger the lives of the Bali 9? Was it a case of “We may not have enough evidence if we bust them in Australia but if we shop them to the Indonesians, they’ll have more than enough evidence to deal with them”?

  1. The actions of Federal Agent Phelan were inconsistent with federal statute laws, procedural fairness rights, and the Commonwealth’s legal obligations under international conventions. This calls into question the credibility of federal Agent’s conduct in prior and subsequent investigations and the reliability of his testimony in any trials that resulted from those investigations.
  2. An important issue to consider is why all bar one officer went along with Federal Agent Phelan’s recklessly dangerous and unlawful conduct? Was it a case of ‘Milgram’s Syndrome’? If you are unfamiliar with that frightening phenomenon, look it up on the Internet or consult with an AFP mental health expert. Doing so will confirm the possibility that most of the federal agents involved in the Bali 9 investigation would have taken the lead from the agent in charge, i.e. Agent Phelan, and would have approved of the potentially lethal decision to involve the Indonesian police, even though what this decision involved the commission of crime, I.e. wilfully and recklessly placing lives in peril. Just because people are drug smugglers or drug dealers whose reprehensible actions place other people’s lives in danger is not a valid excuse for AFP officers to abuse their lawful authority by deliberately placing the lives of suspects in an alleged crime in danger. By deliberately doing so, the AFP is merely using different tactics to achieve the same goal and that most definitely is not a legitimate activity. Just because people are drug smugglers or drug dealers whose reprehensible actions place other people’s lives in danger is not a valid excuse for deliberately placing the lives of those people in danger. By deliberately doing so, the AFP is merely using different tactics to commit the same crime and that most definitely is not a legitimate activity for any police officer, state or federal.

 Issue #4 – THE OTHERS

In 2015, the mega-sensitive issue still remains the question of precisely how many welfare recipients have died because the AFP has placed federal government policies and procedures (and unconstitutional parliamentary protocols) ahead of state, federal and international laws? Since 1998, how many welfare recipients have been prosecuted for alleged violations of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act whilst possible violations of the same legislation had been ignored because of “government protocols” which are a truly unique form of “entitlement” that, in point of fact, most definitely do not apply to welfare recipients, or indeed to any other Australian citizens or residents? Valid questions to ask, both in this email and in any court, is why does the AFP engage in such partisan, biased law enforcement and how many Australian citizens or residents have suffered “injury” of some form as a direct consequence of this disgraceful form of bias?


The setting up of the Job Network was even more ineptly planned and implemented than the Home Improvement Program and as a direct consequence may have been far more deadly. Launched on 1st May 1998, it is a matter of fact that the Job Network was facing bankruptcy just 5 months later when an urgent top-up of funding was required. A few months later, another $140 million bailout was required. Where was this money going and who was responsible for this massive drainage of taxpayers money, i.e. to whom the benefit?

As a school teacher, I have tried to avoid closed questions that I did not know the answer too. In this case, I believe that the correct answer to this question is that, in a clear parallel with the Home Improvement Program, a significant proportion of it of it was swallowed up by rorting Job Network agencies who wilfully exploited the legal loophole created by breaching legislation and the prejudice of politicians who saw this penalty system as being an appropriate form of punishment for the crime of being unemployed. In the most literal sense, this Howard Government designed program was an easily worked scam that was essentially “Money for nothing” for unscrupulous Job Network recruitment consultants:

  1. Simply sign up an intensive assistance client (FLEX 3) and take the up-front payment from the Federal Government that was primarily intended to fund job readiness training for the long-term unemployed job seeker.
  2. Find a way to breach the job seeker and get them off benefits and out of the job search support system.
  3. Keep the up-front FLEX 3 fees ($1,500, $2,250 or $3,000)
  4. Go back to step 1 above.
  5. Repeat until the contract expires or is cancelled.
    1. Since prosecuting Job Network agencies would have exposed this fraud, and the inept manner in which the scheme had been set up by the Howard Government, offending agencies were not prosecuted.
    2. The rip-off was brought to a halt by a quasi-secret moratorium on breaching.
    3. Working in a Job Network FLEX 1 recruitment agency at the time, I was informed about the confidential email to FLEX 3 recruitment consultants advising them of the breaching moratorium.

Needless to say, where this fraudulent activity, which violated 142 (1)(c) (i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, resulted in fatalities, these deaths were homicides that the Howard Government was legally accountable for. In fact, anyone who was a victim of this fraud could sue the Howard Government if they ever realized that they had been scammed.

For what should be quite obvious reasons, the Liberal-National Coalition was, and still is, most keen that this criminal incompetence and fraud never be made public, or be the subject of an AFP investigation. The hard evidence of this fraudulent activity is in the ISIS database and the deaths are classified as confidential by the Senate’s Leg-Con committee, and are also never reported by Centrelink, until such time as there is forced disclosure of these fatalities, prosecutions for these homicides, and torts for injuries caused by the fraud, are unlikely.

However, as you are fully aware, there is no statute of limitations and so these fatalities can be investigated at any time. As the AFP Commissioner, you need to seriously consider the role of both the Australian Federal Police and your own role in this law enforcement agency. Justice is not served by adherence to “government protocols” that quite literally let Federal politicians give a one-finger-salute to the Constitution, statute laws and international conventions and ignore and conceal the fatal consequences of federal legislation. Just as it was wrong for the Rudd Government to conceal the 4 home Improvement Program fatalities, every government, past and present, is in the wrong for concealing breaching triggered fatalities.

Such a flagrant bias is broad ultra vires and has the potential to invalidate thousands of convictions for a very serious crimes, e.g. murder, in a similar manner to which the High Court’s Keating decision invalidated some 15,000 convictions of welfare recipients on 8 May 2013.

The essence of truth is proof.

Where is the proof? Every DSS/DHS/DWEER/CES and Centrelink public accountability report ever produced is documentary evidence of the deliberate concealment of the lethal impact of breaching. Ditto for the Hansard Minutes of senate oversight committee hearings since May 18th 2010. For example, since that date, exactly how many of the various oversight committees with responsibilities for public safety have been informed of the practice of not reporting breaching triggered fatalities? Do the Hansard Minutes reveal that many committees have been informed, or do these minutes reveal that at this point in time, despite the Hanger Royal Commission’s report, Centrelink’s management still does not “collect” and report these fatalities?

What statements 2.11 and 2.12 of Report #12 to the 44th Parliament does reveal is the fact that Kevin Andrews did not explain how impoverished people who were deprived of a subsistence allowance could survive. Implicit in his non-response to that question is the issue of how many have not survived.

 Issue #6 – The Emcott Report.

As stated in a previous communication, ‘The Emcott Report’ is still very much a work-in-progress ‘electronic scratchpad’ that has yet to even be spell-checked or seriously proof read as a whole. It is now approximately 280 pages in length with much of the additional text being statute law such as that quoted above. The legal implications of the issues contained in this report may be very significant, both for the nation and for many of the individuals identified in the report. Please ensure that sufficient regard, from both a legal and a personal perspective is given to these comments and that appropriate action is taken to address the injustices that have been outlined.

  1. Keep in mind the fact that Division 149—Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials, is a federal statute that applies to every person in the country, including yourself and your senior officers.
  2. Your AFP press conference on May 4th was video recorded and uploaded to the Internet. Like this email and the Emcott report, statements in that video footage can be used against the AFP in both criminal cases and tort cases. If lawyers representing people accused of reckless endangerment or homicides should undertake in-depth research of coroner’s databases and obtain empirical evidence of the scale of the unreported, classified breaching triggered death toll and the death toll caused by fraudulent torts, an Ostensible Bias argument by defence counsel could leave both you and the AFP in a very compromised position.

Res ipsa loquiter. (The thing speaks for itself.)

The jurisdiction of the AFP is limited to upholding the law; not violating it. Herbert Marcuse, a social and political philosopher, once made the observation that “Law and order everywhere are the law and order which protect the established hierarchy.” These days, this wisdom is reduced to the cynical cliché that “The system protects the system.”

The proof of that statement is demonstrated in Federal Agent Denley’s letter of July 7th 2004 and in Federal Agent Pearce’s email (which is concatenated below) and the current furore over the latest exposes` of outrageous “entitlements” claims, this time by Tony Burke.

The Drifting Winds of Change.

With the South Australian economy in dire straits, e.g. 20 year high levels of unemployment, the premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, has responded to the federal entitlements scandal by announcing that he is abolishing the SA Parliament’s entitlements fund. In future, SA politicians will have a fixed entitlements allowance and use of that allowance will require public disclosure on an entitlements register. The message that you need to heed from Jay Weatherill’s actions is that the days of politicians getting away with rorting the entitlements fund are over. If you do not act to hold ‘snout-in-the-trough’ thieves accountable for their actions, it is going to come back at you time and time again in the courts, not just in welfare fraud cases but in virtually any cases that may involve ostensible bias, i.e. cases where the logic is “Why investigate and charge me for this but don’t investigate politicians who have committed far worse crimes?”

  1. The constant failure of the AFP to deal with the still rising death toll caused by breaching legislation in Australia and the number of appeals by welfare recipients who are the victims of Centrelink’s fraudulent tort claims leaves the AFP vulnerable to apprehend bias and manifest ostensible bias rebuttals .
  2. The US military have an axiom, “If you see it, you can hit it, and if you can hit it you can kill it.” A relevant variation on that logic is the legal principle that when it comes to illegal activity by politicians, bureaucrats and law enforcement officials, ‘You can’t get away with it anymore because what has been happening is “known and blown” and therefore you had better stop doing it.”

Issue #7 – The worst terrorists are those who rule.

That is one of the key reasons why the International Criminal Court of Justice was established. This Court only has jurisdiction when national law enforcement authorities fail to deal with the problem of lethal o traumatic abuses of rights. Thanks to the AFP and a number of other agencies, that criteria has been met many times. This failure to take action now creates further dangers for Australia’s most vulnerable people. Whatever the scale of the death toll caused by breaching legislation, in 2014 the Abbott Government tried to dramatically ramp up the volume with its “no-dole-for-6-months’ legislation. That is one of the downstream consequences of failing to deal with the Howard Government’s ruthless enforcement of performance indicator targets.

  1. Like the late US Senator, William Paxmire, I do not care how many times I have to repeat myself 2,911 times; there is no such thing as an irrelevant homicide or an irrelevant crime against humanity. The classified, unreported deaths that resulted from the enforcement of performance indicator targets were homicides and crimes against humanity that the AFP has ignored for far too long.
  2. You need to act to identify the victims and hold accountable those responsible for the deaths, and for all of the other breaching and fraudulent tort driven fatalities.
  3. To fail to so is to position yourself as an accessory to these crimes.

Issue #8 – Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. (Benjamin Franklin.)

The Internet is ‘the elephant in the room’ when it comes the issues that concerned people like myself have been raising. In July 2003 when E. Arhardidis’s letter, “The system stinks” was published in the Messenger-News Review, there was no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube and Aussie Battlers could only express their contempt via letters to the editor. These days that is not the case; most people carry the world in their pocket with mobile phones, or using cheap tablets and laptops can use free WiFi points to reach out to the world for help. Since posting essays and videos on the Internet, I have had over 40,000 hits and that figure is just a drop in the bucket compared to the torrent of comments streaming through the social media . Across the nation, victimized Aussie Battlers are expressing their views and exchanging information. The lesson of history is than when governments make the mistake of abusing power, people counter-react, i.e. they unite, and then people-power drives major social and political change. I am an Christian who believes that it is a key role of Christians to demonstrate their value as “light” and “salt” by actively speaking out to defend the poor and to see that justice is done. In concluding this email I ask you to consider the following somewhat prophetic ‘Ripple of Hope’ speech by the later Senator Robert Kennedy:

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centre of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” (University of Cape Town 1966)

Other Valid Questions:

Australia signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December 1948 and yet no human rights senate oversight committee was established until 2012. i.e. 64 years later. This begs the obvious question as to why was there such a lengthy delay? The most obvious and plausible answer is that the Australian Federal Parliament intended to pass human rights violating legislation.

  1. If that was the reason for the 64 year delay, why did Julia Gillard and her government pass legislation to create this oversight committee? After 64 years, what was the catalyst that prompted the creation of the human rights oversight committee? Was the Labour Party concerned that without such a constraint, under the leadership of Tony Abbott the lives of countless vulnerable “dole bludgers’ could be at risk and therefore something had to done to prevent of “Breaching Blow-out” that might expose the previous fatalities under both coalition and Labour government?
  2. What might have been the consequences if there was no senate human rights oversight committee and Tony Abbott had been successful in railroading his “No-dole-for-6-months” legislation through the parliament? How many young people might have died before the lethal consequences of deliberately depriving unemployed people of any means of subsistence became glaringly obvious to the general public?
  3. I would remind you again that in a federal trial in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2014, neither the Crown Law lawyer nor the presiding AAT Member challenged my statement that a significant proportion of the 20,914 suicides that occurred in the 10-year period, 1997 – 2006 were welfare recipients who had been breached. This human rights violating legislation, and fraudulent tort actions to recover Commonwealth error overpayments may have triggered more than 7.500 fatalities. Thanks to yet another “elephant in the room”, i.e. the social media, the days of the AFP getting away with turning a blind to this senseless slaughter are coming to an end.

Final observations:

Australia may have a new Prime Minister but breaching continues as do fraudulent Centrelink torts. Since the laws have not changed, violations of the law under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership are still crimes. Therefore, the question for your personal and professional consideration is how will the “Ripples of Hope”, i.e. protests about these crimes and looming legal actions, affect you once the public grasps the scale of the humanitarian disaster caused by breaching legislation, especially the Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of the Performance Indicator Targets that the AFP has refused to investigate for more than a decade? Under your leadership, will posterity perceive the AFP as being a force for good, or will posterity regard the AFP in the same manner as the South African Police was regarded during the time when Apartheid was internationally reviled law. Is the AFP a powerful, repressive force that upholds great national evil by refusing to investigate the mass murder by federal legislation?

 Yours truly,

 Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.


Below is a copy of Federal Agent Pearce’s September 2009 email in which the AFP refused to investigate possible rorting of some $4.64 million by federal politicians. Please note that the reasons stated are Completely Ridiculous And Preposterous, i.e. they are absolute CRAP, i.e. they have no constitutional or legal basis. For this reason, anyone charged with violating the law can use Leck v Morris; Keating v Morris [QSC 243, 1st September 2005)] to mount an “Ostensible Bias” defence against criminal charges, i.e. ‘Why charge me but not them?’ This email contains a reference to the AFP’s July 7th 2004 decision not to investigate other possible criminal misconduct. AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate emailFederal Agent Denley’s letter below also undermines the law because the AFP were effectively refusing to investigate to determine if the Howard Government had violated s142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and in doing so, triggered thousands of suicides that violate homicide laws in every state and territory in Australia.

July 04 denley letter page 1Readers should make no mistake about the potential significance of the above emails and the Denley Letter. The refusals of the Federal Police to investigate possible crimes against humanity may have opened the door to a United Nation s Human Rights Commission investigation that could lead to charges against Australian politicians in the International Criminal Court of Justice.

This entry was posted in News and politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s