In the December 7th, 2015 Ronald’s space posting, I wrote that 1.1 million welfare recipients were at risk of being victims of Centrelink’s “Waivergate” scam. Is the Linacre letter below proof that just 3 weeks later, on New Year’s Day 2016, Centrelink deliberately tried to defraud 73,000 unsuspecting people?
[Note: the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-sb ]
For a brief but very informative 7 News video article about this possibly fraudulent scam, click on this link: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30512118/centrelink-system-errors-leave-73-000-families-thinking-they-are-in-debt/
Below is a slightly redacted copy of the Linacre Letter in which the information that would disclose the identity of a welfare recipient has been removed. When you read this letter, there are several questions to consider:
- What information did I provide to Centrelink;
- Why did the Acting Chief Legal Counsel decide to ignore the constitution, statute laws, High Court decisions, international conventions and laws, and common law rights?
- Most importantly, did Alice Linacre or her predecessor, Vicky Parker, have the legal right to ignore the constitution, statute laws, High Court decisions, international treaties and international law? [Hint: the answer to that question is the opposite of “yes”.]
The Linacre letter clearly states that information was received from me on 9th December 2015 and again on 17th December 2015. The 1st letter was received just after my Ronald’s space postings on the 7th and 8th December 2015. The obvious question concerning the Linacre Letter is what information was received that may demonstrate that what happened on 1st January 2016 was not, as claimed by Centrelink, a “computer glitch”, but was possibly a deliberate attempt to defraud 73,000 people.
Rather than repeat what I have already posted in December, I recommend that readers check out these 2 postings which provide insight into the information provided to Centrelink’s Chief Legal Counsel:
December 7th 2015 – Part 12: How HELLICAR could prevent 1.1 million welfare recipients from becoming victims of the Waivergate” scam. http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-qW
December 8th 2015 – Part 13: Bastardizing the Briginshaw Principle: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-r4
In order to get back some $5 Billion in over-payments to welfare recipients, Centrelink officials arbitrarily decide that it is the fault of all of 1.1 million “rorter.” As the attempted rip-off on New year’s day 2016 highlighted, Centrelink uses its computer system to fraudulently demand that over-payments be paid back. However, a couple of High Court decisions have the potential to ‘bung a spanner in the works.’ People who read this posting will have some insight into their civil rights. 2 crucial High Court decisions that make quite clear the fact that Centrelink officials have no legal right to arbitrarily demand that over-payments be repaid are:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA17 which was handed down on May 3rd 2012.
Download from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html
In paragraph 141, the High Court ruled that:
“The proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory authority relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require that regulatory agency to make some final judgement about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”
At paragraph 141 in the Hellicar Decision, the High Court judges rule:
“…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.”
What these 2 High Court statements mean is that any decision as to who was responsible for any alleged over-payments must be determined by impartially considering the “primary facts” of the issue and the responsibility for doing this is a matter for the courts, not public servants, e.g. Centrelink officials.
The 2nd High Court decision is: Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  209 CLR 597,
Download this decision from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html
At paragraph 53 of Bhardwaj. the High Court ruled that:
“As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”
The key phrase in the above statement is “a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”
- Centrelink bureaucrats who may be responsible for the errors that caused over-payments have no jurisdiction, i.e. no legal right to decide that welfare recipients are responsible for the over-payments occurring.
- Centrelink officials deciding that welfare recipients are responsible for being overpaid is a “jurisdictional error” and such vested interest determinations are not legally valid, i.e. Centrelink has no legal right to send welfare recipients “Account payable” bills that demand repayment of alleged over-payments.
- That is the potentially incriminating legal significance of the Linacre Letter; in December 2015, these High Court decisions were made available to the Chief Legal Council for the Department of Human Services, i.e. the federal government department that runs Centrelink.
- Senior legal bureaucrats, i.e. either Vicky Parker or Alice Linacre, or both, are the people responsible for advising the Secretary of the Department of Human Services on legal matters.
- One, or both, of these lawyers turned bureaucrats therefore KNEW that Centrelink had no legal right to send out either electronic or hard copy (snail mail) letters of demand for the repayment of alleged over-payments.
- Centrelink’s computer system should have been de-programmed so that the so-called “glitch” which billed 73,000 people for amounts up to $800 could never be sent out either electronically or via mail.
- Make no mistake, Centrelink’s computer system is a 30 ye4ar-old clapped out system, but at the end of the day, this computer system was programmed to send out the electronic and hard copy letters of demand and that programming was not deactivated.
- Someone had programmed the computer to make the legally invalid claims and despite my best efforts over a period of years (See http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E ), Centrelink has continued to violate the civil rights of welfare recipients rather than obey the constitution and state, federal and international statute laws and conventions.
There are 73,000 victims of a possible “Waivergate” fraud by Centrelink on January 1st 2016 who should check out these High Court decisions for yourself: Centrelink has had any legal right to decide who is responsible for alleged over-payments to individual welfare recipients.
If you are reading my Ronald’s space postings for the 1st time, you may wonder why these High Court decisions apply to Centrelink’s letters of demand and why I claim that 73,000 people may have been the victims of a deliberate attempt to defraud them. The answer to that is found in “The 6-week Rule” contained in paragraph 1,237 (a) of the Social Security Act. As you can see from the text below, this law gives Centrelink bureaucrats just 6 weeks to identify and rectify “commonwealth error” over-payments to welfare recipients:
1237A Waiver of debt arising from error. (© Crown)
(1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.
Note: Subsection (1) does not allow waiver of a part of a debt that was caused partly by administrative error and partly by one or more other factors (such as error by the debtor).
(1A) Subsection (1) only applies if:
(a) the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the first payment that caused the debt; or
(b) if the debt arose because a person has complied with a notification obligation, the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the end of the notification period;
whichever is the later.
Underestimating value of property
(a) a debt arose because the debtor or the debtor’s partner underestimated the value of particular property of the debtor or partner; and
(b) the estimate was made in good faith; and
(c) the value of the property was not able to be easily determined when the estimate was made;
the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of the debt attributable to the underestimate. (NOTE: The source text is neither in italics or underlined. Ron M.)
Proportion of a debt
(3) For the purposes of this section, a proportion of a debt may be 100% of the debt.
- TRANSLATION: if Centrelink makes a mistake and over-pays a welfare recipient, i.e. a “Commonwealth error”, then Centrelink has 6 weeks to discover and rectify the error.
- Once that period is up, “The Secretary” MUST WAIVE 100% of the debt.
- The problem is, having over-paid some $5 Billion, DHS/Centrelink bureaucrats have no desire to own up to such a blunder.
- The solution is to arbitrarily, and unlawfully, accuse welfare recipients of being rorters. i.e the people who are responsible for these over-payments.
- Please, read this news article very carefully to gain insight into hopw DHS/Centrelink officials and federal governments work the “Waivergate” scam.
Make no mistake, this news article violates South Australia’s criminal defamation laws. However, both the SA Police and the Federal Police turn a blind eye to violations of criminals laws if politicians rort, or when evidence reveals that government departments are defrauding welfare recipients. if you doubt that statement, check out the letter below from the Federal Police.
R Stacie Mitchell, the brave young mum who blew the whistle on Centrelink’s latest Waivergate scam, had it 100% right when she said “They need to stop stuffing people over.” For the sake of 7.3 million people who are at risk of being hit with the Waivergate scam, we need an independent commission of inquiry, i.e. a Royal Commission of Inquiry, to determine just how many people have been “stuffed over” and to also determine just how many people did not survive being stuffed over.
Regular readers are familiar with Neil Skill’s letter, which was written 103 days after the 4th Home Improvement Program fatality, Mitchell Sweeney, which occurred on 4th February. 2010. The following statement from the report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Disaster contained the following statements:
“The government “conceived of, devised, designed and implemented a program that enabled very large numbers of inexperienced workers – often engaged by unscrupulous and avaricious employers or head contractors, who were themselves inexperienced in insulation installation – to undertake potentially dangerous work.
“It should have done more to protect them,” the report said. The men who died were Matthew Fuller (October 14, 2009), Rueben Barnes (November 18, 2009), Marcus Wilson (November 21, 2009) and Mitchell Sweeney (February 4, 2010).
“In my view each death would, and should, not have occurred had the HIP been properly designed and implemented,”
It is my contention that a Royal Commission is required to investigate the far larger death toll caused by breaching, especially the deaths that may have been triggered by the Howard Government’s alleged enforcement of illegal “performance Indicator targets”, i.e. Breaching Quotas; a humanitarian disaster that I refer to as “Quotagate”.
When it comes to “giving you options”, the point to be learnt from Quotagate, Waivergate and Neil Skill’s infamous “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes statistics” statement, Centrelink’s “options’ are very simple, i.e. “Do as we say or else you may die!”
- That viewpoint is not nut-case hype: Speaking on behalf of a welfare recipient at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing in 2014, I made the following statement:
- In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people.It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.
- Please note that due to a calculation error, this statement incorrectly under-stated the true death toll which was 23,254.
- Approximately 1 in 3 suicides, i.e. about 7,700 of these people were unemployed at the time.
- In all, the on-going death toll triggered by both unconstitutional, human rights violating breaching legislation and Centrelink’s Waivergate scam may be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 since welfare penalties were introduced decades ago.
As Stacie Mitchell said, “They need to stop stuffing people over” both with the fraudulent “Waivergate” scam and with the ‘king hit’ that is the ultimate in coward’s punches, i.e. the all to frequently lethal legislated breaching penalties.
BREACHING – THE ULTIMATE COWARD’S PUNCH.
Breaching is a lethal “Coward’s Punch” that violates not only Australia’s homicide laws,; this legislation violates international laws as set out in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice which is stated below:
(1) For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Note Article 7 (1) (k) above: “Other inhumane acts”.
- Breaching is the targeted, legislated, removal of the only means of subsistence, i.e. the dole, so that victims are unable to meet even the most basic costs of living.
- No matter what justifications politicians, bureaucrats and members of the public may use to justify breaching penalties, they are, like apartheid, a crime against Humanity and when breached welfare recipients fail to survive this penalties, under Article 7 (1) (a), these fatalities are murders.
Article 7 (2) (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
Article 7 (2) (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions
THE MINDSET OF MURDER: Breaching takes the legal concept of murder to new heights of murderous intention. in murder cases, courts look at “the mindset of murder and consider 2 legal concepts, i.e. Reckless Disregard and Willful Intention. Both principles are in play when it comes to both breaching and disregarding the potentially lethal consequences of fraudulent, unconstitutional letters of demand.
Anyone who knows Stacie Mitchell should ask how she felt when she first read Centrelink’s demand for the repayment of almost $800. Was she traumatized? Yes, she was.
- So what happens when the recipient is a person with severe depression who may be contemplating suicide?
- What happens when a person with acute hypertension or heart disease re4ceives such a letter?
- The risk of fatal; stroke or heart attack is very high and so a valid question to now consider is just how many of the 73,000 people who received that fraudulent notification from Centrelink are now prematurely deceased.
- It is not a case of “No harm, no foul”.
- What Centrelink did to 73,000 on January 1st 2016 may have been a very serious, deliberate violation of statute 142 of Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), a federal law that deals with the criminal misuse and abuse of power by federal public servants. This law states:
‘Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
“A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if (b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or: (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years
- Even though they may have perceived their personal motives as ‘valid’, or even ‘noble’, any Australian Public Servants and/or Crown Law lawyers, and also any other persons who may have been involved in a fraudulent attempt to recover ‘Commonwealth error’ over-payments that should have been waived under s1,237 A of the Social Services Act, are persons involved in the commission of a crime.
- The question for 73,000 people to therefore give very serious consideration to is the question as to whether or not the bureaucrats who run Centrelink deliberately tried to defraud them.
- If it was a scam, then any fatalities triggered by this activity are homicides under state and territory laws, e.g s 279 (4) of the WA Crimes Act, s 302 (4) of the Queensland crimes act, and s 18 (1) of the New South Wales Crimes act.
- PLEASE NOTE: There is no Statute of Limitations in fraud cases that involve a homicide.
Readers of my Ronald’s space postings may want to dismiss what I write about as nut-case conspiracy theory hype. However, every document included in my postings is genuine, as are the case law and statute law references. I am quite sure that if people like Stacie Mitchell read these postings, they will understand from 1st hand experience that what I write about is very real and very traumatic.
The Linacre Letter is a letter of national significance for it provides insight into the mindset of senior public services who have the power to rape the civil rights of unsuspecting people. However, like the crime of sexual rape, having the power to rape people’s rights is not legal and those who engage such abuses of power need to held fully accountable for their actions and the consequences of their criminal misconduct.
As is clearly evident in the Federal Police document above, they will not touch these crimes with the proverbial “10 foot pole”. Regrettably, neither will the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman!
THE OMBUDSMAN – WELFARE RECIPIENTS NEED NOT APPLY.
The court decisions and statute laws, and many of the statements made in this series of “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity postings were clearly expressed in a detailed appeal to the Ombudsman’s Office. Readers should note that my submission, dated 12th November 2015, was received at the Adelaide office of the Ombudsman on 16th November 2016. The welfare recipient that I was assisting was immediately informed that because no new information had been received, the appeal was rejected.
What the officials at the Ombudsman’s Office did was to also ignore the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and runner-stamp a a legally invalid decision. Does the Ombudsman or his staff have the power to over-rule the constitution, statute laws, High Court and federal Courts and international conventions?
But that is exactly what happened.
Read the newspapers or listen to TV news broadcasts and politicians constantly complain about the COST OF WELFARE. However, what they never do is talk about the core purpose of welfare, i.e. it is A SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE THAT ENABLES PEOPLE TO SURVIVE.
In 2014 tony Abbott tried to rush exceedingly dangerous legislation through the parliament that would have placed at risk the lives of tens of thousands of young Australians. When a senate committee rejected the legislation on human rights grounds, tony Abbott reported responded with the statement, “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”.
If the report of Tony Abbott making that statement is true, then it would indicate that he apparently values money ahead of the lives of welfare recipients. If this is so, a report earlier this week that Tony Abbott still wants to become Prime Minister again should serve as a warning that ignoring the issues raised in the Ronald’s space postings could prove to be most unwise.
- As John Howard’s Employment Minister, in the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, Tony Abbott was responsible for unemployed people having their dole cut of 346,078 times.
- Each and every one of those breaches was a serious violation of civil rights. On 1st July 2009, Kevin Rudd introduced pre-breaching impact assessments and the number of breaches in FY 2009-10 dropped to 518.
- Tony Abbott responded to that massive reduction by accusing Kevin Rudd of being “soft” on dole bludgers.
- As I pointed out in my previous posting at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-rM Centrelink violates South Australia’s Blackmail laws in statute 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act with its ‘Do as we say or else’ threats to welfare recipients.
- Accusing people of being rorters also violates South Australia’s criminal defamation laws in statutes 257 and 270 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
- Does Australia really want a second dose of a politician who, apart from destroying out 100 year-old car manufacturing industry, may have violated the civil rights of a million or so welfare recipients and, thanks to both Centrelink and the Federal Police, may have successfully gotten away with being one of the primary factors in causing a substantial number of suicides that could be in the range of 2000, to 3,500.
- If breaching triggered fatalities are homicides, shouldn’t we have an impartial investigation into those fatalities BEFORE the next federal election which is due in September 2016?
In closing, I leave you to consider this article about the response of a Federal Court judge to an attempt by the Federal Government to deport an 11-year girl who faced genital mutilation if deported. Note that the judge emphasized the court’s right to make the final decision about decisions made by the Minister of Immigration.
“It would be deeply contemptuous of the systems of this country which has separations of powers”, said Justice Stuart Brown. That constitutional logic applies just as much to Acting Chief Legal Counsel, Alice Linacre and the Department of Human Services as it does to the Minister for Immigration and his legal counsel.
In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group stated:
“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
Whether it is breaching welfare recipients by turning off welfare payments, i.e. ‘breaching”, or sending out “Account payable” bills, Centrelink has never had the constitutional right to do so. However, like the bureaucrats in South Africa who enforced inhumane, human-rights violating apartheid laws with diligent or even enthusiastic zeal, Department of Human Services (Centrelink) bureaucrats do the same thing with the same degree of diligence and zeal. the fact that their actions make cause extreme hardship, suffering, and even death is not considered to be an issue as is the fact that what they are doing is unlawful.
You have been warned; take heed or, like the soon-to-be-unemployed-workers in Australia’s doomed car manufacturing industry, you may suffer the consequences of that failure to take action when action is required.
COMPENSATION – On June 29th 2015, Joe Hockey scored a $200,000 payout for a “Treasurer for sale” tweet. Victims of the New year’s day Waivergate scam have 3 options:
- Like Joe Hockey, they can sue for damages. This is best done as a class legal action. (Hockey v Fairfax [FCA 652] 2015) See http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4268652.htm for more details.
- You can file a criminal abuse of power complaint under s 142 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act against Centrelink with you state or territory police.
- I do do not recommend doing so with the Federal Police who, like their former counter-parts in South Africa, appear to believe that their job is protect politicians and bureaucrats who may have violated the civil rights of a targeted minority, i.e. welfare recipients.
- Again, this is best done as a class action involving a group of several people rather than on an individual basis.
- Write to Alice Linacre and demand an out-of-court compensation payment.
- In 2012, the Gillard government paid $50,000 to James Ashby for emotional stress allegedly caused by a sexual advance by the former speaker, Peter Slipper. ( Ashby v Commonwealth (No 4)  (1411) )
When it comes to compensation for having been the victim of Centrelink’s unconstitutional “Account payable” swindle, the bottom line is that if you do nothing, you will get nothing.
Ron Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for Justice in Australia.