Part 18: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: Gerard Baden-Clay, Yvette D`Arth and Centrelink’s New Year’s Day violation of the civil rights of 73,000 people.

On New Year’s day, Centrelink violated the civil rights of 73,000 people and almost scored tens of millions of dollars as a result. However, as I pointed out in my last posting, Ms. Tracie Mitchell, a courageous young woman in Cowra, New South Wales, clobbered that when she spat the dummy on this abuse of power and blew the whistle to the 7 Network.

I’m taking that a step further by pointing out to the Queensland Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, that the endless violation of the rights of welfare recipients has reached the point where there is going to be blow-back, sooner rather than later, if she pushes ahead with a High Court challenge to the down-grading of Gerard Baden-Clay’s conviction from Murder to Manslaughter.

[ Note: The URL for this posting is   ]

My communication, some 12,500 words in length, is posted below. .

To: Ms Yvette  D`Arth

The Queensland Attorney-General and Justice minister

Dear Minister D`Arth

Re: Baden-Clay and Breaching, the classified “Coward’s Punch” serial killer.

The writer Aldous Huxley is credited with the cliché, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”  This truism has the potential to alter the future of our nation in 2016. Whether or not you choose to accept my views on the facts that I place before you in this 12,000 word summary is irrelevant; what matters is what Gerard Baden-Clay may decide to do if he looks at the empirical evidence and accepts it for what it is, i.e. the truth.

The federal welfare penalty system known as Breaching is a serial killing ‘Coward’s  Punch’ that over a period of decades may have claimed the lives of between 15,000 – 60,000 very vulnerable people. View Breaching from its actual impact and it quickly becomes apparent  that it qualifies as a Crime against Humanity that violates Article 7 of the Rome Statute with the fatalities being murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of this international statute. Parallel to this is the DHS ‘Waivergate’ fraud, i.e.  Centrelink auto-determination of legal liability for over-payments to welfare recipients by sending out “Account payable” bills without the primary facts in each of these claims first being determined by a court. On January 1st 2016, the DHS violated the civil rights of 73,000 people in what may have been a failed ‘Waivergate’ rip-off. When these activities result in fatalities, as happened with the HIP fatalities, they are unreported by the DHS and agencies with investigative powers have either refused to investigate the DHS triggered homicides or have fudged investigations.


From my perspective, you appear to have a classic ‘FUBAR’ situation developing with the proposed Baden-Clay appeal to the High Court as it provides an opportunity for him to put an Apprehended Bias argument before the High Court that, just like the 2013 Keating Decision, (HCA 20) could invalidate fraud and murder convictions dating back decades.

[In case you are unfamiliar with the ‘FUBAR’ acronym, it is a rather crude colloquial term used by military personnel that is usually expressed in cruder terms to describe equipment or a situation which is “Fouled Up Beyond Any Recovery”. In Australia, think ‘a stuff-up’ instead of ‘FUBAR.] I believe that ‘FUBAR’ is a very apt description of the legal and political issues implicit in the Baden-Clay High Court appeal because of events that have occurred recently that could result in Gerard Baden-Clay’s conviction being over-turned if he decides to pursue an Apprehended Bias or a Manifest Ostensible Bias rebuttal in the High Court.

Background issues may include:

Problem #1 – Recent admissions at the Hobart sitting of the Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of children in institutional care.

Whilst in the witness box, on 3rd February 2016, a former Anglican Arch-Bishop of Brisbane, and also a former Governor-General, Dr. Peter Hollingworth acknowledged that he had failed to take action to adequately deal with the sexual abuse of a child by a priest and apologized for his failure to do so. Just hours later, just before testifying, a former Anglican Arch Bishop of Adelaide, Ian George, reportedly admitted that he had failed to take action after a ‘whistle-blower’ priest reported paedophile activity by another priest‘. A report on page 1 of Adelaide’s only newspaper, The Advertiser, stated that Ian George had apologized to victims for a “Failure to act as I should have.” If these former Arch Bishops are not prosecuted for their apparent failure to uphold the law, i.e. they appear to have been obstructing justice by remaining silent about what they knew of child molestation incidents within the Anglican Church, then this opens the legal ‘door’ to any person convicted of virtually any crime to mount an Apprehended Bias appeal on the basis of manifestly biased and therefore unfair, treatment before the law.

As you are fully aware, paragraph 5 of the constitution specifically states that the laws of the Commonwealth “shall be binding upon the Courts, Judges and the people”.  To exempt either Ian George or Peter Hollingworth from any criminal prosecution because they had once held high in the Anglican Church and, in the case of Peter Hollingworth, high public office as the Governor-General of Australia, would be Broad Ultra Vires injustice that could undermine both the legally and the morality of criminal prosecutions, e.g. the conviction of Gerard Baden-Clay for the alleged killing of his spouse, Allison Baden-Clay.

Problem #2- The 73,000 civil rights violating ‘Waivergate’ Account payable notifications issued by the Department of Human Services on New Year’s Day.

Details of the failed attempt by the Department of Human Services, hereafter the DHS, to electronically bill 73,000 welfare recipients for alleged overpayments can be downloaded from numerous web pages, e.g.

As a result of an investigation by the 7 Network investigation a representative of the DHS, Mr. Hank Jongen, claimed that “a computer glitch” had occurred. On the 7th January 2016, the 7 Network broadcast details of this New Year’s Day “glitch” which I believe may have been a deliberate act of mass fraud. Just before the 7 Network’s investigation was broadcast nationally, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel of the DHS, Alice Linacre, wrote a letter to me which was delivered to my letterbox just before mid-day on the 8th January 2016 in which she effectively rubber-stamped the civil rights violating defrauding of a welfare recipient that had been assisting.

The Linacre letter: The follow comments are intended to provide insight into why the “account payable” notification distributed to 73,000 make have been a criminal abuse of power. Please note that as I need to protect the identity of the welfare recipient that I was assisting with an AAT appeal. Since this email is a public document that will be forwarded to other people who may not be Officers of the Court, only a redacted copy of Ms. Linacre’s letter has been appended to this email. As the Linacre  letter indicates, 2 communications were received from me in mid-December 2015 which had been addressed to her predecessor, Vicky Parker.  Ms. Linacre must have been aware of the contents of this correspondence because she made an administrative determination of the issues raised in those documents. I drew specific attention to two High Court’s decisions, Hellicar and Bhardwaj which make it abundantly clear that DHS/Centrelink officials, e.g. Ms. Linacre, have no constitutional jurisdiction to make legal determinations as to who is liable for alleged overpayments because, constitutionally, it is for a court to first determine the primary facts of the matter and if there is no jurisdiction to make a decision, then there cannot be a decision.

Ms. Linacre’s problem is that the DHS has been exceeding it legal jurisdiction in tort matters for decades, an unconstitutional practice that has netted successive government’s  tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in “scorecard” savings from arbitrary breaching decisions and automatic assumptions of fault by welfare recipients when they receive overpayments. It is my contention that the Linacre Letter is empirical evidence that what happened on New Year’s Day 2016 may not have been a ‘glitch’ as was claimed by Hank Jongen but was in fact a deliberate abuse of power that by-passed the courts, i.e. it was mass fraud.

The High Court decisions were detailed in ‘The Emcott Report’, a 328-page document that was part of the correspondence provided to the DHS Chief Legal Counsel for consideration in regard to an outrageously spurious and fraudulent attempt by the DHS to recover a 5 figure amount from a welfare recipient that I had been assisting in a lay advocate capacity.

#1 – Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

At paragraph 141 in the High Court’s Hellicar decision, the Court ruled:

 “…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.”

 The primary facts in many Centrelink/DHS/DSS tort actions is the content of the phone calls recorded when welfare recipients report earnings to Centrelink on the 13 32 76 hotline. The withholding of this evidence in a case I was involved in as a lay advocate meant that no determination by any authority, be it a Centrelink official, e.g. an Authorized Review Officer, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal or the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was legally valid. In point of fact, all such decisions made by these appeals panels that was/is made in the knowledge that the phone call evidence was/is being withheld by the DHS, involves one or more violations of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, legislation that deals with abuse of power and/or obstruction of justice. Such unlawful actions further invalidate the unconstitutional vested interest DHS judgements against welfare recipients.

 In paragraph 143 of the Hellicar case 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.”

 The last sentence is of crucial importance to the 3 – 4 million people who have been “breached” in the last 3 – 4 decades. It is also of equal significance for every person who has ever been the respondent in a tortious conduct claim by the DSS or Centrelink that involves “Account payable” billing in an attempt to recover alleged overpayments.

 The determination of the facts is, to quote both the High Court and a statement made by a former Minister, Senator Penny Wong,[1] “…a matter for the courts”.

  1. The legal implication of these High Court decisions is that in some 3 – 4 million determinations of alleged “Breach of Contract” by public servants that welfare recipients had “breached” contractual obligations were “no decision at all” because the DHS bureaucrats had no legal authority to make those decisions.
  2. This High Court decision also applies to every alleged overpayment tort action by Centrelink in which Centrelink staff, in violation of vested interest principles that financially benefited their employer, made determinations of liability that were not based upon ‘primary facts of the matter’ determined by a court.


The 2nd High Court decision that I pointed out to the Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS was the High Court’s 2002 Bhardwaj Decision:

Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597:

Paragraph 53 of the Australian High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision states,

 “In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. 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.”

 Note the statement “a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is to be properly to be as no decision at all.” The appended copy of Ms. Linacre’s letter is basically a ‘1-finger-salute’ to the High Court and the civil rights of Australia’s 7.3 million welfare recipients. Since no DHS employee has jurisdiction to determine legal liability because, constitutionally, this is a function of the courts, Ms. Linacre has assumed legal powers that she does not possess to validate a decision made by “the original decision-maker” who also did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to usurp the constitutional powers of the Courts. Such DHS procedural fairness violations are further compounded by issues of the law such as withholding or destroying the evidence that contains the primary matters of fact required to determine legal liability in the tort action.

The High Court decisions, which appears to have been deliberately ignored by Ms. Linacre, is contained in pages 53 and 54 of appended file, ’The Emcott Report.’ This report undermines decades of tortious actions against millions of welfare recipients was provided to the DHS Chief Legal Counsel on a DVD in 300 dpi PDF format. In order to meet the 10MB email attachment limit, a lower resolution PDF copy of this report is appended to this email. [Apart from the printer resolution, the appended file is identical to that provided to the DHS Chief Legal Counsel in December 2015. ]

Volume 2 of the Emcott Report is titled Fair game, dead meat”. This document is subtitled, “The abysmal failure of Justice Duncan Kerr to keep the AAT from becoming a Kangaroo Court”, for it is a report that highlights a statement by Justice Kerr in a speech to the NSW branch of the Australian institution of Administrative Lawyers on 23rd August 2013 in which he emphasized that the AAT had no constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a trial. One of the problems with this speech is that it was necessary in 2013 because the AAT has been conducting trials; a year later I found myself in the situation where, as a lay advocate for welfare justice, I was assisting a welfare recipient in what I believe is best describe as “a Kangaroo Court.”  [Further details re this case will be provided in confidential emails.]

 Hellicar and Bhardwaj underscore the fact that commonwealth torts against welfare recipients require courts to determine the primary facts in any tortious conduct, not bureaucrats in regulatory authorities who have no constitutional authority to make findings as to the primary issues involved in these tort actions. As you would be fully aware, DHS bureaucrats have a vested-interest in the outcome of the tort, which is a conflict of interest that constitutes a significant procedural fairness violation under Common Law principles. .

Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; (1994) at paragraph 8:

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

The Coco decision in 1995 further emphasizes the constitutional reality of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decision that there is no “statutory authority” for  (DHS) bureaucrats to engage in tortious conduct to determine the primary facts of a tort..  As the (acting) Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Linacre  would have been fully aware that the AAT Member conducting the AAT hearing had violated the constitutional rights of the applicant by conducting a trial that violated the constitution, statute laws, procedural fairness principles and international treaty obligations but Ms. Linacre also appears to have arbitrarily ignored those facts and the following matters of fact in her 7th 2016 January letter.

My request that the human rights of the welfare recipient that I was assisting be respected which were violated because the Crown Law lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, hereafter the DSS, requested that these rights be left for “other courts to decide.”

  1. Since these human rights are contained in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act (1986), the Secretary of the DSS had no legal right or authority to make this request. This in turn meant that his lawyer also had no right to make this request but did so.
  • Since these human rights are contained in an Act of Parliament, the presiding AAT Member had no legal right or jurisdiction to allow this request but, as the trial transcript reveals, this request was challenged by the tribunal at that time.
  1. In making the request that the applicant’s human rights be respected I was in point of fact requesting a fair hearing as is required under Article 14 (1) of the international Convention on Civil and Political rights, which as you are no doubt fully aware, is an international obligation that requires that individuals receive a fair trial or hearing.
  2. On page 43 of ‘The Emcott Report’ is a redacted copy of an email sent to me by the Crown Law lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS. I had requested a copy of the audio recording made by Centrelink of the conversation at the centre of the dispute as to who was legally liable for alleged overpayment as this was the only empirical evidence as to who said what.
  3. The failure of Centrelink to provide this recording was both an abuse of power under s 142 of the commonwealth Criminal Code Act and an obstruction of justice under s 149 of that legislation, i.e. it appears to be  blatant, brazen  evidence tampering.
  • The presiding AAT Member disregarded these violations of statute laws, natural justice principles, case law decisions, human rights obligations, and the constitution, and one week later issued findings that rejected the welfare recipient’s appeal.
  • On page 6 of The Advertiser’s February 4th 2016 is an article by a news ltd reporter, Nigel Hunt, which is titled “Air of arrogance thing of the past”. In this article about Adelaide’s former Anglican archbishop, Ian George, Nigel hunt wrote “Rather than be true to his teachings and faith and help the dozens of young victims of paedophile Robert Brandenburg, he instead chose to listen to church lawyers and insurers and remained mute, almost in denial at what he was being told by those intent on exposing the evil within.”

I believe that these comments are equally valid in describing official responses to complaints about the “Dickensian Bleak House” injustices to which several millions of welfare recipients have been exposed over the last 3 or 4 decades.  Literally millions of tortious conduct decisions involving either alleged breach of contract or disputes over alleged over-payments welfare recipients, DHS bureaucrats have, in the majority of cases, assumed that the responsibility for any error lay with the welfare recipient.

It is apparently not Standard Operating Procedure in this process to respect the civil rights of welfare recipients by seeking a court determination of the primary facts of the matter so that an administrator can then make the correct decision as to who is legally liable for an alleged breach of contract or any overpayment error.

  1. Please note that in November 2015, The Advertiser ignored Due Process of Law, i.e. the right to a fair hearing when accused of a criminal or civil wrong, by printed a defamatory and unlawful article that falsely accused 1.1 million welfare recipients of having rorted a reported $5 Billion in welfare payments. The truth of the matter may well be that Centrelink is the nation’s worst serial rorter of welfare funds.

The text below comes from a Community Affairs Legislation Committee (CALC) hearing held on the 26th February 2015. (See pages 25 -29.) The use of teams of lawyers in appeals lodged by impoverished DHS clients appears to be standard operating procedure:

 Senator Xenophon: Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?

 Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount. The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives.

 Senator Xenophon: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider. [‘erroneously’ or deliberately withheld?]

 Senator Xenophon: …This is a very important issue. If it is accepted that there are important legal issues at stake here, and that is uncontroverted, given that some of these other matters seem to flow from the original matter, which is the important legal principle—I think if you look at it they all flow from each other—can the department, can you as minister, at least consider or give an undertaking that you will not be seeking costs against the father, potentially bankrupting him

 When Senator Xenophon asked Ms. Campbell how much the average cost of litigation was and she replied that is was $25,000. Run the numbers; 1,100,000 cases before a court at an average of $25,000 and the cost blow-out to recover the alleged $5 Billion in overpayments is staggering: 1,100,000 x $25,000 = $27.500,000,000 ($27.5 Billion) A barrister for more than 30years, during this exchange with Kathryn Campbell and Senator Payne, Senator Xenophon expressed his professional concern that information, i.e. evidence, was being withheld in Ms. Campbell’s so-called “model case” and this is a clear parallel with the AAT case that I was involved in. On January 1st 2016, the withholding from 73,000 people of the creditable, relevant and significant fact that the DHS has no constitutional right to issue “Account payable” demands until such time as a court has determined the “primary facts of the matter” in each of those 73,000 tort claims indicated that withholding evidence is standard operating procedure when seeking to recover alleged overpayments.

With court cases potentially costing $ 1,825,000,000 for the recovery of approximately $50,000,000, there was a massive vested-interest benefit to be had with the DHS, and the Federal Government, deliberately ignoring civil rights obligations and procedural fairness rights  and bypassing the crucial process of seeking court determinations as to the primary facts of the matter. However, these arbitrary vested-interest decisions, violate abuse of power laws and also display a criminally reckless regard for the easily foreseen, potentially consequences of this unlawful activity.

The Administrative Review Officer (ARO) appeals process, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) process, and the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) appeals process also unconstitutionally ignore the crucial constitutional fact that no DHS or Centrelink employee has the right to arbitrarily determine the primary facts of the matter that are the key prerequisite for determining who was/is responsible for overpayments and to what extent the waiver of debt and good faith error provisions in s 1,237 (A) of the federal Social Security Act (1991) may apply in regard to these facts. Over the last 30 or 40 years, the Federal Parliament, has violated the civil rights of millions of vulnerable people and has also actively concealed the sometimes-lethal consequences.

QUOTE: The up-side for successive governments has been the cumulative accrual of tens of billions of dollars in what in Centrelink’s FY 20001-02 annual report to the Parliament were describes as “scorecard savings.”  However, the cumulative downside to these so-called “savings” has been a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions with an unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll that ABS statistical indicates may possibly be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 fatalities since the introduction of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties legislation and the civil rights violating torts actions became standard operating procedure several decades ago. UNQUOTE

Problem #3: Assistant Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” letter.

Neil Skill 300dpi copyIn a letter dated 18th May 2010,  DHS Assistant Secretary, Neil Skill, wrote that he could not tell me how many people had died after being breached because, incredibly, Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes, i.e. the deaths that occurred after the DHS had deprived vulnerable, impoverished people of what may have been their only means of subsistence. A copy of this letter is on page 109 of volume 1 of The Emcott Report. Neil Skill wrote this letter just 103 days after the 4th Home improvement Program fatality and the report of the senate’s ECA Committee was still ‘hot-off-the-press’.  Even now, the DHS has still not made public the tortious conduct death toll and my legitimate ‘discovery’ request on behalf of a welfare recipient was rejected by both the Crown Law lawyer representing the DSS and by the AAT Member presiding at an AAT appeal hearing.

It is my contention that homicide case law appeals decisions such as Faure, Boughey and Kenny highlight the fact that wilfully engaging in activities that endanger life and the subsequent classifying of foreseeable fatalities as “irrelevant” by the Federal Parliament, (and by a Crown Law lawyer representing the DSS), are matters of fact that Gerard Baden-Clay, and indeed any other person accused or convicted of homicide, may wish to give careful and thorough consideration too in relation to an apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias argument before the High Court.

Problem #4 – The circumstances leading to the death of “Sharon”.

 In mid-December 2015, the Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, whether it was Ms. Vicky Parker or Ms. Alice Linacre, should have known  about both the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” post breaching death toll. and the circumstances leading to the possibly unlawful death of a Queensland woman, ‘Sharon’. Details of ‘Sharon’s death are contained in case study #1 in Volume 1 of The Emcott Report. (Pages 17 -20.)  As stated on page 19 of that report, the death of ‘Sharon’ may be a violation of s 295, s 296, or s 302 (4) of the Queensland Crimes Act. Since “Sharon’s real identity was disclosed to the QLD DPP in December 2015, you need to investigate this death as the DPP may be  questioned about it in the High Court, or worse, by her family members.

It is my contention that, based upon the constitution, Hellicar and Bhardwaj, Ms. Linacre had no legal jurisdiction to make any determine in regard to Centrelink’s unconstitutional attempt to recover an alleged overpayment of $18,000 from ‘Sharon’ in a manner which may have  also violated one or more of Queensland’s homicide, fraud, and abuse of power laws. This same logic also applies to the New Year’s Day attempt by the DHS to recover tens of millions of dollars in alleged FTB overpayments:

The Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, whoever that may have been in mid-December 2015, should reasonably have known that the DHS did not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily determine who was responsible for any alleged FTB overpayments and then, using a pre-programmed computer, issue either electronic or printed account payable letters of demand. Regardless of who was responsible for the FTB overpayments, the determination of the primary facts of the matter in each of these 73,000 cases was a matter for the courts, not DHS/Centrelink employees who had no jurisdiction to make legal decisions beneficial to their employer.

  1. Consequently, on the 1st January 2016, the DHS computer system should not have contained any programming code that would enable this computer system to issue electronic ‘letters of demand’ for alleged overpayments until such time as a court had determined the “primary facts of the matter.”
  2. Logically, since respondent welfare recipients have the right to be heard in these hearings, the opportunity to seek a ruling on the court’s findings of fact could be requested by respondents during these hearings.
  3. The DHS’s  ‘ISIS’ computer system is known to be plagued with so many technical problems that Senator Payne described it as a computer system that lacked the required “integrity” to perform its assigned functions to the extent that a billion dollar replacement is urgently required.
  4. Senator Payne’s facetious description of the ISIS system as “a turbo-charged Commodore 64 with spoilers” was, from a technical perspective, very accurate. In terms of FUNCTION, it is very similar to the sequential operating mode the Commodore 64 database software such as ‘Mini Office’. ISIS is just more powerful and much faster. However, the operational limitations inherent in the IBM 204 system when purchased in the early 1980s, meant that was, and still is, is inadequate for it function and purpose; should not been purchased in the first place.
  5. It is therefore possible that a small number of electronic account payable letters of demand to individuals could be caused by a “glitch”. However, the issuing of 73,000 such demands on the New Year’s Day public holiday is indicative of a deliberative, pre-programmed attempt to hit these people with a fraudulent claim during the holiday break when Centrelink would be closed for several days.

If Ms. Linacre’s decision concerning my correspondence was an abuse of power under s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal code Act, i.e.  a deliberate abuse of power by circumventing a court determination of the primary facts of the matter in dispute, then the mid-December decision to reject the legal and constitutional merits of the issues that I had raised may well have been one of the crucial precursor decision to the New Year’s Day attempt to compel 73,000 people to repay Centrelink small amounts of money that cumulatively may be in the region of $50 million. If this is the case, then the reported “glitch” was in fact a massive computer assisted attempt to defraud 73,000 people who were apparently unaware of their civil rights when confronted with Centrelink’s fraudulent account payable demands.

The Commonwealth Criminal Code (1995) and state and territory crimes acts all prescribe serious penalties for persons who abuse their power for the purpose of obtaining a benefit that is not-entitled-to-be-received. The Queensland Crimes Act (1899) prescribes serious penalties where such criminal misconduct results in a fatality, e.g. s 302 (4). A key question of law to therefore consider is the human impact of the Hank Jongen’s computer “glitch”, especially the question as to whether or not fatalities occurred and if so, how many?

Problem #5 – THE BRIGINSHAW PRINCIPLE: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938]

In the previously mentioned Internet posting of Channel 7’s news-report on the New Year’s Day “Account payable” notification, Tracie Mitchell reportedly stated that she was “angry, really angry” and that her partner was “disgusted.”

The Briginshaw Principle is based upon a court decision in 1938 which looked at the human impact of a decision and determined that the severity of the impact of the decision must be considered in tort actions. This decision poses a serious question that you must consider, i.e. the foreseeable dangers to at-risk people with acute hypertension and/or serious mental health problems, especially Depression, when breached or subjected to a fraudulent claim by the DHS/Centrelink. With 1 in 5 people known to suffer from a mental health problem at some time in their lives and with 1 in 3 people suffering from obesity and related hypertension problems, these are potentially lethal risk factors that cannot be ignored, especially since the highest incidences of these problems are known to be highest amongst Centrelink clients, i.e. people living below the poverty line.

Over the last 25 – 30 years, heart attacks have been the most common ‘natural cause’ of premature deaths whilst suicides have been the most common cause of violent deaths with the highest incident being amongst unemployed and/or impoverished people who lack survival skills and emotional support:

How many people who received the New Year’s Day “Waivergate” demand to repay alleged overpayments were traumatized and suffered a serious or fatal heart attack?

  1. How many potentially suicidal people received one of these Centrelink ‘Account payable’ notifications and responded to this traumatic abuse of power by attempting to either commit suicide or by actually committed suicide?
  • If fatalities did occur, how many of them occurred in Queensland?

Beyond the Briginshaw principle: Deliberately placing life in peril and ignoring the death toll caused by deliberate violations of constitutional and human rights.

 Problem #6 – R V Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999):

“It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.”

In paragraph 28 and 29 of this judgement, Justice Brooking made a lengthy reference to reports of a 19th century English Royal Commission that reviewed criminal laws. A key statement quoted by Justice Brooking was the comment, “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.”  Both breaching penalties and fraudulent torts can traumatize, stupefy and emotional overwhelm vulnerable, at-risk people and result in fatalities and where this occurs, these deaths are homicides that need to be investigated by law enforcement authorities and/or coroners courts. In Queensland, s 302 (4) is a statute that reflects the fact that recklessly or deliberately placing life in peril is a crime.

Case study #6 (1) which is on page 40 of The Emcott Report contains a redacted copy of a blatantly fraudulent attempt by the DHS to mislead and defraud a Queensland welfare recipient who had erroneously been overpaid almost $8,000. When this person asked me if the waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error details that I placed on my Ronald’s space web site were true, I assured this person that they were. What followed was a 2-year effort by this welfare recipient to have the DHS/Centrelink claim overturned. This only occurred after the Centrelink “Account payable” letter was presented to a government minister by the Queensland resident’s federal MP. Although the welfare recipient was eventual repaid the money that had been arbitrarily ‘deducted’ by Centrelink from the welfare recipients, welfare payments, this was not a triumph of justice for it was a political decision made by a government minister, not a court.

Problem #9– Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity are not “irrelevant”


As stated in the preamble, Breaching is a (decades long) serial Crime against Humanity with deaths caused by legislated breaching activity being murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute.

Contrary to the expressed beliefs of the Senate’s EWRE Committee in January and March 2006, these deaths are not “irrelevant” for, in addition to being murders under Article 7 of the Rome statute, they are also major crimes under Australian states and territories laws.

Nigel Hunt’s comment about Ian George that “…he instead chose to listen to church lawyers and insurers and remained mute, almost in denial at what he was being told by those intent on exposing the evil within” is equally valid when describing responses by federal politicians, bureaucrats and law enforcement officials when challenged about the lethal impact of breaching. For example, at 10:30 AM on the 31st August 2013, I had a chance encounter with Senator Xenophon and queried him as to his response to the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction” decision in the Keating case (HCA 20) asked why he had not responded to my concerns about the secret classification of the breaching penalties death toll.  Senator Xenophon stated that he was unaware of either the High Court’s Keating Decision or of my concerns about the death toll caused by breaching because, QUOTE My staff never told me UNQUOTE. Senator Xenophon then asked me to contact his electorate office manager, Skye, AFTER THE ELECTION.

These responses caused me to believe that Senator Xenophon was more concerned with getting re-elected than with either the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision or the death toll caused by breaching . They appeared to be of little or no concern to him for he did not seek clarification at that time When I wrote to his office manager, Skye, as instructed, I was not given an appointment. To the best of my knowledge,  the Hansard minutes of the CALC hearings since that date contain no mention of Senator Xenophon querying DHS officials or the DHS Minister in regard to my concerns about the classified post breaching fatalities.

To be fair to Senator Xenophon, I have been raising the issue of breaching triggered fatalities with federal political leaders and federal government agencies since 2003. This includes 3 senate Committees, EWRE, Leg-Con and the ECA, all 226 members of the 42nd parliament in March 2010, and all SA Senators and MPs in 2012. The official attitude of the Federal Police is that because of the “gravity/sensitive” of the issue, the AFP does not and apparently will not, investigate these fatalities. Other agencies, e.g. the ACMA, have relied upon the unconstitutional AFP decision to justify ignoring these crimes against humanity.

(The Australian Communications & Media Authority, hereafter the ACMA was based upon a refusal to investigate the facts underpinning ACMA Report 2780 because a member of the government, Tanya Slibersek, was involved as was Hank Jongen, the DHS media unit manager.)

As Australian citizens, you and I have an obligation to comply with the constitution, a viewpoint quite evidently not shared by the Australian Communications & Media Authority, hereafter the ACMA. On 1st November 2011, the ACMA refused to investigate the role played by Hank Jongen and Tanya Slibersek during current affairs broadcasts in withholding details of the waiver of debt statutory provisions when seeking to recover $3 Billion in alleged overpayments from welfare recipients. The official position of the ACMA was that “The ACMA does not investigate politicians…” an unconstitutional viewpoint that perfectly matches that of the Federal Police when asked to investigate possible rorting by politicians.

“Legality, rights and statutory interpretation” was the title of a speech made by Justice Steven Rares to the Annual AGL Conference on June 20th 2013.   As part of his summation of the points of law presented in this speech Justice Rares stated:

Of course, Courts must determine the legal validity of any legislative or executive conduct in light of any relevant provision in a Bill of Rights. Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid. When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate, or the limits of judicial power. That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law.”

.Whilst the death of Alison Baden-Clay is an issue for the Queensland justice system, the refusal of the Federal Police and other federal agencies to investigate the crimes against humanity perpetrated against welfare recipients and the death toll caused by that criminal activity, opens the door to the possibility of Gerard Baden-Clay challenging the fairness of his prosecution and conviction. Whatever else they may be, the deaths of breached or defrauded welfare recipients are not “irrelevant”, a legal reality that you must recognize and may have to contend with in the High Court.

As a politician, a legal issue that you must consider is Justice Rares statement “Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.

Until I read that statement it was my sincere belief that only the High court could bring an end to Australia’s latest political motivated, bigotry driven holocaust. The social justice coordinator for Playford Baptist Church in South Australia, at almost the same time I had delivered a sermon based upon the 37th parable told by Jesus which was a story about a woman who nagged a corrupt judge until he caved in and gave her the justice that she was fighting for. I used the High Court’s Keating decision to highlight the fact that the 226 politicians in the federal parliament had no qualms about abusing the rights of our nation’s welfare recipients if and when it is politically expedient to do so.

The example used in my homily to the congregation was the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction’ finding in the Keating decision. Article 9 (5) of the international Convention on Civil & Political rights states Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. The retrospective legislation put through the Federal Parliament on August 4th 2011 was intended to avoid this human rights obligation because, incredibly, 15,000 people had been prosecuted and convicted for a non-existent crime and the politicians responsible for the legislative blunder that caused that gross injustice did not want to own up to their incompetence and negligence; hence the retro’ legislation to validate these convictions.

For me, perhaps the most important part of Justice Rares comment is the fact that when a case involves federal jurisdiction, even a local court magistrate can declare a federal law to be unconstitutional. I shall do all that is legally within my power to assist Gerard Baden-Clay to defend himself in the High Court if he wishes to mount an apprehended bias argument.

However, the pragmatic reality is that any of Centrelink’s ’ prosecutions of welfare recipients for alleged rorting could result in a legal and constitutional crisis if a welfare recipient mounts an apprehended bias defence in a local court and presents as evidence both  Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter and Ms. Linacre’s letter and demands to know why the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is “irrelevant” and why, when politicians rort the federal Parliamentary Entitlements fund, the AFP puts “government protocols” ahead of the constitution, statute laws and procedural fairness principles.

As Justice Rares mentioned, “When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate, or the limits of judicial power. That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law.”

With the Queensland DPP appealing the Baden-Clay decision in the High Court, I am of the opinion that both national interest and Justice can best be served if Gerard Baden-Clay has access to all credible, relevant and significant facts, especially those facts that were not in evidence during both his trial and during his recent appeal because they are undisclosed and the subject of secret, confidential senate suppression orders.  I therefore request details of Gerard Baden-Clay’s mailing address so that I may provide him with both a copy of this communication and certified copies of documents which I consider may be of some legal benefit to him in the High Court. In addition, contact details for at least one of the lawyers who represents Mr. Baden-Clay are also requested as I wish to inform at least one member of his legal team about the information that I have already made available to the Queensland DPP and to also provide a certified copy of Ms. Linacre’s letter and other documents which may be of benefit to Mr. Baden-Clay.

I further request that the information that I have provided to the Queensland DPP be made available to a legal representative of Mr. Baden-Clay. Withholding of this information would be an unwise move as the following provisions in the Queensland Crimes Act indicate:

132 Conspiring to defeat justice

(1) Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(2) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.

(3) A prosecution for an offence defined in this section shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General.

[MY COMMENT: 132 (3) above could create an interesting legal and political crisis in Queensland if the Attorney-General, i.e. you, is the person violating this particular law.]

133 Compounding an indictable offence

(1) Any person who asks for, receives, or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself, herself or any other person, upon any agreement or understanding that the person will compound or conceal an indictable offence, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay, a prosecution for an indictable offence,

or will withhold any evidence thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence.

(2) If the indictable offence is such that a person convicted of it is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(3) In any other case the offender is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

(4) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.

 Teneralworked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

Whilst the protection of your political party peers in the federal arena may be a consideration, the risk of being caught out “doing a Brough” is extremely high and the legal fallout could be significant as s 133 (1) and s 133 (3) above clearly indicate.

Problem #10 – Blackmail and intimidation is Standard Operating procedure for the DHS.

 Blackmail and intimidation that violates criminal laws appears to have been Standard Operating Procedure for Centrelink since its inception in 1997.

At 9:17 AM (CST) on 16th December 2015 I was notified via an SMS that Centrelink had posted a letter to me on the MyGov website. The next day I downloaded the letter and discovered that it was a “Request for information that contained the following statement:


11-12-15 Redacted request for info

A Centrelink form letter that violates South Australia’s criminal laws.

“If you do not contact us by 15 January 2016 your payment(s) may be stopped.”

Whilst you may initially see nothing wrong with that statement, it is an intimidating threat that is inconsistent with Article 1 (2) of the ICCPR, the right to social security benefits under paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the constitution, both the Briginshaw and Hellicar principles and statute laws such as South Australia’s Blackmail laws.

6B—Blackmail 171—Interpretation

(1)    In this Part—

demand includes an implied demand;

harm means—

(a)    physical or mental harm (including humiliation or serious embarrassment); or

(b)    harm to a person’s property (including economic harm); [Emphasis added]

menace—a person who makes a threat menaces the person to whom the threat is addressed (the victim) if—

(a)    the threat is a threat of harm to the victim or a third person (to be inflicted by the person making the threat or someone else); and

(b)    the threat is unwarranted; and

(c)     either—

(i)     the threat would be taken seriously by a reasonable person of normal stability and courage; or

(ii)     the victim in fact takes the threat seriously because of a particular vulnerability known to the person making the threat;

serious offence means an offence punishable by imprisonment;

threat includes an implied threat but, unless the threat is a threat of violence, does not include a threat made in the course of, or incidentally to—

(a)    collective bargaining; or

(b)    negotiations to secure a political or industrial advantage;

unwarranted—a threat is unwarranted if—

(a)    the carrying out of the threat would (if it were carried out in the State) constitute a serious offence; or

(b)    the making of the threat is, in the circumstances in which it is made—

(i)     improper according to the standards of ordinary people; and

(ii)     known by the person making the threat to be improper according to the standards of ordinary people.

(2)    The question whether a defendant’s conduct was improper according to the standards of ordinary people is a question of fact to be decided according to the jury’s own knowledge and experience and not on the basis of evidence of those standards.


(1)    A person who menaces another intending to get the other to submit to a demand is guilty of blackmail.

Maximum penalty:

(a)    for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

(b)    for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 20 years.

(2)    The object of the demand is irrelevant.


1           The person who makes the demand may be demanding marriage or access to children.

2           The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty. [Emphasis added]

Note the 2nd example above, i.e. “The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.”

Blackmail is a serious crime that carries a mandatory 15-year sentence. Given that deliberately depriving a person, or a targeted group of people of what may be their only assured means of subsistence is a violation of 1.2 of the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights and that any such deaths caused by the violation of these rights under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice, is a murder, the threat that I received was a very serious crime. Where this threat is carried-out by the DHS and triggers a fatality in South Australia, regardless of the actual cause of death, it is a felony murder, a crime that carries a penalty of 25 years in jail.

 In Queensland, deaths triggers by the implementation of this DHS threat may fall under provisions contained in s 295 and s297 of the QLD Crimes Act:

295 Causing death by threats

A person who, by threats or intimidation of any kind, or by deceit, causes another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person, is deemed to have killed the other person.

297 When injury or death might be prevented by proper precaution

When a person causes a bodily injury to another from which death results, it is immaterial that the injury might have been avoided by proper precaution on the part of the person injured, or that the injured person’s death from that injury might have been prevented by proper care or treatment.

Problem #11 – The 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report – Mental health.

To understand the easily foreseeable risk inherent or implicit in the DHS blackmail threat, I recommend that you read the 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report – Mental health This report stated that since 1990 more people had died from suicide than all other forms of violent death, e.g. road accidents, industrial and domestic accidents, et cetera.  Box 2.2 in chapter 2 of this report concisely summarize the danger posed by depriving impoverished people suffering from Depression of support. To blithely ignore the civil rights of exceptionally vulnerable people with mental health problems by threatening to withhold welfare payments is reprehensibly dangerous, criminal abuse of lawful authority. It is perhaps even worse than deliberately turning a blind-eye to the sexual abuse of children; especially when it is the reaction-trigger for a suicide.

As the Attorney-General for Queensland, it is your responsibility to bring an end to the practice of blackmailing and intimidating welfare recipients. It is also your responsibility to the people of Queensland to bring an end to the serial defrauding of welfare recipients and the serial homicides caused by this human rights violating activity. You need to hold responsible the federal politicians and bureaucrats who have ‘redlined’ the abuse of power to point that on 1st January 2016, a staggering 73,000 people had their civil rights violated in a ‘glitch’ that would have, very conveniently, netted the DHS tens of millions of dollars if Ms. Tracie Mitchell had not used the social media and the 7 Network to shut down this abuse of power.

I would remind of the comment in Note #2 in s 172 of the SA Blackmail laws which I believe invalid the ‘drunk on power’ excuse by public servants that “I was only doing my job.”  Such excuses are not a valid in South Australia and s 295 and s 297 in the Queensland Crimes Act would indicate that they are not valid in Queensland either.

ALMOST FUBAR: I cannot stress to strongly my personal belief that until you know how many deaths have been triggered by literally decades of Breaching and Waivergate violations of civil rights, unlawful and unconstitutional activity that involve millions of Australian residents, charging off to the High Court to appeal the recent Baden-Clay decision is a most unwise, fool-hardy activity.

Please note that copies of some of the information provided to the Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS were also recently provided to:

Rebecca Gristwood, a solicitor representing Mr. Cy Walsh who is on trial for the alleged murder of his father, Phil’ Walsh, the former coach of the Adelaide Crows,

  1. Williams Barristers & Solicitors, an Adelaide law firm representing Ms. Michelle Peake, who has been charged with Criminal Neglect that allegedly resulted in the death of her 82-year-old mother.

Problem #12 – “The medium is the message.”

My actions are in themselves a message, letters to politicians, my complaints to law enforcement agencies, church sermons, YouTube documentaries, 160  Ronald’s space internet journal entries, The Emcott Report and the documents in that report, my efforts to assist a welfare recipient with an AAT appeal, the appended files, the secret senate confidential classification and suppression orders, and even this email, all collectively constitute a message, i.e. if the Federal Parliament wishes to persecute welfare recipients and conceal the lethal consequences of that activity, then I will do all in that is legitimately possible to hold those responsible for such lethal misconduct full accountable in the courts.

If I am asked to do so, I am willing to assist welfare recipients, who may be accused by the Commonwealth DPP of rorting. Since I live just 3 kilometres from the local magistrates Court at Elizabeth City Centre, rendering such assistance to local residents who request it is likely to be a far easier task than rendering assistance via the Internet to Waivergate victims as far away as Queensland and bush towns in Western Australia. If I am asked to assist in another AAT appeal, you can reasonably expect the Presiding Member at the AAT hearing to be under intense pressure to uphold the constitution, federal and state laws, international human rights obligations, et cetera and to also use their powers under the AAT Act (1975) to compel the Secretary of the DSS to provide the details as to why the constitutional and human rights of welfare recipients have been ignored for decades. Needless to say, the Secretary of the DSS will be under intense pressure to also explain why deaths triggered by those violations of civil rights are both unreported by the DHS and to explain why both the Federal Parliament and one of his legal representatives at a previous AAT hearing have deemed these homicides to be “irrelevant”?

Problem #13 – The High Court and Political controversy

When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. That remark by Justice Rares highlights the danger to Australia’s political parties by challenging the downgrading of Mr. Baden-Clay’s conviction in the High Court.

The actions of  a former Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth, in failing to take appropriate action when he was senior ranking priest in the Anglican Church to deal with a paedophile incident raises the obvious question as to what other acts of omission have other Governor-General’s engaged in?  I am not trying to ruin the careers of the politicians, public servants and senior police officers who have either driven a humanitarian holocaust for several decades or have turned a blind eye to the abuses of power that have devastated the lives of so many vulnerable people.

If the High Court demands that the DHS reveal the scope of the death toll caused by the federal parliament’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous tortious conduct against impoverished welfare recipients through breaching and the fraudulent “Account payable” demands, then those responsible for either directly causing these fatalities or for concealing them will, like the Arch Bishops, have destroyed their own reputations. In September 2009, Quentin Bryce was made aware of Howard Government’s alleged illegal implementation of breaching quotas and the possibility that the resultant death toll may have been as high as 3,500. Governor-General Bryce failed to take action to have these allegations investigated and a few weeks later, the first of the Home Improvement Program fatalities occurred. One can only speculate as to how public servants, both in the Department of Environment and in the Queensland Public Service, would have responded if the Federal Police had been kick-started into undertaking an abuse of power/reckless endangerment investigation of the breaching fatalities. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that if Quentin Bryce had upheld the law instead of ‘government protocols’, the lives of 3 young men might have been saved in the subsequent HIP disaster.

Tony Abbott was most sedulous in ensuring that Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan, Peter Garrett and Mark Arbib were required to testify at the HIP Royal Commission. He was equally sedulous in having Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten testify at the Royal Commission investigation into alleged union corruption.  However, when it comes to lethal impact of breaching, ever since this was introduced decades ago, no Prime Minister, Federal Treasurer, any federal Minister for Employment, Human Services or Social Services, or the Parliamentary Secretaries for these portfolios, has ever acknowledged the human impact of this legislation, especially the fatalities.

In 2014 the Abbott Government to ‘put the pedal to the metal’ and ‘ramp up the volume’ on unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation with an attempt to deliberately deprive our nation’s young unemployed people of subsistence support for 6 months. Not only was that inhumane legislation utterly contemptible, it was also empirical evidence of a  culture of politically motivated sociopathic insensitivity to the plight of unemployed people. This sociopathic mindset was further highlighted by Joe Hockey’s oft repeated mantra that “The age of entitlement is over”.

Problem #14 –   Joe Hockey’s “The Age of Entitlements is Over” mindset.

On 17th April 2012, Joe Hockey gave a speech at the London Institute of Economic Affairs which was titled “The Age of Entitlements is Over.”  He made quite clear his sociopathic  belief that paying a subsistence payments was detrimental to democratic government.

The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.

Note the comment “entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of peoplewhich Joe Hockey claimed would “undermining our ability to ensure democracy .” Given that at that time, Australia’s federal politicians had access to an annual “Entitlements Fund” that at times cost taxpayers as much as $370 million per year, i.e. about $1.5 million per politician, these comments were blatantly hypocritical. These statements also also ignored the parliament’s constitutional and international treaty human rights obligations to provide a subsistence allowance to impoverished people who had no other means of subsistence.

Just like the politically opportunistic, bigotry driven, Stolen Generations laws that blighted our nation for a century with appallingly disastrous consequences, the deliberate harm that politicians and bureaucrats with a ‘money is more important than people’ mindset is difficult to comprehend. The Rudd government placed economic priorities ahead of public safety and the HIP program killed 4 young men and placed people living in hundreds of thousands of homes at risk. Breaching is all about deliberately inflicted harm upon vulnerable, impoverished welfare recipients through inhumane breaching laws, policies and practices is just as horrific and equally unbelievable as the HIP blunder and bishops protecting paedophile priests by doing nothing. When it comes to accountability for this wilful harm, especially the unreported, classified, “irrelevant” breaching fatalities, and the fatalities caused by Centrelink’s tsunami of unconstitutional, civil rights violating “Account payable” tort actions, the politicians, public servants and police officers who have made this humanitarian disaster possible have, by their actions, compromised their own reputations.

Implicit in the recent spate of senate inquiries and royal commissions is the fact that if Governor-Generals, Archbishops and Cardinals, Prime Ministers, federal Government Ministers and senior public servants, e.g. Godwin Grech, are not beyond reproach, then no-one in any position of high authority is beyond reproach.  What I cannot emphasize strongly enough that when it comes to the death toll caused by legislated welfare penalties, the process of accountability for these fatalities must occur in accordance with the Australian Constitution, i.e. they are is a matter for the Courts. However, at least 3 Federal Police commissioners, the Australian Crime Commission, the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, along with literally hundreds of federal politicians, have failed to uphold the constitution, statute laws and international human rights obligations, and therefore alternative routes to Justice must be found. If the only viable route is via people charged  and/or convicted of homicides, then that is a road that must be travelled.

Am I a ‘nutcase banging on an empty drum?

Am I a nutcase making much ado about nothing or am I an ordinary reasonable person who is addressing an extraordinary situation?

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.” 

 I believe that I do not “live in an ivory tower”; any reasonable person can appreciate and understand that deliberately depriving an impoverished person of their only means of subsistence is recklessly dangerous. They can also appreciate that doing so to people with serious mental health problems is incredibly dangerous and that when this activity results in deaths that remain unreported, are secretly classified and/or dismissed as “irrelevant” then our nation’s political, administrative and justice systems have serious problems that need to be addressed.

Thousands of Queensland residents may have noisily clamoured for a High Court appeal against the appellate court’s ‘Manslaughter’ decision but the issue for you to consider is what will happen if Gerard Baden-Clay seizes the opportunity to hold Australia’s political parties and our nation’s dysfunctional legal system accountable for millions of violations of civil rights and a death toll that may well be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 fatalities? As happened in the case of Dr. Patel, if a re-trial is ordered, a jury of 12 reasonable people, 1 in 3 of whom could be welfare recipients, may have no option but to render a ‘Not guilty’ verdict based on either Apprehended Bias or Manifest Ostensible Bias? A High Court appeal against the downgrading of Gerard Baden-Clay’s conviction from murder to manslaughter, is a golden windfall opportunity for him to seek to have even that conviction overturned due to Apprehended Bias and/or Manifest Ostensible Bias because of the refusals of so many law enforcement agencies to deal with the serial defrauding of welfare recipients and the decades long growth of the death toll caused by this criminal activity. I believe that if Gerard Baden-Clay, through his legal team, can demonstrate to the High Court that the Federal Parliament has been deliberately enforcing unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation and concealing the sometimes lethal consequences of that activity, which several law enforcement agencies, e.g. the AFP, have refused to investigate due to the political “gravity/sensitivity” of these homicides, surely he will have a compelling Apprehended Bias argument to put before the High Court.

Problem #15 – Voter disenchantment wit the major political parties.

On 9th February 2016, ‘The Advertiser’ page 1 headline article looked at the fact that almost a third of South Australian voters have abandoned support for either the Liberal Party or the Labour Party and may support Senator Nick Xenophon’s fledging political party.  In the September 2013 federal election, Senator Xenophon won a staggering 24% of the 1st preference senate vote, an unprecedented vote of confidence by SA voters.

With 1 in 3 voters at risk of either being “Breached” or hit with a fraudulent “Account payable” demand, are these results really surprising?

Are you prepared to risk the “irrelevant” death toll from legislated welfare penalties and fraudulent, civil rights violating “Account payable” frauds becoming the primary legal issue for the High Court to consider in the Baden-Clay appeal? I could be 100% wrong but as a very ordinary, very reasonable person, I believe that to continue to pursue an appeal in the High Court is to place at risk the future of your political party?

I know that from my perspective as a semi-retired school teacher living on a pension, clearing out the federal parliament of non-core promising liars, parliamentary entitlements rorters and human rights violators who seem to regard welfare recipients as ‘life unworthy of life’, can only be of immense good for our nation. If that means sweeping out has-been political parties that are out-of-touch with both reality and the needs of the electorate and replacing them with politicians and political parties that are genuinely concerned about people rather than the trappings of power, then please, do what you can to make it happen. Just uphold the law and procedural fairness principles by providing me with the previously requested contact details for both Gerard Baden-Clay and a member of his legal team. Alternatively, provide Mr. Baden-Clay with a copy of this email and he can chose whether or not he wishes me to contact him and provide him with evidence that use to make an informed decision as to the best way to respond to your High Court appeal of his conviction.

Problem #16 – Federal Agent Pearce’s email


After the Auditor-Generalworked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

Concatenated below id Federal Pearce’s email, a Federal Police communication that I believe is Broad Ultra Vires because it makes a mockery of the concept of Due process of law and Impartial Justice. The excuses used by Agent Pearce to justify not conducting an investigation to determine if federal politicians had rorted $4,640,000 from the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund in 2007 are far beyond facetious and ludicrous.

I contend that the email is in fact empirical evidence of wilful obstruction of justice, i.e. a violation of s 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), by the Federal Police that protected possibly as many as 144 federal politicians from prosecution for alleged violations of the fraud provisions contained in s 134 of that criminal code.

Be honest, how many courts would accept this logic from welfare recipients or even from more affluence working class defendants? Paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people but, as Agent Pearce makes quite clear, “government protocols” usurp both the constitution and statute laws as far as the Federal Police are concerned.

In 2015, an email request for the Federal Police to investigate Bronwyn Bishop’s infamous “Chopper-gate” charter of a helicopter to fly her from Melbourne to Geelong for a Victorian Liberal Party function was ignored as were requests to investigate several other possible rorting incidents including reports that Tony Abbott spent $9,400 of taxpayers money flying to his own book launch. In view of the recent concern over another Government minister billing taxpayers for a flight to an airport prior to a private trip to China, the repeated failure of the Federal Police to investigate politicians whilst investigating welfare recipients is far more than outrageous; it is appallingly blatant bias.

The excuses used by Agent Pearce to justify not investigating possible rorting of the Entitlements Fund by federal politicians are not legally valid and this email could be used by people facing similar fraud charges to mount an ostensible bias defence, a theory that I intend to put to the test by making this email available to people facing fraud charges.

Agent Pearce was apparently unaware of the Senate’s November 2005 secret “confidential” classification of the AFP’s July 2004 decision because he made a specific reference to it and in doing so, may have also handed Gerard Baden-Clay, and any other person in the nation who has been charged or convicted of a homicide, an Apprehend Bias or Manifest Ostensible Bias procedural fairness ‘out’ that invalids the charges or conviction.

In May and June 2005, I wrote to the Federal Police commissioner, Mick Keelty, and asked if the deaths caused by the Howard Government’s unconstitutional and illegal “performance Indicator Targets”, i.e. breaching quotas, were Felony Murders or Manslaughter due to criminal negligence. As you would be fully aware, the answer to that question is a resounding YES. However, the response by the Federal Police was very similar to that of Agent Pearce’s email. In a letter dated 7th July 2004, the Federal Police declined to investigate what I colloquially call the Howard Government’s “Quotagate” fraud and any deaths that may have resulted from this abuse of power. It is possible that as many as 3,500 fatalities occurred but, with the death toll unreported by Centrelink and with the AFP refusing to investigate, the precise toll is unknown.

If Gerard Baden-Clay requests that the High Court compel the DHS to disclose the toll death caused by breaching activity and Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” rip-offs, Australian political landscape will undergo profound and long-lasting changes.

If nothing else, this pedantic communication provides you with the opportunity to make an informed decision as to the merits of continuing with an appeal of the Baden-Clay decision in the High Court.

Thanks to the Queensland Coroner’s Court, there is already enough ‘poisoned fruit’ in the Baden-Clay prosecution to wipe out both the Federal Parliament and the Queensland Parliament. The following comments come from Interim Report #9 of the Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of children in institutionalized care:

Page 38

From 1991 until 2001, SAPOLs approach to the disclosure of information was governed by various policies and practices that SAPOL stated were directed to limiting the disclosure of personal information to protect the privacy of the alleged victims and preserve the integrity of criminal investigations[2]. As a result, with the exceptions of LBs family in 1991and LHs family in 1993and 1994, for 10 years SAPOL did not keep St Anns or some parents of former students of St Anns informed of the progress of the investigation of Mr Perkins.

  Finding 17:

SAPOL did not inform the broader school community of the sexual allegations against Mr Perkins, despite being aware that other former students with intellectual disabilities and limited verbal capacity may have had contact with Mr Perkins.

  “Between 1991 and 1993, SAPOL did not have specific policies and procedures on child protection and sexual abuse. SAPOL investigators were guided by generic general orders and procedures.

These findings are equally valid for the Bundaberg Base Hospital ‘massacre’ and the HIP disaster. In Queensland, 90 people died because ‘The System’ was not geared to cope with what was happening within the system. The Queensland Coroners court has also been so far out of touch with the lethal impact of Breaching penalties and Centrelink’s fraudulent torts that an unknown number are dead and when asked to quantify the number of victims, Coroner Michael Barnes did absolutely nothing. One of the downstream consequences of that was the continuation of human rights Breaching penalties violations and the continuation of the ‘Waivergate’ fraud.

How many people died as a direct consequence of Queensland Coroner Michael Barnes failure to uphold the civil rights of Queensland citizens? When asked to look into the death of ‘Sharon’ or to provide the statistical data on the number of fatalities amongst breached welfare recipients, how did Coroner Barnes respond? Just as there was official procrastination in the handling of allegations of the sexual abuse of children in institutional care, the Bundaberg Hospital fatalities, and the Home Improvement Program disaster, there has been an identical  “3-Blind-Mice” approach to the fatalities caused by the federal government’s welfare penalties and Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” billing scam.

Procedural fairness requires that Gerard Baden-Clay receive a copy of this communication and I would prefer to provide it to him myself. His postal address details, or alternately his email address if he has one, is requested so that he has an ‘original’ digital copy of this email, the appended files, and the AFP email concatenated below. In addition, I further request that you forward this email to the Queensland DPP, an action that will of course place a procedural fairness obligation on the DPP to forward it to a representative of Mr. Baden-Clay’s defence team.

Please note that material supporting statements made this public document, some of which I consider to be legal & confidential, will be forward emailed to you in the next week or so for forwarding to the DPP and Gerard Baden-Clay’s legal representative.

The death toll from Breaching and Centrelink’s ‘Waivergate’ may not yet be public knowledge, but like each of the 4 HIP fatalities, they are matters of fact which means that they are historical facts. At some future point in time, possibly within months,  responsibility and accountability for the “Breachgate’ and ‘Waivergate’ fatalities will also be a fact of history.

Winston Churchill, once quipped that “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” A qualified teacher experienced in the teaching of many subjects including Australian history topics, ‘The Emcott Report’ series is both a community-teaching-tool and a (work-in-progress) historic record. This email is itself part of that history; when I write up the case study of Justice Minister Yvette D’Arth’s role in ‘Breachgate’ and ‘Waivergate’, will I “be kind to you” because you did your job well and put justice ahead of the ramifications for the Labour Party? Alternately, will I have to report to posterity that that you were like the politicians named in ‘The Emcott Report’, i.e. you hid the truth?

Did you know that the social media is just 10-years-old this year?  In 2010, Lorana Bartell, an associate professor at the Canberra School of Law & Justice, wrote that “The social media is the elephant in the room.”  Your “elephant in the room” is your response to this email for by the time you, or one of your support staff, have read this email, it will be an historic document that is published in the social media, e.g. my Ronald’s space journal and Facebook. You therefore need to consider the fact that Queensland residents, some who want Gerard Baden-Clay to be locked up for life, and some who were victims of the DHS’s civil rights violating New Year’s Day “glitch”, will be judging your response(s) long before the High Court gets to sit in judgement on the Queensland Appellate Court’s decision.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott Dip. T, GDA. Cert IV FLM, Cert IV WPT (Cat 2).

(A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.)

[1] ABC Radio 891 at approximately 8.15 AM (CST) on Friday 11th May 2012.  See Case Study #13 in The Emcott Report.

[2]  This same logic was also used to justify the systemic failure to protect 2 very young children, 4-year-old Chloe Valentine and 4-month old Baby Ebony, in SA Coroner’s Court inquests into their deaths.


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

2 Responses to Part 18: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: Gerard Baden-Clay, Yvette D`Arth and Centrelink’s New Year’s Day violation of the civil rights of 73,000 people.

  1. Pingback: Centrelink Violation And vicjob Gardener | Job List Australia

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Hi, have you read the constitution and are aware of the prohibition of “civil conscription” or that the separation of powers of the parliament and the courts means that section 42 of the Social Security (Administration) Act is like the welfare convictions amendments that were turfed out by the High Court by the High Court on 8th May 2013 (Cwth DPP v Keating HCA 20) is yet another example of statutory fiction?

      Please check out a posting that I shall be uploading later today. (31st October 2016)

      Ron Medlicott

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