Based upon available such as the Denley Letter and Federal Agent Pearce, both of which have been published in a number of previous Ronald’s space postings, it appears that the policy of the The Australian Federal Police is to officially ignore any and all Crimes against Humanity perpetrated against welfare recipients by the Australian Federal parliament of federal government agencies acting to enforce unconstitutional, human rights violating laws. Below is my my “Plan B” submission to compel the Queensland Justice3 Minister, Yvette D`Arth, to provide me with contact details for Gerard Baden-Clay and his solicitor. By using the ‘Forward’ button in Microsoft Outlook, I forwarded my last email to Ms. D`Arth to the Federal Police and will again ‘Forward’ the AFP email back to Ms. D`Arth to underscore the fact that if she continues to ignore my requests for Gerard Baden-Clay’s contact information, then there is a risk that she could wind up facing Obstruction of Justice charges under s 132 of the Queensland crimes Act and s 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
The irony is that if the Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, continues to stonewall on my repeated requests to investigate the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity that may have impacted the lives of several million people over the last 3- – 40 years, then he too may face the same obstruction of justice charges. Please note that the original email text contained some typos which are edited out in this Copy & Paste of the email sent to Commissioner Colvin.
Tue 23/02/2016 8:45 PM
Attention: Commissioner Andrew Colvin,
The email daisy-chain is genuine, a fact easily confirmed by AFP cyber-crime unit experts. The email to the QLD Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth represents “Plan B” in dealing with Crimes against Humanity and fraudulent tort actions by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Social Services against welfare recipients.
Matters of fact that have interesting questions of law implications:
The legislated welfare penalty system commonly known as Breaching is a Crime against Humanity under Article (7) of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice with breaching triggered fatalities being murders under Article 7 (1) (a). The fatalities are also homicides under a plethora of state and territory laws, e.g. s 302 of the QLD Crimes Act, s 279 of the WA crimes Act and s 13 (7) of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The question of law is how many of the 23,254 suicides that occurred in the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until 31st December 2006 where breaching triggered homicides, i.e. how many qualify as Crimes against Humanity murders?
- As is pointed out in the email below, on 1st January 2016, the DHS (Centrelink) attempted to defraud 73,000 welfare recipients but were prevented from doing so by the gritty determination of Tracie Mitchell, a resident of Cowra in NSW. Centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, claimed that the computerized roll-out of 73,000 “Account payable” emails/SMS was a computer “glitch”. It is my contention that the computer was pre-programmed to send these messages and that the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre, was fully aware that the High Court’s Hellicar decision in May 2012 and the Bhardwaj Decision in 2002 made quite clear the fact that assigning legal liability for overpayments first required a court to determine the “primary facts of the matter” upon which a fair and correct decision could be made. The appended redacted copy of Ms. Linacre’s letter, dated 7th January 2016, is empirical evidence that she abused her lawful power by disregarding these and other court decisions that constrain Centrelink from making tortious conduct determinations that are financially advantageous to her employer and gravely detrimental to welfare recipients. Again, as is made quite clear in the letter to Ms. D`Arth, a question of law is the number of welfare recipients who may have died as a direct consequence of unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, roll-out of 73,000 “Account payable” notifications.
- Justice Kerr’s “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court” speech to the NSW AIAL in August 2013 raises the question of law as to why such a speech was necessary? I experienced first hand just such a ‘Kangaroo Court’ experience and so I KNOW that he has failed to achieve this goal. The flow-on question of law is again, how many people have died as a consequence of this unconstitutional abuse of power?
- I would draw your attention to the redacted letter that I received from Centrelink via the MyGov website. It is a matter of fact that this letter contains a blackmail threat that violates s 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Code, a statute that contains a clearly worded note that abuses of power by public servants for the purpose of achieving government policies constitutes a violation of this criminal law statute. I do not appreciate being the target of systemic blackmail that threatens to endanger my life by unlawfully depriving me of what was at that time, my sole source of subsistence and I demand a police investigation into the extent of this unlawful conduct. Again, the question of law is how many times have federal government bureaucrats engaged in this blatantly unlawful conduct with fatal consequences?
- It is a matter of fact that paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, judges, and the people. Since politicians are people, s 134 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code also applies to them and the Completely Ridiculous And Preposterous excuses offered by the AFP for not investigating the Howard Government’s s 142 violating “Performance Indicator Targets” and brazen rorting of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund by simply ignoring the rules and then claiming “I made a mistake,” are, in more simple terms, C.R.A.P.
As you can see from the content of the 2 emails concatenated below, in 2016 it is my intention to bring the above issues to the attention of the courts. The reason why I have targeted the Baden-Clay appeal should be fairly obvious, i.e. it will be argued before the High Court. However, any fraud or murder case will do in any state as any court can order Centrelink to disclose the unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” death toll that I believe collectively constitutes a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.
Whether or not you (finally) act on the issues that I am raising or continue to stick with the existing AFP policy of doing nothing about the state sanctioned defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is not something that I can do anything about, i.e. you will decide to do what you decide to do. However, the emails below and the appended files emphasize the fact at some point in the future, your decision will be a matter for consideration by a court. Statistics are not really a valid benchmark for a trial; however they do provide the basis for valid grounds for investigation. In the period 1997 – 2006 about 1 in 3 of the 23,254 suicides that occurred in that 10-year period were Centrelink clients. That is approximately 7,700 fatalities by suicide alone and to this can be added deaths by ‘Misadventure’ and so-called ‘natural causes’. I hold to the genuine belief that once the DHS is compelled to answer the following questions concerning tortious conduct by the DHS/Centrelink that my estimate in Volume I of ‘The Emcott Report’ of a cumulative toll between 15,000 and 60,000 will be validated.
Questions of law to consider are:
Is “Breaching a Crime against Humanity, i.e. a targeted action by the federal parliament that recklessly endangers life by deliberately depriving people of what may be their only means of subsistence?
- If so, how many people have died after being breached, i.e. how many such fatalities are unreported by DHS/Centrelink official who should have the computerized data as to the numbers of people who did not resume receiving a welfare payment after the breach penalty period expired because they were deceased? (The DHS pays a funeral allowance to dependents of such victims and generally stops paying dead people and so the data is available.
- Have DHS/Centrelink bureaucrats exceeded their lawful authority by issuing, verbal, printed or electronic “Account payable” demands, and if so, how many people have been so traumatized, i.e. stupefied and placed under extreme duress, that these unlawful demands have triggered fatal consequences such as happened in Case Study #1 on page 16 of The Emcott Report and/or as outlined below?
- Does the legislative charter of the AFP allow federal police officers to turn a blind eye to apparent rorting by members of the federal parliament, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop’s infamous “Chopper-gate’” incident in which she reported abused taxpayers with a $5,200 charter of a helicopter to fly to Geelong from Melbourne and Tony Abbott reportedly spending $9,400 of taxpayers money to fly to his own book launch? I would remind you that in the High Court Boughey case, Justice Briggs looked very closely at Dr. Boughey’s professional qualifications when deciding if he should reasonably have known that strangling a person could prove to be fatal. This logic applies to all members of the federal parliament who hold law degrees, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott, or other professional qualifications that would reasonable indicate that they knew what they doing when they decided to spend taxpayers money for person benefit without first checking with their allocated Parliamentary Expenses managers.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that the July 7th 2004 decision not to investigate the concerns that I raised with Commissioner Mick Keelty in May and June 2004 may have resulted in horrific hardship and an appalling death toll that includes the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities. I am not qualified to determine how many members of the federal parliament have a sociopathic mindset in which political ideology is deemed to be more important than the lives of welfare recipients. With an election looming, it is my contention that all voters need to be aware of MPs who may have unlawfully endangered lives with fatal consequences for some people.
In closing, I would repeat that the emails below are evidence of my intention to push the deaths toll caused by government policies into the courts as quickly as is possible. I shall shortly be forwarding “Legal & Confidential” emails to Ms. D`Arth for forwarding to the legal representative of Gerard Baden-Clay and the QLD DPP. These emails will contain copies of original documents that are not redacted. As with the emails below, I shall forward them to you for your consideration.
Ronald Medlicott – registered teacher and a Christian lay advocate for justice.
P.S. I require an investigation into the Centrelink threat to deprive me of my civil right to a subsistence allowance and if you do not indicate that this will occur, as the social justice coordinator for Playford Baptist Church, I shall report this fail to uphold the law to the membership, more than 50% of whom are welfare recipients.
Reader should note that Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice contains the following provisions:
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;
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; (A problem is that any parliament can create laws to by-pass this weak sanction!)
7 (1) (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;”
Breaching is a targeted act of destitute that is intended to deprive welfare recipients of what may be their only (sole) means of subsistence, i.e. ‘the Dole’. If doing this triggers a fatality, regardless of the specific cause of death, this violation of Article 1 (2) of both the International Convention for Civil & Political Rights and the International Convention for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights is a Crime against Humanity under 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute which states:
7 (1) (a) “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:
Breaching fatalities, and fatalities triggered by Centrelink’s unconstitutional “Account payable” scam, i.e. ‘Waivergate’, are also homicides under criminal laws in every state and territory in Australia. The irony therefore is that by asking the Federal Police to investigate these crimes against Humanity, the failure of the federal Police to do so provides an opportunity for any person accused or convicted of fraud, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or even murder, to mount a valid Apprehended Bias or Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal.
If the 120,000 Queensland residents who reportedly pressured Ms. D`Arth into a High Court appeal of the recent Baden-Clay appeal decision want to be just and fair, they have to accept that Gerard Baden-Clay could mount a very persuasive argument that his prosecution was invalid as he is entitled to be treated in the same manner as the politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers who have ripped-off welfare recipients and then hidden the death toll by the simple process of non-disclosure of these deaths.
That is the legal significance of the 2nd paragraph of the letter below:
When it comes to Centrelink “giving you options”, the legal reality is that any and all options that involve depriving impoverished people of their sole source of subsistence, i.e. the Dole, are criminal violations of international laws. When fatalities do occur, they violate state or territory homicide laws. With the very real possibility that the cumulative death toll from “Breachgate” (Breaching) and “Waivergate” (Centrelink’s unconstitutional ‘account payable’ demands, could be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 undisclosed “irrelevant” fatalities, it is no wonder that Centrelink bureaucrats do not collect and report the mounting death toll.
Either a Royal Commission or UNHRC investigation is required but the chances of that are very slim as Federal Agent Pearce’s email makes quite clear. Check out the reasons why the Federal Police do not investigate any crimes involving federal politicians or unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation. The excuses are utter garbage. How many people in Queensland, or indeed anywhere else in Australia, would accept such excuses for alleged fraud or serial abuses of power that have killed people?
Agent Pearce’s email: C.R.A.P – Completely Ridiculous And Preposterous.
The AFP email about is about perverting and obstructing justice in order to protect politicians who may have ripped off some $4.,640,000 of taxpayers money by ‘double-dipping’ on entitlements. What ever the email is about is therefore not upholding either justice or the Australian constitutional imperative that the law is binding on the Courts, judges, and the people! Such completely ridiculous and preposterous excuses such , do NOT uphold the law; rather these crap excuses undermine the law and bring the concept of justice in Australia into international disrepute. The dismissal of the breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” by the Senate’s Employment. Workplace relations and Education Committee is also disgraceful. However, since this is one of the committees with legal oversight, and therefore legal accountability, for these crimes against humanity, their response is understandable for they do not want to spend the rest of their lives either in jail or bankrupt after being sued by families of those who died.
Back in January, when Tracie Mitchell in Cowra, New South Wales, copped one of Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” demands, she fought back and within a few days that attempted rip-off was dead in the water and centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, was claiming that it was all a terrible mistake caused by a computer “glitch”.
That excuse may hold water to anyone who does not know about the Linacre Letter and the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions but to those who are aware of the true facts of the matter, it is not unreasonable to be of the opinion that Centrelink deliberately violated the Abuse of Power laws in s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal code Act for the purpose of ripping millions of dollars off of unsuspecting welfare recipients.
that familiar with the Remember. the “me” in the catch phrase, “If it to be it is up to me.” “Me” is not Ronald Medlicott; it is you
You have to do more than just read these postings, which is good; however, forwarding the website URL below to your friends, to your state and federal MPs and best of all, to your state police, is far more appropriate. If you are one the 7,300,000 people who are at risk of such injustice, you should be demanding a criminal investigation into why Australia’s political and legal systems treat welfare recipients as life unworthy of life.
The short link URL to include in emails or letters to friends, the police, politicians or the mass media is:
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.
P.S. If you have not seen ‘Burn Notice – The Others’. If you reckon that it has a real message for the community, then share the Burn Notice URL with your friends on YouTube. please check it out at: