Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity are made possible because the nation’s mass media play a crucial role in helping ensure that these deaths are kept below the radar. Check out this con job below, which, at face value looks so reasonable.
[Note: the short link URL for this page is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ES ]
When you are sick, do you call a mechanic or a doctor?
If you car breaks down, do you take it to a doctor or a mechanic?
If you need legal advice, do you get it from a lawyer, or from the person who is suing you?
Getting advice on legal matters from Centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, the manager of Centrelink’s Media Relations Unit, is anything but smart. Yes, Mr. Jongen is A manager of Centrelink, but not THE manager of Centrelink.
Just as stray dogs have lots of fleas, the Department of Human Services (aka Centrelink) has lots of managers and Mr. Jongen is one of them.
So why did the The Advertiser ask Hank Jongen, a ‘spin doctor’, for legal advice instead of asking a lawyer? Could it be that, as one of Centrelink’s many managers, and also since he is the manager of Centrelink’s spin doctor team, Hank Jongen could be relied upon not to give fair and impartial advice?
Here is what The Advertiser knows about but did not tell in the above article:
“Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”
You will find the above statement in ASIC v Hellicar  HCA 17 – Australian High Court 3rd May 2012 at paragraph 143. In addition to reading that paragraph, I recommend reading paragraph 141 where the High Court determined that the “facts” in a case must really be the “facts”, i.e. the truth, and not just someone’s vested interest viewpoint as to what they believe, or wish to present to a court or tribunal as “the facts.”
NO DECISION AT ALL:
The other High Court decision that provides the truth of the matter is the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision. Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  209 CLR 597, where the court ruled:
“…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.”
If you receive a letter of demand, an SMS or an email from Centrelink stating that you owe them money and that you should pay up with 7 days, your civil rights are being violated, i.e. you are being ripped off and should report it to the police.
What Centrelink are doing is a crime under section 142 and section 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and you are entitled to demand a police investigation if Centrelink tried to unlawfully “stupefy and overwhelm” you emotionally by claiming that you must repay the money demanded within a week. The demand below was a cruel con job because determining the facts of that TORT CLAIM was a matter for a court to decide, not Centrelink! The please pay up in a week or contact Centrelink to arrange repayments is nothing more than systemic fraud by those responsible for this and all similar letters.
If you do not know what to tell the police, or if they ask for details, tell them to read this web page.
NOTE: If you know someone who either suffered a fatal heart attack or stroke, or committed suicide, after receiving one of these letters, you must contact the police because that death needs to be investigated as a possible murder. A coroner’s court inquest will be required and if the court decides that the claim was a civil rights violation, i.e. a fraud, murder charges could be laid against those Centrelink bureaucrats responsible for this con.
Paragraph 5 of the Australian constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges, and the people. Just because people have law degrees and fancy titles does not exempt anyone from being held accountable before the law.
Trish Draper’s mistake was in claiming a spouse travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse. She should have been prosecuted but the mass media did not demand that she be prosecuted.
Samantha Maiden, as the News Ltd national political editor, “ought to have known” that the ‘no show, no pay’ law [section 42 of the Social Security (administration Act] is both unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. However, she has never mentioned this fact.
Any guesses why this may be so?
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.
P.S. Are you comfortable with the fact that banks will take money out of your account and give it to Centrelink with the permission of court? I most certainly am not and will be taking up this issue with ASIC, the one federal government agency that knows all about the Hellicar decision mentioned above because ASIC was the government agency that lost that High Court appeal!
ASIC should therefore know full well that just because Centrelink asks for money to be repaid by a bank, that this cannot occur until AFTER either the account owner has given INFORMED CONSENT or a court, after an impartial review of the primary facts of the matter, has authorized the payment to Centrelink.