Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity may have just taken a direct hit from Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie, the man who the whole world the truth in 2003, i.e. John Howard did not have “irrefutable evident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”
[NOTE: The short link URL for this post is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-GU ]
These days, Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie is better known as Andrew Wilkie MP, the Member for Dennison in Tasmania. Last Thursday he posted a press release titled “Presumed guilty until proven innocent” on the web that 1,100,000 welfare recipients need to read because Alan Tudge, the Minister for Human Services is trying to force welfare recipients to repay billions of dollars that do not have to repaid unless a court says so.
My email to Mr. Wilkie is below.
If you are one of a 1,000 people per day that Alan Tudge is trying to defraud, copy the text below and put it somewhere handy in case Centrelink hit you with a civil rights violating (fraudulent) Pay Up Or Else demand. You may wish to email Mr. Wilkie with a copy of this text and ask him if what I have written is legally accurate. His email address is:
To: Andrew Wilkie MP – Member for Dennison in Tasmania
Dear Mr. Wilkie
Re: The Adam Tudge Fudge – a violation of sections 14.2 and 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995)
You web posting on Thursday 8th December, “Innocent until proven guilty”, highlights the Fact of Law that Adam Tudge and Centrelink officials are engaged in a criminal abuse of power that constitutes the defrauding of members of the public at the rate of $.5 million per day if the figure that you quotes is accurate. The power to defraud people is not the same as the right to defraud people, a fact that Mr. Tudge should be aware of as he has a law degree and a Harvard MBA. As I pointed out yesterday, the High Court’s Hellicar decision made it quite clear that determining the primary facts of the matter in a tort dispute is a matter for a court, not for government ministers who wish to exercise powers that the constitution denies them and not bureaucrats and AGS lawyers who do the bidding of those ministers without testing the constitutional validity of these directives.
For the official record, since I shall be forwarding this email to both the Federal Police and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [and videoing it to post on YouTube], the laws that Alan Tudge and Centrelink officials and the AGS who push these fraudulent claims in the AAT, is as follows:
142.2 Abuse of public office
(1) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official:
(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or
(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
You were once one of Australia’s highest ranking Military Intelligence officers, and perhaps the only field grade army intelligence officer in the world to break ranks in 2003 and publically state that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IRAQ WAS MAKING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I respect that you need time to verify the facts given to you yesterday. However, Adam Tudge really is facing 5 years per offence, plus criminal charges under state laws for any fatalities stemming from this criminal abuse of power, including Murder.
Mr. Wilkie, please consider these statutes and keep in mind that if your staff and yourself do nothing, in law, you are probably liable as accessories to these crimes under the “Acts of omission” statute mentioned yesterday. [See below for the txt of that email.]
South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935)
(1) Subject to this section, an aggravated offence is an offence committed in 1 or more of the following circumstances:
(a) the offender committed the offence in the course of deliberately and systematically inflicting severe pain on the victim; [NOTE “Pain” includes emotion harm or trauma.]
13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide
(1) It is not an offence to commit or attempt to commit suicide.
HOWEVER Section 13 (7) states:
(7) A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.
Queensland Crimes Act (1899)
296 Acceleration of death
A person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.
As the writer Aldus Huxley once stated, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
The treatment of welfare recipients over the last 30 or 40 years has involved massive violations of the constitution, criminal laws and human rights and, if my estimate is even moderately accurate, the death toll from all causes, including ‘natural causes’ triggered by criminal misconduct , may be close to, or may even exceed, 100,000 in number. You did not get to be a field grade intelligence officer by ignoring the hard facts, and you had the guts to throw your career away to tell the truth about Iraq NOT having weapons of mass destruction.
PLEASE: Test everything and act according the constitution and the law, if for no other reason than this email will be on YouTube in a few days.
BELOW IS THE TEXT OF MY PREVIOUS EMAIL: IT IS REPEATED HERE SO THAT I CAN VIDEO-RECORD IT, AND SO THAT YOU CAN COME TO GRIPS WITH THE SCOPE OF CENTRELINK GOING “Rogue”, aka engaging in gross criminal misconduct for financial gain.
In the YouTube video “Waivergate – Unreliable Evidence, that I listed in my previous email to you, the ISIS computer system crashed after a system change. It was therefore no surprise that earlier today I videoed a repeat performance, i.e. DHS tech’ weenies changed the system, and when I logged on, it crashed. As a former senior, field grade, military intelligence officer, would you officially classify the output of Centrelink’s ISIS computer as “Confidence is high”, or would you classify it as “Very unreliable – Confidence is minimal”?
Earlier today I emailed Senator Culleton’s office. Since he has a date with the High Court, providing him with a Manifest ostensible Bias argument seems like a good idea. Below is the text of the email to Senator Culleton and part of the daisy-chain of emails included in that email. When reading this test, please keep in mind that it may be tabled in the Federal Court early in the New year if the OHCHR drags the lead because I may be assisting a welfare recipient with an AAT appeal and will be goal focussed on forcing the case into the courts where it rights belongs. [If the High Court is to be believed].
What the government, through Centrelink, is doing to welfare recipients is a criminal violation of rights and the undisclosed “irrelevant” fatalities, ARE MURDERS under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute and under a wide range of state and territory laws.
Note: Peter is Mr. Peter Garand, an electorate office staff member for Senator Culleton. A phone call to him will confirm that he has received the following email, or to be more accurate, will receive it once the office in Perth opens in about an hour’s time.
Ron Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.
Below is my latest daisy-chain of emails with the OHCHR at the top and an email to the AFRP following, et cetera.
For your own sake, as a matter of EXTREME URGENCY, check out immediately this Andrew Wilkie posting because the legal implication is that Centrelink may be defrauding 1,000+ people per day and any fatalities are either murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence. If that is the case, then both Rod and yourself are ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT TO THESE CRIMES:
Centrelink has begun using a new automated system that matches government payments to tax records to identify fraud or overpayments worth up to $4 billion.
However based on complaints to his office, Mr Wilkie said the new IT system was spitting out numerous incorrect debt notices among the $4.5 million compliance notices produced daily.
“I have no problem with the Government retrieving genuine overpayments or cracking down on fraud,” Mr Wilkie said. “But I do have grave concerns with Centrelink acting like loan sharks and treating people as guilty until proven innocent and sending in the debt collectors.”
Mr Wilkie said his office has heard from distraught and terrified people wrongly receiving debt notices of up to $6500 that date back as far as 2010. They are given three weeks to provide documentation to Centrelink to prove they were not overpaid. If they have changed address, they may not even receive the debt notice.
“These people can explain why they were not overpaid, but are struggling to lay their hands on the documents to prove it as the so-called debt dates back years and in some cases their employers have gone out of business,’’ Mr. Wilkie said. “How many of us could lay our hands on a pay slip from six years ago?”
NOTE: The demand that people “prove” that were not overpaid is a criminal abuse of power that violates section 142.2 and 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. [See Below]
Unless Rod goes public with Neil Skill’s letter, the pair of you could find yourselves having to explain to a Federal Court why you kept silent over these murders. Last week the SA Supreme doled out a 60 year sentence to a person convicted of murder and you really do need to consider this SA DPP annual Report extract from page 3 of the FY 200-06 report:
Director Of Public Prosecutions Annual Report 2005-2006
Page 3 [Skip over the intro pages (i) – (iv) and scroll down to page 3.
R v Finch – Josiah Finch was charged with the murder of Karim Morrison. Mr Morrison was shot once to the head in the carpark of the McDonalds restaurant on Anzac Highway at Morphettville before his body was dumped nearby in one of the entrances to the nearby racecourse. The prosecution case was that Mr Morrison was shot in the course of a drug rip-off gone wrong. Whilst it was not alleged that Mr Finch was the shooter, it was alleged that he was present when Mr Morrison was shot and was instrumental in the arrangements that led to Mr Morrison being in the carpark at the relevant time. The shooter remains unknown to the prosecution.Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder. That is, the learned sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major indictable offence to which he was party.
I am not surprised that the new software is uncovering billions of dollars in overpayments – the IBM 204 computer system should never have been ordered back in the early 1980s as it was not fit for purpose. Whilst there may be genuine errors by welfare recipients, or even fraud in some cases, the vast major is due to “Commonwealth error” that, under section 1,237A of the Act MUST BE WAIVED.
In a few weeks-time I may be representing another welfare recipient in an AAT hearing and this email may be tabled in evidence and so I am being pedantic in emphasizing the following statute and case laws points that provide insight into why I believe Centrelink is knowingly defrauding welfare recipients with a reckless indifference to the potentially lethal consequences.
1,237A Administrative error
(1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.
Note: Subsection (1) does not allow waiver of a part of a debt that was caused partly by administrative error and partly by one or more other factors (such as error by the debtor).
(1A) Subsection (1) only applies if:
(a) the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the first payment that caused the debt; or
(b) if the debt arose because a person has complied with a notification obligation, the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the end of the notification period;
whichever is the later.
Underestimating value of property
(a) a debt arose because the debtor or the debtor’s partner underestimated the value of particular property of the debtor or partner; and
(b) the estimate was made in good faith; and
(c) the value of the property was not able to be easily determined when the estimate was made;
the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of the debt attributable to the underestimate. (NOTE: The source text is not in red nor is the word “must” underlined.)
Proportion of a debt
(3) For the purposes of this section, a proportion of a debt may be 100% of the debt.
One of the key phrases above is “attributable solely to an administrative error” – WHO DECIDES THIS?
At the moment, Centrelink does, but that is not how the constitution set things up; section 75 (v) separates the powers of the Parliament and the Administration, e.g. Centrelink, from the Courts, a constitutional reality that leads to the following:
The Model Litigant Rules: key facts and issues
In civil litigation the Commonwealth has a duty to act as a Model Litigant.
The development of this obligation in conducting litigation can be traced to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 where Chief Justice Griffith explained it as ‘[t]he old fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects’. In that case the Court criticised that ‘[t]he Crown should not take technical points’.
In SCI Operations v The Commonwealth which concerned the failure of a government agency to refund money within a reasonable time, Beaumont, Einfeld and Sackville JJ stated that ‘the position of the Crown itself, especially given its default “…should also be taken into account. Otherwise the Crown would be taking, or be seen to be taking, advantage of its own default, whereas it is well established that the Crown must act, and be seen to act, as a model litigant’.
Otherwise the Crown would be taking, or be seen to be taking, advantage of its own default”
This is exactly what Centrelink is doing, i.e. taking advantage of its own default, for it has all off the required evidence and either withholds it or destroys it if it compromises Centrelink by revealing a Commonwealth error.
TAKE NOTE OF THESE DECISIONS:
ASIC V. HELLICAR  HCA 17 (3 May 2012) In paragraphs 141 – 143 the High Court ruled:
The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:
“A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”
How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “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”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.
[MY COMMENT ON 141 – REGULATORY AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE THE SOLE SAY ON WHAT THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE UPON WHICH A LEGAL DECISION IS MADE.]
First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
[MY COMMENT ON 142 – IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES THAT INVOLVE pecuniary penalty, THERE ARE 2 SIDES TO EVERY STORY AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS IS NOT FOR EITHER PARTY. SO WHO DECIDES?
Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.
[MY COMMENT ON 143 – WHO DECIDES?: The answer is found in 143 above, i.e. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.]
I REPEAT: Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.
BHARDWAJ: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11; (14 March 2002)
IN PARAGRAPHs 52 – 53 OF THIS CASE, THE HIGH COURT RULED:
The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:
“As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …
To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”
In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:
“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.
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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.
Yes, bureaucrats have the right to make decisions, but if those decisions are disputed, they are a matter for the courts to determine the “primary facts of the matter”. Centrelink bureaucrats have no legal jurisdiction to automatically claim that welfare recipients will be deemed to be at fault if they cannot prove in just 21 days that they did not make a mistake. As Hellicar at 53 made quite clear, this decision is a matter for the courts to determine and the evidence act requires that a respondent be given what the courts decide is reasonable time. Alan Tudge deciding that 21 days is enough time is an unconstitutional, unlawful abuse of power. He has no legal right to demand that information be provided within 21 days.
A REALITY CHECK DIVERSION: IN South Australia, the Weatherill Government is bragging about getting public hospital waiting times for people requiring medical treatment down to “6-months”. In point of fact this a con job. Doctors referrals may be placed in off-line storage until the office computerized waiting list ensures that a patient will be treated within 6-months. In my own case, I was referred to urologist by my GP in August 2014 and have yet to make the official “6-month” short-list. At the moment, the waiting time for the removal of my cataracts is a minimum of 4 years! My wife had a rare form of skin cancer and the official waiting time was 6-months. Because of my ‘temp teaching’ we could afford to pay for a specialist (just) but there was a 3-month waiting time. Fortunately, the specialist has a patient cancel an appointment and back-slotted my wife in a day later and removed the lesion a week later. My point is that whilst Alan Tudge, a Federal Minister, may be able to get a doctor’s appointment at short notice, for public patients on welfare, the norm i9s measured in months or years, not 21 days.
The significance of the Linacre letter above:
In December 2015, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre KNEW about the above all of the binding High Court precedents mentioned above. AT THE MOMENT, ALAN TUDGE AND CENTRELINK ARE IGNORING THEM.
WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
BECAUSE THE $4.7 BILLION IN OVERPAYMENTS ARE MAINLY “COMMONWEALTH ERROR” OVERPAYMENTS THAT BY LAW, MUST – BE – WAIVED.
This email, if tabled in the AAT or the Federal Court, or if used by a welfare recipient being prosecuted for fraud, would leave both Rod and yourself facing ACCESSORY TO…” charges for crimes ranging from Obstruction of justice and/or perverting the course of justice to accessory to murder.
Neither Rod, nor his legal advisor, control the timeframe for a criminal investigation. If Commissioner Colvin suddenly develops a sense of self-preservation and decides to uphold the law, everyone who has seen the Skill and Linacre letters and has been made aware of the above court decisions is, to put is crudely, about to be SCREWED, GLUED, and NAILED and will be HAMMERED in the courts.
NOTE: (1) This email and its transmission has been video-recorded and may be ‘tabled’ on YouTube, and in a court of law, within a very short time.
(2) It will; be forwarded to people who are victims of the Waivergate scam.
PLEASE: DO NOT PROCRASTINATE, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BEING VICYIMIZED A 1,000 TIMES A DAY AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT THAT IS A SERIOUS CRIME IN ITSELF AS I POINT OUT ON PAGE 124 OF THE APPENDED EMCOTT REPORT:
Section 4(1)(2)(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), sometimes, doing nothing can be a very serious crime:
Section 4 (1) (2) states:
In this Code:
conduct means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.
engage in conduct means:
(a) do an act; or
(b) omit to perform an act.
If you make a conscious decision to “omit to perform an act”, e.g. do nothing to prevent Breaching fatalities, or to prevent the DHS [Centrelink] from defrauding welfare recipients through criminal abuses of power, then, by a voluntary act of omission, you make yourself an accessory to these crimes. If those criminal activities result in fatalities then, in law, you may be ‘An Accessory before the fact.’
I REPEAT: PLEASE: DO NOT PROCRASTINATE.
 (1996) 139 ALR 595.
 Ibid, 164.