Part 38: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. A Dummy’s Guide to understanding how the Australian Federal Parliament has violated civil rights for decades.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity have been on-going for decades simply because the victims, and the wider community, do not understand the constitutional and legal rights that are being violated.

[Note: The short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-HR  ]

This posting is a relatively short posting to highlight how to find out the case law rights of Australian citizens using 2 High Court decisions that invalidate some 40 years of decision-making by Department of Human Services employees and appeals tribunals such as the SSAT and the AAT. The key to legal research for anyone who needs to know what the courts say about Australia’s laws is the Austlii database.

Austlii

http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

austlii-home-page-cropThe Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) is an institution operated jointly by the Faculties of Law of the University of Technology Sydney and the University of New South Wales. It is notable for establishing Australia’s largest on-line database on Australian legislation and case law. Its public policy purpose is to improve access to justice through access to legal information. (Source: Wiki)

Using this database is very similar to using Windows File Explorer. The Home page at the above web URL could be likened to the root directory in Windows, i.e. C:\ From here it is a case of selecting from the listing of courts in the left hand column and then drilling down to find the Findings of a case in the sub-directories, e.g. HELLICAR.

 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Brown; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Gillfillan; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Koffel; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Terry; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v O’Brien; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Willcox; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Shafron [2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012)

This case is commonly referred to as Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012).

 To locate the Findings do this from the AustLii home page at the URL mentioned above:

 Click on High Court of Australia.

  1. Click on the year 2012.

  2. Scroll down to May 2012 – Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar is the first case listed for May 2012

  3. Click on this case listing to go to the Findings of the High Court.

  4. Scroll down to paragraph 141 and start reading to paragraph 143.

 These 3 paragraphs highlight the fact that every ‘No show, no pay’ decision and every “You owe us money” decision ever made by the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink, has not been legally valid. The court was very clear in its statement in paragraph 143:

 “Secondly, 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.”

  1.  Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority means that unless a court first determines “the facts of the case”, the “regulatory agency” has no jurisdiction to enforce any penalty or ‘legal’ decision. This fact of case is further underlined by the Bhardwaj Decision.

 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (14 March 2002)

 Using the search technique above, find the Bhardwaj decision and scroll down to paragraph 53:

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.”

The crunch line in this decision is “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.”

Original jurisdiction of High Court. In all matters–

  1. (iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

genocide-lawThe Hellicar decision  was based upon paragraph 75 (iii) of the constitution, e.g. if the Commonwealth wants to recover money from welfare recipients, or accuses a welfare recipient of a breach of contract, aka a ‘compliance failure, it is a matter for the courts, not public servants or government ministers. The above legislation, given Royal Assent” on 1st July 2016, is the latest ‘update’ of the ‘No show, no pay’ law and it is STATUTORY FICTION, i.e. it is for the courts to determine if a compliance failure has occurred and this law is unconstitutional.

Since Work for the Dole is also unconstitutional, any appeal in a real court of law, rather than the SSAT or the AAT, will be upheld in favour of the welfare recipient rather than Centrelink.

Alan Tudge stating that welfare recipients have 21 days to prove to Centrelink that they were not responsible for any Centrelink overpayments is, as stated in a previous posting, nothing but a criminal abuse of power, i.e. it is a bluff (a con job)that exploits the ignorance of welfare recipients.

  1. UNTIL A COURT DECIDES THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, THERE CAN BE NO LEGALLY VALID DECISION, A CONSTITUTIONAL FACT OF LAW THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED FOR DECADES, WITH SOMETIMES LETHAL CONSEQUENCES.

  2. In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.

    IT IS THEREFORE NO SURPRISE THAT CENTRELINK DOES NOT REPORT FATALITIES AND THE FEDERAL POLICE AND THE AAT, ALONG WITH AUSTRALIA’S MASS MEDIA, IGNORE THESE MURDERS.

  3. AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate emailwaivergate-exposed-croppedTHIS DAILY VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WHICH HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR DECADES, HAS TO STOP.

    RIGHT NOW.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay advocate for Justice in Australia.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s