Part 39: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. After 40 years of civil rights abuses, has the ‘Velvet Revolution’ against this inhumane treatment begun?

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity are under pressure with a very real possibility that a non-violent “Velvet Revolution’ against the cruel injustices being heaped upon vulnerable welfare recipients may have finally sparked the national conscience.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is:

The YouTube video below is B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T

Below the video link is the text of a letter sent at 2:58 PM [Adelaide time], i.e. about 20 minutes ago to the Federal Commissioner of Police. I strongly suggest that readers of this posting click on the velvet revolution [‘Centrelink Advert’] URL below ASAP. This brilliant YouTube video may be a very visible sign of Australia’s ‘velvet revolution’, i.e. a non-violent rejection of the manifestly corrupt leadership in the national parliament.

Computer literal young Australians who have had a guts-full of the self-serving, out-of-touch politicians have done something that every Australian should see. If that is the case, lets have more of it; in the meantime, below are some points of law on the defrauding and murder of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.


Dear Commissioner Colvin

RE: Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, State sponsored terrorism, rorting politicians, and Australia’s very own “Velvet Revolution”

Hard evidence of Australia’s very own “Velvet Revolution” can be found at this URL:

Ignore the underlying message and you could wind up facing Genocide and Crimes against Humanity charges, a statement that is not hype as you will see if you check out the appended PDF file from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

In plain English, “The CRAP is hitting the fan” and the email below puts you at ground zero for the fall-out from about 5 million criminal violations of civil rights and a possible death toll that at this time may be around the 100,000 mark (give or take a few). The reality is that even Centrelink does not know how many welfare recipients have died as a result of their criminal abuses of power, i.e. the violation of Section 142.1 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth criminal Code.

‘The man in a box’: Inaccurate Centrelink debt letter sent James into meltdown

In the above ‘Man in the box” posting, Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the system was “working as intended”. The government has announced it will claw back $400 million in unemployment benefit overpayments through the review process, despite calls from Labour for the system to be suspended while the problems are fixed.

Mr Porter said 20 per cent of review letters were sent to people who did not owe anything but these were not debt letters and only asked for more information to explain a discrepancy between employment data held by Centrelink and the ATO.

The most likely cause of the discrepancy is the fact that the 32-year-old ISIS computer was never fit for purpose from day 1 and the new software is identifying “Commonwealth errors” that under section 1,237A of the Social Security Act, do not have to be repaid.

What Alan Tudge and Christian Porter, both people with law degrees,  are brazenly doing is ignoring ASIC v Hellicar at 14 -143, Bhardwaj at 53, Morely & Ors v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 at 706, 707, 716, 717, 719, 727 and 728.

Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986) – “ought to have known”

  1. The last three of the above-mentioned four possible bases of a verdict of guilty of murder, namely those founded on s.157(1)(b) and s.157(1)(c) of the Code, contain an element that the accused either “knew” (s.157(1)(b) and first limb of s.157(1)(c)) or “ought to have known” (second limb of s.157(1)(c)) that his act of applying pressure to the deceased’s neck in the manner and with the force and for the length of time that he did was “likely to cause death in the circumstances”. It is submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury about what was involved in the notion of something being “likely” to cause death. In essence, the submission is that “likely”, in the context of s.157 of the Code, means “more likely than not” or “odds on” or “more than a fifty percent” chance whereas his Honour directed the jury in terms which conveyed that the phrase “likely to cause death” meant merely that there was “a good chance” that death would ensue.
  2. The words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) follow their use in s.156(2) where “culpable homicide” is defined to include:

“Homicide … caused–

(a) by an act intended to cause death or
bodily harm, or which is commonly known
to be likely to cause death or bodily
harm, and which is not justified under
the provisions of the Code;”

Section 157(1), which designates the cases in which “culpable homicide” is murder, is structured upon the definition of “culpable homicide” in s.156. Presumably, it was not intended to use the words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) with a meaning different to that with which they were used in s.156(2)(a). In the context of the express provision of s.156(5) that “(h)omicide that is not culpable is not punishable”, it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent (cf. Sheen v. Fields Pty. Ltd. (1984) 58 ALJR 93, at p 95; 51 ALR 345, at p 348; Waugh v. Kippen, unreported, High Court of Australia, 20 March 1986, at pp 9-10 of the pamphlet).

When you receive complaints about Centrelink deliberately depriving people of a welfare benefit, or arbitrarily reducing welfare payments by switching people to a lower benefit without a court first determining the facts of the matter, the first question you have to consider is the potential harm that depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence can do, i.e. is it “likely to cause death”?

Editorial: Admit Centrelink system is broken and then fix it

WHEN a government agency tasked with assisting some of the most vulnerable Australians is reduced to suggesting on Twitter that clients seek help via Lifeline, perhaps it is time to acknowledge there might be a problem. In recent weeks Centrelink has been deluged with thousands of angry and frightened social security recipients who received letters informing them they need to repay, in some cases, thousands dollars in alleged overpayments.

This, according to Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, is all about “strengthening the integrity of the welfare system by cracking down on fraud and overpayments”.

That premise is something no reasonable Australian would disagree with. Quite simply, anyone caught rorting the system should be forced to repay money owing, and possibly face additional penalties depending on the scale of any deliberate fraud. The problem is that there is mounting evidence that thousands of innocent Australians are being informed they are liable for debts that don’t exist due to issues with Centrelink’s now automated compliance system. One key issue relates to a data matching system Centrelink is now using to marry its information with that held by the Australian Taxation Office and other agencies.

What this item is saying is that welfare recipients are the victims of systemic abuse that is being covered up.

In my home state of South Australia, section 13.7 of the criminal code states:

13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

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.

In Queensland, you have this provision in section 302 of that state’s criminal code:


302 Definition of murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

In Victoria, you have this:

Victorian Crimes Act

 Conduct endangering life

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

  1. Conduct endangering persons

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of serious injury is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

  1. Negligently causing serious injury

A person who by negligently doing or omitting to do an act causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum)

  1. Extortion with threat to kill

A person who makes a demand of another person—

(a) with a threat to kill or inflict injury on a person (other than the offender or an

accomplice of the offender); or

(b) with a threat in circumstances where, if the threat were carried out, the life of a person (other than the offender or an accomplice of the offender) would be endangered—

is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 4 imprisonment (15 years



Maximum term of imprisonment for certain common law offences

An offence at common law specified in column 1 of the Table is punishable by the maximum term of imprisonment specified opposite it in column 2 of the Table.

 s 320 Misconduct in Public Office” Level 5 penalty [Maximum 10 years]

What Alan Tudge (Minister for Human Services) and Christian Porter (Minister for Social Services) are doing by telling welfare recipients that they have 21 to prove to Centrelink that they are not at fault when ALLEGEDLY overpaid by Centrelink is most probably a violation of all of the above statutes, PLUS the following Commonwealth Criminal Code Act violations:

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.

Division 149—Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

149.1  Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

         (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                (a)  the person knows that another person is a public official; and

               (b)  the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

                (c)  the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

               (d)  the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:          Imprisonment for 2 years.

The denial of civil rights, e.g. Government Ministers and DHS (Centrelink officials) by-passing due process of law and ignoring the constitution and High Court decisions such as Hellicar and Bhardwaj for the purpose of expediting the recovery of ALLEGED overpayments that may not legally be recoverable due to Commonwealth error, as per s. 1,237A of the Social Security Act, is totally inconsistent with the right to a fair hearing.

Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act – Amended 1st July 2016.

How do you match up the “No show, no pay” penalties, e.g. no subsistence payments for up to 8 weeks, with the following ICESCR provisions?

Article 9

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance. 

Article 11

  1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
  2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

Article 15

  1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

Then there is the ICC&PR

Article 17

  1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The reality of the overall situation for welfare recipients is perhaps best summed up in this statement which summarizes my UNHRC complaint:

“I hope Centrelink’s rules are changed in a hurry.  I’m gob-smacked that people do this to other people – how the hell are people even supposed to even buy food, let alone pay bills, if they take away the pittance that they receive in the first place for a breach? Politicians have been working for too long away from ordinary people and don’t know what it’s like in the real world.”

 “The system stinks and it is totally unjustified and hurts the poorest of all people.”

  1. Arhardidis: Identity/Letters to the Editor Page 26, News Review Messenger 2nd July, 2003

In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group stated:

“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”

As the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, it is not the legitimate role of the Federal Police to deliberately ignore fraud, intimidation, coercion, blackmail, extortion, fraud, civil enslavement, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or murder for financial gain. How then do you justify the AFP doing that since its inception 40 years ago? Does the above statement by Francis Neale accurately sum up your personal approach to what has been happening to Australia’s most vulnerable people.

Paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be BINDING on the Courts, judges, and the people. How can that happen when the AFP response to alleged rorting by federal politicians is the unconstitutional human rights violating garbage contained in Federal agent Pearce’s email below?

Tony Abbott reportedly spent $9,400 of taxpayers money to launch his book “Battle Lines”. Bronwyn Bishop reportedly spent $5,200 on a helicopter joyride to Geelong and now we have Sussan Ley allegedly spending a reported $50,000 on 16 trips to the Gold Coast.


  1. Politicians are subject to the same due process of law as anyone else; it is called “Equality before the law”.
  2. Questions have arisen about Ms. Sussan ley’s 16 trips, at taxpayer’s expense, that raise serious questions of law
  3. Did Ms. Ley ignore her obligations under  s. 4 and s134 or s. 135 of the Commonwealth criminal Code?
  4. In law, what is different, if anything, about the Peter Slipper case and Ms. Ley’s conduct concerning the 16 trips at taxpayers expense to the Gold Coast.

A former Speaker, Peter Slipper, was prosecuted and convicted on three counts of violating s135.1 (5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:

“That in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.”

  1. 20 January 2010 (CC13/40001);
  2. 12 April 2010  (CC13/40002);
  3. 27 June 2010 (CC13/40003).

In September 2014, at a sentencing hearing in the ACT Magistrates court, the Crown Prosecutor wanted to ‘throw the book’ at Peter Slipper, as this comment reveals; “Peter Slipper committed a fraud and has shown no contrition”. The prosecutor then asked the court to impose a tough sentence.

Even though Peter Slipper was successful in having the conviction quashed on appeal, the fact of matter is that it was a court, as per s. 75 (iii) of the constitution, that determined the legality of Mr. Slipper’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

The above web link provides access to the guideline handbook of Entitlement rules for Government Ministers. PART FOUR: TRAVEL 4.5 Ministerial Charter Entitlement covers the rules that Bronwyn Bishop failed to comply with when chartering aircraft. These rules are not complex, however, a team of Entitlements managers exists who act in the place of the Finance Minister. If they approve travel costs when asked, then any error by a Minister is a ‘Commonwealth error’ and the Minister is not accountable.  HOWEVER, if the Minister avoids asking about the rules, in effect, avoiding the Finance Minister’s approval (by delegation to Entitlements Managers, then the following criminal code provisions, which the High Court endorsed in the Keating Decision (HCA 20 – 8th May 2013), apply to the actions of any politicians who may deliberately avoid consulting with their designated entitlements Manager:

4.1  Physical elements

(1)            A physical element of an offence may be:

                            (a)   conduct; or

                            (b)   a result of conduct; or

                            (c)    a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

(2)            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.

4.2  Voluntariness

(1)            Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.

                   (2)            Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.

                   (3)            The following are examples of conduct that is not voluntary:

                            (a)   a spasm, convulsion or other unwilled bodily movement;

                            (b)   an act performed during sleep or unconsciousness;

                            (c)    an act performed during impaired consciousness depriving the person of the will to act.

                   (4)            An omission to perform an act is only voluntary if the act omitted is one which the person is capable of performing.

                   (5)            If the conduct constituting an offence consists only of a state of affairs, the state of affairs is only voluntary if it is one over which the person is capable of exercising control.

  1. 149.1 deals with obstructing public officials in the performance of their duty. Therefore to repeat the fiascos of 2004 and 2009 and again refuse to investigate Ms. Ley ‘s conduct re the gold Coast trips is to violate that statute; not a good move as it could now destroy your career. Yesterday, Prime Minister Turnbull stated during a press conference that he will set up an “independent inquiry” to look at Ms. Ley’s conduct. However s.5 and s. 75 (iii) of the constitution makes it quite clear that politicians have no legal jurisdiction to conduct criminal inquiries. The lack of jurisdiction by the Parliament underscores the needless futility of an “independent inquiry” that is not conducted by the AFP in accordance with Due Process of Law. The High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision (HCA 1 – 2002) at paragraph 53 further underlines the futility  of any inquiry other than an AFP inquiry:

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 proverbial “nail in the coffin” on any independent inquiry is to found in section 139 (2) of the Commonwealth Evidence act, which states:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 138(1)(a), evidence of a statement made or an act done by a person during questioning is taken to have been obtained improperly if:

(a) the questioning was conducted by an investigating official who did not have the power to arrest the person; and

  1. b) the statement was made, or the act was done, after the investigating official formed a belief that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the person has committed an offence; and

(c) the investigating official did not, before the statement was made or the act was done, caution the person that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be  used in evidence.

A former highly successful barrister, Malcolm Turnbull would be fully aware of the above provision in the Evidence Act and consequently, would be well aware that an “independent inquiry” would provide valid legal grounds for Ms. Ley to challenge any prosecution on the grounds of denial of civil rights.

Debate of any independent report in the Parliament could mean that any findings fall under the parliamentary privilege rules in s. 13 of the Australian Constitution, i.e. the information could not be used in court. Therefore, Mr. Turnbull’s motives in proposing an independent inquiry that would undermine any chance of a successful prosecution need to be very carefully and impartially investigated. At the very least, Mr. Turnbull needs to warned that he must not take any action that might result in his being prosecuted under s. 149.1 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act. This is a warning that should be given to all other MPs and Senators in order to preclude deliberate abuse of s. 13 of the constitution.

Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Denlay, and a host of criminal law appeals such as Faure and Boughey underscore the fact that politicians have been acting outside the law for decades and any fatalities caused by abuses of power are homicides. The current furor over Centrelink’s unconstitutional, unlawful, human rights violating attempts to claw back over $4 Billion from 1,100,000 welfare recipients only draws attention to what Commissioners Mick Keelty, Tony Negus, and yourself have studiously avoided, i.e. the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll caused by the brutal persecution of welfare recipients.

The current furore represents the inevitable consequences of the AFP’s systemic failure to uphold the law and protect vulnerable Australians from politicians who have placed ideology and the lust for power ahead of public safety.

In of the Home Insulation Program Report, Commissioner Ian Hanger stated: RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED    [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.
  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;
  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.
  •  The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

Commissioner Colvin, what is your personal excuse for 40 years of human rights violations that may have resulted in a 100,000 or so officially “irrelevant” fatalities that the AFP has refused to investigate because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of this genocidal crimes against humanity?

How do you explain the dog’s vomit, Dickensian Bleak House drivel in Federal Agent Pearce’s email below? The excuses used to justify not investigating federal politicians are inconsistent with paragraph 5 of the constitute, due process of law, or equality before the law.

This email is a national disgrace, especially since the failure to take action at that time may be a crucial in a disastrous chain of events  that has traumatized hundreds of thousands may have resulted in an extremely significant death toll that is still being concealed from an increasing well-informed, and extremely alarmed, populace that will not tolerate a politically privileged elite being held above and beyond the law by the Federal Police.

The message of , i.e. the “Centrelink advertisement”, is that Australia is facing a ‘Velvet Revolution’ from technically savvy people who reject elitism, especially elitism that persecutes, defrauds, and even murders, very vulnerable people.

As Marshall McLuhan once stated, “The medium is the message” and the message for elitist politicians, bureaucrats and cops like yourself is simple; Times up!


Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen, genocide survivor, and a Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

========================================================From: PEARCE, Jeff [] On Behalf Of AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Ronald Medlicott <>
Subject: RE: Attn: Commissioner Negus – Request to investigate Perksgate [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Good afternoon Mr Medlicott,

I refer to your correspondence dated 11 September 2009 in respect to ‘Perksgate’.

The AFP Operations Coordination Centre Client Liaison Team assess correspondence from the public taking into account a number of factors including the gravity/sensitivity of the matter, the current investigational workload and whether Commonwealth laws have been breached.  Each case is assessed and a decision is made as to the appropriate response.

The assessment process of your matter included considerations that you are onforwarding information which you have apparently seen in the media and which has been the subject of political debate and inquiry.  As you yourself identify, this matter has been the subject of an Auditor-General report.  Where matters are the subject of an Auditor-General investigation it is not necessary for members of the public to advise the AFP of this; government protocols exist for this purpose.

As per previous advice to you in July 2004, the AFP will not accept matters for investigation on the basis of third hand correspondence of matters in the public domain.

Further correspondence from you will be recorded by the AFP for future reference however no response will be provided.

Yours sincerely,


From: Ronald Medlicott []
Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 2:15 PM
To: AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support
Subject: Attn: Commissioner Negus – Request to investigate Perksgate

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638

Mobile: 0438626811



Attn: Commissioner Negus,

Congratulations on your new job.

Now’s here’s a case that you can really get your teeth into.

This email and the attached documents constitute a formal request to investigate “Perksgate”.  Perksgate is the name that I use in reference to the recent Auditor-General’s report that 144 federal MPs have, allegedly, rorted millions of dollars in “entitlements” by double-dipping into a taxpayer funded $390 million perk..

The attached file LEG-CON is an undated Parliamentary Privilege Suppression Order that was issued by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee late in November 2005. I intend to mount a legal challenge to that gag and that means that the manner in which you deal with this request to investigate Perksgate will be closely scrutinized, possibly by the High Court, to ensure that, this time, the AFP actually complies with Due Process of Law.

The gag related to the AFP’s refusal to investigate both the Trish Draper Travelgate scandal and concerns that the deaths of welfare recipients who died as a direct result of the Howard Government’s illegal use of breaching quotas were criminal offenses. Crown v Josiah Finch – Sa Supreme Court, February 2006, may be a legally binding precedent that in South Australia these deaths are Felony Murders. Whatever the legal status of these deaths, Transparency is paramount. When government policies indiscriminately kill at-risk people, then that is a national interest issue!

The AFP refused to investigate on the grounds of (political) “gravity/sensitivity”. Check Federal Agent Denley’s letter to me, dated 7th July 2004, and you will see why “gravity/sensitivity” is in quotes. In addition the other implied reasons for not investigating were not also neither constitutionally nor legally valid.

The devil is in the detail. The appended letter to you contains a brief overview of what are incredibly complex issues. The other files provide insight into the logic of my thinking. They form the basic outline of how I intend to challenge the Senate’s gag.

My recommendation is not to respond in writing. Any such correspondence may be used when I argue that in July 2004, the AFP failed to comply with its core charter, i.e. protect the Constitution and uphold Federal  Laws in a fair and impartial manner

Finally, a 36 page public discussion paper is to released shortly. Submision 287 was a “concise” summary for the LEG-Con committee. A lot of material is outside the gag and I am using some of that to stimulate public discussion on these “under the carpet” issues.

Yours truly

Ronald Medlicott

This entry was posted in Human Rights violations, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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