Part 40 (E). Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Have your rights been raped by the Federal Parliament?

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity raise a very important question; have your rights been RAPED by the Australian Federal Parliament.

 

Below is an key extract from an update of the email that I sent yesterday to a senior government legal counsel, Mr. Tim Begbie. if you have ever been breached, had a pension disallowed, or have been hit with a Centrelink “Account payable” bill that were conned into paying, then I have very bad news for you:

YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RAPED BY A BUNCH OF CON ARTISTS.

LIKE UNWANTED REQUESTS FOR SEX, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY NO WHEN CENTRELINK DUMPS ON YOU.

That is the key message in the information below the line. Yes, is pretty heavy legal stuff, but you need to read it. The really important bit is the 3 statements by a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Gleeson. I have put them in the biggest print size possible: – the moment you say “No” to Centrelink hitting on you, is like saying “no” to unwanted sex. That word INSTANTLY brings into play your civil right to have a court decide who is at fault for being overpaid, and Centrelink has to prove it was you.

Read my previous postings or watch the “Waivergate” series of videos that i have placed on YouTube, and Centrelink is faced with an almost impossible task. Please note: it costs Centrelink about $25,000 per case to go to court, which is one reason why they go for the far softer option of simply RAPING YOUR RIGHTS.


The Rape of Rights of Australia’s most vulnerable people, i.e. the persecution, intimidation, coercive enslavement, the “irrelevant” murders of welfare recipients will all have to cease. So also will the rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter, and the pseudo “Centrelink General Manager”, Hank Jongen*,  [*For the record Mr. Jongen’s official title is ‘Department of Human Services General Manager, Communication Division’.]

Whilst the phrase “rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights” may at first reading appear to be gross hyperbole, the matter of fact is to be found in paragraph 51 of Chief Justice Gleeson’s comments in Bhardwaj, Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged.

Note the 3 underlined statements:

  1. the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates

  2. are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law

  3. if and when the decision is challenged.

  • The statement “rights of the individual” in the first statement1 addresses the fact of law that in tort disputes brought on by the Commonwealth, people have rights that must be respected by the Commonwealth..

  • Statement #2 is also very clear, these rights are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law, e. they are deemed too other than what the law requires.

  • The statement if and when the decision is challenged” means that these rights apply from the instant that a Commonwealth decision-maker’s decision is challenged by a person, e.g. a welfare recipients who Centrelink alleges has been overpaid.

Once a decision by the Secretary of the department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services is challenged, the constitutional right of the individual is to have the primary facts of the matter adduced by a court. Since the Commonwealth is the applicant, the onus is on the Commonwealth, not the respondent, i.e. the welfare recipient, to prove that a Commonwealth error has not occurred.

By making public statements claiming that welfare recipients must provide proof to Centrelink, within 21 days, that Centrelink was at fault, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen are creating a false belief that is inconsistent with the civil rights of welfare recipients who are the respondents in Centrelink tort actions.

That is a criminal abuse of public office as no Public Servant, be they a Government Minister, or a senior ‘Spin Doctor’, has the legal right to mislead people for the purpose of recovering alleged overpayments.

As Justice Gleeson further pointed out in Bhardwaj at 51, “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen have no legal right to set aside the constitutional or procedural fairness rights of welfare recipients for the apparent purpose of recovering alleged overpayments, if Commonwealth errors more than 6-weeks old, the Commonwealth has no legal right to attempt to recover.

There are two other real-world examples of this rape of civil rights.

Firstly, there is this statement:

“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

Secondly, during the AAT hearing that I participated in as a lay advocate assisting a welfare recipient in an appeal, in my opening remarks I emphasized the point that the welfare recipient had rights that must be respected. This was a reference to the fact that one such right was a fair hearing in which evidence was not withheld.

It is a matter of record, as recorded by the Legal Shorthand typist, and also on both audio and audio-visual recordings, that the AGS lawyer representing Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, responded on behalf of Mr. Pratt by requesting that the issue of human rights be set aside for “other courts” to consider.

  1. Neither Mr. Pratt, nor the AGS lawyer representing him, had the authority to make that request.

  2. Incredibly, as the record reveals, that request was not rejected by the Presiding Member who had no lawful authority to accede to that request.

  3. The rape of the rights is systemic and flows from the top down.

  4. This is evidenced by the need for the Keating decision, a totally unnecessary decision if the Parliament had respected the civil rights of the 15,000 welfare recipients who had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

  5. It is evidenced by the attempt by the Abbott Government to enact a recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional and human rights violating law that would have deprived deprive young unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for a period of 6-months.

  6. It is evidenced by Her Majesty giving royal assent on 1st July 2016 to a Bill that contained unconstitutional provisions that place the lives of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects in life threatening peril.

  7. The ultimate evidence of the rape of rights is the failure to disclose fatalities that may have been triggered by unconstitutional tortious conduct when I requested this information on more than one occasion.

  8. This concealment of fatalities extents to the Quarterly Public Accountability Reports and annual reports to the Federal parliament, i.e. none of these public reports include and details concerning these fatalities

  9. This failure to be transparent about tortious conduct fatalities is compounded by Australian Senate Select Committees of Inquiry secretly classifying the fatalities as “confidential” and “irrelevant”.

At this point in time, the precise death toll is unknown; however, a conservative analysis of published heath report statistics indicates that the death toll may be around the 100,000 mark.

THIS RAPE OF CIVIL RIGHTS NEEDS TO END NOW.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, registered teacher, genocide survivor, and a Christian lay advocate for justice.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Part 40 (E). Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Have your rights been raped by the Federal Parliament?

  1. Bruce Watson says:

    Thank you.

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