Part 40 (I) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. More on the Centrelink order to a parent to disown their child.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity” really hit the sludge at the bottom of the pond when a parent was ordered to disown their child and when the parent refused to so, Centrelink suspended the Family Tax Benefit payments.

NOTE – The short link for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-MF

Here is some insight just how over the line Centrelink was:

Australian Treaty Series 1991 No 4

Rights of a Child

In the opening remarks, the Convention on the Rights of a Child states the following:

CONVINCED that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

RECALLING the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict,

Article 3

  1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

  2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

  3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/4.html

(Australian) Family Law Act (1975)

111CK Jurisdiction to appoint, or determine the powers of, a guardian for a child’s property

(1) A COURT may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth property protection measure only in relation to:

(a) a child who is habitually resident in Australia;

[ GOOGLE: family law act 1975 ]

Whatever else Centrelink may be, it is not a court and therefore had absolutely no legal jurisdiction to order a parent to abrogate their parental responsibility to their child.

Section 138, 139 and 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act deals with this sort of misconduct:

Division 138 — Preliminary  138.1   Unwarranted demand with menaces  

             (1)  For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person ) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if:

                     (a)  the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and

                     (b)  the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

                     (c)  the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

             (2)  This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property.

             (3)  This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand.

138.2   Menaces

             (1)  For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes:

                     (a)  a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or

                     (b)  a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat.

Threat against an individual

             (2)  For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:

                     (a)  both:

                              (i)  the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and

                             (ii)  the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or

                     (b)  the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.

Division 139 — Unwarranted demands

139.1   Unwarranted demands of a Commonwealth public official

                   A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and

                     (b)  the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:

                              (i)  the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

                             (ii)  any influence the other person has in the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

                     (c)  the first-mentioned person does so with the intention of:

                              (i)  obtaining a gain; or

                             (ii)  causing a loss; or

                            (iii)  influencing the official in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 years.

139.2   Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official

                   A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and

                     (b)  the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:

                              (i)  the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

                             (ii)  any influence the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

                     (c)  the official does so with the intention of:

                              (i)  obtaining a gain; or

                             (ii)  causing a loss; or

                            (iii)  influencing another Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the other official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.

Section 142.2  of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. “Abuse of power

142.2   Abuse of public office

             (1)  A Commonwealth public official commits 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.

Download the Act from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01150

REMEMBER: The standard of Justice that you get, is the standard of Justice that you accept. If you are the victim of a Centrelink RAPE OF RIGHTS, you have the authority and power of Australian laws and international human rights treaties to protect you.

HOWEVER: If you do not use that protection, your civil rights, your emotional and your physical well-being, will simply be raped.

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

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

2 Responses to Part 40 (I) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. More on the Centrelink order to a parent to disown their child.

  1. Chris says:

    Thanks for your time taken to put all this information up for people to see I’m currently going through a nightmare with centrelink and the aat over two separate DSP claims made over the past 4 years I’ve jumped through every hoop to show what my medical Health is only to have another hoop to jump through put in front of me. I’m currently suffering from permanent nerve damage in my armpit causing severe pain from a dodge operation and I also have plaque type psoriasis that I’ve had my whole life but has got extremely overwhelming because its affected by stress badly and it now covers all my body with large sores. But centerlink won’t accept my doctors opinion or anyone else opinion that’s not there own I’ve had just about every Right you have spoken about broken destroyed and spat on by centrelink and the aat many times I’ve tried complaining to everyone that will listen but no one cares the minute I mentioned centrelink and being that I’m banned from their offices and the only contact I have is with one rude person that controls everything that happens to me now I can’t even sort the problem out he just won’t listen, except doctor certificates or give a dam about my condition I’m simply told to (comply or you won’t get paid) but my health isn’t something I have a choice in so I can’t just comply and they know it. Its a sad out of touch government that allows and encourages this outrageous treatment of the needy I can say for certain from my current situation and experience with them and the way I’m treated I can see how this has killed people cause I’m walking a fine line with everything they are doing to me and my Health situation its a struggle everyday but they don’t care.. Its people like yourself that puts the truth out there and at least is trying to make a change and show what is really happening with our dodge government.. THANKYOU for your efforts and time to read my message please continue your great work cause these RIGHT’S Violations will continue to happen without people like yourself

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Check these web links:
      https://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Annual-Report-2005-2006.pdf R v Finch on page 3

      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html
      Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 PARAGRAPHS 141 TO 143: COPY AND PASTE INTO A WORD PROCESSOR
      Hellicar contained a “Millionaire’s Row’ precedent of such profound proportions that neither the Gillard government nor subsequent Federal Governments have publicly acknowledged it’s precedents when engaging in tortuous conduct against our nation’s most vulnerable, impoverished citizens.

      The 2nd High Court decision that ALL Australians need to know about is posted on the Internet at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html paragraphs 51 to 53: COPY AND PASTE INTO A WORD PROCESSOR
      Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 209 CLR 597; 187 ALR 117; 76 ALJR 598 (14 March 2002) . Like the Hellicar decision, this is usually referred to by the shorter term Bhardwaj. This decision contains important legal precedents that dovetail in with the 2012 Hellicar decision and emphasis the current outrageous perfidy of the efforts of the Turnbull Government in its efforts to recover ALLEGED overpayments received by families, students, pensioners, carers, and unemployed people .

      It is my contention that the Hellicar and Bhardwaj precedents expose flagrant, criminal abuses of power that underpin the arbitrary imposition of potentially lethal penalties that, in addition to violating state and territory ‘harm’ and ‘homicide’ laws, also flagrantly violate international laws that deal with national systemic crimes such as ‘Genocide’ and ‘Crimes against humanity.’

      UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE: Police v Butcher [2016]
      [Source:] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html Copy the lot – Centrelin had 107,000 wrong claims out of 243,000 reported claims – 44% error -THAT IS WHY THEY SKIP THE COURTS!
      The lesson of Police v Butcher [2016] SASC 130 (17 August 2016) is that unreliable evidence is not acceptable to informed courts. The following statements are verbatim extracts from the preamble in these findings:
      “This is an appeal from the judgment of a magistrate who dismissed charges against the respondent that on 14 September 2012 he drove at a speed which was dangerous to the public contrary to s 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (the RTA) and drove a vehicle at a speed 45 kms per hour in excess of the applicable speed limit contrary to r 20 of the Australian Road Rules and s 45A(1) of the RTA.”
      “At trial evidence was called from Senior Constable Goldsmith who gave evidence that on 14 September 2012 he used an Ultralyte laser speed gun to record the speed of the vehicle driven by the respondent at Helps Road, Burton. He recorded the vehicle’s speed at 102 kms per hour. The applicable speed limit was 50 kms per hour.”
      “He gave evidence that both before and after his shift on 14 September 2012 he conducted fixed distance tests on the device to ensure that it was working correctly.”
      “The magistrate dismissed the proceedings on the basis that the respondent had proved on the balance of probabilities that the test conducted by Senior Constable Goldsmith on 14 September 2012 did not show the speed gun to be accurate within the specified margin of error. Accordingly he could not find proved beyond reasonable doubt the speed of the respondent’s vehicle.”
      [41] Reasons of the magistrate
      8. The magistrate found that it was not possible for Chief Inspector Quinn to certify that the testing performed on 14 September 2012 was “accurate within a limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph”.

      [42] That the fixed distance zero velocity testing performed by SC Goldsmith does not reveal the accuracy in terms of limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph. That his tests did not amount to the testing required in order to measure a target’s speed to the relevant set of accuracy criteria set out at Clause 2.6.1(a) and Appendix A of the Australian Standard.
      [43] That Ex P2 could not be used to certify the level of accuracy of the Lidar device because the testing referred to therein was not testing that occurred either on the day of the charged offences or the day after. Further Ex P2 could not assume the status of a certificate as it was not signed by the Police Commissioner or any other police officer of or above the rank of Inspector.
      [44] That in the light of CI Quinn’s admission that he would not have signed Ex P1 if the only information given to him had been the record of field testing conducted by SC Goldsmith because this did not show the test to be accurate within the limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph, it must follow that CI Quinn signed Ex P1 on the erroneous basis that he considered that it was the calibration report Ex P2 that enabled him to make the certification.
      [45] A certificate under s.175(3)(ba) can only be used to prove the accuracy of the Lidar device ‘to the extent indicate in the document’.
      [46] The line of cases referred to leave open the proposition that the agreed facts in this case at Ex P11, particularly numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7, together with
      Ex P10 can be used by defence as evidence to provide a basis for establishing ‘proof to the contrary’ for the purposes of s.175(3)(ba) RTA.
      [47] Indeed I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this evidence is sufficient to displace the presumption of the level of accuracy on the basis that it establishes

      skipping courts is a crime section 142.2 and 149.1 of federal crimes act

      Gotta go,

      Ron M

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