Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. An even bigger “Elephant in the room” on the ABC’s Monday night edition of Q and A, is the question as to whether or not Senator George Brandis and the labor Deputy Leader, Tanya Slibersek, were apparently arguing over who deserves the most credit for being the best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients?
In ‘a tawdry, disgusting, race to the bottom of the barrel‘, the deaths of welfare recipients who died as a consequence of the current efforts by the Turnbull Government were casually dismissed as “…some unfortunate consequences.”
[Note: the short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-NF ]
However, in an up-coming AAT appeal, I shall argue that these deaths were, in law, homicides, i.e. murders.
What George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek said during the Q and A program constitutes “Matters of Fact.”
George Brandis being Australia’s Chief legal Officer is also a “Matter of Fact” that may have some very profound legal implications for the entire nation.
What George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek said raises “Questions of Law”, e.g. in law, what exactly is the meaning of “…some unfortunate consequences?”
Was that comment an apparent casual disregard for any deaths caused by Centrelink’s so-called “Debt recovery program”, which in law, may be murders?
Another question of law is whether or not these statements constitute admissible evidence of an intent to defraud welfare recipients by using Centrelink’s computer to deliberately violate constitutional rights, e.g. Due process of law, including the issue of “reasonable grounds” that provide “probable cause” for Centrelink to request information within 21 days.
If there were no “reasonable grounds”, as determined by an appropriated qualified, accredited, certified PERSON who was authorized to act in accordance with Due Process of Law’, then any demand for information is ‘AN UNLAWFUL DEMAND’ and any every action by Centrelink that is ‘downstream’ of that unlawful demand is ‘POISONED FRUIT’ that kills off Centrelink’s “alleged debt” claims and any actions taken to recover the alleged overpayments.
A really important issue is whether or not the unfortunate consequence statement constitutes admissible evidence of a “Reckless indifference to human life?”
Deaths that are caused by unlawful acts are homicides, e.g. Felony Murders in most states, or just plain old-fashioned Murder for financial gain, et cetera.
There is no Statute of Limitations on Murder, so people who died 30-years as a resulted of any illegal action by the Department of Human Services can be re-classified as a murder if family members demand a coroner’s inquest and the coroner rules that the death is a homicide.
Such rulings would clear the way for family members to receive Victims of Crime compensation.
If so many people were not traumatized or possibly dead, it would be funny; but there is nothing funny about these politicians mistaking the power to violate legal rights with the right to violate legal rights.
Click on the link below and watch the video 2 or 3 times until you get the sense of “righteousness” that George and Tanya display.
Then remember the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj and the fact that Centrelink has to prove its claim to a court; not welfare recipients being automatically assumed to be at fault as George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing it since 2011.
Take note of this information on the web page and then check out the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions that are set out below:
How the debt recovery system works:
- The system sends you a letter advising you of a potential welfare debt and asks you to review its figures online. It also sends an SMS
- When you log on you can update the information. You have 21 days from the date of the letter to go online and update
- If you don’t log on, Centrelink will make a default judgement its information is accurate. You will then be issued with a debt notice
- If you do update the information, Centrelink may ask you to provide supporting documentation. This can include bank statements, letters from an employer, or payslips
- If you think the decision is wrong you can ask for a review
- If you or someone you know needs help, call Lifeline on 13 11 14
Here is Hellicar at paragraphs 141 and 143
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA 17
 “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…”
 “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”
What George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing since 2011 is, in law, a NO DECISION AT ALL process by Centrelink and the Bhardwaj decision backs that up.
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11
 “…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.”
CONFESSION IS GOOD FOR THE SOUL
Unintentionally, George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek may have confessed, on national television, to defrauding welfare recipients for 6 years by skipping the anything but minor legal issues of:
A matter for the courts..
Did Senator Brandis went one step further with his reference to “Some unfortunate consequences.” That was a potential ‘foot-in-mouth’ stuff-up because deaths caused by the deliberate violation of legal rights are NOT “unfortunate consequences”; they are probably murders.
In 2005, a South Australian teenager, Josiah Finch, was charged and convicted of the crime of FELONY MURDER. Page 3 of the FY 2005-06 annual report of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions contains the following statement:
“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.”
The High Court and Violation of Rights
At paragraphs 8 and 9 in COCO v THE QUEEN (1994) 179 CLR 427, (13th April 1994), the High Court ruled:
 “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless.
 In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required ((5) Wheeler v. Leicester City Council (1985) AC 1054 at 1065;
Kioa v West  HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 (18 December 1985)
In this High Court case Chief Justice Gibbs made this key statement:
Paragraph 29: However, later decisions demonstrate that the concept of “legitimate expectation” extends to expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights provided that they are reasonably based
Chief Justice Gibbs was talking about reasonable expectations for procedural fairness rights and lightly rushes over a key concept in Centrelink’s claims, i.e. enforceable legal rights.
These are rights that no politician can extinguish, just because it is convenient to do so:
My car’s entertainment system, my mobile phone, digital television, video-recorder, microwave oven and my remote control model helicopter all share two things in common with Department of Human Services’ ISIS computer system:
They are all electronic appliances;
Although digitally ‘smart’, they are NOT sentinent legal entities.
I make the last point, i.e. they are not sentinent legal entities, because that is an important point of law that seems to have been overlooked in the current tsunami of tort actions against welfare recipients. My mobile phone, my television and my microwave oven cannot initiate a tort action against a legal entity. That can only be done by another legal entity.
A person is a legal entity that can initial legal action, and;
A corporate organization or a government agency is also a legal entity that can also initiate a tort action.
This brings back to the point previously raised, who is reviewing the facts of the matter before engaging in tortuous conduct?
This also leads to the critical issue as to WHO DECIDES the primary facts of the matter in a tort dispute initiated by a government agency?
The answer to the “WHO DECIDES” question is found in paragraph 143 of the Hellicar decision.
As I stated previously, paragraph #143 of the Hellicar decision is the Centrelink fraud exposing statement: “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.” A person who is the respondent to a legally valid Centrelink tort needs to issue a “challenge” to Centrelink’s decision, which can be done simply by saying, “No, this not my fault”.
Once a Centrelink claim is challenged, it is a matter for a court to decide the facts.
“21 Days” – Another con job.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska HCA 43, October 2011
A High Court decision handed down in Poniatowska on 26 October 2011, directly refers to Section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act:
The Secretary of the Department may by written notice require a person who is a recipient of a social security payment to do certain things within a specified time. The Secretary may require the person to contact the Department and to give information to him or her. Failure to comply with the reasonable requirements of such a notice has the consequence that the social security payment is no longer payable. The Secretary may give a social security payment recipient a notice requiring that the person inform the Department if a specified event or change of circumstances occurs (or if the person becomes aware that such an event or change of circumstances is likely to occur). The person may be required by the notice to give the Department a statement about a matter that might affect the payment of the social security payment. The Administration Act makes detailed provision with respect to the giving and content of statutory notices, including the period within which the recipient is to respond to the notice.
Notice the word “MAY” appears 4 times in that statement? This word takes us right back to Coco at , i.e. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required.
“MAY” means that this is a qualified power, i.e. there must be “Reasonable Grounds” in law for “Probable Cause” to justify requiring a welfare recipient to re-submit information already provided. Without these “reasonable grounds” as adduced by a qualified person, any request for information is “Unlawful Search” and any threat issued violates the federal “MENACE” law.
There are a number of reasons why any discrepancy in Centrelink’s data-matching activity may be a Commonwealth error, or have found a Commonwealth error. To arbitrarily impose a penalty for an unknown cause of the error is a criminal abuse of power that violates sections 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. As the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis probably knows this as should Tanya Slibersek who has a law degree.
In fact, it is the responsibility of the Solicitor-General’s Office to brief Senator Brandis on High Court decisions and therefore should know all about Hellicar!
Why is he ignoring this High Court decision?
The Centrelink computer is not a legal entity and cannot initiate a tort action.
The Waiver of Debt due to Commonwealth error is STATUTE LAW, and the Hellicar decision made it qite clear that the COURTS, not Centrelink, decides the p”primary facts of the matter” needed to determine who was responsible for any errors.
This is AN INALIENABLE LEGAL RIGHT, and Tanya Slibersek was ripping people off in 2011 when she “Skipped the courts” and let a known to be dysfunctional computer, which is not a legal entity, make legal decisions that needed to be made by a person who was AUTHORIZED, QUALIFIED, CERTIFIED/ACCREDITED to make that legal assessment.
IN LAW, this system produces UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE that a court could not rely upon to make a finding of fact that a welfare recipient was responsible.
GIGO: Garbage In – Garbage Out: The legal onus is upon Centrelink to exercise Due Diligence and check its own seriously flawed computer system for possible “data integrity flaws.”
Centrelink inputs 50 MILLION ketstrokes a day using mainly UNCERTIFIED DATA ENTRY OPERATORS who do not hold a current AS 2708 Keyboard Skills Competency Certificate.
“CODE TO ZERO FAILURES, i.e typing errors are extremely common.
GAGO: GARBAGE ALGORITHMS – GARBAGE OUTPUT. Centrelink’s almost 35-year-old computer system has 30 MILLION lines of operating system cod, some of which is undocumented, and which causes unexpected OUTPUT ERRORS.
26th February 2015, when asked about the performance of Centrelink’s aging computer system, the Secretary of the Department of human Services, Kathryn Campbell, responded with the following statement:
“It is the ‘integrated social infrastructure system*‘, and it is some 30 years old. It does the job. It makes sure the payments are made, but it is very old. It is very difficult to make changes in that. It is not flexible at all and that is why we have been building a business case about its replacement.” [*The ISIS computer.]
It can talk across the system, but, because of those complex pathways, for want of a better term—that is what makes it quite tricky to build new applications within it new programs or changes to older programs.
Senator Payne stated in a February 2015 press conference, “It is now a labyrinth of interconnected systems and code that makes it very difficult to implement even relatively straightforward changes in a timely manner, including changes to our standard letters.”
Following a senate committee hearing on February 26th 2015, on March 9th 2015, the Perthnow website ran a story featuring statements made by Scott Morrison, the Social Services Minister.
The antiquated system is costing us tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs because the data has to be re-entered manually time and time again.” “We need to have a proper computer system which is capable of ensuring that people get paid in a timely way… and that all of the administration is as efficient as it possibly can be.”
What Secretary Kathryn Campbell is describing is a system that cannot be accepted as “RELIABLE” by a court and therefore it is vital to avoid the courts when demanding repayment of ALLEGED over-payments.
COP THIS ONE! MY SECRET AAT FINDING – IT KILLS OFF ANY CLAIM THAT CENTRELINK IS NOT AT FAULT iIN OVER-PAYMENT ERROR CLAIMS:
contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”
Let me break that down into the really important bits:
“…acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not:
“…an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients.”
This circumstance is not so:
markedly different from the usual run of cases,
or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”
DESPITE THAT, the welfare recipient was found to at fault by the Administrative Appeals tribunal for having failed to realize that (s)he had been given bad advice by a Centrelink employee and had acted in good faith upon that advice.
NO COURT, hearing that statement would automatically assume that a welfare recipient was at fault, but the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does.
WHY DOES THE AAT MAKE IDIOTIC DECISIONS LIKE THAT?
ANSWER: Because the AAT “stands in the shoes of the decision-maker”
A Courtroom Comparison: Superficially, the idea of the AAT “standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker” sounds quite reasonable. However, if that concept were to be applied in a murder trial, how well would it go down with the defendant, defence counsel, and the jury, if the presiding judge had made the following statement:
“I can assure the defendant and jurors that this will be a fair trial because I’m standing in the shoes of the arresting officer”?
AVOID CENTRELINK’S QUASI-LEGAL APPEAL SYSTEM; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
HOW TO AVOID A VIOLATION OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.
When Centrelink requests information, point out that without reasonable grounds for “Probable Cause”, as determined by a person who is Authorized, Accredited and properly Certified to determine “Reasonable Grounds” for the request, IN LAW, the request constitutes “Illegal Search.”
Any threat to arbitrarily impose a penalty before a court determines “the primary facts of the matter” is a violation of section 142.2, 149.1 and the “MENACE Laws in sections 137 and 138 of the commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
Say: “This was probably Centrelink’s mistake, but that is for a court to decide isn’t it?
ARE YOU SMART?
If you are, you will copy this web page to a document file and post the file on your desktop so that it is easy to find.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice.
MURDER MOST FOUL.
The Emcott Report ‘short’ case listing OF relevant to homicide cases:
Within each of these court cases are points of law used in criminal prosecutions or appeals that underpin my belief that the deaths of welfare recipients are murders that a Royal Commission should be investigating. However, since that could quite possibly lead to criminal charges against party leaders, a commission of inquiry in Australia is highly unlikely.
R v. Tucker (1984) 36 S.A.S.R. 135
(King, C.J., speaking in effect for the Court of Criminal Appeal, described as correct a direction that intoxication is of itself no defence. [paragraph 24]) Neither is being ‘drunk on power.’
R v. Sheehan (1975) 1 W.L.R. 739,
(From 1975 or thereabouts on Victorian judges directed juries that intoxication is to be taken into account in considering whether murderous intent in fact existed.)
R v Beard
(intoxication and incapacity to form the specific intent) to charging juries in the light of Sheehan precedent
v. Coleman (1990) 19 N.S.W.L.R. 467
v. Peterkin (1982) 6 A.Crim.R. 351 (a case of reckless murder)
v. Stokes & Difford (1990) 51 A.Crim.R. 25
v. Rose (1996) 87 A.Crim.R. 109
- R v. Tucker  36 S.A.S.R. 135
R v. Allwood (1975) 18 A.Crim.R. 120
(“it is for the jury to be satisfied of the elements of the murder charged and not for the presiding judge”.)
“There might be some practical, if not theoretical, difficulty, in the accused man’s accepting that the jury should find the dangerous act necessary for manslaughter while disputing that the dangerous act necessary for reckless murder should be found.” (Paragraph 38 of Faure)
Natinal and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chick  2 N.S.W.L.R. 86,
(A weird example of Russian roulette in civil litigation where one of the players tried to cheat!)
- v. Lamb  2 Q.B. 981
(OOPS! The accused was charged only with manslaughter where he had pointed a revolver at a friend and pulled the trigger as a joke, the cylinder containing two cartridges, neither being opposite the barrel and the accused not knowing that the pulling of the trigger would rotate the cylinder.)
Kenny Charlie v R
v. Marshall (1986) 43 S.A.S.R.448
v. Williamson (1996) 67 S.A.S.R.428 and the unreported decisions there cited at 447-448.
v. Sanftl (Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 June 1983)
USA – Precedents:
A helpful summary of the law of the various American states as regards murder by recklessness will be found in the draft Model Penal Code and which defines murder as including criminal homicide committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
(Circular link back to Faure)
Tison v. Arizona