AAT appeal decision 2016/5334 is a landmark decision but to use it to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent claims, you need to understand what is so important about this decision.
Point #1: Most of Centrelink’s legal actions, [known as TORT ACTIONS or as TORTIOUS CONDUCT], to recover money or to deprive A PERSON of a welfare benefit are done in an unlawful manner. If you know the laws being broken, Centrelink officials can face serious jail time if they try to con you AND YOU FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE. [No complaint – no charge – no conviction.]
NOTE: The short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Tn
AAT 2016/5334 in the nutshell
The High Court’s Hellicar decision on May 3rd 2012 stated that if regulatory authorities, e.g. Centrelink bureaucrats, decided that they could make legal decisions and impose financial penalties, THEY WERE WRONG because:
“Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”
In addition, if Centrelink says that you have been overpaid, the person [not Centrelink’s computer system] making that claim has to meet ALL OF the following legal criteria:
Be appropriately Authorized to claim that you have been overpaid; almost all Centrelink staff assume that they are authorized to do so, but, IN LAW, only people who comply with the following criteria can make valid claims
People must be appropriately qualified to make that financial (or medical) claim, e.g. they have to be a qualified Auditor or a doctor, et cetera.
Appropriately certified to make that claim, e.g. you may be able to drive a car but you cannot do so legally without a current license; Centrelink Auditors must have current professional certification.
The whole process must be done in accordance with Due Process of Law, e.g. Centrelink’s dysfunctional computer may produce data that indicates that you have been overpaid but, thanks to the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues, this computer system has a undisputed, unchallenged [Nolo contendere] 44.03% ERROR RATE
The lawyer representing the DSS did not disputemy 44.03% error claim, which was in the applicant’s Statement of Facts & Issues.
Consequently, Centrelink is now stuck with a defacto admission that its computer system is extremely inaccurate and its output is unreliable evidence that “lacks integrity”.
That 44.03% error rate means that until a qualified, currently certified Auditor double-checks data outputs for validity and accuracy, any demand from Centrelink for information withing 21 days is, IN LAW, an unlawful “fishing expedition”, A BLUFF!
IN LAW, any “fishing expedition” for information is about seeking information when there are no legally valid grounds for doing so.
Any request for information requires “Reasonable Grounds” that indicate a “Reasonable Probability” that the request is justified.
If There are no “reasonable grounds” to lawfully justify a request for information, the request can lawfully be rejected as an Abuse of Power “fishing expedition”.
The best way to do this is respond by requesting the “reasonable grounds” for the request for information, the name of the person making the request, and their current qualifications and current certification for making that request.
“THE LAW SAYS WE CAN” IS NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR A ‘FISHING EXPEDITION’.
Paragraph 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with public servants who abuse laws and cause detrimental harm to members of the public. When Centrelink staff use “the law says we can” excuse, you can point out that if they are not qualified and certified and have no “reasonable grounds” to make a “law say we can” demand, then they are facing a 5-year jail sentence.
THE HELLICAR DECISION ABSOLUTELY NUKED CENTRELINK.
If Centrelink claims that a person is at fault, e.g. allegedly overpaid or in breach of supposed ‘Mutual Obligations’; If that person says “NO, Centrelink has made a mistake, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes a matter for the courts BEFORE Centrelink can lawfully take any action.
AAT 2016/5334 – Statement of Facts & Issues, page 3, “If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians…”
In the official 2016/5334 Statement of facts & Issues documents that I filed on behalf of a welfare recipient, I made a claim that the Turnbull Government could either fight or not fight:
Forcing people to comply with unconstitutional demands also violates this criminal code; management or ministerial statements that encourage this illegal conduct violate section 12.3 of the code.
Deliberately “skipping the court” is a criminal offence that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. [5-year sentence.]
To save both time and the cost of a court decision, with the knowledge and approval of the Federal Government, Centrelink officials unlawfully “skip the court” and make arbitrary decisions that are, in law, “no decision at all.”
TAKE NOTE: It costs Centrelink an average of $25,000 to get a court decision as to what are the ‘primary facts of the matter’ BEFORE a legally valid decision can be made by a Centrelink official.
In law, Centrelink must first prove to a court that it’s claim is legally valid, a tough task because of extremely serious systemic problems within Centrelink, some of which are detailed in the Statement of Facts & Issues: – SEE PART 40 for a redacted copy of some of the problems that inval;idate Centrelink’s fraudulent scams.
In the video at the internet link below, Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unwittingly argue over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.
Both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek had wrongly assumed that no-one in Australia who cared about what they were doing knew about the Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco decisions.
In the High Court’s Coco decision [HCA 15] on 15th April 1994, in paragraph 8 the court ruled that:
“(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by
legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.
In paragraph 9, the High Court then said: .” 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.”
The High Court also stated in the same paragraph: “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.
UNLESS, AND UNTIL, CENTRELINK PROVES TO A COURT THAT YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERROR THAT CAUSED ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENTS, CENTRELINK’S DECISIONS ARE, IN LAW, NO DECISION AT ALL.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HIGH COURT SAID IN MARCH 2002 IN THE BHARDWAJ DECISION:
“…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.”
When Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen make statements indicating that they have the “right” to force you to repay alleged overpayments if you cannot prove that Centrelink made a mistake within 21-day, they are making criminally fraudulent statements.
HELLICAR YET AGAIN:
The Hellicar decision can be read at:
Here are the exact words from paragraphs 141, 142 and 143 of the Hellicar decision; pay close attention to the words that are in italic print” and ignore the boxed [reference numbers.]
The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:
“A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”
How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. 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 for at least two reasons.
First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
Second, 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.
Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.
No Court decision as to the facts of the matter, then, in law, no decision at all.
It really is that simple,
Ron Medlicott – A Christian volunter lay-advocate for justice in Australia.