Part 42E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 may be a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and bankrupt federal politicians.

BackflipAustralia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity have hit a major legal snag. One potential consequence of the AAT 2016/5334 “Nole contendere” decision in favour of the welfare recipient that I represented was that this decision is potentially a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and also bankrupt every political party and very politician who ever supported breaching laws and other laws that deliberately violate the civil rights of welfare recipients.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is:

It could also bankrupt mass media entities that have very actively promoted Australia’s unconstitutional, genocidal laws whilst editors and journals who have peddled criminal defamation statements as ‘news’ could face criminal prosecution for their unlawful comments:

20-10-11 Bludgers loose dole

Not one of the 93,682 suspensions of payments mentioned above was based upon findings of fact adduced by a court, every penalty was unconstitutional and therefore, in law, no decision at all, i.e. NOT LEGALLY VALID.

Ron, It’s too hard too understand!

Some of the feedback that I have received from people who read these postings is that it is too hard to understand. and I totally agree with that viewpoint.

The Burden of Proof.

For decades the Federal Parliament has deliberately made its legal actions against welfare recipients too hard to understand. Most deceitfully, Malcolm Turnbull and his government, with the apparent full support of ALL Opposition Members, has consistently concealed the fact that Centrelink does not have the constitutional right to make legal decisions about fault if or when welfare recipients challenge those decisions.

The High Court’s Hellicar decision made it very clear, in plain language, that “regulators” , e.g. Centrelink administrators are wrong in believing that the can make legal findings of fact and arbitrarily impose penalties.


  1. By not revealing this simple constitutional fact, successive governments have literally gotten away with defrauding a welfare recipients for decades.

  2. The concealment of fatalities caused by the this criminal abuse of power is understandable for they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime, i.e. felony murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

  3. When Centrelink alleges a welfare recipient has been overpaid or is not entitled to a welfare benefit, in law, the Burden of Proof is upon Centrelink  to prove to a court that its legal claim, called a TORT ACTION, is legally valid.

  4. In law, statements made by Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Potter and Centrelink’s chief spin Doctor, Hank Jongen may constitute the inveigling of Centrelink staff into engaging in civil rights abuses that defraud and endanger the lives of welfare recipients.

  5. By not denying my AAT 2016/5334 Facts & Issues statements that for decades successive governments had been defrauding and murdering welfare recipients,  the lawyer representing the DSS in this appeal, has made a voluntary ‘Nole contendere’ act of commission acknowledgement as to the accuracy of those statements.

  6. Translation: the government lawyer representing the DSS agreed with what I had written, and in order to avoid the ‘penalty’ of having these statements repeated and written into the record at an AAT that was to have been held on 24th March 2017,plugged the plug on the DHS claim that the welfare recipient was not entitled to a disability pension.

Below is a link to the website, which contains a definition of the legal term “Nole contendere”.

The key points of law to note is US attorney, Michael Schwartzback’s  article are the following statements:

  1. Guilty pleas settle lots of cases, but not all. Sometimes prosecutors and judges agree to accept pleas of “nolo contendere,” Latin for “I do not wish to contend” or “no contest.”

  2. “No contest” pleas often appeal to defendants looking to avoid an admission of fault in a related civil case.

“…an admission of fault”

2 key points to note:

Firstly: the “admission of fault in a related civil case” to be avoided in AAT 2016/5334 was  the accusation that Centrelink had acted illegally against the applicant that I was representing, and that such actions had occurred for decades with a substantial “irrelevant” death toll that has never been reported..

Secondly: When Centrelink claims that you have been overpaid, it is VITAL to immediately RESPOND by stating, IN WRITING, that you believe Centrelink has made a mistake.

  1. If you do not, you may be putting yourself for a ‘no contest – no win’  situation where you wind up have to pay up, even if Centrelink’s claim is a textbook example of “Digital Data Fiction Fraud” [2D2F], i.e. Centrelink has used GIGO  [Garbage In – Garbage Out] data as the basis for its possibly deliberately fraudulent claim that you owe them money.

  2. The moment you “challenge” Centrelink’s decision, as the High Court ruled in Hellicar, the facts have to be determined by a court, not Centrelink.

  3. The problem for Centrelink is two-fold: Firstly, it costs about $25,000 per case to go to court. Secondly, Centrelink’s has admitted that on 1st January 2016, its computer system wrongly issued 73,000 incorrect claims that were withdrawn a week later. On top of this, The Minister for Social Security, Christian Porter, admitted during a televised interview that 20% of 170,000,000 claims (34,000) were wrong.

  4. That means that in 2016, Centrelink admitted that a massive 107,000 out of some 243,000 (let’s skip the courts)  claims were wrong.

  5. That it an admitted massive error rate of 44.03.%

  6. it any wonder that Malcolm Turnbull has officially endorsed Centrelink’s fraudulent abuse-of-power practice of by-passing the courts and unilaterally demanding “repayment of alleged overpayments if welfare recipients cannot prove to Centrelink, within 21 days, that it was a Centrelink mistake?

  7. To unilaterally or arbitrarily impose an administrative decision action that causes a “detriment”, i.e. Centrelink takes money out of your welfare payments without the court first deciding the facts of the matter is a criminal abuse of power that carries a 5-year jails sentence.

  8. Even a threat to arbitrarily take repayments from welfare payments if welfare recipients cannot prove Centrelink to be at fault within 21-days is a criminal violation of section 138 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995.)

AAT submission 1 Redacted

AAT submission 2 redactedAll of the matters of facts and the points of law mentioned above were in the Statement of facts & Issues that I submitted to the Mark Tange, an AAT Case Services officer on 21st February 2017.

  1. The 1st part of the submission was sent at 12.44PM on 21st February 2017.

  2. The 2nd part of the submission was emailed at 12.49PM on 21st February 2017.

  3. The next day, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government services lawyer representing the Department of Social Security, and by extension, the Turnbull Government and the Federal Parliament, sent a written “Without prejudice” offer to the person that, under section 32 of of the AAT Act (1975), I was (legally) representing.

  4. NOTE: Had Ms. Ulrick followed Due Process of Law, a copy of that “without Prejudice”  offer should have been sent to me so that I could advise the applicant on what options were available that were in his best interest.

‘Nole contendere – No Contest’

The offer made by Ms. Ulrick within a day of receiving my initial Statements of Facts and Issues was effectively a ‘Nole contendere – no contest’ admission that the statements submitted were legally valid

  1. I had accused the Turnbull Government of fraudulent abuse of power in its dealing with the welfare recipient that I was assisting as a volunteer REPRESENTATIVE under section 32 of the AAT Act.

  2. The following statement on page 3 of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report document was not contested and is therefore evidence that any person can use in any court or administrative appeal :

    “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 and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

  3. Ms. Ulrick works in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services {DHS].

  4. It is therefore highly likely that she had the ability to test the above claim against information contained in the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, i.e. the ISIS computer system used by Centrelink and the DHS.

  5. The documents that I submitted submitted are legal documents that any person can use in their own legal case, be it a Centrelink “you owe us money’ claim,  or even in criminal cases, e.g. being charged with multiple counts of fraud or even multiple counts of murder!

  6. The outcome of AAT 2016/5334 is therefore a legal precedent,  for fighting Centrelink’s often criminal abuses of power that are openly manifested in criminally dangerous Breaching penalties, unconstitutional forced slave labour, i.e. Work for the Dole,  and ruthlessly depriving people of disability pensions and other welfare entitlements.

  7. The failure to report fatalities is understandable as, regardless of the actual Cause of death, the MANNER of Death is HOMICIDE.


At the beginning of this posting I placed this news article:


Earlier this month, the South Australian Government tried to sneak legislation through the SA Parliament that was intended to exempt the South Australian Government from paying compensation to the victims of abuse in SA government child protection programs.

Even if the Weatherill Government had succeeded in sneaking this disgrace legislation through the Parliament, it is highly likely that the High Court would have dismissed it as “statutory fiction.”

In Section of the Home Improvement Program Report, Commissioner Hanger addressed the issue of Risk in government programs. The recommendations are particularly relevant to the as yet unreported fatal impact of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties. 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 Hanger’s findings in 7.3.2 above are directly relevant to Senator Brandis almost dismissive comment about the “terrible human consequences” of the Turnbull Government’s unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, draconian use of a computerized debt recovery  using the dysfunctional ISIS computer system.

Australia’s “No Show, No Pay” penalties


  1. In Volume 2 of The Emcott Report, I pointed out that the above legislation was unconstitutional, a deliberate criminal act of Reckless Endangerment, with foreseeable potentially fatal consequences, i.e. if you deprive impoverished people of the means to survive, it is glaringly obvious that some of the victims WILL NOT SURVIVE

  2. No Show – No Pay penalties triggered fatalities are unreported, secretly classified as confidential,and dismissed as irrelevant”, e. they are officially ignored.

  3. Statute laws that involve reckless acts of endangerment that result in fatalities are criminal acts that are totally inconsistent with “good government’.

  4. It is my considered viewpoint. clearly stated many times in the documents submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal, that these deaths are violations of Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International criminal court, i.e. they are MURDER.

  5. Ms. Ulrick’s “no contendere – No contest’ action in seeking to end the legal action BEFORE I could read these documents into the hearing transcript, i.e. place them on public record, was a tacit admission that these deaths are murders, not only under international law, but also under state, territory and federal laws.

How Much Compensation?

How much compensation will victims of the Australia’s unconstitutional welfare bashing laws and mass media defamation receive in compensation is a key question?

The following examples may provide insight into that question:

Case Study#1: Raymond Akhtar Ali $3,000

  • Everyone is entitled to Justice, even Raymond Akhtar Ali who was convicted in 2000 of murdering his baby daughter in 1998. In August 2013, he was awarded $3,000 in compensation because, as a Muslim, he had been forced to eat non-Halal food.

Case Study #2: Hockey V Fairfax   $200,000

  • Joe Hockey scored a tidy $200,000 from Fairfax newspapers in June 2015 for the 3-word posting on Twitter:  “Treasurer for sale”

Case Study #3: Winifred Brennan $380,166.50.

On 2nd March 2001, the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded Mrs. Winifred Brennan $380,166,50 in compensation for having developed an asbestos related disease. Only $20,000 of that award was for loss of expected life. In view of the case study below, far higher payouts can be expected in 2017 and beyond.

Case Study #4 Ian Ward’s family $3.2 million

  • In July 2010, the Western Australian Government made a $3,200,000 ‘Ex Gratis” compensation payment to the family of Ian Ward, an aboriginal elder who was “roasted to death” when being transported in the back of prison van that did not have a working air-conditioner.

Case Study #5: Dr. John Knight $4.3 million

The South Australian Government has agreed to pay a cardiac surgeon $4.3 million in compensation over loss in income and damage to his reputation.Professor John Knight was stood down by Flinders Medical Centre in 2009 during an investigation of an 81-year-old heart patient’s death.The surgeon later was cleared by the Coroner of any wrongdoing. But after a brief period of re-employment Professor Knight’s contract with the hospital was not renewed.

Opposition health spokesman Rob Lucas said it would cost taxpayers even more once legal costs were added. “This is a disgraceful example of incompetence and financial mismanagement by the South Australian Government and Health SA and ultimately the cost to taxpayers will be in excess of $6 million,” he said.

  1. The problem with Rob Lucas trying to score political points over Dr. Knight’s dismissal is that Breaching, Work for the Dole, No show – no pay penalties, and Malcolm Turnbull’s Digital Data Fiction Fraud {2D2F], aka “the Tudge Fudge Fraud, are all unconstitutional abuses of power, which raises the question of what is adequate compensation for victims of these crimes?

  2. Adding further complexity to the compensation is is the question of the [anything but] “irrelevant” death toll that Centrelink has never reported.

  3. The death of Ian Ward may have been negligent, but no-one ever claimed that it was “irrelevant.”

    Senate EWRE committee regards post-breaching fatalities as irrelevant.

    Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia’s already disadvantaged unemployed by making them even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a “job”. Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as “not relevant”. Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous dismissal of the unreported, secretly classified, post breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” was appropriate?

  4. No death caused by Federal laws, policies and practices is ever “irrelevant”.

Every politician and every political party that ever supported unconstitutional laws, policies and practices needs to held accountable for their decisions.

AAT 2016/5334 – ” A duces tecum subpoena”

The following statement was contained in the Statement of Facts & Issues submission in Volume 3 of the Emcott Report; it was not contested by the lawyer representing the Federal Government and any person seeking compensation can issue a duces tecum subpoena that would compel the Minister for Human Services to “produce the documents, i.e. the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues.

The problem for state, territory and federal prosecutors, and the national community in general,  is that any person charged with crimes such as fraud, recklessly  endangering life, manslaughter or murder, could also issue a duces tecum subpoena if they want to mount an apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias defence or an appeal of an existing conviction.

Ron Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate for Justice.


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 42E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 may be a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and bankrupt federal politicians.

  1. says:

    Dear Ronald as I thought and checked nollo contender is a plea of accused who does not plea guilty nor not guilty It is not acceptable in Australia.Please explain what you mean, and what is the text of Tribunal s Decision, and text of the case you refer by number. thank you,

    Les-zek Shyman-Szymanski, Ph.D. Author, historian, journalist, editor Ph.D. History (PUNO=London), M. Political Science (California State University), B.A. General (London University)

    • yadnarie48 says:

      RE: Nollo contender not acceptable in Australia:

      Leslie, Issues paper #9 was written to one of the lawyers who campaigned for the re-trial of Henry Keogh. Needless to say, I referred to this case in volume 2 of The Emcott Report and was aware that ‘nollo contendere’, or ‘nollo contender’ is used in Australian courts. There is more detail in a private email that just sent to you.

      Ron Medlicott

      HENRY Keogh’s third trial for the alleged murder of Anna-Jane Cheney has been abandoned in the Supreme Court.
      In a sensational development in the long-running case, Director of Public Prosecutions Adam Kimber SC has entered a nolle prosequi against Keogh, which formally withdrew the case from the court list.

      Mr Kimber appeared before Justice Malcolm Blue at 4.30pm on Friday to announce his decision. Keogh was not present in the courtroom during the hearing, which lasted less than two minutes.

      In a statement issued through his lawyers, Keogh thanked all the people who had supported him “from the start of this ordeal to the end”. He repeated his stance that he remained innocent of the charge of murdering Ms Cheney at their Magill home in 1994. “I want to state very clearly that I loved my fiance Anna-Jane and absolutely deny having anything to do with her death,” he said.

      “This was — and still is — a terrible tragedy for Anna-Jane, her family and me. “I now look forward to trying to make up for all those lost years with my family and friends.”

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