Part 42H. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The case law decisions behind the AAT2016/5334 win.

The mass media is referring to the Tudge Fudge Fraud as the Robo-debt fraud, a term that I shall use in this and future postings. Using AAT 2016/5334 to beat the blatant Abuse-of-Power fraud means not just looking at the following case law decisions but studying them until you understand why they are Robo-debt Killer decisions that could  potentially put dozens of politicians and senior bureaucrats who are responsible for the Robo-debt frauds and murders behind bars for life.

NOTE: The shortlink URL for this posting is:

Anyone sucked into the unconstitutional AAT appeal needs to be aware of these case law decisions and that means going to each URL and copying and pasting the  case law decision and paragraphs mentioned for each decision into a word processor for of-line study.

  1. Please do not complain that this is too difficult to understand: you will be up against A TEAM OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS if you file an AAT appeal as per Alan Tudge’s unconstitutional advice, which I sincerely believe is intended to simply suck victims into The Robo-Debt Fraud Trap.

  2. These lawyers do hit victims with dozens of case law precedents that ignore or conceal the case law precedents below.

  3. The key to the staggering success of the Robo-Debt Fraud Trap, is the ignorance of victims about both their legal rights and how the Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] actually works.

  4. Having previously how the Turnbull Government and previous governments have worked the 2D2F scam, it is time to get down to the hard stuff, the, case law decisions.

Engineerscase 1920

  1. Commonly referred to as the “Engineer’s Case”, according to the High Court at the time, this was the most important decision ever made by the High Court.

  2. Guess what? It still is, especially for Robo-debt victims.

  3. Unfortunately it is also the most confusing decision I have ever studied; you have to pain-stakingly dig out the critical points of law from un-numbered paragraphs of text littered with dead [Latin} language terms that are a numerous as dog-dropping on a public park.

  4. Important points to note are that the laws of the Commonwealth are “binding”; however, neither political expediency and necessity nor legal necessity are valid grounds for violating the constitution, which places limits on what laws the Federal parliament can make.

  5. If a law is not constitutionally valid, then it effectively no law at all.

  6. A CRITICAL point to note is that the constitution separates the powers of the Parliament from the Courts, which makes the next High Court decision a powerful Robo-debt Killer decision.

HellicarThe key paragraphs in the Hellicar decision that you need to copy are paragraphs 141 to 143.

  1. These 3 paragraphs were made known to the acting Chief-Legal-Counsel for the Department of Human Services in December 2015 and promptly ignored, probably because they invalided 5 million decisions and underscored the fact that the DHS was engaging in criminal abuses of power that sometimes resulted fatalities that I believe constitute Genocide and Murder under state, territory, federal and international laws.

  2. Paragraph 141 makes it clear that Centrelink bureaucrats, and politicians, who believe that they have the right to make legal decisions are wrong.

  3. Paragraph 142 makes it clear that the legal principles that apply to criminal law cases also applies to civil cases that involve a financial penalty, i.e. a pecuniary penalty such a the dole being cut off or Centrelink demanding that an ALLEGED DEBT be repaid.

  4. Finally, paragraph 143 makes it very clear that once a legal decision is challenged by a welfare recipient, IT IS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS, NOT ALAN TUDGE OR CENTRELINK BUREAUCRATS.

  5. The burden of proof is on Centrelink, not Centrelink clients, when Centrelink seeks to engage in what is know as “Tortious Conduct” for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENTS.

  6. Centrelink officials, and Alan Tudge, have no constitutional JURISDICTION to make legal decisions as to the facts of the matter, a key legal point of law that is NOT PUBLISHED on the Australian Government Service Legal Briefing Papers website.

  7. Hellicar leads to the next crucial Burden of Proof court decision.

  1. BhardwajThe key paragraphs to copy in the Bhardwaj decision are 51 to 53.

  2. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 51 is: “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

  3. That is the actual legal status of Centrelink’s fraudulent Abuse of Power actions in which, if people cannot prove that Centrelink was at fault, Centrelink arbitrarily takes money from people or alternately, tries to force people into the federal government’s unconstitutional appeals process, i.e administrative reviews and the shonky Administrative Appeals Tribunal system.

  4. NOTE: The President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr, was informed of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions in December 2015. However, the AAT also ignores these High Court decisions and even ignores criminal abuses of power, e.g. the withholding of evidence.

  5. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 52 is: “as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision.”

  6. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 53 dovetails with the above statement: “As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, 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.”

  7. ANY DECISION made by Centrelink officials, review officers, or an AAT Member that is not based upon the facts of the matter that have been determined by a court of law, is in law, “NO DECISION AT ALL.”


  1. You do not have to prove to Centrelink that they made a mistake.

  2. The Burden of Proof is on Centrelink which must prove the validity of its claim to a court that you made a mistake that resulted in overpayments.

  3. Until that happens, Centrelink has no legally right to impose any penalty, especially a penalty arising from a claim based upon its exceedingly dysfunctional, 35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System, i.e. the ISIS computer system.

  4. This brings us to the next critical Robo-debt Killer decision.

Police v. Butcher 2016 is a very recent South Australian Supreme Court decision that focused procedural errors in the legal process. Copy and paste the entire case findings, which are not that long and are relatively easy to understand. The Key Points of Law to note from this decision are that People who are involved in making a legal decision must be:

  1. Authorized to make that decision.

  2. Qualified, i.e. competent, to make that decision.

  3. Currently certified to make that decision.

  4. Comply with Due Process laws, standards and procedures.

  5. Anyone can be “authorized” to make a decision, however, if the other 3 criteria are not met, then in law, as per Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, then in law, any decision is, in law, NO DECISION AT ALL.

  6. Centrelink’s ISIS Computer is not a legal entity, and just like your DVD recorder or refrigerator, it cannot legally impose a fine as it does not meet points 2, 3 and 4 above.

  7. Even worse, the ISIS system produces “UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE’

  8. The official, but ‘informal’ Statement of Facts & Issues that I submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal attacked the “lack of integrity” of the ISIS system:

The following are points raised that the lawyers representing the Department of Social Services, which handles the Centrelink tort actions against welfare recipients, included the following legal points that highlight why the output from the ISIS system should not be accepted by a court:


“…on the balance of probabilities.”  Centrelink’s self-arbitrated tort claims are a ‘landmark case” for the legal concept of Unreliable Evidence.

  1. A reported 50 million keystrokes (transactions) per day, with the potential for up to a million potential keystroke errors per day.

  2. Over-worked and under-trained, non-certified-data-entry staff.

  • 21 Billion Http calls per day in an operating system that contains 30 million lines of partially undocumented system code.

  1. Undocumented system code can result in a 3-month effort by a team of programmers just to change the date format on a form letter.

  2. Public discrediting of a key algorithm that uses inappropriate logic, e.g. ‘Income annualizing’ of income earned by casual and part-time workers with the subsequent false automated-assumption of the non-reporting of the annualized income when people were not working.

  3. Medically unqualified data entry operators making “If-Then-Else” decisions when entering medical data into the ISIS computer system.

  • Untested and therefore uncertified data entry operators

  • Like the LIDAR speed guns used by police, data entry operators need be re-tested and re-certified in accordance with Australian Standards 2708 to “certify the level of accuracy of the data entry operator.”

  1. Without ‘Current Competency’ certified testing to AS 2078/2015 so as to ensure the accuracy of data used in Centrelink initiated tort actions, it is impossible to adduce accuracy with any reasonable degree of certainty.

  2. In the absence of ‘Current competency certification’, the accuracy of data entered is, to quote from Dr. Chettock’s testimony at the USS Scorpion inquiry, a case of scratching our heads and coming up with our best guess.”

  3. Whilst UNIX and Solaris operating systems are very stable, their security is compromised by the Windows systems which are constantly being updated to ensure security.

  • Centrelink’s I.T. personnel have reported to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the ISIS computer system is subjected to virus attacks and therefore certification of each personal computer or terminal used by a data entry operator at the time of an alleged error by a welfare recipient is also essential in order to ensure that, on the balance of probability, as per Police v Butcher, the equipment used was unaffected by viruses and functioning as per design specification.

  • In order for ISIS input data to be used as evidence in a civil dispute, all data-entry staff must be appropriately certified as to their individual knowledge level of the relevant statute laws, regulations, policies and procedures at the time any data relevant to a dispute was entered in ISIS. [Current competency of accredited trainers, training programs, and relevance and accuracy of content.?

  • The endemic problem of bad advice being provided to Centrelink clients by inexperienced or unqualified Centrelink staff is known to be of such a broad scale that incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials (Sic) 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”

  1. An unknown number of “Failure to Code to zero” data entry errors.

  • Manual data-matching so far behind real-time inputs that violations of federal and state ‘Menace’ and ‘Blackmail’ laws have been used for years as an ‘administrative convenience’ when attempting to data-match ATO reports to the real-time income reports of Centrelink clients.

  • A reported reduction in staffing levels of 5,000 staff by Ms. Nadine Fleet, the National Secretary of the Community & Public Sector Union, for the purported purpose of reducing operating costs, raises issues of workload stress and increased workload error rates that cannot reasonably be accurately determined. [What, professional assessment of stress on workload error rates exists?]

  • Frequent changes to legislation in what is some of the nation’s most complex and comprehensive legislation also raises questions as to the impact upon both workload stress and workload competence.

  • 30% call-blocking to protect infra-structure from overload failures.

  1. People required to report told they are not required to report income and automatically shut out of the ISIS system when trying to report.

  • The On-line income reporting system icon was deleted so that there was no way for welfare recipients to report income via the Internet.

  • Unlike ATO accredited receipts, on-line income reporting ‘receipts’ do not include reported details when using the default print-out option.

  • The system can hang or crash at random times. [N.B. Video recorded]

  • Icons on the Income reporting screen do not comply with appropriate standards for people who may be ‘visually challenged.’

  • There is no consumer standard on-screen ‘Save’ or “Save as” option for welfare recipients to locally save data files of income reports.

  • Some welfare recipients reporting by phone told they “ARE “NOT ELIGIBLE TO REPORT”. Any attempt to then report by phone then fails.

  • ANAO Report #37 contains details systemic faults, e.g. people phoning in to ask questions about benefits or to report income spent a total of 811 years on hold. [I have a video of being on hold for 50 minutes.]

  • Many Department of Human Service public accountability reports mislead both the Parliament and the public.

  • No accurate data on clients who have been dead for 20-years or more.

  • No data on the real-world human impact of welfare penalties, e.g. loss of essential services, inability to purchase essentials of life such as food, clothes or medicine, evictions and unreported post-breaching fatalities.

  • In February 2015, Senator Payne stated that the system needed to be replaced with a Billion-dollar system that will provide integrity” to payment systems. [*Note: “will provide integrity” is future tense.]

  • 20% of 170,000 tort claims since June 2016 have been acknowledged as erroneous with 73,000 erroneous alleged debt notices issued on 1st January 2016.

  • The publicly acknowledged total of 107,000 erroneous claims out of 243,000 is a massive error rate of 44.03%.


Given the known systemic problems within Centrelink and the ISIS computer system’s lack of functional “integrity”, it is unlikely that a court would validate Centrelink’s claims. However, the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision below, which was made in the absence of any findings as to the primary facts of the matter by a court, produced this ‘Dickensian Bleak House Farce’. The “finding” brazenly ignored s 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e. the waiver of a debt if it is solely due to a Commonwealth error:

  1.  <The applicant’s> 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” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA. [The case file details are withheld to protect the victim.]

It is very hard to win an AAT appeal when the presiding AAT Member:

  1.  Ought to know of, and ignores, both Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  2. Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful;

  • Ought to know that conspiring to hold a ‘trial’ is unlawful;

  1. Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties;

  2. Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that deliberately ignore s 1,237A of the SSA.

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when the Ombudsman’s Office also ignores all of the above and upholds the decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above procedural fairness violations.

AT WHAT COST? It is should be of grave public concern that a very significant proportion of suicide and heart attack victims in Australia are Centrelink clients. An as yet unknown number may be victims of highly questionable tort actions that ignored Hellicar and by-passed the courts when Centrelink ‘recovered’ overpayments that it may have had no legitimate right to reclaim.


Following cases are all relevant to the Robo-Debt Fraud:

  1. The key phrase to note in the Culleton Decision is the Latin phrase “void ab initio”. An easy-to-understand definition of this is found at this link.


  3. Void Ab Initio –

    A purported legal status or legal document that is taken to have never been valid or enforceable. from the start, from the moment of its purported existence.

    Oddly, what is void or voidable is, as far as it matters between the participants, still in force until challenged or rebuked, as the actors to the legal drama not yet unfolded proceed as if the void document or status was lawful. But if and when judicial determination is required, the Court will declare a document or purported legal status void, an exercise that is by definition retroactive. Of course, any time a court of law exercises its prerogative of time travel, the declaration that something that had been relied upon for years was void from the start, can sometimes produce unusual results and consequences.

  4. NOTE: A purported legal status that has never been valid or enforceable. from the start, is a very good summary of Centrelink’s Robo-Debt decisions.

  5. NOTE ALSO: “…the declaration that something that had been relied upon for years was void from the start, can sometimes produce unusual results and consequences.”

  6. This has been going on for decades, with any fatalities not being included in official reports for the very obvious reason that if investigated, criminal charges would almost certainly be laid against the politicians and bureaucrats and lawyers responsible for the violations of civil rights that triggered these deaths.


There are literally hundreds of cases that provide legal precedents for the prosecution of anyone involved in the Robo-Debt Fraud. If I am correct in my estimate of around 100,000 fatalities from all causes over the last 30 – 40 years, it is possible that hundreds of politicians and bureaucrats, past and present, could face homicide charges because there is no statute of limitations on deaths that are the result of criminal activity. Poniatowska  Coco Boughey Leck & Keating Denlay Police v Butcher r2014 Trevorrow Finch Brett Cowan Baden Clay 2015 QSC Baden-Clay HCA 2016 Martens

I hope this information is useful to those who are victims of the Robo-Debt Fraud, aka the 2D2F Scam.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer 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 42H. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The case law decisions behind the AAT2016/5334 win.

  1. Tracey Munro says:

    Ronald. This collection agency Robo-bank In Hebrew translation is: Ro=Seeker, ‘Prophet one who comes.’ Bo= coming in. So one who comes to collect the the measure. This Social Security. An agency to condemn people for various sins: adultery, poverty, Heritic Phillistines, Galleans anybody NOT of their kin. Every law comes from the Old Testament but the New Testament is the Lord Christ Jesus Redeeming Grace. Can’t be accused for sin taken by Jesus. Condemnation in hell for who they are.

    • yadnarie48 says:

      Hi Tracey,

      I do not mean to be rude or hurtful, but focussing upon semantics when vulnerable people are being defrauded by the Federal Government is not really consistent with God’s requirement that we Christians be “light and salt.” Robo-debt is Robo-fraud, i.e. Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) using Centrelink’s highly dysfunctional Integrated Social Infrastrreucture System (ISIS). Robo-debt is a crime under sections 142.2, 145.4 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

      This criminal abuse of power is made much easier to conceal because only a very small number of people know about the High Court’s May 3rd 2012, High Court decision that regulatory authorities, e.g. Centrelink, cannot make legal findings of fact in disputed tortious conduct actions. If Centrelink says someone is overpaid and that person disputes that claim, in law, it is a matter for the courts, not Centrelink. See and check out paragraphs 141 to 143.

      In March 2002, the High Court ruled that if there is no jurisdiction to make a decision, then, in law, no decision has been made. See
      Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

      There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all[33]. 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. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

      The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

      “As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

      To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”[34]

      In the same case, his Lordship cited[35] with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

      “as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”[36].

      In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

      The pay-up in 21 days demand by Centrelink violates section 75 (iii) of the Constitution, which is what the High Court referred to in Hellicar at 141 and 143. However, these facts were known way back in 1920 when the High Court made what is still the most important decisions ever made by this court. See In this decision, the High Court spelt out quite clearly the fact that legal decisions are a matter for the courts and any laws that do not comply with the “express words” of the constitution are not valid. Look for the weird phrase “pl 3”, which is a specific reference to ‘Chapter 3 of the constitution; section 75 (iii) is a constitutional constrain on the Federal parliament that for convenience, the Turnbull Government is deliberately ignoring.

      In a submission lodged with the Federal Administrative Appeal Tribunal oat 1.44pm (Adelaide time) on 21st February, I accused the Federal Government of fraud. In addition, I made the following statement:

      “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.”

      The next day, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government Service lawyer represented the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, made a “without prejudice” offer to the person that I was representing that, in law, constituted a “Nolle Contendere” (I will not contest that issue). The offer itself was a “Void ab initio” respond that made centrelink’s disputed decision disappear, i.e. as if the decision had never been made. Proverbs 31, verses 8 & 9 require the children of God to “speak up, defend the poor, and see that justice is done.” Therefore, whilst being able to quote Hebrew translations may have intrinsic personal value, it is inconsistent with both paragraph 5 of the constitution, i.e. the law is binding on the people” and with our spiritual responsibility to God to fight against unjust laws. (See Is 10:2)

      Ron Medlicott – a Christian lay-advocate for justice.

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