Part 43A. Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. AAT 2016/5334 – the points of law in this appeal that can be used by any Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) victim.

AAT 2016.5334 was a “nolle contendere” win because it was based upon points of law contained in the Australian constitution, statute laws and several case law decisions. Anyone can use the AAT 2016/5334 decision as a means of defeating the current Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) and other abuses of power by the Turnbull Government. To speed up a challenge to the 2D2f scam really means coming to grips with the “nuts and bolts” points of law underpinning AAT 2016/5334.

Note: The short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-XM

Bhardwaj crop

The 1st step in understanding how the 2D2F scam works starts is to look at paragraph 53 of the High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision:

Bhardwaj 53

The above statement can be placed in the context of paragraphs 1 41 and  143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision:

Hellicar crop

Hellicar 141

  1. For 116 years, politicians have made laws that unconstitutionally allow bureaucrats to make legal decisions that are automatically the domain of the courts if these decisions are challenged.

  2. The problem is that since bureaucrats make the “original decision”, for 116 years they have wrongly believed that if their decision is challenged, that they get to make the legal determination as to the validity of their decisions.

  3. As the High Court made quite clear in the “Millionaire’s Row” Hellicar decision, “..that premise is false for 2 reasons.”

  4. Reason #1 was set out in paragraph 142 of Hellicar:

Hellicar 142

Both the bureaucrats and the members of the public who are the “Respondents” to the decision made by a bureaucrat can put their own views as to what the key facts of the matter are, i.e. the bureaucrats cannot just rely on their own rules, regulations and “facts” because there are 2 sides to the issue and the respondents can decide what are “relevant facts of the matter.”

Hellicar 143

A court, not bureaucrats decides the facts of the matter upon which a fair decision is based and as the following extracts from a Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing make very clear, going to court can be massively expensive.

 

Hansard 26-2-15

As the following extracts from these minutes reveal, Senator Xenophon was highly in exposing the extraordinary lengths that Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink, management will go to to claw back alleged over-payments from welfare recipients.

Hansard 2In this extract alone the following can be noted:

  1. $565,000 spent on a claim involving less than $6,000

  2. The cost was still rising, and on page 26 we have this;

  3. P27 A
  4. And this:27 b

  5. And then there is this:

Hansard 3

6. A barrister and at least 2 Australian Government Service lawyers to fight an untrained, self-representing father.

7. The law firm, Clayton Utz, hired to fight an appeal in the AAT.

9. Whatever it takes and whatever it costs, Centrelink management will spare no taxpayer funded expense to win!

9. If winning means bankrupting a welfare recipient, as far as Centrelink management are concerned, that is sound management!

10. As far as I am concerned, this “win at all costs – wipe ’em out” approach to welfare management is both ‘bad government’, which is unconstitutional, and also a criminal abuse of power that violates a raft of federal laws, e.g. section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

“We do not threaten.”

On page 29 we have this absolutely farcical statement from Senator Payne,  “We do not threaten. We are not in the business of threatening”; a statement, which I suspect, was spoken by Senator Payne with a genuine belief that her ridiculous statement was true:

P29 A
REALITY CHECKS ON SENATOR PAYNE’S “WE DO NOT THREATEN” COMMENT.

Senator Payne’s ridiculous “We do not threaten” statement is hard evidence of just how out-of-touch-with-reality the Federal Parliament is. Check out the letter that was sent to me via the MyGov website:

Centrelink s138 MENACE violation[P.S. ‘definace should be “defiance”. ]

The “If you do not contact us” statement contained a totally unwarranted threat to violate my constitutional right to a pension for what were totally spurious and unmerited reasons.

  1. My wife had obtained short-term contract employement and I had been reporting income earned as per the legal obligations to do so.

  2. Weeks after we started reporting this income, the Australian Tax Office notification to Centrelink was finally processed and generated this this “tell or else” menacing threat that violates the following federal and state laws:Crimes Act Cover page

At the federal level we have these criminal violations:

s 138_2 menaceskjjh

s 139_1 Unwarranted demands

s 139_2 Unwarranted demands

12 years in jail for violating federal laws is a stiff penalty. However, violating South Australia’s Criminal code carries even tougher penalties”

Blackmail cropped171

s 172 BlackmailNSW s 30 threats to lifeDivision 4 above is contained in Section 31 of the New South Wales Crimes Act.

  1. Regardless of which federal or state law is broken, the crucial issue is that facts that the threats are unwarranted.

  2. The power to make a lawful threat requires ‘Reasonable Grounds’ that provided ‘Probable Cause’ for the lawful issuing of a lawful warning.

  3. In addition, the warning must not exceed lawful authority, which is ultimately determined not by statute laws, but by the Constitution, which requires that the laws of the Federal parliament be for the purpose of “good government”.

  4. ‘Political expediency’, ‘political necessity’, or even perceived ‘legal necessity’ do not constitute “good government”.

  5. Laws that endanger life, are unconstitutional and are therefore in law, no law at all.

  6. The bottom line is that letter written to me on 15th December 2015, and all similar letters that Centrelink churns out by the millions every year, violate federal and state laws and contains jail sentences that may cumulatively total 27 years!

So why do bureaucrats routinely menace people, and why don’t politicians see anything wrong with threats that, in law, are major crimes? I believe the answer to that question is found in the following legislation, which was given Royal Ascent on 1st July 2016.

genocide-lawThis human rights violating, recklessly dangerous,  legislation is unconstitutional, which means that in law it is no law at all.

However, like the now defunct Apartheid laws in South Africa, and the now defunct Segregation laws  in the Southern United States, this law, which unlawfully deprives impoverished people of the ability to sustain life, has been ruthless enforced for decades with regular tinkering to make it a more effect way to menace, intimidate and coerce welfare recipients into engaging in unconstitutional civil conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole.

Depriving people of the necessities of life is unlawful in every state in Australia.

The following statute is found in Section 44 of the New South wales Criminal Code.

NSW s40 Failure to sustain life

Tasmania s156 homicide crop

Section 156 above is from the Tasmanian criminal code.

“No show, no pay” may be a great political cliche’ that has found its way into Federal laws, but at the end of the day, it is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is at odds with Section 51, sub-paragraph XXiiiA of the constitution, which requires the payment of an unemployment benefit that cannot be linked to “civil conscription.”

Engineers case 1920 crop

The 1920 “Engineer’s Case not only defined the limits of ‘States Rights, it also defined the powers of the High Court and the limitations on the powers of the Australian Federal Parliament.

The duty of the High Court, and all lower courts in Australia, is to interpret the constitution and laws in acordance with Crown Law “rules of construction”.

Engineers case 4 B

The Australian Federal Parliament’s powers are limited by Section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

Engineers case 5 A

Engineers case para 4The Court,  interprets the meaning of the constitution to ensure that if challenged, legislation must comply with the constitution.

Engineers case 11b

“…if the text is explicit, the text is conclusive”.

Paragraph 75 of the constitution separates the powers of the Parliament and the Court with responsibility for determining tort cases involving the Commonwealth, i.e. federal Government agencies such as Centrelink, with the court, not parliament or bureaucrats.Original jurisdiction“No show, no dole” and the Constitution

The Parliament has the power to make laws under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution:

Constitution 51

“…if the text is explicit, the text is conclusive, alike in what it directs and what it forbids.” Paragraph 51, xxiiiA directs that laws be made for THE PROVISION of welfare payments such as parenting allowances and unemployment benefits.

HOWEVER, what is expressly forbidden is the linking of welfare payments to “civil conscription”, a generic term that is known today as “Work for the Dole.”

  1. In law, all “Work for the Dole” legislation, including the genocidal Section 42C, are unconstitutional.

  2. All legislative requirements/demands  for people to undertake Work for the Dole” activities and all laws that impose penalties for alleged violations of “Mutual Obligations” are constitutionally invalid, i.e. they are “void ab initio”.

  3. As I pointed out in my previous posting Void Ab Initio means:

    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.

  4.  As the comment in the duhaime.org LegalDictionary  states, “…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.

    When it comes to “unusual results and consequences”, in law, Work for the Dole laws and the associated ‘No show, no dole‘, penalties  have never been enforceable right from the start and anyone who has suffered under these laws is entitled to compensation and payment of both appropriate wages and any welfare payments that may have been withheld.

 

Ronald Medlicott. A volunteer Christian lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

P.S. – Remember the biblical advice,  “Put all things to the test and only keep what is good.”

 

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

One Response to Part 43A. Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. AAT 2016/5334 – the points of law in this appeal that can be used by any Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) victim.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    Dear Ronald,

    I have not studied “your” appeal. I hope you enclosed it ? Did you? Of course you may erase names I wonder what point of Law you mean? Australian Constitution gives you no protection whatsoever. And AAT being no court does not care about the law nor is bound by it.

    I lost my appeal, and all my points of law as S.S. paragraphs, retroactivity of laws, assumption of innocence, et cetera were simply ignored.

    So here the sequence of events: an arbitrary and unjust decision by CenterLink. Probably by robo-cop, and they refuse Internal Investigation, Ministers and big honchos ignore my letters ombudsmen refuse help. Legal aid ignores my letter. Centerlink Administrative Review is in my opinion a kangaroo court or Kafkauesque nightmare Opposition M.P. either on purpose or by ignorance makes my situation eve worse AAT Rubber stamps Centerlink’s Decision

    I intend to appeal that decision but I am afraid it will be only going through movements.

    Perhaps Federal Court would have a different approach afterall AAT is a government body.

    Could you tell me please if in the Federal Court one can proceed as a pauper? I am a pauper. And if I lose can Centerlink ask for their costs.

    Obviously they can hire a lawyer pay 500$ a minute.

    In the USA some Insurance companies fight claimants by ruining them financially by legal fees.

    regards,les

    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)

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