Part 43 B. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 decision part of a complaint lodged with the Tasmanian Ombudsman along with a request for a police investigation of the Robo-debt Fraud.

Email to tasmanian Ombudsman

Robo-debt is a criminal abuse of power and any fatalities triggered by this criminal activity are murders in every state and territory in Australia.

The above screen capture is part of an email sent to Clare.Hopkins@Ombudsman.tas.gov.au at 4.30 PM yesterday. The text of that email is below and readers should note that I have urged the recipient, Ms. Clare Hopkins to refer all of my emails to the Tasmanian Police for a criminal investigation of Robo-debt.

The shortlink URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-YD

Any person who may be a victim of the Robo-debt fraud should note the short link address above and refer it to their local police station. Alternatively, dial 0 0 0 and file an abuse of power complaint that way.

==========================================================================

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 4:30 PM
To: ‘Hopkins, Clare (OHCC)’ <Clare.Hopkins@Ombudsman.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: 08 8255 3638

Mobile: 04386 26811

Email: romnald48@optusnet.com.au

1st May 2017

Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt triggered fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act.

Dear Ms Hopkins,

Would you p[lease note the following Points of Law and Matters of Fact concerning  Centrelink’s Robo-debt activities:

  1. The word that best describes this email and my previous emails to the Office of the Tasmanian Ombudsman is “EVIDENCE.”
  2. In previsions emails to you, I submitted documents that constitute a Statement of Facts & Issues that was tended to the federal AAT on 21st February 2017 in regard to AAT appeal 2016/5334.
  3. One of the documents submitted, i.e. Volume 3 of The Emcott Report, contained the statement on page 1 of a section titled “The Advocate”: In Australia, just as Clarence Earl Gideon was so many years ago, welfare recipients are being shafted and are in dire need of a court appointed Advocate to represent them in tort actions brought against them by the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink. This is especially so with the Turnbull Government targeting a reported 20,000 welfare recipients a week with tort actions that deliberately by-pass Due Process of Law, i.e. not having the facts of the matter decided by the courts. In doing so, the Turnbull Government is following in the footsteps of previous Liberal and Labour led governments that have, over the last 30 – 40 years,  ruthlessly taken advantage of the fact that, like Clarence Gideon, most of the people who are accused of wrong-doing and are penalized by  Centrelink  cannot afford a lawyer.”
  4. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  5. One page 2 of that document, the following statement was made: “However, there are some victims of this criminal abuse of power who have income levels above the poverty line but suffer from a very different form of poverty, a lack of knowledge of their civil rights that prevents them from realizing that they are the unwitting victims of a massive Federal Parliament fraud. 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.”
  6. It is also a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  7. Also submitted to the AAT at the same time was Volume 2 of The Emcott Report ,which contained a certified copy of a letter from a senior Centrelink official, Neil Skill, admitting that Centrelink did not collect and report any fatalities that may have been triggered by with imposition of welfare penalties.
  8. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest either the validity of that document or the statement that these fatalities were not reported because they were homicides under state, territory, federal and internal laws.
  9. Volume 2 of The Emcott Report also contained a a number of statements pointing out that Australia’s ‘no show, no pay’ in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act was unconstitutional and a criminal act of reckless endanger that violated state, territory, federal and international laws. In point of fact, it was specifically pointed out that Section 42C violated at least 3 provisions in Article 6 of the Rome Statute, which deals with the crime of Genocide and also with numerous provision of Article 7 of the Rome Statute that deal with crimes against humanity, including article 7(1)(a), a provision which deals with state sanctions actions that are, in law, acts that constitute the crime of Murder.

It is therefore a matter of fact that in a formal Statement of Facts & Issues submission to a Commonwealth agency, I accused the Federal Parliament of unlawful abuses of power that violated state, territory, federal and international laws. It is also a matter of fact that stated that these alleged crimes have been occurring for decades and that there is a very substantial but unknown death toll as a direct consequence of the commission of these crimes. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest these allegations, possibly for the express purpose of avoiding the need to comply with paragraph 2 of an AAT directive issued on 23rd December 2016 that would have required full and frank disclosure of the number of unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” fatalities that I had demanded be disclosed because they are homicides triggered by the commission of systemic crimes.

Whilst you have expressed the viewpoint that Robo-debt is a Commonwealth issue that should be dealt with by the Office of the Commonwaelth Ombudsman, I would direct your attention to the following matters of fact and Points of Law:

  1. Any and all accusations, made to any person in the State of Tasmania that involve alleged endangerment to life, or fatalities, must be reported to a Crown Law Officer.
  2. The Tasmanian Criminal Code Act (1924) contains the flowing provision: Charge: Being accessory after the fact to murder.
  3. Written threat to murder

Any person who, knowing the contents thereof, wilfully, and with intent thereby to intimidate or influence any person, causes such person to receive any writing threatening to kill him or any other person, is guilty of a crime.

Charge: Threatening to murder.

162A. Failing to report the killing of a person

(1) In this section,

proper authority means any of the following:

(a) a police officer;

(b) a correctional officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(c) a probation officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(d) a Crown Law Officer.

(2) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person has been killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the killing of a person.

(3) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person is being subjected to conduct that, if repeated or continued, is reasonably likely to result in that other person being killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge:

Failing to report the impending killing of a person.

(4) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that the killing of another person is being planned; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge:

Failing to report the planned killing of a person.

(5) Without limiting the matters that may constitute a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (2), (3) or (4), a person is excused from reporting a discovery to a proper authority under this section if –

(a) the person knows or reasonably suspects that –

(i) another person has already reported the discovery to a proper authority; or

(ii) a proper authority has already made the same discovery; or

(b) reporting the discovery would disclose information that is privileged on the ground of legal professional privilege.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that the request in my previous email to refer the information provided to you to the Tasmanian Police was not made either spuriously or facetiously. If you do not personally ensure that the emails are forwarded to the police or the Tasmanian DPP, then by a voluntary act of omission, you place yourself in violation of the above statute.  I may be wrong, but failing to forward my email may make you an accessory to previous fraudulent activity and previous fatalities. In addition, by failing to refer these emails to the Tasmanian Police, you may also be making yourself an accessory to all future Robo-debt frauds that occur in Tasmania and any (more?) fatalities that this criminal abuse of power may trigger.

Take note of the fact that informing a superior officer within the Office of the Tasmanian Ombudsman of these alleged crimes does not fulfil your legal obligation under s. 161 (1) above.

Section 1 (b) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code Act (1924) states: 1(b) the State of Tasmania;

Crown Law Officer means the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, or any person appointed by the Governor to institute or prosecute criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court;

I would also draw your attention to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920)

When handed down, the High Court regarded the findings in this case as the most significant case ever handled by this court, a view that I subscribe to today. In addition to the States Rights versus Commonwealth Rights issues examined, the High Court carefully scrutinized the Constitution to ascertain the limits on powers of the Federal Parliament, its own powers under the constitution. Central to the findings was paragraph 5, i.e.  and the binding role of Commonwealth laws on the Courts, judges and people within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

In the 4th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

[4] It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed…The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.

In the 13th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

[13] The non-granting of powers, the expressed qualifications of powers granted, the expressed retention of powers, are all to be taken into account by a Court… When the people of Australia, to use the words of the Constitution itself, “united in a Federal Commonwealth”, they took power to control by ordinary constitutional means any attempt on the part of the national Parliament to misuse its powers.

 [In the 14th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

14] The Commonwealth Constitution as it exists for the time being, dealing expressly with sovereign functions of the Crown in its relation to Commonwealth and to States, necessarily so far binds the Crown, and laws validly made by authority of the Constitution, bind, so far as they purport to do so, the people of every State considered as individuals or as political organisms called States—in other words, bind both Crown and subjects.

Note the statement “laws validly made by authority of the Constitution”. Not all Commonwealth laws are valid. On may 8th 2013, in paragraphs 46 & 47 of the Keating Decision, [HCA 20], the High Court dismissed as “statutory fiction” retrospective legislation that was put through the Federal parliament on 4th August 2011 for the express purpose of ‘fixing’ a legislative blunder that had resulted in some 15,000 people being convicted of law that had been unintentionally extinguished on March 20th 2000. The significance of that decision, along with the above reference “laws validly made by authority of the Constitution” is clear evidence that just because the Federal government says something is valid, it does not mean that, in law, this is the fact of the matter.

Please also note that both the Commonwealth and the State Parliaments are bound by the declarations of the High Court, which on 3rd May 2012 ruled that regulators do not have the jurisdiction to determine the facts of the matter in disputed torts. In addition, the Bhardwaj decision underscored the fact that if there is no jurisdiction, then, in law, no decision has been made and a decision has yet to made.

The significance of the appended OCO letter and the certified Linacre letter is that both the OCO and the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS knew about both Bhardwaj and Hellicar in 2015 and both opted to maintain the 40-rear-long status quo and ignore these High Court decisions, which as the 1920 Engineer’s case made quite clear, were binding upon both the Commonwealth and the State Parliaments and Executives.

In Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986) at paragraph 7, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

  1. In the course of his summing up, the learned trial judge (Neasey J.) made available to the jury a written memorandum dealing with matters of law. Its effect was to instruct the jury that, on the uncontested premise that the applicant had killed the deceased by applying manual pressure to her neck, they should find him guilty of murder if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any of four possible sets of circumstances. Those possible sets of circumstances reflected the provisions of pars. (a), (b) and (c) of s.157(1) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code (“the Code”) which is set out in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas.) (“the Covering Act”). Those paragraphs of the Code read as follows:

“157 – (1) Subject to the provisions of section
160, culpable homicide is murder if it is committed

(a) with an intention to cause the death of
any person, whether of the person killed
or not;

(b) with an intention to cause to any person,
whether the person killed or not, bodily
harm which the offender knew to be likely
to cause death in the circumstances,
although he had no wish to cause death;

(c) by means of any unlawful act or omission
which the offender knew, or ought to have
known, to be likely to cause death in the
circumstances, although he had no wish to
cause death or bodily harm to any
person;”

In paragraph 10 Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

10. The last three of the above-mentioned four possible bases of a verdict of guilty of murder, namely those founded on s.157(1)(b) and s.157(1)(c) of the Code, contain an element that the accused either “knew” (s.157(1)(b) and first limb of s.157(1)(c)) or “ought to have known” (second limb of s.157(1)(c)) that his act of applying pressure to the deceased’s neck in the manner and with the force and for the length of time that he did was “likely to cause death in the circumstances”. It is submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury about what was involved in the notion of something being “likely” to cause death. In essence, the submission is that “likely”, in the context of s.157 of the Code, means “more likely than not” or “odds on” or “more than a fifty percent” chance whereas his Honour directed the jury in terms which conveyed that the phrase “likely to cause death” meant merely that there was “a good chance” that death would ensue.

At 15, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

  1. The words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) follow their use in s.156(2) where “culpable homicide” is defined to include:

“Homicide … caused–

(a) by an act intended to cause death or
bodily harm, or which is commonly known
to be likely to cause death or bodily
harm, and which is not justified under
the provisions of the Code;”

Section 157(1), which designates the cases in which “culpable homicide” is murder, is structured upon the definition of “culpable homicide” in s.156. Presumably, it was not intended to use the words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) with a meaning different to that with which they were used in s.156(2)(a). In the context of the express provision of s.156(5) that “(h)omicide that is not culpable is not punishable”, it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent (cf. Sheen v. Fields Pty. Ltd. (1984) 58 ALJR 93, at p 95; 51 ALR 345, at p 348; Waugh v. Kippen, unreported, High Court of Australia, 20 March 1986, at pp 9-10 of the pamphlet).

 JUSTICE BRENNAN: At paragraph 10 in his finds, Justice Brennan stated:

  1. Omitting reference to omissions, par.(c) of s.157(1) applies only to culpable homicide by an unlawful act – the category prescribed by par.(c) of s.156(2). If the fatal act falls into that category, it amounts to murder if the offender actually knows that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances or if the offender ought to know that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances (s.157(1)(c)). The elements of murder drawn from par.(c) of s.156(2) and from par.(c) of s.157(1) are the elements on which the submissions of counsel for the applicant have focused. Those elements would have fallen for consideration by the jury if they were not satisfied that the applicant had a specific intent to kill the deceased woman when he did the fatal act. Paragraphs (e) and (f) of s.157(1), which appear to apply to all categories of culpable homicide, have no relevance to the questions to be answered.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

[MY RECOMMENDATION: All readers of this posting should download or use a mobile phone, or a video camera, to video record this ABC Q & A segment before the Turnbull Government orders it be removed by the ABC.]

Robo-debt is the use of the dysfunctional, error-riddled  35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System software to defraud people and recover unproven “alleged” debts. On 20th February 2017, i.e. the day before I submitted the  Statement of facts & issues for case 2016/5334 to the AAT, during and ABC broadcast of the Q & A programme, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek quibbled over which political party was best at defrauding welfare recipients using the unconstitutional Robo-debt scam. Tasmanian Police, along with every other police force in the nation, should pay very careful attention to the ‘terrible human consequences’ statement made by Senator Brandis for this was a public acknowledgement of Robo-debt triggered fatalities.

I put it to you, and via you, to the Tasmanian Police, that those fatalities were culpable homicides because Senator Brandis, as the Federal Attorney-General, “ought to have known” that Robo-debt was unconstitutional and that any fatalities were culpable homicides. However, the fact of the matter, as evidenced by the current actions of the Turnbull Government, is that these fatalities are not deemed to be an issue worthy of consideration. At this point in time, the official status quo for deaths triggered by unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous tortious conduct by the Department of Human Service, aka Centrelink, is that these fatalities are:

  1. Unreported by Centrelink;
  2. Secretly classified by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee;
  3. Dismissed as ”irrelevant” by the EWRE Committee;
  4. Ignored by the ECA Committee and all 226 Members of the 42nd
  5. Ignored by numerous federal agencies including the AFP, ACC, ASIO, ACMA, OCO and HREOC.

At the State/Territory level, despite paragraph 5 of the Constitution and the Engineer’s case decision, the persecution, intimidation, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is also an issue that is being ignored by:

  1. SAPOL;
  2. State and territory Chief Coroners;
  3. ACT Human Rights Commission;
  4. Tasmanian Ombudsman.

JUSTICE DUFFY: The last word in the Engineer’s case was made by Justice Duffy:

As we have seen, the legislative power of the Commonwealth under sec. 51, being subject to the Constitution, cannot affect the State in the performance of functions allotted to it by the Constitution. But apart from this limitation it is quite clear that though the territory of the State is the territory of the Commonwealth for the purpose of executing the functions committed to it by the Constitution, for every other purpose it is the territory of the State and of the State alone. In performing the functions allotted to it by the Constitution, the Crown operating in the State cannot in any way be said to abandon its legislative and administrative powers or to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament.

 The State of Tasmania cannot submit itself to the Commonwealth, when, in clear violation of the constitution, binding High Court decisions, State, Federal and International laws, the Commonwealth is defrauding vulnerable citizens with no regard for the lethal consequences of its actions.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

NOTE TO READERS of this posting:- The following files were appended to the email to Ms. Hopkins:

  1. Federal Agent Louise denley’s letter of 7th July 2004 (AFP Ref: 3286232].
  2. The undated November 2005 letter from the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee that classified post breaching murders as “confidential.”
  3. The Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee letter, dated 2 March 2006, in which post breaching murders were classified as “irrelevant”.
  4. A certified copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skilol’s letter of 18th may 2010 (C10/1866] in which it was admitted that Centrelink does not count the number of post breaching fatalities.
  5. A letter from Michaela Morgan, the Public Contact Officer for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, dated 25 November 2015 [Ref: 2015- 513814]. This letter is documentary evidence that one or more persons within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman ignored both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the fact that the withholding of evidence was a serious criminal offence that violated criminal law statutes in Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
  6. A letter from Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Council, dated 7 January 2015, in which both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the fact that the withholding of evidence was a serious criminal offence that violated criminal law statutes in Commonwealth Criminal Code Act were all ignored.

As an Australian Citizen, it is my personal recommendation that any person who is the victim of the following abuses of power file a report with the police as soon as is possible so that these crimes can be halted and those responsible be held accountable:

  1. Robo-debt claims.

  2. Administrative stonewalling of more than 10 working days that delays the payment of welfare benefits that are a constitutional right.

  3. Forced under duress, i.e. the threat to have welfare payments withheld, to undertake Work for the Dole, which is civil conscription, an activity that section 51(xxiiiA) specifically prohibits from, being linked to welfare payments.

  4. ‘Breaching’ , i.e. the ‘No show, no pay’ penalty for alleged non-compliance with the unconstitutional Work for the Dole “obligations”.

  5. The withholding of a subsistence allowance violates international and State criminal laws and is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is totally inconsistent with the clearly expressed constitutional obligation in paragraph of the Australian Constitution that the Federal Parliament may only make laws for the purpose of “good government.”

In closing, I leave all readers with the recommendation  that you put everything in this posting to the test and only keep the verifiable parts.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian Citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate for Justice.

Email TasPol 2

ROBO-DEBT IS ROBO-FRAUD: Email to the Tasmanian Police sent at Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:27 AM advising them of this posting.

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 43 B. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 decision part of a complaint lodged with the Tasmanian Ombudsman along with a request for a police investigation of the Robo-debt Fraud.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    Dear Ronald,

    If you will, please let me know the number of complaints considered by AAT and how many if them were successful? As far as I know only about 10 – 20 % of complaints to Ombudsman is considered and out of that only about 10% successful. In my research I have found it in a stark contrast to Social Security system in the USA, not to mention Bill of Rights and Due Process. If you know please let me know the source. By the same jail I am writing to AAT in Melbourne 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)

    Austraiia/USA

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