Robo-debt is systemic fraud, a criminal abuse of power by the Federal Government that has been going on since 2011; all fatalities caused by this criminal activity are unlawful homicides that SHOULD be investigated by every police force in the nation.
Note: The link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Z3
A major problem with Robo-debt is that nation-wide there is a collect belief that since the Federal Government is responsible for the Robo-debt policies and practices, then it must be lawful.Such misguided beliefs are not uncommon as this statement by Francis Neale,Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. (July 2009). Francis Neale was also an advisor to the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands indicates:
“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
Keeping the above quote in mind, I repeat my opening statement, i.e.Robo-debt is systemic fraud, a criminal abuse of power by the Federal Government that has been going on since 2011, and all fatalities caused by this criminal activity are unlawful homicides that SHOULD be investigated by every police force in the nation.
Saying that is easy to do but in reality, making a complaint to the police alleging fraud and serial murder is not easy to do. However, as the following pictures and text reveals, that is exactly what I have done.
On May 2nd, at 10:27 AM, I referred the Robo-Debt Fraud scam to the Tasmanian Police and requested that a criminal investigation be undertaken. If the Tasmanian Police ‘drag-the-lead’ and do nothing, then in my next complaint to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, i.e. the UNHRC, I shall add the Tasmanian Police to the list of law enforcement agencies that are turning a blind-eye to the persecution, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients.
The text of the email, with some typo corrections, is shown below. Readers should note that once I know who is representing Mr. Shaun Faulker, the person charged with allegedly murdering Mr. Alex Watts, I shall forward case law details and other evidence that could be considered if Mr. Faulkner wishes to mount a ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias’ defence.
From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:27 AM
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Subject: FW: Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act
The following information is brought to your attention for prompt investigation.
Please note that the text of the email below is posted on the Internet at : http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-YD
SAPOL copped a hammering in Interim Report #9 of the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children in Institutionalized Care. However, that will be a storm in a teacup compared to the hammering every law enforcement agency in Australia will cop once an inquiry into the Robo-debt Fraud and the unreported, secretly classified, supposedly “irrelevant” death toll and other unlawful harms caused by decades of abuses of power are finally investigated.
4 days ago, Alex Watts was murdered at the Elizabeth Shopping Centre. SAPOL arrested Shaun Faulkner on Saturday and he was arraigned yesterday. It is my intention to contact Mr. Faulkner’s lawyer and point out that he has a whopper of an Apprehended Bias/Manifest Ostensible Bias that can be used to have the charges thrown out of court. SAPOL will not be pleased with this but the facts of the matter are that SAPOL has known about the classified post-breaching death toll for years and, by voluntary acts of omission, has allowed this death toll to rise. If the Tasmanian Police do not conduct an investigation into Robo-debt and the “irrelevant” post-breaching fatalities, MARTIN BRYANT could also have a ripper of an appeal case. I would remind you that Dr. Jayant Patel ‘beat the rap’ in regard to more than 80 deaths in Queensland and Martin Bryant ‘only’ murdered 35 people.
NOLLE CONTENDERE: I was the lawfully appointed Representative of the Applicant in AAT case 2016/5334 and I really did include the following statement in the Statement of Facts & Issues presented via email on 21st February 2017. Elizabeth Ulrick, the AGS lawyer representing the DSS really did adopt a ‘Nolle contendere’ response that avoided disclosure of the “Awesome Foursome” information that I had requested, i.e. how many people has the DHS murdered in the last 40 years?
“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.”
ROBO-DEBT IS ROBO-FRAUD AND ANY AND ALL FATALITIES TRIGGERED BY THIS CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER ARE UNLAWFUL HOMICIDES.
Please note: The Advocate version 3 is an update of the document provided to Ms. Ulrick on 21st February, i.e. there was no section 1, just “The Advocate”, an 82 page document.
Ronald Medlicott – Australian Citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
Robo-debt really is is Robo-fraud and in my next posting, I will expand on the Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) HCA 54, which was handed down on 31 August 1920. Readers should pay close attention to these points from that High Court decision:
The majority decision was presented by Justice Isaac and in the fourth paragraph His Honour made the following statements which I have bullet-pointed for emphasis and clarity:
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.
The duty of the Court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction.”
In paragraph 5 Justice Isaacs further stated:
‘…the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, “subject to this Constitution,”
and consequently those words, which have to be applied seriatim to each placitum, require the Court to consider with respect to each separate placitum, over and beyond the general fundamental considerations applying to all the placita, whether there is anything in the Constitution which falls within the express limitation referred to in the governing words of 51.
“The established Courts of Justice, when a question arises whether the prescribed limits have been exceeded, must of necessity determine that question;
and the only way in which they can properly do so, is by looking to the terms of the instrument by which, affirmatively, the legislative powers were created, and by which, negatively, they are restricted.
If what has been done is legislation, within the general scope of the affirmative words which give the power,
and if it violates no express condition or restriction by which that power is limited (in which category would, of course, be included any Act of the Imperial Parliament at variance with it), it is not for any Court of Justice to inquire further, or to enlarge constructively those conditions and restrictions.“
Note that the Federal Parliament, State Governments and every government or commercial agency, and every person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, are bound, not only by Commonwealth laws, but also by High Court decisions.
There is also the restriction that the power of the Federal Parliament is constrained to the limits specified in Section 51 of the Constitution.
The repeated use of the word “if” clearly implies that that laws may not be valid. Where this is the case, then, federal laws are nothing more than “statutory fictions” as per paragraph 46 of the High Court’s May 8th 2013 Keating decision. (HCAQ 20 at paragraphs 46 & 47).
On 3rd May 2012, the High Court handed down its findings in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar & Ors [HCA 17]. In paragraphs 141 – 143 the High Court ruled tha
At  ‘…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.’
At  ‘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.’
At  ‘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.’
Note the last point:
Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.’
Having overpaid billions of dollars to more than 1 million people, having to go to court is not cost effective, not at $25,000 per claim, and so the courts are deliberately by-passed. That is a criminal abuse of power and where fatalities occur, those deaths are the result of the commission of crime.
Every Prime Minister, Federal Treasurer, Attorney–General, Social Services Minister, and Human Services Minister involved in Robo-debt needs to be held accountable before a court for the lethal abuses of power that have targeted some of Australia’s most vulnerable people. Indeed, every politician who ever voted for breaching laws needs to held accountable for the crimes committed as a consequence of this recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional legislation.
After all, paragraph 5 of the constitution is quite clear, no-one, regardless of their political, economic or social status, is exempt from accountability in Australia’s federal criminal laws.
Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate for justice in Australia.