It appears that there was a false assumption made by the New South Wales Coroner, Michael Barnes, that could result in more on-going terrorist motivated deaths across Australia, for he wrongly assumed that the Lindt Café attack was the first terrorist attack experienced by the New South Wale Police; sadly, this is not true.
[P.S. THE TEXT OF THE ABOVE EMAIL IS APPENDED AT THE END OF THIS POSTING.]
In his findings Coroner Barnes correctly pointed out that false assumptions were then treated by police as empirical facts. He was highly critical of the failure of the New South Wale Police to respond in a prompt and timely manner when, at 2.03 AM, Man Mons first shot at fleeing hostages .
NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-12t
The fatal flaw in Coroner Barnes findings is that this was actually the second time that the New South Wale Police had been asked to deal with a terrorist attack, and the failure to deal with that attack was simply mirrored in the way in which the Lindt Cafe siege was handled, i.e. the New South Wale Police failed to realize that they were dealing with an act of terrorism, false assumptions that were treated as facts and a failure to respond to a deadly threat in a timely manner.
To be fair to the New South Wale Police, very law enforcement agency, politician, newspaper editor, teacher or minister of religion that that I have contacted has made the same blunder, i.e. the failure to recognize that Australia’s “no show, no pay” laws are a deliberate act of genocide and that any fatalities caused by the ruthless, unconstitutional enforcement of the ‘breaching penalties’ are MURDER under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
At this point in time, only one member of the legal professional, Elizabeth Ulrick, an Australian Government Service lawyer based in the Freedom of Information and Litigation branch of the Department of Human Services appears to have officially acknowledged this fact of law. As I have pointed out in a recent postings concerning AAT 2016/5334, on 21st February 2017, Ms. Ulrick was the recipient of a Statement of Facts & Issues that contained 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.”
Facing with an Administrative Appeals Tribunal directive that required the disclosure of all relevant information by 3rd March 2017, Ms. Ulrick had no option but to access the Centrelink database to find the answers to questions that I considered that the Federal Court would consider, credible, relevant and significant, i.e. the number of times the of the Department of Human Services had deliberately violated the constitutional rights of welfare recipients and the number of fatalities arising from this decades long abuse of power.
I do not know what statistical facts of the matter Ms. Ulrick found when querying the database; what I do know is that on the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Ulrick decided not to contest the above claim, possibly so that the number of people defrauded and murdered by of the Department of Human Services over the last 30 or 40 years could continue to remain a state secret. By-passing me, the prompt issuing of a ‘Without Prejudice’ proffer to the applicant withdrew the Centrelink claim and offered to pay all months withheld as a consequence of the of the Department of Human Services having deliberately violated the applicant’s constitutional rights.
Until such time as law enforcement agencies, coroners and Officers of the Court across Australia come to grips with the fact of law that the Australian Federal Parliament is committing acts of state terrorism, more vulnerable victims will die.
I cannot emphasize too strongly, the evidence of these crimes is overwhelming and neither unbelief or disbelief provides valid grounds for any failure to hold accountable those responsible for decades of fraud and murder. If you have not watched the video in the web link below, do so now before the Senator Brandis or Malcolm Turnbull orders that it be removed:
Whilst Robo-Debt might be administratively convenient, it is an unconstitutional, criminal abuse of power and all fatalities stemming from this criminal activities are deaths caused by the commission of a crime. In At paragraphs 8 and 9 in COCO v THE QUEEN (1994) 179 CLR 427, (13th April 1994), the High Court ruled:
 “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless. However, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed in Plenty v. Dillon ((4) (1991) 171 CLR at 654.)”
“(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.
 In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required ((5) Wheeler v. Leicester City Council (1985) AC 1054 at 1065;
An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities. Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6)  UKHL 8; (1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.) :
“a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.
Way back on the 31st August 1920, the High Court made this ruling in The Engineers Society versus The Adelaide steamship Company:
The majority decision was presented by Justice Isaac and in the fourth paragraph His Honour made the following statements which I have bullet-pointed and underlined 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 stated that:
‘…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. [* “placitum”, “placita” – Constitution, agreement or judicial proceeding.]
On May 3rd 2012, the High Court ruled:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar  HCA 17
 “And 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…”
 “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”
In Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11, the High Court ruled:
 “…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.”
The Federal Parliament is constrained by the “governing words of paragraph 51 of the constitution AND also by the determinations of the High Court, which, as pointed out in the High Court decisions have ruled that Administrative convenience is not legal grounds for violating the constitutional or civil rights of citizens. What you see and hear in the ABC video is both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unintentionally admitting to ignoring the constitutional and other civil rights of welfare recipients. Unwittingly, on a national television program, they confessed to fraud and murder and no-one appears to have noticed and done anything about this other that Elizabeth Ulrick and myself.
Can you explain why this is so?
Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay advocate for justice.
TEXT OF THE NSW POLICE EMAIL:
Thank you for your e-mail can you please elaborate in detail on the documents you are referring to in your e-mail.
NSW Police Force
State Crime Command
Fraud & Cybercrime
7 November 2012
Select the area you wish to contact : Commissioner’s Office
Name : Ronald Medlicott
Country : Australia
Subject : Raids on Craig Thomson
Enter your comments in this box: : The devil is in the detail but if your raids on Craig Thomson were completely successful you should have scooped up certified copies of secretly classified documents that I sent to Mr Thomson in May 2012. If you do not have these documents in your possession, then the obvious implication is that Mr Thomson has stashed sensitive documents elsewhere.
The above message was received through the NSWPF Internet site www.police.nsw.gov.au ( submitted at the date/time above, using IP address 126.96.36.199 ). Do not reply directly to this email if no email address is provided.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All mail is subject to content scanning for possible violation of NSW Police Force policy, including the Email and Internet Policy and Guidelines. All NSW Police Force employees are required to familiarise themselves with these policies, available on the NSW Police Force Intranet.
Readers, criminal law defence lawyers and convicted criminals take note: There were two emails sent in response to Officer Prasad’s request for further information that were not apparently followed up because, like the persecution and murder of Jews in Nazi Germany, the NSW Police apparently did not, and still do not, consider the alleged defrauding and murder of welfare recipients to be a criminal act.