Below is the redacted text of an email to Christian Porter MP, the Minister for Social Services, which is written to both inform him of my view that Robbo-Debt is Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) and to also deprive him of the “I did not know excuse.
Appended and concatenated with this email to Mr. Porter is the 1st email that I submitted to the AAT at 1.44 PM on 21st February 2017, which means that Mr. Porter received hundreds of pages of information that he now needs to consider very carefully if he wants to avoid facing criminal charges in regard to Robbo-Debt and any fatalities that may have been caused by this criminal abuse of power. Please note that the appended material is NOT included in this posting.
NOTE: the short list URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-12G
The email text to Christian Porter:
Re: Accountability for the unreported, classified, “irrelevant” fatalities that may have been caused by abuses of power, i.e. Robo-Debt and ‘no show, no pay’ penalties, which I believe are unlawful homicides under state/territory/ federal and international laws.
To you and your staff this email is ‘Information’, however, in a court it has another name that you would be very familiar with given that you are a former senior prosecutor, i.e. ‘EVIDENCE’. In order that both you and other readers of this email, or YouTube viewers, may quickly comprehend the significance of this communication, including the appended files and concatenated emails, I list the following points for your immediate consideration:
POINT #1: Robo-Debt is Digital Data Fiction Fraud and all fatalities that are the downstream consequence of this criminal activity are unlawful deaths, e.g. murder for financial gain.
POINT #2: On 20th February 2017, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unwittingly and unintentionally made off-the-cuff statements that implicate both the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Labour Party the deliberate use of administrative convenience, aka Robo-Debt, for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED overpayments that the Federal Government may have no lawful right to reclaim.
POINT #3: Work for the Dole is ‘civil conscription’ and as both a government minister and as a [former] Officer of the Court, you ‘ought to know’ or ‘ought to have known*’ that civil conscription laws are unconstitutional under section 51(xxiiiA) of the constitution. It is a fortiori that since the Federal Parliament has no constitutional jurisdiction to make laws that link civil conscription to welfare payments, all Work for the Dole laws, including the Section 42C ‘No show, no pay’ penalties are, in law, no law at all and all pecuniary penalties applied will therefore have to repaid, with compound interest.
(*Boughey v. R. [HCA 29; 6th June 1986] The phrase “ought to have known’ was used a total of 21 times by Chief Justice Gibbs and Justice Brennan. Both held the opinion that Dr. Boughey, as a registered medical practitioner, ‘ought to have known’ that his actions could cause death.
When it comes to Robo-Debt or ‘no show, no pay’ triggered fatalities the following comments by Justice Brennan at , which highlight the legal status of these fatalities in Tasmania:
Culpable homicide is defined by s.156(2) which provides:
” Homicide is culpable when it is 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;
(b) by an omission amounting to culpable negligence to perform a duty tending to
the preservation of human life, although there may be no intention to cause death
or bodily harm; or
(c) by any unlawful act.”
As I sure you are aware, whilst the specific wording of statutes may vary, each State and Territory in Australia has similar laws that define a death from unlawful acts as a culpable homicide. The ‘no show, no pay’ Section 42C provisions are intended to deprive impoverished people of the ability to meet “their basic costs of living” and as such constitutes legislated culpable negligence under 156(2)(c) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code with deaths caused by this law being culpable homicides.
POINT #4: The Section 42C law is a murderous criminal act of reckless endangerment that is inconsistent with the constitutional constraint on the Federal Parliament to only make laws for the purpose of “good government.” Whatever the perceived ‘actuarial benefit’ is too be had from saving taxpayers money by unconstitutionally depriving welfare recipients of what may be their only means of subsistence, in law, the dismissal by politicians and government lawyers of the fatalities triggered by this abuse of power as “irrelevant” displays a reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life. This mindset means that all such foreseeable deaths are, at the very least, fatalities that involve a wilfully reckless disregard for human life, i.e. the deaths are reckless indifference murders.
POINT #5: In ‘The Engineer’s case’ [HCA 54 – 1920], the majority decision of the High Court was that it’s decisions are binding on the Federal Parliament and therefore the concealment of the High Court’s ASIC v. Hellicar decision [HCA 17 – 2012, at paragraphs 141 to 141], plus the subsequent concealment of ‘The Complexity Report’, which was submitted to the government in February 2015, may be empirical evidence that, when using Robo-Debt policies and practices to recover ALLEGED overpayments from welfare recipients who were unlikely to have had knowledge of these decisions, there was malicious criminal intent to defraud with no regard for the potentially lethal consequences of this fraud, i.e. heart attacks, strokes or suicides triggered by this criminal abuse of power.
POINT #6: As per Hellicar above, all decisions made by Centrelink’s anything but ‘independent’ Administrative Review Officers, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, must be based upon the Findings of Fact as adduced by a court. As the High Court ruled in Bhardwaj, [HCA 11 – 2002 at 51 – 53], if there is no jurisdiction, then, “in law, there is no decision” and a lawfully valid decision remains to made. Since there is documentary evidence that the Secretary of the Department of Human Services has been made aware of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions in December 2015, all subsequent decisions that have by-passed the courts and are, in law, no decision at all, the deliberate enforcement of such decisions is a criminal abuse of power with any fatalities triggered by this criminal misconduct being deaths resulting from the commission of a crime.
POINT #7: “I will either find a way or I will make one” [Philip Sydney]. On the evening of 1st June 2017, I received a phone call that was an automated survey of political issues. One of the questions related to a proposal by the Turnbull government to introduce compulsory civil conscription of 6-months duration. If this proposal is a proposed policy of the Turnbull Government, then it is a deliberate violation of paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution, i.e. an intention to commit Constitutional Deprivation. My pointing this out to you in this communication means, in law, if you make a voluntary physical act of commission by supporting this proposal, you will be engaging in an abuse of power that is inconsistent with your role as a Member of the House of Representatives.
POINT #8: As you are no doubt aware, on February 3rd 2017, the High Court rendered ‘Void ab initio’ the election of Rod Culleton to the Senate. Since abuse of power carries a 5-year-jail-penalty, any politician who has prior knowledge that civil conscription is unconstitutional, e.g. YOU, faces possible criminal charges and expulsion from the Federal Parliament. Should you personally support any other legislation intended to strengthen compulsory civil conscription activities that are linked to welfare payments, then it quite possible that as you would be engaging in another voluntary physical act of commission and you could face further criminal misconduct penalties, i.e. incarceration for criminal abuse of power and the inevitable expulsion from the Federal Parliament.
POINT #9: If there is nothing unlawful about the deaths caused by the laws, policies and practices that underpin the unconstitutional, human rights violating, ‘no show, no pay’ laws and the blatantly fraudulent Robo-Debt policies and practices, then you will have no concerns about providing me with the information that <Redacted> (AAT case <Redacted>) and Elizabeth Ulrick (AAT case 2016/5334) did not provide me with as part of the Discovery process in those appeals. However, if I am correct and these fatalities are unlawful homicides, e.g. Felony Murders or Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence, then you will not provide the specific data that I have repeatedly requested.
Point #10: In AAT case <Redacted>, neither the applicant nor myself could obtain the audio-recording that was central to this appeal with Centrelink claiming to no longer have this recording. It is my contention that the withholding, or the destruction, of this audio-recording, which provides empirical evidence of either a Commonwealth error or an error by the applicant, is well beyond being a procedural fairness error and in fact is both a criminal violation of section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and a civil violation of federal data protection laws that applies to all Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Human Services.
THE LESSON OF Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited  FCA 652
The 3-word Fairfax media tweet “Treasurer for sale” cost Fairfax Media $200,00, plus legal costs, and the lesson to be learnt from the Federal Court’s decision on 30th June 2015 is that when raising issues of public concern, it is perhaps better to be detailed rather than too brief with the facts. As you can see from the concatenated chain of emails below and the appended documents, I most emphatically believe that a criminal investigation into the role of the Federal Parliament in committing systemic acts Abuse of Power, as per s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and various other federal, state, territory and international laws that address the fatal consequences of unlawful abuses of power by public servants and other people who hold public office, is urgently required.
Given your ‘ought to know’ professional knowledge as a barrister and as a senior public prosecutor, it appears to be that as a Minister in the Turnbull Government, you now subscribe to the erroneous belief that if the Federal Parliament creates a law, then it legally valid. Personally, I subscribe to the viewpoint expressed by the High Court in 1920 in The Engineers Association v. Adelaide Steamship Co, [HCA 54 – 31St August 1920], that the determination of the validity of any laws created by the Federal Parliament is constitutionally a matter for the Courts, not politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge or yourself. Senior Australian Public Servants, e.g. Alice Linacre, the Acting CLO for the DHS in January 2015, also do not have the power to over-rule either the constitution or the High court and yet,
On January 7th 2016, that is precisely what Ms. Linacre did when, in writing, she gave the proverbial ‘1-finger-salute’ to my pointing out that in AAT <Redacted>, there had been numerous violations of procedural fairness, including no adducing of the primary facts of the matter by a court and the deliberate withholding of evidence. In addition, Ms. Linacre opted to ignore the audio evidence that an AGS lawyer and a senior AAT Member had conspired to hold a trial that involved making a determination as to the primary facts of the matter despite the fact that the AAT has no constitutional or legal jurisdiction to do so. Note that Ms. Linacre had a 39-minute recording of the AAT <Redacted> Directions Hearing, not just the 18 second sound bite of audio evidence emailed to you.
Please also take note of the fact that the AAT is still holding quasi-trials, perhaps better known as Kangaroo Court Trials. Unambiguous evidence that the AAT is still usurping the power of courts and adducing the primary facts of the matter in tort disputes involving the Secretary of the DSS and welfare recipients is to found in Thomson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) AATA 255 (1 March 2017). From paragraphs 13 – 83 of the published findings in this appeal case is evidence that neither the Secretary of the Department of Social Services or the AAT are willing to comply with either the constitution or the High Court as per Hellicar at 141 – 143 and make fair and just decisions that are based upon the facts of the matter that have been adduced by a court.
At an average cost of $25,000 per Centrelink tort claim, going to court is inconveniently expensive. However, as the High Court ruled in Coco v R Coco v R [HCA 15 – 13 April 1994] at paragraph 8, “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.
Since the applicant in AAT <Redacted> was a Western Australian resident, if you continue to uphold Ms. Linacre’s January 7th 2017 decision, then there is a high degree of probability that you could be charges as an accessory to this on-going fraud. AAT Members and federal politicians implicated in the AAT <Redacted> fraud, e.g. Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison and every other federal politician who has held the office of either the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services since October 2013, including yourself, face a criminal investigation that could expand to consider all other similar cases. As a former prosecutor, you would be aware that where these spin-off cases involve fatalities, homicide charges could be laid against those responsible for these deaths.
I also subscribe to the High Court’s viewpoint in paragraphs 46 – 47 of Commonwealth DPP v. Keating, [HCA 20 – 8th May 2013], that the retrospective law passed by the Federal Parliament on 4th August 2011 was nothing more than a “statutory fiction”, a finding that I firmly believe is a precedent that is applicable to the foreseeably dangerous and unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ and Work for the Dole laws. [Forcing welfare recipients with undiagnosed Myocardia to perform heavy manual labour is foreseeably dangerous.]
At 1.44 PM (local time) on 21st February 2017, acting in my lawfully appointed role as the Representative of the Applicant, I filed Statements of Facts & Issues on behalf the applicant in AAT case file 2016/5334. As you can see from the appended file, The Advocate, I cited Hellicar at paragraphs 141 – 143 and Bhardwaj at paragraphs 51 – 53 and was most emphatic that the violation of these two High Court decisions was a deliberate abuse of power under section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. On page 3 of this document I further stated that abuses of constitutional rights by the Federal Parliament over a period of decades may have resulted in an unreported, supposedly “irrelevant” death toll that may be around 100,000 in number.
A critical issue that directly affects both the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, and yourself is that in South Australia any suicides triggered by the systemic violation of constitutional or procedural fairness rights are felony murders. T this time, the only unknown fact about these murders is the precise number of people who have died as consequence of the Constitutional Deprivation of Rights. As I stated on page 3 of Volume 3 of Emcott Court, it is possible that as more statistical data is obtained, this count continues to rise and it is possible that once the Secretary of the DHS is compelled to disclose the precise death toll recorded in the ISIS data base, an all causes figure close to one million in number may, I repeat may, be revealed.
My views on the ‘No show, no dole’ laws are set out in the documents that I have submitted to both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the AAT. Consistent with my responsibilities under paragraph 5 of the Commonwealth constitution and state laws, I am now in the process of submitting these documents to state law enforcement agencies and coroner’s courts. In addition, I am providing copies to teachers, medical professionals, the Australian Law Society, lawyers who represent some individuals who have been either convicted of murder or have recently been charged with murder.
Perhaps most importantly of all, I am also providing these documents to Robo-Debt victims so that they can avail themselves of the option of taking appropriate action, either via administrative appeal asper legal briefing Paper #67, or via complaints to the police, to ensure that they receive the standard of justice required by the Australian Constitution and the High Court.
The Q & A Confession.
On the evening of 20th February 2017, I was busy re-editing the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case file 2016/5334 and thus did not see the ABC broadcast of the Q & A program. However, when informed of its content, I researched it on the Internet and am now recommending to welfare recipients that they make an off-line video of the Q & A video because, quite unwittingly, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek appear to have confessed to defrauding welfare recipients. The reference to “terrible human consequences” is a gross understatement as it is a direct reference to the deaths that have resulted from the Robo-Debt fraud that are felony murders in South Australia, a crime that carries a mandatory 25-year penalty with a mandatory 15-year non-parole period.
A new paradigm – ‘The elephant in the room’.
The Internet did not exist when the Federal parliament first introduced unconstitutional welfare laws such as Work for the Dole and ‘breaching penalties. 2006 marked the year of the ‘birth’ of the social media, a technological development that allows welfare recipients across the nation to share viewpoints and question the legality of government policies such as Robo-Debt, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfzklJRUm8 [ABC News 24 interview with Michael Griffin about Centrelink #notmydebt 6/1/17]
In 1996 the ABS Adult Life Skills Survey revealed that 44% of Australians aged between 15 and 70 years-of-age were ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the 2006 survey, the ABS published resulted revealed that this had marginally increased to 46.4% with unemployed people and people for whom English was a 2nd second language making up a very high proportion of those who were functionally illiterate. However, the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, aka ISIS, which is used to implement Robo-Debt, is non-discriminatory and targets people with no regard for their socio-economic status. Victims of the Robo-Debt fraud now includes teachers, university lecturers and university students studying subjects as diverse as media studies, psychology and law. Some recently identified victims of the Robo-Debt scam have Masters or Doctorate level degrees. Whatever short-term ‘actuarial benefits’ that are derived from the Robo-Debt scam, in the long-term, the cost of compensation to victims is going to be hugely expensive, i.e. a massive, unappreciated drain on the federal budget that taxpayers will have to fund.
The on-going review of case law decisions, especially fraud murder cases, is only going to add weight to the degree of probability that the people who are involved in the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients are going to have to account for their actions to victims who have the education and intellectual capability of comprehending the content of the [so far] unpublished Complexity Report and publicly available Auditor-General reports, e.g. Report #37, and the Emcott Report documents.
Malcolm Fraser – “One error is one too many”
As Malcolm Fraser stated when responding to the disclosures by Alan Tudge and yourself that 20% of Robo-Debt claims are erroneous, “One error is one too many”. It has become manifestly evident that this is a scandalous abuse of power that has been used for several years to stupefy and overwhelm vulnerable victims who are unaware of their constitutional and civil rights or the protection provided by statute laws against unlawful actions that are intended to stupefy, e.g. section 157(1)(e) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code or section 279(4) of the Western Australian Criminal Code
s the Minister for Social Services, the looming problem that you now have to confront is that Robo-Debt is being used to defraud people who have the both intellectual ability, and the incentive to oppose this abuse of power and to demand action to expose the appalling harm caused by this politically motivated, bureaucracy driven criminal misconduct.
If you personally believe that the politicians and political parties represented in the Federal Parliament can continue to indefinitely fool either the entire nation, or the broader international community, then I would suggest that you are fooling is yourself. Therefore, before you read the information that was provided to the AAT on 21st February 2017, I would remind you of Abraham Lincoln’s famous cliché`:
“You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
In addition, I would remind you of Winston Churchill’s cheeky quip, “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” I know that history will not be kind to either the 45th Australian Federal Parliament or to yourself, for I have already written it, e.g. by the time you read this line, I will have posted a redacted version of this text on the Internet. I will continue to so until Justice is both done and is seen to have been done.
Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.