Part 44(A) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Cardinal George Pell, his lawyers, and about 1.5 Billion Catholic Christians need to read this letter to Victorian Supreme Court Justice Macaulay. (So also does every Australian.)

Cardinal George Pell, his lawyers, and about 1.5 Billion Catholic Christians, including the Pope, need to read this letter to a Victorian Supreme Court judge, Justice Macaulay.

This is the 1st, and at 3,510 words, the shortest of 3 letters to Justice Macaulay, the Victorian Supreme Court judge handling the $90 million Manus Island class action against the Federal Government.   The announcement late last week that Cardinal Pell would prosecuted made me realize that this letter and 2 more recent  letters to Justice Macaulay could be of benefit to Cardinal Pell.

  1. If you are of the Catholic faith, please advise your parish priest of this letter.

  2. Note that all 3 letters have been forwarded to the Federal Police with a request that they be forwarded to Cardinal Pell.

  3. If that request is ignored, it may provide Cardinal Pell with a procedural fairness violation that could invalidate the Crown Prosecution’s case against Cardinal Pell, a point of law that all Catholic Church members should point out to their parish priest.

  4. Note that AAT 2016/5334 was the 1st ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement by the Turnbull Government and that the (somewhat more expensive) $90 Million Manus Island settlement is the 2nd ‘Nolle contendere‘ settlement.

  5. My view, as expressed to Justice Macaulay, is that the Turnbull Government is using taxpayers money to hide human rights atrocities and therefore it is the public interest not to ratify a taxpayer funded cover-up of these human rights abuses.

  6. Ripped off welfare recipients take VERY careful note of those 2 facts.

The short link URL for this posting is:


Attention: Justice Macaulay

Re: The Manus Island class action is the micro-tip of a decades long violation of human rights that involves millions of people and an undisclosed death toll that may be around the 100,000 mark, or more, at this stage. The $90 million settlement between the Commonwealth and the Manus Island detainees, i.e. Kamasaee v Commonwealth of Australia, is not in the public interest as there is a very serious conflict of interest.  Treasurer, Scott Morrison, the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and 14 other current or former Members of the Federal Parliament, have been or are, the subject of violations of human rights complaints that have been lodged with the International Criminal Court during the last 3 – 4 years. Therefore, it is not in the interests of Mr. Morrison, the Federal Treasurer, members of the Government and who are also members of the Liberal Party-National Party Coalition  to authorize the expenditure of $90 million in public monies in order to achieve a legal outcome that may be of very significant assistance in helping political party members avoid criminal prosecutions in the International Criminal Court of Justice.

A functus officio decision in the Manus Island could even constitute a violation of section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code for reasons which are very briefly detailed in the following text. I strongly recommend that before the following text is read that you take 15 minutes to watch a compilation of videos that provided insight into the issues that many people, including myself, have been raising in public arena, in the AAT and with law enforcement authorities for some time.

I would point out that Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek, during their quibbling on an ABC program on 20th February 2017, unintentionally and unwittingly confessed to fraud and murder.

That statement, whilst totally unbelievable, is provable in court; the question is, how do impoverished Aussie Battlers who cannot afford lawyers, get these politicians into a court where their actions can be subjected to impartial scrutiny by the court?


His Honour, Justice Macaulay, or whoever is presiding in this tort action, needs to know that this is the second time this year that the Turnbull Government has opted to use public funds when confronted with a tort action that involved allegations of violations of human rights and fatalities.  I strongly recommend that the presiding judge consider this statement by the Victorian State Coroner, Judge Ian Gray, the Chief Coroner of Victoria, who, in a letter dated 28 October 2014, wrote that I was raising “…important general issues to do with justice and human rights, both nationally and internationally.”

AAT 2016/5334 – “Void ab initio and Nolle contendere”

On 21st February 2017, in my capacity as the volunteer lay advocate representing the applicant, Mr.[Redacted], a resident of New South Wales, At 1.44 PM on 21st February 2017, via email, I filed Statement of Facts & Issues documents with the Sydney registrar of the AAT, i.e. [Redacted] and the Secretary of the DSS, [AAT case file 2016/5334.] One of these documents contained the following statement, which was not contested:

 “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.”

The data on these fatalities is based upon ABS data, although as a former CES Job Club manager, Job Network recruitment agency employer, and as a church social justice coordinator, lay-advocate and pensioner, I have first-hand personal knowledge of the harm caused by the Federal Parliament’s non-compliance with a range of constitutional, statute law, common law and human rights obligations. Dirty tricks in the CES included ‘Breaching for administrative convenience’ and the even more iniquitous, ‘Breaching competitions.’ Some of these abuses were  provided in documents provided to Judge Ian L. Gray in August 2014.

Please note the following case law decisions that the Turnbull government is deliberately ignoring at the present time with its Digital data Fiction Fraud, aka the  ‘Robo-Debt’ recovery processes used to recover ALLEGED overpayments to welfare recipients:

  1. ASIC v Hellicar at 141 – 143 [HCA 17 on 3rd May 2012]
  2. Bhardwaj at 51 – 53 [HCA 11 on 14 March 2002]
  3. Coco v R at 8 – 12 [HCA 15 on 13 April 1994]
  4. Police v Butcher [SASC 130 on 17 August 2016] The legal issues that go beyond authorized, i.e. the issues of qualified, certified and in accordance with the law.
  5. Boughey v R [HCA 29 on 6th June 1986] “ought to have known”, e.g. Justice Brennan at 10 ““ …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)).”
  6. R v Faure [VSCA 166 on 24 September 199] Justice Brooking’s at 29 quoting from an 1839 Royal  commission report to the English Parliament, “It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

The fatalities caused by the recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional “No show, no pay” penalties in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act  are:

  1. unreported by the Secretary of the Department of Human Services,
  2. classified as “confidential” by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005; and’
  3. twice dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee. Although Term Of Reference #3 for the Environment, Communication & Arts Committee hearing into the HIP disaster was “Any other matters”; and,
  4. Although “breaching” fatalities are murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, the ECA Committee dismissed my submission on the grounds that it was “outside the terms of reference” for the inquiry.

I would remind you of – Bench Notes: Judicial College of Victoria. Forms of Murder. Unconstitutionally depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence and then dismissing subsequent fatalities as “irrelevant’ is consistent with the Mindset of Murder, i.e. 1.         There are three ways in which murder can be committed:

  1. The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;
  2. The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes;

AAT 2016/5334 – “Void ab initio and Nolle contendere.”

The response by the Turnbull Government to being accused of a being a party to decades of constitutional deprivation, intimidation, exploitation, enslavement, fraud and murder was swift.

By-passing me in my lawfully appointed role under several provisions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) as the representative of Mr. {Redacted], the AGS lawyer handling the case, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, (on behalf of the Secretary of the DSS), made a ‘without prejudice’ proffer directly to Mr. [Redacted] that, in law, constituted a void ab initio withdrawal of the Secretary’s ‘original decision’ in March 2016. The proffer included the reinstatement of Mr. [Redacted]’ disability benefit and the payment of all withheld monies.

The legal advantage or benefit of by-passing me was that I would have counselled {Redacted]  to wait until the Secretary responded to my discovery request for the precise number of time that the DHS and/or the DSS and other government agencies had violated the constitution and by-passed the courts when determining liability in tort actions against welfare recipients and the number of fatalities caused by this violation of civil rights? Ignoring the constitution, Hellicar and Bhardwaj, and several other relevant court decisions, and by-passing the courts constitutes a criminal abuse of power under s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth criminal Code (1995) and cases like R v Finch in the SASC in 2005 highlight the fact that in law, ‘skip the court’ fatalities are felony murders in South Australia. Since Victoria does not have felony murder statutes, these fatalities are most likely simply reckless indifference murders.


A major issue for all courts across the nation when dealing with fraud, intimidation, reckless endangerment and homicide cases is the twice expressed view of the Australian Federal Police that the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue determines whether or not the they will investigate a case; an unconstitutional that I have been raising, since July 2004. Apparently, like the Federal Parliament, the AFP does not agree with the High Court’s 1920 findings in The Engineers Association v Adelaide Steamship Co, [HCA 54 on 31st August 1920] that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people.” In a spectacular example of manifest ostensible bias, the AFP is providing politicians and bureaucrats who defraud and murder welfare recipients with immunity from prosecution by refusing to investigate these crimes.


This view is shared by at least 2 federal judges:

Precedent #1. Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2012] FCA 1411 at 199.

Justice Steven Rares stated:

“The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings under r 26.01.”

 Quite clearly, the Courts have both the power and the duty to protect their jurisdiction so as to ensure Due Process. With welfare torts, that means that a court, not bureaucrats, decides the facts of the matter in legal disputes.

Precedent #2. [Case reference unknown as a minor is involved.]

This viewpoint is strongly emphasized by Justice Stuart Brown in a Federal Circuit Court hearing held in Adelaide in November 2015.

Justice Brown put the Immigration Department on notice that he expected a Nigerian girl, Crystal Iluno, to remain in Australia while he heard her case, stating that he would consider any move otherwise to be “deeply contemptuous”. Justice Brown said he considered the application filed by 10-year-old Crystal Iluno for a review of her visa was arguable and should “proceed to hearing.” ‘Noting her current bridging visa expired on Tuesday, November 10th 2015, Justice Brown made his opinions about immigration detention and deportation to Nigeria very clear.’

“I’m the lowest rung on the judiciary bench of this country, but I am still a judge. It would be my view that, if anything occurs prior to the hearing, it would be deeply contemptuous of the system of this country, which has separation of powers.  “I know little of the merits of this matter so far but I’m satisfied there’s a matter to be dealt with, and I’m doing it as expeditiously as I can.”

As a volunteer lay-advocate I am only one step up from the very bottom of the justice system, i.e. people who self-represent themselves. However, I too am deeply and utterly contemptuous of a justice system that prosecutes private citizens whilst quarantining Australia’s federal politicians, not only from rorting the Parliamentary Entitlements fund, but also from accountability for murderous crimes against humanity. ‘Work for the Dole’  has been in place for decades even though it is civil conscription, which s.51 (xiii)(A) of the constitution prohibits, i.e.  the linking of welfare payments to civil conscription activities is expressly prohibited and yet, because it is politically expedient to do so, laws have been passed that require either compliance or the denial of welfare benefits.

How does any jurist explain why the Courts have yet to prohibit that activity?

It is a fortiori that since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, then so also are the recklessly dangerous ‘No show, no pay’ penalties that arbitrarily deprive welfare recipients of what may be their sole means to survive. Since s.51 (xiii)(A) of the constitution requires the Parliament to provide unemployment benefits, it is also a fortiori that the removal of the benefits, by any means, is unconstitutional.

This has been going for 4 decades! Anyone care to explain why this is so?

The real-world reality for our nation’s struggling Aussie Battlers is that our legal system is itself being “deeply contemptuous of the system of justice in this country” by now allowing the Turnbull Government to use taxpayers money to buy it’s way out of human rights violations involving fatalities that are raised in both the AAT 20167/5334 appeal and the Manus Island class action.

Please watch the YouTube video at the URL that accompanies this submission, take note of the documents displayed and, at the very least, subpoena a copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes Statistics” letter, i.e. document C10/1866, dated 18 May 2010. The next step beyond that is an order for Centrelink to collect the data on the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” number of fatalities resulting from the administratively convenient process of by-passing the courts, the constitution, and due process of law as per Kioa and Briginshaw, et cetera.

In addition, please check out the text in this URL:

Statistically, ‘a small number’ out of 1 million letters is ‘Chi’, i.e. 5% or less. The reason why the phrase “a small number” may have therefore been used is that, statistically, sending 50,000 letters to dead people is does represent “a small number”

I emphasize strongly enough that it would not be in the public interest to perform ‘functus officio’ on the Manus Island case at this stage. Whilst $90 million is a considerable sum of money, it must be remembered that in the Ashby case, Justice Rares was scathing in his criticism that Mr. Ashby had received a compensation payment of $50,000 from the Gillard Government for what Justice Rares believes was a spurious claim that lacked legal merit. The Manus Island refugee case has merit and substance and in order to actively discourage further human abuses, both within Australia and abroad, substantial punitive damages should be awarded as per the John Knight case in South Australia, i.e. $3.6 million for Wrongful Dismissal. If the High Court upholds the Frits Van Beelen appeal, then the Rodrigeuz v City of Houston tort for wrongful imprisonment is relevant as compensation awarded represented about $250,000 for each year of wrongful detention.

$35,000 per refugee whilst the lawyers get $20 million is also a highly questionable outcome that needs to be intensely scrutinized as the value of the work put in by the lawyers seems excessive, especially since some of the time may have been devoted to the P &NG Supreme Court case. Should we taxpayers have to fund what may possibly be double-dipping by Slater & Gordon?

When it comes to punitive payments, Commissioner Hanger’s statement in of his report is extremely significant:

“The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.”

This principle both to the Manus Island case and the issue of the unreported death toll associated with Australia’s “irrelevant”: breaching fatalities.

During an AAT hearing in November 2014, [AAT case file 2014/2456], I pointed out that in the 10-year period 1997 to 2006 there were 20,914 suicides with 1 in 3 being an unemployed welfare recipient. In point of fact, recovering from a severe infection, I had miscalculated for there were 23,254 suicides, a figure that implies approximately 7,700 unemployed people committing suicide during this period. The presiding AAT Member, Senior Member Walsh, apparently did not consider these deaths to be credible, relevant or significant in this appeal. This was perhaps not surprising as the Senior Member Walsh also did not consider Centrelink withholding or destroying an audio-recording that was central to the appeal as this recording contained the empirical evidence as to “who said what”, i.e. it was the only empirical evidence upon which an objective assessment of the facts of the matter could be determined.

In Briginshaw v Briginshaw [HCA 34 on 30 June 1938], Justice Dixon stated ‘But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.’

How well does that finding match up with the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, telling people that they have 21 days to prove their case to Centrelink, not a court, or they would automatically be found to be at fault and required to rep[ay the alleged overpayments.? In asking that question I would point out that both Alan Tudge and the DSS Minister, Christian Porter, have admitted to an error rate of 20% ,and in AAT 2016/5334, the DSS did not contest my professional estimate that the error rate could be over 44%.

Although the AAT has no constitutional or statutory jurisdiction to hold trials, this has been occurring for 40 years. and despite High Court decisions such as Briginshaw, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco, Kioa and Police v Butcher, if the applicant is a welfare recipient, that is all the evidence needed to find in favour of the Secretary of the DSS.

Please take just 30 seconds to listen to the conversation at the start of this YouTube video:


Any misguided belief that you may have that the AAT does not hold trials will also be hammered if you study Thomson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 255 (1 March 2017), the finding are at

 From paragraph 13 to 85, the presiding AAT Member, Mr. Conrad Emert makes a series of findi9ngs as to the what evidence constitutes the facts of the matter. At 86 Mr. Ermert states:


  1. After considering the available evidence on the totality of the relationship, taking into account where applicable the reasoning in Jones, I find:
    • There is no financial relationship between Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson;
    • Their sleeping arrangement may indicate a relationship, the form of which needs to be considered in the context of all factors;
    • Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson share no social activities, nor do they hold themselves out to be married or in a de facto relationship;
    • Their sexual relations do not appear to have the emotional connection required of a sexual relationship; and
    • There is no degree of commitment to one another other than that of mutually convenient and reasonably friendly arrangement.
  2. I am not satisfied that the relationship between Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson is a de facto relationship in the terms of subsections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act.
  3. This means that:
    • Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson were not members of a couple in the debt period;
    • Mr Thomson was not overpaid DSP and Age Pension during the debt period; and
    • Mr Thomson does not owe a debt to the Commonwealth.

 This was a case of the correct decision by entirely the wrong process because there were no facts of matter that had been adduced by a court, as per Hellicar at 141 – 143. The AAT is substituting as a court even though it has no constitutional right to do so.

What the AAT should be doing is reviewing the original decision that was made in the light of a court’s findings in order to ensure that this decision is consistent with the court’s findings.


The question as to how these sometimes murderous injustices could have been occurring unchecked for decades is a question that very jurist in the nation must now ask of themselves. Please do this ASAP and use the Manus Island tort case to ascertain the extent to which the Federal Parliament has undermined our nation’s democratic principles. In closing, please consider very carefully this statement by Justice Rares, which was made at the annual AGS Law Administrators Conference in June 2013:

The steady, inexorable and unthinking use of bloated legislation is a real threat to our democracy.

Justice Steven Rares, Paragraph 85, Legality, Rights and Statutory Interpretation. AGS Law Administrators Conference. 20th June 2013

Surely this is especially so when vulnerable people are persecuted and murdered?

Consider this:

“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”

Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.

Now consider this:

“The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies.”

 “Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values the government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”

 Joe Hockey’s London Institute of Economic Affairs speech on 17th April 2012, titled the “Age of Entitlement is Over”, in which he advocated the undemocratic withholding of a subsistence allowance needed to ensure impoverished people could survive.

And finally, consider this:

“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

 The statement above was Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ‘spit-the-dummy’ response to the Joint Party on Human Rights Committee’s rejection of legislation that would have violated human rights by depriving unemployed people under the age of 30-years-old of a subsistence allowance for 6 months.

 Deaths caused by the federal parliament violating human rights are not “irrelevant” and parliamentary privilege was never intended to cover mass fraud and serial murder.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald Medlicott – volunteer Christian lay advocate




Letter #2 should be posted on Thursday with the 3rd letter, plus a 10,000 word “note” to the Federal Police being posted on Saturday.

Ron Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate.


This entry was posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Part 44(A) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Cardinal George Pell, his lawyers, and about 1.5 Billion Catholic Christians need to read this letter to Victorian Supreme Court Justice Macaulay. (So also does every Australian.)

  1. anddaviddidawrong says:

    Ronald. Have you read in the Guardian News, yesterday, 4 July 2017.
    Medicare details are being sold by a person in Australia, via darknet.
    What is interesting is, who are the people who want the private medical details of people.
    As the dept who handle Medicare is Human Services!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s