Part 44 D. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. The 3rd letter to Justice Macaulay pointing out that the Manus Island ‘nolle contendere’ settlement may have wide-ranging unintended consequences.

Put simply, some 250,000 are dead, because politicians lied to us and there needs to be an accounting for the “Run, Hide, Call” harm cause by that lie.

The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and Faysal Ishak Ahmed are all direct consequences of the “Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction” deception of the Liberal-National Coalition in 2002 and 2003. These deaths, along with approximately 250,000 other deaths since the March 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq raise serious questions about the legal liability of John Howard and his Cabinet in regard to the deaths that coroners inquests in the United Kingdom will have to consider because of the Chilton Report’s finding that there was never any evidence that justified the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-154

In Australia, the ‘nolle contendere’ settlement of the Manus Island class action could also have further legal implications that add extreme complexity to the legal quagmire that surrounds the issue of legal liability for decades of human rights violations by the Australian Parliament.

Please note: this letter to Justice Macaulay is almost 21,000 words in length and contains numerous case law references and citations or quotes. If you are a victim of the Robo-Debt fraud, you should attempt to read it. Likewise, if a breached family member or a family member who was a victim of Robo-Debt died as a consequence of these criminal acts, you should read this letter.

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 9:53 AM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention: Justice Macaulay -re Cardinal Pell implications in Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity and the need for a public hearing into the Manus Island settlement

Attention:     The Honourable Justice Macaulay  Victorian Supreme Court.

Your Honour,

The public interest factor in my two previous emails concerning the Turnbull Government’s ‘nolle contendere’ settlement of the Manus Island class action has been given a quantum boost in relevance by the decision to prosecute Cardinal George Pell for alleged child abuse offences that allegedly occurred decades ago. The previous emails, and this email, which I have been working on part-time since Tuesday, will be forwarded to Cardinal Pell via the local Catholic Church community.

———————————————————————————————————

Re: The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi;m the significance of the findings at 14.7.3.2.1 of Commission Ian Hanger’s “Black hat thinking” HIP Report, and the public interest issues related to the extremely dubious legality of the (proposed?) $90 million settlement of the Manus Island class action.

Please note, paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. Even if you have already perfected the Manus Island settlement, as a Judge and as a person, you still need to know of the issues in this and my two previous communications and then act upon them, for not to do so is to implicate yourself by a voluntary physical act of omission in the worst case of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Two days ago, the South Australian town of Loxton virtually shut down as the community attended the funeral of Kirsty Boden, the young women known around the world as London’s “Angel on the bridge” because she was murdered whilst rushing to render assistance to the victims of a crazed terrorist attack. Since Ms. Boden was an Australian citizen both the London Coroner, Andrew Harris, and the South Australian Coroner, Mark Johns, have joint-jurisdiction in the inquest into the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the death of Ms. Boden.

Even though Ms. Boden was murdered in London, there is a 15-year-long chain of events that ultimately resulted in her death, which includes decisions made in Washington by President George Bush 2nd, Prime Minister Tony Blair in London and by Prime Minister John Howard in Canberra. These decisions are matters of fact that raise points of law that neither Andrew Harris nor Mark Johns may have considered at this point in time. The decisions of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are factors beyond your jurisdiction in considering how justice may best be served in the Manus Island case; however the actions of John Howard and his government in 2002 and 2003 are matters of fact that I believe should be considered in the Manus Island case because they provide insight into the mindset of those responsible for the illegal detention of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island, an illegal activity that resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed.

I would therefore draw your attention to the following matters of fact, which I believe are relevant to the issue of ‘The 1st domino to fall’, i.e. what was the commonly shared first-event to in the cascade of events that culminated in the murders of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed?

It is my contention that all fatalities that are the downstream consequence of the commonly shared ‘1st domino to fall’ event are subject to the same legal logic and therefore the points raised here are applicable wherever fatalities have occurred. This includes an estimated 250,000 needless deaths in Iraq as a result of the unjustified, illegal invasion of that nation by the Coalition of the Willing, as well as all subsequent deaths that can be lawfully attributed to the Islamic State terrorist organization. It is also my contention that, whatever the precise death toll may be from Australia’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare penalties laws and the fraudulent Digital Data Fiction Fraud, the commonly shared ‘1st domino to fall’ event that caused those deaths is the same as that which led to the deaths in Iraq, and the recent deaths in Manchester and London.

For you to treat the Manus Island fatalities and the other harms caused by the illegal detention of refugees and asylums seekers as a separate issue that is isolated from events occurring elsewhere in the world is to miss the point in Commissioner Ian Hanger’s findings in the Report of the Home Improvement Program Inquiry that senior public servants should read the works of Edward De Bono, i.e. look at the big picture and ‘think outside the box’. By way of an allegory, it is my contention that each and every death can be likened to a ‘Pixel’, a microscopic light emitting diode on a high definition 4K television screen; to focus upon a specific death or, a small groups of deaths, is to miss seeing the full-screen picture and thereby failing to understand how individual deaths are part of a much larger pattern of deaths and the underlying causes of all of those deaths. Failing to understand the ‘big picture is to miss what Commissioner Ian Hanger QC stated in the HIP Report as “an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.”

COMMISSION IAN HANGER AND THE NEED FOR BLACK HAT THINKING ABOUT THE ‘BIG PICTURE’:

14.6.7 The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work. Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each. As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration. This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof.

At 14,6.8  Commissioner Hanger recommended, Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective. For example, in the case of the HIP, advice on the economic impacts should have focused not only on the macro-economic stimulus impacts, but also on the likely impact on the industry itself in both the short and long term. For example a relevant consideration should have been the fact that at the end of the HIP (had it been successful) there would have been a lack of employment for those involved.

Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective.”

With an estimated 250,000 deaths directly attributable to the illegal invasion of Iraq and an uncontested, undisputed estimate of 100,000 deaths in Australia that may be attributable to recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional welfare policies and the digital data fiction fraud known as Robo-Debt, the above recommendation by Commissioner Hanger to “look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective” is absolutely vital. It is manifestly obvious that if APS advisors had performed their statutory duty to adequately inform the government-of-the-day as to the international human rights issues involved in the off-shore detention of people against their will, then the Manus Island class action, would never have occurred if the that government, and successive governments, had complied with those human rights obligations. I put it to you that the Supreme Court of Papua & New Guinea would never have issued the following findings in SC1497 on 25th April 2016 when the Full bench of the Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court handed down its findings in a case brought before the Court on behalf of Manus Island detainees. Please note the following ruling:

“Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.” 

SC 1497; Namah v Minister for Immigration, 25th April 2016 [Full Bench decision] Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court

One of the 5 judges who made that order was Justice Terrance Higgins, a former Australian Federal Court judge for over 23 years and a former Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory for 10 years. Justice Higgins further expressed his legal opinion of the Australian Government’s actions with the following statement:

“Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status… is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

To say that there were serious failures of administration by the Australian Government in dealing with the problems posed by refugees and asylum seekers desperately seeking safety in Australia is to make a gross understatement. Many of those people seeking safety were forced into that position as a direct consequence of Australia’s involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq, a criminal act that placed upon the Commonwealth of Australia an obligation to deal with the human impact of that crime. I put it to you that there has been a tsunami of fatal human impacts stemming from the failures of administration that resulted from the illegal invasion of Iraq, e.g. the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and every other person who died as a direct consequence of that illegal invasion. The failure of “good government” was the 1st domino to fall’ in the invasion of Iraq and it is echoed in the 2009-10 HIP disaster and in every death caused by our nation’s unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous tort actions against welfare recipients.

In order to comprehend the ‘big picture’ context that underpins the Namah v Minister for Immigration decision, the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed in a Brisbane hospital and the recent murders of Kirsty Boden and Sara Zelenak in London, as well as every other murder committed by Islamic State anywhere in the world, it is essential to and the disastrous 15-year-long train of events circumstances leading up to those deaths. To focus solely upon the immediate circumstances of those deaths is abrogate the basic duty of every court, i.e. to uncover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One starting point for achieving that purpose is to evaluate issues raised in the Report of the Privy Council: Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6th July 2016, aka the Chilton Report.

Please consider the selected extracts from the Executive Summary of the Privy Council’s ‘Chilton Report’ that I believe may be credible, relevant and significant matters of fact in understanding the common cause of an estimated 250,000 needless deaths, over the last 15-years, including the circumstances that led to the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed. Please also note that the entire report, some 2,600,000 words in length needs to evaluated in order that that the selected texts are placed in their correct legal context.

Selected extracts from the Executive Summary of ‘The Chilton Report’:

  1. In addition to the conclusions of those reports, the Inquiry notes the forthright statement in March 2005 of the US Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

  2. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

  3. Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

  4. The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

  5. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

The Post Conflict Period  (Pages 134 – 140

  1. The UK did not achieve its objectives, despite the best efforts and acceptance of risk in a dangerous environment by military and civilian personnel.

  2. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  3. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role inpost-conflict Iraq.

These statements reveal the following matters of fact:

  1. The statement in paragraph 573, the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction makes it quite clear that there was never any valid, stand-up-in-court, evidence to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  2. Paraphrased, the statement in paragraph 577 that the lack of evidence challenged the legitimacy of the war highlights the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act.

  3. Since the invasion was an illegal act, then all deaths caused by that unlawful act are culpable homicides, a fact of law that explains the statements in paragraphs 576 and 578 of the report:

  4. 576. “Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

  5. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited, i.e. Those responsible for an illegal invasion did not wish to be held accountable for an illegal act that had resulted to an estimated 100,000 deaths, a figure that over the next decade would explode to an estimated 250,000.

  6. As the report stated in paragraph 859, In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance, the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure and a hard-headed assessment of risks. Quite clearly, as Commissioner Ian Hanger stated at 14.6.11 of the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement program, “These things did not happen.”

 

One of the clearly risks was the potential for a counter-reaction by people of Muslim faith to the illegal invasion and the senseless slaughter of tens of thousands, including innocent civilians.

  1. This risk factor was substantially heightened the embedding of the representatives of the mass media within the invasion forces who were resourced with the capability of live-broadcasting both audio and audio-visual information about the invasion in real time.

  2. Whilst supporters of the illegal invasion may have found these broadcasts to be highly entertaining, the relatives of those being slaughtered most likely did not.

  3. The easily foreseen but unintended consequence of the world-wide televised slaughter of Iraqi forces, with ‘collateral’ casualties amongst the civilian population, was the global recruitment of anti-Coalition forces, aka ‘terrorists’, who were, and still are, prepared to die in because of their belief that it is “the will of Allah” that the nations who supported, or did not physically oppose, the invasion of an Islamic nation should be punished.

  4. The failure to acknowledge the truth that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction or to give due consideration to the possibility that this invasion would massively increase support for hard-line Islamic groups was a failure that the world may pay for decades to come.

As I stated in a previous email, dated 26th June 2017, in The High Court’s Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd; (HCA 54, 31st August 1920), at paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated:

In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary. Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.

The Australian High Court very clearly upheld the constitutional imperative that ‘the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, Judges and people’ who are within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, i.e. within all States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. Note that “Organized bodies of persons… municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.” That legal principle also applies to the Federal Parliament, Federal Government, the political parties represented in the parliament and also the 226 Members of the Federal Parliament. All of these legal entities are as accountable before the law as any person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. If the members of a Federal parliament, or a federal-government-of-the-day, violate the law, then they are accountable before the law in precisely the same manner as all of “people” who are accountable before the law for their unlawful conduct. When it comes to the recklessly dangerous, ill-considered actions of Australian politicians that result in the proxy murder of Australian citizens, both within Australia and outside of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, one of the binding laws of the Commonwealth that applies is the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), which, in section115 states:

Part 5.4—Harming Australians – Division 115—Harming Australians

115.1 Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes the death of another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for life.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

115.2  Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes the death of another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 25 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(b) and (c).

115.3  Intentionally causing serious harm to an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes serious harm to another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends to cause serious harm to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 20 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

115.4  Recklessly causing serious harm to an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes serious harm to another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person is reckless as to causing serious harm to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 15 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

When John Howard and his government promoted the illegal invasion of Iraq, these politicians almost certainly did not intend that Australian citizens would subsequently be murdered as retaliation for this invasion even though this was an easily foreseen risk. The murders of Kirsty Boden and Sara Zelenak are the downstream consequences of recklessly dangerous abuses of power by the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and his Coalition government in 2002 and 2003 when the public was misled with false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the removal of the Iraqi Government would reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. By voluntary physical acts of commission, John Howard and his government chose to ignore the reports of  United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United Nations evaluation of those reports, the advice of the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, and the advice of a senior military intelligence analyst, Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie who all put forward the viewpoint that there was no irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As with the 4 HIP fatalities, and numerous other preventable deaths in South Australia, the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and every other Australian, civilian or military, who has died, as a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the ‘1st domino to fall’ that precipitated the cascade of events that led to each fatality was the misplaced belief that politically expedient policies that paid scant regard to the broader issues, e.g. the foreseeable consequences that could massive harm that included the deaths of innocent people, were of a higher merit than the truth.

The Role of ideology in ‘The 1st domino to fall.

Ideology distorted perceptions of reality create mindsets that ignore the situational reality because the truth did not fit in with the belief systems of the person who believes in that ideology. Consequently, the ‘1st domino to fall’ is the development of a mindset that is unable to accept the truth, which in turn leads to an abandonment of the basic principles required for “Good Government.”. The commonalities between the Hanger Royal Commission Report, the Chilton Report and the Manus island disaster, which resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed, all underscore the lethal consequences of political ideology and political expediency usurping the purpose of political leadership, i.e. good government that endeavours to protect rather than harm citizens. When there is a failure of both due diligence and common sense to the extent that a realistic awareness of the facts of the matter before the government becomes impossible and lives are placed at risk then “Good Government” is impossible. The 22 deaths in the Manchester suicide bombing, and the deaths of Australians Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson. Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi and many other Australians who have died are a direct consequence of the unjustified, illegal invasion of Iraq are all examples of how unrestrained political ideology led to a lethal abrogation of good government with the decision to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Although it was not possible to specifically foresee that the illegal invasion of Iraq would be the catalyst that led to the creation of ISIS, with the history of more than a 1,000 years of warfare between nations of Christian faith and nations of Islamic faith, it was reasonably  foreseeable that the globally televised illegal invasion of Iraq would trigger a reaction that could lead to the growth and development of a world-wide terrorist organization capable of carrying out murderous attacks almost anywhere in the world. . A serious question for Australian courts to consider is just how many other ideology-driven or political expediency driven policies by a number of Australian federal parliaments have resulted in bad decisions, policies and practices that have also placed lives in peril?

Speaking at a Malaysian legal conference in 2010, Michael Kirby, a former Australian High Court judge quoted a 2008 statement by Francis Neale, Co-chair of the International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group:

“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.”

Australia’s ‘No show, no pay’ laws, commonly referred to as “Breaching” are an unconstitutional criminal act of reckless endangerment. “Fair Game – Dead Meat” is the title of a document provided to both Kevin Rudd and Quentin Bryce in September 2009, i.e. just days before the death of Matthew Fuller, the first of the 4 HIP disaster fatalities. Paragraph 64 of “Fair Game – Dead Meat” contained the following statement:

“Breaching is the targeted, and therefore deliberate, partial or complete reduction of the only means of support that people have in meeting their basic costs of living.”

The above statement re “basic costs of living” is a verbatim quote from paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper. You do not need to be a Prime Minister or a Governor-General, or even ‘just’ a Supreme Court Judge to realize that if you deprive impoverished people of the sole means to survive, then it is reasonably foreseeable that some of those people who have been deprived of the means to survive, will not survive. In the 2000-01 Financial Year, the Howard Government deliberately deprived impoverished people of the means to survive, not once or twice, but an absolutely  staggering 346,078 times!

If you have some difficulty in comprehending the human impact of that activity, please take note of the following statement at paragraph 50 of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Denlay & Anor [ QCA 217 on 20th August 2010]:

“This leads to the appellant’s third point, that the loss of their property and consequent inability to prosecute their appeals does not constitute extreme personal hardship. The point may be answered shortly. It is preposterous to contend that the loss of the respondents’ entire estate, and with it any chance of demonstrating that the basis for the assessments was wrong so that they should not have lost their property, could not be a hardship rightly called extreme. It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context. Certainly the primary judge cannot be criticised for so regarding it.”

When it comes to the human impact of Australia’s unconstitutional ‘Breaching’ penalties, i.e. deliberately depriving impoverishing people of the means to survive, surely the statement “It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context” is, in law, equally applicable? The removal of the sole means of a survival, i.e. the constitutional right to welfare allowance that has been acknowledged by two Federal Government Ministers to be a subsistence allowance, is a violation of the most basic and fundamental of all human right, i.e. the right to life.

Any act, whether by an individual or by a national government, that deprives a person, or a targeted sub-section of people in society of the means to survive is a deliberate act to place life in peril; an action that, as Justice Brooking pointed out in R v Faure, is a crime.

“Life in peril”: R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999)

When handing down the Court’s decision in this appeal, at 29 Justice Brooking stated that The second additional point worth mentioning concerns the case of reckless murder. The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act. The requisite state of mind is predicated upon an objective fact – a probability…. As long ago as 1839 it was accepted by the distinguished English Royal Commissioners inquiring into the criminal law (Holdsworth, History of English Law, vol.15, p.143) that it would be murder if, knowing that one only of two (or three or four) pistols set before him was loaded, but not knowing which one, the accused, for the pleasure of it, picked up one pistol, put it to another person’s head and pulled the trigger with fatal results. It is for this and another reason worth quoting at length from the Commissioners’ fourth report, contained in (1839) 19 Parliamentary Papers, pp.23-25.”

A second legal precedent referred to by Justice Brooking when considered the placing of life in peril was the placing poisoned cakes where people could find and eat them. Quoting from the Royal Commissioner’s report to the English parliament, Justice Brookings said, “But between these two extreme cases lie an infinity of others, in respect of which important legal distinctions are requisite, although they may vary almost imperceptibly from each other, and particularly as to the degree of risk to human life which may be incurred. … [T]he question is properly one of fact, as dependent on the existence of peril, and the design to expose to peril.”

At 30, Justice Brooking stated: The example of playing with pistols was given again by the Commissioners in their seventh report, printed in (1843) 19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24.” His Honour summed up his statements in this paragraph with this comment, which is directly applicable to the use of untruthful deceptions to justify the illegal invasion of another nation, which by any standard of reasonable judgement is a deliberately dangerous act that “seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility” for engaging in unjustified warfare is clearly an act that places lives in danger:

“The state of the offender’s mind in thus exposing life to danger seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility.”

Mens rea

Surely there is mens rea in deliberately depriving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people of their sole means to survive? Equally so, there was surely mens rea in falsely claiming to have irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to engage in war against the nation of Iraq and the people of Iraq. In plain English, in 2002 and early 2003, Prime Minister John Howard, along with President George Bush 2nd and prime Minister tony Blair, lied to their respective nations, and so far, as a direct consequence of those lies approximately 250,000 people have died?. John Howard’s lies have resulted in the deaths of many Australians including Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Tori Johnson, Katrina Dawson, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi.

Regardless of the political “gravity/sensitivity”, the question as to just how many lies Australian politicians have told lies and how many people have died as a direct downstream consequence of those lies is question of law that need to be resolved if Australia’s justice system is not to become totally unworkable due to manifest bias within the system, i.e. if ideology driven actions that are illegal result in fatalities, then the politicians responsible for those deaths are as accountable for their actions as any other person within the legal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia who may have committed an unlawful homicide. Although those responsible for the deaths of welfare recipients has chosen to regard these deaths as “irrelevant”, a viewpoint currently endorsed by responsible for these homicides have arbitrarily determined that they are “irrelevant”, as an Australian citizen of British birth, I take the viewpoint that under both Crown Law and International law, e.g. Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome statute, every death is an unlawful homicide that needs to acknowledged as such so that Due process of Law may call to account those responsible for these murders.

To allow political status to exempt politicians from accountability, as has been happening for most of this century, is simply not a long-term option if Australia’s justice system is to be able to function in an unbiased, impartial and effective manner.

THE NOLLE CONTENDERE PROBLEM FOR AUSTRALIA’S LEGAL SYSTEM:

In the Statement of Facts & Issues for Administrative Appeal Tribunal 2016/5334, the following statements were made on page 3 of version 2b of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report (Sub-tiled ‘The Advocate’):

“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.”

“In his efforts to involve Australia in the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq that took place in March 2003, Prime Minister John Howard lied to the nation by falsely claiming that he had ‘irrefutable proof’ that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction {WMDs]. On 6th July 2016, the English Privy Council released the report on a 7-year-long inquiry into the illegal invasion of Iraq. Paragraph 573 of the Executive Report summary states:”

the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

 

“John Howard lied, and as consequence, an estimated 250,000 people have died.”

The extreme seriousness of the allegations above concerning the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients can, in part, be gauged from the findings in Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [FCA 652 on 30th June 2015]. In this tort action by the former Federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, against Fairfax Media for the 3-word-tweet, “Treasurer for sale”, Mr. Hockey was awarded $200,000 in damages because the tweet, but not the full published article that the tweet promoted, was deemed to defamatory.

Further insight into the seriousness of the allegations made can also be gauged form the Criminal Defamation statute in section 257 of South Australia’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

Section 257—Criminal Defamation.

(1)    A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—

   (a)    knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and

   (b)    intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Given both the criminal law and tortious conduct gravity of the statements concerning the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients; they were not statements that were made without serious though given to the consequences of including those statements in an appeal to the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal [the AAT]. These were extremely serious statements and the Australian Government lawyers(s) representing the Secretary of the department of Social Services were not in a position to disregard them for the fundamental duty of every lawyer is to uphold the law. Those statements are now also a major problem for every member of Australia’s judiciary and Australia’s entire criminal justice system.

On 21st February 2017, when the AAT case file 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged with the AAT via the Sydney Registrar’s Office, Ms, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government Services lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, was employed in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services. As the lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS, Ms. Ulrick had a professional responsibility to rebut the statements contained in the applicant’s Statement of Facts & Issues, especially those that involved allegations of fraud and murder on a massive systemic scale. Ms. Ulrick was employed with in the DHS and it is therefore highly likely that Ms. Ulrick had authorized to access the unreported data on the sometimes lethal impact of welfare policies and practices at her fingertips and could ‘let her fingers do the walking’ to find the data that might possibly be used to repudiate the claims made in regard to the death toll caused by the enforcement of unconstitutional, and therefore legally invalid, welfare penalties.

What statistical data Ms. Ulrick found in regard to the impact of the unconstitutional ‘Breaching’ legislation, and all other forms of tortious conduct against welfare recipients, is unknown as her response to the allegations was, by a voluntary physical act of commission, nolle contendere, i.e. Ms. Ulrick made a conscious decision not to contest the fraud and murder allegations. As I have mentioned in a previous email, the day after receiving the AAT case file 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues, Ms. Ulrick prepared a ‘Without prejudice’ proffer that was sent directly to the applicant and not, as should have occurred, in my capacity as the lawfully appointed representative of the applicant. Had I received this proffer, I would have advised the appellant not to accept it until such time as Ms. Ulrick provided the information that had been requested, e.g. how many people have been defrauded by the DHs and how many have died as a consequence of that criminal abuse of power?

Can you image how the law firm representing the Manus Island litigants, i.e.  Slater & Gordon, would have responded if similar discovery questions had been put to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister’s legal representative(s) had responded by shutting  them out of the tort action by literally  by-passing them and making proffers directly to the 1,905 litigants involved in the Manus Island class action? I suspect that the lawyers at Slater & Gordon would have been outraged at such unprofessional conduct by Australian Government Services lawyers. I believe that the key question to consider regarding Ms. Ulrick’s apparent disregard for Due Process, i.e. by-passing me and making a proffer directly to the applicant in this appeal, is the question as to the benefit to be gained for her client, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, by engaging in what may be gross professional misconduct?

An AAT directive issued by AAT Conference Registrar Ms, Athena Ingall, on 23rd December 2017, required Ms. Ulrick to provide requested information that would be credible, relevant and significant to the appellant’s appeal. Having pointed out that the Secretary’s claim was spurious, without merit, and a criminal abuse of power that violated sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1995), the discovery questions relating to the total number of “irrelevant” fatalities caused by the decades long violations of the constitutional and civil rights of welfare recipients was a discovery question that posed significant problems for Ms. Ulrick. In VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [HCA 72, 6th December 2005], the Court considered Justice Brennan’s reasons in Kioa [HCA 81; 8 December 1985], when determining that information that was credible, relevant and significant and should be made available by the decision-maker, even when it was detrimental to one of the parties involved in the tort action.

Having accused the Secretary of engaging in a fraudulent, systemic abuse of power that over a period of decades may have resulted in a substantial unreported number of fatalities, the fact that the answers to the discovery questions as to how many frauds and how many fatalities were the result of this unlawful conduct was most certainly information that would have been extremely detrimental to the Secretary’s tort action claims. It appears that Ms. Ulrick’s solution, which effectively conceals what I believe is the worst case of mass fraud and serial murders to have ever occurred in the Commonwealth of Australia, was the ‘nolle contendere-without prejudice’ proffer’ that rendered void ab initio the original decision at the centre of the AAT 2016/5334 appeal and thereby extinguished my right as the appellant’s representative to be provided with the requesting information.

The power to persecute, intimidate, extort, defraud, enslave, endanger and even kill impoverished welfare recipients is not the same as the legal right to do so. In a similar manner, the fact that this has been occurring for decades does not imply any ‘historical right or legal precedence to do so. These actions are unconstitutional and therefore statute laws that appear to legitimize these crimes are, in law, no law at all. The “nolle contendere” outcomes in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal and the Manus Island class action both raise the question as what is the cost to Australian taxpayers of federal government ‘Nolle contender’ decisions that conceal culpable homicides needs to be considered and made known for the purposes of good government and public accountability.

In VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [ HCA 72; 6 December 2005], the Court used the phrase “procedural fairness” at least 30 times, “credible, relevant and significant” at least 10 times, whilst references to the issue of “public interest” were raised 8 times. Clearly, as far as the High Court is concerned, public interest issues that involve “credible, relevant and significant” issues that are of “public interest”, especially those that may involve abuses of “procedural fairness”. Since the withholding of credible, relevant information that may be credible is of major concern to the High Court, it should be of major concern for any other court in Australia, especially when the cases before the Court involve illegal actions by the Commonwealth that have resulted in fatalities. If functus officio has not yet been done in the Manus Island settlement, then there are extremely significant public interest issues that make it essential that the issues be brought before the Court. It would be a highly inappropriate action for your Court to ratify a taxpayer funded settlement that, in practice, allows the Turnbull Government to conceal illegal conduct in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers by avoiding a transparent review of the facts of the matter in an open court hearing.

Nolle Contendere – the Cost to Taxpayers.

Over the life of the applicant, this nolle contendere decision is likely to have a Nett Present Value of $100,000 – $150,000 to taxpayers.

Whilst that figure is extremely modest compared to the $90 million Manus Island settlement, both settlements may consist the use of taxpayers’ monies for the express purpose of concealing illegal abuse of power that have resulted in fatalities.

  1. In the Manus Island settlement, the cost to taxpayers is $90 million to conceal illegal activity that involved one fatality.

  2. Conversely, the AAT 2016/5334 settlement is a far less substantial 6-figure cost to taxpayers for the concealment of a much larger unreported and officially “irrelevant” death toll.

If the ABS statistical data that provides insight into the scale of welfare penalties and Robo-Debt deaths is valid, then the culpable homicides caused by Australia’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices pose a modest cost to taxpayers of concealing these murders as it effectively works out to $1 per welfare recipient fatality. From an actuarial perspective, that represents excellent value for taxpayers, although welfare recipients and the families of the deceased may not agree with the actuarial viewpoint. Conversely, from an actuarial perspective, the expenditure of $90 million of taxpayers’ money to conceal from the public the unlawful actions and human rights atrocities that resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed does not represent appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and any such payout made in the absence of transparency is not in the public interest, i.e. $90 million for one death.

People working at the Manus Island concentration camp, or who visited the camp to provide humanitarian aid, e.g. doctors, nurses and teachers, were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that is totally inconsistent with section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. You need to see and evaluate that nondisclosure agreement, and if it is inconsistent with s. 149.1, then you need to have every person who signed that agreement, often under duress, testify in your court as to what they say and what they did, or did not do, about the conditions in this concentration camp.

I would remind you that the secrecy surrounding the death of Matthew Fuller in October 2009 led to 3 further preventable fatalities because of the lack of transparency. Transparency and accountability are supposed to be a fundamental part of Australia’s democratic process and yet, with the death toll from the unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ laws currently, unreported by the Department of Human Services and officially classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant” by two Senate committees, the public interest is not being served by ’nolle contendere’ decisions that hide illegal deaths caused by a plethora of bad government decisions.

I would remind you of Commissioner Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2 of the HIP Report:

14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED  [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.

  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;

  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

Perhaps, in law, the most credible, relevant and significant of all is Commissioner Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2.1, which is as relevant to the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Curtis Cheng, Kia Hoi and Faysal Ishak Ahmed, i.e.

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

That statement is a relevant precedent for the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed; the expenditure of $90 million in taxpayer monies in order to avoid possible criminal charges in relation to that death is totally inappropriate. When it comes to the 22 deaths in Manchester and the other deaths caused by Islamic State elsewhere in Britain, the above statement is equally valid because the British Government should also not seek to avoid accountability for its role in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I would again refer you to the points previously raised in the Chilton Report: When it comes to the concept of the “disastrous chain of events” that eventually led to the illegal establishment of the Manus Island Concentration Camp, as stated previously, it is manifestly obvious to any reasonable person who has full knowledge and awareness of the key matter of fact that if there had been no illegal invasion of Iraq, then one of the key factors that has led to the current world-wide refugee problem, i.e. the establishment of Islamic State as a world-wide terrorist force, would never have occurred because, God forgive me for stating this, Saddam Hussein’s repressive regime would have promptly murdered Islamic State leaders as soon as their threat to his regime became apparent. The lack of appreciation of what the Coalition of the Willing were unleashing upon the entire world can be reasonably adduced from the following statements from the Executive Summary Chilton Report

  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  2. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in post-conflict Iraq.

The key fact to be adduced from the 12 volumes of the Chilton Report is that the Invasion of Iraq was never legally justifiable.

It is therefore my contention that neither is the avoidance by politicians of accountability for that illegal activity, for today, 15-years-on, no person anywhere in the world who is not an Islamic State supporter can be considered safe from Islamic State attacks, a matter of fact that has been graphically emphasized by the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and at Brighton in Victoria. The truths with the Chilton report are truths that must be confronted, and those politicians and senior military leaders who can be held accountable responsible for the global harm that they have caused by their illegal conduct must be called to account before a court for the harms that they have caused.

Victoria: The murder of Kai Hao

The murder of Kai Hao on 6th June at the Buckingham Arms Serviced Apartment complex occurred just a few days after the London attack. Your Honour, This murder occurred in your jurisdiction and, for the reasons stated previously in this communication, you need to act in the public interest and, if it not too late to do so, factor this terrorist attack into your consideration of the Manus Island settlement.

The murder of Mr. Hao was allegedly committed by an alleged Islamic State supporter, Yacqub Khayre, and this attack has underscored the fact that the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie is a lethal today as it was in March 2003 when the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq and killed an estimated 100,000 people in the 3-week-long duration of the ‘official’ war. In what may have been a colossal act of hypocrisy when speaking to the media about the Brighton terrorist attack, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reportedly stated that he had “grave questions’ as to why Yacqub Khayre had been recently released on parole. Mr Turnbull said their [sic] had been “too many cases of people on parole committing violent offences of this kind”.

[Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brighton-siege-what-we-know-so-far-20170605-gwl0w9.html ]

Still listed on the Australian Senate’s website as “Not yet available”, submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry in November 2005 is secretly classified as “confidential” and in an undated letter posted to me on 3-th November 2005, I was instructed to not make and distribute copies of MY submission, i.e. the ‘confidential” classification came with its very own suppression order. Similar suppression orders have also been received from the Senate’s EWRE Committee and ECA Committee in response to submissions concerning the defrauding and murder of an as yet undisclosed number of welfare recipients.

The secret classification of submission 287 and two other Senate submissions now means that in the aftermath of the murders of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and Mr. Kia Hoa, there are a number of grave questions that Mr. Turnbull also needs to answer:

  1. What was his personal role in the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie, i.e. did he tacitly support this lie or, like Commissioner Mick Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie, did Mr. Turnbull go on the public record and oppose the (now blown & known) illegal invasion of Iraq?

  2. How many members of Prime Minister Turnbull’s current administration were members of Prime Minister John Howard’s administration when Prime Minister Howard was actively disseminating the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie?

  3. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, how many of the members of Prime Minister John Howard’s administration went on the public record at that time and opposed the recklessly dangerous, illegal invasion of Iraq?

The following statement has relevance not just to the illegal invasion of Iraq but also to the issue of the unreported, secretly classified death toll caused by the foreseeably dangerous unconstitutional ‘Breaching penalties’ fatalities that at least 3 separate Senate committees has taken action to conceal from the public, and by extension, from the courts:

  1.  Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting… A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears. At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

The question as to how many times have public servants advised Ministers of these fatalities and how many times have Ministers disregarded this advice because it was neither politically expedience nor legally wise to formally acknowledge these fatalities is an question that is validated by Section 7.11.88 of the Home Improvement program Inquiry, Risk assessment: knowledge and involvement of Senator Arbib.” A closed scrutiny of this report reveals that there are over 130 references to Senator Arbib in this report:

  • Mr Arbib’s recollection was that DEWHA had not done a lot of work about ‘risk to government’ but his concern was mainly on fraud and malfeasance at that He denies receiving the risk assessment document at this time and said he did not see it prior to 12 February 2010 and referred to an email of 22 February 2010 in support of this contention. It would not have been sufficient, even if the OCG had told Mr Arbib that DEWHA was now taking matters more seriously (which is what he offered), to quell the concern that Mr Arbib earlier had that DEWHA had done insufficient work on risk.

  • I find that Mr Arbib did receive the risk assessment shortly after his request for it and reject his denial of having done so. I do so for these reasons:

    • it is not a request likely, in any event to have been refused given Mr Arbib’s position and seniority;

    • In the weekly update 20 to 26 March 2009 it is recorded that a risk identification workshop was held on 23 March It is then recorded: ‘First draft being presented to executives Friday 27 Mar Presentation to Senator Arbib on Tuesday 31 March’;

    • On 26 March 2009 Juliana Marconi sent an email to Harry Zevon, David Hoitink and others at 08 pm thanking them for participating in that afternoon’s working group meeting and circulating a copy of the Risk Register and asking for their comments by 11 am the following day. It was noted that the Risk Register would be presented at a meeting with Mr Arbib on Tuesday morning (31 March);

    • In the note of the meeting of 31 March it is contemporaneously recorded: “A meeting was held today with PM&C/OCG

staff, DEWHA staff, a representative from Mr Garrett’s office and Mr Arbib to discuss delivery models and risk assessments.”

  • Mr Levey’s note of the 31 March meeting records Mr Arbib as having written down what ‘political risk’ means. This is likely to have been the result of Mr Arbib having seen the risk assessment and read the words ‘political fallout’ which it contained (in many places), and that the political risk was one of three that remained extreme;

  • a note written by Mr Levey of a discussion in which he participated on 20 April 2009 is to the effect that an advisor in Senator’s Arbib’s office was to ‘talk to everyone about risk assessments’

  • it is highly unlikely that Mr Arbib would could have personally requested such a document, only to have dropped the issue and never pressed for its delivery;

the 22 February 2010 email contains an assertion that the Senator’s office has checked its records and can advise that neither he [Mr Arbib] nor his staff saw the Minter Ellison report prior to receiving it on 12 February 2010. That adds little. There is nothing to suggest that the usual course would have been for that Office to record receipt of such a document in the circumstances in which it was provided.

  • The Risk Register likely seen by Mr Arbib was that with Ringtail number 002.018.2220.

  • As Mr Arbib said, had he read the risk assessment in or about March or April 2009, it would not have been any notice of a potential risk to installers, because it was silent on that

  • The real difficulty is that Mr Arbib seems to have formed a view that participants in the HIP might act fraudulently or dishonestly, but not had an understanding that this might readily extend to a serious failure to adhere to their occupational health and safety Those views, whilst not absolutely inconsistent, are most difficult to reconcile.

  • Had Mr Arbib read the risk assessment in or about March or April 2009, he ought also to have seen that it omitted any reference to installer safety.

For decades past, the core problem with Australia’s welfare laws, policies and practices has been that, like Senator Arbib’s concept of risk assessment measures in the Home Improvement Program, i.e. “that Mr Arbib seems to have formed a view that participants in the HIP might act fraudulently or dishonestly, but not had an understanding that this might readily extend to a serious failure to adhere to their occupational health and safety obligations.”

Just as the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie posed a potential ‘safety problem’ for the entire world, the unconstitutional ‘no show, no pay’ welfare penalties enshrined in Section 42C of the Social Security (Act) contain risks that Members of the Federal parliament appear to have been incapable of comprehending ever since these penalties were first proposed and then legislated decades ago. Safety in Australia welfare laws is locked into the concept that it to be focused solely on fraud prevention measures, i.e. the idea that welfare recipients might act fraudulently and dishonestly. Four significant facts provide insightful evidence of the extend to just how far from any perception of the lethal reality of this fraud focused mindset that Australian politicians, public servants and the criminal justice system currently adhere to with a diligence that matches the former enthusiasm in South Africa for upholding that nation’s Apartheid laws;

Fact #1: – The “irrelevant” deaths of welfare recipients.”

On 14th April 2010, whilst the Senate’s ECA Committee inquiry into the 4 Home Improvement programs was in progress, I wrote to Senator Arbib expressing my concerning the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s highly illegal enforcement of recklessly dangerous “Performance Indicator Targets” that Cheryl Kernot has publicly exposed in a media release made on June 28th 2000.

Senator Abib is just one of many Federal Government Ministers that I have written to expressing concern over the classified death toll caused by the unconstitutional welfare penalties and criminal abuses of power using that legislation such as the ‘vocational sport’ of ‘Breaching’ that I encountered when managing a CES job club at Salisbury and the issue of “Breaching for financial gain” by

Some Job Network agencies who nearly bankrupted the Job network twice in the first 6-months of operations because this fraud was so pervasive and extensive, despite a warning given to Senator Vanstone by ABC presenter Kerry O’Brien that the Job Network would be wide open to systemic rorting

How many past and present Members of the Federal parliament have been investigated for their roles in either actively or tacitly supporting the defrauding or murders of an unknown number of welfare recipients?

In my letter to Senator Arbib, a specific question asked in bold Italic text was:

“As a direct consequence of Mr. Abbott’s comments, I am requesting from you the specific details of the numbers of people who died after being breached by the DSS and/or Centrelink.”

It would be 58 days before Senator Arbib, at that time the Minister for Employment Participation, responded to my request. In his letter dated 11 June 2010, in paragraph 2 of his response, Senator Arbib wrote:

“I note that you have requested me to provide you with the specific details of the number of people who you allege died after being breached by the DSS and/or Centrelink.”

In paragraphs 5 and 6 Senator Arbib wrote:

“On the specific question that you wrote concerning claims that others have mentioned to you of there being records maintained  of ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes’, there is no official record of this by the Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations, its successor departments nor by Centrelink.”

“Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.”

One month later, 18th May 2010, I received a letter (C10/1866), which was written by Assistant Secretary Neil Skill, the senior public servant responsible for the ‘Portfolio Coordination and Parliamentary’. Paragraph 2 was essentially a re-statement of Senator Arbib’s letter:

“Centrelink collects compliance data on behalf of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcome Statistics’ and is therefore unable to assist with your request for this information.”

Any investigation into Neil Skill’s knowledge of the unreported fatalities should also pay close attention to 2 different documents, letters to Nick Champion MP, which are both numbered C10/3221, and are both dated 22 July 2010 but contain different content. In addition, the investigation should compare Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” response to the fatalities caused by tortious conduct, i.e. ‘Breaching’, with the issues raised in 6.160 and 6.161 of Queensland lawyer, Aaron Anderson, in his submission to the Home Insulation Program on behalf of some of the victims of this disaster:

6.160 In his evidence, Andrew Wilson highlighted the need for effective reporting lines to Ministers on issues of risk.”

MR HOWE: Yes. And just on this question of the rollout date of 1 July 2009, if it had emerged that that was not achievable in a way that satisfactorily accommodated a risk of injury or death, it would have been the responsibility of a number of senior public servants to have drawn that fact to the attention of relevant Ministers; wouldn’t it?

THE WITNESS: It would have been the responsibility of the Department of Environment to draw it to the attention of their Minister, but it would also have been the responsibility of the Department to draw it to the broader public service community, ourselves included in the Office of the Coordinator General, because if you got to a situation where, as the responsible area, you felt that you were not going to be able to deliver a key plank of the government’s economic stimulus package, it would have flow-on effects to the Department of Finance and the Department of – and the Treasury, so you would need to inform a broad range of people within the bureaucracy, but the first port – the first point of call would be your Minister, to inform them that it is not possible to – these are the issues that we face, these are the risks that we face, we need to discuss and analyse whether or not you can actually achieve the date that the government has given you.

MR HOWE: And it might seem obvious, but in fact, Minister Garrett, Parliamentary Secretary Arbib, and the Prime Minister would have needed to be informed.

THE WITNESS: “That’s correct. Yes.”

 

In paragraph 6.161 of his submission to the HIP Inquiry, Aaron Anderson summed up the above testimony with the following statement:

6.161 It is clear by the evidence given by Mark Arbib, Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd that critical information in relation to the risks of death or serious injury to installers arising out of the performance of work under the HIP was not brought to their attention.”

Re: “…not brought to their attention.” I believe that a very common euphemism or term used to describe the practice of deliberately keeping Ministers in the dark about the real world down-side to their political policies, a practice that is colloquially known as “Plausible Deniability.”

Fast forward from the comments of Senator Arbib and Assistant Secretary Neil Skill in April and May 2016, to April 2016 when the Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley, was forced to apologize because the Federal Health Department had sent letters to people who had been dead for up to 20-years, or even longer.

[ The comments below were sourced from: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dead-people-given-ehealth-records-in-latest-bungle-for-1-billion-government-program/news-story/966ec22c7fe8a40e7ecf66aa98b1ed90  ]  (Emphasis added.)

The Department of Human Services says it sent letters to people who were deceased because it did not have a date of death recorded against their customer records.

“The department is aware that of the one million letters sent about the My Health Record trial, a small number have been sent to deceased individuals*,” a spokeswoman said. “The department sincerely apologises for any distress this has caused.”

[*My comment: How small is ‘small’; was it 100,000 out of 1,000,000?]

“The department says it is notified of a death from family members and other authorised persons such as health professionals, funeral directors and, in more recent years by data-matching with Birth, Deaths and Marriages registrations.”

“If the department is not notified, a date of death will not be recorded on a customer’s record,” [it said.] Minister for Health Sussan Ley offered a direct apology to any family affected by “the unfortunate’ administrative error”.

The one constant in all of the points raised in these points is that currently, the number of people who have died as a result of what Senator George Brandis almost flippantly described as “terrible human consequences” of the [unconstitutional] Robo-Debt policies and practices during an Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast of the Q& A program on the evening of 20th February 2017, and the deaths triggered by ‘breaching’ are still classified and unreported.

Fact #2 – Tortious conduct triggered deaths of welfare are “irrelevant”.

In a letter dated 1st March 2006, John Carter, the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee wrote:

“Your most recent letter attempts no argument as to the relevance of your submission, and only replicates earlier “irrelevant’ claims.”

 

Here I raise matters of fact for your professional consideration as an Officer of the Court:

  • Since governments cannot abrogate accountability for the lethal consequences of policies, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” death that may have been caused by recklessly dangerous unconstitutional legislation.

  • To so casually and brutally dismiss concerns that government policies and practices are killing vulnerable people is an issue that no politician or public servant, especially one holding the rank of Secretary to a Senate Committee, should ever disregard.

  • Whatever the precise number of undisclosed deaths, they are culpable homicides.

 

Fact #3  See no evil is the official policy when it comes to defrauding and murdering welfare recipients or drug mules.

No police force or other agency with the power and the jurisdiction to investigate the easily foreseeable lethal impact of depriving impoverished people of their sole means to survive by depriving them of a subsistence allowance, has ever conducted a thorough investigate of the human impact of the ‘No show, no pay’ laws. This includes Federal Agent Denley’s letter, dated July 7th 2004 (File ref# 3286232), which is documentary evidence of the AFP’s refusal to investigate any deaths caused by the Howard government’s illegal enforcement of performance Indicator targets, i.e. Breaching Quotas. In paragraph 3 of her letter, AFP reference # 3286232, Federal Agent Denley wrote:      [Italics added for emphasis

“Our Operations Monitoring Centre (OMC) has assessed this matter, taking into account a number of factors such as the gravity/sensitivity of the matters, the current investigational workload, available resources, and whether any Commonwealth laws have been breached.  Each case is assessed and a decision made whether or not to allocate the required investigative resources.”

In paragraph 4 of her letter, Federal Agent Denley wrote:

“It is noted that you are making allegations based on items that you have seen in the media.”

The above statement was a partial-truth that conveniently ignored the fact that I was whistle-blowing on matters of facts that I had personally experienced. Some of the issues of law raised were based upon my personal experience as a CES Job Club manager and as an employee of a Job Network agency in the period 1996 – 1998. However, regardless of my sources of information, abuses of power that violate sections 3, 4, 134, 135, 137, 138, 142,2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and are violations that have resulted in an unknown number of fatalities that are almost certainly culpable homicides in every state and territory in Australia and are also murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute are most definitely crimes that the Federal Police, and every other police force in Australia, should, regardless of the original source of information, have been immediately investigated.

Federal Agent Jeff Pearce’s email of 14th September 2009 was almost a form letter copy of Agent Denely’s letter but added this statement:

“As you yourself identify, this matter has been the subject of an Auditor-General report. Where matters have been the subject of an Auditor-General investigation it is not necessary for members of the public to advise the AFP of this, government protocols exist for this purpose.”

The legal validity and merit of that statement was invalidated when I followed up Federal Agent Pearce’s response and wrote to the Australian National Auditor-General; I received the following response in a letter dated 21 October 2009, ANAO file reference 2009/1496, from Mr. Brian Boyd, the Executive Director of the Performance Audit Service group, who responded with the statement on page 2 of this letter:

“Responsibility for determining whether any individual Parliamentarians may have acted outside of the limits of their entitlements, and, if so, whether any recovery action should be initiated is a matter for Finance, as the agency responsible for administer[ing] the public money expended in relation to the entitlements examined by the audit.”

Until I read the High Court’s decision at paragraph 53 of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11, I was of the mistaken belief that the Auditor-General’s Office was buck-passing on the issue of rorting by federal parliamentarians.

i.e. [53] “…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  

I now understand that the Office of the Auditor-General does not investigate fraud complaints because that is a matter for the Federal Police, who have made it expressively clear in very plain language that “government protocols” and the “gravity/sensitivity” of the complaint take precedence over the constitution, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, and the need to protect the public from criminal abuses of power by the Federal Parliament. Neither the Executive of the Federal parliament nor the Australian Federal Police have the constitutional power, i.e. the jurisdiction, to set aside the constitution or statute laws, but that is exactly what they have been doing and it is in the public interest that the politicians, public servants and police commissioners involved in these abuses of power be held fully accountable, both for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

In a letter dated 1st November 2011, ACMA file reference ACMA2011/9-15 C21620, Ms. Rochelle Zurnamer, the manager of the Broadcasting investigations unit, responded to a complaint lodged with the ACMA in regard to statements by Minister Tanya Slibersek and Hank Jongen, the General Manger, of the Department of Human Services Media Unit that I believed constituted misleading and unlawful abuses of power for the purposes of intimidating and defrauding welfare recipients. Following the lead taken by the AFP in deliberately ignoring paragraph 5 of the constitution, sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and section 147(1) (h) of the Broadcasting Services Act, on page 2 of her letter, Ms. Zurnamer wrote the following ‘blanket’ policy statement:

 

“The ACMA does not investigate politicians or participants in broadcasts.”

On page 3 of her letter Ms. Zurnamer then stated that the ACMA would not investigate complaints unless the plaintiff specified the precise statutes that the broadcaster had allegedly violated. At that time, I did not know about Sections 12, 137, 138, 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, Article 7(1) (a) of the Rome Statute or the multitude of statutes dealing with culpable homicides contained in State and territory criminal law statutes, e.g. Section 13.7 of the South Australian Criminal Code, Section 157 of the Tasmanian criminal Code, et cetera. I most certainly did not know about this statement in paragraph 32 of Chief Justice Gibbs findings in Boughey v The Queen; [HCA 29, June 6th 1986]:

The words “ought to have known” are included in s.157 (1) (c) as an alternative to “knew”. Reliance upon them is necessary only in a case where it is not positively established that an accused actually knew that his act was likely to cause death. That does not, however, mean that the content of the knowledge laid at the door of an accused is to be assessed by reference to the notional knowledge and capacity of some hypothetical person.

The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed.

Inevitably, the word “ought” requires the making of a subjective judgment by a jury. The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial that the established circumstances were such that the particular accused, with the knowledge and the capacity which he or she actually possessed, ought to have thought about the likely consequences of his or her action.

Note the statement, The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial.” In Kioa, Justice Brennan prefaced his “credible, relevant and significant” statement with this statement:

Administrative decisions are not necessarily to be held invalid because the procedures of adversary litigation are not fully observed. As Lord Diplock observed in Bushell v. Environment Secretary, at p 97:

” To ‘over-judicialise’ the inquiry by insisting on observance of the procedures of a court of justice which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients would not be fair.”

On the 28th August 2013, Justice Duncan Kerr gave a speech to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers titled “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court.” In a sub-section of that speech titled, “Statutory Directions”, Justice Kerr made the following statement:

“It is understandable that lawyers familiar with and expert in the way things are done in court, and arguably privileged by expertise in contrast to unrepresented litigants, might call for those rules to also apply in any tribunal in which they appear. It is equally understandable that such lawyers might, as does Rees, share the view expressed obiter dicta by Evatt J in R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 256 that every departure from the rules of evidence will necessarily advantage one side and necessarily disadvantage the other.”

If Lord Diplock, Justice Brennan and Justice Kerr are of the belief that lawyers are professional people with privileged expertise, is it reasonable that members of public should be required to have this level of expertise when filing complaints to the policy or other government agencies? Surely, the obligation on all of Australia’s parliaments, Federal, State and Territory, ‘protect the people’, requires that when complaints are made to the police or to a statutory authority, the issue that has to be dealt with is the protection of the public rather than focusing upon appropriate legal ‘form’ instead of the function of the authority?

Adding weight to the above question of law are the results of two Adult life Skills surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1996 and 2006. The 2007 survey results summary, Australia’s literacy and life skills: ABS was released on 28 November 2007 and this can be viewed at:

Approximately 17% (2.5 million) of people were assessed at the lowest prose literacy level (down from 20% in 1996), while 18% (2.7 million) were assessed at the lowest document literacy level (down from 20% in 2006).

Other findings from the survey include:

  • Just over half (54%) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years were assessed as having the prose literacy skills needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work. Results were similar for document literacy with 53% and numeracy with 47% achieving this level.

  • Women had higher scores for prose and health literacy, while men had higher scores for document literacy and numeracy.

  • Across all the different types of literacy, people with jobs were more likely to be assessed as having the skill levels needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work than were the unemployed or those not in the labour force.

  • The median weekly income for people assessed with the highest level of prose literacy was $890 compared to $298 for those assessed at the lowest level.

The statement that 53% of people were document literate was a positive on the fact that 47% of Australians are NOT document literate. Note also that in 2006, the median income for workers with high levels of prose literary skills was $896 whilst that with the lowest levels of literary prose skills was just $298, i.e. functionally illiterate people have a weekly income that is just 33.25% of the median income of people with high prose levels. The 2006 survey identified unemployed people and people with English as a second language as being the people on the lowest income, many people who are the victims of systemic abuses, e.g. the unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ laws and the digital data fiction fraud colloquially known as Robo-Debt, have little or no understanding of the fact that they are being defrauded and if they file a complaint to the police or a regulatory authority with jurisdiction to investigate, they encounter the Denley/Pearce/Zurnamer ‘Barrier to justice”, i.e. although they are not licenced investigators or lawyers, members of the public, who may be functionally illiterate, are required to either provide evidence of a criminal abuse of power or state the appropriate statutes before police or regulatory authorities will take appropriate act and investigate complaints.

The current situation is perhaps best described by Queensland Chief Justice, Tim Carmody, when, on 7th May 2015, he recused himself from an appeal by Brett Cowan with this statement:

“I will not allow this court to become a Dickensian Bleak House, where parties will be ‘tripping one another upon precedents, groping knee deep in technicalities [and making mountains of costly nonsense]’. Otherwise, to cite Dickens, it will become a ‘scarecrow of a suit… so complicated that no man [or woman] alive knows what it means’.”

If law cases can be so complex that a Supreme Court judge considers a case to be “… ‘so complicated that no man [or woman] alive knows what it means’ “ what chance do impoverished, functionally illiterate people have of receiving justice, or of ensuring that when politicians or senior public servants exploit these socio-economic limitations and deliberately violate constitutional, statutory and common law rights?

It would appear that the “government protocols” mentioned by Federal Agent Pearce have the practical effect of ensuring that when federal politicians rort the system, the Federal Police leave any investigations to the Auditor-general, who in law, having no jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations, leave that task to the Finance Department, who also have no jurisdictional power to undertake criminal investigations under sections 3, 4, 134 and 135 of Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), because it is a task for the  Federal Police, who expect the Auditor-General to do it, et cetera.

By refusing to uphold section 5 of the Australian Constitution, the AFP effectively grants Members of Parliament immunity from prosecution, not only for alleged of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund, but also when the Parliament exceeds its constitutional authority and enacts and enforced laws that violate civil rights, e.g. the persecution, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding and even the wholesale serial murder of welfare recipients.

Your Honour, do not deceive yourself, collectively, the populist-driven ‘No show, no pay’ laws and digital data fiction frauds such as Robo-Debt and the Disability pension ’20 Point Assessment Score’ are nothing more than criminal abuses of power and all of the unreported, “confidential” and “irrelevant” fatalities that a flotilla of agencies have refused to investigate are, in law, “reckless indifference murders.” Although no Evidence Act in Australia requires that motive for these homicides are proven, there is ample evidence in Hansard and in official departmental reports that these deaths are all cases of Murder for financial gain.”

Fact #4 – Drug mules are expendable and can be excluded from the protection provided by Section 115 of the Crimes Act.

In a clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibit executions for offenses such as drug trafficking, on 29th April 2015, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by an Indonesian firing squad.

On the 1st May 2016, page 5 of Adelaide’s only daily newspaper, The Advertiser, contained a brief article titled “Deaths Politicized,” which stated:

‘FOREIGN Affairs Minister Julia Bishop has accused Labour of politicizing the Bali 9 executions by questioning the Abbott Government’s removal of anti death-penalty provisions (sic) in Australian Federal Police internal guidelines. The guideline, which instruct officers to consider the possibility of the death penalty before giving information to foreign police, have now been re-instated. “To think that less than 24 hours after those executions have taken place, the Labor Party is seeking to take a cheap political shot. Shame on them,” said Ms. Bishop.’

 On 4th May 2015, the Australian Federal Police held an hour-long press conference during which a statement was made indicating that, in violation of the Constitution and statute laws, e.g. the Human Rights Act, operational procedures would continue to take precedence over preventing people from placing their lives in peril in cases that may involve alleged drug trafficking. The media conference was reported by major news services around the world, e.g. the BBC in Great Britain. The video recording of this AFP conference may be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsV9N_4G8Ng

When Justice Gavan Duffy handed down his judgment in ‘The Engineers Case’, (HCA 54: 31st August 1920), at paragraph 3 His honour quoted the following case law precedent from an 1854 case, Jeffreys v Bossleys:

Lord Wensleydale, when Baron Parke, advising the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey 14 H.L.C., 815., expresses the same proposition in very terse language. He says 24 H.L.C., at p. 926.:—The Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects—that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the kingdom. The Legislature can impose no duties except on them; and when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws, and whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.”

Please note the following points of law that can be adduced from that statement in regard to Ms. Bishop’s statements.

“…when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws,”.

Point #1: Her Majesty is the Constitutional Monarch who reigns over the people of Australia, and is the titular Head of the Commonwealth of Australia. There is an obligation upon all Australian Houses of Parliament, Federal, State and Territory, to make no laws or executive decisions that would comprise Her Majesty under Australian laws, international laws, or human rights obligations to which the Crown is a party by way of contract or international convention.

There are no death penalty laws in Australia and international human rights conventions that the Commonwealth of Australia is a signatory party to, do not authorize the death penalty as a legitimate penalty for drug trafficking. Therefore, any executive decision that circumvents statutory laws or obligations owed to the Crown, or owed by the Crown, e.g. abolishing protection for Australian citizens who may unwisely engage in illicit drug transport was a decision that compromised the Crown. This decision was an action inconsistent with the Lord Wensleydale’s advice, when Baron Parke, in advising the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey that the interests of those to whom we owe our obedience must be considered.

The plural in those to whom we owe our obedience” is also a reference to the fact that all members of the Parliament are, in law, Servants of the people, i.e. the voters in the Federal electorate or the State or Territory who granted them Powers of Agency to act as their Representatives in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The legal status of all Members of the Federal parliament as “a servant of the people” may be adduced from the Word “for”, which is to found on parliamentarian’s letterhead stationary, e.g. Senator for Victoria or Member for Kingsford.

The Executive decision that resulted in the deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was therefore legally invalid because it was inconsistent with both the parliament’s obligation and the Executive obligation to engage only in “legislating for the benefit of,,, those who owe obedience to our laws,”

“In the words of a distinguished lawyer and statesman. Lord Haldane, when a member of the House of Commons, delivered on the motion for leave to introduce the bill for the Act which we are considering:“The difference between the Constitution which this bill proposes to set up and the Constitution of the United States is enormous and fundamental. This bill is permeated through and through with the spirit of the greatest institution which exists in the Empire, and which pertains to every Constitution established I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, is almost the creature of the Legislature.”

When the English Parliament drafted the Bills that would create the Commonwealth of Australia, the intent and purpose of that parliament was to ensure that under the Australian Constitution, “good government”, or as is mentioned in Lord Haldane’s statement, “responsible government”, required that the Executive be fully accountable to, and constrained, by the Parliament. As Lord Haldane stated to the English Parliament:

“I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, is almost the creature of the Legislature.”

Clearly, if the Executive is almost the creature of the Legislature” and is constrained by its accountability to the Parliament, which has the responsibility to review and ratify through legislation, the decisions of the Executive, then it is the Constitution function, i.e. a constitutional obligation, upon ‘The Queen’s Loyal Opposition’ to expeditiously hold the Executive fully accountable for arbitrary violations of Executive power and jurisdiction that result in foreseeable, totally avoidable loss of life that occurred when Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were summarily executed by the Indonesian Government.

Point #2: The statement can also be condensed down to this second constraint that places yet another Duty of Care obligation upon the Parliament and the Executive: when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those… whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.”

The Parliament, which includes the Executive, has a “correlative obligation to protect” those whose interests the parliament represents, i.e. any-and-all persons within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is so because all people who are Members of the Federal Parliament owe both a Common law duty of care as well as the previously mentioned duty of care to the people that represent, as agents, in the Federal Parliament.

Point #3:  In considering the merits of the above case law points, please note the following statement by Justice Isaacs at paragraph 9 in his comments:

“See also the observations of Sir Henry Jenkyns in British Rule and Jurisdiction Beyond the Seas, at p. 90. We therefore look to the judicial authorities which are part of our own development, which have grown up beside our political system, have guided it, have been influenced by it and are consistent with it, and which, so far as they existed in 1900, we must regard as in the contemplation of those who, whether in the Convention or in the Imperial Parliament, brought our Constitution into being, and which, so far as they are of later date, we are bound to look to as authoritative for us.”

The people who created the Australian Constitution and established by Act of the English parliament, the Commonwealth of Australia, deemed “responsible government” to government in which the Executive power and jurisdiction was constrained by the Parliament’s own powers under Section 51 of the Constitution and the obligation to ‘protect the interests of the people to whom the parliament owed a correlative obligation to protect.”

The basic of reasons why Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were summarily executed by the Indonesian Government on April 29th 2015, was the failure of the Australian Government acting responsibly to protect them because. The 1st Domino in that process was the failure of the government-of-the-day, i.e. Prime Minister John Howard’s mindset was apparently unable to accept the truth, which in turn led to the abandonment of the basic principles required for “Good Government.” i.e. the protection of the people, an obligation that includes people that Prime Minister Howard did not approve off. Whilst not liking people who act as ‘drug mules’ is understandable, under international laws and Australian laws, it is not a death sentence. Consequently, it was an abuse of Executive power to authorize the setting aside of Australian Federal police administrative guidelines that instructed Federal police officers to obey the Constitution and a valid law, i.e. section 115 of the Constitution.

That this guideline was not apparently re-instated until after the slaughter of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was totally inconsistent with the concept of “good government” and the Executive decision, which was not apparently ratified by the parliament may in itself constitute a violation of section 142.2 with “detriment” specified in this statute being a decade of internment in an Indonesian jail and the executions that took place on 29th April 2015.

It cannot be stated too often, it is not the function of any government to impose any form of ‘detriment” that a court, adhering to the judicial and constitutional principles upon which the Commonwealth of Australia was founded, has through Due Process of Law, determined the primary facts of the matter and adduced a lawful response. Skipping the courts may be politically or administratively expedient, but as the Justice Toohey stated when handing the High Court ruling at paragraph 8 in ,

“…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”.

It is beyond reprehensible when personal bias, bigotry and/or prejudice, usurps the Constitution, constitutional, common law rights and common sense and people die. That is not “good government” that is a criminal abuse of power and when people die, those deaths are culpable negligence deaths that must be accounted for in accordance with Due Process principles upon which the Commonwealth of Australia was founded.

Fact #5: – UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE:  Victoria’s waived speed camera fines and the Commonwealth’s Robo-debt Fraud.

It is a matter of fact that last week, the Victorian Government acknowledged that a virus had unintentionally been loaded in the operating system that controlled over 500 of Victoria’s speed cameras. The presence of this unauthorized software in the speed camera operating system rendered the output of all cameras suspect, i.e. in a Victorian court, the output would have to have been regarded as ‘Unreliable evidence’. I do not know if the Victorian Government’s decision was a willingly made act of integrity or a begrudging response to the Police v Butcher decision, i.e. Police V Butcher; [SASC 130 on 17th August 2016]. Although the respondent in this case had been detected driving at an alleged speed of 105KPH in a 50KPH zone, minor non-compliance irregularities in the calibration and testing of the Lidar speed device used to record the speed of the respondent’s vehicle meant that a Court could not be reasonably confident of the reliability of the device and any speeds recorded by the device.

The judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley in Police v Butcher at 8,

  1. The magistrate found that it was not possible for Chief Inspector Quinn to certify that the testing performed on 14 September 2012 was “accurate within a limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph”. He said:

[42] That the fixed distance zero velocity testing performed by SC Goldsmith does not reveal the accuracy in terms of limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph. That his tests did not amount to the testing required in order to measure a target’s speed to the relevant set of accuracy criteria set out at Clause 2.6.1(a) and Appendix A of the Australian Standard.

[43] That Ex P2 could not be used to certify the level of accuracy of the Lidar device because the testing referred to therein was not testing that occurred either on the day of the charged offences or the day after. Further Ex P2 could not assume the status of a certificate as it was not signed by the Police Commissioner or any other police officer of or above the rank of Inspector.

[44] That in the light of CI Quinn’s admission that he would not have signed Ex P1 if the only information given to him had been the record of field testing conducted by SC Goldsmith because this did not show the test to be accurate within the limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph, it must follow that CI Quinn signed Ex P1 on the erroneous basis that he considered that it was the calibration report Ex P2 that enabled him to make the certification.

[45] A certificate under s.175(3)(ba) can only be used to prove the accuracy of the Lidar device ‘to the extent indicate in the document’.

[46] The line of cases referred to leave open the proposition that the agreed facts in this case at Ex P11, particularly numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7, together with Ex P10 can be used by defence as evidence to provide a basis for establishing ‘proof to the contrary’ for the purposes of s.175(3)(ba) RTA.

[47] Indeed I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this evidence is sufficient to displace the presumption of the level of accuracy on the basis that it establishes

  1. That the fixed distance zero velocity testing cannot form a basis of certification of the extent of accuracy of the Lidar device in terms of a limit of error of plus 2 and minus 3 kph on the day of the charged offences or the following day, and

  2. That the calibration report Ex P2 cannot form such a basis, because the testing referred to therein was not testing that occurred either on the day of the charged offences or the day after. As well and in any event Ex P2 itself cannot assume the status of a certificate as it was not signed by the Police Commissioner or any other police officer of or above the rank of Inspector.

[48] In other words I am satisfied that there is evidence which establishes that the testing did not show the Lidar device to be accurate within the stated limit of error.

[49] I am further satisfied that in the absence of evidence of limit of error I cannot find proved beyond reasonable doubt the precise, or range of speed of the vehicle.

[50] Further, while the Defendant admitted to speeding, the nature of the charges to which he has pleaded requires a precise speed or a range of speeds to be able to be calculated. Such matters cannot be proved from the Defendant’s admission of speeding or from imprecise observations of the vehicle contained in the evidence.

[51] Without reliable evidence from which the speed or range of speed of the vehicle can be calculated both counts are incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Note the statement at paragraph 51 of the magistrate’s original decision, “Without reliable evidence from which the speed or range of speed of the vehicle can be calculated both counts are incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” There are clear parallels between the Police v Butcher decision and then lack of reliability of the Victorian speed camera network due to the presence of a virus in the camera operating system. As with the Butcher decision in South Australia, any output from the Victorian speed cameras would constitute unreliable evidence and the decision to waive the fines was, from a legal perspective, a valid, common sense decision that, a financially inconvenient as the decision to waive speed camera fines may have been, the decision was totally consistent with the principle of “good government.” However, the same cannot be said for the Turnbull Government’s continued use of the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, aka ISIS, for the purpose of evaluating disability pension claims and the recovery of ALLEGED overpayments by Centrelink.

When it comes to the legal principle of Unreliable Evidence, the ISIS computer network established a world-class benchmark for the lowest standard of unreliable evidence, which conversely also establishes new benchmark of the principle of “reasonable doubt”.

Consider the following uncontested statements in the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of facts & Issues concerning the reliability of the ISIS computer network and officially acknowledged systemic errors with this system:

  1. A reported 50 million keystrokes (transactions) per day, with the potential for up to a million potential keystroke errors per day.

  2. Over-worked and under-trained, non-certified-data-entry staff.

  • 21 Billion Http calls per day in an operating system that contains 30 million lines of partially undocumented system code.

  1. Undocumented system code can result in a 3-month effort by a team of programmers just to change the date format on a form letter.

  2. Public discrediting of a key algorithm that uses inappropriate logic, e.g. ‘Income annualizing’ of income earned by casual and part-time workers with the subsequent false automated-assumption of the non-reporting of the annualized income when people were not working.

  3. Medically unqualified data entry operators making “If-Then-Else” decisions when entering medical data into the ISIS computer system.

  • Untested and therefore uncertified data entry operators

  • Like the LIDAR speed guns used by police, data entry operators need be re-tested and re-certified in accordance with Australian Standards to “certify the level of accuracy of the data entry operator.”

  1. Without ‘Current Competency’ certified testing to Australian Standards to ensure, the accuracy of data used in Centrelink initiated tort actions is not possible to adduce with any reasonable degree of certainty.

  2. In the absence of ‘Current competency certification’, the accuracy of data entered is, to quote from Dr. Chettock’s testimony at the USS Scorpion inquiry, a case of scratching our heads and coming up with our best guess.”

  3. Whilst UNIX and Solaris operating systems are very stable, their security is compromised by the Windows systems which are constantly being updated to ensure security.

  • Centrelink’s I.T. personnel have reported to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the ISIS computer system is subjected to virus attacks and therefore certification each personal computer or terminal used by a data entry operator at the time of an alleged error by a welfare recipient is also essential in order to ensure that, on the balance of probability, as per Police v Butcher, the equipment used was unaffected by viruses and functioning as per design specification.

  • In order for ISIS input data to be used as evidence in a civil dispute, all data-entry staff must be appropriately certified as to their individual knowledge level of the relevant statute laws, regulations, policies and procedures at the time any data relevant to a dispute was entered in ISIS.

  • The endemic problem of bad advice being provided to Centrelink clients by inexperienced or unqualified Centrelink staff is known to be of such a broad scale that incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials (Sic) security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”

  1. An unknown number of “Failure to Code to zero” data entry errors.

  • Manual data-matching so far behind real-time inputs that violations of federal and state ‘Menace’ and ‘Blackmail’ laws have been used for years as an ‘administrative convenience’ when attempting to data-match ATO reports to the real-time income reports of Centrelink clients.

  • A reported reduction in staffing levels of 5,000 staff by Ms. Nadine Fleet, the National Secretary of the Community & Public Sector Union, for the purported purpose of reducing operating costs, raises issues of workload stress and increased workload error rates that cannot reasonably be accurately determined.

  • Frequent changes to legislation in what are some of the nation’s most complex and comprehensive legislation also raises questions as to the impact upon both workload stress and workload competence.

  • 30% call-blocking to protect infra-structure from overload failures.

  1. People required by law told they are not required to report income and automatically shut out of the ISIS system when trying to report.

  • The On-line income reporting system icon was deleted so that there was no way for welfare recipients to report income via the Internet.

  • Unlike commercial receipts, on-line income reporting ‘receipts’ do not include income reported details when using default print-out option.

  • The system can hang or crash at random times. [N.B. Video recorded]

  • Icons on the Income reporting screen do not comply with appropriate standards for people who may be ‘visually challenged.’

  • There is no consumer standard on-screen ‘Save’ or “Save as” option for welfare recipients to locally save data files of income reports.

  • Some welfare recipients reporting on-line informed that they are “NOT ELIGIBLE TO REPORT”. Any attempt to then report by phone then fails.

  • ANAO Report #37 contains details systemic faults, e.g. people phoning in to ask questions about benefits or to report income spent a total of 811 years on hold. [I have a video of being on hold for 50 minutes.]

  • Many Department of Human Service public accountability reports mislead both the Parliament and the public.

  • No accurate data on clients who have been dead for 20-years or more.

  • No data on the real-world human impact of welfare penalties, e.g. loss of essential services, inability to purchase essentials of life such as food, clothes or medicine, evictions and unreported post-breaching fatalities.

  • In February 2015, Senator Payne stated that the system needed to be replaced with a Billion dollar system that will provide integrity” to payment systems. [*Note: “will provide integrity” is future tense.]

  • 20% of 170,000 tort claims since June 2016 have been acknowledged as erroneous and 73,000 erroneous alleged debt notices issued on 1st January 2016.

  • The publicly acknowledged total of 107,000 erroneous claims out of 243,000 is a massive error rate of 44.03%.

MY LAY-ADVOCATE COMMENT

If the Butcher decision is a reasonable guide to how a court would deal with the litany of systemic problems within Centrelink that make the adducing of a correct, fair and just decision impossible, I believe that, on the balance of probability, any court appraised of these systemic problems would be unlikely to consider upholding a Centrelink tort claim. As the precedent below reveals, in the highly unlikely event that this should occur, the decision might be overturned on appeal when an appellate court conducts “…a real review of the evidence.”  

Continued: The judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley in Police v Butcher at 10,

Approach on appeal   [Extract from Police v Butcher at 10]

  1. The appeal is by way of re-hearing. The nature of such an appeal was considered in Martin v Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. ]White J said:

In short, on appeals against conviction under s 42 of the Magistrates Court Act, this Court is required to conduct a real review of the evidence put before the Magistrate. On issues which involved an assessment of the quality and reliability of a witness, this Court must make due allowance for the advantage of the Magistrate in seeing and hearing the evidence being given. However, the fact that a Magistrate reached his or her conclusion by an acceptance of the evidence of the witnesses of one party does not prevent this Court carrying out its statutory function. There may be cases in which incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony or the glaring improbability of the Magistrate’s conclusion will, despite the Magistrate’s preference for the evidence of a particular witness, warrant this Court’s interference. Further, if the question is one of inferences to be drawn from facts found or which are not in dispute, this Court can substitute its decision if it comes to a different conclusion as to the correct inference to be drawn. [Reference cited: Martin v Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure [2010] SASC 141 (13 May 2010) at 38.]

ISIS UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE IN THE NUTSHELL:

Understaffed by some 5,000 staff who have been laid off, uncertified, over-worked, data entry operators struggle with a dysfunctional computer system that lacks “integrity” due to undocumented system code and a database that may contain 8 billion data errors and bad advice by Centrelink staff is nothing “markedly different from the usual run of cases.”

AATA case file 2014/???6 and “…nothing markedly different from the usual run of cases.”

When it comes to Dickensian Bleak house travesties of justice, the AAT hearing for AAT case file 2014/<Redacted> probably set a new Commonwealth of Nations Administrative appeals decisions” low-point.

Given the known systemic problems within Centrelink and the ISIS computer system’s lack of functional “integrity”, it is unlikely that a court would validate Centrelink’s claims. However, the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision below, which was made in the absence of any findings as to the primary facts of the matter by a court, produced the ‘Dickensian Bleak House Farce’. This “finding” brazenly ignored s 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e. the waiver of a debt if it solely due to a Commonwealth error:

  1. <The applicant’s> contention that (s) he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA. [The case file details are withheld to protect the traumatized victim of this gross travesty of justice.]

It is an accepted principle that employers are responsible for errors or misleading statements made by their employees, e.g. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd [FCA 1369 on 15th December 2014] At paragraph 60 (f) in this case, Justice White stated:

[60] (f) In assessing advertising material, the “dominant message” of the material will be of crucial importance: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [HCA 54;(12th December 2013) 250 CLR 640,  at paragraph 45] the High Court ruled:

The approach of the primary judge was correct

  1. First, the Full Court erred in holding that the primary judge was wrong to regard the “dominant message” of the advertisements as of crucial importance: neither of the statements of Gibbs CJ in Puxu which the Full Court applied was decisive in the circumstances of this case. Secondly, the Full Court erred in failing to appreciate that the tendency of TPG’s advertisements to mislead was not neutralised by the Full Court’s attribution of knowledge to members of the target audience that ADSL2+ services may be offered as a “bundle”.

When a 60-year-old welfare recipient who left school 45 years early whilst in Year 9 , phones a Centrelink call-centre seeking advice and is given incorrect advice by a call centre operator who was not authorized to give that advice, which is complied with in ‘good faith’ but results in alleged overpayments of almost $14,000 before the error is discovered some years later. The alleged overpayment error was solely a Commonwealth error and under section 1,237A of the Act MUST be waived but was not. It is impossible to win an AAT appeal when the presiding Senior AAT Member is an Officer of the Court:

  1. Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that deliberately ignored the Commonwealth error and ‘good faith’ error provisions in section 1,237A of the Social Security Act.

  2. Ought to know of, but apparently ignores, Kioa, ASIC v TPG, Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  • Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful under section 142.2, but ignores this statute;

  1. Ought to know that conspiring to hold a ‘trial’ is unlawful;

  2. Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties, and that the placing of life in peril is a crime as per Faure and Boughey;

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when the Ombudsman’s Office also ignores all of the above and upholds the decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above procedural fairness violations. With the AAT making unconstitutional finding of fact on original decisions where the primary facts of the matter have not been  adduced by a court because this process costs Centrelink an average of $25,000 per tort claim, it not surprising that the Turnbull Government is deliberately steering people away from the courts and into the AAT appeals where decisions may be based solely on the basis that the applicant is a welfare recipient who, through no fault of their own has received overpayments that, for reasons of political expediency, the Turnbull government wants to recover without recourse to Due Process of Law. Robo-Debt is a classic example of “The Craven Effort”, an attempt by a Dr. Craven to determine why a US Nuclear submarine, the USS Scorpion, sank in 1968 with the loss of the entire crew of 99 men.

GAGO: THE CRAVEN EFFORT: Public domain information about how the ISIS algorithms currently being used to determine ALLEGED overpayments have been modeled, indicate that these algorithms can reasonably be compared to theCraven Effort’ algorithms used by the United States Navy in 1968 to determine why, on 22nd May 1968, the nuclear submarine, USS Scorpion, descended below crush depth and imploded, instantly killing all 99 crew members. http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20SCORPAIN%2027%20MAY%2068.pdf

 

  1. Speaking about the Craven Effort during the Navy Board of Inquiry, Gabriel Santore and Dr. George Chettock, experts from the Naval Ship Research Development Centre [NSRDC ], gave their expert opinions on the use of some 10,000 computer algorithm driven simulations that had been used in an attempt to determine, why the USS Scorpion had been destroyed.

  2. Santore informed the Navy Board of Inquiry, “The variables are there for you to juggle and you juggle those variables and each one gives you a solution” , i.e. manipulating the data enables manipulation of the ‘solutions’.

  3. Chettock then further summed up the Craven Effort with the statement: “We can make estimates but we don’t need a precise computer to do this. We can do this by scratching our heads and coming up with our best guess.”

  4. That statement is equally valid for output from the questionable algorithm driven simulations used by Centrelink to identify alleged overpayments, or alternately, to simulate the eligibility of a person for a disability pension.

  5. The “20 Point Score” used to determine a person’s eligibility for a disability pension is of grave concern as it presumes that a computer simulation can be programmed to make better decisions than the doctors treating the patient.

  6. The simulations produced by ISIS are assumptions that needs to be tested in a court that takes evidence from a broad range of independent medical and computer programming experts before any real-world decisions that may comprise the health and welfare of people with disabilities are made.

  7. The consequences of “A failure to code to zero” error could be fatal and therefore, given the proven track record of a lack of “integrity” of the ISIS system, Centrelink is, to quote Justice Brookings’ words in the 1999 Faure decision, playing “Russian roulette” and recklessly “placing lives in peril.”

Statements by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, endorsing the continued use of questionable algorithms that have not been tested by a court, to search the flawed “Failure to code to zero” data in the ISIS database may have placed Mr. Turnbull in serious contention with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission, and the Federal Police cyber-crimes unit. If Mr. Turnbull was a banker using the ISIS computer to arbitrarily recover ALLEGED overpayments from bank customers accounts, would ASIC approve of this conduct?

  1. Would the High Court or the Federal Court, or even ASIC, accept as credible and reliable the output from a system with 50 million input keystrokes per day with, at best an untested, presumed accuracy of 98% for a period of 5 minutes during a 7.5 hour working day, with the data being into an operating system with 30 million lines of code, some of which is undocumented, and which can randomly produce alleged-overpayment-claim-errors at a publicly acknowledged error rate for ALLEGED overpayment claims of 20% and a calculated error rate from reported errors indicating that the real error rate may exceed 44%?

  2. The algorithms used to find the alleged overpayment errors may be more ‘flakey’ than a freight train load of Kellogg’s Cornflakes and with a now uncontested 44% error rate on alleged debt claims in 2016, no further demands for repayment should be issued by the Department of Human Services, and no rejection or revoking of disability pensions should be undertaken until a court-ordered independent audit of the entire system is completed.

  3. Given the clearly identified tsunami of systemic problems associated with the ISIS system over the last 30-years, in the absence of  independent audits of the ISIS operating system and data entry systems are performed by impartial, accredited forensic auditors, a Court of Law has no alternative option intort or alleged fraud cases but to acknowledge that the output from the ISIS computer system should be classified as UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE that, like the Police v Butcher decision and the virus infected Victorian speed camera operating system, could not be acceptable as a basis for the accurate determination of fault in alleged overpayment claims by the Turnbull Government.

  4. Because of the endemic systemic problems with the ISIS computer network, which includes very unreliable input and output, a criminal trial lawyer defending a person accused of defrauding Centrelink would have to be extremely negligent in order to lose a case once these systemic problems are known.

  5. The Complexity Report, received by the Federal Government in early 2015, is an unpublished government report that details the deficiencies in the ISIS computer network and outlines why the $1 billion upgrade that should have occurred in 1997, now needs to be down as a matter of extreme urgency.

  6. The Complexity Report has been colloquially referred to by Senator Payne as ‘”The Candy Crush Report”; without knowledge of this report, access to it, and the functional literacy skills needed to comprehend its content, fraudulently recovering ALLEGED overpayments for welfare recipients is “as easy as stealing candy from a baby” and appeals are as easy to ‘crush’ as stepping on a bug.

  7. In the absence of access to ‘the Candy Crush Report’ recommend accessing the Bromwich Report, which reports on the systemic deficiencies in the City of Houston Crime labs. A copy of this report can be sourced from: http://www.hpdlabinvestigation.org/reports/070613report.pdf

  8. In addition, I recommend reading George Rodriguez statement of claim filed in 2012, with special attention to the issue of “Inadequate supervision” on page 21 – 23, “Deliberate Indifference on page 24 – 30 and “Constitutions Violations” in the remaining sections of this report which can be downloaded from: http://www.nsbcivilrights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/docs/Rodriguez_2dAppeal_AppelleeBrief_022912.pdf

  9. In South Australia, the case of Henry Keogh is a saga worth studying as it closely parallels the Rodriguez case, i.e. unqualified or inadequately qualified pathology ‘expert’ reports that were in consistent with the findings of qualified experts who reviewed the same forensic evidence.

  10. Frits Van Beelan’s conviction was reportedly the 1st of some 400 cases that culminated with the Keogh case. Mr. Van Beelan currently has an appeal before the High Court to overturn his conviction, and if successful, this case could be crucial in challenging the validity of some 5 million decisions made using the appallingly dysfunctional “Commodore 64 with spoilers” ISIS computer network.

AT WHAT COST?

It is should be of grave public concern that a very significant proportion of suicide and heart attack victims in Australia are Centrelink clients. An as yet unknown number may be victims of highly questionable tort actions that ignored Hellicar and by-passed the courts when Centrelink ‘recovered’ overpayments that it may have has no legitimate right to reclaim. Given that the core obligation on the Federal Parliament is to protect the people that the politicians and public servants serve, how is possible to justify a decades-long humanitarian disaster in which the deaths of vulnerable, at-risk people are deemed to be “irrelevant”?

Last week a South Australian court gave bail to Ms. Lisa Barrett, a former midwife who has been charged with two counts of manslaughter because of the deaths of two babies during home births. Like the upcoming trial of Cardinal Pell, this case is attracting international attention. If either Cardinal Pell or Ms. Barrett use the information in this and the two previous emails, plus the3  volumes of the 3 Emcott Report and the various Emcott report issues papers and videos, the international attention may be on the role of the AFP, the CDPP, SAPOL, the SA DPP, and the other agencies who knew about but did nothing to prevent a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions that may have claimed the lives of 100,000 or more welfare recipients over a period of abuse measured in decades.

At this point, I am mindful of two quotations by Sir Winston Churchill:

  1. “Action this day” – If Sir Winston decided something should be done, then it should be done now. With reports that the Turnbull Government is imposing Robo-Debt on up to 20,000 victims per week, action this minute may be more appropriate than action this day!

  2. “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” History will not be kind to the politicians responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq, a point made quite clear by both the Chilton Report and this email.

Your Honour, my communications to you are a public interest submission, which means that they posted on the Internet as part of Volume 4 of The Emcott Report, an ePub book that I hope to distribute freely to former, current and potential victims. In closing, I ask you to consider this question of law, is the hardship, suffering, fear and deaths caused the unlawful tactics used to  save taxpayers’ money really more important than the  lives of your less fortunate Aussie Battlers?

I do not think so.

 

THE MACAULAY LETTERS: WHERE TO FROM HERE? Paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”

The word “binding” applies to both you and I, and also to the people responsible for the defrauding of welfare recipients over the last 30 – 40 years. Work for the Dole, ‘the lethal “No show, no pay” laws, Robo-Debt and the farcical Disability Pension ’20 Point eligibility assessment program’ are examples of criminal abuses of power that collectively constitute the worst case of mass fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. The deaths caused by these crimes are the worst case of serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia and these crimes all happen for precisely the same reason that Apartheid flourished in South Africa for a century; people in South Africa either actively or tacitly approved of Apartheid laws, policies and practices and that is exactly what has happened here in Australia.

Breaching is a deliberately removal of the only financial means of survival; do you seriously believe that successive governments could do that to 5 million people and no-one would die?

With all due respect your Honour, only a hard-core bigot or a moron would support that logic, so which one are you?

A bigot, a moron, or a moronic bigot?

The defrauding of 4 – 5 million welfare recipients and the undisputed “irrelevant” deaths of an 100,000 victims of unconstitutional tortious conduct practices can only go to one place, THE COURTS.

As Philip Sydney said, “I will either find a way or I will make a way.” Whatever it lawfully takes to get the seemingly endless, ruthless, senseless, brutal persecution of welfare recipients into the courts, that will I do, which I why I have written these email letters to you. These allegations are so serious, and yet so easily verifiable, that by doing nothing about them, you will be making yourself an accessory before the fact to the next violation of constitutional rights and if that violation results in a fatality, you will be an accessory be the fact to an unlawful homicide.

One way or another, I am going to court, whether it is an Australian court, or the International Criminal Court and my closing question to you, Your Honour, Justice Macaulay of the Victorian Supreme Court, is, where do you go from here?

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


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

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