Part 44E. Australia’s “irrelevant Crimes against Humanity. The 4th letter to Justice Macaulay re The Brandis Confession.

6,200 words]

On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the fist admission ever made by a government minister that welfare policies were killing welfare recipients.

 

Recommendation: Watch this video:

 

Now read this letter, the 4th of 6 letters to Justice Macaulay.

Be aware that it is very long [6,200 words] and technical, i.e. incredibly boring, unless you are being ripped off by Centrelink, have had a relative die because of a Centrelink abuse of power rip-off. Alternately, you want a legal loophole that will either avoid a criminal conviction or have a conviction over-turned so that you can get out of jail.)

Note: the short link URL for this posting is:

==========================================================================

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

 

Your Honour,

Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

The 3 previous public interest submissions that I have provided to you have been forwarded to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, with each of the letters carrying a request that the communication be forwarded to Cardinal Pell and/or his legal representatives. In addition, consistent with my stated belief there is substantial public in both the Manus Island ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement and the February 2017 AAT2016/5334 ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement, the 1st public interest submission to you has been published on my Ronald’s space web site. The other 2 submissions will also be published on that website along with the text of this submission.

On 2nd March 2011, the Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell, a Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, presented the Scottish Council of Law Reporting Macfayden Lecture.  Justice Cromwell’s  lecture was titled “The Challenges of Scientific Evidence,” a most timely topic given the very publicly expressed support of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other senior members of his Cabinet for the shamelessly fraudulent Robo-Debt policies and practices of his government.

This speech can be read at:

http://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/publications/macfadyen-2011.html

 At [50] and [51] in his speech, Justice Cromwell made the following comments, which I believe underscore the current shameless practice of the Turnbull Government, and previous governments, in deliberately ignoring both the Constitution and a number of High Court decisions, e.g. Associated Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co, Briginshaw, Kioa, Veal, Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco for the express purpose of avoiding having courts adducing the primary facts of the when seeking to recover ALLEGED overpayments from welfare recipients. If senior Information Technology experts employed by the Department of Human Services, e.g. Gary Sterrenberg, Chief Information Officer, CIO Group, or Grant Tidswell, Deputy Secretary, Service Delivery Operations Group, were to testify in a court about the “integrity” issues with the 35-year-old IBN 204 software driven Integrated Social Infrastructure System [ISIS] computer network, it would be virtually impossible for either the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the secretary of the Department of Social Services to win criminal or civil tort actions brought against Centrelink clients.

The issues identified by Justice Cromwell in the statements below are all credible, relevant and significant statements concerning the systemic issues that are linked to the Turnbull government’s current illegal efforts to recover a reported $4.7 Billion in overpayments from a staggering 1,400,000 people.

“One area of concern has been the lack of objectivity and independence of experts.  For example, the Goudge Report noted that Dr. Smith failed to understand this duty of impartiality.  He testified that he had received no training or instruction in this regard.  Indeed, he thought his role was to advocate for the Crown and to “make a case look good.” This problem is not uniquely a Canadian one.  In a study of problems with experts perceived by federal judges in the United States, the authors identified a lack of objectivity as one of the four most important issues from the judges’ perspective.  A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”

“The expert witness’s obligation of impartiality has been addressed by judge-made law and Rules of Court.  In Canada, England & Wales and Scotland, there is a duty of independence imposed on expert witnesses.  An often cited statement of the expert’s obligations may be found in National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”).91  As Cresswell J. put it at page 81:

‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

  1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation …

  2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise … An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.

  3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion …

  4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.

  5. If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one … In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report …’ (References to other cases have been omitted).

 When it comes to the issue of “make a case look good”, the fraudulent Robo-Debt solution is to avoid the courts, withhold or destroy evidence and make the welfare recipient “prove” the impossible, i.e. that Centrelink has made an error. Heightening the ruthless perfidy of this criminal abuse of power is the outrageous requirement that this proof must be provided within 21 days. Adding even further to this criminal abuse of power, welfare recipients who try to fight this fraud are steered into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process where, as the Applicant in the appeal process, they again must ‘prove’ a Commonwealth error.

 A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”

RECAP: AAT 2014/<Redacted>: A micro-case study with macro-implications:

It is not just the lack of impartiality of Australian Public Servants or Australian Government Services lawyers that welfare recipients must contend with.  The following feedback information concerning AAT 2014/<Redacted>, is provided not for the purpose of a judicial decision, for I know that you have no jurisdiction in this matter; it is provided as feedback to underscore the need for transparency in government tort actions and to underscore the paradigm changes occurring in response to our nation’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices.

In September 2014, I was appointed by the applicant in AAT case 2014/<Redacted> as their representative and, via telephone hook-up, participated in an AAT Directions Hearing.

  1. If you listen to the first 20 seconds of the Waivergate Part 2 video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I  you will hear concatenated sound bites of a senior AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT member conspiring to hold a trial “on that date.”

  2. I was so disgusted with the Presiding Member‘s conduct of this hearing that, via email, I requested that the Presiding Member recues from the hearing.

  3. The Presiding Member declined to do so.

  4. When I requested a copy of an audio-recording made by Centrelink that was the only empirical evidence of ‘who said what’ in the phone call that was central to this tort act. However, the AGS lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS responded with an email stating that it was not available.

  5. I then requested the presiding AAT Member exercise their authority under the AAT Act and compel the Respondent, i.e. the Secretary of the DSS, to make this recording available.

  6. This lawful discovery request was not complied with; a response that did not surprise me as the recording was mission critical to any fair and just decision and it was manifestly apparent that Justice was decidedly absent from this appeal process. [Note: I did not know about Hellicar at this time.]

  7. On 24th November 2014, a DVD with a digital copy of the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a print-out of the AGS lawyer’s email claiming that Centrelink did not have the a copy of the phone call that Centrelink arbitrarily  records “for your security”, was sent via certified mail to the Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.

  8. Minister Andrews, a former barrister, appears to have opted to ignore the conspiracy to hold a “trial” and the unlawful withholding of evidence.

  9. At the [Kangaroo Court] “trial”, when I pointed out that the Applicant had “human rights that must be respected”, as in the right to a fair hearing, the AGS Lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS rebutted my comment with the remark, “let’s leave the issue of human rights for ‘other courts’ to decide.”

  10.  At 4 in the Engineers Case [HCA 54 on 31st August 1920, Justice Isaacs stated: “…is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.

  11.  As you are fully aware, Section 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges and the people.

  12.  In the Engineers Case, the High Court held that its ruling were also binding on the Parliaments and the Executives of the Federal and State Parliaments.

  13.  As mentioned in a previous email, the Presiding Member ignored the findings in the Engineers Case and the express wording in Section 1,237A of the Social Security Action, opting instead for a Dickensian Bleak House judgement, sans any adducing of the primary facts of the matter by a court.

  14.  <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.

  15.  Since Section 1,237A would have meant acknowledging a Commonwealth error and waiving the debt, it was simply ignored and Sub-section 1,237AAD(b) given precedence over Section 1,237A.

  16.  In February 2015, consistent with Bhardwaj and the Solicitor-General’s views in Legal Briefing Paper #67 that a decision that is in law, no decision at all, can be disregarded and a new decision made if both parties agree, I wrote to the Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison.

  17.  In this communication I gain included the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a printed copy of the email stating that Centrelink did not have the audio-recording at has always been the central piece of evidence in the government’s claim that the applicant had been overpaid as a result of an error by the applicant.

  18.  Minister Morrison, who has a law degree, opted to ignore both the facts of the matter and case law determinations such as Justice Brennan’s findings at 38 in Kioa concern the inappropriateness of withholding of credible, relevant information of significance simply because it was detrimental to one of the parties in the tort action.

  19.  On 16th November 2015, a detailed appeal submission was lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which included the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the recording of the Directions Hearing. Later that day the applicant was informed that since no new information had been received, the applicant’s appeal had been rejected!

  20.  Go figure that one.

  21.  On 25th November 2015, a public relations officer informed me that the appeal submission had been received in Canberra on 23rd November but it would not be actioned, i.e. it would be disregarded.

  22.  Go figure that one as well!

  23.  In December 2015 I wrote to both Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT, and to the Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services.

  24.  In both communications, I provided the details submitted to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, e.g. the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing, a copy of the email concerning the withheld audio-recording, and the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions.

  25.  Neither Justice Kerr nor any other person representing the AAT responded to that communication.

  26.  In a letter dated 7th January 2016, the Acting Chief Counsel for the Department of Human Services, Ms. Alice Linacre responded with the statement “Your letter requests that the information provide be considered and I confirm that it has been considered. I do not consider that any further action by the department of Human Services is necessary.”

 Summing up AAT 2014/<Redacted>, we have the following:

  1. A Directions Hearing during which the Presiding AAT Member and an AGS lawyer are recorded conspiring to hold a trial “on that date” even though the AAT has no statutory or constitutional right to hold a trial.

  2. Evidence that is credible, relevant and extremely significant is withheld and the Presiding Member does not order that it presented in a timely manner for review by the Applicant and myself.

  3. The Minister for Human Services, a former barrister who “ought to have known’ that serious procedural fairness “irregularities, possibly of a criminal nature, were in play in this appeal and yet the Minister, by a voluntary physical act of omission, failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.

  4. A [Kangaroo Court] trial held “on that date” during which another AGS lawyers requests that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing be set aside “for other courts to decide.”

  5. The Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, emulated the actions of his ministerial colleague, Kevin Andrews, and also failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.

  6. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman ‘misplaced’ and then ignored a valid appeal that cited Kioa, Hellicar and Bhardwaj and which also pointed out the possibly of criminal abuses of power that were the hallmarks of a Dickensian Bleak House travesty of Justice.

  7. Justice Kerr also ignored all of the above procedural fairness points, including actions that may have been of a criminal nature.

  8.  The Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre, placed her views and the apparently perceived needs of the DHS, ahead of the Constitution, High Court decisions and criminal statute laws.

When it comes to a possible criminal conspiracy to defraud, the Commonwealth officials involved includes at least 4 AGS lawyers, a Dun & Bradstreet lawyer, who “ought to have known” about Briginshaw, Kioa, Coco, Bhardwaj and Hellicar, who seriously harassed the applicant during the AAT appeal process, a senior AAT member, a Federal Court judge, and 2 senior Government Ministers. That is an impressive list of very high profile people that the Federal Police decided not to investigate when asked to do so.

All of that input, just to defraud a welfare recipient of $13,660.33, seem to be a lot of people putting their careers on the line for a relatively small gain. However, Ms. Kathryn Campbell pointed out similar issues to Senator Xenophon on 26th February 2015 when justifying the withholding of evidence and the expenditure of $565,000 to recover an amount of approximately $5,700. The following statements are extracts copied from page 25 – 29 of the Hansard minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th February 2015.

Senator XENOPHON: “…Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?

Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount.

Senator XENOPHON: Incorrect in which matter?

Mr Hutson: The total amount of expenditure of $565,000 is not about a single matter in front of the courts. It is about a series of matters in front of both the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal running over the period of August 2011—

Senator XENOPHON: But the genesis of it was still about the way the department handled this and the amount involved.

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, if you could just allow Mr Hutson finish before you interject.

Ms Campbell: I reject the fact that the entire amount that has been spent is about a $6,000 debt.

[From page 26 of the Hansard Minutes]

Senator XENOPHON: It has cost well over half a million dollars, and it could well cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more before this is concluded; is that right?

Ms Campbell: They are important pieces of law to how we administer the entire child support system to determine whether some pieces of evidence are admissible in determining child support.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are aware that the father did contact the department direct to say, ‘I am prepared to participate in alternative dispute resolution to try and resolve this without recourse to costly litigation’? Can you acknowledge that?

Ms Campbell: I am aware of that, but there is also an issue about precedent, how we go forward with not just this case but other cases. The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives. That is why the Commonwealth, as the model litigant, has paid the expenses of the other two parties involved—so we could test that at law.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider. It concerns me that there is now an argument about not allowing documents. You are supposed to be a model litigant and you are saying you are fighting—you are spending tens of thousands of dollars with each court hearing—about not allowing documents to be reconsidered in respect of this matter, attempting to refuse that these documents be considered.

Ms Campbell: To do that I would need to call the legal practitioners so that we could go through that level of detail. As you can imagine, we do provide the actual operation of these legal cases to the lawyers to construct those. I do not have the information about that exact point with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Again, I ask that you take this on notice. A fortune is now being spent, with up to four lawyers turning up against an unrepresented father about documents that he says—and I say—were erroneously withheld from him.

Can I go to the AAT? Let us move to the FOI documents that the Information Commissioner has decided are not FOI-exempt. So the Information Commissioner has been involved in this. You have engaged Clayton Utz to represent you in the AAT and I believe you have special counsel and a partner working on the matter, along with an instructing solicitor from Human Services; is that right?

Mr Hutson: That would probably be right.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are there fighting an Information Commissioner’s ruling.

Mr Hutson: That is again a very, very important point of law. We believe that the Information Commissioner’s decision was not correct. Those documents go to legal professional privilege. In terms of the way we administer the child support legislation, the Social Security Act and all the other legislation we administer, legal professional privilege is an important part of the way we obtain legal advice and consider it. There is some information there which the Information Commissioner believes should have been released. But in our view that should not have been released, and the matter goes to legal professional privilege. That is why we have taken the matter up in front of the AAT.

Senator XENOPHON: I have just got a message from the father, who is looking at this, saying that costs were paid in the first matter only, that you are seeking costs against him in the appeal of the SSAT decision.

Ms Campbell: The first case, which was about what evidence was required and whether or not it could be used, was the matter of law that we were very focused on. I think that is where most of this started and that is where the costs are. These subsequent areas have come from the applicant. So we are, as is our normal practice, working through the legislative—

Senator XENOPHON: But you are seeking costs against him, so you will probably wipe him out.

 Your Honour, As Senator Xenophon’s questions revealed, $565,000 in legal costs and rising, with 4 government lawyers and a private law firm stacked up against a self-representing citizen. In AAT 2014/<Redacted> there were 3 AGS lawyers and the law firm, Dun & Bradstreet up against a senior citizen with a part-time job that paid an income below the poverty line. Note also the common factor of withholding evidence that is detrimental to the Department of Human Services.

So, Your Honour, just how well does this Dickensian Bleak House nightmare stack up with your concept of how Australia’s justice system works in Australia?

Points of Law: Justice Cromwell’s footnotes – The Ontario Rules.

Footnotes 94, 95, and 96 of Justice Cromwell’s speech set out the ‘Ontario rules’, i.e. the rules that apply in Canada, and the rules that apply in England and Wales when ‘expert evidence’ is presented in civil and criminal procedures.

94 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.1 [Ontario Rules].

4.1.01(1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged.

95 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17), r. 35.3 [England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules].

  1. 3(1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise.
    (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid.

96 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 No. 60 (L.2), r. 33.2 [England and Wales Criminal Procedure Rules]. 

33.2(1) An expert must help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his expertise.
(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he receives instructions or by whom he is paid.
(3) This duty includes an obligation to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement.

Experts are supposed to serve by aiding the courts to be fair and impartial in assessing the technical merits of a case. What impact would the following ‘expert testimony’ have upon a Court in a Robo-Debt case, or upon a fair-minded jury in a criminal prosecution of a welfare recipient accused of ‘rorting the system’?

EXTRACTS: HANSARD: COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 3 June 2015 Senate Page 17 -19

Please note that the ANAO Report referred to is ANAO Report #37, which was tabled in May 2015.

 Senator CAMERON: Minister and Secretary, I want to go to the ANOA report. I suppose I could ask the question that is asked in the publication: what kind of government service puts the public on hold for 811 years?

Ms Deininger: I am not sure where the 811-year number comes from. So I cannot answer that. It could be made up, for all I know. If we go to the substance of the ANAO audit, I think there is a waiting time, which of course has been quite transparent in the last number of PBSs and annual reports.

Senator CAMERON: I have heard other adjectives used as well as ‘transparent’.

 Senator CAMERON: We will do that sample. I might come back outside estimates or later today and say, ‘Can you have a look at these specific ones?’ That is okay. You have got 12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked. I have not been out there. Have you got a control room?

Mr Tidswell: Yes, Senator.

[Skipping some of the text]

 Mr Tidswell: One of the things we have done over some years is attempt to restrict the amount of call blocking, which effectively means the customer will receive an engaged signal over some time. We have reduced that by about 66 per cent over the last few years deliberately so that people can get the choice to enter into that IVR and get information about the service they might need. In that sense what happens is that at certain points—say, at the end of the day—we have to clear the queues out. It is no different, in a sense, from running a club or a bouncer letting people come in to that environment. You can only let a certain number of people in to that environment to protect the telephone infrastructure and to make sure that you handle the workload in a suitable fashion; otherwise we would be working every day of the week 24/7. So we try to restrict it very much to a demand situation where we do it, or to protect our infrastructure. The easiest way to fix wait times is to introduce more engaged signals. Previously, that is what we did. With respect to the level of blocking previously, there were far more blocked calls than we ever answered in any given year.

This is just one example of the way in which welfare recipients are treated; they are required by law to report income and face criminal prosecution if they do not accurately report earning. However, if the 35-year-old ISIS driven phone system cannot cope with call load, in just one year there were “12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked.”

This is happening on a computer system that takes a team of expert programmers 3-months just to change the date format on a form letter!  Expert testimony would not be required to totally discredit Robo-Debt claims in a court of law;  every rip-off claim is already discredited!

When it comes to the Rules of Evidence and the published dysfunctional operating problems that the ISIS computer network has, an interesting issue is the question as to why Federal Police I-Tech surveillance experts and I-Tech forensic experts have not raised the issue of systemic fraud by Centrelink on behalf of the government-of-the-day.

Robo-Debt is brazen fraud and it is totally unbelievable that not one Federal Police I-Tech expert has pointed this out to Cyber-crimes investigators. If the I-Tech experts are both competent and honest, then it is highly probable that Animal Welfare Rule CYA-1-0-1 applies and this fraud has been raised in emails, memos, official minutes of I-Tech meetings, and in privately held minutes of meetings. This logic is equally applicable within every police department in Australia, and also within the I-Tech units within the Departments of Human Services, Social Services, Employment, Finance, Treasury, the Office of the Coordinator-General, Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General’s Department.

Most welfare recipients would not know what a Duces tecum order was, let alone afford the cost of such a subpoena. Any person accused of a crime who wishes to mount an Ostensible Bias appeal should give serious consideration to following the lead of Commissioner Ian hanger in the HIP Inquiry and using a confetti box shower of Duces tecum subpoenas, as part of the Discovery process, obtain as much evidence as is possible of the extent to which I-Tech experts, especially those in police and federal government watchdog agencies, have been aware that Robo-Debt is a criminal abuse of power, i.e. a dangerous fraud, but have chosen to do nothing about it.

Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin

Executive Summary [Canada – 1997]

In February 1997, the Kaufman Inquiry was established to inquire into a miscarriage of justice to determine what systemic factors had led to the wrongful conviction of Guy Morin for the alleged murder of Christine Jessop. In 1995, the Ontario Supreme Court overturned the conviction when a review of DNA evidence cast reasonable doubt about the validity of the conviction.

After a 146 day hearing the Kaufman Report contained a number of recommendations that addressed the issue of systemic bias within the Durham Police force.

 The Commissioner commended the direction taken by the Durham Regional Police Services Board to address some of the failings identified at the Inquiry and, indeed, the Board’s approach to the Inquiry itself. He cautioned, however, that many of the failings identified go to the heart of the police culture:

  1. An investigation can be perfectly structured, but flounder due to tunnel vision or “noble cause corruption” or loss of objectivity or bad judgment.

  2. Older techniques and thought processes are, at times, deeply ingrained and difficult to change.

  3. Police culture is not easy to modify. The failings which I identified were systemic and were not confined to several officers only.

  4. The challenge for Durham will be to enhance policing through an introspective examination of the culture. I am convinced that such an examination has commenced.

 The systemic issues identified in the Kaufman Report have been replicated in the Bromwich Report, a review of the City of Houston Crime Laboratories, and are echoed in some of the reports of the recently concluded interim reports of the Australian Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuses of Children in Institutionalized Care, e.g. Report #9 – St Ann’s, which highlighted the 12-year-long failure of the South Australian Police to deal with the sexual abuse of children by an employee of St Ann’s.

In theory, Bigotry and Prejudice have no place in any fair and just society and yet, Work for the dole is unconstitutional and the ‘No show, no pay’ laws are also unconstitutional and a criminal act of deprivation that derives its terrifying power from the very real menace caused by depriving impoverished people of the means to survive. Not once or twice in the 2-year period 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, but over 600,000 times, John Howard’s social welfare ministry team deliberately deprived impoverished people of the means to survive. Whatever the actual cause of each death triggered by this unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous Act of Destitution, the manner of death is identical, i.e. murder.

The number of murders is unknown because those responsible have no intention of being held accountable. As Section 2.11 of the Report #12 to the 44th Parliament made quite clear, if the vulnerable can be slaughtered by Federal legislation, then there are those who will try to do it:

 “However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security.”

 As you are well aware, in a court of law, that statement opens the door to the question as to just how many did not survive under the Howard government’s 13-week penalty system or under the supposedly more humane 8-week-penalty system. One clue to the impact of these penalties is that in the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 to the 31st December 2006, i.e. ‘The Howard Years’, 23,254 people committed suicide and the leading cause of 1 in 3 of these penalties was Unemployment.

It is possible that just from suicides alone, John Howard may have murdered around 7,700 unemployed people. Toss in the other top suicide categories and during the 11 ½ years that John Howard was the Prime Minister of Australia, it is possible that perhaps as many as 25,000 died as a direct consequence of his welfare policies.

In November 2014, I came close to finding out the precise number with the Discovery questions in AAT 2014/<Redacted> but the AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT Member slammed that door shut. I came even closer with AAT 2016/5334 because the AAT Case Registrar, Athena Ingall, had issued a Discovery Notice that required disclosure of facts by 3rd March 2017.

Close, but again, not close enough; Elizabeth Ulrick slammed the door shut with a ‘Nolle contendere’ proffer that was put to the applicant without my knowledge.

However, I believe that time is fast running out and that soon, perhaps very soon, the appalling number of victims of Australia’s brutal welfare policies with be disclosed. Once that happens, the closing words of Justice Steven Rares speech to the 2013 AGS Law Administrators conference will have practical meaning:

When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate, or the limits of judicial power. That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers under Ch III of the Constitution, they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court and in reasons for the judgment in which the Court decides and pronounces the law.If citizens are to have rights worth having, they can only be guaranteed either by constitutional entrenchment through a democratic referendum, or by the Parliament scrutinising legislation and the Courts continuing to apply the principle of legality. 

  1. Robo-Debt and the 20 Point Assessment are a crime, i.e. in-ya-face-fraud.

  2. The ‘no show, no pay’ breaching penalties are simply a variation on Hitler’s “Final Solution”, for it is ideology-driven ‘murder by federal legislation’.

Take care note of what Steven Rares said, “That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers… they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court…”  If the door still remains open to the Manus Island case being “proceedings that occur transparently in open court,” then you must make it happen. It is totally inappropriate that those who rule our nation can use taxpayers’ monies to hide their crimes from those they serve, deceive, persecute, defraud and murder.

Transparency is not an essential function for any government; judicial power that ensures transparency in an open court is. You have been set before you a serious human rights violation case in which there is at least one death caused by illegal activity, i.e. a felony murder. Surely, transparency demands that you make no judgment until you know about every other human rights violations triggered death that the Commonwealth of Australia is directly responsible for?

I would remind you that if you check out the various videos on the Internet of the ABC’s Q & A broadcast  of 20th February 2017, you will see and  hear Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek quibbling over the issue as to whether the Gillard Government or the Turnbull Government was the most efficient at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

I therefore loop back to my opening question to you; What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

As Chief Justice Barwick pointed out in Ratten in 1974,  “Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked;”

Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 517 per Barwick CJ;[1974] HCA 35

You may not like the views expressed in my email letters, aka ‘The Macaulay Letters”, but they are based upon facts that can be proven in any court.  Ignoring them is not an option as any person accused of crime can ask you to stand down if you fail to act on the information provided.

Please LISTEN for 20 seconds:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0hpUJ9wTk

Please WATCH for 15 minutes:         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4&t=0s

In closing, my advice as a citizen, and as a lay-advocate, is very simple; I think that you should call the cops.

Yours truly

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

 

 

 

 

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

 

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

2 Responses to Part 44E. Australia’s “irrelevant Crimes against Humanity. The 4th letter to Justice Macaulay re The Brandis Confession.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    My Dear Ron,

    I repeat my questions VERY BASIC ! and if you know the answer please let me know. The principles for which you battle, are of course very important but on my low private grade I’d like to know if in Australia one can proceed as a pauper i.e. not to pay to the Federal Court, and be under the threat that Center Link may be awarded costs?

    next and very important especially in the view of your precedents. non contendere, quotations of law WHAT TO DO if Centerlin simply ignores the law same the Tribunal? Is there any remedy except the Court? By the way the Center asked me for pay slips. Unfortunately I enriched Australian Literature by becoming a pauper myself thus no pay slips. best, les

    Les-zek Shyman-Szymanski, Ph.D. Author, historian, journalist, editor Ph.D. History (PUNO=London), M. Political Science (California State University), B.A. General (London University)

  2. yadnarie48 says:

    This is an interesting question that has been made much easier by Senator Brandis remark about “terrible human consequences” and my 2016/5334 Statement of facts & issues statement that the available data suggests a death toll of around 100,000. The FEDERAL COURT will waive costs IF there is a compelling argument that HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED..

    This is what makes the information provided to you and everyone else who reads the Ronald’s space posting of such legal importance. You can apply to the Federal Court on the basis of violations of human rights that have involved denial of justice and an unknown number of fatalities that have been acknowledged by the Federal Attorney-General and which the AGS lawyers acting for the Secretary of the Department of Social Services did not contend, i.e. the official response to the estimate of 100,000 deaths was “nolle contendere’.

    The fact that AAT 2016/5334 was signed of by the Deputy President of the AAT, J W Constance, may also be sign9ificant because the President of the AAT MUST be a Federal Court judge and therefore the deputy President is often another judge. The legal ramifications of the “terrible human consequences” statement and “nolle contendere” the AAT 2016/5334 estimate of 100,000 fatalities is potentially enormous, a fact that the lawyers representing the DSS are well aware of and any information provided to you that is then passed on by you with an “Explain please” request is going to place them under ‘substantial pressure’. They did a “cut & run” with 5334 and I suspect that anyone who provides the same information will achieve the same outcome.

    However, As I stated above, if you want to challenge Centrelink in the Federal Court, do so on violation of human rights and constitutional rights and request that in the public interst, with Senator Brandis admitting that mistakes have resulted in fatalities, that the Federal Court needs to act to prevent further loss of life and further violations of human rights, procedural fairness rights and constitutional rights. The Brandis Confession video has Senator Brandis spouting the “appropriate compliance measures” mantra but these are POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT MEASURES that have no constitutional basis. the non-publishing of Hellicar on the Legal briefing papers website is evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud that makes all of the unreported deaths culpable negligence fatalities.

    I hope this is helpful Dr..Shyman-Szymanski.

    Ron Medlicott

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