Dated 17th July 2017, this is a 4-page covering letter to Justice Macaulay who was provided with a bound copy of the 4 previous postings.
Note: the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-17n
NOTE: The Brandis Confession:
After years of concealing the mounting death toll caused by the enforcement of unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous welfare policies, on 20th February 2017, Senator Branis, Australia’s federal Attorney-General, was forced to admit on an ABC QandA program that “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then of course that’s a tragedy..”
These deaths are not just a “mistake”; they are the result of decades of criminal abuses of power and a reckless indifference to human life that that date back to the days when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia. if you have not yet seen “The Brandis Confession”, I recommend that you watch it right now.
Re: Work for the Dole, the ‘No show, no pay’ penalties in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, Robo-Debt policies and practices, and the 20 Point Assessment to determine eligibility for a disability pension, which are, collectively, the worst case of systemic mass fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Regardless of the actual cause of death, the manner of death for all fatalities caused by this systemic fraud are murder under international, State and Territory laws. Therefore, in law, the deaths caused by these crimes constitute the worst case of systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. This raises a crucially important question of law, i.e. when are you going to officially acknowledge these crimes?
The above statement concerning the scale of these crimes is not hypothetical; as I pointed out in the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT 2016/5334, the cumulative all-causes death toll caused by our nation’s unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices is probably close to, or even in excess of 100,000. The total number of people murdered may, in theory, even be close to one million. Functus officio on AAT 2016/5334 on 6th March 2017 means that any person accused of a crime can cite the uncontested statements contained in AAT 2016/5334 in their defence. The court, or a jury, will have to then consider the relevance and significance of the statement when deliberating on the facts of the matter in the case before they can decide what constitutes an unbiased, fair and just determination.
As you are well-aware, in criminal trials it is no longer necessary to adduce motive. However, I would point out that between 21st March 2000 and 4th August 2011, some 15,000 people were prosecuted and convicted of a non-existent crime that the Federal Parliament tried to rectify with retrospective “statutory fiction” that the High Court ruled was invalid on 8th May 2013. I further put to you the following point as a reason why, over a period of decades, 100,000 people may have been murdered, but not one policeman or judge in Australia has so far done anything to stop the persecution, exploitation and slaughter of welfare recipients:
“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.”
Francis Neale. Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. (July 2009)
The Hon Michael Kirby quoted the above statement during a speech at a judicial conference in Malaysia in 2010 when making the point that the law serves Justice, which is about serving people, a view expressed by Justice Dixon in Briginshaw way back in 1938. Substitute the word “Breaching”, aka ‘no show, no dole’ penalties, for Apartheid and switch the location from South Africa to Australia and you have the current scenario in Australia, i.e. Murder by Socio-economic Apartheid.
Thanks to the crass insensitivity of Australia’s broader community, especially the criminal justice system, to the appalling plight of our nation’s most vulnerable welfare recipients, the mass media has played a vital role in supporting this deadly form of Apartheid, e.g. the News Ltd newspaper, The Advertiser, which has a long-term track record of referring to unemployed people as “cheats’ or “dole bludgers”, published an article titled “Cheats stripped of dole benefits”, a defamatory statement that disregarded the fact of law that the determination of whether or not a person is legally a “Cheat” is a matter for the courts, not politicians, public servants or News Ltd journalists and their editors. As for the penalty imposed, “…stripped of dole benefits”, I would point out that when you deliberately deprive impoverished people of their sole assured means to subsist, i.e. the sole means to survive, it is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is intended to place lives in peril, aka Justice Brookings findings at  in R v Faure. Consequently, no-one should be surprised when the victims of this recklessly dangerous act of deprivation die from a diverse range of causes, e.g. heart attack, stroke, suicide, et cetera.
The “Cheats stripped of dole benefits” article was written by a News Ltd journalist, Ken McGregor, and contained a malicious ‘survey question’, i.e. “When should job-seekers have their dole payments slashed?” A recent article in The Advertiser reported that the Turnbull Government would introduce legislation to further facilitate the perpetration of this unconstitutional, genocidal practice.
Expressio unius exclusio alterius.
The legal inappropriateness of the question, as to when should job-seekers have their dole payments slashed was evidenced in the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs in ’The ‘Engineers Case’ [HCA 54; 31st August 1920], i.e. “…the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, “subject to this Constitution.” Justice Higgins findings in this case also reinforce the matter of fact that the powers of the Federal parliament are constrained by the constitution; Justice Higgins stated; “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.”
Members of the Federal Parliament, being “people” are as bound by the Constitution as the States and Territories and as Justice Higgins stated, the Parliament is bound by limitations imposed by the Australian constitution. Paragraph 51 (xxiii) (A) of the Australian constitution clearly states that the Federal Parliament shall make laws for the provision of welfare benefits that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole.
Conversely, there is no constitutional statute that provides the Federal Parliament with the jurisdiction to deprive or withhold welfare benefits; to do so exceeds the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament and any such legislation is, in law, “no law at all.” As Justice Higgins stated in the 5thth paragraph of his comments; “The express exception in one case prevents the implication of the exception in the other case: Expressio unius exclusio alterius.” It is therefore a fortiori that since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, so also are the recklessly dangerous Section 42C ‘no show, no pay’ penalties that both violates the constitution’s s. 51 “good government’ provision and at the same time deliberately places lives in peril by leaving impoverished people, who may be almost totally destitute and with no means of meeting “their basic costs of living”. When vulnerable, at-risk people are deliberately placed in circumstances where they are unable to survive, is it any surprise that there are fatalities?
Looking beyond the Australian constitution to the international obligations that the Federal Parliament owes to all people within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, depriving people of their sole means of subsistence is also a genocidal crime against humanity and therefore the officially “irrelevant” Section 42C triggered deaths are murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute. Since you are a Supreme Court judge, I will not presume to lecture you on the various Victorian criminal law statutes dealing with the fatalities caused by unconstitutional federal legislation that deliberately deprives impoverished people of their sole means to subsist. However, I would remind you of one of the “Mindset of Murder” definitions in section 7.2.1 of the Judicial College of Victoria charges book; if dismissing ‘no show, no pay’ fatalities as “irrelevant” does not constitute being “reckless” to the sometimes lethal consequences of these penalties, then what does?
I would also point out Justice Brooking’s comment at 29 in R v Faure re “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.” With an officially uncontested estimate of approximately 100,000 people having been murdered in the last 40-years, I believe that it is fair comment that during your time on the Bench you do not appear have once spoken out against these murders. To be fair to you, for decades, every member of the Judiciary across the entire nation “ought to have known” that by deliberately depriving impoverished people of the means to survive, there was/is a very high real-world probability that some people could die, especially when you do it 600,000 times in just 2 years, or do it to 4 million people over a period of 40 years! The abysmal failure of Australia’s legal system to protect welfare recipients is having lethal consequences on an almost daily basis and yet the common link unpinning these deaths is studiously ignored. For example, in July 2014, a young couple living in a car at Ballarat died from Carbon Monoxide poisoning. If they were living in that car because they were deliberately deprived of their constitutional right to a welfare allowance, then those directly responsible for that action need to be held accountable for two Culpable Negligence homicides. In 2012, George Rodriguez sued the City of Houston for “Constitutional Deprivation” [Case 11-20763 US Federal Court, 5th Circuit; filed on 29th February 2012] and was awarded US$4 Million in compensation, a precedent that may well be a fore-runner to legal liabilities that Australian taxpayers may have to foot-the-bill for as a direct consequence of some 5 million acts of constitutional deprivation that the justice system failed to respond to in a timely manner.
Uncollected and unreported by Centrelink, in November 2005 the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee classified the death toll as “confidential.” In January and March 2006, the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee dismissed these fatalities as “irrelevant” whilst in March 2010, the Environment, Communications & Arts Committee simply ignored these murders during the Home Improvement Program Inquiry. Check out the Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and you will find that although some of the senators on this oversight committee are aware that the human impact of welfare penalties had not been publicly reported by Department of Human Services administrators, these senators have failed to ask about these unreported human impacts, e.g. the “irrelevant” fatalities.
Edward De Bono and “The Macaulay Letters.”.
One of Commissioner Hanger’s recommendations in the HIP report was reading some of the “think outside the box” ideas of Edward De Bono, so as to be aware the big picture. Desperate circumstances can give rise to desperate measures and ‘The Emcott Report’ and ‘The Macaulay Letters’ are responses to the decades of persecution, exploitation and murder of welfare recipients that are being distributed via email in PDF format and will soon be available on-line in a free Epub format. Apart from welfare recipients, the primary target group is people facing serious criminal charges, especially homicide cases.
Consider the consequences if just one accused person asks the presiding judge the same question that I am asking you, i.e. “Your Honour, when are you going to do something about Australia’s worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder?” Until the people responsible for the senseless slaughter of welfare recipients, sometimes simply for what I refer to as ‘vocational sport’, are held accountable for their actions in a court of law, Australia’s Rolls Royce Justice System will remain massively biased. The exempting of those responsible for crimes against humanity from accountability because the victims, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, and coloured people in South Africa, are “fair game”, is not about justice; it is about power and privilege. The judiciary needs to ‘get with the program’ and make sure that welfare recipients cease continuing to be ‘fair game’ or ‘dead meat.’ The best way to do that is to compel the Department of Human Services to [finally] “collect” the data on the dead and make it public. I recommend that you ‘call the cops’ and, in the interest of justice, issue a Duces tecum search order that requires the DHS to finally disclose the numbers of people who have died during, or as a result of, tortious conduct that has deliberately involved “skipping the courts”. In making those recommendations I would remind you of the “binding and the Courts and Judges” provision in paragraph 5 of the constitution and the fact that the 24 “ought to know/ought to have known” statements in Boughey, [HCA 29: 1986] are as applicable to members of the Judiciary as they were to Dr. Boughey.
If the judiciary do not stop the Parliament from defrauding and murdering welfare recipients, then Australia’s justice system faces the very real risk of being forced to an ‘unscheduled stop’ for judges cannot continue to condone genocide and crimes against humanity.
Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
 See the DVD folder: ‘Absence of Justice’ for details of administrative convenience breaching and breaching competitions. The SAPOL non-investigation into the sexual abuse of children at “St Ann’s” (Report #9 of the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children) is closely paralleled by the pseudo investigation into the crimes that I reported to SAPOL in 2011. Since when does a murder investigation include not interviewing the plaintiff? To read SAPOL’s record of interview, just study the nearest blank sheet of paper! At the moment, no matter how many welfare recipients are murdered, no-one responsible for investigating these crimes does so; they are ‘irrelevant’ homicides, an officially stated viewpoint I intend to raise with ICC investigators.+