Part 50: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity – The Pauline Hanson Factor; See No Evil

Pauline Hanson and her One nation political party join the ranks of the “See no evil” brigades who see nothing wrong with vilifying, menacing, intimidating, defrauding, endangering, and randomly killing welfare recipients.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1dQ

The email that follows is the content of an email sent to Senator Hanson early yesterday.  This text is posted here so that anyone who views the YouTube video of my sending of that email a YouTube posting that shows the sending the email to Senator Hanson can read the text.

For the Record; this screen capture image shows the response by Senator Hanson:

Hanson Response

My apologies for the poor quality; however it matches Senator Hanson’s response.

THE HANSON EMAIL

Dear Ms. Hanson,

This email presents you with 5 major paradigm change problems that you need to deal with TODAY before events over-run you. 3 key points to consider in the issues raised in this communication are:

#1: Will 500 million devout Catholics tolerate the imprisonment of Arch-Bishop Wilson by a government that is concealing a humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions, i.e. just how “terrible” are the “terrible human consequences” mentioned by George Brandis?

#2: Will the lawyers for the “Cartel” trio, ANZ, Citi-Bank and Deutsche Bank, and the 6 senior banking officials accused of engaging in Cartel activities, simply ignore the high degree of probability that the governments that created the Cartel laws were unconstitutionally elected in unconstitutionally conducted elections that the AEC totally stuffed up  in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016?

#3: Will you earn a place in Australian history by exposing a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions, or will you win a place in prison for failing to expose a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions?

The issues for your urgent consideration are as follows:

PROBLEM #1: THE BRANDIS CONFESSION. “… there will be mistakes – “terrible human consequences – appropriate compliance measures.”  

On the 19th June 2018, i.e. last week, during the Arch-Bishop Wilson trial, the NSW Crown prosecutor, Gareth Harrison, stated “The crown’s submission is that there is a strong need for denunciation and general deterrence in this case, he lied. And the root of each of those lies is the unflinching loyalty that he has to the Catholic Church and protecting it at all costs. This wasn’t a split-second decision to conceal something, this was a decision which was made over a period of time when there was an opportunity for rational contemplation. What we have here is a motivation to protect an institution over an extended period of time. He thought he’d gotten away with this … for all those years he thought he’d gotten away with it.”

The above statement is equally applicable to the confession made by former Attorney-General Brandis – to listen to this tacit murder confession, check out this URL:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_E7kefSew

The “appropriate compliance measures” really means “fraudulent compliance measures” and that in turn means the “terrible human consequences”, i.e. the deaths, are major crimes. To understand why ‘Robo-Debt is fraudulent you need to read the High Court decisions, which are binding on the federal parliament; something that George Brandis QC was well aware of when he made the “terrible human consequences” statement:

Read section 301 of the QLD Crimes Act and section 31 of the QLD Work Health & Safety Act 2011 at section 31. Yes, every “terrible human consequences” fatality really is a crime!

 Read these BINDING High Court decisions:

[1] Amalgamated Engineers – Read the 4th paragraph – the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court” is something that prime ministers do not talk about in Parliament because Cross-Bench members might ask “Is this legal”?

So long as that question is not asked, governments can get away with murder. [literally – just ask the Toowoomba family of 18-year-old (indigenous) Josh Park-Fing who died on April 19th, 2016.]

The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.  [See para 51 (xxiiiA) – Work for the dole may be popular but it is unconstitutional and the law suit for that will be massive if the Dream World disaster is any indication.]   http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html

[2] HellicarRead paragraphs 141 – 143 – As soon as a Centrelink official decision is challenged by a welfare recipient, it is for a court to decide the facts, not Centrelink, or even the AAT.   http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

[3] BhardwajRead paragraphs 51 – 53 – Once a Centrelink decision is challenged, any Centrelink decision is, in law, no decision at all.http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

[4] Williams v Spautz; HCA 34 on 27th July 1992

; In re a Judgment Summons; Ex parte Henleys Ltd. (1953) Ch 195, on my reading of the relevant cases there is no basis for characterising a purpose as improper unless it involves a demand made without right or claim of right, or unless it entails some consequence which is unrelated to or is not proportionate with the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings or by the process which is said to have been abused.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html

[Note to readers: I left out this link in the email to Senator Hanson; it is included so that you can independently confirm the judgement by Justice Gaudron in his findings in this case.]

 A Commonwealth data mismatch must be ruled out by a qualified auditor undertaking a forensic audit and ruling out a ‘Commonwealth error’. No audit means no ‘right of claim’ to send a letter asking a welfare recipient to explain a data mismatch.  The auditor’s report must be provided when requesting information and it must list possible all known possible causes of a Commonwealth error. No audit means no legally valid” right-of-claim”. Toss in “skipping the courts” as per the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and you have SYSTEMIC FRAUD and that means that all downstream fatalities, including suicides, are murders under section 302 of the QLD Criminal Code. (2 QLD murders that I know of – 2005 and 2016 plus 2 in Vic and 2 in SA) STATISTICS indicate that 100,000 over 30-40 years may be a reasonable ‘ballpark’ figure that the DSS did not make the slightest effort to deny in the AAT2016/5334 appeal. (NOTE: To deny that estimated death toll would require disclosing the precise number of known murders!)

[5] Kioa – Scroll almost to end of the findings to Justice Brennan at [38] of his findings – “Credible, relevant and significant” – because of the Brandis Confession, any welfare recipient challenging a Centrelink decision can require disclosure of the death toll, as I did in AAT 2016/5334.

The next time I make this require in an appeal against an arbitrary Centrelink “skip the courts” decisions, I will not allow the government lawyer to conceal the number of fatalities as I will be asking the question in a hearing, not in an email and will file a professional misconduct complaint under Section 3 of Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules if the lawyer does not provide the requested information, i.e. the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s “mistakes.” In plain English, how many people has Centrelink murdered by “skipping due process of law over the last 30 – 40 years? http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/81.html

[6] Coco – Read all of paragraph 8, especially the judgement about “Inconvenience” not an excuse for violating common law rights. Paragraph 75 (c) of the Constitution REQUIRES torts be decided in the courts, hence the Hellicar decision.http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.html

[7] DPP (Cth) v Keating (HCA 20, 8th May 2013): Read paragraphs 46 -47 and note the dismissal of the attempt to retrospectively validate the convictions of 15,000 for a non-existent crime was “statutory fiction”. Enacting that law was an act of persecution that violated Article 7 91) (h) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/20.html

[Note to readers: I left out this link in the email to Senator Hanson; it is included so that you can independently confirm the judgement by the High Court in this case.]

My recommendation is that the Senate needs to subpoena ELIZABETH ULRICK, the lawyer who represented the DSS in the AAT 2016/5334 2nd appeal – she may be the only person in Australia with any accurate knowledge of “skip-the-court” triggered deaths that have occurred in the last 3-4 years.

Ms. Ulrick is based in DHS Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch in Sydney. If my experiences with getting information out of Centrelink in AAT appeals and knowledge is typical of what ids happening, this unit should perhaps be more accurately named the “Freedom from Information and Ruthless Persecution Branch of the Department of Inhumane Services.”

The “appropriate compliance measures” excuse used by Attorney-general Brandis does not justify a single fatality that has occurred over the last 30-years.

 READ the QLD Crimes Act, section 302, and the QLD Work Health & Safety Act 2011 at section 31 and then give some serious consideration as to how Centrelink’s “Call Lifeline” advice fits in with those laws.

 Under both QLD Acts, these deaths are culpable homicides, i.e. crimes! The fact of law that these deaths ARE crimes explains why they are unreported and are secretly classified by the Senate’s Leg-Con Committee.

  • Check out Submission 287 the Nov’ 2005 Leg-Con Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry.
  • These deaths were classified as ‘irrelevant’ by EWRE committee – ask to see the archived PDF file of a submission titled “The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
  • Ditto for an archived copy of a submission in my name that was ignored by the ECA committee in March 2010.

You need to appreciate that similar health & safety laws and homicide laws exist in every state and Territory, but police handle these deaths the same way they handled sexually abused children complaints for 100 years, i.e. they ignored them. BUT NOT FOR MUCH LONGER, now that the classified death toll is leaking into the public arena.

You should consider the possibility of an ICAC inquiry within a matter of months and also be aware this email will be part of the evidence submitted to that inquiry. Do you want to explain to a Commission of Inquiry why you let an unconstitutionally elected government continue to menace, intimidate, endanger) and murder welfare recipients?

PROBLEM #2 – High Court Bhardwaj Decision – The unconstitutional parliament

At [51] Justices Gaudron and Gummow had determined that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

 Further in [51], Justices Gaudron and Gummow underscored the above point of law by pointing out that that principle was A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”

At [53] Justices Gaudron and Gummow reiterated the point of law that a decision made without jurisdiction was not decision at all and then added that if a statute law required that decision, then it still had to be made because “…the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

“As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, 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.”

 The ramifications of that finding in regard to the 2016 federal election, and a number of previous elections, are profound.

  1. A question of law is, ‘Did the AEC have a statutory obligation to conduct a federal election in response to the writs issued in May 2016?’ [YES]
  2. A second question of law is, ‘Did the AEC have a statutory obligation to conduct a federal election in accordance with the constraints in section 44 of the Australian Constitution, a provision that disqualifies certain people from being elected to the Federal Parliament?’ [YES]
  3. Thirdly, ‘Did the AEC have legal or constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a hybrid election in which an unknown number of disqualified persons participated as nominated candidate?’  [NO]
  4. Did approximately 15 million Electors have the constitutional right to cast valid ballots in an election in which an unknown number of candidates were named on Senate and/or House of representative ballot papers?  [NO]
  5. Did the AEC have the jurisdiction to declare that the ballots counted, which included ballots cast for an unknown number of unidentified disqualified candidates were valid?  [NO]
  6. Did the AEC have the jurisdiction to determine that the results of the ballots count in 150 House of Representative sub-divisions and the ballots cast for 76 Senate vacancies in 6 States and 2 territories constituted valid count results and therefore the AEC was within its jurisdictional authority to issue 226 Declarations of results? [NO]

The unconstitutional manner in which the Australian Election Commission conducted the 2016 federal election, has to date resulted in the extinguishing of the elections of 16 Members of the Federal Parliament who are now known not to have been eligible to participate in the federal election. Whilst these election results have either been ruled “Void ab initio”, i.e. null and void, or, alternately, disqualified persons elected to the Federal Parliament, have resigned, the number of disqualified persons who participated in the federal election and were not successful in filling a vacancy remains unknown.

THE BOTTOM LINE – THE 2016 DECLARATIONS OF RESULTS FOR ALL 2226 VACANCIES WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, THEREFORE, IN LAW, A VALID DECLARATION HAS YET TO BE MADE.

This means all Bills passed by the current parliament are in law, meaningless.

PROBLEM #4 – THE SHARKIE ‘Confession’

NOTE: When Ms. Rebekha Sharkie resigned as the Member for Mayo, she stated:

“No matter that I put my application in before the election was even called, no matter that my documents came back before the election was held, the High Court ruling for Gallagher is quite clear,” (she said.) “Consequently, I will resign from the Australian Parliament today and seek re-election at the forthcoming by-election.”

 

It may be reasonably adduced from this statement that Ms. Sharkie KNEW that at the precise moment when the AEC accepted her nomination for the 2016 federal election, she was not eligible at that point in time to be nominated as a candidate.

1.      A question of law pertaining to that action is whether or not Ms. Sharkie was in violation of sections 135 (1), ‘Acting Dishonestly’, and section 135 (2) ‘Obtaining a financial advantage that is not entitled to be received”?

2.      Another question of law arising from this is the question as to just how many other candidates also knew at the time of their nomination for the 2016 federal election that they were not eligible to be elected?

The above statement by Ms. Starkie must be referred to the Speaker in the House of Representatives for onward referral to the Federal Police for a proper investigation to determine if Ms. Sharkie has knowingly violated federal laws at the time of her nomination.

 

PROBLEM #4 – The Australian Democrats: “We will keep the bastards Honest”.

That commitment by the Australian Democrats leader, Senator Don Chipp, took the Australian Democrats from a “Who are they” start-up micro-party to a powerhouse force in Australian politics, winning 16% of the primary vote, i.e. 1 vote in every 6 votes cast in Senate elections within just a couple of federal elections. However, after voting with the government in support of unpopular laws, the Australian Democrats support plunged to a pathetic 2% in just in the 2004 election. De-registered as a political party in 2016 due to insufficient members, these days few voters under 30-years-old even know who the Australian Democrats were! The self-destruction of the Australian Democrats is a therefore a powerful lesson about Swinging Voter Spite, more commonly known as Voter Backlash, that you would be extremely foolish to ignore.

Malcom Turnbull is well aware that the best way to destroy One Nation is to con you into supporting what will almost certainly prove to be a hugely unpopular Bill once the Financial Service Royal Commission Report and ACCC “Cartel” prosecutions hit the public arena. The rush to get the massive $4 BILLION tax cuts to banks through the Parliament right now is vital as public apathy for this Bill will turn to public outrage once the perfidy of some the people involved in the bank scandals made fully public.

Check the election statistics for the Australian Democrats against their failure to “keep the bastards honest”. Traditionally, voters tend to write off and wipe out minor parties and Independents who ‘do deals’ and vote for legislation that benefits the government’s financial backers at the expense of struggling Aussie-battler families. Malcolm Turnbull has to get the bank tax cuts through the Federal Parliament NOW, i.e. before the scale of the financial sector corruption hits the public arena, which will happen when the Financial Services Royal Commission report is published.

My personal recommendation – Use your innate common sense :

I believe that you should make it very clear to the entire nation that you will not support tax cuts for big business until after the Financial Services Royal Commission report is released and the ACCC “Cartel” court decision is handed down.  [That is assuming that the Cartel prosecution makes it to the courts, which may be highly unlikely given that the 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 federal elections were not conducted in a constitutional manner.] As you are aware, Slater & Gordon picked up $20 Million of taxpayers’ money representing the Manus Island refugees. How much do you think the highly paid international law firms representing the accused banks and banking officers will be paid to hammer away at the very obvious point of law that the AEC totally stuffed up these elections by no knowing who was not eligible to be elected to the Federal Parliament.  This is a whopping legal loophole that can be argued in Australian courts and, if necessary, in the more impartial forum of the International Criminal Court at The Hague in Holland?

[P]ROBLEM #5 – THIS EMAIL IS BEING VIDEO-RECORDED FOR POSTING on YouTube and for submission to the SA ICAC. (2 deaths in SA that the ICAC will be asked to urgently investigate.)

MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION  WHICH YOU CAN CHOOSE TO IGNORE:

SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE AS A MATTER OF HIGH PRIORITY – AFTER ALL, DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE ALLEGED DEFRAUDING OF 20,000 WELFARE RECIPIENTS PER WEEK, AS HAS REPORTEDLY BEEN HAPPENING SINCE JUNE 2016, IS A MAJOR CRIME IN ITSELF AND EACH [Oops!] “TERRIBLE HUMAN CONSEQUENCE” OF THIS FRAUD IS AMOST CERTAINLY A MURDER.

 See the Poniatowska decision at paragraph 37 for details on that point of law:

 On the appellant’s analysis, the intentional omission of any act that results in the person receiving a financial advantage can be a physical element of the offence.  Section 135.2(1)(a) allows that the offence is one that may be committed by the omission to perform an act…” [NOTE: “the appellant” was the Commonwealth DPP]

 F.Y.I. – YOUTUBE POSTED VIDEOS THAT MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT:

The SAPOL Factor – This video is headed for the SA ICAC in the near future. Centrelink may have to explain some very horrific deaths that have occurred in SA in the last few years, e.g. a 78-year-old former Weapons technician, who, if my source of information was accurate, committed suicide by hanging himself in his garage workshop after allegedly being accused by Centrelink of defrauding them of just $18. A incredible as that sounds, my own first-hand experience as a CES Job Club manager is far worse, e.g. after protesting at ‘Breaching for administrative convenience” practices that could trigger suicides, I was told “An outcome is an outcome”, even if the out come was the suicide of a the person hit with the administrative convenience breach. I did not know in 1997 that such deaths are Reckless Indifference murders under sections 12A and 13 (7) of the SA criminal code. Has I known that at that time,  I would have immediately notified the police, although so few police officers appeared to know about that statute that they probably would have done nothing, as happened in October 2017 when I attempted to report one of these murders.

For more details of this failed attempt to report one of these murders, check out this URL:

THE SAPOL FACTOR – See no evil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5ojbAKZ-0

The Brandis Confession 10-minute extended video – this basically another edited clip from a 1-hour documentary video that has been prepared for the ICAC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkCOTMdqBw&feature=youtu.be

The Tudge Fudge Fraud – Part 1:  A former Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge has a Melbourne School of Law degree  in Law(LLB), He also has an MBA. He almost certainly “ought to known” that he was conning welfare recipients because Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco are ‘Model Litigant’ case that are taught in the basic ‘Torts 101’ lecturers.

In the High Court’s determinations in the Boughey v R, HCA 29 murder appeal, which was handed down on 6 June 1986, the phrase “ought to have known” was used 21 times throughout the Court’s findings because the appellant, Dr Boughey, was a medical doctor and had medical knowledge that applying sustained pressure to the carotid artery could be fatal. At paragraph [8] of the Court’s majority decision, with the approval of Chief Justice Gibbs, Justices mason, Wilson and Deane  ruled;

The fourth was that such application of pressure was an unlawful act which the accused “ought to have known” was likely to cause the deceased’s death in the circumstances.

 At paragraph 33 of his finding, Justice Brennan ruled:

The criterion to be applied to these facts is whether any sober and reasonable man, having the accused’s knowledge, experience and acumen, would have adverted to the possibility that his action might cause death and, adverting to that possibility, would have known that his action was likely to cause death. If the hypothetical sober and reasonable man would have known, it is right to find that the accused ought to have known that his action was likely to cause death. But the words “ought to have known” do not create a duty to enquire about facts before acting; they relate to inadvertence, not ignorance.”

 As a graduate of the Melbourne University School of Law, Alan Tudge, like very other person in the Federal Parliament with a law degree, “ought to have known” that ‘Robo-debt’ was an abuse of public office, i.e. systemic fraud, and that any deaths of at-risk welfare recipients caused by Robo-Debt, would be murders under State and territory criminal laws. However, as a former High Court judge, the Honourable Michael Kirby, pointed out in a speech, “The Rule Beyond the Rule of Law”, which was presented at the 15th Malaysian Bar Association Conference, Kuala Lumpur on the 29th July 2010:

“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.”

There is no shortage of people who will diligently, unthinkingly enforce recklessly dangerous, human rights violating laws simply because ‘the law says so.” However, ever since the 1946-47 Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal hearings, the excuses “I was only doing what I was told” and “I was only obeying orders” has not been an acceptable excuse for endangering lives or killing people. That is why the word “reckless” is common to most of the murder statutes in Australia..

To hear Alan Tudge deceiving people and placing vulnerable lives in danger, watch this video:

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

 END NOTE;

Collectively, Robo-Debt, Work-for-the-Dole, ‘No show, No pay, and the absolutely farcical 20 Point Disability Assessment constitute the worst case of systemic fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Consistent with the High Court’s 21 “ought to have known” findings  in Boughey, the unreported, officially “irrelevant” deaths caused by decades of criminal abuses of legislative and administrative power by Australian federal politicians, now constitutes what is likely to prove to be the worst case of serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

 Ronald Medlicott.

Registered Teacher (South Australia) and a volunteer lay-advocate.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s