Part 51. Australia’s “irrelevant” holocaust. What His Holiness, Pope Francis, and the world’s Catholic community need to know about the sentencing of Archbishop Wilson.

Express Post letter to Judge Stone

Magistrate Robert Stone would have been faced with a serious legal problem with the sentencing of Archbishop Wilson because the content of this letter. As the content below reveals, if the Newcastle Local Court registrar, Damian Bultitude, had not blocked this letter, Archbishop Wilson’s legal counsel, Ian Temby QC, could have been used this evidence to press for a mistrial on the basis of ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias’, a case-killer procedural fairness issue that renders prosecutions null and void.

The shortlink URL for this posting is:


Note the serial number, date and time of posting.

The express post letter was delivered to the Elizabeth Vale post office at 12.31 PM on the 29th June 2018. This meant that delivery would have occurred on Monday,2nd July 2018, i.e. the day BEFORE Judge Stone handed down his sentencing decision in the Archbishop Wilson case. Had Judge Stone received the letter, its contents would probably have undermined the Crown case against Archbishop Wilson.

The court registrar, Damien Bultitude, blocked evidence that could have been used to have the charges against Archbishop Wilson dismissed.

Unfortunately, as the above undated letter makes quite clear, the Newcastle Local Court registrar, Damien Bultitude, put court policies and practices ahead of Section 319 of the New South Wales Crimes Act, a statute that deal with perverting the course of justice:

Section 319 – General offence of perverting the course of justice.

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.have


Archbishop Wilson: Facts not yet in evidence.

The letter to Judge Stone consisted of a cover letter, a copy of the email to Pauline Hanson, the text of which can be read in the previous Part 50 posting, and a dozen other documents that made it quite clear that the Australian Federal Parliament and a number of federal and State agencies were concealing genocide and crimes against humanity. In reading the letter to Judge Stone, the following statement by the Crown prosecutor, Gareth Harrison is of critical importance as it undermines the prosecution of Archbishop Wilson because the State-sanctioned-slaughter of welfare recipients are also a decades long State Secret and Prosecutor Harrison’s statement is as valid for the concealment of those murders as it is for Archbishop Wilson’s alleged crime:

Prosecutor Harrison:

“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 Stone Letter:

To:       Magistrate Robert Stone

Newcastle Local Courts

PO BOX 388


Dear Sir,

Re: Crown v. Archbishop Philip Wilson; facts not yet in evidence.

The following information enclosed with this letter is unlikely to have been considered by either the Crown prosecutor, Gareth Harrison, or by Mr. Ian Temby QC, since much of the information is officially unreported and classified confidential by the Senate on more than one occasion.

It is not for me to tell you how to use this information or to make any judgments concerning the guilt or innocence of Arch-Bishop Wilson. However, having stated that viewpoint, I do believe that it would be appropriate to make this information available to both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Temby for their professional consideration.


As you are aware, Mr. Harrison made the following statement during a hearing on or about the 19th June 2018:

“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.”

You are probably unaware of the following statement by the former attorney-general, George Brandis QC for you would almost certainly have referred the issue to the New South Wales Police had you been aware of this tacit confession to what may well prove to be the worse cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia; a time frame that post-dated the death of 90% of indigenous population prior to federal in 1901.

Whether or not they would have investigated these crimes is questionable; to date, despite the irrefutable evidence, no police force in Australia that I have raised these crimes with has acted to bring to a halt the menacing, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding, endangerment and killing of welfare recipients.

On 20th February 2017, Attorney-general Brandis stated:

“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so off 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 off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduce by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

Attorney-General George Brandis QC,

Australian Broadcasting Commission #QandA programme

20th February 2017

That statement, broadcast on a nationally viewed ABC program, #QandA, was a very public admission that the Model Litigant Rules, procedural fairness principles, human rights obligations, and even criminal statutes, were being disregarded. Paraphrased, Senator Brandis effectively admitted to the following:

  • Centrelink is extremely busy, i.e. “millions of transfer payments” that are based upon the information input with some 50 million keystrokes of manual data entry per day;
  • Having reduced staffing levels by 5,000, Centrelink staff are so busy that “…of course there will be mistakes made”, e. systemic mistakes are inevitable;
  • “… mistakes are made, and they have terrible human consequences”, e. a currently unreported, classified, unknown number of deaths have occurred;
  • However, these officially “irrelevant” fatalities are justifiable, at least to Senator Brandis, because “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures”;
  • These fatalities are an acceptable consequence, i.e. “…the idea of data matching… is not a bad system”, a statement that may explain why these fatalities are deemed to be “irrelevant” by the 2006 Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee;
  • As Senator Brandis revealed, the Department of Human Services has been skipping the courts and arbitrarily making randomly fatally decisions that are in law, no decision at all, for a very long time, i.e. “introduced by Hawke… The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

On the 21st February 2017:

The above statement is a matter of fact; so also, is the following statement contained in the 2nd appeal Statement of Facts and Issues for AAT Case 2016/5334. This was submitted via email at 1.46 PM. Adelaide local time, to the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 21st February 2017, i.e. approximately 16 hours after Attorney-General Brandis made the above statement:

“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.”

Any damning statement like that being tabled in a federal tribunal should not go unchallenged as it is accusing the Parliament of massive human rights violations on a holocaust scale.


On the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, a government lawyer based in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services was the legally appointed representative of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, the Respondent in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal. Since Ms. Ulrick had direct access to the Department of Human Services ISIS database, she was ideally placed to refute the allegations made by querying this database.

What Ms. Ulrick found in the ISIS database is unknown as she promptly prepared and issued a ‘Without Prejudice’ proffer to the Application that withdrew the cancellation of welfare benefits and made restitution of withheld benefits. Given that the death toll was classified as “confidential” by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, a.k.a. Leg-Con, in November 2005 and had twice been dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee, a.k.a EWRE, in January and March 2006, it was highly unlikely that the Secretary would have been willing to debate the scale of this undisclosed, officially “irrelevant” death toll in the Federal Court.

Governments that save taxpayers monies by menacing, intimidating, defrauding and murdering innocent, vulnerable people epitomize the meaning of unconstitutional “bad government”.

Mr. Harrison’s statement on page 1 of this communication, “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”. Is as valid for the decades-long senseless persecution, exploitation and slaughter of welfare recipients as it was in regard to Arch-Bishop Wilson’s alleged concealment of the sexual abuse of a child. The deaths of welfare recipients as a result of “skip-the-courts” tortious conduct by the Federal Government-of-the-day against welfare recipients is Australia’s best kept secret, or at least it was until Attorney-General Brandis made his “terrible human consequences” statement.

Whatever the “appropriate compliance measures” may be that have been in place for several decades, they most definitely are not “appropriate”.

Statute law and the ““appropriate compliance measures”

Senator Brandis attempted to justify the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s “mistakes” claiming “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.” An issue for every police force and public prosecutor within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Australia is the statement “…we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.”

 Just how “appropriate” is a mistake-ridden system that randomly kills innocent people who have done no wrong? How many “terrible human consequences.” i.e. deaths, have occurred raises the question as to whether or not “appropriate compliance measures” is, in law, legally valid grounds that justifies these deaths? In South Australia, the determination as to whether-or-not these deaths are a statute law question for consideration under Section 31of the Work Health & Safety Act (2012)

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

Quite clearly, these deaths are not justified under Section 31 of the Work health & Safety Act. However, the question as to whether or not they are violations of criminal codes is determined by a number of provisions within the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935). The key provisions as to whether or not “appropriate compliance measures” constitutes legally valid grounds that justify these deaths is Section 15 of this criminal code, which deals with deaths in defence of life and property:

15—Self defence

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and

(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist1.

(2) It is a partial defence to a charge of murder (reducing the offence to manslaughter) if

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; but

(b) the conduct was not, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist.2

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person acts for a defensive purpose if the person acts—

(a) in self defence or in defence of another; or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself, herself or another.

 In my home State of South Australia, these are the lawful grounds that justify acts that result in a death or multiple deaths. It is quite clear that the “terrible human consequences” are not justified under the laws that apply in South Australia.

I will not insult your intelligence by citing the comparable New South Wales statutes.

Since you have never made any public statement re the “appropriate compliance measures”, it may be reasonable for me to adduce that you are unaware of the case law precedents that I have mentioned in the Email to Senator Pauline Hanson.  Perhaps the 2 most critical decisions are Hellicar and Bhardwaj, as they provide insight into what, apart from the mounting death toll, is being ignored by the Turnbull Government and Centrelink officials:

Hellicar at 141 – 143:

  1. The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:

 “A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”

How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.


  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”[133]. 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; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
  1. Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority. 

Bhardwaj at [51 – 53]

Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

  1. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. 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, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.
  2. The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

 “As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason, I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.” In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.

  1. In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. 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. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

This Centrelink’s human impact ‘risk assessment’ policy, which I consider to be criminal act of reckless endangerment, especially given the unknown death toll that Ms. Ulrick did not dispute may now be around the 100,000 mark, or even much higher:

 “Thank you for your letter dated 8 April 2010 to the Minister for Health and Aging, the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP and of 12 April 2010 to Centrelink regarding the consequences from breaching and compliance failures. I have been asked to respond. Please accept this as a response to both your emails.”

“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 therefore unable to assist you with your request for this information.”


On 20th June 2013, Justice Steven Rares presented a speech at the annual AGS Law Administrators Conference titled “Legality, Rights and Statutory Interpretation.[1]” At paragraph 82, justice Rares stated;

“Of course, Courts must determine the legal validity of any legislative or executive conduct in light of any relevant provision in a Bill of Rights.  Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.  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.”

When passing sentence on people convicted of serious crimes, please give very serious consideration to the failure of Australia’s criminal justice system, over a time frame measured in decades, to exercise its authority and halt a holocaust.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott. [2]

Registered teacher (SA) and a volunteer lay-advocate.


[1] Federal Court: Rares-J-20130620.doc

[2] This communication submitted via Express post packet 604 431 11551 099

Facts not yet in evidence:

The following documents were included in the Stone letter as ‘facts not yet in evidence’. Readers should note that these documents, which identify people or organizations involved in the concealment of Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity, needs to be read in the context of Prosecutor Harrison’s previous mentioned statement, “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.”

Please remember that the email to ‘Senator’ Pauline Hanson was posted in Part 50 of this Crimes against Humanity series. In regard to the following documents please note:

  1. Who wrote the document;

  2. What was written in the document;

  3. When the document was written.

Certified Document #1: A Statutory Declaration

Since false declarations carry a 7-Year jail sentence, I did not sign this declaration for false reasons.

Certified Document #2: Judge Ian L. Gray’s letter

Someone also withheld information from Judge Gray because I had priovided details of 2 possible State sanctioned deaths that appeared to ‘Misadventure’ deaths.

Certified Document #3: The Quentin Bryce Connection

Governor-General Quentin Bryce knew about the welfare penalties deaths but failed to take action to stop these State-sanctioned murders.

Certified Document #4: “Centrelink does not collect…”

RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE; Senior Centrelink management have no knowledge of how many welfare recipients they may have killed because they avoided collecting the deadly statistical details.

Certified Document #5: “The ACMA does not investigate”

NOTE THE LAST LINE: So much for the constitutional imperative that “the laws of the commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”

Certified Document #6: Submission 287 “confidential”

Page 1 of the Senate Committee’s secret “confidential” classification of the murders of welfare recipients.

Page 2 of a Senate committee’s secret “confidential” classification of the murder of welfare recipients.

Certified Document #7  The ECA Committee cover-up

SEE NO EVIL: Was this committee cover-up a case of “We only kill ’em, not count ’em”?

Certified Document #8: SAPOL – See No Evil

SEE NO EVIL: To read Detective Superintendent Moyle’s official ‘Record of Interview” with the plaintiff, i.e. me, just grab the nearest blank sheet of A4 printer paper.


Certified Document #9: The High Court Cover-up

MORE SEE NO EVIL?: Surely Senior Registrar Rogers knew about every citizen’s legal rights under Section 378 of the Australian Electoral Act, i.e. the right of an Elector to make submissions to the High Court in electoral disputes. This was another case of a court registrar using their lawful powers to pervert justice by blocking evidence that the Court NEEDED TO KNOW.

Certified Document #10: 

FUNCTUS OFFICIO: The official burial of the truth. This document was the official ending to AAT  case 2016/5334. It was the successful completion of a dirty trick by a government lawyer that ensured that my request for a tally of the number of people known to have been murdered by the Australian Federal Parliament would not be disclosed to at a scheduled Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing scheduled to be held on the 6th March 2017.

Certified Document #11: See No Evil – HREOC

NO RIGHT TO LIFE: If the Australian Human rights & Equal opportunity Commission is to be believed, the menacing, intimidation and even the murder of Australia’s poor, i.e. welfare recipients. does not constitute a violation of human rights. UNREAL!

NOTE: If Rocky Clifford is correct, politicians in the Australian Federal Parliament have protected themselves by not making the murder of Australia’s poor unlawful. However, anyone charged with a culpable homicide, e.g. Murder, could use HREOC’s letter to argue a very powerful ‘MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS’ case in court, i.e. “If it OK for Centrelink to kill welfare recipients, why am I being charged with murder”?

An Certified Document #12: The New South Wales Police

SEE NO EVIL: New South Crime commission take note:- The text of this classified “CONFIDENTIAL’ police email can not be disclosed. However, if Detective Sergeant Prasad, the officer who sent this email to me, had picked the phone, an investigation in 2012 may have exposed and ended a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

His Holiness, Pope Francis, hundreds of millions of devout Catholics, 25 million Australians, and every person who believes in most basic of human rights, i.e. the Right to Life and Justice, should be asking why it is okay in Australia for politicians and public servants to persecute and murder vulnerable, impoverished Australians?

Whether innocent or guilty of the charges, until that question is answered, the prosecutions of Archbishop Philip Wilson and Cardinal George Pell are a gross travesty of justice.

Ronald Medlicott – Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate









This entry was posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, 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: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s