Part 52: Australia’s “irrelevant” holocaust – I’ve called the cops:- the choice is arrest me for criminal defamation or investigate the Federal Parliament for genocidal crimes against humanity.

Commissioner Grant Stevens, the commander of South Australia’s police force should receive the following letter on Monday. Commissioner Stevens with have 2 basic options with this letter.

Stevens letter

NOTE: At the time of uploading this blog, the letter to Commissioner Stevens has not been posted. That will happen by 3.00PM local time today.

OPTION #1: Charge and prosecute me for Criminal Defamation for falsely accusing the Federal Parliament of committing genocide and crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale.

OPTION #2: Investigate the complain and try and determine just how “terrible” are the secretly classified “terrible human consequences” that Senator Brandis mentioned during the ABC’s #QandA broadcast on the 20th February 2017.

Note: the short-link URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ep

In addition to the text below and the appended documents mentioned in the text, the genocide complaint includes these 2 videos:

 

Stevens 4

Stevens 5

Since South Australia’s Independent Commissioner Against Corruption is personally involved in the Chapman-gate Scandal, I’m stuck with dobbing in senior SAPOL officers by filing the genocide complaint Commissioner Stevens. That is PLAN ZZZ999 option, i.e. my no other choice option. Not exactly ideal, but better than not filing any complaint and letting more people be intimidated, defrauded and randomly murdered by Scomo’s unconstitutionally elected brigade.

 

THE COMPLAINT:

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638

Mobile: 04386 26811

19th October 2018

Attn:                Commissioner Grant Stevens

                        South Australia Police

                        100 Carrington Street

                        ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Commissioner Stevens,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope 60538616506095, ‘Chapman-gate’ and other issues of national significance.

In order to assist any person who may have valid legal reasons to subpoena the contents of Express Post envelope 60538616506095, or who may wish to subpoena and cross examine you on your responses to the information provided in this envelope, the following content list is provided:

  1. This covering letter of 10 pages and 5,241 words;

  2. The Emcott Report, Issues Paper #42 – Chapman-gate: A public request to the South Australian Police to investigate the Chapman-gate scandal and to consider relevant statute laws and case law precedents, and other significant facts and issues;

  3. Appended within Issues Paper #42 are the following documents:

  4. Four statutory declarations concerning issues of grave national significance;

  5. A cover page of the Hansard Minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017 and a copy of page 14 from the Minutes;

  6. A cover page of the Hansard Minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 18th May 2017 and a copy of page 48 from these Minutes;

  7. Centrelink document C10/1866;

  8. Centrelink document LEX 21021

  9. Senate EWRE Committee letter dated 2 March 2006

  10. SAPOL correspondence dated 23 May 2011.

  11. A video DVD of 55 minutes duration titled “The Emcott Report. The Brandis Confession; Genocide – Australia’s ‘irrelevant’ homicides”;

  12. A video DVD of 57 minutes duration titled “The Emcott Report. ROBO-TALK 4th edition. A video submission to the ICAC concerning the concealment of officially “irrelevant” homicides.

Although the issues addressed in this document deal with serious violations of the law, in order to possibly reduce the rate at which vulnerable people are menaced, intimidated, exploited, defrauded, recklessly endangered and randomly murdered, the text of this communication has already been has been placed in the public domain prior to being express posted to you.

It was my intention to make a submission to the South Australian independent Commissioner Against Corruption, but that action has had to suspended due to what I colloquially call “The Chapman-gate Scandal.” As I pedantically point out in the first 33-pages of Issues Paper #42, I have grave concerns over the legality of the way in which both Commissioner Lander and the South Australian Solicitor-General have been involved in an action that, based upon facts currently in the public domain, was most probably an unlawful act that Commissioner Lander should have immediately reported to SAPOL. His apparent failure to uphold a law that he is supposed to enforce, calls into question the integrity of both the Office of Public Integrity and the personal integrity of Commissioner Lander.

These questions of integrity are a valid issue for public concern and under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act of 21012, the most appropriate public authority to conduct an impartial investigation of these complex legal issues is SAPOL. The “other issues” are matters of fact that I had hoped that Commissioner Lander would be able to investigate as they involve acts of omission and/or acts of commission by at least 12 South Australian public officials who are appear to be involved in the concealment of the worst mass fraud and serial murder since federation on the 1st January 1901. These public officials include politicians, prosecutors, police officers and other high profile public servants. The following text of Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law consolidation Act (1935) is presented proof that I understand the gravity of these allegations:

257—Criminal defamation

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

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

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

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

In addition, I include Section 42 of the Police Complaints and Discipline Act (2016):

42—False or misleading statements

A person must not—

(a)        make a statement knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular (whether by reason of the inclusion or omission of a particular) in information provided under this Act; or

(b)        make a complaint or report under this Act knowing that there are no grounds for the making of the complaint or report.

Maximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

“See no Evil”: You may obtain immediate insight into my concerns about SAPOL’s role in the randomly lethal systemic crimes being perpetrated against welfare recipients by reading the April 2011 Record of Interview between Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle and myself.

The quickest and most effective way to do this is to find the nearest blank sheet of paper because there should be no record of an interview because Superintendent Moyle never interviewed me to obtain a detailed information or physical evidence; therefore, if a record exists, it is a faked record.

As you will see from the content of The Brandis Confession video and the Hansard Minutes extracts, which provide appalling 20-20 hindsight, not interviewing me was a serious legal blunder that may have resulted in an unbelievably unimaginable number of preventable crimes, including an undisclosed number of culpable homicides that I believe may now number in the thousands.

At http://www.uslegal.com the following definition of the crime known as Burking is given:

“Burking means the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term derives its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist. That became known as burking.”

Whilst I am sure that you are aware of that form of murder and the term ‘Burking’, which was an issue in Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010). However, I prefer to use a simpler definition of this type murder, i.e. “Any murder that does not appear to be an unlawful death”. This latter definition describes what, upon investigation by appropriately briefed homicide investigators, may be relevant for 100,000 or more preventable homicides that have been occurring over the last 30 – 40 years as a direct consequence of the enforcement of recklessly dangerous welfare laws, policies and practices that have violated a range of civil rights including constitutional rights, procedural fairness rights, human rights, e.g. the right to life, and also criminal statute laws that are intended to protect people from such recklessly dangerous criminal abuses.

In R v White; SADC 33, (3 March 2014), paragraph 5 of the Judge Barrett’s findings contained the statement, “Constable Bretag agreed in cross-examination that the purpose of stopping people heading for the address was to get their details and thus create an opportunity to consider whether he would be able to search them or not. He said “That’s policing in general.” Although neither Constable Bretag nor yourself may appreciate it, since Constable Bretag’s actions closely mirror the unlawful actions of successive federal governments over the last 30-40 years, I believe that the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” deaths caused by the deliberate violation of constitutional, legal and human rights by successive federal governments and government agencies, e.g. the Department of Human Services, means that, like Burking murders, these murders require a unique classification, and it is my belief that the descriptive terms ‘Bretag murders’, or ‘Bretaging’ are appropriate terms to use to describe our nation’s “appropriate compliance measures” murders .

The scale of the probable ‘all-causes’ death toll, which IH&W and ABS statistics indicate could range anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000, has occurred because of the unique way in which these deaths have been presented to the public and law enforcement authorities. Speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943, Heinrich Himmler said “This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.” (Nuremberg Document PS1919.)

69 years later, when speaking at the London Institute of Economic Affairs on the 17th April 2012, Joe Hockey expressed similar ideologically based holocaust-driving views, i.e. “The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair

representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies.”

Joe Hockey’s statement was at odds with the Parliament’s constitutional obligations under s. 51 (xxxiii) and s.51 (xxiiiA) of the constitution to provide welfare allowances. His comments are evidence of a tendency by some politicians to place their ideological beliefs ahead of their legal obligations. On the 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis attempted to justify Centrelink’s fatal ‘mistakes’ with the statement “But, we need appropriate compliance measures”, a justification that was totally inconsistent with the reckless indifference provisions in Section 31 of the SA Work Health & Safety Act (2011) and the homicide provisions in sections 12A and 13 (7) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935). The statement was also totally inconsistent with Commissioner Ian Hanger’s statement in 14.73.2 of the HIP Report that “Risk cannot be abrogated—Government must recognise that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.”

The reality of the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s alleged “mistakes” was emphasized by the following by Ms. Lisa Newman during the 8th March 2017 CARC hearing, i.e. “DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

On the 18th May 2010, in C10/1866, Assistant Secretary Neill Skill wrote:

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

Exactly 7 years later, on the 18th May 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, told the Community Affairs Reference Committee:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.” [Hansard Minutes, page 48, paragraph 3: Community Affairs Reference Committee.]

These statements by Senator Brandis, Assistant Secretary Skill, Secretary Campbell and Lisa Newman clearly indicate that fatalities are occurring and that there is no preemptive systemic monitoring and reporting of the randomly lethal impact of welfare policies and practices, a legal obligation that as is required under commonly-worded Work Health and Safety Acts of Australian States and Territories:

South Australia Work Health and 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:

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;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600, 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3, 000, 000.

Note 31(1)(c): “reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.”

Whatever they may be, “appropriate compliance measures” that ignore constitutional obligations, common law rights and statute law obligations are not a reasonable excuse for ‘mistakes’ that randomly kill innocent people who have done no wrong. The dismissal of these deaths as “irrelevant” and the failure to monitor the foreseeably lethal consequences of inhumane, unconstitutional policies and practices is Reckless Conduct. It is also extreme recklessness that over a period of time measured in decades, despite questions about the rising death toll being raised, no-one who owed “a health and safety duty” (of care) to welfare recipients, e.g. the Federal Parliament, Assistant Secretary Neill Skill, and Secretary Kathryn Campbell, implemented appropriate procedures to monitor the randomly lethal impact of welfare policies and report these fatalities in real time to the responsible Minister as per Ian Hanger’s recommendations in Section 14.6.9 of his findings in the HIP Royal Commission report. Under Secretary Campbell’s administrative leadership, the recklessly indifferent, depraved heart solution to the problem of suicides caused by Centrelink’s ‘skip-the-courts’ punitive policies and practices was to tell traumatized clients to “Call Lifeline”.

The best estimate of the number of deaths caused by the “not a bad thing” penalties is found in the 2nd appeal of AAT case 2016/5334,which was  lodged with the Sydney branch of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the 21st February 2017, i.e. the day after the ABC’s broadcast of the Brandis Confession and two weeks before Lisa Newman testified at the Senate’s CALC hearing.

“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.”

Commissioner Stevens, whatever your gut-reaction response to that statement may be, you need to acknowledge the matter of fact that, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, the lawyer representing the Federal Government, could have, but did not, contest that statement, possibly to avoid having to disclose this very credible and significant  information to the Federal Court in any follow-up appeal process.

3 years earlier, during the 28th November 2014 AAT hearing of case 2014/2456, the following statement, which was based upon information in government statistical reports, was made:

“In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides*; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. [i.e. 1 in 3] It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”. [*Note; due to a miscalculation, the more accurate figure of 23,254 suicides was not stated.]

Perhaps because the statistics were based on data in ABS and AIHW reports, Ms. Solene Yik Long, the lawyer representing the government did not contest that statement. However, like the EWRE Committee in 2006, Ms. Long dismissed the deaths as “irrelevant”.  Ms. Long’s “irrelevant” email was forwarded to the presiding AAT Conference Registrar, Senior Member Walsh, who was asked to ensure the full disclosure of this unreported death toll. During this ‘skip-the-courts’ and ‘skip-the-withheld evidence’ appeal on the 28th November 2014, Senior Member Walsh was urged to seek disclosure of the “irrelevant” death toll before making any determination of the issues.

On the 5th December 2014, Senior Member Walsh’s finding were published at: http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/904.html

Completely ignoring the possibility that more than 7,700 unemployed people may have been killed by the Howard Government’s policies and practices, at paragraph 42, Senior Member Walsh wrote:

“Ms Locke’s contention that she 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.”

As can be seen from Senior Member Walsh’ finding, Centrelink’s “mistakes”, which can be randomly fatal, are:

  1. not so unusual;

  2. uncommon;

  3. exceptional;

  4. markedly different from the usual run of cases;

  5. or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance.”

Senior Member Walsh’s response in disregarding the “irrelevant” death toll was a total rejection of Commissioner’s Ian Hanger’s finding at 14.7.3.2 of the HIP Report, i.e. that governments cannot abrogate their responsibility for any actions that cause death or injury. Given that this Royal Commission report was issued just 3 months earlier Ms. Walsh’s disregard for this finding was an extremely significant act. Of perhaps even more significant today, in February 2015, when the then Social Services Minister, Scott Morrison, was asked to review the procedural irregularities that were the hallmark of this ‘Kangaroo Court’ appeal, he engaged in a voluntary physical act of omission by doing nothing, an executive decision that allowed the “irrelevant” death toll to continue to rise.

Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal law Consolidation Act (1935) states:

“A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.”

This statutory provision means that the question as to who knew about the deaths and did nothing to prevent further loss of life is a critical question of law. Apart from the people already identified in my comments, there are many people who have known about the potentially fatal harms inherent in our nation’s federal welfare policies and practices:

    1. In 2003, both John Howard and Mal Brough knew of my concerns but took no action.

    2. In November 2005 the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee (Leg-Con) knew and after secretly classifying  Submission 287 as “confidential”, immediately mis-used their Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued a ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    3. In November 2005 the Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee (EWRE) also knew and in January 2006 and March 2006, dismissed the growing death toll as “irrelevant” and mis-used Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued yet another ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    4. In September 2009, Kevin Rudd and Quentin Bryce were provided with a detailed briefing paper titled “Fair game, Dead Meat”; neither took any action to stem the growing death toll.

    5. In March 2010, the Senate’s Environment, Communications & Arts Committee (ECA) ignored Term of Reference #3 into the Home Improvement Program disaster, i.e. “Any other matters” and falsely claimed that the growing death toll was “outside the terms of reference”. [I kid you not!] In accordance with what now appears to Standard Operating Procedure in regard to welfare penalties fatalities, the ECA Committee also mis-used the Parliamentary Privilege powers and issued yet another ‘don’t copy, don’t tell’ suppression order.

    6. Commissioner Stevens, in raising these issues with you I am violating a ‘hat-trick’ of Senate suppression orders that I believe were issued for the express purpose of concealing the scale of the serial murders of a still secretly classified and unreported number of welfare recipients.

    7. Although Neill Skill stated in his “Centrelink does not collect…” letter, C10/1866, that my email to Nicola Roxon was the reason for his letter to me, the fact is that either via email or via on-line contact pages, in March 2010, I had contacted all 226 Members of the Federal Parliament expressing my grave concerns about the secrecy that surrounded the growing, officially “irrelevant”, death toll. Thus Neill Skill’s letter constitutes the only formal response from any of the 226 Members of Parliament who created the unconstitutional, civil rights violating laws, policies and procedures that still drive a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

    8. In May 2011, I hand-delivered updated copies of the edition of the “Fair Game – Dead Meat” issues paper that Superintendent Moyle had received in April 2011, to the electorate offices of Christopher Pyne, Senator Nick Xenophon, Senator Hanson-Young and Kate Ellis.

    9. Despite her statutory and common law duty of care to the people of South Australia, Senator Hanson-Young’s response was to refer the matter to a Western Australian senator, Rachel Siewert, who apparently took no action to prevent further loss of life.

    10. The responses from Senator Xenophon, Christopher Pyne and Kate Ellis is perhaps best described as “a voluntary act of omission”, i.e. there was no response to my concerns.

  1. In January 2013, I wrote to all 12 South Australian senators and to Nick Champion, Christopher Pyne, Kate Ellis and Stephen Georganas expressing my very clear viewpoint that the deaths of welfare recipients in South Australia were almost certainly felony murders. The only response to these letters was a stock form letter acknowledge from the office of Mr. Georganas.

  1. At approximately 10:30AM on the morning of the 31st August 2013, I had a chance encounter with Senator Xenophon outside a pre-polling station located on Elizabeth Way at Elizabeth City Centre. After waiting for Senator Xenophon to distribute boxes of ‘How to vote’ guides to his supporters, I approached him and asked him what his response was to the High Court’s May 8th 2013 “statutory fiction” decision and for an explanation as to why he had not contacted me to discuss my concerns about the secretly classified death toll.

  2. Senator Xenophon responded by saying “My staff did not tell me”. He then asked me to contact his office manager, “after the election”. He carefully spelling out the name of his office manager, i.e. “S-K-Y-E”.

  3. Not satisfied to wait until after the election, later that day I sent an email to Senator Xenophon’s office requesting an appointment as soon as possible. I promptly received an automated response to the email, but “Skye” never made the requested appointment.

  4. If “Skye” was the pseudo-Senator, Skye Kakoschke-Moore, then it means that on the 18th May 2017, when she inquired about the attempt to collect alleged debts from dead welfare recipients, Skye Kakoschke-Moore had been concealing from the committee her prior knowledge that the unreported death toll may involve many thousands of fatalities.

  5. In November 2015, I filed an appeal on behalf of Mrs. Locke with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman that cited both Hellicar at 141 – 143 and Bhardwaj at 51 – 53.

  6. The submission was held up for a week in the Adelaide office and Mrs. Locke was informed that her appeal was rejected “for lack of new information”.

  7. In December 2015, this response was referred to both Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT, and to Ms. Vicky Parker, the Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services, (DHS). These submissions also cited the Hellicar and Bhardwaj determinations.

  8. Justice Kerr did not respond, but Ms. Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS did so in a letter dated 7th January 2016.

  9. In what I believe may have been a deliberate violation of Section 142 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), Ms. Linacre arbitrarily ignored the binding Hellicar determination that disputed decisions by regulators are a matter for the courts and unilaterally rejected the appeal lodged on behalf of Mrs. Locke.

  10. With the exception of the AAT 2016/5334 appeal, in which I made it quite clear that Hellicar and Bhardwaj were High Court decisions that could not be arbitrarily ignored, I am unaware of any other cases where Centrelink officials have complied with these High Court precedents.

Yesterday, the 17th October 2018, I provided advice to a welfare recipient who had had her welfare payment arbitrarily cancelled without any court determination of the facts. In the mid-afternoon, I downloaded a Centrelink letter to my wife that contained a statement that appears to deliberately ignore the Hellicar decision, “Contact us and ask us for a review of the decision. We will change it if it is wrong”. In the light of Ms. Newman’s testimony, the veracity of that statement is highly questionable. However, the following statement appears to a blatant violation of provisions contained in Section 140 of the SA Criminal code, i.e. ‘Dishonest dealings with documents.

Condensed, this code states:”For the purposes of this section, a document is false if the document gives a misleading impression about the nature, validity or effect of the document; or any fact (such as, for example, the identity, capacity or official position of an apparent signatory to the document) on which its validity or effect may be dependent; or the existence or terms of a transaction to which the document appears to relate”

The Centrelink letter stated “Contact the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) if you do not agree with the review officer’s decision.”

The above statement is highly deceptive and misleading for it totally ignores a binding decision in Hellicar, which condensed to the relevant key points in paragraphs 141 – 143 stated:

[At 141] 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.[At 141] 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” 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.

[At 143] 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.

In the nutshell, once a Centrelink decision is challenged it is a matter for the courts to determine the facts of the matter. Once that occurs, a Centrelink official may make a decision based upon the court’s findings and if a welfare recipient does not agree with that determination, the AAT may arbitrate the Centrelink decision.

In the Bhardwaj case, at paragraph 51 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled 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.” This viewpoint was re-stated in paragraph 53, i.e. 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.

The Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, which even Justice Kerr, a Federal Court judge deliberately ignored, require a court decision as the first step in a regulator making a fair and just decision.

The AAT has no jurisdiction to make any decision in a contested decision until such time as a legally valid determination is made and that firstly requires a court finding as to the facts of the matter upon which a fair and just decision can be made. Whilst ‘skipping-the-courts’ is very convenient, and incredibly cost effective as it saves an average of $25,000 per appeal (in 2013 costings) it is a criminal abuse of power and any fatalities caused by such criminal actions are, in South Australia, felony murders as per the court’s determination in R v. Finch (2005)

One a decision is contested, the first question to be asked by an AAT conference registrar must be “What was was the court’s findings in this matter?” If the legal representative of the Secretary cannot present any findings, then the only decision that an AAT conference registrar can make, paraphrasing Bhardwaj, is that since the “decision involves jurisdictional error , it is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded as no decision at all” [and] “the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

In South Australia, any and all other decisions that exploit the ignorance of welfare recipients who may challenge a Centrelink decision are violating Section 140 (4) of the SA criminal code:

A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly engages in conduct to which this section applies intending—

(a) one of the following:

(i) to deceive another, or people generally, or to facilitate deception of another, or people generally, by someone else;

(ii) to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs;

It is my clearly stated viewpoint that over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately exploited the ignorance, poverty and other vulnerabilities of welfare recipients and in doing so has emotionally traumatized, defrauded, recklessly endangered and randomly killed innocent people. I further content that the ability to successfully engage in this conduct over a period of decades in no-way provides any legitimacy to these randomly lethal criminal abuses of power.  I have intentionally included 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) code in this covering letter for the express purpose of restricting your lawful options in dealing with the information that I have provided.

Option #1: If you have reasonable grounds to believe that the information provided is maliciously false and misleading, then you must charge and prosecute me for violations of Section 257 of the SA criminal code and Section 42 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act (2016). 

Option #2: Verify the facts provided and set up a task force to determine just how “terrible” are the “terrible human consequences” of the Federal Parliament’s “appropriate compliance measures.”

Ronald Medlicott. [Registered Teacher 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.

2 Responses to Part 52: Australia’s “irrelevant” holocaust – I’ve called the cops:- the choice is arrest me for criminal defamation or investigate the Federal Parliament for genocidal crimes against humanity.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    Dear Ronald; thanks for keeping me on your mailing list. as I have you written the law was ignored  in my case. Thus this was not the case what you can or cannot prove “in the court”. The law was simply irrelevant.In your noble cases it is the question of enforcing the law. Thanks for the information how to proceed in the federal court as a pauper.Now; if you are so gracious the another question. I had an Age Pension but as my wife refused to give me her financial information (she has no assets and worked part time)the Centrelink punished me by canceling my pittance. Now, I am about to re-apply as she lost her job. But as I  have suffered  a partial memory loss – figures; dates and names; I do not remember the periods I was in Australia as I was in and out. I have written a number of times to Centrelink asking for a copy of my original application – no response ! Also  for the date and my status on arrival. As I got a Political Asylum I think I am entitled to privileges of refugee status. sincerely yours; leslie {leszek szymanski; Ph.D.}

  2. yadnarie48 says:

    Hi, Leslie, file a written fraud complaint with the police, citing section 142 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and insist upon a receipt for the complaint, i.e. a complaint file number. Take a copy of that complaint and the file number to your Centrelink office and point out that “appropriate compliance measures” fatalities are a criminal offence under section 32 of the Work health & Safety Act in most states and you require details of the known number of fatalities, which are not subject to the Privacy Act as each death is a major crime. 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 )

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