Part 52E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The 4 statutory declarations with the large text see ease of reading by mobile phone users.

The 4 statutory declarations that South Australia’s Police Commissioner and State Coroner are studiously ignoring, are reprinted with large text under each image for reading on mobile phones.

The short link URL to this posting:   https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1fe

The Brandis ConfessionTHE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

1 On January 27th 2008, Mr. Ian Ward, an Aboriginal elder died from heatstroke after being transported from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in the back of a van in which the air conditioning was either faulty or not working. In May 2011, the State of Western Australia, Department of Corrective Services, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that persons who were not employees were not exposed to hazards and, by that failure, causing the death of Mr. Ian Ward. On July 7th 2011, in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court, the Department of Corrective Services was fined $2850,000 for its role in the death of Mr. Ian Ward.

 2 Custodial Officers were prosecuted, Graham Kenneth Powell, KA324/11 on 7th September 2011, and Nina Mary Stokoe, KA325/11 on 5th October 2011. Both pleaded Guilty to the charge of “Being an employee failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety or health of any other person through an act or omission at work and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm to Ian Ward.” On 12th August 2011 G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (ACN 050 069 255) was prosecuted, KA327/11 and pleaded Guilty to “Being an employer, failed so far as was practical , to ensure that the safety or health of a person not being its employee, was not adversely affected wholly or in part as a result of any hazard that arose from or was increased by the system of work that had been or was being operated by the accused, and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm, to Ian Ward”.

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced 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.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. Rather than contest details of the “irrelevant’ deaths, the Department of Social Services issued a proffer, which was accepted, that reinstated the Applicant’s disability pension. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise death toll caused by unconstitutional tortious conduct actions remains undisclosed.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1936.

s

Case Law and the “approriate compliance measures’ deaths:

THE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

 At paragraph 6 of Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26, (5 June 1981), Chief Justice Gibbs ruled: It is an elementary and fundamental principle that the object of the court, in interpreting a statute, “is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used”: River Wear Commissioners versus Adamson (in)1877 at paragraph 763. It is only by considering the meaning of the words used by the legislature that the court can ascertain its intention. And it is not unduly pedantic to begin with the assumption that words mean what they say…”

 On the 24th August 2012, at paragraph 11 in Patel versus the Queen, HCA 29, Chief Justice French and Justices, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell ruled that: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (section 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (section 303). A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (section 291). At paragraph 18, these judges also ruled: Criminal responsibility therefore attaches only if there has been “criminal” or “gross” negligence.  In Bateman, Hewart LCJ said that whatever epithet be used, the standard of conduct must go beyond that relevant to a matter of compensation; it must be such as to show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and to be conduct deserving punishment.  In Nydam v The Queen, the requisite standard was said to involve “such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment.”

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced 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.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. This statement was not challenged at that time.

3 months 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.” ”. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise scale of the unlawful death toll caused by recklessly dangerous, “compliance measures”  remains unknown to both Secretary Campbell and the Federal Parliament.

 

Case Law and Matters of Fact:

THE TEXT:

The issues raised in this declaration are ‘Matters of Fact’, here after “MoF”, that are of grave national significance and as such, require urgent
consideration by all Australian citizens and also by those lawfully appointed persons or authorities with the appropriate legal jurisdiction and/or lawful
responsibility to deal with the legal ramifications of the issues raised in the six MoF statements below.

MoF #1: Commencing with the High Court’s ruling in Re v Culleton, HCA 4, on the 3rd February 2017, numerous High Court decisions have resulted
in the dismissal or resignation from the Federal Parliament of 16 people who were constitutionally disqualified to serve as Members of the Federal
Parliament. In law, these dismissals and resignations constitute evidence of the fact that in 2016, the Australian Electoral Commission, here after the
AEC, had conducted an unconstitutional ‘Hybrid Election’ by allowing a still unknown number of disqualified people to contest this federal election.

MoF #2: On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, 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”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” At paragraph 53 of Bhardwaj, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, 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.”

MoF #3: The AEC does not have the constitutional authority to conduct hybrid elections. Likewise, I was one of almost 15 million Electors who cast
literally hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election, however none of us had the constitutional right to cast ballots in a
hybrid election. Therefore, consistent with the above Bhardwaj rulings at paragraphs 51 and 53, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226
vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” Constitutionally, a valid Declaration of Results for the 2016 Election Writ cannot be made, and a constitutionally valid government formed, until such time as the AEC conducts a constitutionally compliant federal election.

MoF# 4: Under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, the unconstitutionally elected 45th Federal Parliament allegedly began violating the civil rights of as many as 20,000 people per week with unsubstantiated ‘alleged debt’ claims that lacked legal validity as no forensic audits were undertaken by appropriately qualified and certified auditors for the purpose of establishing a valid Right of Claim by objectively ensuring that Commonwealth errors, which includes possible violations of Commonwealth, State or Territory Data Protections laws, were not the cause of the alleged data mismatches.

MoF #5: On the 3rd May 2012 in ASIC v Hellicar and Ors, HCA 17, at paragraph 141 the High Court ruled that “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 paragraph 142 the Court ruled that in criminal cases and in civil cases that involve pecuniary issues, both sides, subject to the rules of procedural fairness, could determine what issues be raised and what were relevant questions to ask. In paragraph 143, the High Court then ruled that “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.”

MoF #6: On the 21st February 2017, the Statement of facts and Issues for AAT 2016/5334, 2nd appeal was lodged via email and the estimated toll of 100,000 or more deaths caused by fraudulent tort actions contained in these documents was not contested by the lawyer representing the government.

 

The Unconstitutional Royal Commission:

THE TEXT:

On the 28th September 2018, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC delivered the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry, hereafter the SFRC, to the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. Whilst the question of law in the report, “How did this happen?” is a legally valid question, in law, the report itself is not because the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry and its interim findings are “The fruit of the poisoned tree.” Due diligence obligations now requires the Boards of Directors, Chief Executive Officers and legal counsel for each of the financial services organizations accused of misconduct in the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission to test the legality of the FSRC interim report by undertaking a comprehensive legal evaluation of the possibility that the report is legally invalid and that all the sworn testimony given during the inquiry is, in law, “fruit of the poisoned tree” that cannot be used by regulators when imposing fines or alleging criminal misconduct. 

 Whilst the idea that the FSRC interim report is legally invalid “poisoned fruit” may, on first consideration, appear to be spurious, there are numerous case law precedents that have profound implications that need to be considered before any reasonable determination of the issue can be made, e.g.  Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [2005] QSC 243, (1 September 2005). At paragraph 36 of his Findings, Justice Moynihan stated:

 “It is of “fundamental importance” that parties and the general public have full confidence in the fairness of decisions and the impartiality of decision makers to whom the rules of procedural fairness apply. Condemnation without a proper hearing or by an apparently biased tribunal is unacceptable; exoneration by such a tribunal may be worthless.”

 At paragraph 6 in the majority decision of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd HCA 54, (31 August 1920), Justice Isaacs stated: “When a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, to that extent invalid and inoperative.” At paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated: “Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”

 Note the phrase “Once we find a valid law…”: Effective as of the federal election in 2004, the Australian Federal Parliament has not enacted any valid federal law and the Executive of the governments appointed in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 have not made legally valid decisions because of defective administrative by the Australian Electoral Commission, which had failed to uphold the Constitution by conducted ‘hybrid elections’ in which an unknown number of constitutionally ineligible candidates participated. On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, 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”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”  At paragraph 53 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, 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.”

 Neither the AEC nor almost 15 million Electors who cast hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election had the constitutional right to be participate in hybrid elections. Therefore, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226 vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” The determinations of Justices Gummow and Gaudron at 51 – 53 in Bhardwaj mean that, in law, all legislative and executive decisions made by the current Federal Parliament are “no decision at”, e.g. the establishment of the FSRC.

The Implications

The implications of these statutory declarations are huge.

As Judge Gray, the Victorian State Coroner, pointed out 4 years ago, I am raising issues of national and international significance.

Firstly, have a federal parliament that has been robbing and randomly killing welfare recipients for a very, very long time and the “total of the tape” on these deaths may exceed 100,000.

Secondly, we have unconstitutionally elected governments enforcing legally invalid laws on everyone from impoverished welfare recipients to international banking corporations.

Thirdly, ANY PERSON, whether accused of major crimes or welfare recipients being ripped off by Centrelink, can use these statutory declarations to demand that government prosecutors or lawyers explain the facts raised in these statutory declarations.

Since the deaths of welfare recipients are unreported, are secretly classified and are officially “irrelevant”, that’s not a job that I would want if I was a government lawyer, especially given this very persuasive precedent from an English House of Lords decision that opens the door to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services being subpoenaed to attend every AAT appeal and explain why she never bothered to report the deaths of welfare recipients in Centrelink’s annual reports:

Bushell v Minister of State for the  Environment HL 7 (Feb’ 1980)

The Opinion of Lord Edmund-Davies

(c) “Natural justice requires that objectors (no less than departmental representatives) be allowed to cross-examine witnesses called for the other side on all relevant matters, be they matters of fact or matters of expert opinion.

(d) In the exercise of jurisdiction outside the field of criminal law, the only restrictions on cross-examination are those general and well-defined exclusionary rules which govern the admissibility of relevant evidence (as to which reference may be had to Cross on evidence, 5th edition (1979) p.17); to go beyond those restrictions there is no discretion on the civil side to exclude cross-examination on relevant matters.”

Senator Brandis admission that “mistakes” by Centrelink have “terrible human consequences”, opens the door to the question as to exactly just how “terrible” are those consequences, i.e. how many innocent people has Centrelink killed?

With an unconfirmed, but also undisputed, estimated death toll of around 100,000, or more, Secretary Campbell has a statutory obligation not to harm people that, like very member of Parliament over the last 40-years,  she apparently did not know about if the content of some her public speeches are an accurate guide, e.g a speech made in August 2015 that can be read at the following URL:

https://www.themandarin.com.au/49014-kathryn-campbell-human-services-merger/

Take note of the following statements:

“[Citizens] should tell us their circumstances and we should be able to tell them what support we can provide to them. Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

CENTRELINK’S COMPUTER IS STATE OF THE ARK;

“Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

Pay very close attention to to the word “siloed” and the fact that Centrelink’s computer is early 1980s technology. This technology was “State of the Ark” when first purchased. Information is in database field that must be accessed manually by creating a database report for each client under review. That is a major propble as the next statement clearly reveals.

4,000 Redundancies

So we also had overstaffed at that point, and we had to reduce by about $200 million in staffing as well. That meant 10% had to be cut overall in 18 months, which saw 4000 staff leave, although none through forced redundancy.”

The KPIs that the department has across all its services and channels are dictated by the funding available for the department to meet its obligations. The department has estimated that to reduce the KPI to an average speed of answer of 5 minutes, it would need an additional 1000 staff at a cost of over $100 million each and every year.”

 

CALL BLOCKING:

Once upon a time we were able to reduce wait times by … call blocking,” Campbell said, touching on another issue which came under public scrutiny following the ANAO report. “We put the ‘engaged’ signal up and no calls could get in, so you could actually serve those people quicker, but we used to get a lot of complaints about the engaged signal.”

THEY PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM REPORTING INCOME AND THEN PROSECUTED THEM FOR FRAUD WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS CRUCIAL FACT TO THE COURTS!

Under-funded and under-staffed, Centrelink is responsible for a humanitarian disaster with an unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll that may now be well beyond the 100,000 mark at this stage.

Victims of this randomly lethal mismanagement of Australia’s welfare system should file a Section 142(2) Commonwealth Criminal Code complaint with the local  police and cite me as a material witness when doing so.

Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher & a Christian 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.

1 Response to Part 52E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The 4 statutory declarations with the large text see ease of reading by mobile phone users.

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    Dear Ronald’ what would be remedies if the law is ignored?

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