Part 52H Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. “COPS INVESTIGATE MINISTER” – Page 1 banner heading of The Advertiser

Chapman-gate is being investigated and Commissioner Grant Stevens is trying to keep a tight lid on the investigation.

Cops Probe

THE ADVERTISER – PAGE 1 on the 15TH NOVEMBER 2018

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

See Part 52 of this Ronald’s space posting, on the 19th October 2018, for the 1st Emcott Report complaint.

Below is the next installment of the Emcott Report Complaint to Commissioner Stevens:

IP 43 image

 

2nd track code

NOTE: At the time posting this tracking receipt, Commissioner Stevens has not yet received this 2nd submission, i.e. as of 17 November, this is a ‘live’ tracking live number.

 

CHAPMAN-GATE COMPLAINT #2

ATTENTION – ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICER

THIS IS A PC&DA SECTION 41 COMPLAINT

I am well aware that Commissioner Stevens has ASO support staff whose duties include the processing of correspondence from the public. However, this is a complaint against at least 3 SAPOL officers under Section 41 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act, “the PC&DA Act,” that could potentially result in each of these officers facing serious criminal charges.

It is my statutory obligation under Section 5AA, sub-paragraph 2 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) to file this compliant and it also my right to decide which police officer I submit my complaint to for investigation.

Since at least two very senior SAPOL officers are implicated in what could prove to be the worst case of serial murder since Federation in 1901, that police officer is Commissioner Grant Stevens. Given the extreme gravity of the systemic issues involved, and the scale of the officially “irrelevant” death toll, from my perspective, Commissioner Stevens is the most logical choice. Any subordinate police officer or ASO who prevents Commissioner Stevens from receiving this complaint risks, at the very least, being charged with obstruction of justice.

Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff.

(Registered teacher and volunteer Christian lay-advocate.)
Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road, Elizabeth Vale SA 5112. Ph: (08) 8255 3638, Mobile: 04386 26811

14th November 2018

 

Attn:                Commissioner Grant Stevens

South Australia Police

100 Carrington Street

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Commissioner Stevens,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope, 605 37830526 094 which constitute a Police Complaints & Discipline Act Section 41 complaint against SAPOL officers implicated in what, once investigated, is likely to prove to be the worst cases of systemized mass fraud and serial murder since Federation in 1901. It is also a request to consider the role played by national leaders and other public officials in deceiving and exposing Australia’s population to random  life-threatening harms. In filing these complaints, it is my belief that it would be an aggravated offence under Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal Code if I failed to file these complaints with you. Please note that this is a public complaint and in order to assist any person who may require access to the documents submitted to you, including the video recording, the following envelope contents list is provided:

  1. This cover letter;
  2. A statutory declaration, dated 8th November 2018 that contains 4 witness statements that provide insight into how the Federal Government has been systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients who are unaware of the extremely dangerous, randomly lethal violations of their civil rights that are occurring;
  3. A 1-page letter, reference AG-MC11/0915, dated 9 September 2011, which was signed by Matt Hall, Assistance Secretary, Human Rights Policy Branch, Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department;
  4. A 1-page letter, reference number 10/48553 and dated 11 May 2010, which was signed by G. Hansen, Complaints and Misconduct (Section) of the Australian Crime Commission;
  5. A 1-page letter from the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions, reference number 02/000362910), dated 14 December 2012, and signed by Dianne Flynn, Executive Assistant to Adam Kimber SC, the (SA) Director of Public Prosecutions;
  6. A redacted, unsigned 1-page letter from Centrelink, dated 11 December 2015, that contains an aggravated threat to my life that violates Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian criminal code.
  7. Page 605 of ‘The Report of the Iraq Inquiry.’ British Parliament: House of Commons-HC264 “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong…”
  8. A 15 Minute Emcott Report DVD, titled “Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” and sub-tiled “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor”.

Preamble: There is nothing unique about those who rule a nation exercising the power to menace, intimidate, mislead, exploit, defraud, recklessly endanger and even randomly kill innocent people. As a nation, we certainly do not expect the Australian Federal Parliament to engage in such tactics, nor do we expect the police to conceal these crimes. However, as the appended information reveals, the Federal Parliament has been getting away with these crimes for decades, primarily because Australia’s criminal justice system, and the mass media, have allowed politicians and public servants to commit these crimes with impunity.

 Background Issues:

The Rule of Law beyond the Law of Rules was the title of a speech presented by the Hon. Michael Kirby to the 15th Malaysian Bar Association Conference on 29th July 2010 in which he addressed some of the issues that arise when the Rule of Power usurps Rule of Law:

 “The actions of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” in invading Iraq would appear to have been a more modern instance of the rule of power in place of the rule of law, and one affecting a number of countries, including Australia… The rule of law is a principle that provides a public place and largely transparent processes to resolve the most heated and significant of disputes. It affords a mechanism for establishing and clarifying the rules by which the people live together in relative peace. It recognises that the only alternatives to the rule of law are the power of money, influence and guns. Those forms of power are generally viewed as defective when compared to the invocation and application of written rules that pre-exist events or which can be derived by logical reasoning from earlier expositions of the common law. This is so because experience of humanity has been that, in the absence of law, and effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush, like quicksilver, to fill the gaps.”

 In the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard and General Peter Cosgrove violated South Australia’s ‘Dishonesty with Documents’ law by falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On the 6th July 2016, the English Parliament was presented with the Privy Council’s report of the 7-year-long inquiry into the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This report can be downloaded from the British National Archives at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20171123122743/http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

Sisto Malaspina’s murder is the latest in a series of Islamic State motivated murders and yet in all of the hype and hysteria surrounding this terrorist attack, it is already very apparent that the catalytic cause of this latest terrorist attack is yet again being overlooked by law enforcement agencies who “ought to know better” than to make ill-informed judgements and public statements that only service to deflect the public’s attention away from the underlying issues that are the catalytic cause of recent Islamic Fundamentalist attacks.

The Event Cascade catalyst for the latest Bourke Street terrorist attack: This attack involved a disastrous series of events that are concisely encapsulated in the lethal reality of “Yesterday’s political lies, today’s public deaths,” i.e. John Howard and Peter Cosgrove misled the people of Australia when seeking to create public support for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. On the 9th November 2018, two of the consequences of those deceptions were the deaths of Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali. The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoa also share the same catalytic cause, i.e. the Howard-Cosgrove deceits that resulted in the unplanned, but not unforeseen, growth and development of a powerful Islamic terrorist organization that, without warning, commits lethal attacks against vulnerable targets of opportunity. When the search for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless, politicians in the Unites States, Great Britain and Australia conspired to ‘downplay’ this fact, a tactic that is still evidence in this on-line news report of the latest Bourke Street terrorist attack:

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has pleaded with Australians to help close a “black spot” in the country’s ability to detect terror threats in the wake of the Bourke Street attack. “There is a real black spot for us, and that is a vulnerabilty,” Mr Dutton admitted today, citing comments from Duncan Lewis, the Director-General of Security at ASIO, who said potential terrorists were using encrypted apps so their messages couldn’t be discovered.“It is even more difficult today than it was five or ten years ago to try to deal with some of these cases,” Mr Dutton said. “The police can’t contemplate every circumstance[1].

A far more honest request by Peter Dutton would have been to help close a “black spot” in the country’s ability to detect terror threats in the wake of the illegal Iraq invasion.”

 The deaths of Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali constitute indisputable evidence that when politicians are allowed to deceive the nation, innocent people may die as a direct consequence. This is a politically sensitive reality that needs to be addressed in order to minimize further fatalities from other potentially fatal deceptions. It is therefore in the national interest that the appropriate starting point for the Victorian coroners’ court inquest(s) into the Event Cascade, i.e. the disastrous chain of linked events that eventually resulted in the deaths of both Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali, is a detailed forensic scrutiny of the underlying causes that led to the establishment and subsequent growth and development of Islamic State as a terrorist group that has world wide support from people who are prepared to commit individual or small group terrorist attacks that may be impossible for law enforcement authorities to either predict or to halt. With the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight, the impartial views expressed by Commissioner Mick Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq need to be forensically scrutinized and the actions of the politicians and military leaders who chose to ignore those views must also be forensically scrutinized. It is quite possible that if the opinions of Commissioner Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkie had been heeded and Australia had then actively opposed the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing would not have been formed and the subsequent invasion of Iraq would probably have not occurred. Without the illegal insurgency in March 2003 and the horrific casualties caused by this brute-force invasion, the founders of Islamic State would not have been provided with a both world-wide ‘Environment of Hate’ and have gained access to unguarded Iraqi military arsenals.

Allowing unrestricted access to unguarded Iraqi arsenals was a strategic blunder. This weaponry eventually led to the capture of oil wells and sales of crude oil amounting to as yet undetermined billions of dollars that have financed the growth and development of Islamic State into an ‘underground’ global terrorist organization with a world-wide grass roots support base that may outnumber Australia’s population of 25 million people.

These political and military blunders make it essential that once the pro forma procedures for a public inquiry are finalized, the first priority of the inquiry must be to forensically evaluate the Privy Council’s July 2016 Report of the Iraq Inquiry – HC264, (House of Commons Report 264), “the Chilton Report”, and apply the report’s findings to the complex event cascade that led to the deaths of both Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali.

Peter Dutton’s statement that “It is even more difficult today than it was five or ten years ago to try to deal with some of these cases, the police can’t contemplate every circumstance” is a very blunt reality that must be faced in what may well prove to a religious extremist terrorist campaign that could last for centuries, a frightening fact alluded to in statements 859 and 860 of the executive summary of the Chilton Report:

[859] In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance: the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard‑headed assessment of risks;
  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and
  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

[860] All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in post‑conflict Iraq.

How applicable are the above statements and the following extracts from that report to Australia’s involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. The issue of the potentially lethal perfidy of Australian politicians who, in the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, were prepared to place Rule of Power ahead of our nation’s constitutional commitment to Rule of Law and the obligation to avoid making foreseeably dangerous, irresponsible decisions that may have long term consequences for Australia’s population is an issue that can be ignored.

When John Howard claimed to have irrefutable proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, he did not disclose this proof, claiming that it was a security issue. That claim needs to be scrutinized in the context of statement 462 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report:

[462] Mr Scarlett advised that an ISG report along those lines, however interim, would raise difficult questions. That underlined the need to ensure it was handled correctly, with US and Australian agreement in advance. Mr Scarlett recommended publication of a short executive summary, with the full Interim Report being treated as a “classified stocktake for intelligence experts”. [Underline emphasis added.]

What statement 462 reveals is evidence of collusion to deceive the public in the United States, Great Britain, and in Australia, concerning what a monumental stuff-up the illegal invasion of Iraq had been by declaring the truth of the matter to be “classified stocktake”.

The following statements from pages 604 – 605 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report also prove insight into this monumental disaster and the attempt to cover up the truth.

. Statements 899, 900, 902, 910 and 911.

[In 899] Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

[900] The evidence in this Section shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

[902] Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

[910] The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

[911]The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

Although the report focuses upon the actions of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the British military command, the scope of the report leaves no doubt that the Howard Government and the ADF, under the leadership of General Peter Cosgrove, misled the Australian public.  The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng, Kia Hoa Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali are all ‘fatal downstream consequences’ arising from those deceptions.

A Washington Post news article published on the Internet on March 20th 2018, was titled “15 years after the Iraq War began, the death toll is still murky[2] placed the estimated death toll somewhere within the broad range of 48,000 – 751,000 “excess deaths”, with the following statement making it clear that a establishing a definitive death toll is unlikely”

“It seems likely that the death toll in the past 15 years easily exceeded half a million Iraqis, but how much higher is hard to determine.”

Speaking to the media, Scott Morrison said,

“Here in Australia we would be kidding ourselves if we did not call out the fact that the greatest threat of religious extremism in this country is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam. There is a special responsibility on religious leaders to protect their religious communities and to ensure dangerous teachings and ideologies do not take root here.”

Scott Morrison’s statement was an example of the proverbial “3-fingers-pointing backwards,” for it completely ignored the underlying matter of fact that the Howard Government’s obligation to the people of Australia was to take no recklessly dangerous, unsubstantiated action that would pose a long-term danger to Australia’s population. If the Liberal-National Coalition had not so dogmatically and blindly supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the Queen’s Loyal Opposition had done it job, Islamic State and its extremist supporter networks would not exist. As the following extracts from the Chilton Report further make clear, assumptions, not the “irrefutable evidence” that John Howard falsely claimed to have, was the actual basis for the illegal invasion of Iraq:

[25] The UK shared the broad objective of finding a way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and his assumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes[3]. (Bold underlined emphasis added.)

The gross incompetence and deceitfulness of Australia’s populist driven political and military leadership is likely to have deadly consequences for decades to come for having created an enduring climate of hatred that may last for centuries. In the minutiae of a tsunami of issues to be considered in the coroner’s inquest and in the Victorian police and ASIO investigations, it is important not to omit or ignore the catalytic roles played by john Howard  and General Peter Cosgrove. Statement 822 on page 584 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report contains an objective assessment of the so-called “irrefutable evidence” used by the Howard Government and the ADF leadership to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq:

  • On 9 July, the Senate Committee on Intelligence published its report on the S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.459 The main conclusions included: Most of the key judgements in the October 2002 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ‘Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction’, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic tradecraft, led to the mischaracterisation of the intelligence.
  • The intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain to policy-makers the uncertainties behind the judgements in the October 2002 NIE.
  • The intelligence community suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing WMD programme. This “group think” led intelligence community analysts, collectors and managers both to interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD programme and to ignore or minimise evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programmes. This presumption was so strong that formal mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not used.

In the context of the false claims about “irrefutable evidence”, the statements above about ignoring or minimizing evidence that Iraq did not have an active WMD program call into question the criminal law Duty of Care owed by national leaders to the nation’s population.

All members of the Howard Government administration and the Australian Defence Force leadership team need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law for these manifestly lethal errors of judgement, which have exposed our nation to the possibility of a millennium of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks.  A legal issue of significance in South Australia’s criminal justice system is the status of Kirsty Boden’s Electoral Role registration at the time of her murder. If Ms. Boden  was listed as an Elector on the Wakefield electoral role on 3rd June 2017, then both the South Australian Coroner and SAPOL have a legal obligation to conduct inquiries into the circumstances that led to her death, including the determination as to whether or not the conduct of John Howard and Peter Cosgrove when justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq was a criminal abuse of public office that resulted in the unintended death of Ms. Boden? If so, then a relevant question of is whether or not one or more of the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act were violated?

115.1  Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

(1)        A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)        the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

(b)        the conduct causes the death of another person; and

(c)        the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

(d)        the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:           Imprisonment for life.

(2)        Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

Alternately, an inquiry should be held to determine if John Howard and Peter Cosgrove can be held accountable for Ms. Boden’s death under Section 115.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. 115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

As mentioned previously, in his speech to the Malaysian Bar Association, Michael Kirby stated:

 “…in the absence of law, and effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush, like quicksilver, to fill the gaps.”

Commissioner Stevens, in my first communication to you on the 19th October 2018, I conveyed to you my belief that there is credible evidence that the Australian Parliament, which may not have been constitutionally elected since the 2004 federal election, has abandoned compliance with the Constitution and has been enforcing using unconstitutional laws, policies and practice that have recklessly endangered the lives of millions of innocent, vulnerable people. My views, and the information/evidence submitted in that communication was consistent with both Michael Kirby’s comments about the Coalition of the Willing, which did not have the legal right, or even the moral justification, to illegally invade Iraq, but did so in March 2003. This Rule of Power, “Might is right” mindset is also very apparent in another statement made by the (then) Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, during parliamentary debate on the 25th September 2014:

‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations[4]’ 

The fallacy of this arrogant viewpoint was driven home by Justice Terrance Higgins, a former Australian Federal Court judge and the former Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court when the Papua-New Guinea Supreme Court handed down the its Manus Island decision (SC1497) on April 25th 2016. Justice Higgins ruled:

“Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status … is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

 The Full Bench determination in SC1497 included the following ruling:

“Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.”

 In June last year, rather than have its track-record of human rights violations put on public display in a Victorian Court, the Turnbull Government used $90 million of taxpayers’ money to settle a class-action human rights violations claim by some 1,900 of the Manus Island detainees.  The Manus Island human rights fiasco was itself a spin-off from the High Court’s Malaysian Solution decision in August 2012, a decision that also sheds lights on the fallacy of Scott’s Morrison’s claim that “This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions”.

Just as federal politicians ‘got it wrong’ with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the human rights violating Manus Island policies and practices, the politicians in the Federal Parliament have also ‘got it wrong’ when it comes to assumptions-based, unconstitutional welfare policies that are, under international laws and Australian State and Territory laws, nothing more than recklessly dangerous criminal abuses of power.  The lethal consequences of allowing unconstitutionally elected politicians in the Federal Parliament to use parliamentary privilege powers set out in the Constitution to conceal the defrauding and random murder of welfare recipients is emphatically underscored in the statements contained in the statutory declaration that accompanies this complaint. Sourced from pages 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017, in law, these witness statements constitute reasonable grounds that provide probable cause for an investigation into the terrible human consequences of the Federal Parliament’s randomly lethal ‘skip-due-process-of-law’ approach to dealing with ALLEGED welfare overpayments and challenges to Centrelink’s decisions that are rightfully matters for the courts, not politicians.

The ‘why did these happen’ thrust of Commissioner Hayne’s interim report is equally applicable to the issues raised in the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings held on the 8th March 2017 and the 18th May 2017.   It is a matter of fact that on the 31st August 1920 in the ‘Engineers’ case, HCA 54, the High Court ruled that its decisions were binding on the Federal and State Parliaments and the Executive of these parliaments, i.e.

“… 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.”

ASIC v. Hellicar & Ors; HCA 17 on 3rd May 2012:

With the caveat that bold and italic text emphasizes key points of law, paragraphs 141 to 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision are cited as handed down by the High Court:

 The Court of Appeal recorded [128] 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 [129], however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said[130]:

“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[131]. And insofar as the duty was said[132] 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.

 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”[134]. 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.

The last statement contains a binding limitation that all Commonwealth departments and contracted agencies, must comply with, i.e. once a regulator’s decision is challenged, there is no valid jurisdiction to make and enforce a decision until such time as a court has determined the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made.

This ruling is further reinforced by other High Court decisions, e.g. the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v. Bhardwaj, HCA 11; on 14 March 2002.

At paragraphs 51 to 53, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron emphasized that if there is no legally valid jurisdiction to make a legal decision, then in law, no legally valid decision has been made:

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[33]. 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.”[34]

 In the same case, his Lordship cited[35] 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”[36].

 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.

These are decisions that place binding restrictions on how the Federal Parliament, and by extension, the Department of Human Services, a.k.a. “Centrelink”, engages in tortious conduct actions against welfare recipients. The most obvious matter of fact to be adduced from the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings on the 8th March 2017 and the 18th May 2017 is that both Hellicar and Bhardwaj are two binding High Court decisions that are being totally ignored by Australia’s unconstitutionally elected 45th Federal Parliament. This is a criminal abuse of power and the deaths caused by these criminal abuses of power are not lawfully justifiable fatalities; they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime.

I would point out that these are not the only binding High Court decisions that the 45th Parliament is still deliberately ignoring. Williams v Spautz; HCA 34 on the 27th July 1992 is a case law precedent I n which the High Court gave close attention to the issue of procedural fairness issues and the need to establish a legitimate right of claim. Justice Gaudron’s findings include the following findings:

[At paragraph 5 of Justice Gaudron’s findings:]

Notwithstanding my view that improper purpose is sufficient to justify a stay, it is necessary to have regard to the cases involving an improper act for, otherwise, very little useful guidance is to be had.

[At 6:] “The cases in which abuse of process has been established have usually involved an act described in terms such as “extortion“(139) Gilding v. Eyre (1861) 10 CB(NS), at p 605 (142 ER, at p 590). See also Guilford Industries (1974) 40 DLR (3d), at p 405, where the act was described as obtaining “a settlement by means of legal ‘blackmail‘”, “coercion“(140) Dishaw v. Wadleigh (1897) 44 NYS, at p 210 or “bring(ing) pressure to bear … to force (a result)(141) QIW Retailers Limited v. Felview (1989) 2 Qd R, at p 258. These terms signify a claim or demand made without right and without claim of right.

 And without going to the detail of the cases in which those expressions were used, it is fair to say that, save in the case of Gilding v. Eyre, what was demanded was unrelated to the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings which were held to constitute an abuse of process or, in the case of ancillary proceedings, the right, interest or wrong asserted by the particular process involved.”

At paragraph 9, Justice Gaudron stated:

The purpose suggested by Kirby P in Hanrahan v. Ainsworth is one which, prima facie, is wrongful in itself. Obviously and as recognized by Lord Denning M.R. in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd.(144) (1977) 1 WLR, at p 490, a purpose which is wrongful in itself is an improper purpose justifying a stay.”

[At 9] “But leaving that aside and without going to other cases in the area in which there has been held to be an abuse(145) See, for example, In re a Debtor (1928) Ch 199; 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. And, in my view, one or other of those features must be present or the purpose must itself be wrongful if a purpose is to be held an improper purpose justifying a stay.”

I am of the view that failing to establish a valid right of claim in ALLEGED Robo-Debt claims by deliberately not conducting a forensic audit and then ‘skipping-the-courts’ in order to avoid a fair and just determination of the facts are actions that most definitely constitute an “improper purpose.” In addition, I further content that when this process “entails some consequence” that randomly kills innocent people, it is not unreasonable to consider that the process has “been abused”.

At paragraph 2 of his findings, Justice Brennan held that deliberately violating due process may be for an unlawful purpose:

  1. As I said in Jago (62) (1989) 168 CLR, at pp 47-48.

An abuse of process occurs when the process of the court is put in motion for a purpose which, in the eye of the law, it is not intended to serve or when the process is incapable of serving the purpose it is intended to serve. … Although it is not possible to state exhaustively all the categories of abuse of process, it will generally be found in the use of criminal process inconsistently with some aspect of its true purpose, whether relating to the hearing and determination, its finality, the reason for examining the accused’s conduct or the exoneration of the accused from liability to punishment for the conduct alleged against him. When process is abused, the unfairness against which a litigant is entitled to protection is his subjection to process which is not intended to serve or which is not capable of serving its true purpose.

As George Brandis openly admitted, Robo-Debt randomly kills innocent people and, as the High Court made clear in Patel, these deaths are either murder or manslaughter.

‘Skipping due process of law’ is itself an abuse of process and in the case of Robo-Debt, it is a known-to-be-fatal-process that George Brandis described as “not a bad system” that had been introduced by the Hawke Government decades earlier. Failing to establish a legitimate right of claim, which, in the absence of a properly conducted forensic audit by an appropriately qualified auditor, is a criminal abuse of power that violates section 142 (2) of the Commonwealth criminal code and State and Territory criminal codes, e.g. ‘Dishonest dealings with documents’ in Section 140, of the South Australian criminal Code.  In addition, when it comes to criminal violations of procedural fairness, ‘skipping-the-courts’ and making random “mistakes” that randomly results in error-driven fatalities that are then concealed and dismissed as “irrelevant”, the issue of “unfairness against which a litigant is entitled to protection” takes the Robo-Debt laws, policies and practices deep into the realm of statutory provisions of criminal law that are commonly referred to as “major crimes.”

The attempt by Senator Brandis to justify ‘skip-due-process-of-law’ triggered fatalities as the lawful consequences of “appropriate compliance measures” was a brazenly criminal abuse of public office as there is neither any statute law in Australia nor any case law in Australia that specifies that “appropriate compliance measures” fatalities are justifiable homicides.

Patel v The Queen; HCA 29 on the 24th August 2012 is a relatively recent High Court case that contains numerous determinations, based upon Queensland’s criminal code, that provide very clear insight into the legal status of Centrelink’s supposedly lawful “appropriate compliance measures” triggered fatalities:

  • Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293).  For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).
  • Section 282 is an exculpatory provision which may apply in the case of a surgical procedure.  At the relevant time, it provided:

“A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient’s benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.”

  • Section 288 appears in Ch 27 of the Criminal Code, which is entitled “DUTIES RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF HUMAN LIFE”.  The section provides:

“It is the duty of every person who, except in a case of necessity, undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to any other person, or to do any other lawful act which is or may be dangerous to human life or health, to have reasonable skill and to use reasonable care in doing such act, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to observe or perform that duty.”    

  • Section 288 is not expressed in terms of criminal responsibility[5], but in terms of duty and causation. In R v Stott and Van Embden[6], McPherson JA observed that the provisions of Ch 27 were probably originally designed to cater for questions of causation arising out of cases of “‘pure’ omission or failure to act.”  Generally speaking, the law does not render a person liable for the consequences of such an omission where there is no obligation to act[7].  However, provisions of the Chapter came to be recognised as operating in relation to criminally negligent acts which might found a conviction for manslaughter.”

  • The decision in Callaghan v The Queen explains how a provision like s 288 operates. That decision was concerned with a provision equivalent to s 289 of the Criminal Code, which also appears in Ch 27.  Section 289 imposes a duty on persons in charge of dangerous things to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to life, safety and health.  It operates in a way similar to s 288.

The above statements in paragraph 15 of the High Court’s decision contained the following citation in reference to Callaghan v The Queen:

“It is the duty of every person who has in the person’s charge or under the person’s control anything, whether living or inanimate, and whether moving or stationary, of such a nature that, in the absence of care or precaution in its use or management, the life, safety, or health, of any person may be endangered, to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid such danger, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.”

Whatever else Centrelink’s fatal mistakes may be, they are not homicides justified by “appropriate compliance measures”; at best these officially “irrelevant” deaths are, in law, the crime of Manslaughter. It is my contention that because the deaths are un-monitored, unreported, “confidential” and “irrelevant”, regardless of the actual cause of these fatalities, in law, the manner of these deaths is Depraved Heart-Reckless Indifference Murder.

Pages 1 and 2, appended, of the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing on the 8th March 2017 provide insight into the massive scope of this recklessly dangerous fraud, i.e. 20,000 potential victims per week with an admitted administrative error rate of 20% that is known to be the reaction trigger for suicides, which, I would again remind both you and other readers of this communication, are murders under Section  13A, sub-section 7 of the South Australian criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

(Section) 13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

[Sub paragraph (7)] A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

WHO KNEW?

The question as to who knew about the secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll and what did they do to prevent further fatalities is a major question of law; a fact evidenced in South Australia by the 2005 prosecution of 17-year-old Josiah Finch on the charge of Felony Murder.

In April and May 2011, Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle failed to conduct an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Investigation, which includes interviewing the plaintiff in a murder case! In May 2011, Superintendent Moyle wrote a letter to me claiming to have found no evidence of any crime. In the light of the facts presented by 4 independent witnesses to the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing on the 8th March 2017 and the failure in AAT 201/5334, 2nd appeal, to content an estimated cumulative death toll that may now exceed 100,000, it is an understatement to say that crucial questions of law pertaining to the numbers of people who were terrorized, intimidated, blackmailed, exploited, defrauded and recklessly endangered need to be answered. However, a very important question of law that urgently needs to be determined is just how many people are dead because Grant Moyle faked an investigation? Just how many other investigations conducted by Grant Moyle were not conducted in strict accordance with the Rules of Investigation?

The failure to follow the Rules of Investigation is equally valid for Detective Inspector Stuart McIntyre’s failure to call me back after our phone conversation was suddenly swamped with static after I asked him if he knew what “Breaching” was? Immediately after he responded to that question by saying “No”, the call was disrupted by very load static. Although I waited for Inspector McIntyre to call me back, this never happened; the “terrible human  consequences” mentioned by George Brandis, and other fatalities that I am personally aware of, are some of the downstream consequences of Stuart McIntyre failing to call me back.

Shortly before 11.00 AM on the 17th October 2017, I presented myself at the Hindley Street police station and attempted to report what I firmly believe was a section 13A (7) murder by suicide to the female Senior Constable on duty. This officer ‘blew up like Mt. Saint Helens, verbally attacking me without reasonable cause and  adamantly refusing to look at the video and documentary evidence that I had brought with me to substantiate my claims that the Federal Government had been defrauding and randomly killing vulnerable welfare recipients. The officer terminated my efforts to report these alleged murders by telling me that she was not going to waste her time by listening to what I had to say and then walking out of the police station’s reception area.

How many at-risk people have been traumatized, defrauded, or are now dead because of that grossly inappropriate response to an attempt by a member of the public to report a murder?

The question as to how many people are the victims of Australia’s worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder is directly linked to the questions as to who knew about these State-sanctioned murders and did nothing to prevent further loss of life?

The appended letters from the Australian Crime Commission (2010), the federal Attorney-general’s department (2011) and the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) are from people who, like Dr. Boughey (R v Boughey, HCA 29 [1986]) “ought to have known” that the welfare policies and practices that I was writing about could cause death.

At paragraph 10 of his findings, Justice Brennan stated:

 Omitting reference to omissions, par.(c) of s.157(1) applies only to culpable homicide by an unlawful act – the category prescribed by par.(c) of s.156(2). If the fatal act falls into that category, it amounts to murder if the offender actually knows that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances or if the offender ought to know that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances (s.157(1)(c)). The elements of murder drawn from par.(c) of s.156(2) and from par.(c) of s.157(1) are the elements on which the submissions of counsel for the applicant have focused. Those elements would have fallen for consideration by the jury if they were not satisfied that the applicant had a specific intent to kill the deceased woman when he did the fatal act.”

How well does George Brandis’ comment about “mistakes-terrible human consequences-appropriate compliance measure’” match up with Section 157(1)(c) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code? It does not do so.

What is manifestly obvious is that George Brandis confessed to fraud and murder on a nationally broadcast ABC television program and not one police officer in the nation queried the statements made. Why was this so? In addition, Julian Burnside QC, who was in that TV studio at the time, “ought to have known” that skipping due process of law could place vulnerable people under extreme duress and that that could have fatal consequences. Why did he not point out at that time that the “terrible human consequences” were likely to be unlawful homicides?

In a similar manner, “Breaching” is the unconstitutional, human rights violating, statutory practice of deliberately depriving people of their sole means to survive, an inhumane, amoral action that was likely to result in ‘a terminal outcome’, i.e. the victim of this recklessly dangerous violation of human rights could die.

A question of law: Why have the Blackmail provisions in Section 172 (2) (2) of the SA criminal code if SAPOL rarely enforces this law? The appended redacted copy of a letter from Centrelink, date 11th December 2015, contained an aggravated threat to my life that was never justifiable as the actions Centrelink wanted me to comply with were already being complied with. The precise wording of that aggravated threat to my life was/is:

“If you do not contact us by 15 January 2016 your payment(s) may be stopped.”

This was a very credible threat, made in writing, to cut-off my Age Pension, which the Federal Government has an obligation to provide under S. 51 (xxiii) of the Australian Constitution, if I did not phone Centrelink before the 16th January 2016.

Although the Commonwealth Evidence Act of 1975 does not require that motive for a crime be adduced, statements made by Secretary Kathryn Campbell on the 19th August 2015, i.e. just 16 weeks before Centrelink’s aggravated threat to my life was written, provide insight into why this systemic threat was made. Secretary Campbell reportedly made the following statements in a speech outlining her opinions on changes made to the Department of Human Services[8]:

  1. “[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.”
  2. a lot of our technology hasn’t been updated for a little while.”
  3. 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.
  4. We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted,” she explained.
  5. “So people will chance their arm, try their luck. … I think there might be some ways that we could probably give them the bad news earlier, that they haven’t met one of those eligibility thresholds, but we are required to process claims that are submitted under the legislation.”

Points #1, 2 & 3: The computer system used by the Department of Human Services, known as the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, a.k.a. the ‘ISIS’ database, is a 35-year-old State-of-the-Ark database system that was never not fit for its intended purpose. The reference to data being siloed refers to the fact that the ISIS database is a sequential database system that, as SAPOL’s cyber-crimes experts will confirm, unlike a Relational database, requires manually entered Queries in order to produce Reports about information in the database.  This labour-intensive task was rendered ineffective by reducing staffing levels by 4,000 in just 18 months, i.e. Centrelink simply did not have adequate staffing levels to manually query a database that contained the financial details of over 7 million welfare recipients and other clients receiving Family Tax Benefit allowances.

The administrative solution to this problem, which was apparently introduced by Bob Hawke, was to skip querying the database and engage in a range of criminal abuses of power, i.e. blackmail people into explaining database mismatches that may be computational or database errors. In my own case, there was no database query to determine whether or not I was reporting my spouse’s income. Had a manual query of the ISIS database been undertaken, my compliance with my legal obligations would have been noted and no letter threatening to deprive me of my constitutional right to an Age Pension would have been computer generated and sent to me. That this computer-generated letter was created and sent to me is an example of a serious cyber-crime being committed using the ISIS computer network.

The ‘Blackmail’ provisions in sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian criminal code, define serious and unwarranted blackmail threats and it is my contention that the threat to deprive me of my Age Pension entitlements constituted a credible, serious and unwarranted threat.

 172—Blackmail

    (1)      A person who menaces another intending to get the other to submit to a demand is guilty of blackmail.

Maximum penalty:

    (a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

    (b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 20 years.

    (2)      The object of the demand is irrelevant.

Examples—

1  The person who makes the demand may be demanding marriage or access to children.

The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty. [Bold underlined emphasis added.]

Note the statement in s. 172(2)(2) above, i.e. “the person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.” Secretary Campbell may have had that in mind by allowing the ISIS database to automatically issue Aggravated Threats to Life, but ignorance of this law is no excuse, a fact of law confirmed by the High Court’s finding in paragraph 48 of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating; HCA 20 on the 8th May 2013:

“A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law and is required to obey the law.

That person includes Secretary Kathryn Campbell, who, during the period March 2011 until September 2017, had the legal responsibility, and therefore legal accountability for the issuing of perhaps as many as 20 million or more computer generated threats every year, i.e. “Do as I say, or I will deprive you of your welfare allowance”.

Point #4: Secretary Campbell should be investigated in regard to her comment re claims that are never granted”.  As the High Court ruled in Hellicar, once a decision is challenged “It is a matter for the courts.” However, as I know from first-hand experience as a lay advocate, some government and some AAT conference registrars will ignore the Hellicar ruling if welfare recipients are unaware of this legally binding decision. Deliberately ignoring Hellicar is blatant fraud, and when fatalities occur, they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime, which means that in South Australia, any ‘skip-the-courts’ fraud triggered suicides are murders under Section 13A (7) of South Australia’s criminal code.

Point #5:So people will chance their arm…”  If Secretary Campbell were to testify in the prosecution of a welfare recipient, any court that was asked by defence counsel to rule that Ms. Campbell was a biased witness whose evidence was unreliable and should not be admitted into evidence, may have no option but to consent to that request for it is manifestly obvious that she believes that many welfare recipients, who have a constitutional right to a welfare benefit, are attempting to rort the system.

If asked how many times a court had agreed with her arbitrary decisions in possibly more than a million disputed decisions, Ms. Campbell’s ‘skip-the-courts’ approach to determining eligibility for a welfare benefit would leave a court with no option but to refer her management technique to the police for investigation.

In FY 2000-01, a decade before Ms. Campbell was appointed, the Howard Government issued 346,078 breaching penalties for ALLEGED breach of contract by welfare recipients. A significant number of those penalties were for alleged failures to comply with Work-for-the-Dole “obligations”. The problem with that penalty is that the linking of welfare payments to Work-for-the-Dole activities is a specifically proscribed activity under Section 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA of the Australian Constitution:

[At 51] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

[At xxiiiA] “the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

Since unemployment benefits are a constitutional right that cannot be linked civil conscription, the Federal Parliament has no legal jurisdiction to enact and enforce “No show, no pay” laws. The constitutional illegality of these laws is underscored by the previously-mentioned determination of Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron at paragraph 51 of Bhardwaj:

  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.”

Unemployed people have a constitutional right to a welfare allowance that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole. How then can anyone explain either these penalties, or the reprehensible use of Parliamentary Privilege to deliberately conceal fatalities caused by the abuse of power violations of these constitutional rights? How also do you also explain the “terrible human consequences” of skipping due process of law in un-audited Robo-Debt claims that are unlikely to be upheld in court due to the unreliability of the Crown’s evidence? Despite what the Senate’s EWRE Reference Committee and AAT Conference Registrar Walsh may have decided, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” homicide.

Whilst the statistical probability of a fatality is not credible evidence in court, the existence of statistics concerning fatalities that may involve specific abuses of power, e.g. ‘skipping-due-process-of-law,’ or deliberate violations of constitutional rights, constitutes significant and relevant, credible evidence that provides reasonable grounds for probable cause for the conduct of a criminal investigation to identify the precise number of fatalities that are the “terrible human consequences” of criminal abuses of public office.

At paragraph 15 of his findings in Boughey v R, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

“…it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent”

Robo-Debt is not about the ‘probability’ of a fatality; it is about a known-to-be-lethal, fraudulent ‘skip-the-courts’ systemic scam that is currently being implemented by an unconstitutionally elected government.

Knowing of this lethal fraud and doing nothing to shut this mega-organized crime scam is simply not an option for any SAPOL officer, i.e. you. I would reiterate the High Court’s ruling at paragraph 142 of Hellicar:

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.”

At this point in time, any person accused of a serious crime can table both my previous correspondence to you along with this communication and, if you have not taken the appropriate measures to investigate the issues raised in this Issues Paper, any accused person, including already convicted criminals,  can justifiably claim that over a period measured in decades, SAPOL and the SA DPP, along with every other police force and every other Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions throughout Australia, has been criminally negligent by ignored what are likely to prove to be the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in Australia since Federation in 1901. As the information provided to you reveals, either by voluntary acts of omission or by voluntary acts of commission, or both, some very senior law enforcement officials have been doing nothing about these randomly lethal crimes since Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister.

VISUALIZATION: BEYOND CHAPMAN-GATE: Visualization is a very powerful way to convey an important message; the Chapman-gate Complaint can be likened to the sudden, overwhelming eruption of Mount Saint Helens. The US Geographic Service has a visually powerful video of the 18th May 1980 eruption that killed 57 people, including a USGS volcanologist, David Johnson, who was filming Mount Saint Helens when it blew up. “Vancouver, Vancouver, This is it” he radioed, and then died as the 700KPH pyroclastic blast of superheated dust and steam roared into him. You may wish to watch this video and then translate this eruption to the slowly building pressure in the national community for a return to honest government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP2dreOI8gI

Your personal “This is it” moment may occur when you are asked during cross-examination to explain why a very senior SAPOL officer actively covered up what I believe will prove to be the worst case of serial murder since Federation? If ABS statistics are a reliable guide, the so-called “irrelevant” murders in South Australia that have been somehow concealed or overlooked may be in the range of 7,000 – 10,000.

Even if my estimate, like that of the Iraqi invasion body count, were to only be 5% accurate, that would still represent 350 -500 ‘Bretang’ murders that have s slipped ‘under-the-radar’.

Across Australia, how many Department of Human Services “mistakes” that have killed an innocent welfare recipient constitute one-fatal-mistake-too-many?

One, i.e. the first fatality was one too many.

 All subsequent fatalities are one-more-too-many!

My Chapman-gate complaint on the 19th October 2018 was not my first preference option for an investigation into the SAPOL officers and other public officials involved in the cover-up of why I believe should be considered the ‘Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders’.

In law, there is nothing “APPROPRIATE” about supposedly saving taxpayers’ money by randomly killing innocent people. Every public official implicated in the causation or the cover-up of these brutal killings needs to be held accountable before the courts.

“Every public official” includes Governor-Generals, Prime Ministers, Cabinet members, Heads of Government Departments, judges, lawyers and police officers. It also includes  politicians Chiefs-of-Staff and electorate office support staff who took it upon themselves to make sure that the politicians that employed them were not informed about a politically driven humanitarian disaster that in 2018 has blown out to holocaust proportions with an uncontested death toll estimate, that once quantified, may be found to currently exceed 100,000 deaths from a diverse range of foreseeable causes.

I therefore again conclude with the challenge that I put to you in my first Chapman-gate Complaint of 19th October 2018; either prosecute me for possible violations of the criminal defamation provisions in Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and/or possible violations of Section 42 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act.

 Alternately, you can investigate the Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders and an excellent starting point for that is ‘Scomo-gate’, i.e. Scott Morrison’s role in the AAT2014/2456 “go to trial” fraud that can be heard on the appended ‘See No Evil: Grant Stevens Factor’ DVD. Because of the unique circumstances of ‘Scomo-gate’, it is a fraud in which the AFP, WAPOL and SAPOL all share jurisdiction.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff/Material Witness: Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders

APPENDIX

  1. A statutory declaration, dated 8th November 2018 that contains 4 witness statements that provide insight into how the Federal Government has been systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients who are unaware of the extremely dangerous, randomly lethal violations of their civil rights that are occurring;
  2. A 1-page letter, reference AG-MC11/0915, dated 9 September 2011, which was signed by Matt Hall, Assistance Secretary, Human Rights Policy Branch, Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department;
  3. A 1-page letter, reference number 10/48553 and dated 11 May 2010, which was signed by G. Hansen, Complaints and Misconduct (Section) of the Australian Crime Commission;
  4. A 1-page letter from the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions, reference number 02/000362910), dated 14 December 2012, and signed by Dianne Flynn, Executive Assistant to Adam Kimber SC, the (SA) Director of Public Prosecutions;
  5. A redacted, unsigned 1-page letter from Centrelink, dated 11 December 2015, that contains an aggravated threat to my life that violates Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian criminal code.
  6. Page 605 of ‘The Report of the Iraq Inquiry.’ British Parliament: House of Commons-HC264 “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong…”
  7. A 15 Minute Emcott Report DVD, titled “Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” and sub-tiled “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor”.

[1] https://www.news.com.au/news/national/melbourne-stabbing-attack-was-terrorism-incident-police-say-as-islamic-state-claims-it/news-story/95ad6cca7af9e87528d814a6b96f693e

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ea416de4fc6

[3] Report of the Iraq Inquiry -HC264: Executive Summary, page 6, statement 25.

[4] Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014

[5]              Which is defined by s 1 to mean liability to punishment as for an offence.

[6]              [2002] 2 Qd R 313 at 319 [16].

[7]              Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408 at 421 [29]; [2011] HCA 43.

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

Kathryn Campbell: DHS service delivery reform a success, all things considered

THE APPENDED DOCUMENTS

These documents were included with this second complaint to Commissioner Stevens. They identify people who knew about Centrelink’s fatal frauds.

Stat Dec 5 lower res

Matt Hall

ACC

 

SA DPP

A Centrelink ‘blackmail email that is good for a 20-year jail term for each offence; IF SAPOLand the SA Director of Public Prosecutions should ever stop ignoring these deadly threat-to-life-letters/emails.

Bl;ackmail email

NOTE: As per the High Court’s Hellicar decision, only a court can order that a welfare payment that is a constitutional right can be stopped.

THE COVER-UP: PAGE 517 OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL REPORT INTO THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003

Mentioned in the report to Commissioner Stevens, paragraph 462 on page 517 of Section 4.4. of the Chilton Report should be read very carefully for it provides insight into the collusion between the governments of United States, Great Britain and Australia to hide the truth about the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003:

Chilton cover up

Note: I have underlined the relevant paragraph for emphasis; what is quite emphatic is conclusion to conceal the unpleasant truth that is to be found in 899  – 909 of the Chilton Report, i.e. there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction so 500,000 people have died for a lie.

PARAGRAPH 899 – DEAD WRONG

Chilton page 605

“… The [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgements about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was a major intelligence failure”

The above statement needs to read in the context of this Washington Post report, published in March 2018:

“It seems likely that the death toll in the past 15 years easily exceeded half a million Iraqis, but how much higher is hard to determine.”

[Source] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ea416de4fc6

See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor:

Stevens DVD

The URL for this video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ0gXlDiGwQ

 

See No Evil: The Hansard Minutes

The following Hansard Minutes provide insight into the administrative processes and mindsets of people who commit genocide and crimes against Humanity. Not that because of constitutional ‘Parliamentary Privilege’, these Minutes cannot be tabled in a court until the Australian High Court rules that the July 2016 Federal election was legally invalid and therefore parliamentary privilege does not apply.

Please note that the Hansard Minutes below should be read in the context of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions:

Emcott V3

8-3-18 CARC crop

Page 1 and 2 were not included in the first Chapman-gate complaint but were inserted in the 2nd complaint. Pages 12, 13 and 14 were in the first complaint and are shown below to provide an overview of how Genocide works on a Holocaust scale in Australia. It is important to realize that the 4 testimonies presented should have been made to the police or to a State or Territory  anti-corruption commission. By testifying at a Senate Hearing, this crucial evidence will not be admissible in an Australian Court until the 2016 election is ruled invalid by the High Court, which may never happen.

8-3-17 page 1

8-3-18 page 2

8-3-17 page 12

8-3-17 page 13

8-3-17 page 14

Readers Note: Although I have an unconfirmed report that at least one law firm is looking at helping people to prepare a class action law suit. my attitude to the problem of Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity is simple:

Policeman

Call the Cops.

Ron Medlicott – 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.

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