Part 52j: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. How the South Australian Police missed the boat when Centrelink admitted that 2,030 of its Robo-Debt victims were dead

Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures are very real, as  a Triple J’s Hack posting about 2,030 Robo-Debt deaths has just revealed.

NOTE: The short link to this posting is:   https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1gl

Check this link:  https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/centrelink-robo-debt-deaths-data/

Finally, after 15 years of lobbying and hunting for the truth, including 9 years writing this blog, Centrelink’s murderous secret is out.

This link reveals a small slice of a 30-year-long secret, 2,030 of Centrelink’s undisclosed “Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders.” These deaths were secretly classified as “confidential in November 2005 by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee. In January 2006 and again in March 2006, the Employment & Workplace Relations committee (EWRE), dismissed the deaths as “irrelevant’.

2 years ago today, on 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis said “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.”

The very next day, the 2nd appeal for AAT 2016/5334, which was based on the HELLICAR and BHARDAWJ High Court decisions, contained the following statement, which it should be noted was not disputed by Elizabeth Ulrick, the lawyer representing the Department of Social Security: “If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

 For more details, check out this YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ0gXlDiGwQ

Next check out this link and then work backwards:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1g9

To say that the South Australian Police ‘missed the boat’ on these homicides is a massively gross understatement:

Note the date on the letter, i.e. 3 December 2019.

The SAPOL letter’s envelop was date stamped 18 December 2018 

The above letter from Detective Chief Inspector Tim Curtis has been the only contact since i raised the issue of the Robo-Debt murders with Commissioner Stevens in October 2018 – see part 58(a) of this series for details.

Noble Cause Process Corruption

In the 1995 – 1997 Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service that was conducted by Justice James Wood. In Volume 1 of the Report, ‘Corruption, at 2.3 on page 20, Commissioner Wood wrote:

[At 2.3] “In addition to these activities which directly hinder the suppression and prosecution of crime, the good order of the Service and the creation of an environment of honesty, integrity and impartiality, the approach taken by the Commission embraces those forms of conduct sometimes referred to as ‘noble cause corruption’, but which are better categorised as ‘process corruption’. This is the kind of corruption whereby unnecessary physical force is applied, police powers are abused, evidence is fabricated or tampered with, or confessions are obtained by improper means. It is often directed at those members of the community who are least likely or least able to complain…”

In his conclusions about corruption in the New South Wales Police service, Commissioner Wood made reference to Judge Mollen’s investigation a few years earlier into corruption in the New York police Department:

Mollen’s observation that the NYPD had a ‘multifaceted problem’, that flourished:
… not only because of opportunity and greed, but because of a police culture that exalts loyalty over integrity;
because of the silence of officers who fear the consequences of ‘ratting’ on another cop, … because of wilfully
blind supervisors who fear the consequences of a corruption scandal more than corruption itself; because of
the demise of the principle of accountability that makes all commanders responsible for fighting corruption in
their commands; because of hostility and alienation between police and community … [and the abandonment
of] responsibility to ensure the integrity of its members.

is equally applicable to the NSW Police Service.

The message of each post in Part 58 of Ronald Space is that in the face of overwhelming evidence that Centrelink was menacing, intimidating, defrauding and randomly killing innocent, vulnerable welfare recipients, Commissioner Grant Stevens did nothing about this criminal activity. the role of Chief inspector Curtis appears to have been to protect SAPOL from an embarrassment of mega-proportions, i.e. the 2011 cover-up of the Appropriate compliance Measures Murders by Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle:

When it comes to the Appropriate  Compliance Measures Murders, not interviewing the plaintiff and then finding no evidence to support the allegations made by the plaintiff appears to Standard operating procedure.

With the deaths of 2,030 welfare recipients in the public domain, the reaction of law enforcement agencies across the nation needs to closely monitored. Despite there being clear evidence, such as the following case decisions, that Centrelink was defrauding clients, with sometimes fatal consequences, SAPOL and other law enforcement agencies may still do nothing abouty these State-Sanctioned crimes against Humanity.

austlii

BINDING HIGH COURT DECISIONS: got to austlii.edu.au and click Commonwealth -> High Court -> Select year then the month:

HELLICAR, (HCA 17) May 2012, Read  paragraphs 141 – 143 – Once a welfare recipient challenges a regulator’s decision, it is a matter for the courts.

Immigration Minister versus BHARDWAJ (HCA 11) on 14 March 2002 – If a regulator has no jurisdiction for a decision, then any decision by the regulator, e.g. Centrelink, “…a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.” This means that once a person challenges a centrelink decision, no legally valid decision can be made until a court decides the facts of the matter. needless to say, no Human Services Minister or Social Services Minister, e.g. Scott Morrison, has ever made these court decisions public in the mass media.

WILLIAMS versus SPAUTZ (HCA 34) on 27th july 1992 Justice Gaudron at paragraph 6 of his findings (Look for GAUDRON J near the end of the Court’s findings)RIGHT OF CLAIM “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.

Centrelink must undertake an audit using a certified auditor who produces a report, which the centrelink client is allowed to have a copy of BEFORE responding to a centrelink overpayment claim. NO AUDIT = NO RIGHT OF CLAIM BY CENTRELINK.

THE PATEL CASE – MURDER MOST FOUL (HCA 29) on 29th August 2012 at paragraph 11: “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).”

WOOLMINGTON – HOUSE OF LORDS May 5th 1935: UNANIMOUS DECISION:- Lord Sankey quoting the trial judge in the case under appeal  said “The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification. ‘In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him: for the law will presume the fact to have been founded in malice until the contrary appeareth.’ That has been the law of this country for all time since we had law. Once it is shown to a jury that somebody has died through the act of another, that is presumed to be murder, unless the person who has been guilty of the act which causes the death can satisfy a jury that what happened was something less, something which might be alleviated, something which might be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, or was something which was accidental, or was something which could be justified.”

MURDER BY SUICIDE: SA Criminal code at paragraph 13, 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.”

Centrelink has been fraudulently “skipping the courts” and avoiding court findings on its false claims. As a consequence, some very  vulnerable people have committed suicide and these deaths are murders in South Australia. All other states, except Victoria, have similar Felony Murder laws. In Victoria, the deaths are either manslaughter or murder. Given that they have been concealed for decades and are officially “irrelevant”, I believe that they are “Depraved Heart – Reckless Indifference murders.

APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES ARE NOT A VALID REASON FOR RANDOMLY KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE: Make no mistake, every one of  the Centrelink deaths is culpable homicide, e.g. either a Murder or Manslaughter, and the 2,030 admitted deaths are just the tip of a politically driven humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions. Robo-debt is part of the worst case of mass fraud and serial murder since Federation, which is why Michael Keenan is downplaying these deaths. REMEMBER, the Liberal Party held a senate hearing, a coroner’s inquest and a Royal Commission into the 4 Home Improvement deaths. The Royal Commission into the 99 aboriginal deaths in custody (google RCIADIC) took almost 4 years to complete (1987 – 1991) Families of the estimated 100,000 people who have died should ‘CALL THE COPS’ and demand a murder investigation. They should also talk to lawyers about a class action at $1 Million per immediate family member, as per the Ian Ward payout by the WA government in July 2010, which was an $800,000 x 4 family members payout of $3.2 Million compensation.)

Ronald Medlicott

(SA registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay advocate.)

 

This entry was posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Part 52j: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. How the South Australian Police missed the boat when Centrelink admitted that 2,030 of its Robo-Debt victims were dead

  1. leslie3319@aol.com says:

    thank you, leszek szymanski

  2. yadnarie48 says:

    Hi Leszek, I very much suspect that Ms Rowan McRae at Victorian Legal Aid would love to hear from you and assist you to get a refund from Centrelink, with compound interest. With the VLA going after Centrelink in the Federal Court and my appeal to the International Criminal Court, plus the case law stuff that I am shovelling to the ABC’s investigative reporters, Centrelink may not be took keen to fight back. The BIG FLY IN THE OINTMENT in these appeal is the question HOW TERRIBLE ARE THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF SKIPPING THE COURTS FOR 40 YEARS?
    ,
    Ron Medlicott

    1. Victorian Legal Aid (the VLA) has filed 2 appeals in the Federal Court alleging that the Online Compliance Initiative, colloquially known as “Robo Debt” is unlawful, i.e. it is fraudulent. Details of the VLA concerns about Robo Debt can be read at the Internet link below.

    2. Professor Terry Carney, Emeritus Professor of Law at the Sydney University’s School of Law and a Fellow of the Australian Law Society, has issued a legal briefing paper that provided statute law reasons why Robo Debt is “extortionate”, i.e. fraud. Details of Professor Carney’s legal briefing paper can be found at the Internet link below.

    3. The International Criminal Court (the ICC): Since no police service in Australia will investigate the Robo Debt fraud and its associated death toll, i.e. an officially unconfirmed 2,030 fatalities in 28 months, the International Criminal Court has accepted without prejudice, a complaint against Robo Debt and other unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous welfare policies that may have been the underlying cause of a significantly larger death toll. The case file number for this complaint is OTP-CR-118/19 If the Federal Court orders an investigation into the unreported death toll caused by the Federal Government’s ‘skip-the-courts tortious conduct , then the ICC’s current legal jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the Robo Debt fatalities will be extinguished. Brief details of the ICC complaint can be read at the Internet link below.

    It is my recommendation that anyone who receives a Robo Debt claim insist that a certified auditor’s report of the claim be provided that outlines possible Commonwealth errors and that an explanation of why tortious conduct triggered deaths are not reported by Centrelink and have been dismissed as “irrelevant” both by the Federal parliament and by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. In addition, you should also request a copy of the Statement of Facts & Issues for Havaunes and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, AAT case file 2016/5334 – 2nd Appeal, dated 21st February 2017.

    Victorian Legal Aid

    http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/centrelink/get-help/get-help-with-centrelinks-robo-debts

    Details of Professor Carney’s legal briefing paper

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/centrelink-robo-debt-system-extortion-former-tribunal-member/11252306

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.