(By email to: firstname.lastname@example.org )
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF MY COMMUNICATION TO THE OTP OF THE ICC at 3.00PM on 31st October 2019:
HELP, S.O.S., MAYDAY.
Attention: Office of the Prosecutor: International Criminal Court: The first trial of Radovan Karadzic took over 4-years, there were more than 600 people who testified, and 330,000 documents scrutinized. This disaster may be more silent, but it just as bad as the Bosnian Holocaust. The information presented here is a semi-retired school teacher’s efforts to prevent over 7 million vulnerable people from being exploited, defrauded and massacred by a democratically elected parliament that crossed a line that no parliament should ever cross.
SECTION 1: In order to assist both welfare recipients and the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to understand the collective political and administrative mindset that underpins the systemic defrauding and murder of Australia’s Socio-Economically Challenged, the following documents, which precede the SECTION 2 Robo-Debt survival instruction set, the following documents citations and documents are provided.
WELFARE RECIPIENTS: FOR DETAILS OF HOW TO KILL OFF ONE OF CENTRELINK’S FRAUDULENT ROBO-DEBT CLAIMS, FAST-SCROLL DOWN TO SECTION 2 – Scroll down about 2/3 of this posting.
‘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’
Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014
“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”
Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps because Adolf Hitler and his Ministers genuinely believed that they had the right to commit genocide.
900,000 victims: “overall death rate of 0.21%”
In law, Robo-Debt (Mark 2) is a viciously brutal, randomly lethal fraud that may have been slaughtering vulnerable welfare recipients at the mind-boggling, staggering average rate of one person every 10 hours.
Take note that an “overall death rate of 0.21%” is a completely meaningless statement as the 1st murder was one too many and every successive death represents one more death too many.
However, like Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Scott Morrison, I have not the slightest doubt that just as Heinrich Himmler believed that the extermination of the Jewish race was reasonable, fair and lawful, Michael Keenan also appears to believe that the Robo-Debt Massacre of as many as 2,030 vulnerable people was a “reasonable, fair and lawful” implementation of the Australian Federal Government’s so-called “appropriate compliance measures.”
When national governments like Hitler’s Nazi Regime and the current Australian Federal Parliament believe themselves to be above and beyond accountability for Genocide and Crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale, then Rule of Law has been displaced by the Rule of Power. The above statements by Heinrich Himmler, Scott Morrison and Michael Keenan makes very clear their personal belief that they were/are only accountable to their ideology, however homicidal and psychopathic that ideology may be.
The Event Cascade
Experts in disaster analysis call what you are about to read, an Event Cascade. This is a series of seemingly unrelated events that collectively amount to a major disaster.
Each letter that you are about to read is a link in a decades long lethal chain of events that is of holocaust proportions. As is always the case in an event cascade, the irony is that if just one link in the chain of events was broken, i.e. if just one person with the authority to take action did so, then the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre would never have occurred.
As the following documents reveal, within Australia, the Federal Parliament currently is beyond accountability by Australia’s law enforcement agencies.
Just days before the first of the 4 home Improvement Program fatalities, Quentin Bryce and Kevin Rudd each received a copy of a Grassroots discussion paper titled “Fair game, Dead, Meat’. As page 1 reveals, this ‘discussion paper’ was a frank and abundantly clear protest at the role of of the Australian Federal Parliament in the ongoing, systematic defrauding and murder of vulnerable welfare recipients.
Despite my numerous typing errors, Quentin Bryce ought to have understood the basic message, i.e. people were being slaughtered.
“Karadzic was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed. Far from that, the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the on-going killing, Karadzic declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”
the hon. O-Gon Kwon, International Criminal Court of Justice. 24th March 2016.
Under both Australian Crown law, and international law, as the Governor-General of Australia, Quentin Bryce had legal obligations to do everything within her power to stop the exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients, e.g she could have dismissed the Federal Parliament and asked the Federal Police to investigate these crimes. HOWEVER, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
As the following documents reveal, the Australian parliament was well aware of the lethal consequences of the welfare laws that had been enacted:
The undated letter was posted to me on 30 November 2004; At the time of this Internet posting, the secret “confidential” classification of SUBMISSION 287, titled “WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?”, remains in place, as does the ‘do not copy and distribute’ Senate Suppression Order. (SSO).
In a clear parallel with Nazi Germany, in Australia, the persecution, intimidation, exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients is officially “irrelevant”.
“Your most recent letter attempts no argument as to the relevance of your submission and only replicates earlier irrelevant claims.”
The Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Reference Committee saw no credible significance or relevance in to its deliberations concerning the unconstitutional,manifestly dangerous, human rights violating laws that exploited and killed vulnerable people, many of whom were semi-employed or unemployed people.
THE ECA HIP DISASTER INQUIRY:
TERM OF REFERENCE #3 – ‘ANY OTHER MATTERS‘
“In light of the committee’s terms of reference the committee concluded that your submission fall outside the scope of its inquiry”.
Term of Reference #3, “Any other matters“, was meant to be a muck-racking ‘catch-all criterion that could be used to discredit the Rudd Government. However, in law, this Term of Reference was so vague it unintentionally “opened the door” to ultra-sensitive issues that the Liberal-National Coalition did not want to have scrutinized, i.e. any other fatal mismanagement in any other government program under the management of any other government minister in any other government at any other time.
As is transparently obvious by the above response to my submission, the committee did not endorse my logic that the deaths of other people who may have died because of corruption or mismanagement in other government welfare programs run by other governments, e.g. the Howard Government’s extremely profitable, but recklessly dangerous enforcement of the unconstitutional, illegal enforcement of Breaching Quotas identified by Cheryl Kernot in her 27 June 2000 media release.
THE KERNOT MEDIA RELEASE
PERSECUTING PEOPLE FOR BEING ON WELFARE
“Imposing minimum quotas for fines [that were not scrutinized by the courts] for unemployed people reflects this government’s determination to punish people on social security without concern for their individual circumstances.”
“The Balanced Scorecard“
Who said crime does not pay?
In the 24-month period from 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, the Howard Government’s recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, human rights violating Breaching quotas ‘skipped-the-courts‘ over 600,000 times, thereby successfully defrauding these unemployed people by depriving them of their constitutional right to $1.623 Billion in welfare payments.
It is therefore no surprise that when confronted with the unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this systemic fraud, the 3 Senate Committees, and Governor-General Bryce, steadfastly maintained a wall of silence about the fatal consequences of these illegal breaching quotas.
John Howard & Mal Brough
Consistent with the Federal Parliament’s “We only kill ’em, we don’t count ’em” approach to welfare fatalities, I’m still waiting for an informed response from either Mal Brough or John Howard.
THE ARBIB FACTOR
Note the date of this letter from Mark Arbib, i.e. June 2010.
At this time Mark Arbib was ‘a person of interest’ in the Home improvement program and 4-years alter would be target of strong criticisms by Commissioner Ian Hanger in the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program. However, I’m also still waiting for an informed response from Mark Arbib concerning the scale of the Breaching triggered death toll.
The Kevin Andrews Factor
AAT 2014/2456 and the Privacy Act Cover-Up
To understand the legal nuances in the letter above, it is important to realize that I was acting as the lawfully appointed representative of Mrs. Locke and my authority to request the information had the statutory weight of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975)
Just as the Secretary of the Department of Social Services may be represented by a tag team of 3, or more, Australian Government Service lawyers, (take note of that fact any Centrelink clients who be thinking about lodging an AAT appeal), the Applicant in an AAT can appoint a Representative who has the same legal responsibilities as the team of government lawyers representing the Secretary.
Consistent with Justice Brennan’s Kioa determination at paragraph 38 of his findings* that information that is “credible, relevant and significant” cannot be withheld, I requested information that Kevin Andrew should have provided but failed to do so.
What ministerial support staff and Centrelink staff apparently either do not comprehend, or do not care about, is the fact that Robo-Debt claims are civil tort actions and neither government ministers not Centrelink officials can hide behind the Privacy Act and withhold information.As the information below from Section 39A (8) – (10) of the Administrative Appeals tribunal Act (1975) reveals, information that is subject to a Security Certificate cannot be disclosed without the permission of the Minister responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act (1979).
Take note that the legislated responsibilities of a representative of an AAT applicant can face serious penalties for any violation of a Security Certificate. The flip side to that is that if a representative of a welfare recipient, i.e. a lawyer, lay-advocate or a friend, requests information on behalf of an AAT Applicant, without an ASIO Security Certificate, Centrelink staff, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Centrelink staff and even government ministers, must either provide the requested information or withdraw the Robo-Debt claim.
WHO DARES WINS: Once a person receives a [fraudulent] Robo-Debt claim, Centrelink officials, or even government ministers, who try to hide sensitive information are risking the obligation to disclose sensitive information that could potentially trigger a genocide investigation that brings down the Federal Parliament is possible.
The obvious discovery question is, how many times has the Department of Human Services ‘skipped-the-courts’ and triggered a fatal outcome?
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: DISCOVERY
DISCLOSURE, officially known as ‘DISCOVERY‘ goes with the territory:
CENTRELINK’S RIGHT TO REQUEST INFORMATION IS MATCHED BY A WELFARE RECIPIENT’s RIGHT TO ALSO REQUEST INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT WANT TO BECOME PUBLIC.
However, as the letter above from the office of Kevin Andrew reveals, despite a procedural fairness obligation to provide the requested information, Kevin Andrews failed to so. This was a serious procedural fairness violation that undermined the subsequent AATA 904 decision.
Unfortunately, it was also yet another link in the chain of fatal abuses of public office that has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,000 vulnerable welfare recipients.
*See Section 2, part [4F} for more details on this High Court ruling.
Count the Dollars, Not the Dead
“The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is responsible for investigating serious or complex crime against the Commonwealth.”
See No Evil:
The Australian Federal Police
Another key question of law for ICC prosecutors is “Who investigates serious or complex crimes committed by the Commonwealth of Australia against its citizens”?
“…government protocols exist for this purpose.”
The Australian Federal Police, and every other police service in Australia, will not investigate the Federal Government’s genocidal persecution, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients.
Why is this so?
As Federal Agent Pearce stated in the ‘Perksgate Response;
“…government protocols exist for this purpose.”
Operation of the (Australian) Constitution and Laws:
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;
As the following letters from officials of the Australian Communications & Media Authority reveals, they most definitely disagree with that apparently ridiculous constitutional constraint.
The key issue in my request to investigate my complaints about Channel 7 Adelaide, allowing its broadcasting service to used for socio-economic vilification, i.e. welfare bashing” is the unconstitutional manner in which the so-called “investigation” was conducted. The following letter is page 2 of a 3-page letter written by Ms. Rochelle Zurnamer, the unit manager of the ACMA’s broadcasting investigation uni,t on 1st November 2011:
“… socio-economic vilification is not listed in clause 1.9.6 of the code”.
Since the commercial television broadcasters wrote the voluntary Code of Conduct, this not surprising.
However, State and territory criminal codes make such defamatory actions a crime that carries 3-years jail time, under the South Australian criminal code:
(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—
(a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and
(b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
The violation of Section 257 of South Australia’s criminal code makes the last sentence of the above ACMA letter a statement of significance:
“The ACMA does not investigate politicians or participants in broadcasts”.
Given my concerns about the unlawful “serious harm”, i.e, suicides, that verbal bullying by Tanya Slibersek, the Minister for Human Services, who was also the Minister for Social Inclusion (I kid you not) and Hank Jongen, the Manager of Centrelink’s Media Relations Unit, could cause, I appealed the ACMA’s unconstitutional decision as it constituted a serious case of Obstruction of Justice.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman
“… relation to post breaching terminal outcomes”.
On 24th May 2012, the best advice that I could obtain from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning the vilification, exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients was:
“such an authority appears to be the High Court …seek an audience with an academic“. (What a farce!)
THE HIGH COURT
On the 6th October 2016, I utilized an unconstitutional Hybrid election blunder by the Australian Electoral Commission and filed a submission with the High Court. As the information below makes quite clear, as an Elector, I had a valid interest in the Australian Electoral Commission conducting unconstitutional elections since 2004 and under Section 5 of the constitution, the High Court was legally bound under the following provisions in sections 364 and 378 to hear my submission.However, in what would be yet another link in a seemingly endlessly disastrous chain of events, the Senior Registrar of the High Court, violated my constitutional right to make representation in the High Court in Case C17 of 2017, i.e. Re Joyce.
THE ROGERS FACTOR
As an Elector, and as a taxpayer, under Sections 364 and 378, I had a legally valid Right of Claim to be a party of interest in the hearing and was entitled under the constitutional obligation upon the High Court to comply with the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia.
As the above lodgement receipt for registered post envelope number 518185389013 reveals, on 6th October 2017, I lodged at submission at the Elizabeth Vale Post Office, (South Australia), that was addressed to the High Court per the Registrar of the Federal Court in Adelaide. It was sent to the Adelaide High Court registry office due to the limited time available in which to lodge the submission to the High Court.
As the text of the cover page of the submission made abundantly clear, this was a national interest submission that called into question the validity of the 2016 federal election due to the Australian Electoral Commission failing to comply with Section 44 of the Australian Constitution. Any person who was a registered Elector could have filed such a submission, which was legally valid under Section 364 and Section 378 of the (Australian) Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918).
The opening comments of my “personal submission” (as a Registered Elector) to the High Court. Note that it is addressed to the “The Federal Court Registrar Acting as the Registrar for Australian High Court.”
Note that Section 364 of the Electoral Act requires that “Real Justice be performed… without regard to legal form or technicalities.”
However, my legally valid efforts to intervene in this High Court hearing were unsuccessful because I failed to factor in the human impact factor, i.e. the systemic reaction by High Court officials such as Ms. Caroline Rogers, to my ‘outside-the-box’ initiative, which was “without regard to legal form or technicalities”, to Ms. Rogers who used her lawful authority to ‘torpedo’ my legally valid attempt to to intervene in this appeal.
As can be seen in the above letter, a Senior Registrar of the High Court, Ms. Caroline Rogers, blocked the presentation of my submission to the High Court.
Had my lawful attempt to seek leave to be heard in this appeal, I would have argued the primary issues contained in the documents submitted, i.e. that that it was highly inappropriate for an unconstitutionally elected Federal parliament to engage in in Genocide and the commission of crimes against Humanity.
The downstream consequences of Ms. Rogers’ decision in relation to the Robo-Debt Massacre appears to have been appallingly profound. As has been shown above, the certified mailed documents had been posted to the High Court’s Adelaide registry on Friday 6th October 2017. Australia Post delivered the documents on the 9th October 2017, but for reasons unknown, the submission was not forwarded to the High Court in Canberra until the 13th October 2017.
Concerned about possible delays, I emailed the High Court Registrar on 12th October 2017.
From Ms. Rogers above response, even if I had express posted the submission directly to the High Court in Canberra, Ms. Rogers would still have misused her lawful authority and blocked my submission.
THE ROGERS DECISION & ROBO-DEBT
Based upon the information is the public domain, the ‘BALL PARK ESTIMATE‘ of the human impact cost of Ms. Rogers’ decision to violate my civil rights, when applied to the Robo-Debt Massacre is, in very generalized figures:
The period of days from12th October 2017 to 31st October 2018 is 384 days, i.e. 9,216 hours.
With Robo-Debt fatalities occurring on an average of one every 10 hours, that represents potentially 921 deaths that could have been avoided once the High Court became aware of the scale of the ‘skip-the-courts’ slaughter.
Approximately 410,000 people were defrauded of a reported $2.9 Billion over a period of 753 days, i.e. 28 months.
The above figure equates to approximately 540 people per day being defrauded of approximately $3,850,000 per day.
Those figures round off at a tally of approximately to 205,000 vulnerable people being defrauded of approximately $1.3 Billion.
When it comes to bad errors of judgement, Ms. Rogers decision was significant to say the least.
The caveat to the above statements is that they are only ‘ball park estimates’ that have been extrapolated from the very generalized information that is currently in the public domain. These estimates provide a ‘helicopter overview’ to the scale of the consequences of the decision to block my submission. Determination of precisely how many people were defrauded, how much each individual was defrauded, and how many people died as a direct consequence of the Robo-Debt Fraud will require a massive criminal investigation before any definitive data is available.
The purpose of these estimates is not to be presented in a Court, for the constitute unsubstantiated, unreliable evidence ans as Justice Brooking correctly pointed out at 29 in R v Faure  VSCA 166 (24 September 1999), statistical probabilities are not empirical facts upon which a court or a jury can base a legal determination:
“But the case is not to be approached as Pascal would have approached it. Juries are not to be directed in terms of an “odds on” chance: La Fontaine v. R. (1976) 136 C.L.R. 62 at 99 per Jacobs, J.; Boughey v. R.  HCA 29; (1986) 161 C.L.R. 10 at 15 per Gibbs, C.J. and at 19-22 per Mason, Wilson and Deane, JJ.; R. v. Piri  NZCA 6;  1 N.Z.L.R. 66. The approach of the law has been pragmatic in matters of this kind.”
‘LIFE IS NOT DIGITAL – LIFE IS ANALOGY- MESSY’
My take on this is that life is not digital; it is analogue, i.e. life is messy and uncertain and computer aided statistical evaluations that produce statistical trendlines and averages is no substitute for a hands-on criminal investigation to ascertain the facts. Only a criminal investigation of the Robo-Debt Massacre that is undertaken by an appropriate qualified team of expert criminologists will be able to determine the facts of the matter that could be presented to a court, e.g the International Criminal Court.
Given some exceedingly partisan decisions by the Australian High Court, e.g. Keating  HCA at 47, where the High Court ignored the brazenly illegal actions of the Australian Parliament and stated:
“It is presumed that Parliament does not intend to act unjustly.”
With an unreported, secretly classified, “confidential” officially “irrelevant”, death toll that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services was unable to deny may exceed 100,000, precisely who were the High Court judges actually trying to fool with that statement?
THE ROBO-DEBT MASSACRE COVER-UP
The statement that “Any suggestion that the Department of Human Services’ debt recovery efforts have contributed to customer deaths is simply not supported by the facts or statistics” is at stark odds with the truth of the matter.[Think big lie.]
Over a period of decades, official statistics have long indicated a deadly link between arbitrary pecuniary welfare penalties and a death toll that is now of holocaust magnitude.
MICHAEL KEENAN’s statement above underscores the matter of fact that ideology driven, assumptions-based, vested interest risk assessments by politicians ARE A SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR for vulnerable, at-risk welfare recipients.
W.H.O. expertise in a broad range of RISK assessment areas my be required to impartially quantify the risk factor, degree of exposure and the consequences of exposure to those risks, i.e. the task is beyond individual Australians who may be at-risk because of Australia’s lethal welfare policies and practices.
The August 2014 report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program identified the failure to conduct and adequate Risk Assessment of the potentially life-threatening dangers to people involved in the delivery of this Rudd Government ‘initiative’.
THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT INADEQUACY OF HUMAN IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT
When dealing with millions of people, many of whom are impoverished and have high-risk comorbidity problems associated with poverty, the risk factors are diverse and exceeding complex. This calls into question that adequacy of Department of Haman Services risk factors, especially given that the foreseeably fatal consequences of recklessly danger, unconstitutional policies and practices that violated the Commonwealth of Australia’s human rights obligations were not monitored, e.g. the failure to monitor “Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes”.
Under international law, just how legally valid are welfare policies and practices that are based upon the foundation principle of ‘Do as we we say or we will deprive you of the means to survive.”
“A credible threat to life“?
As unbelievable as it may seem, the letter below is an example of Centrelink’s standard method of communication with literally millions of these very real human rights violating, aggravated threats to life issued every year:
The documented facts of the matter pertaining to the above threat to deprive me of my constitutional right to Age Pension allowance, are that all of my statutory obligations had been met in the weeks before this letter was produced.
Rather than task a Centrelink staff member to manually raise a database query in Centrelink’s dysfunction STATE-OF-THE-ARK, 1983 COMPUTER SYSTEMS 204 database system, an action that would have verified my compliance with statutory obligations, the above computer generated “Do as we say we will will deprive you of your means to survive” letter was sent to me via the Internet.
These letters are a criminal abuse of public office that violates both Commonwealth “Menaces” statutes and State “Blackmail*” laws that carry penalties of up to 20 years in jail. However, no police service in the nation will take action to stop this very overt criminal abuse of public office by politicians and department of Human Services offices.
[*Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935)]
My statutory obligation under Section 65 of the Social Security Act to report any earnings does not imply the right of Commonwealth personnel, or Federal Government Ministers, to engage in blackmail for the administrative purpose of avoiding the inconvenience of first checking for compliance or non-compliance with statutory obligations.
It is for medical experts with the appropriate expert to determine the long-term impact that such aggravated threats to life may have on a targeted socio-economic section of Australian society.
FORESEEABLE CARDIO-VASCULAR RISKS
THE MYOCARDITIS TIME BOMB: The above text may be difficult to read and is copied here for clarity of reading.
[The 2nd paragraph – DEFINITIONS]
Acute myocarditis has been defined as a condition with symptoms of heart failure (HF) developing over three months or less, while chronic myocarditis has been defined as developing over greater than three months . Inflammatory cardiomyopathy is defined as myocarditis accompanied by cardiac dysfunction. Inflammatory cardiomyopathy can lead to dilated cardiomyopathy or other cardiomyopathies.
TAKE NOTE: Common time frames for the development of CHRONIC MYOCARDITIS IS A TIME FRAME GREATER THAN 3 MONTHS.
Michael Kennan’s reported statement that Robo-Debt cannot be the cause of fatalities amongst Robo-Debt recipients because the delay between receiving a Robo-Debt claim and death averages 222 days is totally consistent with the onset of stress-related Myocarditis.
[The 3rd paragraph – CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS]
Variable presentation — The clinical manifestations of myocarditis are highly variable, ranging from subclinical disease to fatigue, chest pain, HF, cardiogenic shock, arrhythmias, and sudden death. There is no population-based epidemiologic study that has defined presenting symptoms of acute or subacute/chronic myocarditis; this is due in part to the absence of a safe and sensitive noninvasive diagnostic test that can confirm the diagnosis.
TAKE NOTE: RUSSIAN ROULETTE
There is no population-based epidemiologic study that has defined presenting symptoms of acute or subacute/chronic myocarditis;
this is due in part to the absence of a safe and sensitive noninvasive diagnostic test that can confirm the diagnosis.
For at least 3 decades, Robo-Dent (Mark 1) and Robo-0Debt (Mark 2) have been playing Russian Roulette with the lives of vulnerable welfare recipients.
Points 1 and 2 above explain why the ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test” is a recklessly dangerous lethal fraud that the Australian Medical Association should have discredited in the courts when it was first introduced.
Data entry operators, who may not even be AS 2708 Keyboard skills certified, let alone have medical qualifications, make medical judgements based upon their interpretation of treating doctors reports, when following on-screen prompts.
These ‘best guess’ inputs are entered into a 35-year-old database system with 30 million lines of system code.
Some of that code is undocumented code and produces (documented and video-recorded) ‘wildcard’ outputs.
Centrelink staff then treat the output from this dysfunctional system as legally valid.
I reiterate my statement at Point 1 above, the Australian Medical Association has a professional obligation, i.e. the medical practitioner’s Duty of care to their patient and should have discredited this “assessment” in the courts when it was first introduced.
The ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test” is an exceedingly dangerous fraud by the Australian Federal Parliament , poossibly to to save money, that places the lives of vulnerable people in life-threatening peril.
An independent review of the ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test” by an impartial body, e.g. the World Health Organization is required to ascertain the medical validity of this scheme,
LINKAGE: WELAFRE POLICES AND SUICIDE IN AUSTRALIA
Urgent independent scrutiny of Australia’s welfare poliices is urgently required to review the linkage between Australia’s human rights violating welfare poliices and the nation;’s rising suicide rates.
Within Australia, there is literally decades of data that quantifies the fatal impact of unconstitutional welfare policies and practices.
The following extract is from paragraphs 24 and 25 of my lay-advocate’s submission in AAT 2014, Locke & the Secretary of the Department of Social Services.
AAT 2014/2456: Statement of Facts & Issues, In the 10-year period 1997 to 2006, a miscalculated figure of 21,914 suicides was cited.
The actual suicide rate was 23,254 with 30% being UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE. The statistical data was sourced from official data such as the 1998 National Health priority Areas Report – Mental health:
Pages 23 and 24 of the 1998 National Health Priority Areas report.
“There are calls for a national target to reduce Australia’s suicide rate as new statistics show 3,128 Australians took their own life in 2017.”
“This represents 262 more deaths than the previous year.”
The overall suicide rate in 2015 was 12.6 per 100,000 in Australia. This is the highest rate in 10-plus years
The most recent Australian data (ABS, Causes of Death, 2015) reports deaths due to suicide in 2015 at 3,027
This equates to more than eight deaths by suicide in Australia each day.
Between 1998 and 2017, there was 30.7% increase in the suicide rate with Centrelink’s clients accounting for perhaps as many as 2 out every 3 suicides. It should be noted that for every fatal suicide attempt, it is estimated that there are 30 unsuccessful attempts.
The message of death contained in Australia’s suicide statistics is very clear; Australia’s welfare policies and practice can, and do, kill some of Australia’s most vulnerable people. The question of law is just how many of these suicides were triggered by the ruthless enforcemnent of blatantly fraudulent schemes such as the Robo-Debt alleged debt ‘initative’?
The Queensland Crimes Act (1899)
In the 2013 Keating Decision, the High Court ruled that “A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law and is required to obey the law. It follows that he or she should be able to trust the law and that it should be predictable.”
It is therefore a fortiori that if people are to trust the law when lives are in danger, then law enforcement agencies MUST uphold the law in order to protect the lives of those in peril.
The above laws, and similar laws in every State and Territory in Australia are being ignored by law enforcement agencies, and the consequences of that are best summed up in one word, i.e. HOLOCAUST.
Fatal cardio-vascular events, i.e. heart attacks and strokes, and suicides are just two of the primary risk factors that Australia’s criminal justice system, is ignoring. A truly despicable practice being ignored by law enforcement agencies is practice of withholding sickness or disability benefits from people with CANCER, or refusing to provide a care benefit to people caring for cancer victims.
Enforcing fraudulent Robo-Debt claims on people with Cancer, or withholding a sickness benfit and compelling Cancer victims to seek employment, are just two of many reprehensible tactics being used by Australian political parties to “save taxpayers money”.
“During one chemotherapy session, Rhys’s Max Employment case worker called her multiple times. In frustration, a Lifehouse senior nurse faxed a medical certificate to the agency. But Mrs Pagalday said she was told the certificate was not valid because it was not a designated Centrelink form.”
What is manifestly apparent is that Australian politicians are enacting recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional laws and Centrelink staff, who are totally unaware of the civil rights of welfare recipients, are enforcing these legally invalid laws in violation of both Crown laws and international laws that make it quite clear that their actions are dangerous and unlawful.
The Australian Constitution: Section 51, sub-paragraph (xxiiiA) places an obligation to provide a welfare al;lowance to serious ill people, i.e. a sickness benefit.
The following statement by Francis Neale is as applicable to the murderous Socio-economic Apartheid that exist in Austyralia as it was to the racial Apartheid that once existed in South Africa:
“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
Francis Neale. Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. (July 2009)
The above statement is underscored by the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre of a reported 2,030 people in just 28 months. As is evidenced above, Robo-Debt is just one of several recklessly dangerous, systemic frauds that are used by Australia’s Federal Parliament to deprive vulnerable people of security of person.
NEWS CORP – GENOCIDE -R-US
In a supposedly democratic nation, a national parliament cannot commit genocode and crimes against humanity on a holocaust scale for decades without the active support of the mass media. News Corp’ media in Australia is at the forefront when it comes advocating Genocide and Crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale, e.g. support driving 100,000 people of their sole means of support.
Work for the Dole is unconstitutional in Australia, a fact that News Corp’ newspapers never seem to ever mention. In this blatantly defamatory news article, depriving almost 100,000 people of their constitutional right to an unemployment benefit because of alleged non-compliance with Work for the Dole ‘obligations’ is touted as a well deserved punishment. Howevber, under internationasl law, it is a crime against humanity.
The fact of law that no impartial court in Australia could have authorised these unconstitutional penalties is not mentioned in the news article, as is the fact that no court authorised even one of the penalties that were arbitrarily imposed almost 100,000 times.
HELP, S.O.S, MAYDAY!
As a matter of EXTREME URGENCY, an international investigation into the role played by Australia’s recklessly dangerous, brutally ruthless, Socio-economic Apartheid welfare policies and practices is urgently needed. Until such an investigation is undertaken, as is already happening with the false claim that there are no statistics to support the role played by Robo-Debt in causing the deaths of at-risk, vulnerable people, the Australian Federal Parliament will exploit the public uncertainty and lack of empirical facts that surrounds the Robo-Debt Massacre in order to avoid being held accountable before the courts .
IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER LOSS OF LIFE, THAT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
Ronald Medlicott. (South Australian registered teacher and a volunteer lay-advocate.)
Section 2: Surviving the Robo-Debt Fraud.
As my last posting so graphically demonstrated
Robo-Debt is an incredibly lethal fraud. One of the “justifications” used to explain these deaths was that they represented only 0.21% of the people who received Centrelink’s [fraudulent] Robo-Debt Letters-of-Demand
In point of fact, Robo-Debt is just one of several lethal welfare policies and practices that that have been randomly killing welfare recipients for several decades, e.g. Australia’s unconstitutional, Rome Statute violating “No show, no dole“, law, which deprives impoverished people of their sole means to survive, may be the biggest killer of all with an unreported, officially “irrelevant” scorecard” that may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 deaths since this penalty was introduced in the 1980s.
TAKE NOTE: The primary purpose of this posting is to provide a brief ‘heads-up’ overview of the mechanics of a politically motivated and driven humanitarian disaster that is, in terms of victims, comparable to the Bosnian Holocaust.
THE PRIMARY AUDIENCE:
The Office of the Prosecutor – International Criminal Court of Justice.
The European Union – Human Rights Commission.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission
Australia’s 7.4 million welfare recipients, who need to aware of the need to kill off Robo-Debt before it can kill even more of vulnerable people.
Section 27 of the South Australian Oaths Act: 27—False declaration
(1) Any person who willfully makes any declaration by virtue of this Part, knowing that declaration to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, upon conviction thereof, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years.
IF THE ABOVE STATUTORY DECLARATION WAS FALSE – I WOULD BE PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED FOR UP TO AT 4-YEARS . THE OTHER STATUTORY DECLARATIONS IN THE PART 52 SERIES OF POSTINGS WOULD ADD FURTHER OFFENSES FOR WHICH I COULD BE PROSECUTED IF THEY WERE FALSE.
P.s. Note that whilst Toys-R-Us may be going out of busines, when I get near a keyboard, Typos-R-Me is opeen for business, i.e. the “in by myself” blooper in the 2nd to last paragraph. (Mentally delete the word “in”.)
Basic Instructions into How to kill-off Robo-Debt Before it can Kill You.
STEP 1: Watch this video of the Robo Debt Massacre,
I have prepared the video to support a complaint that have I just filed with Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
The audio reading of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj High Court decisions may be mega- boring, but they are the LEGAL RIGHTS that are being murderously raped by Australian politicians. It is the lack of knowledge of these CASE LAW RIGHTS that has made very vulnerable people FAIR GAME for the longest and deadliest running, brutally vicious fraud and serial murder spree in Australia’s history.
STEP 2: Once you have seen it, click on my name under the video (Ronald Medlicott), which will bring up a list of videos.
Watch as many of the videos as you need to, until you understand just how ruthlessly you have been DEFRAUDED. (Professional investigators will have to watch each of the videos to pick up fine details, e.g. the 3-Part “Waivergate” series identifies people like the SA DPP, Adam Kimber, who knew about the brutal persecution and slaughter of welfare recipients and did nothing to halt these crimes
STEP 3: NOT NOW, but in Step 4, go to each of the case law web URLS listed below download the RTF or PDF file that is listed the right hand column. You are about to compile a “library” of case law precedents, and other evidence, that reveal the matter of fact that Robo-Debt is a Federal parliament run fraud. These cases are but ‘the tip of the iceberg’, but they should be enough to get across the message that the Australian Federal parliament is murderously corrupt and has been for decades.
NOTE: NO DOWNLOAD – PLEASE USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE RECOMMENDED TEXT, THEN COPY AND PASTE THIS TEXT TO A [WORD] FILE THAT YOU NAME: Spautz.doc
note: THIS ONLY HAS A PDF FILE DOWNLOAD
TAKE NOTE: THESE CASES ALSO HAVE NO DOWNLOAD – YOU NEED COPY AND PASTE THE RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPHS:
NO DOWNLOAD – USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT – COPY AND PASTE down to paragraph 15 TO A WORD FILE THAT YOU NAME AS: Coco.doc
COUNT THE ‘INDENTS’ FOR EACH PARAGRAPH- AT THE 7th Indent, i.e. the sentence that starts with: “If you accept his evidence…”
COPY AND PASTE THESE 5 LINES: “‘In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, [and ends with] “or was something which could be justified.”
FROM 7TH INDENT COUNT ON DOWN TO THE 27TH INDENT “This is the real result of the perplexing case of Rex”
COPY AND PASTE “THE GOLDEN THREAD”
Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, …. and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.
Robo-Debt is based the false assumption that welfare recipients are rorters who deliberately defraud the system. In the Hellicar Decision, (see 4c below), the Australian High Court extended this “GOLDEN THREAD, i.e. the Presumption of Innocence, to any person hit with a financial penalty by “regulators”, (as in Centrelink). The legal onus is on Centrelink to prove that it really is owed the money that it is claiming must be “repaid”. Given that up to 44.03% of claims may be “mistakes”, and Centrelink’s 35-year-old computer randomly outputs “wildcard” responses, that is the proverbial “Mission Impossible” for Centrelink’s lawyers in a court hearing.
Take Note: THE AAT IS NOT A COURT:
However, far too many AAT conference registrars, and government lawyers, will misleadingly pretend that the AAT is a court. Evidence of this can be read in the speech by Justice Kerr, or an 18-seconds of ‘sound bites’ of an AGS lawyer and an AAT conference registrar discussing when“the matter will go to trial”can be heard in several of the videos that I have posted on YouTube, e.g. “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor.”
STEP 4A: As per the following unbelievable example, use the Word search function (ctrl f) in each of the case law files to find the following phrases in the downloaded files:
IN LOCKE AATA 904 SEARCH FOR THE PHRASE: not so unusual
This will bring up this incredible AAT judgement:
“Ms Locke’s contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.”
A Suggestion: Bullet-point the text for clarity:
This circumstance is not so unusual,
markedly different from the usual run of cases
or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.”
The bullet-points above explain why Centrelink may have made 2,030 fatal “mistakes in just 28 months with the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre. It is important remember that every other means that Centrelink unconstitutionally uses to defraud welfare recipients is equally riddled with similar fatal “mistakes”
PONDER THIS; With 7,400,000 clients, a fatal “mistakes” rate of ‘just’ 0.21% represents a huge number of fatalities, i.e. 155,400 potential fatalities.
The question of law for investigators, is what is the precise number?
The Locke Decision is not simply an appalling case of Systemic Injustice; Paragraph 42 provides insight into to understanding the psychopathic, ideology-driven mindset that has driven Australia’s murderous, politically motivated, “Appropriate Compliance Measures Holocaust” for decades.
MORE RELEVANT CASE LAW PRECEDENTS
DOWNLOAD THE RTF FILE AND PRINT OUT THE COVER PAGE WITH THE “RELIABLE EVIDENCE”, CATCHWORDS THAT JUST UNDER THE DATE 17 JULY 2016
WHAT IS IN LOCKE AT 42 IS AT ODDS WITH WHAT THE COURTS REQUIRE – RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF WHO IS AT FAULT.
Now you know one reason why Robo Debt unlawfully ‘skips-the-courts’.
PARAGRAPHS 141 TO 143 COPY FROM “And insofar as the duty was said” [DOWN TO] Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”
[ONCE YOU DISAGREE WITH CENTRELINK’S DECISION, A COURT DECIDES THE FACTS OF MATTER, NOT CENTRELINK.]
PARAGRAPHS 51 TO 53 COPY FROM “Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law
TO THE END OF PARAGRAPH 53 “And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”
ONCE YOU DISPUTE A CENTRELINK DECISION, as in “I DON’T AGREE’ or “YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE”, ONLY A COURT DECISION IS VALID – CENTELINK’S arbitrary DECISIONS ARE, “IN LAW, NO DECISION AT ALL, i.e. THEY FRAUDULENT DECISIONS BECAUSE CENTRELINK’s MANAGEMENT TEAM KNOW THESE COURT IMPOSED RULES.
NO DOWNLOAD – USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT – COPY AND PASTE TO A WORD FILE THAT YOU NAME AS: Spautz.doc
WORD SEARCH THE FILE FOR JUSTICE GAUDRON’S STATEMENT: “It is convenient to adopt the expression…” Copy paragraphs 2, 6 and 9;
IN 6, NOTE THE WORDS “extorsion, “blackmail” “coercion” AND THE STATEMENT “These terms signify a claim or demand made without right and without claim of right” [No audit means no “Claim of Right”, ROBO DEBT is just mega-“coercion” without legal right since there has not been any audit.
ANY CLAIM THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO A FORENSIC AUDIT BY AN INDEPENDENT, CURRENTLY CERTIFIED AUDIT, IS NO CLAIM AT ALL, i.e. CENTRELINK’S CLAIM IS “WITHOUT RIGHT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT.”
ORDINARY PEOPLE, AND THE POLICE, USUALLY CALL THAT FRAUD, BUT THE COURTS CALL THESE FRAUDULENT RIP-OFFS “AN ABUSE OF PROCESS“.
WORD SEARCH JUSTICE BRENNAN AT PARAGRAPH 38 OF HIS DECISION: START FROM: Never the less [DOWN TO] “NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
CENTRELINK CANNOT HIDE credible, relevant and significant INFORMATION, e.g. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE CENTRELINK SKIPPED THE COURTS AND TRIGGERED FATAL CONSEQUENCES?
A very credible, relevant and significant question that no Centrelink official will want to be asked: 6 months BEFORE ROBO DEBT (mark 2) was introduced, Centrelink’s Acting Chief legal Cousel, ALICE LINACRE, knew that once a welfare recipient challenged a ROBO-DEBT claim,
“IT WAS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS”.
WHEN THEN, DID CENTRELINK OFFICIALS IGNORE BINDING HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND TRIGGER THE DEATHS OF 2,030 PEOPLE!
WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?
THE HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORT
126.96.36.199: RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED BY GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT WAS TO CARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT KILL THEM.
HOW WELL DOES “PHONE LIFELINE” AND AN AVERAGE OF AN “APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES” DEATH EVERY 10 HOURS FOR 753 DAYS MATCH UP WITH HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM’S FINDINGS CONCERNING THE KNOWN LIFE-THREATENING RISK TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS?
On the 20th February 2017, when George Brandis made his “millions of transaction – off course there will be mistake – terrible human consequences – appropriate compliance measures’ comments, there may have been some 630 fatalities. Because Centrelink “kept on trucking”, vulnerable people kept on dying until the toll reached 2,030 on 31st October 2018.
George Brandis’ comments made it abundantly clear that saving money was far more important than saving the lives of welfare recipients.
On the 12 February 2010,the four Home Insulation program deaths was a big issue for the Liberal Party. Tony Abbott and George Brandis promptly set up an Environment, Communication & Arts Senate Committee of Inquiry to look into the 4 deaths.
When the Liberal party won government in Queensland, there was a Coroner’s Inquest into the 3 deaths that had occurred in Queensland.
In 2014, there was the previously mentioned Home Improvement Royal Commission into 4 deaths.
Any welfare recipient who receives an unaudited Robo-Debt claim can therfore demand to know just how many deaths have been caused by “skipping due process of law over the last 30 years.
BRIGINSHAW HAS A PDF FILE DOWNLOAD THAT ACROBAT READER CAN SEARCH AND YOU CAN COPY AND PASTE IN A TEXT FILE. WORD SEARCH FOR “But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind s
YOU NEED TO COPY INTO A WORD PROCESSOR, BOLD HIGHLIGHT & BULLET-POINT LIKE THIS:
“But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of
the fact or facts to be proved.
The seriousness of an allegation made,
the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description,
or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer [OOOPS, WE KILLED THOUSAND OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BY MISTAKE, BUT THAT IS OKAY BECAUSE “WE NEED APPROPRIATE COMPLAINCE MEASURES.”
to the question whether the issue has been PROVED to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.
[NOTE: ANY CENTRELINK CLAIM MUST BE PROVED TO A COURT BY CENTRELINK. ]
In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.
[ROBO DEBT IS ALL ABOUT “INDIRECT INFERENCES” – THERE IS A DATA MATCH BETWEEN OUR 35-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER AND THE NEW ATO COMPUTER, SO IT MUST BE YOU FAULT. IF YOU CAN’T PROVE IT IS OUR FAULT, THEN WE ARE TAKING YOUR MONEY.]
ROBO DEBT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER FRAUD BASED ON “inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences” THAT CENTRELINK IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IN COURT [Where they also have to tell the court how many people they have killed if you decide to ask that question! Care to ask????]
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHY LOCKE AT 42 IS A CENTRELINK MEGA-CLAIM KILLER?
 THE BRANDIS CONFESSION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_E7kefSew
WATCH THIS 3 MINUTE VIDEO – “THERE WILL BE MISTAKES – TERRIBLE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES’ STATEMENT, 2,030 DEAD!
NOTE HOW LONG THE DEADLY ROBO DEBT FRAUD HAS BEEN RUNNING, GEOEGE BRANDIS STATED THAT IT WAS “INTRODUCED BY HAWKE WE INHERITED IT FROM YOU”
COPY PARAGRAPHS 11 – 15 [NOTE; S. 293 means Section 293 of the QLD Criminal Code]
[At 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).
DO YOU REMEMBER “CALL LIFELINE”?
PRINT OUT THE COVER PAGE OF BOUGHEY AND THEN READ THE CATCHWORDS IN THIS CASE; “Murder – Reckless indifference to consequences – Knowledge of possibility of death – Action “likely to cause death” – Whether accused “ought to have known” – Whether hostile intent required – Criminal Code (Tas.), s. 157.
NOTE THE PHRASE “OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN” APPEARS 23 TIMES IN THE high FINDINGS, e.,g. this reference to the Tasmanian Crimes Act. Take special note of the phrases that I have underlined:
“157 – (1) Subject to the provisions of section 160, culpable homicide is murder if it is committed
(a) with an intention to cause the death of any person,
(b) with an intention to cause to any person, whether the person killed or not, bodily harm which the offender knew to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death;
(c) by means of any unlawful act or omission which the offender knew, or ought to have known, to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death or bodily harm to any person;”
 IN A GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE, SEARCH FOR (Your State/Territory) work health safety act
[8a] DOWNLOAD AND WORD SEARCH FOR: reckless conduct (It is in Section 31 in SA, NSW, QLD, TAS Acts –SMART: they all use the same wording for this Act.)
 REPEAT 8 ABOVE AND SEARCH FOR (Your State/Territory) public health act
[9a] WORD SEARCH FOR material risk to public health
[9b] Download your State/Territory Crimes Act:
[9c] WORD SEARCH FOR suicide BELOW IS SECTION 13 (7) AND 13 (8) OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL CODE. If you commit a crime and someone is so traumatized that they commit suicide, THAT DEATH IS A MURDER. Note that every State and territory has similar laws.
WELFARE RECIPIENTS SHOULD COPY SECTIONS 80 (2), 130 (3), AND SECTION 142.2 OF THESE FEDERAL LAWS INTO THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS FILE.
 I HOPE THAT BY NOW, READERS OF THIS POSTING ARE CONNECTING THE DOTS ON DECADES OF MASS FRAUD AND SERIAL MURDER?
THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT REALLY HAS BEEN MURDERING VULNERABLE PEOPLE FOR LITERALLY DECADES SIMPLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT THE LAW. UNREAL!
SADLY, STATISTICS INDICATE POSSIBLY OVER 100,000 DEATHS SINCE THE 1980s.
CALL THE COPS
IT IS THE REPEATED FAILURE OF EVERY POLICE SERVICE IN AUSTRALIA TO INVESTIGATE THESE GENOCIDAL CRIMES THAT MAKES AN INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION A HIGH PRIORITY:
THE LETTERS ABOVE ARE JUST 3 EXAMPLES OF 15-YEARS OF AUSTRALIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT’S UNOFFICIAL ‘SEE NO EVIL’ POLICY WHEN DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DEFRAUDING AND MURDER OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS.
Issues raised in AAT 2016/5334, Havaunes and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, (2nd Appeal), such as a death toll that may exceed 100,000 and the need to comply with the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions were simply ignored in the Ombudsman’s Report.
This was essentially a politically biased justification of a murderously lethal fraud. hence the need for an international investigation into the authors of this pro-genocide document.
The above comments are contained found on page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Senate hearing held on 8th March 2017, i.e. 2-weeks after the Havaunes Appeal was not contested. Note the following points:
[A] “Customary oversight has been removed from the system”, i.e. public interest due diligence monitoring was deliberately removed from thr Robo-Debt system. This allowed the Centrelink system to automatically defraud welfare recipients.
[B] “…mangers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find.” That statement indicates “mens rea”, i.e. a deliberate intention to defraud, which means that any fatalities caused by this fraud are culpable homicides. It also means that in any murder inquiry, it is the frontline managers that are left “holding the bag”, i.e. responsibility for these deaths.
[C] “… an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”
[d] It is manifestly evident that Commissioner Ian Hanger’s findings in the Home Improvement Program that risk cannot be abrogated and that citizens not be placed in danger did not apply to Australia’s welfare recipients, i.e. they are people who’s right to life does not exist.
On 18 May 2010, in the 2nd paragraph of the above letter, Assitant Secretary Neil Skill made it abundantly clear that counting the deaths caused by the unconstitutional deprivation of the sole mans to survive was an administrative inconvenience, i.e. Centrelink did not collect the data and therefore could not provide it to me.
Fast forward in time exactly 7 years from Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter to a Senate hearing on Robo Debt that was conducted on the 18 May 2017:
Ms. Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, a.k.a Centrelink made it quite clear that counting the dead was still an administrative inconvenience.
“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died.”
It is again manifestly evident that Secretary Campbell either did not know about the above findings from the Homer Improvement Program, or, alternatively, she did not support Commissioner Hanger’s views.
Either way, at the time of posting this civil rights teaching blog, which is really a MAYDAY appeal to the international law enforcement and human rights agencies, Robo-Debt (Mark 2) has massacred perhaps as many as 2,030 vulnerable victims, all of whom are entitled to the same justice as the victims of the Bosnian Holocaust
 READERS OF THIS APPEAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:
If you are an international law enforcement ot huma rights agency – UPHOLD THE LAW
IF YOU ARE AN ORDINARY AUSTRALIAN – PLEASE,YOU CAN BE A LIFE-SAVER:
“TELL 10” – can you TELL 10 people EACH DA, the URL for this BLOG POSTING via email, et cetera, for 10 days?
INSIST that they MUST WATCH THE VIDEOS, and read my instructions carefully.
The short link URL https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5
Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher and a volunteer Christian lay-advocate