COVID-19: The Real Truth.Chief Medical Officers, and politicians can be prosecuted if they allow non-medical issues to influence their management of the COVID-19 Crisis.

The text below is about to be emailed to Christopher McGowan, the Chief Executive Officer of SA Health.

The basic message is simple, COVID-19 is a medical problem, not a social or economic problem, and if Dr. Spurrier and Mr. McGowan loose sight of that fact and people die, then the legal consequences could be most serious.

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

To: Mr Christopher McGowan,  Chief Executive Officer.  SA Health,

CEO Christopher McGowandDear Mr. McGowan,

Re: FYI of email to Premier Steven Marshall concerning the legal risks of playing COVID-19 Russian roulette with the lives of vulnerable South Australians.

When it comes to “vulnerable Australians”, I tick several boxes:

[1] Over 70-years-old.

[2] Pernicious Anaemia

[3] Type 2 Diabetes.

[4] Asthma.

[5] Slowly recovering from Pneumonia that popped up in my right lung 9 days after a pneumonia vaccination. {Hmm!]

Being very obviously a high-risk person when it comes to the issue of COVID-19, I have taken the precaution of keeping myself up-to-date with non-political information about the risks that COVID-19 may pose to my life. The knowledge gained leaves me gravely concerned that social and economic pressures on the Morrison and Marshall governments may have resulted in these considerations being placed ahead of the health, welfare and safety of at-risk South Australians.

The AMATO DECISION – 27th November 2019 jpg030

jpg031

A lay-advocate, exactly 8-months BEFORE Justice Jennifer Davies ruled that the ‘Robo-debt’ alleged debt recovery ‘initiative’ was not lawful, on the 27th March 2019, I filed a Genocide and Crimes against Humanity complaint against the Commonwealth of Australia with the International Criminal Court [the ICC].

It is to the shame of every politician, judge, lawyer, and doctor, within the Commonwealth of Australia that my complaint was tentatively accepted on the 30th April 2019.

Details of this complaint can be found at the following URLs below and I strongly recommend that before reading my email to Steven Marshall, that you take the time to review the content of these web sites, because one of the legal issues for ICC prosecutors to consider is the failure of every doctor in Australia to pick up on the basic fact that saving taxpayers’ money by wrongfully driving emotional vulnerable Australians to commit suicide is murder under Section 268.8 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reml-kezQEk

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Centrelinkcompliance

Incredibly, despite the High Court ruling in Hellicar, (2012) HCA 17, that any dispute between a regulator and another party that involved pecuniary matters MUST be referred to a court for a determination of the facts, the Federal Government ignored this decision. In Bhardwaj (2002) HCA 11, at paragraphs 51 – 53, the High Court ruled that if there is no jurisdiction to make a legal decision, then in law, no legally valid decision could be made.

Not only have successive Prime Ministers ignored these decisions, as the Centrelink compliance information on the web link above reveals, this information is still withheld and when traumatized victims contemplate suicide, they are being told to call Life Line. Under Section 1A (7) of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), these suicides are murders. In addition, under the Commonwealth criminal code, the collective deaths are GENOCIDE under Section 268.3.  If you place the Centrelink deaths in the context of the federal and SA criminal codes, the context of the High Court’s determination in (Dr.) Boughey v. The Queen (1986) HCA 29, becomes very significant for Chief Medical Officers who turn a blind eye to these murders.

(Dr.) Boughey v. The Queen

Whilst having sexual intercourse with Miss Begum Mahjabi Ali, Dr. Boughey applied pressure Miss Ali’s carotid arteries for too long and killed her.

To say that the High Court was not impressed with Dr. Boughey’s excuse, which was effectively a case of ‘Oops! That wasn’t supposed to happen” is an understatement. Not once or twice, but more than 20 times, the presiding judges used the phrase ‘ought to have known’, a phrase that is particularly relevant in the current circumstances where Dr. Nicola Spurrier appears to be disregarding the fact that just one COVIDF-19 infected person can devastate and entire region, as has happened in Hokkaido in Japan. (see Case Study 1 below.)

At 31 – 33, Chief Justice Gibbs.

“The phrase to which I would like to direct your attention mainly here is ‘ought to have known’. Here you consider what in your view the accused ought to have known in all his then relevant circumstances. All his then relevant circumstances would include many factors; (it) would include, for example, the fact that he is a medical practitioner, the nature of his medical practice over the years, his training, his sexual experiences, the extent to which, if any, his medical training and experience should have alerted him to the dangers of applying carotid artery pressure – assuming you accept the medical evidence – or the extent to which, if any, that experience, his experience, should have alerted him to the desirability of studying medical literature in order to acquaint himself with the dangers, if any, of such a practice and the physiological reactions involved and the like. All of those would seem to be relevant factors to the question of what he ought to have known about whether the act – applying the sort of pressure he applied – was likely to cause death in the circumstances. If it was, again an issue for you to decide. I have named only some of the relevant circumstances and it will be for you to consider all the circumstances which you consider relevant in order to decide what he ought to have known.”

  1. The words “ought to have known” are included in s.157(1)(c) as an alternative to “knew”. Reliance upon them is necessary only in a case where it is not positively established that an accused actually knew that his act was likely to cause death. That does not, however, mean that the content of the knowledge laid at the door of an accused is to be assessed by reference to the notional knowledge and capacity of some hypothetical person. The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed. Inevitably, the word “ought” requires the making of a subjective judgment by a jury. The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial, that the established circumstances were such that the particular accused, with the knowledge and the capacity which he or she actually possessed, ought to have thought about the likely consequences of his or her action. They must also be persuaded, again on that onus and in the context of such a trial, that if the particular accused had stopped to think to the extent that he ought to have, the result would, as a matter of fact, have been that he or she would have known or appreciated that the relevant act or acts were likely to cause death.

  1. The learned trial judge’s above direction to the jury adequately conveyed the essence of what was involved in the requirement that the applicant “ought to have known” that his act was likely to cause death in the circumstances. The repeated reference to the applicant, the emphasis which his Honour placed upon factors peculiar to the applicant, and the reference to whether the applicant should, in the circumstances, have been alerted to the dangers of his action, combined to make it clear that what was relevant was what the applicant himself, with his actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he was placed.

 

If Steven Marshal and Dr. Spurrier wants to play Russian roulette with the lives of vulnerable South Australians, as I point out below, they place themselves at risk of prosecution under not only Commonwealth and State work health and safety laws, but also under Section 13(1), Section 13B and Section 14(1) of the SA criminal code.

A crucial issue to discuss with Dr. Spurrier, especially after Commissioner Bret Walker’s angst about the actions of NSW Health:

Ressler mistake

[Readers note: Ignore my typo above  – the tears do not alter the fact that so far, more than 20 people have died.]

During questioning the inquiry’s Commissioner, Bret Walker, asked Ms Ressler why he shouldn’t rule there had been a reprehensible shortcoming by NSW Health?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-05/inquiry-into-coronavirus-outbreak-from-ruby-princess/12215270

A question that you need to put to Dr. Spurrier is whether or not she is prepared to go to jail for 15-years if just one person contracts a serious case of COVID-19 and requires intensive care treatment? Is she also prepared to spend the rest of her life in jail if a person dies?

I would remind you of Commissioner Ian Hanger’s statement at 14.7.3.2 of the Royal Commission Report into the Home Improvement Program, which is of direct relevance given the staggering death toll caused by COVID-19 since the 22nd January.

14.7.3.1

Regular and ongoing engagement with identified risks—I consider that the APS has already gone some way to achieving this. It is recognised that officials ought to treat seriously the whole question of risks and their management—it is not enough to name and dismiss those problems. The HIP has been a clear lesson in this respect, and I would hope that this Report will serve to make the lessons to be learned a little clearer and reinforce their importance.

14.7.3.2

Risk cannot be abrogated—Government must recognise that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

14.7.3.2.1

The Australian Government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk. If another party (for example, a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same. The Australian Government should engage with the identified risk manager to ensure the adequacy of those arrangements for the new circumstance, and consider whether there are additional steps that it could take to complement that action.

In South Australia, Dr. Spurrier and yourself are the identified risk managers, and in the present situation, where you are both playing Russian roulette with the lives of un-numbered thousands of vulnerable people, including my wife and myself, it goes without saying that I am not impressed.

In closing, I remind you that this communication is a legal document that may be tendered in any court or commission of inquiry if Dr. Spurrier and yourself are wrong and more deaths occur because the focus of COVID-19 was wrongly placed on social and economic issues instead of the simple fact that this disease is a medical problem with unbelievably high infection and mortality rates.

NOTE:

[1]  A more visually presentable copy of the email to Steven Marshall was posted at the URL below before the email was sent to Steven Marshall. https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1uW

[2] On Monday, the email to Mr. Marshall will be forwarded to both the ICC and the Ruby Princess Inquiry. (As per my 1st email to Mr. Marshall.)

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ul

[3] All Ronald’s space posting form part of my submission to the ICC, as do all of my Emcott report postings on YouTube.

Ronald Medlicott. SA registered teacher and volunteer lay-advocate

==============================================================.

Ronald’s space readers take note:

The remainder of my email to Mr. McGowan can be seen in my previous posting.

This entry was posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, 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

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