THE BOYLE FACTOR

Richard Boyle is a whistle-blower who is being railroaded by the Australian Federal Parliament and the following text is basically all about ‘de-railing’ that criminal abuse of public office by insisting that the prosecution subpoena me.

Posting short link: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3hA

As this website reveals, I have been a whistle-blower for many years and the best way to deal with overt process corruption, is to confront it head-on, which is precisely what this email to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is all about. The message is very simple – the prosecution of Richard Boyle could bring down the Federal Parliament.

The Assistant Director-CDPP (Adelaide)
Via email: adelaide@cdpp.gov.au

CC: Steven Millsteed KC
smillsteed@bjennings.com.au

CC: Counsellor Lauren Gavranich,
lgavranich@ebchambers.com.au

CC: Senior Counsel Assisting, Kevin Connor SC
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicides
dvsrc.enquiries@royalcommission.gov.au

CC: Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus,
mark.dreyfus.mp@aph.gov.au

CC: Shadow Attorney-General, Michaelia Cash
senator.michaelia.cash@aph.gov.au

Dear Counsellors, and all other recipients of this email communication.

Re: TOXIC GOVERNMENT – Why the prosecution of Richard Boyle is a criminal abuse of public office that can easily trigger a double dissolution.

OVERVIEW:
The purpose of this communication is to provide micro-brief insights into why the upcoming prosecution of Mr. Richard Boyle is a gross miscarriage of justice that will almost certainly trigger a criminal investigation into the role of the ATO, the AFP, and the CDPP in aiding and abetting the mass defrauding and the secretly classified serial murders of as yet un-numbered thousands of welfare recipients. That investigation will almost certainly bring down the current Federal Parliament and result in hundreds of politicians facing and other public officials facing criminal prosecution for their roles in these criminal activities. The problem for the CDPP is that the investigation will uncover the role of CDPP officials in Adelaide who helped to conceal this criminal activity since at least February 2006.

CRITICAL RECOMMENDATION – Watch this 3-MINUTE video right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_E7kefSew

BOYLE PROSECUTION INSIGHTS:
Today is my 75th birthday and the significance of that seemingly irrelevant fact in regard to the prosecution of Richard Boyle is that I was born 2-years after ‘The Diggers Legacy’ 1946 amendment to the Australian Constitution.

Because hundreds of politicians, past and present, along with every Officer-of-the-Court in the national appears to have some unique form of what the ABS might describe as functional adult literacy problem, i.e., an inability to comprehend the content of the Australian Constitution, this 77-year-old amendment is presented in bullet-point format as an aid to understanding the legal significance of ‘The Diggers Legacy’ amendment.

THE DIGGERS LEGACY – Constitution Section 51, sub-clause 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;

POINTS TO NOTE:
[1] As prescribed in paragraph 5 of the preamble to the Australian Constitution, when it comes to welfare legislation, the constitutional obligation upon all members of the Australian Federal Parliament is to make laws for the provision of a range of welfare benefits over and above the provision of age and disability pensions as specified in Section 51, xxiii. There is no constitutional right to withhold or withdraw a welfare payment unless it can be proved in a court hearing that a claim was false or unmerited.

[2]] The above constitutional obligation to provide a welfare allowance comes with a constitutional constraint, i.e., many of the above payments cannot be linked to the forced labour practice that at the time was known as ‘civil conscription’.
The following extract is from paragraph 51 of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11:

“A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. 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.”

It is a fortiori that Section 51 xxiiiA contains a very clearly worded prohibition in that the payment of welfare allowances cannot be linked to “civil conscription” activities.

In law, all federation legislation that underpins ‘Work for the Dole’ is an unconstitutional statutory fiction that is as legally invalid as the now discredited, murderously lethal. Robodebt scheme and the equally scurrilous retrospective legislation that was scrapped by the High Court on the 8th May 2013. (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20).

THE JIM CHALMERS FACTOR: Just 15-days-ago, the Federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, made the following ‘foot-in-mouth’ statements at a video-recorded media conference:

“Now I see today that Peter Dutton says that we should bring back Work for the Dole, which I suspect might have been what’s prompted your question. Ah, I think it troubling that Peter Dutton doesn’t know that Work for the Dole is still in operation.”

“Ah, we did not abolish Work for the Dole. There are people on the Work for the Dole program, right now. It beggars’ belief frankly, that his one big contribution to this whole conversation is to bring back a program that hasn’t been abolished.”

MY COMMENT: What is even more troubling is that neither Peter Dutton nor Jim Chalmers is apparently aware that one of the changes approved by the national electorate in the 1946 constitutional referendum was the abolishing of what is now known as “Work for the Dole”.

If Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, then the coercive “no show, no dole” provisions in Section 42C of the Social Security Act constitute criminal abuses of public office that violate the Unwarranted demands provisions in Divisions 138 and 139 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). These demands also violate the Blackmail provisions in Sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935). I would particularly draw your attention to the following provision in 172(2)(2) of this criminal code:

“The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.”

Every time a federal politician has voted in support of the unconstitutional ‘Work for the Dole laws, they have set themselves up for a prison term of up to 20-years.

270.8 Slavery-like offences—aggravated offences
(1) (c) the offender, in committing the offence:
(i) engages in conduct that gives rise to a danger of death or serious harm to the victim or another person; and
(ii) is reckless as to that danger.

The death of 18-year-old Josh Park-Fing after being injured when undertaking an enforced labour activity at the Toowoomba Botanical Gardens on the 19th April 2016 is just one example of how these forced labour can prove to be fatal. Under Section 302 of the Queensland Crimes Act (1899), duress-based fatalities are murders and the penalty for those responsible for this death is imprisonment for life. Ignorance of these State homicide laws is not a legally valid excuse for causing enforced labour fatalities and neither is parliamentary privilege. There are no homicide laws in Australia that validate fatalities that are caused by unlawful abuses of public office.

A former CES job club manager and Job Network employee, since the mid-1990s I have been attempting to prevent the persecution, exploitation, defrauding, reckless endangerment, and the random serial murder of welfare recipients.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that fact that my activities, which are the subject of 3 parliamentary privilege suppression orders, directly parallel the activities that are the basis of the charges laid against Mr. Richard Boyle. The legal status of the deaths caused by the deliberate violations of the constitutional rights, the legal rights, human rights, and the Common Law rights of welfare recipients is as follows:

[a] Abuse of public office activities that result in Menace-driven-suicides constitute the crime of Murder under Section 13A(7) of the South Australian criminal code, a statute that is of direct relevance to the charges against Richard Boyle since he a resident of South Australia and could have faced being prosecuted as an accessory to these crimes under this state’s criminal codes if he made no reasonable effort to prevent one or more of these murders. Section 5AA(2)

“A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.”

[b] These deaths are Murder under Section 268.8 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995)

[c] These deaths are the crime of Manslaughter under the identically worded Reckless Conduct provisions at Section 31 in both the Commonwealth and South Australian Work Health & Safety Act.

[d] These deaths constitute the crime of Serious Harm under Section 23 of the SA criminal code:

23—Causing serious harm
(1) A person who causes serious harm to another, intending to cause serious harm, is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 20 years;
(b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) If, however, the victim in a particular case suffers such serious harm that a penalty exceeding the maximum prescribed in subsection (1) is warranted, the court may, on application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, impose a penalty exceeding the prescribed maximum.

[e] These deaths violate the Genocide and Crimes against Humanity provisions in Articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute, which explains why I filed a complaint against the Australian Federal Government in March 2019.

BEYOND THE HIP REPORT:
At 14.7.3.2 of the Home Improvement Program report, Commissioner Ian Hanger stated a very obvious fact of law:

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.

The inquiry into the alleged obstruction of justice by the Australian federal Police in the Michelle Higgins fiasco should have serves as a salient warning that it NOT the legitimate role of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to misuse prosecution powers to intimidate whistle-blowers who expose the criminally negligent abuses of public office by their peers or superior officers. Any decision to proceed with the prosecution of Richard Boyle now needs to be very carefully appraised in the light of the previous issued raised and the following matters of fact.

POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERERENCE:
The administrative and political status of literally tens of thousands of deaths that are the “terrible human consequences” of deliberate, systemic violations of the constitutional rights, the legal rights, fundamental human rights, and the Common Law rights of welfare recipients, can be very briefly summarized with the following points. However, within these issues are the proverbial ‘Elephant-in-the-room’ issue of the Discovery questions that these issues raise, e.g., just how many of the unreported, officially irrelevant ”terrible human consequences” are there and what precisely is the legal status of these deaths under Commonwealth, State and Territory Crown Law criminal codes and civil rights case law decisions?

[1] The deaths are unreported by the Department of Human Services/ Services Australia; a fact that is very easily verified by a forensic analysis of the Department’s Quarterly and Annual Public Accountability Reports.

[2] One of a diverse range of verifiable reasons why these deaths are unreported may be due to the fact that these deaths are secretly classified as “confidential” by the Legal & Constitutional Reference Committee, i.e., Submission 287 to the November 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry.

[3] The deaths were also classified as “irrelevant” by the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Reference Committee (EWRE) in a parliamentary privilege suppression order that was issued to me on the 2nd March 2006.

[4] The deaths were ignored the Environment, Communication & Arts Committee in a letter dated 1st March 2010 that included the now obligatory parliamentary privilege suppression order.

[5] In a letter dated 2nd October 2003, the Commonwealth Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) saw nothing wrong with the Howard Government systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients. This response by HREOC was effectively an official declaration of ‘open season’ on the commission of genocide and crimes against humanity that specifically targeted vulnerable welfare recipients.

[6] On the 7th July 2004, in document #3286232, the Australian Federal Police declined to investigate allegations that the Howard Government had defrauded millions of people of billions of dollars, and that as a consequence of the commission of this criminal activity, there had been several thousand unreported death. The extremely ambiguous, unconstitutional reason cited for not investigating these alleged crimes was “gravity/sensitivity.” Whether this referred to the extreme gravity and political sensitivity of these alleged crimes, or insufficient gravity and sensitivity to justify an investigation is not known at this time. However, I am sure that under Oath, Federal Agent Louise Denley will be willing to clarify her reasons for not investigating these now not so secret criminal activities.

[7] In February 2006, one or more decision-makers in the Adelaide office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions followed the lead set by HREOC, the AFP, Leg-Con and EWRE, and, by a voluntary act of omission, concealed the commission of these criminal activities and thereby facilitated the on-going commission of these crimes against humanity.

[8] In September 2009, the AFP again refused to investigate political corruption and a detailed report was then submitted to both the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Governor-General Quentin Bryce. The following extract is of particular relevance to the prosecution of Richard Bryce, especially in the light of both Jim Chalmers ‘Work for the Dole’ blunder and the finding at 14.7.3.2 and 14.73.2.1 of the 2014 HIP Report:

Breaching is the targeted, and therefore deliberate, partial or complete reduction of the only means of support that people have in meeting their basic costs of living.***
(Derived from paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper.)

I am a “Whistle Blower” and this discussion paper is all about blowing the whistle on things that the Senate is desperate to hide. Fair Game, Dead Meat exposes some of the holocaust type consequences of breaching legislation; a deliberate humanitarian disaster that disastrously affected some 3 million people, saw hundreds of thousands defrauded of legitimate welfare entitlements and triggered an unknown number of deaths. No politician that I have challenged about these deaths has ever denied that they may cumulatively exceed 5,000 in number since 1986.

***Logically, if you deprive millions of very vulnerable people who have no other means of support of their only means of survival, it is reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of these people may not survive.

One of the primary issues of concern that I have been raising since the mid-1990s is the fact that these unlawful activities are foreseeably lethal and therefore the “terrible human consequences” are, in law, mens rea homicides.

Like their predecessors over the last 3—40 years, Peter Dutton and Jim Chalmers, along with every other member of the Federal Parliament, apparently does not know that welfare allowances have been a constitutional right since the 1946 referendum.

[9] “See no evil.” My response to the March 2010 ECA parliamentary privilege suppression order was to contact every member of the Federal Parliament, either via email, home page ‘Contact’, or via Australia Post. Since Mark Dreyfus was a member of the Federal parliament who was an expert in constitutional law, it is not unreasonable to adduce the fact that it was highly likely that Mark Dreyfus ‘ought to have known’ that the serious and fatal harms caused by the unconstitutional welfare policies and practices were a major crime.
 
For reasons that are unknown to me, Mark Dreyfus chose to “see no evil” and this failure to uphold the law is a significant factor in the explosion of lethal process corruption that occurred after the Liberal-National Coalition gained control of the Federal Parliament at the 2013 federal election. This concealment of the mass defrauding and random serial murder of welfare recipients now creates a very serious personal conflict of interest in the prosecution of Richard Boyle as Mark Dreyfus is the current federal Attorney-General, and, like his predecessors, is closely linked to the ongoing commission of these criminal activities.

[10] RISK ASSESSMENT: C10/1866 – “Centrelink does not collect…”
Writing on behalf of two of the Rudd Government Ministers who had received my email or website ‘Contact’ expressions of concern about the death toll caused by the foreseeably lethal welfare penalties, on the 18th may 2010, Assistant Secretary Neill Skill responded in document C10/1866 and stated that Centrelink could not tell me how many people had died after having had their welfare allowance cut off because “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching terminal Outcome Statistics” and therefore Centrelink could not provide this information. This is the risk assessment that you have when you don’t do risk assessment.

Fast forward exactly 7-years to the following statement made to the Community Affairs reference Committee by Secretary Kathryn Campbell and what is immediately apparent is that the Federal Parliament has far too many dirty secrets that are being swept under the proverbial carpet:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.”

What does it say about the way in which the care and protection of Australia’s most vulnerable people has been managed when those responsible for this vital task have no knowledge of the human impact of their actions, or even which of their clients are alive or dead? Quite clearly, there is a very fertile field to be ploughed when it comes to the issue of the human impact of foreseeably lethal, unconstitutional welfare policies and practices.

[11] THE ARBIB FACTOR.
On the 1st June 2010, Senator Arbib responded to my queries with a letter in which he acknowledged my concerns about welfare penalty fatalities:

“On the specific question you raise concerning claims that others have mentioned to you of there being records maintained of ‘Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes’, there is no official record of this by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, its successor departments nor by Centrelink.”

The above statement throws open the door to the question as to what, if any records were maintained in monitoring the randomly lethal impact of the foreseeably lethal, unconstitutional welfare penalties. As for Senator Arbib’s subsequence actions in regard to the issue of the foreseeably lethal welfare policies and practices, his letter to the Disney Inquiry, dated 2nd July 2010, i.e., just one month later, is not an issue that any competent prosecutor would want tabled in Court.

[12] THE DISNEY INQUIRY – PARAGRAPH 15
Appendix 3 of the Disney Report into the impact of ‘Compliance Measures’ lists 25 community submission with my submission being the 13th submission listed. However, Appendix 4 is a copy of a letter from Senator Arbib to the Disney Inquiry and the following comments are at paragraph 15 of the report:

Senator Arbib wrote again to the Review on 2 July 2010 advising that the Government was “giving consideration” to a change in the sanctions for failure by job seekers to attend an appointment with their employment service provider. The change would involve suspending the job seeker’s payment until he or she agrees to attend a rescheduled appointment. No further detail was provided of the proposed change. A copy of the Minister’s letter is in Appendix 4.

As Senator Arbib’s comments in his letter of 1st June 2010 made quite clear, he was well aware that the (unconstitutional) welfare penalties, which are described as “compliance measures “sanctions”, could prove to be lethal. However, for the apparent sake of administrative convenience, he was prepared to impose these “sanctions”. Correct me if I am wrong but I put it to you, and to everyone else who reads this communication, that Mark Arbib appears to have been the person who the word “sanctioned” in the legal term “State Sanctioned Murders”.

Since the purpose of this communication is to provide you with a very, very brief overview of the issues that could bring down the Federal Parliament and result in hundreds of federal politicians, along with even more public officials, facing the possibility of serious criminal charges, I shall finish off by leaving you with an update of some of the videos that can be used to undermine the validity of the CDPP case against Richard Boyle.

45 MINUTES
When driving conditions are light, I can travel via the Wetlands and Torrens to Torrens expressways from my home at Elizabeth Vale to Richard Boyle’s residence in Edwardstown in about 45-minutes. Under heavy traffic conditions, that time may be extended out to around 75-minutes in view of the need to ensure that Richard Boyle is adequately briefed on how to compel Mark Dreyfus and the Canberra Killers Club to back down and ditch their latest abuse of public office, I am prepared to provide him with the information that I have provided to the Robodebt Royal Commission and the Defence & Veteran Suicide Royal Commission. In either hard copy or digital format, that is around 10,000 pages of exceedingly damaging information, plus there is a huge library of video material in the public domain that can be accessed from a variety of sources that serves to undermine the validity of the abuse of public office that is the prosecution of Richard Boyle.

A JUROR’S PERSPECTIVE
An intimidated ICC witness and a former tampered juror who was booted off of the jury pool just hours after being sworn in, my take on a jury trial is that the CDPP will be in serious trouble if the true facts of the matter are put before a jury. On the balance of probability, 4 jurors will be welfare recipients who have been ‘bashed and battered’ by Centrelink’ and another 4 jurors will be related to welfare recipients who have been abused by Centrelink. In addition, at least 6 jurors will have been illegally exposed to COVID-19.

I could be 100% wrong, but I suspect that I have a better chance of winning $40 million on Cross Lotto (without a ticket) than the CDPP has of obtaining a conviction.

NOTE: This is a public submission that can be used by opponents of the (idiotic) VOICE Referendum, who will thus be empowered to hold the Federal Parliament for ignoring the Diggers Legacy for decades, and also for the serious and fatal harms caused by doing so. That means that the referendum is now a very high-risk activity that some Backbenchers may not appreciate.

Note also that the text will have been pre-posted on-line before being sent to you, and, as is standard operating procedure, the sending of this email to you will be video recorded and then uploaded to the Internet for public access.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I intend to place it at the head of a very long line of videos waiting to be uploaded that will implicate dozens of politicians, past and present, in the mass defrauding and the serial murder of welfare recipients.

Finally, ASIC v Hellicar again:
[at 139] “The Court of Appeal correctly observed that it follows that a prosecutor’s duty to call material witnesses at a criminal trial (as that duty has been identified by this Court in Whitehorn v The Queen and R v Apostilides”).

I am a material witness who is able to provide jury with insight into the criminal abuses that were of so much concern to Richard Boyle. In addition, I can provide extensive first-hand details of the official cover-up of Australia’s longest running cases of mass fraud and serial murder and the role of many law enforcement agencies in concealing these criminal activities. Your legal obligation is summed up in just two words, i.e., subpoena me.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, teacher, and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.