A FATAL SILENCE

The following text is a textbook case of “reading the riot act” to Western Australia’s Corruption & Crime Commission (WA-CCC) for staying silent whilst people have died. The text of the email to the WA-CCC is posted here to circumvent the use of “Legal & Confidential” or the iniquitous “parliamentary privilege” as a means to to suppress or censor this Public Interest Disclosure.

URL Shortlink: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3ji

A FATAL SILENCE

Western Australia Corruption & Crime Commission Via email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au

CC: The Assistant Director-CDPP (Adelaide)  

adelaide@cdpp.gov.au

CC: Counsellor Lauren Gavranich. (Counsel Assisting – Representing Mr. Richard Boyle.)

lgavranich@ebchambers.com.au

Linda Burney MP – Minister for Indigenous Australians. 

linda.burney.mp@aph.gov.au

The Investigators: 

ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com

CC: The Editor – Juice Media   info@thejuicemedia.com

Re: THE PACKAGE – Richard Boyle, The Voice Referendum, and the Cabinet Solidarity Murders. Individually or collectively, these  can potentially bring down every parliament in the nation.

The Western Australian Corruption & Crime Commission has been a silent voice whilst over 140,000 Australians have been placed in deadly peril and more than 600 people have died needlessly. Clearly, WA-CCC, and the other recipients of this email need to be reminded that Australia is a nation that is, in theory, a nation of constitutional law. For the WA-CCC staff who read this email, , this communication is a ‘reading of the riot act’, that starts with a reminder of the core reason for the existence of the WA-CCC:

What is corruption?

When someone acts corruptly, they tend to show a deliberate intent, an improper purpose or motivation, and may involve conduct such as:

• deliberately failing to perform the functions of office properly;

• exercising power or duty for an improper purpose;

• or dishonesty.

Some examples include blackmail, bribery, fraud or stealing, extortion, forgery, perverting the course of justice and deliberately releasing confidential information.

Source: https://www.ccc.wa.gov.au/reporting-corruption/what-corruption

Western Australia’s Transition Plan

To that very short but broad-ranging list of examples, I would add deliberately engaging in unlawful bioterrorist acts that has resulted in foreseeable, predicted, serious harm to the public with the entire population of Western Australia now exposed to a disease of mass destruction, many thousands of people infected, and a massive, still rising death toll.  The following official report details the impact upon the people of Western Australia as a direct consequence of the McGowan Government’s deliberate violation of federal anti-terrorism and biosecurity laws under the guise of  “Transition Plan” that was only ever going to have one outcome, i.e., a massive humanitarian disaster. As the following information reveals, the Western Australian Corruption & Crime Commission is currently failing the people of Western Australia and as a direct consequence, people are dying.

COVID-19 update 19 May 2023

WA Health is reporting a total of 4,092 new cases in the past week to 4pm yesterday (18 May 2023). As of 4pm yesterday, there were 2,445 active cases in Western Australia.

As at 4pm yesterday, there were a total of 216 people with COVID-19 in hospital, with seven in ICU.

Sadly, this week’s report to 4pm yesterday includes five deaths, dating back to 16 April 2023, which were reported to WA Health in the past week, aged from 84 to 95 years.

Source:

https://www.health.wa.gov.au/Media-releases/2023/May/COVID-19-update-19-May-2023

The scale of the life-threatening dangers posed to the people of Western Australia as a consequence of the McGowan Government’s deliberate violation of Section 101.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), as defined under Section 100.1(2), subclauses a – e of this criminal code, has been on a massive scale. This can be readily adduced from the following statistical data for the 4-week period 8^th August 2022 to 4^th September 2022:

Reported cases of COVID-19:    45,433

Reported COVID-19 DEATHS:             76

Under the totally misleading guise of Western Australia’s Transition Plan, at 12:01 a.m. on the 3^rd March 2022, COVID-19 border quarantine restrictions were lifted. As a direct consequence of this action, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered wilful harm.  Infections caused by the illegal exposure of the people of Western Australia to the COVID-19 virus, which is considered by the World health organization to be “a very lethal and dangerous disease”, are Genocide under Section 268.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) whilst individual deaths are murders under Section 268.8 of this Code. I would also point out that the 76 deaths above constitute Genocide under Section 268.3 of this criminal code.

In addition, all of these  deaths are murders under Section 279 of the Western Australia Crimes Act.

EXPRESS POST LETTER #651517432069

At 10:21 a.m. local time, Express Post letter #651517432069 was received at the Elizabeth Vale post office (SA 5112). According Australia Post’s on-line tracking service this letter, which was addressed to the WA CCC, was delivered at 10:54 a.m. on the 2^nd May 2023. This envelope contained a bound copy of Emcott Report Legal Issues Briefing Paper #92 – Supplement J.

This report is a collation of documents and issues that are of critical concern to every law enforcement agency in the nation, including the rising national death caused by the unchallenged highly illegal decisions made by federal, State and Territory leaders who have been the underlying cause of the harms caused by the COVID-19 virus because they took it upon themselves to allow this deadly disease to enter the Commonwealth of Australia.
In doing so, these politicians far exceeded their lawful authority and as a direct consequence, almost 12 million people have been infected and nearly 21,000 people, including my mother, have been murdered.

When it comes to lethal mens rea decisions that have placed the lives of every person with the Commonwealth of Australia in dire peril, the deliberate violation of Australia’s national anti-terrorism, biosecurity, and public health and safety laws by the ersatz ‘National Cabinet’ is almost without parallel.

The qualifier, “almost” is necessary due to the fact of the matter that many over the Federal Parliament’s laws in regard to welfare policies and practices are unconstitutional, which means that they are not lawful. However, far too many of these laws have facilitated welfare policies and practices that are extremely dangerous and blatantly illegal, i.e., they violate criminal codes. Once such example was provided in a hastily written loose-leaf insert into Emcott Report Issues Paper #92 J that requested that WA-CCC conduct an investigation into the deliberate defrauding of a Western Australian woman who may have been a victim of an earlier version of the lethal Robodebt scheme that may have been established by the Hawke Government in the 1980s.

Whilst the violation of federal laws by Commonwealth public officials is normally a matter for federal law enforcement agencies, if those alleged criminal abuses of public office involve lawyers who are Officers of the Western Australian Supreme Court, then the Western Australian Corruption & Crime Commission does have jurisdiction to investigate the terrorizing, deceiving, defrauding, reckless endangerment, and the possible murder of a Western Australian resident.  The legality for doing so is complicated by the documentation provided in Emcott Report Issues Paper #92 J, which makes it abundantly clear that federal law enforcement agencies that do have jurisdiction to investigate the systemic defrauding and the random serial murders of Western Australian residents have declined to do so. 

Adding yet another layer of complexity in this jurisdictional fiasco is the fact that I raised the issue of the mass defrauding and the random serial murder of welfare recipients with every State and Territory Chief Coroner within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia in October 2014, including the Western Australian Chief Coroner. Not one of the State and Territory Chief Coroners made any attempt to speak to me, and as a consequence, across Australia, tens of thousands of preventable homicides have occurred, including the COVID-19 deaths that have occurred in Western Australia.

When it comes to what I colloquially call the WELFARE-GATE MURDERS, which includes the Robodebt murders, the precise number of victims is unknown as they are the subject of Senate non-disclosure orders that, in my case, date back to November 2005. Documentary proof of this is contained in Emcott Report Issues Paper #92 J and since you have this report in your possession, you should be able to verify that unlawful welfare policy triggered fatalities really are unreported, secret classified as confidential and have been dismissed as “irrelevant”.

Information in this report also validates my observation that Senator Mark Arbib is one of the federal politicians who put the word “sanctioned” into the legal phrase “State Sanctioned Murders”.  

As you can see from the ‘Carbon Copies’ of this email (CC:), I am sharing these issues with both the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and Ms. Lauren Gavranich, who is one of the barristers representing ATO whistle-blower, Mr. Richard Boyle. In addition, the text of this communication, like the Emcott Report Issues Paper #92 J submission, will be posted on the Internet for public access as per the obligations in the  Public Interest Disclosure Act.  The Emcott Report Issues Paper #92 J submission was received by the WA CCC on the 2^nd May 2023 and despite ten thousand, or more people being infected with COVID-19 and possibly several hundred deaths, no representative of the WA-CCC has spoken to me at this point in time. this communication and neither has any representative of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which has been concealing its knowledge of the mass defrauding and the random serial murder of welfare recipients since February 2006.

The role of the CDPP in concealing these crimes for the last 13-years creates a serious conflict of interest in any CDPP prosecution, including the criminal abuse of public that is the prosecution of Richard Boyle, which I regard as a text book case of “exercising power or duty for an improper purpose.”

I make that point because I regard the role of the WA-CCC in protecting the WA Government from accountability before the courts when it comes to the serious and fatal harms caused by the McGowan Government’s March 2022 “Transition Plan” to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

It is a fact of law that other than in exigent circumstances where a person is acting to protect their own life or the life of a third party, there is no law in Australia that allows a person to randomly kill another person. However, as you are fully aware, Commonwealth, State and Territory public safety codes, including criminal codes and health & safety codes, contain may statutes that clearly specify in unmistakable, irrefutable terms, that the killing of another person without lawful excuse is a culpable homicide.

In law, neither South Australia’s Roadmap to Recovery, nor Western Australia’s “Transition Plan” provide legally valid reasons for the serious and fatal harms that have been caused. Given the choice between upholding the binding laws of the Commonwealth, as per paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution, or doing their own thing, politicians, and far too many other public officials, have not chosen to obey the law.

At this point in time, every politician and every law enforcement official within the Commonwealth of Australia needs to very carefully consider the unintended consequences of the scurrilous criminal abuse of public office that is underpinning the prosecution of Richard Boyle.

Any member of the terrorist organization calling itself the ‘National Cabinet’ can be subpoenaed and cross examined on their personal role in COVID-GATE.   Consider very carefully the violations of the law in the following statements by Scott Morrison and George Brandis in the context of the House Lords 1935 Woolmington decision, where, in paragraph 6 the unanimous decision included this statement:

The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification… Once it is shown to a jury that somebody has died through the act of another, that is presumed to be murder, unless the person who has been guilty of the act which causes the death can satisfy a jury that what happened was something less, something which might be alleviated, something which might be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, or was something which was accidental, or was something which could be justified.” (Viscount Sankey L.C.) – Woolmington (Appellant) and The Director of Public Prosecution (Respondent) [1935] UKHL 1, [1935] 1 AC 462, (1936) 25 Cr App R 72, [1935] AC 462.

What are the legal ramifications inherent in every law enforcement agency within the Commonwealth of Australia ignoring what Scott Morrison and George Brandis said in the following statements? A crucial question to consider is what Crown Laws, if any, validate the abuse-of-public-office, ‘design to expose to peril’  homicides being discussed?

Scott Morrison’s media statement in Geelong on the 18^th May 2022:

Well, there’s been 7,853 deaths where people have died with COVID in this country, there’s been 200 – 2,376 in aged care since the pandemic started. There’ve been 65 deaths in the last 24 hours of people who died with COVID and 15 of those were in aged care. And every single one of these deaths, from the outset of this pandemic is a terrible loss for the families of those who have been lost. Now, you will also know that as the number of case numbers has risen, and that’s what was always going to happen, as part of the national plan that we put together with the states and territories, the case numbers would rise, and there was some 53,000 case numbers yesterday.

Consider also this statement by a former federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis:

“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

The following case study statements place the statements of Scott Morrison and George Brandis in the context of a well-known Western Australian homicide, the unlawful death in custody of Mr. Ian Ward:

[1] On January 27th 2008, Mr. Ian Ward, an Aboriginal elder died from heatstroke after being transported from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in the back of a van in which the air conditioning was either faulty or not working. In May 2011, the State of Western Australia, Department of Corrective Services, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that persons who were not employees were not exposed to hazards and, by that failure, causing the death of Mr. Ian Ward.

On July 7th 2011, in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court, the Department of Corrective Services was fined $2850,000 for its role in the death of Mr. Ian Ward.

[2] Custodial Officers were prosecuted, Graham Kenneth Powell, KA324/11 on 7th September 2011, and Nina Mary Stokoe, KA325/11 on 5th October 2011. Both pleaded Guilty to the charge of “Being an employee failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety or health of any other person through an act or omission at work and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm to Ian Ward.”

[3] On 12th August 2011 G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (ACN 050 069 255) was prosecuted, KA327/11 and pleaded Guilty to “Being an employer, failed so far as was practical , to ensure that the safety or health of a person not being its employee, was not adversely affected wholly or in part as a result of any hazard that arose from or was increased by the system of work that had been or was being operated by the accused, and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm, to Ian Ward”.

As you are probably well aware, the family of Ian Ward received an ex-gratia payment of $3.2 million for the wrongful death of Mr. Ward. These days, that payment may be considered to be far too low given the US $20 million compensation payment to the family of Sydney woman, Justice Damond, who was shot dead by a Minneapolis police officer, Mohamed Noor, on the 15^th July 2017. What then is adequate compensation for the “terrible human consequences” that are (still) officially classified as both “confidential” and “irrelevant”.

What is adequate compensation for the thousands of deaths caused by the  “national plan that we put together with the states and territories? On or about the 31^st January 2020, Scott Morrison apparently decided not to pay any heed to the World Health Organization’s warning that COVID-19 was a serious problem that was of international concern:

“The Emergency Committee on the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) under the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) was reconvened on 30 January. WHO declared the outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern.”

Unfortunately for over 20,000 Australians, it was also apparently of little concern to Scott Morrison who failed to consult with the Parliament about how to prevent another SARS pandemic in Australia. World-wide,  the repeated failure of national governments to comply with resulted in the WHO and ICAO ‘laying down the law’ in a Directive issued on the 6^th March 2020. (The Montreal Directive.)

READING THE RIOT ACT – THE MONTRAL DIRECTIVES

Just 2 days later, information provided by the Chinese Government revealed that COVID-19 could be asymptomatic for periods of up to 50 days.

Once the ramifications of that were considered, three days later, on the 11^th March 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. The reasons for doing so were contained in COVID-19 SITREP #51:

WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction. WHO therefore have made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.

WHO officials were seriously alarmed by 2 vital issues that have a direct bearing upon the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia:

1. alarming levels of spread and severity,

2. alarming levels of inaction.

Any determination of the manner of death with COVID-19 victims must factor in the tsunami of advice given by the WHO, the legal obligations upon the Federal, State and territory governments under International Air Transport Association regulations, the International health Regulations (2005) and Crown Law criminal codes and other statute laws, e.g., the Public Interest Disclosure Act (2013) and Work Safety Act (2012), et cetera.

Another factor to consider is the closed mindset that is implicit in the following statement  by Scott Morrison:

“This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions—not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country.”

Source: Hansard, Page 10,547 – House of Representatives, 24^th September 2014.

To what extent did this antagonism against what Scott Morrison clearly considered to outside interference in national affairs cloud his judgement and cause fatal delays in responding to Australia’s international obligation not to use the international airline systems to spread the pandemic? The statement also draws attention to what actions should have been taken immediately to establish Category A – Level 4 biosecurity containment measures and systems? For example, WHO advice, which was based upon the IHR (2005), required that contaminated or infected persons, and their personal effects, be isolated from family members and the wider community.

“isolation” means separation of ill or contaminated persons or affected baggage, containers, conveyances, goods or postal parcels from others in such a manner as to prevent the spread of infection or contamination;  

Source: International Health regulations (2005) definition of “isolation”

Condensed to the core point: ‘Isolation means separation to prevent the spread of infection or contamination’.

How many thousands of people have died because Scott Morrison, Anthony Albanese, and the other members of the fake ‘National Cabinet’, apparently could not comprehend the meaning of the word “isolation”?

If Daniel Andrews testimony to Victoria’s Hotel Quarantine Inquiry is to be believed, in a ‘National Cabinet’ meeting in late March 2020, Scott Morrison reportedly arbitrarily decided that returning travellers would be ‘quarantined’ in hotels or in travellers’ domestic residences.  As an animal husbandry teacher, I can assure you that this was absolutely the worst possible action to take as it would only serve to  rapidly spread the disease. However, for a far more authoritative expert opinion than mine, I recommend watching the Harvard School of Health post-doctorate on-line tutorial, which was presented by  a highly respected expert, Professor Xihong Lin:

Learning from 26,000 COVID-19 cases in Wuhan

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/china-health-partnership/2020/03/20/covid-wuhan-prof-lin-xihong/

The dangers posed by quasi-quarantine measures that arbitrarily forced families to co-habitate were clearly evident in this Harvard University post-doctorate tutorial. The subsequent deaths of 768 people in Victoria’s criminally negligent Hotel Quarantine Scheme, which was not a public health and safety measure, but was reportedly  a means whereby Scott Morrison attempted to prevent the hotels from facing bankruptcy. For further details into that lethal fiasco, forensically evaluate the record of testimony and the interim and final reports of Victoria’s inquiry into this deadly,  utterly stupid and foreseeably lethal, abuse of public office.

Given the litany of abuses of power and inept decision-making by people who were not appropriately qualified and authorized under the Biosecurity Act to make the decisions that they were making at the time, what might a court consider to be fair and just compensation for each of the COVID-GATE murders that have occurred in Western Australia? That is a nightmare issue that each State Treasurer must now contemplate.

Consider the compensation issue in the context of the very public bragging to the mass media by the former SA State Premier, Steven Marshall, on the 27^th November 2021:

“We have been able to introduce the disease into South Australia in a very, very controlled way.”

Further insight into why the COVID-19 pandemic is a synthetic (man-made) pandemic can be seen and heard in the ABC documentary video, “Outbreak – How Australia lost control’, which can be viewed at this URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9MPXCpyCnY&t=3s

The following extracts provide insight into why Western Australian politicians who allowed COVID-19 into the State should now face criminal prosecution:

[At 12:00 minutes]  Mark McGowan:

“We know the risks Covid presents, and we know from around the world that the Delta strain is another new beast that we can’t take any chances with. That is why, based upon advice from the Chief Health Officer, effective from midnight tonight, Perth and Peel will enter a full lockdown.

[12:52] Professor Sharon Lewin:

“But health advice is based on evidence. so, you know the best evidence is the same whether you’re living in Victoria or if you’re living in Western Australia. You go on evidence.“

*MY COMMENT Re: “You go on evidence.“ – So do lawyers, judges, and juries. If paragraph 5 of the preamble to the Constitution is to be believed, health advice is also based upon the binding laws of the Commonwealth. Since allowing the entry of COVID-19 into Australia was/is a bioterrorist activity, expert health advice must start with a consideration of the legal framework within which any expert health advice must be given. If this does not occur, then the word “evidence” may wind up referring to information tabled in court during a criminal trial or civil negligence tort action for the harms caused by unlawful actions, e.g., quasi-quarantine measures that have caused 12 million cases of COVID-19 and 20,000+ deaths.

[28:23] “Without good vaccine coverages, we have no protection.”

The risks were known, however, due to a human factors problem known as Confidence Bias, i.e., in this instance, the desperate desire for the experimental mRNA-based vaccines to work, there was the false belief that these inadequately tested, now-admitted-to-be-lethal, vaccines would be both safe and effective. However, as the evidence now reveals, the hope and the subsequent tsunami of taxpayer-funded hype has not matched the reality of the situation.

When it comes to the issue of “You go on evidence“, at 3:00 p.m. on the 2^nd March 2022, i.e., the day before Western Australia’s (marshmallow-soft) ‘hard border’ quarantine restrictions were removed, the COVID-19 casualty figures for the Commonwealth of Australia were as follows:

Active cases:           204,703

Total cases:           2,882,325

Total deaths:                5,272

Boughey v R. (HCA 29; 1986): At paragraph 7 of the Majority decision the Court cited the Tasmanian Criminal definition of a murder. This definition is relevant to the issue of removing quarantine restrictions and allowing a disease of mass destruction to infect the State’s population. This definition may vary in wording between States, but the principle of law is the same, i.e., ‘It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime” and all of the foreseeable harms and fatalities caused by the deliberate removal of quarantine safeguards are, in law,  unlawful homicides.

“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, whether of the person killed or not;

(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;”

‘Boughey’ is a major reason why I constantly emphasize a basic fact of law that I believe cannot be stated too often, i.e.,  politicians do not have a 007 licence to randomly kill people. The relentless, blinkered-vision pursuit of political goals also does not confer any legal right to randomly engage in foreseeably dangerous activities that may kill people.

As Justice Brooking stated in R v Faure at 29, “It is the design to place in peril that constitutes the crime.’

A critical question for the WA-CCC investigators, and the legal representatives of COVID-19 victims, is what advice did the Solicitor-General  provide, concerning the foreseeably lethal consequences of removing the seemingly harsh border quarantine restrictions? If no advice was given, then you need to know why this was so. Ditto for what, if any, advice was given by the Western Australian Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the forecasted harms that would be caused by lifting the quarantine restrictions?

Whilst on that subject, what was the official response of the Western Australian Director of Public Prosecutions to the Amato decision (VID611/2019) and the associated 2,030+ deaths linked to that unlawful activity. Likewise, what was the DPP’s response to the subsequent disclosure on the 31^st July 2020 that the lethal data matching scheme that was the lynchpin of the Robodebt fraud, had been running as far back as the 1980s?

When it comes to the old adage that “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, I would make the point that the 2,030 deaths that have been linked to Robodebt during a period of 28 months was part of a systemic fraud that had been in operation for 30-years. This revelation should have blasted open the door to a homicide investigation of  the total death toll caused by this illegal activity, and also into the reasons why no law enforcement agency in Australia would investigate these serial murders.

Please note that at this point in time your agency is also seriously compromised as I have not been contacted via either a call to my home phone or visit by an investigator, which would be totally appropriate given the role of some of those accused of the mass defrauding and the random serial murders of welfare recipients.

A PROFESSIONAL OPINION

A member of the teaching profession since 1971, and a qualified Animal Husbandry teacher since 1987, (35-years), it is my professional opinion that the political slogan “Learn to live with COVID” is criminally negligent idiocy, i.e., Reckless conduct under Section 31 of the Commonwealth Workplace Safety Act (2012). In August 2020, there were approximately 16,000 known fatalities from the Ebola virus since 1976. The following British Medical Journal statement was published in 2018:

What are the new findings?

• A total of 34 EVD outbreaks affecting 34 356 cases and causing 14 823 deaths have been reported since 1976.

Source: https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/3/e001955

(NOTE: By late 2020, COVID-19 was killing that many people in a single day.)

Whilst it may sound perfectly reasonable when the politicians and medical officers who have deliberately violated Australia’s anti-terrorism and biosecurity laws tout the “Learn to live with COVID”  mantra to themselves or to the  mass media, with almost 21,000 people dead as direct consequence of this unlawful activity in  Australia, and with almost 7 million people dead world-wide, in a criminal trial that statement  is going be a proverbial ‘turkey that cannot fly’ if a defendant is foolish enough to foist it on an well-informed jury.

“The National Cabinet has decided…”

In either a criminal trial or in a criminal negligence tort action, one of the most damaging witnesses is likely to be the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews. Whenever the ersatz ‘National Cabinet’ would come up with another ill-considered idea that would further endanger the safety of the public, Daniel Andrews would preface the announcement with the statement that “The National Cabinet has decided…”. For example, during a lengthy media session that was held on the 16^th January 2022, Daniel Andrews vigorously promoted a 3^rd vaccination with what was being misleadingly promoted as a “safe” vaccine that would prevent “most people from being seriously unwell.”   What the public did not hear via these media announcements were constitutionally valid statements such as:

[a] “The Federal Executive has decided…”

[b] “The Federal Cabinet has decided…”

[c] “The National Advisory Cabinet has decided…”

[d] “The Australian High Performance Protection Committee has decided…”

As Justice Gaudron and Justice Gummow pointed at 51 and 53 of Bhardwaj, HCA 11, if there is no jurisdiction, then, in law, there is no decision. The ersatz ‘National Cabinet’ was, at best, an advisory body that should have simply been submitting suggestions to the Federal Cabinet about how the nation should deal with the threat posed by the COVID-19. In compliance with Due Process, national public safety laws and ITAO and IHR -2005 regulations, the Federal Cabinet should have then considered appropriate management options that were then debated in the Federal Parliament.

However, these things have not happened, which explains why almost 12 million people have been infected with the COVID-19 pneumonic plague and almost 21,000 of these victims are now dead.

CDC – Actions speak louder than words.

During a US Senate inquiry into the impact of mandated vaccination, it was reported that 46% of CDC employees had taken Mandated Vaccination Leave as they had declined to be vaccinated. A quick analysis of the VAERS database makes it quite clear why there was such a high level of resistance by so many ‘in-the-know’ CDC staff.

[e] In the 20-year period from 2001 to 2021, there were a total of 555,671 post vaccination adverse events reports, which is a median average of 27,780 reports per year.

[f] In 2022, there were 740,882 reports of post vaccination adverse events reports, i.e., an increase of 2,667% over the long-term average and an increase of 133% over the combined total for the previous 20-years.

[g] On the 7^th March 2023, the CDC published the last weekly Selected COVID-19 Selected Vaccination Adverse Events report. Although the CDC still claimed that the mRNA-based vaccines were “safe”, the following statement discredits that claim:

“More than 672 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2023. During this time, VAERS received 19,476 preliminary reports of death (0.0029%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. “

When people are dead, it is appropriate to compare terrorist activity deaths with other terrorist activity death tolls, e.g., the illegal importing of COVID-19 into the USA. The VAERS data reveals that the adverse event death toll is 633% greater than the infamous ‘9/11’ terrorist attack.

[h] The CDC claim that the VAERS data indicated that Anaphylaxis only occurred in 5 cases per million doses, data-mining the VAERS database indicated that the real rate was approximately 8,000 cases per million doses.  

[i] The following statement concerning the recorded incidence of mRNA vaccine-induced Myocarditis in children is utterly appalling and may explain why YouTube is still violating the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and the US and Australian constitutions, by unlawfully censoring all reports of the harms that have been caused by these exceedingly dangerous substances:

During the study period (350 million doses) and CDC scientists found that rates of myocarditis were highest following the second dose of an mRNA vaccine among males in the following age groups:

• 12–15 years (70.7 cases per one million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech)

• 16–17 years (105.9 cases per one million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech)

• 18–24 years (52.4 cases and 56.3 cases per million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively)

MY ANALYSIS:

• Group 1: 12–15 years. 24,745 children developed Myocarditis.

• Group 2: 16-17 years.  37, 065 children developed Myocarditis.

• Group 3(a – Pfizer) 18-24 years. 18,340 young adults developed Myocarditis.

• Group 3(b – Moderna)  18-24 years. 19,705 young adults developed Myocarditis.

• In total, 99,855 children and young adults developed Myocarditis after being inoculated with these supposedly “safe” substances.

• Extrapolating those results over the 672 million inoculations (192% of 350 million) reported in the last published report of 7^th March 2023, indicated that as many as 191,720 children and young adults may have developed Myocarditis as a direct consequence of being inoculated.

MY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THIS DATA:

[#1] In the YouTube censored video ‘A Shot in the Dark’, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s comment that “we are the test subjects” has tragically proven to be valid. The inadequately tested, experimental mRNA-based substances are extremely dangerous substances that are not yet anywhere near ready for human trials, let alone mass vaccination programs, e.g., mandated vaccination of medical professionals, school staff, or children of any age. 

[#2] ‘The times, they are a changing.’ – Garvey & Ors (NYSC, October 2022) was a successful legal challenge to mandated vaccination that has opened the door to the class actions members of the medical and teaching professions that  are challenging the validity of this potentially lethal abuse of public office. A legal challenge in South Australia in March 2022 also forced the SA Government to dump mandated vaccination and to pay the legal costs of the Deni Varnhagen class action.

[#3] In South Australia, any public official or medical professional who claims that these substances are “safe” is in violation of the DISHONESTY provision in Section 142.(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

142—Dishonest exploitation of position of advantage

(1) This section applies to the following advantages:

(a) the advantage that a person who has no disability or is not so severely disabled has over a person who is subject to a mental or physical disability¹;

(b) the advantage that one person has over another where they are both in a particular situation and one is familiar with local conditions while the other is not².

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly exploits an advantage to which this section applies in order to—

(a) benefit him/herself or another; or

(b) cause a detriment to another. [In law, death is a” detriment”]

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

¹ Compare R v Hinks [2000] 4 All ER 833.

² Compare R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626

MY RECOMMENDATION:

All law enforcement agencies in all jurisdictions should closely scrutinize claims that these substances are “safe” and cross reference those claims with published adverse events data, criminal statute laws, and case law criminal negligence decisions.

In addition, High Court and Federal Court “dominant message” decisions such as the following two case studies should be forensically scrutinized and cross matched with statements being made by public officials that might be, or are, misleading and pose a potential risk to the public:

• ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [HCA 54]; (12 December 2013)

• ACCC v AGL South Australia [FCA 1369]; (16 December 2014)

In ACCC v TPG, in the joint judgment of Chief Justice French  Justice Crennan, and Justice  Bell, with Justice Keane and Justice Gageler dissenting, the High Court reinstated the judgment of Justice Murphy, i.e., the finding that TPG had breached what was then the Trade Practices Act (1974) (TPA) and, later, the Competition and Consumer Act (2010) (CCA), by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct, making false or misleading representations in what the Court considered to the ‘dominant message’ of TPG advertising. A year later, this decision was the basis for another “dominant message” determination by the Federal Court in ACC v AGL South Australia. However, telling the public that a known-to-be-lethal substance with numerous serious side effects is “safe” goes far beyond the legal issue of misrepresentation and constitutes Criminal Neglect under Section 14(1) of the South Australian criminal code and Reckless Conduct under both the Commonwealth and South Australian Work Health & Safety Acts.

THE VOICE REFERENDUM:

I am of the viewpoint that ‘The Voice Referendum’ was a  totally unnecessary vote grabbing ploy in the 2022 election as paragraph 5 of the Constitution makes all federal laws binding upon everyone in Australia.

What the referendum now draws attention to are all of the constitutionally binding laws that the Federal Parliament has been violating, e.g., the anti-terrorism and biosecurity laws and the anti-slavery laws that are violated by the unconstitutional Work for the Dole laws.

Blowing $100 million in taxpayers money just to honour a redundant election commitment that promises something that indigenous people already have, i.e., the right to be heard by their elected representatives, is probably misfeasance, but violating slavery laws and randomly killing people in the process, e.g., 18-year-old Josh Park-Fing, is a totally different ball-game and again, law enforcement agencies need to consider the daunting task of forensically examine the validity of ALL federal social welfare legislation.

Below is the text of a daisy-chain of 3 emails and this email will be the fourth in the series, which is likely to be published as Emcott Report Issues Paper IP #92 – Supplement K. In this format, the series of emails can be published and widely distributed in a single PDF document that can be downloaded and analysed by any person who has a vested interest in using the information for whatever they deem to be a personal or community benefit, e.g., anyone in jail who wants to mount a “gross miscarriage of justice” challenge to their criminal conviction(s).

Whether-or-not the WA-CCC wants to follow-up on the information provided is of course your decision. However, this is a public document and the Western Australia Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 contains the following statutory definitions of public interest issues

Part 1: s. 3

(either before or after the commencement of this Act), a public authority, a public officer, or a public sector contractor is, has been, or proposes to be, involved in —

(a) improper conduct; or

(b) an act or omission that constitutes an offence under a written law; or

(c) a substantial unauthorised or irregular use of, or substantial mismanagement of, public resources; or

(d) an act done or omission that involves a substantial and specific risk of —

(i) injury to public health; or

(ii) prejudice to public safety; or

(iii) harm to the environment;

The Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure (2013) contains similar wording that contain the same legal obligations:

Division 2 Public Interest disclosures

25 Simplified outline

The following is a simplified outline of this Division:

The protections in Division 1 apply to public interest disclosures.

26.3 Emergency disclosure

Any person other than a foreign public official

(a) The discloser believes on reasonable grounds that the information concerns a substantial and imminent danger to the health or safety of one or more persons or to the environment.

Broadly speaking, a public interest disclosure is a disclosure of information, by a public official, that is:

• a disclosure within the government, to an authorised internal recipient or a supervisor, concerning suspected or probable illegal conduct or other wrongdoing (referred to as “disclosable conduct”); or

• a disclosure to anybody, if an internal disclosure of the information has not been adequately dealt with, and if wider disclosure satisfies public interest requirements; or

• a disclosure to anybody if there is substantial and imminent danger to health or safety; or

• a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with the above matters.

Officers of the Western Australian Supreme Court who have participated in the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s fake ‘trials’ have engaged in a very serious case of professional misconduct. Similarly, public prosecutors and Coroners Court officials who have chosen to ignore the serious or fatal harms caused by unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, welfare policies and practices need to be investigated.

With virtually the entire population of Western Australia having been unlawfully placed at risk by being exposed to the COVID-19 pneumonic plague virus, with the result that tens of thousands of people have been unlawfully infected, and with a very large death toll linked to these criminal activities, it is imperative that these issues now be thoroughly investigated as a matter of extreme urgency.

Law enforcement officials and other public officials within the State of Western Australia have binding statutory obligations to uphold the law and to be proactive in preventing the on-going commission of the alleged criminal activities mentioned in both this communication and Emcott Legal Issues Briefing Paper #92 – Supplement J. For example, Section 46 of the Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act (2013) contains the following legally binding obligation:

Division 2 The obligation to investigate disclosures

46 Simplified outline

The following is a simplified outline of this Division:

The principal officer of the allocated agency must investigate the disclosure, and prepare a report, within a set time and in accordance with the requirements of this Division.

The principal officer may decide not to investigate in particular circumstances in which an investigation is unjustified, or if the agency is an investigative agency that can investigate without using this Act.

47 Principal officer must investigate disclosures

(1) The principal officer of an agency must investigate a disclosure if the handling of the disclosure is allocated to the agency under Division 1.

(2) Investigate, in relation to a disclosure, means investigate (or reinvestigate) whether there are one or more instances of disclosable conduct. The disclosable conduct may relate to:

(a) the information that is disclosed; or

(b) information obtained in the course of the investigation.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), an investigation (or reinvestigation) may include consideration of whether a different investigation (or reinvestigation) should be conducted:

(a) by the agency; or

(b) by another body;

under another law of the Commonwealth.

48 Discretion not to investigate

(1) Despite section 47, the principal officer of the agency may decide not to investigate the disclosure, or (if the investigation has started) not to investigate the disclosure further, if:

(a) the discloser is not, and has not been, a public official; or

(c) the information does not, to any extent, concern serious disclosable conduct; or

(d) the disclosure is frivolous or vexatious

Similar obligations are contained in Section 8 of the Western Australian Public Information Disclosure Act (2003):

8. Proper authority’s functions as to disclosed information

(1) A proper authority must investigate or cause to be investigated

the information disclosed to it under this Act if the disclosure

relates to —

(a) the authority; or

(b) a public officer or public sector contractor of the

authority; or

(c) a matter or person that the authority has a function or

power to investigate.

(2) A proper authority may refuse to investigate, or may discontinue

the investigation of, a matter raised by the disclosure if it

considers that —

(a) the matter is trivial; or

(b) the disclosure is vexatious or frivolous;

I respectfully suggest that with almost 12 million people in Australia  randomly infected with a pneumonic plague virus that the World Health Organization has declared to be “a public health emergency of international concern”  and which has been described by a World Health Organization spokesperson, Dr. Margret Harris, as “a very lethal and dangerous disease”, it is manifestly obvious that the disclosures that I have made to you are most definitely not “trivial”, “vexatious” or “frivolous.”

The most recent data available from the World Health Organization reveals  that the cumulative fatal harm caused by the fake ‘National Cabinet’ repeatedly violating Australia’s bio-terrorism and biosecurity laws is now reported as being 20,879 deaths.

It is patently obvious to any reasonable person that my disclosures constitute serious disclosable conduct that is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

I respectfully suggest that a delay of almost 4-weesk in communicating with me whilst nationally there have been 143,392 new cases that have resulted in another 607 deaths* during this time frame constitutes a totally inappropriate response, especially given your responsibility to ensure that the COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 deaths that have occurred in Western Australia are totally inconsistent with the duty of care that all law enforcement officials, and all politicians, owe to the people of Western Australia.

This is especially so given that COVID-19 is a deliberately introduced disease into both the Commonwealth of Australia and into the State of Western Australia. The following casualty statistics indicate the human impact cost of this totally inappropriate delay:

* COVID-19 CASUALTIES:

[i] 2nd May 2023: 11,441,894 cases with 20,272 reported deaths.

[ii] 27 May 2023: 11,585,286 cases with 20,879 reported deaths.

In order to provide a time-linked context for the current casualty figures that underscores the foreseeability of these shocking statistics, I recommend that you download the COVID-19-at-a-glance infographic data sheets for the following dates from this URL:

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic-collection

31^st December 2020:        (28,408 casualties with 909 deaths)

31^st December 2021:        (395,504 cumulative casualties with 2,339 deaths)

Consider the 2020 and the 2021 casualties in the context of the casualties that have occurred in the last 26 days, i.e., 143,392 new cases that have resulted in another 607 deaths

• The new COVID-19 cases that have been reported in the last 26 days are over 500% greater than for all of 2020, whilst the 607 recent deaths are 66.77% (2/3) of the total for all of 2020.

• These casualty figures expose the lie that the pandemic is over and the myth that the mRNA-based vaccines are “effective.”

• Some of those 143,392 totally preventable cases of COVID-19 infections and some of the totally preventable 609 COVID-19 deaths almost certainly involved Western Australian residents and it is the statutory responsibility of the WA-CCC to prevent infections and deaths.

VACCINE-GATE – AN OBSERVATION

Earlier this year, whilst checking the SA Health Department’s reported Covid-19 casualty figures, I noted an SA Health report for the previous week’s COVID-19 casualties that reported that 82% of hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated whilst the other 18% of patients were either partially vaccinated or unvaccinated.

What caught my attention was another SA Health report concerning  vaccination levels, i.e., 82% of the population was fully vaccinated whilst the other 18% of the population were either only partially vaccinated or were  unvaccinated.

If that information was correct, a reasonable, logical conclusion to be drawn from that data is that fully vaccinated people are just as vulnerable to the  COVID-19 virus as people who are either partially vaccinated or are unvaccinated. What may reasonably extrapolated from that is the logic conclusion that the vaccines are not nearly as effective as public health authority and some vocal ‘Ivory Tower’ experts claim. It may well be that the only really effective benefit from these dangerous substances is that they are  a reassuring placebo for the national community. Given the lethal risks associated with the mRNA-based vaccines, this is a Public Interest Disclosure issue that should not be ‘swept under the carpet’ for the sake of political and economic stability.

I would draw your attention to current developments in “The land of the (98%) Free, the home of the Brave, and Ground Zero for Extreme Litigation”, where the law suits are now starting to line up. These tort actions may underpin the CDC’s prudent action in ceasing to report the constantly rising death toll that is linked to the now-admitted-to-be-lethal mRNA-based vaccines.

Please be aware that one of my specific goals is to expedite this tort action trend in Australia and the failure of the WA-CCC to comply with its statutory obligations in a prompt and timely manner may prove very costly in the long-term, especially in regard to the growing legal liability for the harms caused by COVID-19 and the harms caused by the on-going violation of the civil rights of Centrelink clients.

A POINT OF LAW:
Since politicians can neither recklessly endanger nor randomly kill people, I recommend that you watch and forensically appraise the ‘made-for-convicted-criminals’ video, ‘The Facilitators’. The longer the WA-CCC decision-makers procrastinate and fail to comply with the WA_CCC’s statutory obligations, the greater the degree of probability that convicted criminals in Western Australia may be able to successfully appeal their conviction(s) on the grounds that they are the victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. [‘The Mokbel Gambit’]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-KXbwaP5Q6kp1auNOS9HMEPzsPSMTQg8/view?usp=sharing

Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, elector, survivor, and a voluntary lay-advocate.

NOTE TO RONALD’s SPACE READERS:

My last 3 postings contain the rest of the text of this email to the Western Australian Corruption & Crime Commission, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Lauren Gavranich, Linda Burney, the ABC and Juice Media.