Was Malcolm Turnbull’s “storm in a teacup” over Josh Freydenberg a very clever distraction that concealed the frightening fact the the 2016 election results are not legally valid?
On Friday 3rd November 2017, Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference and let fly with a very clever load of emotion-charged stuff about Josh Freydenberg and his mother that I believe was probably intended to distract listeners from the real issue, i.e. the 2016 federal election results are not legally valid. A short video of Malcolm Turnbull making a huge fuss over almost nothing, other than not mentioning Australia’s current politically driven holocaust, can be seen at:
Check out the facts, not the emotionally charged self-interest hype that Mr. Turnbull churned out:
Josh Freydenberg was a constitutionally valid candidate who received 58.22% of the crucial 1st Preference vote, i.e. he won the Kooyong seat by a clear margin of almost 25% of the vote more than the ALP candidate and there was no real question as to the validity of his election to the federal seat of Kooyong. So why the big fuss by Malcolm Turnbull?
Check this out
There were (theoretically) more than 24 billion preference voting options that could have been cast in the 2016 federal election and literally billions of preference votes may actually be invalid.
Check this out:
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE BUT ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
Approximately 14,890,000 voters cast votes for 1,625 candidates. Since Australia uses a preference voting system, that represents potentially 24 BILLION votes that had to counted, not once, but hundreds of times.
Check this out:
This is a huge amount of preference votes, i.e. over 606,000 2nd to 7th preference votes compared to the 101,043 1st preference votes. This pattern hold good for AL of the 150 House of Representatives seats, i.e. if there were 10 candidates in a seat with 100,000 voters, there would have been 100,000 1st preference votes and 900,000 2nd to 10th preference votes. the potential for invalid votes and the downstream flow-on starts with the 1st candidate who was not eligible to stand in the election, e.g. Barnaby Joyce in Windsor. This is why a By-election is necessary instead of just electing the runner-up. In the Senate, this is an absolute nightmare!
Check this out:
In South Australia, the votes for 64 Senate candidates had to be counted 465 times to determine the 12 winners, one of whom was not eligible to stand, i.e. Robert Day!
If you think that was a huge count, check this out:
4,492,197 voters, 151 Senate candidates and 1,065 counts required to determine the 12 winners from a potential Preference Votes Pool of 687,321,747 votes ranging from 1st preference to 151st preference.
It is an unfunny joke on voters for the High Court to order a re-count when the pool of invalid candidates and their preference votes have not been identified by the Australian Electoral commission or the High Court.
The mission critical question in all of this is just how many people in the pool of 1,625 candidates were not eligible to stand as candidates?
Here are the time bomb facts about how the Australian Electoral Commission stuffed the nomination process and thereby stuffed up the July 2nd 2016 federal election:
Nominations closed at 12 noon on 9th June 2016.
The Australian Electoral Commission published a list of candidates on 10th June 2016.
There was no audit checking by Australian Electoral Commission officials to determine if people named on the nominations list were eligible to be nominated and as a direct consequence, an unknown number of people who were not eligible to be elected to the parliament were able to contest the federal election on 2nd July 2016.
On July 2nd 2016, after the close of polls at 6.00PM, Australian Electoral Commission officials supervised the tallying of votes, including the tallying and distribution of preference votes that had been given by unsuspecting voters to ineligible candidates.
In the period from 14th July to the 5th August 2016, Australian Electoral Commission issued official election results based upon both valid and invalid preference votes.
THE HIGH COURT DECISIONS
Since the the official declarations of results by the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian High Court has made 3 rulings that have seen 7 senator declarations and 1 House of Representative declaration declared “Void ab initio”, i.e. legally invalid.
Re Culleton [No 2]  HCA 4 (3 February 2017)
Re Day [No 2]  HCA 14 (5 April
Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon  HCA 45 (27 October 2017)
So far this year, the High Court has ruled in 7 of 9 challenges to the validity of the 2016 federal election results that the election results were invalid.
Malcolm Turnbull’s speech occurred on the same day that Senator Parry, the President of the Australian Senate, resigned because it was confirmed that, like myself, he holds both Australian and British citizenship and was therefore not eligible to stand for election in the 2016 federal election.
RUN THE NUMBERS
7 out of 9 High Court challenges have seen 2016 election declared-results over-turned. Add in the resignation of Stephen Parry and that is 8 out 10 people who were not eligible for election, i.e. an 80% rate for invalid elections! At that rate of error, 170 – 171 of the remaining 216 members of the Federal parliament may have been ineligible to stand in the 2016 federal election!
In reality, the precise number of ineligible candidates who were nominated is still unknown as is the precise number who were elected.
The only certainty about the 2016 federal election is that constitutionally people who are not eligible to stand for election to the Federal Parliament are also not eligible to vote on legislation before the parliament.
Since the election results are based upon an unknown number of constitutionally invalid preferences, the election result is constitutionally invalid and therefore;
All votes on legislation made by this parliament are constitutionally invalid, i.e. this parliament has not passed any constitutionally valid laws.
The problem with that constitutional reality is that it applies backwards to all previous votes by people who were not eligible to be in the Federal Parliament, e.g. Senator Parry and Barnaby Joyce.
- This also applies to any legislation that was voted into law on the votes of people who had no constitutional right to be in parliament.
OOPS! THE AWKWARD PROBLEM OF AUSTRALIA’S HOLOCAUST.
In seeking to stir up an emotional response rather than a rational, logical response to the constitutional crisis, Malcolm Turnbull stated:
“I wish that those who made these allegations about Josh Frydenberg think a little deeper about the history of the Holocaust,”
“Has this witch hunt become so absurd that people are seriously claiming that Josh Frydenberg is a citizen of a country which stripped his mother and family of their citizenship and would’ve put them into the gas chambers?”
The first problem with the “witch hunt” statement is that any person in the Federal parliament who has no constitutional right to be in the Parliament has to be identified and expelled in order to have a constitutionally valid parliament that can create constitutionally valid laws. What is required is not a “witch hunt” but the upholding of section 44 of the constitution.
The 2nd problem is that comment is the following February 20 2017 statement by Senator George Brandis and my statement in an AAT appeal submission on 21st February 2017. Senator Brandis said:
“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”
Senator George Brandis: ABC – QandA program, 20th February 2017.
The next day, in a Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case 2016/5334, I wrote:
“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.
AAT Case file 2016/5334: Statement of Facts & Issues, 21st February 2017.
The flow-on problem with that estimated death toll was the official response by the Australian Government Service lawyer(s) representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. It was a ‘Nolle contendere’ [No contest] response in the form of a “Without prejudice” proffer to withdraw the DSS tort action and reinstate a welfare benefit and to pay benefits that had been withdrawn. The offer was accepted and “perfected”, i.e. finalized, on 6th March 2017.
AAT2016/5334 has exposed a horrific truth that the mass media and the police choose not to see. people who live in Australia’s “Ghetto of Poverty” are the victims of a politically driven humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions. It is not just the Hungarian Fascists and Nazis who have denied people their citizenship rights; as Senator Brandis made quite clear, it has been happening in Australia since Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister!
If media reports are true and the Turnbull Government has been hitting unsuspecting welfare recipients with [brazenly fraudulent] ‘Robo-Debt’ claims at the rate of up to 20,000 people per week , then Malcolm Turnbull has “put the pedal to the metal” on the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.
If I am correct the Australian Federal Parliament and a number of federal government agencies have beengetting away with ‘Bilking and Burking’ welfare recipients for decades, i.e. defrauding and murdering unsuspecting victims, for decades.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS SUMMARY
Over a period of decades, the Australian Electoral Commission has allowed people who were not eligible to do so to stand for election to the Australian Federal Parliament.
Over a period of decades, people who were not eligible to do so to serve as members of the House of representatives or serve as Senators have done so.
When legislation has been brought before the Australian Federal Parliament, people who had no right to do so,have voted on legislation.
Some of this legislation, e.g. Work for the Dole and No Show, No pay laws, is unconstitutional and represents a criminal act of recklessness.
The death toll from these dangerous, unconstitutional laws is unknown because because those responsible for these deaths have classified them as both “irrelevant” and “confidential”.
The solution to the constitutional crisis caused by the invalid 2016 election is simple,, i.e. a new election must be held in which the leigibility of candidates is confirmed BEFORE nominations are announced.
The solution to the problem of unconstitutional, legally in valid legislation is also simple, i.e. it must be rescinded by the next parliament.
The solution to the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is also simple, i.e. across the nation, police must investigate these crimes and where appropriate, charge and prosecute the offenders.
Please, put all things to the test and check out the claims made in this posting for accuracy before spreading the news.
For details of “Burking” check this out:
“Burking means the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term derives its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist. That became known as burking. [Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010)].”
Please note that I use “burking” in the sense that helpless, hapless welfare recipients, i.e. people who are unable to resist, are murdered by using ‘natural causes’ such as heart attacks, strokes, suicides and misadventure. A welfare recipient may have Hypertension, Myocardia and Depression and a recklessly dangerous, fraudulent Robo-Debt claim or an unconstitutional “No show, no pay” penalty may trigger, a stroke, a heart attack or a suicide. Since heart attacks and strokes are natural causes, many doctors and/or coroners sign off on the ‘Manner of Death’ not realizing that the death is a culpable negligence homicide.
Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged 2016 Federal Election, 2016 federal lection invalid, 80% invalid candidates, aat 2016/5334, australian constitutional crisis, burking, burking law, constitutional crisis, erica, erica strauss, functus officio, holocaust, josh freydenberg, lexis 111459, malcolm turnbull, nolle contendere, perfected claim, senator bob day, senator stephen parry, titlow v. burt, unable to resist, void ab initio
Below is the text of an emailed public submission to the High Court “In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP”
NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-17D
Case No. C15/2017
[My email to the High Court – to be re-submitted as a formal document, with appropriate evidence, for consideration by the High Court.]
Re: MP dual citizenship hearings before the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns.
A naturalized Australian citizen born in the United Kingdom of 17th May 1948, I am not eligible to stand for Parliament as I am officially a British Overseas Citizen under British nationality laws, policies and principles. On 20th May 1992, I married a 3rd generation Australian citizen, Leonie Jean Whitford. On 25th February 1997, our son Daniel Thane Medlicott was born in Adelaide. Approximately 6 years ago, my son Daniel used a certified copy of my birth certificate and applied for a British passport. Once the appropriate fees and security checks were completed, Daniel was issued with a British passport and subsequently toured Europe and Britain using that passport.
At this point in time, neither Daniel nor myself are eligible to stand for the Federal Parliament. The fact that the Australian Electorate Commission failed to verify the eligibility of candidates for previous federal elections, including the last election, which was held on 2nd July 2017, does not validate candidates who, by birth and right of heritage, do not qualify for election to the Federal Parliament. It would be Manifest Ostensible Bias for the High Court to validate the election of sitting Members, e.g. Barnaby Joyce, whilst people of British heritage, e.g. my son Daniel and myself, across Australia cannot stand as a candidate for the Federal Parliament until such time as we decide to formally revoke our British citizenship, pay the appropriate fees and due process of law occurs in Britain and the British Government achieves ‘Functus Officio” on the application to have British citizenship cancelled.
Williams & Ors v Spautz is a July 1992 High Court decision that made it quite clear that when an abuse of process occurs, the Court has both a responsibility to protect its powers and to ensure justice is done by issuing a stay of proceedings. At paragraph 15 of the majority decision the High Court stated: “As Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed in Connelly v. D.P.P. (7) (1964) AC, at p 1301. “(A) court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. … A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process.”
Due process in a person surrendering citizenship requires that Functus Officio be performed in accordance with Crown Law, whether that be in Great Britain or in Australia, and until that happens, regardless of the actions of individuals who wish to stand for the Australian Federal Parliament, until the Australian Electoral Commission has empirical evidence in the form of Functus Officio documents that prove that a person has renounced their citizenship rights to another nation, any applications received by the Australian Electoral Commission are, in law, void ab initio.
It would be unconstitutional for the High Court, acting as a Court of Disputed Returns, to hand down a politically expedient finding for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in the Federal Parliament.
On 31st August 1920, the High handed down its findings in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”)  HCA 54. At paragraph 4 the Majority ruling included the statement, ” It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.” As their Honours would be fully aware, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. Consequently, the High Court has no option but to uphold the Constitution and the Law. To do otherwise would be render a Broad Ultra Vires decisions that brings the Australian Justice System into disrepute, a scenario that Justice Rares was not prepared to tolerate in Ashby v Commonwealth & Slipper (no. 4)  FCA 1411.
The issue of manifest Ostensible Bias also applied in relation to the Void ab initio decisions handed down by the High Court in the following 2017 Court of Disputed Returns decisions:
Re Culleton [No 2]  HCA 4 (3 February 2017)
Re Day [No 2]  HCA 14 (5 April 2017)
As the High Court made quite clear in the previously mentioned Engineers’ case, expediency from the Bench is not acceptable. To take the politically expedient route and prop up the Turnbull Government, or any other government, by handing down findings that are unconstitutional and politically biased is not acceptable.
Ronald Medlicott – Naturalized Australian Citizen
NOTE TO ADVERTISER EDITOR: In 1920, the High Court handed down its findings in The Amalgamated engineers Society v Adelaide Steamship Pty Ltd; HCA 54 – 31st August 1920.
The High Court’s findings included the following:
“It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.”
“The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”
Justice Higgins added this finding:
“Moreover, it is evident, as I have stated, from the form of the placita in sec. 51 of the Federal Constitution, that the Federal Parliament was to have power to bind the State Crown except so far as the power to bind it is expressly negatived, as in pl. XIII. and pl. XIV. The power to legislate is plenary, for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, within the limits of the subjects mentioned in sec. 51. The Federal Parliament, “when acting within those limits … is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation, as large, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament” (i.e., the Imperial Parliament) “itself.”
“In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”
MY COMMENT: If the High Court upholds both the Australian constitution and its own rulings dating back to 1920, then those people who applied to the Australian Electoral commission before their citizenship status was formally determined, or before FUNCTUS OFFICIO on the rescinding of citizenship rights in another country had occurred, then it is likely that the July 2016 election results will be declared “VOID AB INITIO as happened to Rod culleton in February and Bob Day in April.
Ron Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
Posted in abuse of power, Case law, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged /2017, barnaby joyce, case 15, cconnelly v dpp at p 1301, connelly v p.p.p, constitution, constitution binding on courts, emngineers case, functus officio, haca 15/2017, justice higgins, paragraph 5 constitution, rob day, rod culleton, void ab initio, williams v spautz
On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the fist admission ever made by a government minister that welfare policies were killing welfare recipients.
NOTE: the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-16v
Recommendation: Watch this video:
Now read this letter, the 4th of 6 letters to Justice Macaulay.
Be aware that it is very long [6,200 words] and technical, i.e. incredibly boring, unless you are being ripped off by Centrelink, have had a relative die because of a Centrelink abuse of power rip-off. Alternately, you want a legal loophole that will either avoid a criminal conviction or have a conviction over-turned so that you can get out of jail.)
Note: the short link URL for this posting is:
From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘email@example.com’ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?
Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?
The 3 previous public interest submissions that I have provided to you have been forwarded to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, with each of the letters carrying a request that the communication be forwarded to Cardinal Pell and/or his legal representatives. In addition, consistent with my stated belief there is substantial public in both the Manus Island ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement and the February 2017 AAT2016/5334 ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement, the 1st public interest submission to you has been published on my Ronald’s space web site. The other 2 submissions will also be published on that website along with the text of this submission.
On 2nd March 2011, the Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell, a Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, presented the Scottish Council of Law Reporting Macfayden Lecture. Justice Cromwell’s lecture was titled “The Challenges of Scientific Evidence,” a most timely topic given the very publicly expressed support of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other senior members of his Cabinet for the shamelessly fraudulent Robo-Debt policies and practices of his government.
This speech can be read at:
At  and  in his speech, Justice Cromwell made the following comments, which I believe underscore the current shameless practice of the Turnbull Government, and previous governments, in deliberately ignoring both the Constitution and a number of High Court decisions, e.g. Associated Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co, Briginshaw, Kioa, Veal, Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco for the express purpose of avoiding having courts adducing the primary facts of the when seeking to recover ALLEGED overpayments from welfare recipients. If senior Information Technology experts employed by the Department of Human Services, e.g. Gary Sterrenberg, Chief Information Officer, CIO Group, or Grant Tidswell, Deputy Secretary, Service Delivery Operations Group, were to testify in a court about the “integrity” issues with the 35-year-old IBN 204 software driven Integrated Social Infrastructure System [ISIS] computer network, it would be virtually impossible for either the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the secretary of the Department of Social Services to win criminal or civil tort actions brought against Centrelink clients.
The issues identified by Justice Cromwell in the statements below are all credible, relevant and significant statements concerning the systemic issues that are linked to the Turnbull government’s current illegal efforts to recover a reported $4.7 Billion in overpayments from a staggering 1,400,000 people.
“One area of concern has been the lack of objectivity and independence of experts. For example, the Goudge Report noted that Dr. Smith failed to understand this duty of impartiality. He testified that he had received no training or instruction in this regard. Indeed, he thought his role was to advocate for the Crown and to “make a case look good.” This problem is not uniquely a Canadian one. In a study of problems with experts perceived by federal judges in the United States, the authors identified a lack of objectivity as one of the four most important issues from the judges’ perspective. A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”
“The expert witness’s obligation of impartiality has been addressed by judge-made law and Rules of Court. In Canada, England & Wales and Scotland, there is a duty of independence imposed on expert witnesses. An often cited statement of the expert’s obligations may be found in National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”).91 As Cresswell J. put it at page 81:
‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:
Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation …
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise … An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.
An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion …
An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.
If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one … In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report …’ (References to other cases have been omitted).
When it comes to the issue of “make a case look good”, the fraudulent Robo-Debt solution is to avoid the courts, withhold or destroy evidence and make the welfare recipient “prove” the impossible, i.e. that Centrelink has made an error. Heightening the ruthless perfidy of this criminal abuse of power is the outrageous requirement that this proof must be provided within 21 days. Adding even further to this criminal abuse of power, welfare recipients who try to fight this fraud are steered into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process where, as the Applicant in the appeal process, they again must ‘prove’ a Commonwealth error.
A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”
RECAP: AAT 2014/<Redacted>: A micro-case study with macro-implications:
It is not just the lack of impartiality of Australian Public Servants or Australian Government Services lawyers that welfare recipients must contend with. The following feedback information concerning AAT 2014/<Redacted>, is provided not for the purpose of a judicial decision, for I know that you have no jurisdiction in this matter; it is provided as feedback to underscore the need for transparency in government tort actions and to underscore the paradigm changes occurring in response to our nation’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices.
In September 2014, I was appointed by the applicant in AAT case 2014/<Redacted> as their representative and, via telephone hook-up, participated in an AAT Directions Hearing.
If you listen to the first 20 seconds of the Waivergate Part 2 video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I you will hear concatenated sound bites of a senior AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT member conspiring to hold a trial “on that date.”
I was so disgusted with the Presiding Member‘s conduct of this hearing that, via email, I requested that the Presiding Member recues from the hearing.
The Presiding Member declined to do so.
When I requested a copy of an audio-recording made by Centrelink that was the only empirical evidence of ‘who said what’ in the phone call that was central to this tort act. However, the AGS lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS responded with an email stating that it was not available.
I then requested the presiding AAT Member exercise their authority under the AAT Act and compel the Respondent, i.e. the Secretary of the DSS, to make this recording available.
This lawful discovery request was not complied with; a response that did not surprise me as the recording was mission critical to any fair and just decision and it was manifestly apparent that Justice was decidedly absent from this appeal process. [Note: I did not know about Hellicar at this time.]
On 24th November 2014, a DVD with a digital copy of the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a print-out of the AGS lawyer’s email claiming that Centrelink did not have the a copy of the phone call that Centrelink arbitrarily records “for your security”, was sent via certified mail to the Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.
Minister Andrews, a former barrister, appears to have opted to ignore the conspiracy to hold a “trial” and the unlawful withholding of evidence.
At the [Kangaroo Court] “trial”, when I pointed out that the Applicant had “human rights that must be respected”, as in the right to a fair hearing, the AGS Lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS rebutted my comment with the remark, “let’s leave the issue of human rights for ‘other courts’ to decide.”
At 4 in the Engineers Case [HCA 54 on 31st August 1920, Justice Isaacs stated: “…is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.
As you are fully aware, Section 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges and the people.
In the Engineers Case, the High Court held that its ruling were also binding on the Parliaments and the Executives of the Federal and State Parliaments.
As mentioned in a previous email, the Presiding Member ignored the findings in the Engineers Case and the express wording in Section 1,237A of the Social Security Action, opting instead for a Dickensian Bleak House judgement, sans any adducing of the primary facts of the matter by a court.
<The applicant’s> contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.
Since Section 1,237A would have meant acknowledging a Commonwealth error and waiving the debt, it was simply ignored and Sub-section 1,237AAD(b) given precedence over Section 1,237A.
In February 2015, consistent with Bhardwaj and the Solicitor-General’s views in Legal Briefing Paper #67 that a decision that is in law, no decision at all, can be disregarded and a new decision made if both parties agree, I wrote to the Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison.
In this communication I gain included the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a printed copy of the email stating that Centrelink did not have the audio-recording at has always been the central piece of evidence in the government’s claim that the applicant had been overpaid as a result of an error by the applicant.
Minister Morrison, who has a law degree, opted to ignore both the facts of the matter and case law determinations such as Justice Brennan’s findings at 38 in Kioa concern the inappropriateness of withholding of credible, relevant information of significance simply because it was detrimental to one of the parties in the tort action.
On 16th November 2015, a detailed appeal submission was lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which included the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the recording of the Directions Hearing. Later that day the applicant was informed that since no new information had been received, the applicant’s appeal had been rejected!
Go figure that one.
On 25th November 2015, a public relations officer informed me that the appeal submission had been received in Canberra on 23rd November but it would not be actioned, i.e. it would be disregarded.
Go figure that one as well!
In December 2015 I wrote to both Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT, and to the Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services.
In both communications, I provided the details submitted to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, e.g. the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing, a copy of the email concerning the withheld audio-recording, and the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions.
Neither Justice Kerr nor any other person representing the AAT responded to that communication.
In a letter dated 7th January 2016, the Acting Chief Counsel for the Department of Human Services, Ms. Alice Linacre responded with the statement “Your letter requests that the information provide be considered and I confirm that it has been considered. I do not consider that any further action by the department of Human Services is necessary.”
Summing up AAT 2014/<Redacted>, we have the following:
A Directions Hearing during which the Presiding AAT Member and an AGS lawyer are recorded conspiring to hold a trial “on that date” even though the AAT has no statutory or constitutional right to hold a trial.
Evidence that is credible, relevant and extremely significant is withheld and the Presiding Member does not order that it presented in a timely manner for review by the Applicant and myself.
The Minister for Human Services, a former barrister who “ought to have known’ that serious procedural fairness “irregularities, possibly of a criminal nature, were in play in this appeal and yet the Minister, by a voluntary physical act of omission, failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.
A [Kangaroo Court] trial held “on that date” during which another AGS lawyers requests that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing be set aside “for other courts to decide.”
The Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, emulated the actions of his ministerial colleague, Kevin Andrews, and also failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman ‘misplaced’ and then ignored a valid appeal that cited Kioa, Hellicar and Bhardwaj and which also pointed out the possibly of criminal abuses of power that were the hallmarks of a Dickensian Bleak House travesty of Justice.
Justice Kerr also ignored all of the above procedural fairness points, including actions that may have been of a criminal nature.
The Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre, placed her views and the apparently perceived needs of the DHS, ahead of the Constitution, High Court decisions and criminal statute laws.
When it comes to a possible criminal conspiracy to defraud, the Commonwealth officials involved includes at least 4 AGS lawyers, a Dun & Bradstreet lawyer, who “ought to have known” about Briginshaw, Kioa, Coco, Bhardwaj and Hellicar, who seriously harassed the applicant during the AAT appeal process, a senior AAT member, a Federal Court judge, and 2 senior Government Ministers. That is an impressive list of very high profile people that the Federal Police decided not to investigate when asked to do so.
All of that input, just to defraud a welfare recipient of $13,660.33, seem to be a lot of people putting their careers on the line for a relatively small gain. However, Ms. Kathryn Campbell pointed out similar issues to Senator Xenophon on 26th February 2015 when justifying the withholding of evidence and the expenditure of $565,000 to recover an amount of approximately $5,700. The following statements are extracts copied from page 25 – 29 of the Hansard minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th February 2015.
Senator XENOPHON: “…Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?
Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount.
Senator XENOPHON: Incorrect in which matter?
Mr Hutson: The total amount of expenditure of $565,000 is not about a single matter in front of the courts. It is about a series of matters in front of both the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal running over the period of August 2011—
Senator XENOPHON: But the genesis of it was still about the way the department handled this and the amount involved.
CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, if you could just allow Mr Hutson finish before you interject.
Ms Campbell: I reject the fact that the entire amount that has been spent is about a $6,000 debt.
[From page 26 of the Hansard Minutes]
Senator XENOPHON: It has cost well over half a million dollars, and it could well cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more before this is concluded; is that right?
Ms Campbell: They are important pieces of law to how we administer the entire child support system to determine whether some pieces of evidence are admissible in determining child support.
Senator XENOPHON: But you are aware that the father did contact the department direct to say, ‘I am prepared to participate in alternative dispute resolution to try and resolve this without recourse to costly litigation’? Can you acknowledge that?
Ms Campbell: I am aware of that, but there is also an issue about precedent, how we go forward with not just this case but other cases. The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives. That is why the Commonwealth, as the model litigant, has paid the expenses of the other two parties involved—so we could test that at law.
Senator XENOPHON: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider. It concerns me that there is now an argument about not allowing documents. You are supposed to be a model litigant and you are saying you are fighting—you are spending tens of thousands of dollars with each court hearing—about not allowing documents to be reconsidered in respect of this matter, attempting to refuse that these documents be considered.
Ms Campbell: To do that I would need to call the legal practitioners so that we could go through that level of detail. As you can imagine, we do provide the actual operation of these legal cases to the lawyers to construct those. I do not have the information about that exact point with me.
Senator XENOPHON: Again, I ask that you take this on notice. A fortune is now being spent, with up to four lawyers turning up against an unrepresented father about documents that he says—and I say—were erroneously withheld from him.
Can I go to the AAT? Let us move to the FOI documents that the Information Commissioner has decided are not FOI-exempt. So the Information Commissioner has been involved in this. You have engaged Clayton Utz to represent you in the AAT and I believe you have special counsel and a partner working on the matter, along with an instructing solicitor from Human Services; is that right?
Mr Hutson: That would probably be right.
Senator XENOPHON: So you are there fighting an Information Commissioner’s ruling.
Mr Hutson: That is again a very, very important point of law. We believe that the Information Commissioner’s decision was not correct. Those documents go to legal professional privilege. In terms of the way we administer the child support legislation, the Social Security Act and all the other legislation we administer, legal professional privilege is an important part of the way we obtain legal advice and consider it. There is some information there which the Information Commissioner believes should have been released. But in our view that should not have been released, and the matter goes to legal professional privilege. That is why we have taken the matter up in front of the AAT.
Senator XENOPHON: I have just got a message from the father, who is looking at this, saying that costs were paid in the first matter only, that you are seeking costs against him in the appeal of the SSAT decision.
Ms Campbell: The first case, which was about what evidence was required and whether or not it could be used, was the matter of law that we were very focused on. I think that is where most of this started and that is where the costs are. These subsequent areas have come from the applicant. So we are, as is our normal practice, working through the legislative—
Senator XENOPHON: But you are seeking costs against him, so you will probably wipe him out.
Your Honour, As Senator Xenophon’s questions revealed, $565,000 in legal costs and rising, with 4 government lawyers and a private law firm stacked up against a self-representing citizen. In AAT 2014/<Redacted> there were 3 AGS lawyers and the law firm, Dun & Bradstreet up against a senior citizen with a part-time job that paid an income below the poverty line. Note also the common factor of withholding evidence that is detrimental to the Department of Human Services.
So, Your Honour, just how well does this Dickensian Bleak House nightmare stack up with your concept of how Australia’s justice system works in Australia?
Points of Law: Justice Cromwell’s footnotes – The Ontario Rules.
Footnotes 94, 95, and 96 of Justice Cromwell’s speech set out the ‘Ontario rules’, i.e. the rules that apply in Canada, and the rules that apply in England and Wales when ‘expert evidence’ is presented in civil and criminal procedures.
94 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.1 [Ontario Rules].
4.1.01(1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged.
95 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17), r. 35.3 [England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules].
3(1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise.
(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid.
96 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 No. 60 (L.2), r. 33.2 [England and Wales Criminal Procedure Rules].
33.2(1) An expert must help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his expertise.
(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he receives instructions or by whom he is paid.
(3) This duty includes an obligation to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement.
Experts are supposed to serve by aiding the courts to be fair and impartial in assessing the technical merits of a case. What impact would the following ‘expert testimony’ have upon a Court in a Robo-Debt case, or upon a fair-minded jury in a criminal prosecution of a welfare recipient accused of ‘rorting the system’?
EXTRACTS: HANSARD: COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 3 June 2015 Senate Page 17 -19
Please note that the ANAO Report referred to is ANAO Report #37, which was tabled in May 2015.
Senator CAMERON: Minister and Secretary, I want to go to the ANOA report. I suppose I could ask the question that is asked in the publication: what kind of government service puts the public on hold for 811 years?
Ms Deininger: I am not sure where the 811-year number comes from. So I cannot answer that. It could be made up, for all I know. If we go to the substance of the ANAO audit, I think there is a waiting time, which of course has been quite transparent in the last number of PBSs and annual reports.
Senator CAMERON: I have heard other adjectives used as well as ‘transparent’.
Senator CAMERON: We will do that sample. I might come back outside estimates or later today and say, ‘Can you have a look at these specific ones?’ That is okay. You have got 12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked. I have not been out there. Have you got a control room?
Mr Tidswell: Yes, Senator.
[Skipping some of the text]
Mr Tidswell: One of the things we have done over some years is attempt to restrict the amount of call blocking, which effectively means the customer will receive an engaged signal over some time. We have reduced that by about 66 per cent over the last few years deliberately so that people can get the choice to enter into that IVR and get information about the service they might need. In that sense what happens is that at certain points—say, at the end of the day—we have to clear the queues out. It is no different, in a sense, from running a club or a bouncer letting people come in to that environment. You can only let a certain number of people in to that environment to protect the telephone infrastructure and to make sure that you handle the workload in a suitable fashion; otherwise we would be working every day of the week 24/7. So we try to restrict it very much to a demand situation where we do it, or to protect our infrastructure. The easiest way to fix wait times is to introduce more engaged signals. Previously, that is what we did. With respect to the level of blocking previously, there were far more blocked calls than we ever answered in any given year.
This is just one example of the way in which welfare recipients are treated; they are required by law to report income and face criminal prosecution if they do not accurately report earning. However, if the 35-year-old ISIS driven phone system cannot cope with call load, in just one year there were “12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked.”
This is happening on a computer system that takes a team of expert programmers 3-months just to change the date format on a form letter! Expert testimony would not be required to totally discredit Robo-Debt claims in a court of law; every rip-off claim is already discredited!
When it comes to the Rules of Evidence and the published dysfunctional operating problems that the ISIS computer network has, an interesting issue is the question as to why Federal Police I-Tech surveillance experts and I-Tech forensic experts have not raised the issue of systemic fraud by Centrelink on behalf of the government-of-the-day.
Robo-Debt is brazen fraud and it is totally unbelievable that not one Federal Police I-Tech expert has pointed this out to Cyber-crimes investigators. If the I-Tech experts are both competent and honest, then it is highly probable that Animal Welfare Rule CYA-1-0-1 applies and this fraud has been raised in emails, memos, official minutes of I-Tech meetings, and in privately held minutes of meetings. This logic is equally applicable within every police department in Australia, and also within the I-Tech units within the Departments of Human Services, Social Services, Employment, Finance, Treasury, the Office of the Coordinator-General, Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General’s Department.
Most welfare recipients would not know what a Duces tecum order was, let alone afford the cost of such a subpoena. Any person accused of a crime who wishes to mount an Ostensible Bias appeal should give serious consideration to following the lead of Commissioner Ian hanger in the HIP Inquiry and using a confetti box shower of Duces tecum subpoenas, as part of the Discovery process, obtain as much evidence as is possible of the extent to which I-Tech experts, especially those in police and federal government watchdog agencies, have been aware that Robo-Debt is a criminal abuse of power, i.e. a dangerous fraud, but have chosen to do nothing about it.
Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin
Executive Summary [Canada – 1997]
In February 1997, the Kaufman Inquiry was established to inquire into a miscarriage of justice to determine what systemic factors had led to the wrongful conviction of Guy Morin for the alleged murder of Christine Jessop. In 1995, the Ontario Supreme Court overturned the conviction when a review of DNA evidence cast reasonable doubt about the validity of the conviction.
After a 146 day hearing the Kaufman Report contained a number of recommendations that addressed the issue of systemic bias within the Durham Police force.
The Commissioner commended the direction taken by the Durham Regional Police Services Board to address some of the failings identified at the Inquiry and, indeed, the Board’s approach to the Inquiry itself. He cautioned, however, that many of the failings identified go to the heart of the police culture:
An investigation can be perfectly structured, but flounder due to tunnel vision or “noble cause corruption” or loss of objectivity or bad judgment.
Older techniques and thought processes are, at times, deeply ingrained and difficult to change.
Police culture is not easy to modify. The failings which I identified were systemic and were not confined to several officers only.
The challenge for Durham will be to enhance policing through an introspective examination of the culture. I am convinced that such an examination has commenced.
The systemic issues identified in the Kaufman Report have been replicated in the Bromwich Report, a review of the City of Houston Crime Laboratories, and are echoed in some of the reports of the recently concluded interim reports of the Australian Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuses of Children in Institutionalized Care, e.g. Report #9 – St Ann’s, which highlighted the 12-year-long failure of the South Australian Police to deal with the sexual abuse of children by an employee of St Ann’s.
In theory, Bigotry and Prejudice have no place in any fair and just society and yet, Work for the dole is unconstitutional and the ‘No show, no pay’ laws are also unconstitutional and a criminal act of deprivation that derives its terrifying power from the very real menace caused by depriving impoverished people of the means to survive. Not once or twice in the 2-year period 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, but over 600,000 times, John Howard’s social welfare ministry team deliberately deprived impoverished people of the means to survive. Whatever the actual cause of each death triggered by this unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous Act of Destitution, the manner of death is identical, i.e. murder.
The number of murders is unknown because those responsible have no intention of being held accountable. As Section 2.11 of the Report #12 to the 44th Parliament made quite clear, if the vulnerable can be slaughtered by Federal legislation, then there are those who will try to do it:
“However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security.”
As you are well aware, in a court of law, that statement opens the door to the question as to just how many did not survive under the Howard government’s 13-week penalty system or under the supposedly more humane 8-week-penalty system. One clue to the impact of these penalties is that in the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 to the 31st December 2006, i.e. ‘The Howard Years’, 23,254 people committed suicide and the leading cause of 1 in 3 of these penalties was Unemployment.
It is possible that just from suicides alone, John Howard may have murdered around 7,700 unemployed people. Toss in the other top suicide categories and during the 11 ½ years that John Howard was the Prime Minister of Australia, it is possible that perhaps as many as 25,000 died as a direct consequence of his welfare policies.
In November 2014, I came close to finding out the precise number with the Discovery questions in AAT 2014/<Redacted> but the AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT Member slammed that door shut. I came even closer with AAT 2016/5334 because the AAT Case Registrar, Athena Ingall, had issued a Discovery Notice that required disclosure of facts by 3rd March 2017.
Close, but again, not close enough; Elizabeth Ulrick slammed the door shut with a ‘Nolle contendere’ proffer that was put to the applicant without my knowledge.
However, I believe that time is fast running out and that soon, perhaps very soon, the appalling number of victims of Australia’s brutal welfare policies with be disclosed. Once that happens, the closing words of Justice Steven Rares speech to the 2013 AGS Law Administrators conference will have practical meaning:
When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate, or the limits of judicial power. That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers under Ch III of the Constitution, they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court and in reasons for the judgment in which the Court decides and pronounces the law.If citizens are to have rights worth having, they can only be guaranteed either by constitutional entrenchment through a democratic referendum, or by the Parliament scrutinising legislation and the Courts continuing to apply the principle of legality.
Robo-Debt and the 20 Point Assessment are a crime, i.e. in-ya-face-fraud.
The ‘no show, no pay’ breaching penalties are simply a variation on Hitler’s “Final Solution”, for it is ideology-driven ‘murder by federal legislation’.
Take care note of what Steven Rares said, “That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers… they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court…” If the door still remains open to the Manus Island case being “proceedings that occur transparently in open court,” then you must make it happen. It is totally inappropriate that those who rule our nation can use taxpayers’ monies to hide their crimes from those they serve, deceive, persecute, defraud and murder.
Transparency is not an essential function for any government; judicial power that ensures transparency in an open court is. You have been set before you a serious human rights violation case in which there is at least one death caused by illegal activity, i.e. a felony murder. Surely, transparency demands that you make no judgment until you know about every other human rights violations triggered death that the Commonwealth of Australia is directly responsible for?
I would remind you that if you check out the various videos on the Internet of the ABC’s Q & A broadcast of 20th February 2017, you will see and hear Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek quibbling over the issue as to whether the Gillard Government or the Turnbull Government was the most efficient at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.
I therefore loop back to my opening question to you; What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?
As Chief Justice Barwick pointed out in Ratten in 1974, “Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked;”
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 517 per Barwick CJ; HCA 35
You may not like the views expressed in my email letters, aka ‘The Macaulay Letters”, but they are based upon facts that can be proven in any court. Ignoring them is not an option as any person accused of crime can ask you to stand down if you fail to act on the information provided.
Please LISTEN for 20 seconds:
In closing, my advice as a citizen, and as a lay-advocate, is very simple; I think that you should call the cops.
Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?
Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged aat, aat 2014/????, aat2016/5334, anton pilar, anton pilar order, athena ingall, bigotry, brandis confession, challenfs of scientific evidence, chief justice barwick, chief justice barwick ratten at 517, duces tecum order, elizabeth ulrick, fraud, gary sterrenberg, grant tidswell, hansard, iraq has weapons of mass destruction, iraq wmd, justice macaulay, justice thomas cromwell, Macfayden lecture, macfayden lecture 2011, manus island, mindset of murder, murder, no pay, no show, nolle contendere, prejudice, ratten, ratten at 517, reckless endanger, reckless endangerment, robo debt brandsis, robo-debt, senatoir brandis, senator x, senator xenophon, the howard years, unconstitutional, welfare bashing