Part 43G. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. An email to Christian Porter that deprives him of the “I did not know” excuse.

Below is  the redacted text of an email to Christian Porter MP, the  Minister for Social Services, which is written to both inform him of my view that Robbo-Debt is Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) and to also deprive him of the “I did not know excuse.

Appended and concatenated with this email to Mr. Porter is the 1st email that I submitted to the AAT at 1.44 PM on 21st February 2017, which means that Mr. Porter received hundreds of pages of information that he now needs to consider very carefully if he wants to avoid facing criminal charges in regard to Robbo-Debt and any fatalities that may have been caused by this criminal abuse of power. Please note that the appended material is NOT included in this posting.

NOTE: the short list URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-12G

The email text to Christian Porter:

 Dear Minister,

Re: Accountability for the unreported, classified, “irrelevant” fatalities that may have been caused by abuses of power, i.e. Robo-Debt and ‘no show, no pay’ penalties, which I believe are unlawful homicides under state/territory/ federal and international laws.

 To you and your staff this email is ‘Information’, however, in a court it has another name that you would be very familiar with given that you are a former senior prosecutor, i.e. ‘EVIDENCE’. In order that both you and other readers of this email, or YouTube viewers, may quickly comprehend the significance of this communication, including the appended files and concatenated emails, I list the following points for your immediate consideration:

POINT #1: Robo-Debt is Digital Data Fiction Fraud and all fatalities that are the downstream consequence of this criminal activity are unlawful deaths, e.g. murder for financial gain.

 POINT #2: On 20th February 2017, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unwittingly and unintentionally made off-the-cuff statements that implicate both the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Labour Party the deliberate use of administrative convenience, aka Robo-Debt, for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED overpayments that the Federal Government may have no lawful right to reclaim.

 POINT #3: Work for the Dole is ‘civil conscription’ and as both a government minister and as a [former] Officer of the Court, you ‘ought to know’ or ‘ought to have known*’ that civil conscription laws are unconstitutional under section 51(xxiiiA) of the constitution. It is a fortiori that since the Federal Parliament has no constitutional jurisdiction to make laws that link civil conscription to welfare payments, all Work for the Dole laws, including the Section 42C ‘No show, no pay’ penalties are, in law, no law at all and all pecuniary penalties applied will therefore have to repaid, with compound interest.

  • (*Boughey v. R. [HCA 29; 6th June 1986] The phrase “ought to have known’ was used a total of 21 times by Chief Justice Gibbs and Justice Brennan. Both held the opinion that Dr. Boughey, as a registered medical practitioner, ‘ought to have known’ that his actions could cause death.

  • When it comes to Robo-Debt or ‘no show, no pay’ triggered fatalities the following comments by Justice Brennan at [4], which highlight the legal status of these fatalities in Tasmania:

  • Culpable homicide is defined by s.156(2) which provides:

  • ” Homicide is culpable when it is caused –

  • (a) by an act intended to cause death or bodily harm, or which is commonly known
    to be likely to cause death or bodily harm, and which is not justified under
    the provisions of the Code;

  • (b) by an omission amounting to culpable negligence to perform a duty tending to
    the preservation of human life, although there may be no intention to cause death
    or bodily harm; or

  • (c) by any unlawful act.”

 As I sure you are aware, whilst the specific wording of statutes may vary, each State and Territory in Australia has similar laws that define a death from unlawful acts as a culpable homicide. The ‘no show, no pay’ Section 42C provisions are intended to deprive impoverished people of the ability to meet “their basic costs of living” and as such constitutes legislated culpable negligence under 156(2)(c) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code with deaths caused by this law being culpable homicides.

POINT #4: The Section 42C law is a murderous criminal act of reckless endangerment that is inconsistent with the constitutional constraint on the Federal Parliament to only make laws for the purpose of “good government.” Whatever the perceived ‘actuarial benefit’ is too be had from saving taxpayers money by unconstitutionally depriving welfare recipients of what may be their only means of subsistence, in law, the dismissal by politicians and government lawyers of the fatalities triggered by this abuse of power as “irrelevant” displays a reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life. This mindset means that all such foreseeable deaths are, at the very least, fatalities that involve a wilfully reckless disregard for human life, i.e. the deaths are reckless indifference murders.

POINT #5: In ‘The Engineer’s case’ [HCA 54 – 1920], the majority decision of the High Court was that it’s decisions are binding on the Federal Parliament and therefore the concealment of the High Court’s ASIC v. Hellicar decision [HCA 17 – 2012, at paragraphs 141 to 141], plus the subsequent concealment of ‘The Complexity Report’, which was submitted to the government in February 2015, may be empirical evidence that, when using Robo-Debt policies and practices to recover ALLEGED overpayments from welfare recipients who were unlikely to have had knowledge of these decisions, there was malicious criminal intent to defraud with no regard for the potentially lethal consequences of this fraud, i.e. heart attacks, strokes or suicides triggered by this criminal abuse of power.

 POINT #6: As per Hellicar above, all decisions made by Centrelink’s anything but ‘independent’ Administrative Review Officers, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, must be based upon the Findings of Fact as adduced by a court. As the High Court ruled in Bhardwaj, [HCA 11 – 2002 at 51 – 53], if there is no jurisdiction, then, “in law, there is no decision” and a lawfully valid decision remains to made. Since there is documentary evidence that the Secretary of the Department of Human Services has been made aware of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions in December 2015, all subsequent decisions that have by-passed the courts and are, in law, no decision at all, the deliberate enforcement of such decisions is a criminal abuse of power with any fatalities triggered by this criminal misconduct being deaths resulting from the commission of a crime.

 POINT #7: “I will either find a way or I will make one” [Philip Sydney]. On the evening of 1st June 2017, I received a phone call that was an automated survey of political issues. One of the questions related to a proposal by the Turnbull government to introduce compulsory civil conscription of 6-months duration. If this proposal is a proposed policy of the Turnbull Government, then it is a deliberate violation of paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution, i.e. an intention to commit Constitutional Deprivation. My pointing this out to you in this communication means, in law, if you make a voluntary physical act of commission by supporting this proposal, you will be engaging in an abuse of power that is inconsistent with your role as a Member of the House of Representatives.

 POINT #8: As you are no doubt aware, on February 3rd 2017, the High Court rendered ‘Void ab initio’ the election of Rod Culleton to the Senate. Since abuse of power carries a 5-year-jail-penalty, any politician who has prior knowledge that civil conscription is unconstitutional, e.g. YOU, faces possible criminal charges and expulsion from the Federal Parliament. Should you personally support any other legislation intended to strengthen compulsory civil conscription activities that are linked to welfare payments, then it quite possible that as you would be engaging in another voluntary physical act of commission and you could face further criminal misconduct penalties, i.e. incarceration for criminal abuse of power and the inevitable expulsion from the Federal Parliament.

 POINT #9: If there is nothing unlawful about the deaths caused by the laws, policies and practices that underpin the unconstitutional, human rights violating, ‘no show, no pay’ laws and the blatantly fraudulent Robo-Debt policies and practices, then you will have no concerns about providing me with the information that  <Redacted> (AAT case <Redacted>) and Elizabeth Ulrick (AAT case 2016/5334) did not provide me with as part of the Discovery process in those appeals. However, if I am correct and these fatalities are unlawful homicides, e.g. Felony Murders or Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence, then you will not provide the specific data that I have repeatedly requested.

 Point #10: In AAT case <Redacted>, neither the applicant nor myself could obtain the audio-recording that was central to this appeal with Centrelink claiming to no longer have this recording. It is my contention that the withholding, or the destruction, of this audio-recording, which provides empirical evidence of either a Commonwealth error or an error by the applicant, is well beyond being a procedural fairness error and in fact is both a criminal violation of section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and a civil violation of federal data protection laws that applies to all Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Human Services.

 THE LESSON OF Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652

The 3-word Fairfax media tweet “Treasurer for sale” cost Fairfax Media $200,00, plus legal costs, and the lesson to be learnt from the Federal Court’s decision on 30th June 2015 is that when raising issues of public concern, it is perhaps better to be detailed rather than too brief with the facts. As you can see from the concatenated chain of emails below and the appended documents, I most emphatically believe that a criminal investigation into the role of the Federal Parliament in committing systemic acts Abuse of Power, as per s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and various other federal, state, territory and international laws that address the fatal consequences of unlawful abuses of power by public servants and other people who hold public office, is urgently required.

 Given your ‘ought to know’ professional knowledge as a barrister and as a senior public prosecutor, it appears to be that as a Minister in the Turnbull Government, you now subscribe to the erroneous belief that if the Federal Parliament creates a law, then it legally valid. Personally, I subscribe to the viewpoint expressed by the High Court in 1920 in The Engineers Association v. Adelaide Steamship Co, [HCA 54 – 31St August 1920], that the determination of the validity of any laws created by the Federal Parliament is constitutionally a matter for the Courts, not politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge or yourself. Senior Australian Public Servants, e.g. Alice Linacre, the Acting CLO for the DHS in January 2015, also do not have the power to over-rule either the constitution or the High court and yet,

 On January 7th 2016, that is precisely what Ms. Linacre did when, in writing, she gave the proverbial ‘1-finger-salute’ to my pointing out that in AAT <Redacted>, there had been numerous violations of procedural fairness, including no adducing of the primary facts of the matter by a court and the deliberate withholding of evidence. In addition, Ms. Linacre opted to ignore the audio evidence that an AGS lawyer and a senior AAT Member had conspired to hold a trial that involved making a determination as to the primary facts of the matter despite the fact that the AAT has no constitutional or legal jurisdiction to do so. Note that Ms. Linacre had a 39-minute recording of the AAT  <Redacted> Directions Hearing, not just the 18 second sound bite of audio evidence emailed to you.

 Please also take note of the fact that the AAT is still holding quasi-trials, perhaps better known as Kangaroo Court Trials. Unambiguous evidence that the AAT is still usurping the power of courts and adducing the primary facts of the matter in tort disputes involving the Secretary of the DSS and welfare recipients is to found in Thomson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) AATA 255 (1 March 2017). From paragraphs 13 – 83 of the published findings in this appeal case is evidence that neither the Secretary of the Department of Social Services or the AAT are willing to comply with either the constitution or the High Court as per Hellicar at 141 – 143 and make fair and just decisions that are based upon the facts of the matter that have been adduced by a court.

 At an average cost of $25,000 per Centrelink tort claim, going to court is inconveniently expensive.  However, as the High Court ruled in Coco v R Coco v R [HCA 15 – 13 April 1994] at paragraph 8, “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

 Since the applicant in AAT <Redacted> was a Western Australian resident, if you continue to uphold Ms. Linacre’s January 7th 2017 decision, then there is a high degree of probability that you could be charges as an accessory to this on-going fraud. AAT Members and federal politicians implicated in the AAT <Redacted> fraud, e.g. Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison and every other federal politician who has held the office of either the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services since October 2013, including yourself, face a criminal investigation that could expand to consider all other similar cases. As a former prosecutor, you would be aware that where these spin-off cases involve fatalities, homicide charges could be laid against those responsible for these deaths.

I also subscribe to the High Court’s viewpoint in paragraphs 46 – 47 of Commonwealth DPP v. Keating, [HCA 20 – 8th May 2013], that the retrospective law passed by the Federal Parliament on 4th August 2011 was nothing more than a “statutory fiction”, a finding that I firmly believe is a precedent that is applicable to the foreseeably dangerous and unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ and Work for the Dole laws. [Forcing welfare recipients with undiagnosed Myocardia to perform heavy manual labour is foreseeably dangerous.]

 At 1.44 PM (local time) on 21st February 2017, acting in my lawfully appointed role as the Representative of the Applicant, I filed Statements of Facts & Issues on behalf the applicant in AAT case file 2016/5334. As you can see from the appended file, The Advocate, I cited Hellicar at paragraphs 141 – 143 and Bhardwaj at paragraphs 51 – 53 and was most emphatic that the violation of these two High Court decisions was a deliberate abuse of power under section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. On page 3 of this document I further stated that abuses of constitutional rights by the Federal Parliament over a period of decades may have resulted in an unreported, supposedly “irrelevant” death toll that may be around 100,000 in number.

 A critical issue that directly affects both the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, and yourself is that in South Australia any suicides triggered by the systemic violation of constitutional or procedural fairness rights are felony murders. T this time, the only unknown fact about these murders is the precise number of people who have died as consequence of the Constitutional Deprivation of Rights. As I stated on page 3 of Volume 3 of Emcott Court, it is possible that as more statistical data is obtained, this count continues to rise and it is possible that once the Secretary of the DHS is compelled to disclose the precise death toll recorded in the ISIS data base, an all causes figure close to one million in number may, I repeat may, be revealed.

 My views on the ‘No show, no dole’ laws are set out in the documents that I have submitted to both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the AAT. Consistent with my responsibilities under paragraph 5 of the Commonwealth constitution and state laws, I am now in the process of submitting these documents to state law enforcement agencies and coroner’s courts. In addition, I am providing copies to teachers, medical professionals, the Australian Law Society, lawyers who represent some individuals who have been either convicted of murder or have recently been charged with murder.

 Perhaps most importantly of all, I am also providing these documents to Robo-Debt victims so that they can avail themselves of the option of taking appropriate action, either via administrative appeal asper legal briefing Paper #67, or via complaints to the police, to ensure that they receive the standard of justice required by the Australian Constitution and the High Court.

 The Q & A Confession.

On the evening of 20th February 2017, I was busy re-editing the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case file 2016/5334 and thus did not see the ABC broadcast of the Q & A program. However, when informed of its content, I researched it on the Internet and am now recommending to welfare recipients that they make an off-line video of the Q & A video because, quite unwittingly, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek appear to have confessed to defrauding welfare recipients. The reference to “terrible human consequences” is a gross understatement as it is a direct reference to the deaths that have resulted from the Robo-Debt fraud that are felony murders in South Australia, a crime that carries a mandatory 25-year penalty with a mandatory 15-year non-parole period.

 A new paradigm – ‘The elephant in the room’.

The Internet did not exist when the Federal parliament first introduced unconstitutional welfare laws such as Work for the Dole and ‘breaching penalties. 2006 marked the year of the ‘birth’ of the social media, a technological development that allows welfare recipients across the nation to share viewpoints and question the legality of government policies such as Robo-Debt, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfzklJRUm8 [ABC News 24 interview with Michael Griffin about Centrelink #notmydebt 6/1/17]

 In 1996 the ABS Adult Life Skills Survey revealed that 44% of Australians aged between 15 and 70 years-of-age were ‘functionally illiterate.’ In the 2006 survey, the ABS published resulted revealed that this had marginally increased to 46.4% with unemployed people and people for whom English was a 2nd second language making up a very high proportion of those who were functionally illiterate. However, the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, aka ISIS, which is used to implement Robo-Debt, is non-discriminatory and targets people with no regard for their socio-economic status. Victims of the Robo-Debt fraud now includes teachers, university lecturers and university students studying subjects as diverse as media studies, psychology and law. Some recently identified victims of the Robo-Debt scam have Masters or Doctorate level degrees. Whatever short-term ‘actuarial benefits’ that are derived from the Robo-Debt scam, in the long-term, the cost of compensation to victims is going to be hugely expensive, i.e. a massive, unappreciated drain on the federal budget that taxpayers will have to fund.

 The on-going review of case law decisions, especially fraud murder cases, is only going to add weight to the degree of probability that the people who are involved in the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients are going to have to account for their actions to victims who have the education and intellectual capability of comprehending the content of the [so far] unpublished Complexity Report and publicly available Auditor-General reports, e.g. Report #37, and the Emcott Report documents.

 Malcolm Fraser – “One error is one too many”

As Malcolm Fraser stated when responding to the disclosures by Alan Tudge and yourself that 20% of Robo-Debt claims are erroneous, “One error is one too many”. It has become manifestly evident that this is a scandalous abuse of power that has been used for several years to stupefy and overwhelm vulnerable victims who are unaware of their constitutional and civil rights or the protection provided by statute laws against unlawful actions that are intended to stupefy, e.g. section 157(1)(e) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code or section 279(4) of the Western Australian Criminal Code

 s the Minister for Social Services, the looming problem that you now have to confront is that Robo-Debt is being used to defraud people who have the both intellectual ability, and the incentive to oppose this abuse of power and to demand action to expose the appalling harm caused by this politically motivated, bureaucracy driven criminal misconduct.

 If you personally believe that the politicians and political parties represented in the Federal Parliament can continue to indefinitely fool either the entire nation, or the broader international community, then I would suggest that you are fooling is yourself. Therefore, before you read the information that was provided to the AAT on 21st February 2017, I would remind you of Abraham Lincoln’s famous cliché`:

 “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

 In addition, I would remind you of Winston Churchill’s cheeky quip, “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” I know that history will not be kind to either the 45th Australian Federal Parliament or to yourself, for I have already written it, e.g. by the time you read this line, I will have posted a redacted version of this text on the Internet. I will continue to so until Justice is both done and is seen to have been done.

 Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

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 | Leave a comment

Part 43F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity – the false assumption in Coroner Michael Barnes Lindt Inquest Report that could result in further fatalities.

NSW Police emailIt appears that there was a false assumption made by the New South Wales Coroner, Michael Barnes, that could result in more on-going terrorist motivated deaths across Australia, for he wrongly assumed that the Lindt Café attack was the first terrorist attack experienced by the New South Wale Police; sadly, this is not true.

[P.S. THE TEXT OF THE ABOVE EMAIL IS APPENDED AT THE END OF THIS POSTING.]

In his findings Coroner Barnes correctly pointed out that false assumptions were then treated by police as empirical facts. He was highly critical of the failure of the New South Wale Police to respond in a prompt and timely manner when, at 2.03 AM, Man Mons first shot at fleeing hostages .

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-12t

The fatal flaw in Coroner Barnes findings is that this was actually the second time that the New South Wale Police had been asked to deal with a terrorist attack, and the failure to deal with that attack was simply mirrored in the way in which the Lindt Cafe siege was handled, i.e. the New South Wale Police failed to realize that they were dealing with an act of terrorism, false assumptions that were treated as facts and a failure to respond to a deadly threat in a timely manner.

To be fair to the New South Wale Police, very law enforcement agency, politician, newspaper editor, teacher or minister of religion that that I have contacted has made the same blunder, i.e. the failure to recognize that Australia’s “no show, no pay” laws are a deliberate act of genocide  and that any fatalities caused by the ruthless, unconstitutional enforcement of the ‘breaching penalties’ are MURDER under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.

At this point in time, only one member of the legal professional, Elizabeth Ulrick, an Australian Government Service lawyer based in the Freedom of Information and Litigation branch of the Department of Human Services appears to have officially acknowledged this fact of law. As I have pointed out in a recent postings concerning AAT 2016/5334, on 21st February 2017, Ms. Ulrick was the recipient of a Statement of Facts & Issues that contained the following statement:

“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.”

Facing with an Administrative Appeals Tribunal directive that required the disclosure of all relevant information by 3rd March 2017, Ms. Ulrick had no option but to access the Centrelink database to find the answers to questions that I considered that the Federal Court would consider, credible, relevant and significant, i.e. the number of times the of the Department of Human Services had deliberately violated the constitutional rights of welfare recipients and the number of fatalities arising from this decades long abuse of power.

I do not know what statistical facts of the matter Ms. Ulrick found when querying the database; what I do know is that on the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Ulrick decided not to contest the above claim, possibly so that the number of people defrauded and murdered by of the Department of Human Services  over the last 30 or 40 years could continue to remain a state secret. By-passing me, the prompt issuing of a ‘Without Prejudice’ proffer to the applicant withdrew the Centrelink claim and offered to pay all months withheld as a consequence of the of the Department of Human Services having deliberately violated the applicant’s constitutional rights.

Until such time as law enforcement agencies, coroners and Officers of the Court across Australia come to grips with the fact of law that the Australian Federal Parliament is committing acts of state terrorism, more vulnerable victims will die.

I cannot emphasize too strongly, the evidence of these crimes is overwhelming and neither unbelief or disbelief provides valid grounds for any failure to hold accountable those responsible for decades of fraud and murder. If you have not watched the video in the web link below, do so now before the Senator Brandis or Malcolm Turnbull orders that it be removed:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

Whilst Robo-Debt might be administratively convenient, it is an unconstitutional, criminal abuse of power and all fatalities stemming from this criminal activities are deaths caused by the commission of a crime. In At paragraphs 8 and 9 in COCO v THE QUEEN (1994) 179 CLR 427, (13th April 1994), the High Court ruled:

 [8] “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless. However, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed in Plenty v. Dillon ((4) (1991) 171 CLR at 654.)”

 “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

[9]  In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required ((5) Wheeler v. Leicester City Council (1985) AC 1054 at 1065

 An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities. Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8; (1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.) :

“a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.

 Way back on the 31st August 1920, the High Court made this ruling in The Engineers Society versus The Adelaide steamship Company:

The majority decision was presented by Justice Isaac and in the fourth paragraph His Honour made the following statements which I have bullet-pointed and underlined for emphasis and clarity:

 The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however,

  1. that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se,

  2. our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.

  3. The duty of the Court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction.”

 In paragraph 5 Justice Isaacs stated that:

  1. ‘…the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, “subject to this constitution,” and consequently those words, which have to be applied seriatim to each placitum, require the Court to consider with respect to each separate placitum, over and beyond the general fundamental considerations applying to all the placita*, whether there is anything in the constitution which falls within the express limitation referred to in the governing words of 51. [* “placitum”, “placita” – Constitution, agreement or  judicial proceeding.]

On May 3rd 2012, the High Court ruled:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

[141] “And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false…”

[143] Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

 In Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11, the High Court ruled:

[53] “…if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

 The Federal Parliament is constrained by the “governing words of paragraph 51 of the constitution AND also by the determinations of the High Court, which, as pointed out in the High Court decisions have ruled that Administrative convenience is not legal grounds for violating the constitutional or civil rights of citizens. What you see and hear in the ABC video is both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unintentionally admitting to ignoring the constitutional and other civil rights of welfare recipients. Unwittingly, on a national television program, they confessed to fraud and murder and no-one appears to have noticed and done anything about this other that Elizabeth Ulrick and myself.

Can you explain why this is so?

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay advocate for justice.

TEXT OF THE NSW POLICE EMAIL:

Mr. Medlicott

Thank you for your e-mail can you please elaborate in detail on the documents you are referring to in your e-mail.

Regards,

Ronald PRASAD

Detective Sergeant

NSW Police Force

State Crime Command

Fraud & Cybercrime

7 November 2012

Select the area you wish to contact : Commissioner’s Office
Name : Ronald Medlicott
Country : Australia
Subject : Raids on Craig Thomson
Enter your comments in this box: : The devil is in the detail but if your raids on Craig Thomson were completely successful you should have scooped up certified copies of secretly classified documents that I sent to Mr Thomson in May 2012. If you do not have these documents in your possession, then the obvious implication is that Mr Thomson has stashed sensitive documents elsewhere.

Se http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5Z for details.
E-mail : ronald48@optusnet.com.au
Telephone : 0882553638
Fax  :
City : Playford
State : SA

The above message was received through the NSWPF Internet site www.police.nsw.gov.au ( submitted at the date/time above, using IP address 175.38.214.183 ). Do not reply directly to this email if no email address is provided.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

All mail is subject to content scanning for possible violation of NSW Police Force policy, including the Email and Internet Policy and Guidelines. All NSW Police Force employees are required to familiarise themselves with these policies, available on the NSW Police Force Intranet.

==============================================================
Readers, criminal law defence lawyers and convicted criminals take note: There were two emails sent in response to Officer Prasad’s request for further information that were not apparently followed up because, like the persecution and murder of Jews in Nazi Germany, the NSW Police apparently did not, and still do not, consider the alleged defrauding and murder of welfare recipients to be a criminal act.

 

Ron Medlicott

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 43E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The Lindt Cafe Inquest finding:- “The 10 minutes that elapsed without police action was too long.”

Yesterday, New South Wales Coroner, Michael Barnes, handed down the findings into the Lindt Cafe disaster. In his report Coroner Barnes stated “The 10 minutes that elapsed without police action was too long.”

Surely, this criticism is a credible and relevant precedent that applies to every law enforcement agency in Australia when it comes tot the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” deaths caused by the unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous “No show, no pay” welfare penalties and Malcolm Turnbull’s blatantly  fraudulent Robo-Debt Scam?

NOTE: The shortlist URL for this posting is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-128

PLEASE: take a few minutes to check out these web links to the Lindt Cafe Inquest.

  1. What each video.

  2. Read the comments.

  3. Ask yourself what is different about the Lindt Cafe deaths and the deaths of welfare recipients who died because politicians decided that saving taxpayers money was more important than the lives of welfare recipients.

  4. The reality is that it does not matter whether a person is murdered by an Islamic state supporter or by politicians bureaucrats who ruthlessly or mindlessly enforce unconstitutional, criminally dangerous laws.

Lindt Inquest web links:

Mistakes cannot be papered over

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-inquest-mistakes-cannot-be-papered-over-coroner-michael-barnes-finds-20170524-gwbyj8.html

New South Wales police waited too long

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-siege-findings-police-waited-too-long-coroner-finds-20170524-gwbrkr.html

Across Australia, the same criticism is equally valid, i.e. police waited too long, a fact highlkighed by content of Federal Agent Louise Denley’s letter [ 7 July 2004]

July 04 denley letter page 1

SAPOL knew and did nothing

SAPOL

The lack of diligence by Dectective Superintendent Grant Moyle in investigating Breach-gate, i.e. the unreported, “irrelevant”, death toll caused by Australia’s unconstitutional “no show, no pay” laws, is easily demonstrated.

  1. Remove a blank sheet of paper from your printer paper storage compartment.

  2. Study it carefully.

  3. Replace the paper in the printer paper storage tray.

  4. Congratulations! You have just read the official “Record of Interview”.

What sort of investigation is it when accusations of criminal abuse of power and serial murder do not not result in the plaintiff being interviewed?

Am I wrong in suspecting that Detective Superintendent Moyle may have used his official position as the head of the SAPOL Major Crime Investigation Branch to conceal the serial murders of welfare recipients?

I would like to show you the emails sent to the New South wales Police but this morning I discovered that my Outlook PST is corrupted and despite using Microsoft’s Outlook Repair Tool, Outlook will not open. That may be a fluke of timing or it not may be;, One thing is for sure, it is incredibly convenient for every police force in Australia, the Turnbull Government, Centrelink, and the AAT, that I cannot access these files at this time.

2002 Centrlink report extract

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

Classification: Dop not copy and distribute: Sept' 09. The AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate.

After the Auditor-General reported out that 144 federal MPs may have ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

 

Posted in abuse of power, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 43D. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The ‘Candy Crush Report’ – insight into how the Australian Federal Parliament has made defrauding welfare recipients as easy as stealing candy from a baby.

  1. This posting provides insight into “THE CANDY CRUSH Report”, officially known as THE COMPLEXITY REPORT. 

  2. Limited information about this report can be found in Hansard Minutes of a Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th of  February 2015.

  3. The ‘Candy Crush Report; should be read in the context of the High Court’s landmark  Kioa v West [HCA 81], a legal precedent handed down on 18 December 1985.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-10R

[In Brief:] The statements by the DHS Secretary, Kathryn Campbell, and Senator Marisse Payne in the Hansard Minutes extracts below reveal that the government is fully aware of the many complex systemic deficiencies in the (now) 35-year-old) Integrated Social Infrastructure System [ISIS] that constitute the basis for “unreliable evidence” rebuttals of Centrelink’s fraudulent [tort] claims. Despite the High Court’s 1985 Kioa ruling that “adverse information that was credible, relevant and significant must be made available”, [see below] the DHS official report about these massive, extremely complex systemic problems is withheld from welfare recipients who are being unconstitutionally required to prove that Centrelink is at fault for overpayments!

‘The Candy Crush’ Report:

One more reason the Robo-debt Scam should be called Robo-Gate.

Without the ‘The Candy Crush’ Report, i.e. “The Complexity Report”, which was provided to the Federal Government by the Department of Human Services in February 2015, it is almost impossible for the average welfare recipient, if they have not kept detailed records for years, to prove that Centrelink is solely at fault with any ALLEGED overpayment claims. This is yet another reason why the unconstitutional Robo-debt demands are ‘Robo-fraud’, i.e. Digital Data Fiction Fraud {2D2f}. In effect, by withholding “The Candy Report”, defrauding welfare recipients using Robo-dent is “as easy as stealing “candy from a baby.”]

The legal precedent in paragraph 39 of Justice Brennan’s findings in Kioa v West [below], was and still is, an incredibly powerful binding precedent that can be used when refuting the blatantly fraudulent claim by Centrelink, on behalf of the Turnbull Government, that “skip the courts” as per Hellicar at 141 – 143.

Remember, in Hellicar at 142, the High Court ruled:

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”.’

  2. ‘ 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; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.’

  3. ‘ Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.’

 TRANSLATION: Thousands of facts could possibly be raised by either Centrelink or a welfare recipient who is the Respondent in a tort action by Centrelink. Instead of caving in to the fraudulent Robo-debt scam, if a welfare recipient disputes Centrelink’s claim, the same rules that Centrelink applies to welfare recipients, i.e. give us the information that we demand, also applies to welfare recipients, i.e. THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY.

Politicians and bureaucrats who ignore the constitution and High Court rulings by arbitrarily deciding that welfare recipients are automatically at fault if they cannot prove a Centrelink error within 21 days is a brazenly criminal Abuse of Power that violates sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Kioa, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco and the SA Supreme Court’s Police v Butcher decisions are facts of law that open the door to a flood-tide of questions that neither Centrelink or the federal parliament want asked in any formal hearing.

Police v Butcher 2014

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html

SUGGESTION: Any and all videos of federal politicians and bureaucrats promoting Robo-Debt that you can find on the Internet should be saved to your computer or videoed with your mobile as evidence of systemic fraud by Turnbull Government and previous governments.

 WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY:

Because of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, the first piece of information that a welfare recipient can demand on the grounds that it is “credible, relevant and significant”, is the date and findings of a court in determining the primary facts of the matter upon which a Centrelink employee, or the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, based a decision that the welfare recipient was at fault? [As the High Court ruled in Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, “If there is no jurisdiction, in law, there is no decision”.]

The second “credible, relevant and significant” evidentiary fact that Robo-Debt victims can demand was made possible by Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter of 18th May 2010  stating that “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcome statistics”, i.e. the statistics on the numbers of people who never survived being breached opens the door to asking how many people were murdered by the DHS?

AAAAA14 Centrelink FY2001-02 report

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on “Scorecard” savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public, i.e. the murder of welfare recipients.

Skill certified

Re: “giving you options” -as in “Do as we say or die?”

suicide stats Emcott vol 3

KIOA v WEST:  As you can read below, in Kioa, the High Court ruled that “…an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it.”

In Kioa, the information may have been detrimental to Mr & Mrs Kioa. However, in any torts by Centrelink, the answer to that question as to how many welfare recipients died is extremely detrimental to Centrelink because paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiiA, of the constitution prohibits the linking of welfare payments to “civil conscription”.

These days “civil conscription” is commonly referred to as Work for the Dole.

Since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, so are the “no show, no pay’ penalties that have been enforced for about 40 years. To again re-state Bhardwaj, ‘in law a decision that has been made without jurisdiction is no decision at all.Every breaching decision ever made was unconstitutional and every victim of this dangerous abuse of power is entitled to compensation. Ditto for every person who has been hit with a demand for repayment of ALLEGED overpayments when there has been no court decision as to the primary facts of the matter when the decision is disputed.

 THE LINACRE LETTER

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink responseThe Linacre letter  was written by Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS on 7th January 2016. The legal significance of this letter is the fact that DHS management, (aka Centrelink), cannot claim that they did not have knowledge of these points of law and the constitutional constraints on the DHS when attempting to recover ALLEGED overpayments. Since these binding High Court decisions were known by the Acting Chief Legal Counsel in December 2015, ignoring them in misleading letters of Demand constitutes violations of sections 137.2 and  142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). These are BINDING High Court case law decisions which were/are simply ignored by both the federal government and DHS management. A fortiori scenario as per Bhardwaj at paragraph 52, i.e. if the first or strongest point of law is accurate, then logically, the next point of legal logic is also legally valid.  The High Court’s Kioa v West decision adds further weight to the body of case law decisions that indicate that the Federal parliament has been defrauding welfare recipients for years by exploiting the ignorance of vulnerable victims..

KIOA IN DETAIL – Justice Brennan at Paragraph 38 of Kioa v West:

Kioa

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/81.html

In paragraph 38 of his decision, Justice Brennan stated: “Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information. He will be neither consoled nor assured to be told that the prejudicial information was left out of account. The allegation in par.22 was apparently credible, relevant and damaging. The failure to give Mr Kioa an opportunity to deal with it before making an order that Mr and Mrs Kioa be deported left a risk of prejudice which ought to have been removed. There was nothing in the circumstances of the case – neither in the administrative framework created by the Act nor in any need for secrecy or speed in making the decision – which would have made it unreasonable to have given Mr and Mrs Kioa Kioa that opportunity. The failure to give Mr Kioa that opportunity amounts to a non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The result is that the condition governing the power to make the deportation orders was not satisfied and the orders must be set aside. If the Minister chooses to do so, a fresh decision may be made. There is nothing in these reasons which affects the merits of the decision made or of any decision which may be made in the future.”

 Justice Brennan’s last statement above is also important because it was about Due Process of Law’. If the process is wrong, then the decision is wrong and is not legally valid. Once welfare recipients, or the people who represent them in these tort disputes raise Kioa, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco and Butcher and ask for the “Candy Crush Report” and the data on the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll identified in Neil Skill’s letter [C10/1866] and the unreported death toll exposed by the “Letters to the dead fiasco of 2016, the lawyers representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services have too either cough up the information or else, consistent with Justice Brennan’s findings in Kioa, “…the orders must be set aside and, perhaps even worse, a fresh decision may be made.

 The last point of law above is of course totally consistent with Bhardwaj at paragraph 53, which I have bullet-pointed for clarity:

  • As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.

  • Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.

  • Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so.

  • And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

Any and all challenged decisions that have a “pecuniary” implication, e.g. Robo-debt overpayment allegations, “No show, no pay’ allegations or the withdrawal or withholding of a welfare benefit, are matters for a court, not Centrelink.

THE MANNER OF DEATH

Since these points of law are known to the Federal Government, the Chief Legal Advisor for the Department of Human Services and the president of the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the deliberate ignoring of these case law decisions, which are BINDING on the Federal Parliament [and the AAT], probably constitutes a criminal conspiracy to defraud. If so, then any fatalities that were caused by this alleged criminal activity are either felony murders or manslaughter due to criminal negligence. Whatever the cause of such deaths, THE MANNER OF DEATH, is a felony homicide.

As I point out in  Volume 3 (d)(i) and in other volumes of The Emcott Report, in South Australia even deaths by suicide, are murder. Since this statement was included in the Statement of Facts & Issues that I submitted to the AAT on 21st February 2017, you would not be in violation of Commonwealth, State or territory defamation laws by quoting from this official document. [Did you know that the word “lawyer” does not appear in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975)? What does appear, 12 times in either singular or plural form is the word representative. Section 32 of this Act, clearly states that parties in appeals brought before the AAT may be represented by a “representative”.

THE LESSON OF AAT 2016/5334

Since I was authorized to act on behalf of the Applicant in AAT 2016/5334, my official status was “The Representative of the Applicant” and any submissions that I made in regard to AAT 2016/5334 are, in law, legal documents that had to be responded to by “The Representative of the Respondent”, i.e. by Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS.

As a direct consequence of this, you can lawfully quote from any of the submissions that I made to the AAT. This includes the letters that I have already provided to in the Ronald’s space posting, e.g. Ms Linacre’s letter and the Skill Letter.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

Posted in abuse of power, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 43C. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The Robo-Debt Fraud has been referred to the Tasmanian Police, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a criminal investigation.

Robo-debt is systemic fraud, a criminal abuse of power by the Federal Government that has been going on since 2011; all fatalities caused by this criminal activity are unlawful homicides that SHOULD be investigated by every police force in the nation.

Note: The link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Z3

A major problem with Robo-debt is that nation-wide there is a collect belief that since the Federal Government is responsible for the Robo-debt policies and practices, then it must be lawful.Such misguided beliefs are not uncommon as this statement by Francis Neale,Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. (July 2009). Francis Neale was also an advisor to the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands indicates:

“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”

Keeping the above quote in mind, I repeat my opening statement, i.e.Robo-debt is systemic fraud, a criminal abuse of power by the Federal Government that has been going on since 2011, and all fatalities caused by this criminal activity are unlawful homicides that SHOULD be investigated by every police force in the nation.

Saying that is easy to do but in reality, making a complaint to the police alleging fraud and serial murder is not easy to do. However, as the following pictures and text reveals, that is exactly what I have done.

Email TasPol 2

On May 2nd, at 10:27 AM, I referred the Robo-Debt Fraud scam to the Tasmanian Police and requested that a criminal investigation be undertaken. If the Tasmanian Police ‘drag-the-lead’ and do nothing, then in my next complaint to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, i.e. the UNHRC, I shall add the Tasmanian Police to the list of law enforcement agencies that are turning a blind-eye to the persecution, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients.

The text of the email, with some typo corrections, is shown below. Readers should note that once I know who is representing Mr. Shaun Faulker, the person charged with allegedly murdering Mr. Alex Watts, I shall forward case law details and other evidence that could be considered if Mr. Faulkner wishes to mount a ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias’ defence.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:27 AM
To: ‘tasmania.police@police.tas.gov.au’ <tasmania.police@police.tas.gov.au>
Subject: FW: Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act

The following information is brought to your attention for prompt investigation.

Please note that the text of the email below is posted on the Internet at : http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-YD

SAPOL copped a hammering in Interim Report #9 of the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children in Institutionalized Care. However, that will be a storm in a teacup compared to the hammering every law enforcement agency in Australia will cop once an inquiry into the Robo-debt Fraud and the unreported, secretly classified, supposedly “irrelevant” death toll and other unlawful harms caused by decades of abuses of power are finally investigated.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35202321/witness-of-alex-watts-elizabeth-stabbing-feared-she-would-be-next/#page1

4 days ago, Alex Watts was murdered at the Elizabeth Shopping Centre. SAPOL arrested Shaun Faulkner on Saturday and he was arraigned yesterday. It is my intention to contact Mr. Faulkner’s lawyer and point out that he has a whopper of an Apprehended Bias/Manifest Ostensible Bias that can be used to have the charges thrown out of court. SAPOL will not be pleased with this but the facts of the matter are that SAPOL has known about the classified post-breaching death toll for years and, by voluntary acts of omission, has allowed this death toll to rise. If the Tasmanian Police do not conduct an investigation into Robo-debt and the “irrelevant” post-breaching fatalities, MARTIN BRYANT could also have a ripper of an appeal case. I would remind you that Dr. Jayant Patel ‘beat the rap’ in regard to more than 80 deaths in Queensland and Martin Bryant ‘only’ murdered 35 people.

NOLLE CONTENDERE: I was the lawfully appointed Representative of the Applicant in AAT case 2016/5334 and I really did include the following statement in the Statement of Facts & Issues presented via email on 21st February 2017. Elizabeth Ulrick, the AGS lawyer representing the DSS really did adopt a ‘Nolle contendere’ response that avoided disclosure of the “Awesome Foursome” information that I had requested, i.e. how many people has the DHS murdered in the last 40 years?

“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.”

ROBO-DEBT IS ROBO-FRAUD AND ANY AND ALL FATALITIES TRIGGERED BY THIS CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER ARE UNLAWFUL HOMICIDES.

Please note: The Advocate version 3 is an update of the document provided to Ms. Ulrick on 21st February, i.e. there was no section 1, just “The Advocate”, an 82 page document.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian Citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.


Robo-debt really is is Robo-fraud and in my next posting, I will expand on the Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) HCA 54, which was handed down on 31 August 1920. Readers should pay close attention to these points from that High Court decision:

The majority decision was presented by Justice Isaac and in the fourth paragraph His Honour made the following statements which I have bullet-pointed for emphasis and clarity:

 The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however,

  1. that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se,

  2. our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.

  3. The duty of the Court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction.”

 In paragraph 5 Justice Isaacs further stated:

  • ‘…the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, “subject to this Constitution,”

  • and consequently those words, which have to be applied seriatim to each placitum, require the Court to consider with respect to each separate placitum, over and beyond the general fundamental considerations applying to all the placita, whether there is anything in the Constitution which falls within the express limitation referred to in the governing words of  51.

  • “The established Courts of Justice, when a question arises whether the prescribed limits have been exceeded, must of necessity determine that question;

  • and the only way in which they can properly do so, is by looking to the terms of the instrument by which, affirmatively, the legislative powers were created, and by which, negatively, they are restricted.

  • If what has been done is legislation, within the general scope of the affirmative words which give the power,

  • and if it violates no express condition or restriction by which that power is limited (in which category would, of course, be included any Act of the Imperial Parliament at variance with it), it is not for any Court of Justice to inquire further, or to enlarge constructively those conditions and restrictions.

  1. Note that the Federal Parliament, State Governments and every government or commercial agency, and every person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, are bound, not only by Commonwealth laws, but also by High Court decisions.

  2. There is also the restriction that the power of the Federal Parliament is constrained to the limits specified in Section 51 of the Constitution.

  3. The repeated use of the word “if” clearly implies that that laws may not be valid. Where this is the case, then, federal laws are nothing more than “statutory fictions” as per paragraph 46 of the High Court’s May 8th 2013 Keating decision. (HCAQ 20 at paragraphs 46 & 47).

On 3rd May 2012, the High Court handed down its findings in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar & Ors [HCA 17]. In paragraphs 141 – 143  the High Court ruled tha

  •    At [141] ‘…insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.’

  • At [142]First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”.’

  • ‘ 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; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.’

  • ‘ Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.’

  • At [143] ‘Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence.’

  • ‘Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.’

Note the last point:

Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.’

Having overpaid billions of dollars to more than 1 million people, having to go to court is not cost effective, not at $25,000 per claim, and so the courts are deliberately by-passed. That is a criminal abuse of power and where fatalities occur, those deaths are the result of the commission of crime.

Every Prime Minister, Federal Treasurer, Attorney–General, Social Services Minister, and Human Services Minister involved in Robo-debt needs to be held accountable before a court for the lethal abuses of power that have targeted some of Australia’s most vulnerable people. Indeed, every politician who ever voted for breaching laws needs to held accountable for the crimes committed as a consequence of this recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional legislation.

After all, paragraph 5 of the constitution is quite clear, no-one, regardless of their political, economic or social status, is exempt from accountability in Australia’s federal criminal laws.

Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

 

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 43 B. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 decision part of a complaint lodged with the Tasmanian Ombudsman along with a request for a police investigation of the Robo-debt Fraud.

Email to tasmanian Ombudsman

Robo-debt is a criminal abuse of power and any fatalities triggered by this criminal activity are murders in every state and territory in Australia.

The above screen capture is part of an email sent to Clare.Hopkins@Ombudsman.tas.gov.au at 4.30 PM yesterday. The text of that email is below and readers should note that I have urged the recipient, Ms. Clare Hopkins to refer all of my emails to the Tasmanian Police for a criminal investigation of Robo-debt.

The shortlink URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-YD

Any person who may be a victim of the Robo-debt fraud should note the short link address above and refer it to their local police station. Alternatively, dial 0 0 0 and file an abuse of power complaint that way.

==========================================================================

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 4:30 PM
To: ‘Hopkins, Clare (OHCC)’ <Clare.Hopkins@Ombudsman.tas.gov.au>
Subject: Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: 08 8255 3638

Mobile: 04386 26811

Email: romnald48@optusnet.com.au

1st May 2017

Attn: Clare Hopkins re Jurisdiction concerning Robo-debt, Robo-debt triggered fatalities, the Constitution and the Tasmanian Crimes Act.

Dear Ms Hopkins,

Would you p[lease note the following Points of Law and Matters of Fact concerning  Centrelink’s Robo-debt activities:

  1. The word that best describes this email and my previous emails to the Office of the Tasmanian Ombudsman is “EVIDENCE.”
  2. In previsions emails to you, I submitted documents that constitute a Statement of Facts & Issues that was tended to the federal AAT on 21st February 2017 in regard to AAT appeal 2016/5334.
  3. One of the documents submitted, i.e. Volume 3 of The Emcott Report, contained the statement on page 1 of a section titled “The Advocate”: In Australia, just as Clarence Earl Gideon was so many years ago, welfare recipients are being shafted and are in dire need of a court appointed Advocate to represent them in tort actions brought against them by the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink. This is especially so with the Turnbull Government targeting a reported 20,000 welfare recipients a week with tort actions that deliberately by-pass Due Process of Law, i.e. not having the facts of the matter decided by the courts. In doing so, the Turnbull Government is following in the footsteps of previous Liberal and Labour led governments that have, over the last 30 – 40 years,  ruthlessly taken advantage of the fact that, like Clarence Gideon, most of the people who are accused of wrong-doing and are penalized by  Centrelink  cannot afford a lawyer.”
  4. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  5. One page 2 of that document, the following statement was made: “However, there are some victims of this criminal abuse of power who have income levels above the poverty line but suffer from a very different form of poverty, a lack of knowledge of their civil rights that prevents them from realizing that they are the unwitting victims of a massive Federal Parliament fraud. 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.”
  6. It is also a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  7. Also submitted to the AAT at the same time was Volume 2 of The Emcott Report ,which contained a certified copy of a letter from a senior Centrelink official, Neil Skill, admitting that Centrelink did not collect and report any fatalities that may have been triggered by with imposition of welfare penalties.
  8. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest either the validity of that document or the statement that these fatalities were not reported because they were homicides under state, territory, federal and internal laws.
  9. Volume 2 of The Emcott Report also contained a a number of statements pointing out that Australia’s ‘no show, no pay’ in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act was unconstitutional and a criminal act of reckless endanger that violated state, territory, federal and international laws. In point of fact, it was specifically pointed out that Section 42C violated at least 3 provisions in Article 6 of the Rome Statute, which deals with the crime of Genocide and also with numerous provision of Article 7 of the Rome Statute that deal with crimes against humanity, including article 7(1)(a), a provision which deals with state sanctions actions that are, in law, acts that constitute the crime of Murder.

It is therefore a matter of fact that in a formal Statement of Facts & Issues submission to a Commonwealth agency, I accused the Federal Parliament of unlawful abuses of power that violated state, territory, federal and international laws. It is also a matter of fact that stated that these alleged crimes have been occurring for decades and that there is a very substantial but unknown death toll as a direct consequence of the commission of these crimes. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest these allegations, possibly for the express purpose of avoiding the need to comply with paragraph 2 of an AAT directive issued on 23rd December 2016 that would have required full and frank disclosure of the number of unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” fatalities that I had demanded be disclosed because they are homicides triggered by the commission of systemic crimes.

Whilst you have expressed the viewpoint that Robo-debt is a Commonwealth issue that should be dealt with by the Office of the Commonwaelth Ombudsman, I would direct your attention to the following matters of fact and Points of Law:

  1. Any and all accusations, made to any person in the State of Tasmania that involve alleged endangerment to life, or fatalities, must be reported to a Crown Law Officer.
  2. The Tasmanian Criminal Code Act (1924) contains the flowing provision: Charge: Being accessory after the fact to murder.
  3. Written threat to murder

Any person who, knowing the contents thereof, wilfully, and with intent thereby to intimidate or influence any person, causes such person to receive any writing threatening to kill him or any other person, is guilty of a crime.

Charge: Threatening to murder.

162A. Failing to report the killing of a person

(1) In this section,

proper authority means any of the following:

(a) a police officer;

(b) a correctional officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(c) a probation officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(d) a Crown Law Officer.

(2) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person has been killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the killing of a person.

(3) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person is being subjected to conduct that, if repeated or continued, is reasonably likely to result in that other person being killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge:

Failing to report the impending killing of a person.

(4) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that the killing of another person is being planned; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge:

Failing to report the planned killing of a person.

(5) Without limiting the matters that may constitute a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (2), (3) or (4), a person is excused from reporting a discovery to a proper authority under this section if –

(a) the person knows or reasonably suspects that –

(i) another person has already reported the discovery to a proper authority; or

(ii) a proper authority has already made the same discovery; or

(b) reporting the discovery would disclose information that is privileged on the ground of legal professional privilege.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that the request in my previous email to refer the information provided to you to the Tasmanian Police was not made either spuriously or facetiously. If you do not personally ensure that the emails are forwarded to the police or the Tasmanian DPP, then by a voluntary act of omission, you place yourself in violation of the above statute.  I may be wrong, but failing to forward my email may make you an accessory to previous fraudulent activity and previous fatalities. In addition, by failing to refer these emails to the Tasmanian Police, you may also be making yourself an accessory to all future Robo-debt frauds that occur in Tasmania and any (more?) fatalities that this criminal abuse of power may trigger.

Take note of the fact that informing a superior officer within the Office of the Tasmanian Ombudsman of these alleged crimes does not fulfil your legal obligation under s. 161 (1) above.

Section 1 (b) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code Act (1924) states: 1(b) the State of Tasmania;

Crown Law Officer means the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, or any person appointed by the Governor to institute or prosecute criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court;

I would also draw your attention to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920)

When handed down, the High Court regarded the findings in this case as the most significant case ever handled by this court, a view that I subscribe to today. In addition to the States Rights versus Commonwealth Rights issues examined, the High Court carefully scrutinized the Constitution to ascertain the limits on powers of the Federal Parliament, its own powers under the constitution. Central to the findings was paragraph 5, i.e.  and the binding role of Commonwealth laws on the Courts, judges and people within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

In the 4th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

[4] 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.

In the 13th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

[13] The non-granting of powers, the expressed qualifications of powers granted, the expressed retention of powers, are all to be taken into account by a Court… When the people of Australia, to use the words of the Constitution itself, “united in a Federal Commonwealth”, they took power to control by ordinary constitutional means any attempt on the part of the national Parliament to misuse its powers.

 [In the 14th paragraph of the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs, these comments are made:

14] The Commonwealth Constitution as it exists for the time being, dealing expressly with sovereign functions of the Crown in its relation to Commonwealth and to States, necessarily so far binds the Crown, and laws validly made by authority of the Constitution, bind, so far as they purport to do so, the people of every State considered as individuals or as political organisms called States—in other words, bind both Crown and subjects.

Note the statement “laws validly made by authority of the Constitution”. Not all Commonwealth laws are valid. On may 8th 2013, in paragraphs 46 & 47 of the Keating Decision, [HCA 20], the High Court dismissed as “statutory fiction” retrospective legislation that was put through the Federal parliament on 4th August 2011 for the express purpose of ‘fixing’ a legislative blunder that had resulted in some 15,000 people being convicted of law that had been unintentionally extinguished on March 20th 2000. The significance of that decision, along with the above reference “laws validly made by authority of the Constitution” is clear evidence that just because the Federal government says something is valid, it does not mean that, in law, this is the fact of the matter.

Please also note that both the Commonwealth and the State Parliaments are bound by the declarations of the High Court, which on 3rd May 2012 ruled that regulators do not have the jurisdiction to determine the facts of the matter in disputed torts. In addition, the Bhardwaj decision underscored the fact that if there is no jurisdiction, then, in law, no decision has been made and a decision has yet to made.

The significance of the appended OCO letter and the certified Linacre letter is that both the OCO and the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS knew about both Bhardwaj and Hellicar in 2015 and both opted to maintain the 40-rear-long status quo and ignore these High Court decisions, which as the 1920 Engineer’s case made quite clear, were binding upon both the Commonwealth and the State Parliaments and Executives.

In Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986) at paragraph 7, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

  1. In the course of his summing up, the learned trial judge (Neasey J.) made available to the jury a written memorandum dealing with matters of law. Its effect was to instruct the jury that, on the uncontested premise that the applicant had killed the deceased by applying manual pressure to her neck, they should find him guilty of murder if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any of four possible sets of circumstances. Those possible sets of circumstances reflected the provisions of pars. (a), (b) and (c) of s.157(1) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code (“the Code”) which is set out in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas.) (“the Covering Act”). Those paragraphs of the Code read as follows:

“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;”

In paragraph 10 Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

10. The last three of the above-mentioned four possible bases of a verdict of guilty of murder, namely those founded on s.157(1)(b) and s.157(1)(c) of the Code, contain an element that the accused either “knew” (s.157(1)(b) and first limb of s.157(1)(c)) or “ought to have known” (second limb of s.157(1)(c)) that his act of applying pressure to the deceased’s neck in the manner and with the force and for the length of time that he did was “likely to cause death in the circumstances”. It is submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury about what was involved in the notion of something being “likely” to cause death. In essence, the submission is that “likely”, in the context of s.157 of the Code, means “more likely than not” or “odds on” or “more than a fifty percent” chance whereas his Honour directed the jury in terms which conveyed that the phrase “likely to cause death” meant merely that there was “a good chance” that death would ensue.

At 15, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

  1. The words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) follow their use in s.156(2) where “culpable homicide” is defined to include:

“Homicide … caused–

(a) by an act intended to cause death or
bodily harm, or which is commonly known
to be likely to cause death or bodily
harm, and which is not justified under
the provisions of the Code;”

Section 157(1), which designates the cases in which “culpable homicide” is murder, is structured upon the definition of “culpable homicide” in s.156. Presumably, it was not intended to use the words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) with a meaning different to that with which they were used in s.156(2)(a). In the context of the express provision of s.156(5) that “(h)omicide that is not culpable is not punishable”, it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent (cf. Sheen v. Fields Pty. Ltd. (1984) 58 ALJR 93, at p 95; 51 ALR 345, at p 348; Waugh v. Kippen, unreported, High Court of Australia, 20 March 1986, at pp 9-10 of the pamphlet).

 JUSTICE BRENNAN: At paragraph 10 in his finds, Justice Brennan stated:

  1. Omitting reference to omissions, par.(c) of s.157(1) applies only to culpable homicide by an unlawful act – the category prescribed by par.(c) of s.156(2). If the fatal act falls into that category, it amounts to murder if the offender actually knows that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances or if the offender ought to know that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances (s.157(1)(c)). The elements of murder drawn from par.(c) of s.156(2) and from par.(c) of s.157(1) are the elements on which the submissions of counsel for the applicant have focused. Those elements would have fallen for consideration by the jury if they were not satisfied that the applicant had a specific intent to kill the deceased woman when he did the fatal act. Paragraphs (e) and (f) of s.157(1), which appear to apply to all categories of culpable homicide, have no relevance to the questions to be answered.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

[MY RECOMMENDATION: All readers of this posting should download or use a mobile phone, or a video camera, to video record this ABC Q & A segment before the Turnbull Government orders it be removed by the ABC.]

Robo-debt is the use of the dysfunctional, error-riddled  35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System software to defraud people and recover unproven “alleged” debts. On 20th February 2017, i.e. the day before I submitted the  Statement of facts & issues for case 2016/5334 to the AAT, during and ABC broadcast of the Q & A programme, Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek quibbled over which political party was best at defrauding welfare recipients using the unconstitutional Robo-debt scam. Tasmanian Police, along with every other police force in the nation, should pay very careful attention to the ‘terrible human consequences’ statement made by Senator Brandis for this was a public acknowledgement of Robo-debt triggered fatalities.

I put it to you, and via you, to the Tasmanian Police, that those fatalities were culpable homicides because Senator Brandis, as the Federal Attorney-General, “ought to have known” that Robo-debt was unconstitutional and that any fatalities were culpable homicides. However, the fact of the matter, as evidenced by the current actions of the Turnbull Government, is that these fatalities are not deemed to be an issue worthy of consideration. At this point in time, the official status quo for deaths triggered by unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous tortious conduct by the Department of Human Service, aka Centrelink, is that these fatalities are:

  1. Unreported by Centrelink;
  2. Secretly classified by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee;
  3. Dismissed as ”irrelevant” by the EWRE Committee;
  4. Ignored by the ECA Committee and all 226 Members of the 42nd
  5. Ignored by numerous federal agencies including the AFP, ACC, ASIO, ACMA, OCO and HREOC.

At the State/Territory level, despite paragraph 5 of the Constitution and the Engineer’s case decision, the persecution, intimidation, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is also an issue that is being ignored by:

  1. SAPOL;
  2. State and territory Chief Coroners;
  3. ACT Human Rights Commission;
  4. Tasmanian Ombudsman.

JUSTICE DUFFY: The last word in the Engineer’s case was made by Justice Duffy:

As we have seen, the legislative power of the Commonwealth under sec. 51, being subject to the Constitution, cannot affect the State in the performance of functions allotted to it by the Constitution. But apart from this limitation it is quite clear that though the territory of the State is the territory of the Commonwealth for the purpose of executing the functions committed to it by the Constitution, for every other purpose it is the territory of the State and of the State alone. In performing the functions allotted to it by the Constitution, the Crown operating in the State cannot in any way be said to abandon its legislative and administrative powers or to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament.

 The State of Tasmania cannot submit itself to the Commonwealth, when, in clear violation of the constitution, binding High Court decisions, State, Federal and International laws, the Commonwealth is defrauding vulnerable citizens with no regard for the lethal consequences of its actions.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

NOTE TO READERS of this posting:- The following files were appended to the email to Ms. Hopkins:

  1. Federal Agent Louise denley’s letter of 7th July 2004 (AFP Ref: 3286232].
  2. The undated November 2005 letter from the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee that classified post breaching murders as “confidential.”
  3. The Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee letter, dated 2 March 2006, in which post breaching murders were classified as “irrelevant”.
  4. A certified copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skilol’s letter of 18th may 2010 (C10/1866] in which it was admitted that Centrelink does not count the number of post breaching fatalities.
  5. A letter from Michaela Morgan, the Public Contact Officer for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, dated 25 November 2015 [Ref: 2015- 513814]. This letter is documentary evidence that one or more persons within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman ignored both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the fact that the withholding of evidence was a serious criminal offence that violated criminal law statutes in Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
  6. A letter from Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Council, dated 7 January 2015, in which both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the fact that the withholding of evidence was a serious criminal offence that violated criminal law statutes in Commonwealth Criminal Code Act were all ignored.

As an Australian Citizen, it is my personal recommendation that any person who is the victim of the following abuses of power file a report with the police as soon as is possible so that these crimes can be halted and those responsible be held accountable:

  1. Robo-debt claims.

  2. Administrative stonewalling of more than 10 working days that delays the payment of welfare benefits that are a constitutional right.

  3. Forced under duress, i.e. the threat to have welfare payments withheld, to undertake Work for the Dole, which is civil conscription, an activity that section 51(xxiiiA) specifically prohibits from, being linked to welfare payments.

  4. ‘Breaching’ , i.e. the ‘No show, no pay’ penalty for alleged non-compliance with the unconstitutional Work for the Dole “obligations”.

  5. The withholding of a subsistence allowance violates international and State criminal laws and is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is totally inconsistent with the clearly expressed constitutional obligation in paragraph of the Australian Constitution that the Federal Parliament may only make laws for the purpose of “good government.”

In closing, I leave all readers with the recommendation  that you put everything in this posting to the test and only keep the verifiable parts.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian Citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate for Justice.

Email TasPol 2

ROBO-DEBT IS ROBO-FRAUD: Email to the Tasmanian Police sent at Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:27 AM advising them of this posting.

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Part 43A. Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. AAT 2016/5334 – the points of law in this appeal that can be used by any Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) victim.

AAT 2016.5334 was a “nolle contendere” win because it was based upon points of law contained in the Australian constitution, statute laws and several case law decisions. Anyone can use the AAT 2016/5334 decision as a means of defeating the current Digital Data Fiction Fraud (2D2F) and other abuses of power by the Turnbull Government. To speed up a challenge to the 2D2f scam really means coming to grips with the “nuts and bolts” points of law underpinning AAT 2016/5334.

Note: The short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-XM

Bhardwaj crop

The 1st step in understanding how the 2D2F scam works starts is to look at paragraph 53 of the High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision:

Bhardwaj 53

The above statement can be placed in the context of paragraphs 1 41 and  143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision:

Hellicar crop

Hellicar 141

  1. For 116 years, politicians have made laws that unconstitutionally allow bureaucrats to make legal decisions that are automatically the domain of the courts if these decisions are challenged.

  2. The problem is that since bureaucrats make the “original decision”, for 116 years they have wrongly believed that if their decision is challenged, that they get to make the legal determination as to the validity of their decisions.

  3. As the High Court made quite clear in the “Millionaire’s Row” Hellicar decision, “..that premise is false for 2 reasons.”

  4. Reason #1 was set out in paragraph 142 of Hellicar:

Hellicar 142

Both the bureaucrats and the members of the public who are the “Respondents” to the decision made by a bureaucrat can put their own views as to what the key facts of the matter are, i.e. the bureaucrats cannot just rely on their own rules, regulations and “facts” because there are 2 sides to the issue and the respondents can decide what are “relevant facts of the matter.”

Hellicar 143

A court, not bureaucrats decides the facts of the matter upon which a fair decision is based and as the following extracts from a Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing make very clear, going to court can be massively expensive.

 

Hansard 26-2-15

As the following extracts from these minutes reveal, Senator Xenophon was highly in exposing the extraordinary lengths that Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink, management will go to to claw back alleged over-payments from welfare recipients.

Hansard 2In this extract alone the following can be noted:

  1. $565,000 spent on a claim involving less than $6,000

  2. The cost was still rising, and on page 26 we have this;

  3. P27 A
  4. And this:27 b

  5. And then there is this:

Hansard 3

6. A barrister and at least 2 Australian Government Service lawyers to fight an untrained, self-representing father.

7. The law firm, Clayton Utz, hired to fight an appeal in the AAT.

9. Whatever it takes and whatever it costs, Centrelink management will spare no taxpayer funded expense to win!

9. If winning means bankrupting a welfare recipient, as far as Centrelink management are concerned, that is sound management!

10. As far as I am concerned, this “win at all costs – wipe ’em out” approach to welfare management is both ‘bad government’, which is unconstitutional, and also a criminal abuse of power that violates a raft of federal laws, e.g. section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

“We do not threaten.”

On page 29 we have this absolutely farcical statement from Senator Payne,  “We do not threaten. We are not in the business of threatening”; a statement, which I suspect, was spoken by Senator Payne with a genuine belief that her ridiculous statement was true:

P29 A
REALITY CHECKS ON SENATOR PAYNE’S “WE DO NOT THREATEN” COMMENT.

Senator Payne’s ridiculous “We do not threaten” statement is hard evidence of just how out-of-touch-with-reality the Federal Parliament is. Check out the letter that was sent to me via the MyGov website:

Centrelink s138 MENACE violation[P.S. ‘definace should be “defiance”. ]

The “If you do not contact us” statement contained a totally unwarranted threat to violate my constitutional right to a pension for what were totally spurious and unmerited reasons.

  1. My wife had obtained short-term contract employement and I had been reporting income earned as per the legal obligations to do so.

  2. Weeks after we started reporting this income, the Australian Tax Office notification to Centrelink was finally processed and generated this this “tell or else” menacing threat that violates the following federal and state laws:Crimes Act Cover page

At the federal level we have these criminal violations:

s 138_2 menaceskjjh

s 139_1 Unwarranted demands

s 139_2 Unwarranted demands

12 years in jail for violating federal laws is a stiff penalty. However, violating South Australia’s Criminal code carries even tougher penalties”

Blackmail cropped171

s 172 BlackmailNSW s 30 threats to lifeDivision 4 above is contained in Section 31 of the New South Wales Crimes Act.

  1. Regardless of which federal or state law is broken, the crucial issue is that facts that the threats are unwarranted.

  2. The power to make a lawful threat requires ‘Reasonable Grounds’ that provided ‘Probable Cause’ for the lawful issuing of a lawful warning.

  3. In addition, the warning must not exceed lawful authority, which is ultimately determined not by statute laws, but by the Constitution, which requires that the laws of the Federal parliament be for the purpose of “good government”.

  4. ‘Political expediency’, ‘political necessity’, or even perceived ‘legal necessity’ do not constitute “good government”.

  5. Laws that endanger life, are unconstitutional and are therefore in law, no law at all.

  6. The bottom line is that letter written to me on 15th December 2015, and all similar letters that Centrelink churns out by the millions every year, violate federal and state laws and contains jail sentences that may cumulatively total 27 years!

So why do bureaucrats routinely menace people, and why don’t politicians see anything wrong with threats that, in law, are major crimes? I believe the answer to that question is found in the following legislation, which was given Royal Ascent on 1st July 2016.

genocide-lawThis human rights violating, recklessly dangerous,  legislation is unconstitutional, which means that in law it is no law at all.

However, like the now defunct Apartheid laws in South Africa, and the now defunct Segregation laws  in the Southern United States, this law, which unlawfully deprives impoverished people of the ability to sustain life, has been ruthless enforced for decades with regular tinkering to make it a more effect way to menace, intimidate and coerce welfare recipients into engaging in unconstitutional civil conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole.

Depriving people of the necessities of life is unlawful in every state in Australia.

The following statute is found in Section 44 of the New South wales Criminal Code.

NSW s40 Failure to sustain life

Tasmania s156 homicide crop

Section 156 above is from the Tasmanian criminal code.

“No show, no pay” may be a great political cliche’ that has found its way into Federal laws, but at the end of the day, it is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is at odds with Section 51, sub-paragraph XXiiiA of the constitution, which requires the payment of an unemployment benefit that cannot be linked to “civil conscription.”

Engineers case 1920 crop

The 1920 “Engineer’s Case not only defined the limits of ‘States Rights, it also defined the powers of the High Court and the limitations on the powers of the Australian Federal Parliament.

The duty of the High Court, and all lower courts in Australia, is to interpret the constitution and laws in acordance with Crown Law “rules of construction”.

Engineers case 4 B

The Australian Federal Parliament’s powers are limited by Section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

Engineers case 5 A

Engineers case para 4The Court,  interprets the meaning of the constitution to ensure that if challenged, legislation must comply with the constitution.

Engineers case 11b

“…if the text is explicit, the text is conclusive”.

Paragraph 75 of the constitution separates the powers of the Parliament and the Court with responsibility for determining tort cases involving the Commonwealth, i.e. federal Government agencies such as Centrelink, with the court, not parliament or bureaucrats.Original jurisdiction“No show, no dole” and the Constitution

The Parliament has the power to make laws under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution:

Constitution 51

“…if the text is explicit, the text is conclusive, alike in what it directs and what it forbids.” Paragraph 51, xxiiiA directs that laws be made for THE PROVISION of welfare payments such as parenting allowances and unemployment benefits.

HOWEVER, what is expressly forbidden is the linking of welfare payments to “civil conscription”, a generic term that is known today as “Work for the Dole.”

  1. In law, all “Work for the Dole” legislation, including the genocidal Section 42C, are unconstitutional.

  2. All legislative requirements/demands  for people to undertake Work for the Dole” activities and all laws that impose penalties for alleged violations of “Mutual Obligations” are constitutionally invalid, i.e. they are “void ab initio”.

  3. As I pointed out in my previous posting Void Ab Initio means:

    A purported legal status or legal document that is taken to have never been valid or enforceable. from the start, from the moment of its purported existence.

  4.  As the comment in the duhaime.org LegalDictionary  states, “…any time a court of law exercises its prerogative of time travel, the declaration that something that had been relied upon for years was void from the start, can sometimes produce unusual results and consequences.

    When it comes to “unusual results and consequences”, in law, Work for the Dole laws and the associated ‘No show, no dole‘, penalties  have never been enforceable right from the start and anyone who has suffered under these laws is entitled to compensation and payment of both appropriate wages and any welfare payments that may have been withheld.

 

Ronald Medlicott. A volunteer Christian lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

P.S. – Remember the biblical advice,  “Put all things to the test and only keep what is good.”

 

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment