Part 44 D. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. The 3rd letter to Justice Macaulay pointing out that the Manus Island ‘nolle contendere’ settlement may have wide-ranging unintended consequences.

Put simply, some 250,000 are dead, because politicians lied to us and there needs to be an accounting for the “Run, Hide, Call” harm cause by that lie.

The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and Faysal Ishak Ahmed are all direct consequences of the “Iraq has weapons of Mass Destruction” deception of the Liberal-National Coalition in 2002 and 2003. These deaths, along with approximately 250,000 other deaths since the March 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq raise serious questions about the legal liability of John Howard and his Cabinet in regard to the deaths that coroners inquests in the United Kingdom will have to consider because of the Chilton Report’s finding that there was never any evidence that justified the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-154

In Australia, the ‘nolle contendere’ settlement of the Manus Island class action could also have further legal implications that add extreme complexity to the legal quagmire that surrounds the issue of legal liability for decades of human rights violations by the Australian Parliament.

Please note: this letter to Justice Macaulay is almost 21,000 words in length and contains numerous case law references and citations or quotes. If you are a victim of the Robo-Debt fraud, you should attempt to read it. Likewise, if a breached family member or a family member who was a victim of Robo-Debt died as a consequence of these criminal acts, you should read this letter.

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 9:53 AM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention: Justice Macaulay -re Cardinal Pell implications in Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity and the need for a public hearing into the Manus Island settlement

Attention:     The Honourable Justice Macaulay  Victorian Supreme Court.

Your Honour,

The public interest factor in my two previous emails concerning the Turnbull Government’s ‘nolle contendere’ settlement of the Manus Island class action has been given a quantum boost in relevance by the decision to prosecute Cardinal George Pell for alleged child abuse offences that allegedly occurred decades ago. The previous emails, and this email, which I have been working on part-time since Tuesday, will be forwarded to Cardinal Pell via the local Catholic Church community.

———————————————————————————————————

Re: The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi;m the significance of the findings at 14.7.3.2.1 of Commission Ian Hanger’s “Black hat thinking” HIP Report, and the public interest issues related to the extremely dubious legality of the (proposed?) $90 million settlement of the Manus Island class action.

Please note, paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. Even if you have already perfected the Manus Island settlement, as a Judge and as a person, you still need to know of the issues in this and my two previous communications and then act upon them, for not to do so is to implicate yourself by a voluntary physical act of omission in the worst case of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Two days ago, the South Australian town of Loxton virtually shut down as the community attended the funeral of Kirsty Boden, the young women known around the world as London’s “Angel on the bridge” because she was murdered whilst rushing to render assistance to the victims of a crazed terrorist attack. Since Ms. Boden was an Australian citizen both the London Coroner, Andrew Harris, and the South Australian Coroner, Mark Johns, have joint-jurisdiction in the inquest into the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the death of Ms. Boden.

Even though Ms. Boden was murdered in London, there is a 15-year-long chain of events that ultimately resulted in her death, which includes decisions made in Washington by President George Bush 2nd, Prime Minister Tony Blair in London and by Prime Minister John Howard in Canberra. These decisions are matters of fact that raise points of law that neither Andrew Harris nor Mark Johns may have considered at this point in time. The decisions of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are factors beyond your jurisdiction in considering how justice may best be served in the Manus Island case; however the actions of John Howard and his government in 2002 and 2003 are matters of fact that I believe should be considered in the Manus Island case because they provide insight into the mindset of those responsible for the illegal detention of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island, an illegal activity that resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed.

I would therefore draw your attention to the following matters of fact, which I believe are relevant to the issue of ‘The 1st domino to fall’, i.e. what was the commonly shared first-event to in the cascade of events that culminated in the murders of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed?

It is my contention that all fatalities that are the downstream consequence of the commonly shared ‘1st domino to fall’ event are subject to the same legal logic and therefore the points raised here are applicable wherever fatalities have occurred. This includes an estimated 250,000 needless deaths in Iraq as a result of the unjustified, illegal invasion of that nation by the Coalition of the Willing, as well as all subsequent deaths that can be lawfully attributed to the Islamic State terrorist organization. It is also my contention that, whatever the precise death toll may be from Australia’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare penalties laws and the fraudulent Digital Data Fiction Fraud, the commonly shared ‘1st domino to fall’ event that caused those deaths is the same as that which led to the deaths in Iraq, and the recent deaths in Manchester and London.

For you to treat the Manus Island fatalities and the other harms caused by the illegal detention of refugees and asylums seekers as a separate issue that is isolated from events occurring elsewhere in the world is to miss the point in Commissioner Ian Hanger’s findings in the Report of the Home Improvement Program Inquiry that senior public servants should read the works of Edward De Bono, i.e. look at the big picture and ‘think outside the box’. By way of an allegory, it is my contention that each and every death can be likened to a ‘Pixel’, a microscopic light emitting diode on a high definition 4K television screen; to focus upon a specific death or, a small groups of deaths, is to miss seeing the full-screen picture and thereby failing to understand how individual deaths are part of a much larger pattern of deaths and the underlying causes of all of those deaths. Failing to understand the ‘big picture is to miss what Commissioner Ian Hanger QC stated in the HIP Report as “an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.”

COMMISSION IAN HANGER AND THE NEED FOR BLACK HAT THINKING ABOUT THE ‘BIG PICTURE’:

14.6.7 The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work. Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each. As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration. This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof.

At 14,6.8  Commissioner Hanger recommended, Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective. For example, in the case of the HIP, advice on the economic impacts should have focused not only on the macro-economic stimulus impacts, but also on the likely impact on the industry itself in both the short and long term. For example a relevant consideration should have been the fact that at the end of the HIP (had it been successful) there would have been a lack of employment for those involved.

Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective.”

With an estimated 250,000 deaths directly attributable to the illegal invasion of Iraq and an uncontested, undisputed estimate of 100,000 deaths in Australia that may be attributable to recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional welfare policies and the digital data fiction fraud known as Robo-Debt, the above recommendation by Commissioner Hanger to “look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective” is absolutely vital. It is manifestly obvious that if APS advisors had performed their statutory duty to adequately inform the government-of-the-day as to the international human rights issues involved in the off-shore detention of people against their will, then the Manus Island class action, would never have occurred if the that government, and successive governments, had complied with those human rights obligations. I put it to you that the Supreme Court of Papua & New Guinea would never have issued the following findings in SC1497 on 25th April 2016 when the Full bench of the Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court handed down its findings in a case brought before the Court on behalf of Manus Island detainees. Please note the following ruling:

“Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.” 

SC 1497; Namah v Minister for Immigration, 25th April 2016 [Full Bench decision] Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court

One of the 5 judges who made that order was Justice Terrance Higgins, a former Australian Federal Court judge for over 23 years and a former Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory for 10 years. Justice Higgins further expressed his legal opinion of the Australian Government’s actions with the following statement:

“Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status… is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

To say that there were serious failures of administration by the Australian Government in dealing with the problems posed by refugees and asylum seekers desperately seeking safety in Australia is to make a gross understatement. Many of those people seeking safety were forced into that position as a direct consequence of Australia’s involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq, a criminal act that placed upon the Commonwealth of Australia an obligation to deal with the human impact of that crime. I put it to you that there has been a tsunami of fatal human impacts stemming from the failures of administration that resulted from the illegal invasion of Iraq, e.g. the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and every other person who died as a direct consequence of that illegal invasion. The failure of “good government” was the 1st domino to fall’ in the invasion of Iraq and it is echoed in the 2009-10 HIP disaster and in every death caused by our nation’s unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous tort actions against welfare recipients.

In order to comprehend the ‘big picture’ context that underpins the Namah v Minister for Immigration decision, the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed in a Brisbane hospital and the recent murders of Kirsty Boden and Sara Zelenak in London, as well as every other murder committed by Islamic State anywhere in the world, it is essential to and the disastrous 15-year-long train of events circumstances leading up to those deaths. To focus solely upon the immediate circumstances of those deaths is abrogate the basic duty of every court, i.e. to uncover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One starting point for achieving that purpose is to evaluate issues raised in the Report of the Privy Council: Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6th July 2016, aka the Chilton Report.

Please consider the selected extracts from the Executive Summary of the Privy Council’s ‘Chilton Report’ that I believe may be credible, relevant and significant matters of fact in understanding the common cause of an estimated 250,000 needless deaths, over the last 15-years, including the circumstances that led to the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed. Please also note that the entire report, some 2,600,000 words in length needs to evaluated in order that that the selected texts are placed in their correct legal context.

Selected extracts from the Executive Summary of ‘The Chilton Report’:

  1. In addition to the conclusions of those reports, the Inquiry notes the forthright statement in March 2005 of the US Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

  2. The evidence in Section 4.4 shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

  3. Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

  4. The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

  5. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

The Post Conflict Period  (Pages 134 – 140

  1. The UK did not achieve its objectives, despite the best efforts and acceptance of risk in a dangerous environment by military and civilian personnel.

  2. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  3. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role inpost-conflict Iraq.

These statements reveal the following matters of fact:

  1. The statement in paragraph 573, the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction makes it quite clear that there was never any valid, stand-up-in-court, evidence to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  2. Paraphrased, the statement in paragraph 577 that the lack of evidence challenged the legitimacy of the war highlights the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act.

  3. Since the invasion was an illegal act, then all deaths caused by that unlawful act are culpable homicides, a fact of law that explains the statements in paragraphs 576 and 578 of the report:

  4. 576. “Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

  5. The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited, i.e. Those responsible for an illegal invasion did not wish to be held accountable for an illegal act that had resulted to an estimated 100,000 deaths, a figure that over the next decade would explode to an estimated 250,000.

  6. As the report stated in paragraph 859, In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance, the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure and a hard-headed assessment of risks. Quite clearly, as Commissioner Ian Hanger stated at 14.6.11 of the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement program, “These things did not happen.”

 

One of the clearly risks was the potential for a counter-reaction by people of Muslim faith to the illegal invasion and the senseless slaughter of tens of thousands, including innocent civilians.

  1. This risk factor was substantially heightened the embedding of the representatives of the mass media within the invasion forces who were resourced with the capability of live-broadcasting both audio and audio-visual information about the invasion in real time.

  2. Whilst supporters of the illegal invasion may have found these broadcasts to be highly entertaining, the relatives of those being slaughtered most likely did not.

  3. The easily foreseen but unintended consequence of the world-wide televised slaughter of Iraqi forces, with ‘collateral’ casualties amongst the civilian population, was the global recruitment of anti-Coalition forces, aka ‘terrorists’, who were, and still are, prepared to die in because of their belief that it is “the will of Allah” that the nations who supported, or did not physically oppose, the invasion of an Islamic nation should be punished.

  4. The failure to acknowledge the truth that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction or to give due consideration to the possibility that this invasion would massively increase support for hard-line Islamic groups was a failure that the world may pay for decades to come.

As I stated in a previous email, dated 26th June 2017, in The High Court’s Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd; (HCA 54, 31st August 1920), at paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated:

In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary. Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.

The Australian High Court very clearly upheld the constitutional imperative that ‘the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, Judges and people’ who are within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, i.e. within all States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. Note that “Organized bodies of persons… municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.” That legal principle also applies to the Federal Parliament, Federal Government, the political parties represented in the parliament and also the 226 Members of the Federal Parliament. All of these legal entities are as accountable before the law as any person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. If the members of a Federal parliament, or a federal-government-of-the-day, violate the law, then they are accountable before the law in precisely the same manner as all of “people” who are accountable before the law for their unlawful conduct. When it comes to the recklessly dangerous, ill-considered actions of Australian politicians that result in the proxy murder of Australian citizens, both within Australia and outside of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, one of the binding laws of the Commonwealth that applies is the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), which, in section115 states:

Part 5.4—Harming Australians – Division 115—Harming Australians

115.1 Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes the death of another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for life.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

115.2  Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes the death of another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends that the conduct will cause serious harm, or is reckless as to a risk that the conduct will cause serious harm, to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 25 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1)(b) and (c).

115.3  Intentionally causing serious harm to an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes serious harm to another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person intends to cause serious harm to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 20 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

115.4  Recklessly causing serious harm to an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

            (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

                    (b)  the conduct causes serious harm to another person; and

                     (c)  the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

                    (d)  the first‑mentioned person is reckless as to causing serious harm to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 15 years.

            (2)  Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

When John Howard and his government promoted the illegal invasion of Iraq, these politicians almost certainly did not intend that Australian citizens would subsequently be murdered as retaliation for this invasion even though this was an easily foreseen risk. The murders of Kirsty Boden and Sara Zelenak are the downstream consequences of recklessly dangerous abuses of power by the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and his Coalition government in 2002 and 2003 when the public was misled with false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the removal of the Iraqi Government would reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. By voluntary physical acts of commission, John Howard and his government chose to ignore the reports of  United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United Nations evaluation of those reports, the advice of the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, and the advice of a senior military intelligence analyst, Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie who all put forward the viewpoint that there was no irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As with the 4 HIP fatalities, and numerous other preventable deaths in South Australia, the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and every other Australian, civilian or military, who has died, as a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the ‘1st domino to fall’ that precipitated the cascade of events that led to each fatality was the misplaced belief that politically expedient policies that paid scant regard to the broader issues, e.g. the foreseeable consequences that could massive harm that included the deaths of innocent people, were of a higher merit than the truth.

The Role of ideology in ‘The 1st domino to fall.

Ideology distorted perceptions of reality create mindsets that ignore the situational reality because the truth did not fit in with the belief systems of the person who believes in that ideology. Consequently, the ‘1st domino to fall’ is the development of a mindset that is unable to accept the truth, which in turn leads to an abandonment of the basic principles required for “Good Government.”. The commonalities between the Hanger Royal Commission Report, the Chilton Report and the Manus island disaster, which resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed, all underscore the lethal consequences of political ideology and political expediency usurping the purpose of political leadership, i.e. good government that endeavours to protect rather than harm citizens. When there is a failure of both due diligence and common sense to the extent that a realistic awareness of the facts of the matter before the government becomes impossible and lives are placed at risk then “Good Government” is impossible. The 22 deaths in the Manchester suicide bombing, and the deaths of Australians Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson. Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi and many other Australians who have died are a direct consequence of the unjustified, illegal invasion of Iraq are all examples of how unrestrained political ideology led to a lethal abrogation of good government with the decision to support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Although it was not possible to specifically foresee that the illegal invasion of Iraq would be the catalyst that led to the creation of ISIS, with the history of more than a 1,000 years of warfare between nations of Christian faith and nations of Islamic faith, it was reasonably  foreseeable that the globally televised illegal invasion of Iraq would trigger a reaction that could lead to the growth and development of a world-wide terrorist organization capable of carrying out murderous attacks almost anywhere in the world. . A serious question for Australian courts to consider is just how many other ideology-driven or political expediency driven policies by a number of Australian federal parliaments have resulted in bad decisions, policies and practices that have also placed lives in peril?

Speaking at a Malaysian legal conference in 2010, Michael Kirby, a former Australian High Court judge quoted a 2008 statement by Francis Neale, Co-chair of the International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group:

“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.”

Australia’s ‘No show, no pay’ laws, commonly referred to as “Breaching” are an unconstitutional criminal act of reckless endangerment. “Fair Game – Dead Meat” is the title of a document provided to both Kevin Rudd and Quentin Bryce in September 2009, i.e. just days before the death of Matthew Fuller, the first of the 4 HIP disaster fatalities. Paragraph 64 of “Fair Game – Dead Meat” contained the following statement:

“Breaching is the targeted, and therefore deliberate, partial or complete reduction of the only means of support that people have in meeting their basic costs of living.”

The above statement re “basic costs of living” is a verbatim quote from paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Discussion Paper. You do not need to be a Prime Minister or a Governor-General, or even ‘just’ a Supreme Court Judge to realize that if you deprive impoverished people of the sole means to survive, then it is reasonably foreseeable that some of those people who have been deprived of the means to survive, will not survive. In the 2000-01 Financial Year, the Howard Government deliberately deprived impoverished people of the means to survive, not once or twice, but an absolutely  staggering 346,078 times!

If you have some difficulty in comprehending the human impact of that activity, please take note of the following statement at paragraph 50 of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Denlay & Anor [ QCA 217 on 20th August 2010]:

“This leads to the appellant’s third point, that the loss of their property and consequent inability to prosecute their appeals does not constitute extreme personal hardship. The point may be answered shortly. It is preposterous to contend that the loss of the respondents’ entire estate, and with it any chance of demonstrating that the basis for the assessments was wrong so that they should not have lost their property, could not be a hardship rightly called extreme. It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context. Certainly the primary judge cannot be criticised for so regarding it.”

When it comes to the human impact of Australia’s unconstitutional ‘Breaching’ penalties, i.e. deliberately depriving impoverishing people of the means to survive, surely the statement “It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context” is, in law, equally applicable? The removal of the sole means of a survival, i.e. the constitutional right to welfare allowance that has been acknowledged by two Federal Government Ministers to be a subsistence allowance, is a violation of the most basic and fundamental of all human right, i.e. the right to life.

Any act, whether by an individual or by a national government, that deprives a person, or a targeted sub-section of people in society of the means to survive is a deliberate act to place life in peril; an action that, as Justice Brooking pointed out in R v Faure, is a crime.

“Life in peril”: R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999)

When handing down the Court’s decision in this appeal, at 29 Justice Brooking stated that The second additional point worth mentioning concerns the case of reckless murder. The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act. The requisite state of mind is predicated upon an objective fact – a probability…. As long ago as 1839 it was accepted by the distinguished English Royal Commissioners inquiring into the criminal law (Holdsworth, History of English Law, vol.15, p.143) that it would be murder if, knowing that one only of two (or three or four) pistols set before him was loaded, but not knowing which one, the accused, for the pleasure of it, picked up one pistol, put it to another person’s head and pulled the trigger with fatal results. It is for this and another reason worth quoting at length from the Commissioners’ fourth report, contained in (1839) 19 Parliamentary Papers, pp.23-25.”

A second legal precedent referred to by Justice Brooking when considered the placing of life in peril was the placing poisoned cakes where people could find and eat them. Quoting from the Royal Commissioner’s report to the English parliament, Justice Brookings said, “But between these two extreme cases lie an infinity of others, in respect of which important legal distinctions are requisite, although they may vary almost imperceptibly from each other, and particularly as to the degree of risk to human life which may be incurred. … [T]he question is properly one of fact, as dependent on the existence of peril, and the design to expose to peril.”

At 30, Justice Brooking stated: The example of playing with pistols was given again by the Commissioners in their seventh report, printed in (1843) 19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24.” His Honour summed up his statements in this paragraph with this comment, which is directly applicable to the use of untruthful deceptions to justify the illegal invasion of another nation, which by any standard of reasonable judgement is a deliberately dangerous act that “seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility” for engaging in unjustified warfare is clearly an act that places lives in danger:

“The state of the offender’s mind in thus exposing life to danger seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility.”

Mens rea

Surely there is mens rea in deliberately depriving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people of their sole means to survive? Equally so, there was surely mens rea in falsely claiming to have irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to engage in war against the nation of Iraq and the people of Iraq. In plain English, in 2002 and early 2003, Prime Minister John Howard, along with President George Bush 2nd and prime Minister tony Blair, lied to their respective nations, and so far, as a direct consequence of those lies approximately 250,000 people have died?. John Howard’s lies have resulted in the deaths of many Australians including Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Tori Johnson, Katrina Dawson, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoi.

Regardless of the political “gravity/sensitivity”, the question as to just how many lies Australian politicians have told lies and how many people have died as a direct downstream consequence of those lies is question of law that need to be resolved if Australia’s justice system is not to become totally unworkable due to manifest bias within the system, i.e. if ideology driven actions that are illegal result in fatalities, then the politicians responsible for those deaths are as accountable for their actions as any other person within the legal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia who may have committed an unlawful homicide. Although those responsible for the deaths of welfare recipients has chosen to regard these deaths as “irrelevant”, a viewpoint currently endorsed by responsible for these homicides have arbitrarily determined that they are “irrelevant”, as an Australian citizen of British birth, I take the viewpoint that under both Crown Law and International law, e.g. Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome statute, every death is an unlawful homicide that needs to acknowledged as such so that Due process of Law may call to account those responsible for these murders.

To allow political status to exempt politicians from accountability, as has been happening for most of this century, is simply not a long-term option if Australia’s justice system is to be able to function in an unbiased, impartial and effective manner.

THE NOLLE CONTENDERE PROBLEM FOR AUSTRALIA’S LEGAL SYSTEM:

In the Statement of Facts & Issues for Administrative Appeal Tribunal 2016/5334, the following statements were made on page 3 of version 2b of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report (Sub-tiled ‘The Advocate’):

“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.”

“In his efforts to involve Australia in the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq that took place in March 2003, Prime Minister John Howard lied to the nation by falsely claiming that he had ‘irrefutable proof’ that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction {WMDs]. On 6th July 2016, the English Privy Council released the report on a 7-year-long inquiry into the illegal invasion of Iraq. Paragraph 573 of the Executive Report summary states:”

the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

 

“John Howard lied, and as consequence, an estimated 250,000 people have died.”

The extreme seriousness of the allegations above concerning the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients can, in part, be gauged from the findings in Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [FCA 652 on 30th June 2015]. In this tort action by the former Federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, against Fairfax Media for the 3-word-tweet, “Treasurer for sale”, Mr. Hockey was awarded $200,000 in damages because the tweet, but not the full published article that the tweet promoted, was deemed to defamatory.

Further insight into the seriousness of the allegations made can also be gauged form the Criminal Defamation statute in section 257 of South Australia’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

Section 257—Criminal Defamation.

(1)    A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—

   (a)    knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and

   (b)    intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Given both the criminal law and tortious conduct gravity of the statements concerning the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients; they were not statements that were made without serious though given to the consequences of including those statements in an appeal to the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal [the AAT]. These were extremely serious statements and the Australian Government lawyers(s) representing the Secretary of the department of Social Services were not in a position to disregard them for the fundamental duty of every lawyer is to uphold the law. Those statements are now also a major problem for every member of Australia’s judiciary and Australia’s entire criminal justice system.

On 21st February 2017, when the AAT case file 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged with the AAT via the Sydney Registrar’s Office, Ms, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government Services lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, was employed in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services. As the lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS, Ms. Ulrick had a professional responsibility to rebut the statements contained in the applicant’s Statement of Facts & Issues, especially those that involved allegations of fraud and murder on a massive systemic scale. Ms. Ulrick was employed with in the DHS and it is therefore highly likely that Ms. Ulrick had authorized to access the unreported data on the sometimes lethal impact of welfare policies and practices at her fingertips and could ‘let her fingers do the walking’ to find the data that might possibly be used to repudiate the claims made in regard to the death toll caused by the enforcement of unconstitutional, and therefore legally invalid, welfare penalties.

What statistical data Ms. Ulrick found in regard to the impact of the unconstitutional ‘Breaching’ legislation, and all other forms of tortious conduct against welfare recipients, is unknown as her response to the allegations was, by a voluntary physical act of commission, nolle contendere, i.e. Ms. Ulrick made a conscious decision not to contest the fraud and murder allegations. As I have mentioned in a previous email, the day after receiving the AAT case file 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues, Ms. Ulrick prepared a ‘Without prejudice’ proffer that was sent directly to the applicant and not, as should have occurred, in my capacity as the lawfully appointed representative of the applicant. Had I received this proffer, I would have advised the appellant not to accept it until such time as Ms. Ulrick provided the information that had been requested, e.g. how many people have been defrauded by the DHs and how many have died as a consequence of that criminal abuse of power?

Can you image how the law firm representing the Manus Island litigants, i.e.  Slater & Gordon, would have responded if similar discovery questions had been put to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister’s legal representative(s) had responded by shutting  them out of the tort action by literally  by-passing them and making proffers directly to the 1,905 litigants involved in the Manus Island class action? I suspect that the lawyers at Slater & Gordon would have been outraged at such unprofessional conduct by Australian Government Services lawyers. I believe that the key question to consider regarding Ms. Ulrick’s apparent disregard for Due Process, i.e. by-passing me and making a proffer directly to the applicant in this appeal, is the question as to the benefit to be gained for her client, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, by engaging in what may be gross professional misconduct?

An AAT directive issued by AAT Conference Registrar Ms, Athena Ingall, on 23rd December 2017, required Ms. Ulrick to provide requested information that would be credible, relevant and significant to the appellant’s appeal. Having pointed out that the Secretary’s claim was spurious, without merit, and a criminal abuse of power that violated sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1995), the discovery questions relating to the total number of “irrelevant” fatalities caused by the decades long violations of the constitutional and civil rights of welfare recipients was a discovery question that posed significant problems for Ms. Ulrick. In VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [HCA 72, 6th December 2005], the Court considered Justice Brennan’s reasons in Kioa [HCA 81; 8 December 1985], when determining that information that was credible, relevant and significant and should be made available by the decision-maker, even when it was detrimental to one of the parties involved in the tort action.

Having accused the Secretary of engaging in a fraudulent, systemic abuse of power that over a period of decades may have resulted in a substantial unreported number of fatalities, the fact that the answers to the discovery questions as to how many frauds and how many fatalities were the result of this unlawful conduct was most certainly information that would have been extremely detrimental to the Secretary’s tort action claims. It appears that Ms. Ulrick’s solution, which effectively conceals what I believe is the worst case of mass fraud and serial murders to have ever occurred in the Commonwealth of Australia, was the ‘nolle contendere-without prejudice’ proffer’ that rendered void ab initio the original decision at the centre of the AAT 2016/5334 appeal and thereby extinguished my right as the appellant’s representative to be provided with the requesting information.

The power to persecute, intimidate, extort, defraud, enslave, endanger and even kill impoverished welfare recipients is not the same as the legal right to do so. In a similar manner, the fact that this has been occurring for decades does not imply any ‘historical right or legal precedence to do so. These actions are unconstitutional and therefore statute laws that appear to legitimize these crimes are, in law, no law at all. The “nolle contendere” outcomes in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal and the Manus Island class action both raise the question as what is the cost to Australian taxpayers of federal government ‘Nolle contender’ decisions that conceal culpable homicides needs to be considered and made known for the purposes of good government and public accountability.

In VEAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [ HCA 72; 6 December 2005], the Court used the phrase “procedural fairness” at least 30 times, “credible, relevant and significant” at least 10 times, whilst references to the issue of “public interest” were raised 8 times. Clearly, as far as the High Court is concerned, public interest issues that involve “credible, relevant and significant” issues that are of “public interest”, especially those that may involve abuses of “procedural fairness”. Since the withholding of credible, relevant information that may be credible is of major concern to the High Court, it should be of major concern for any other court in Australia, especially when the cases before the Court involve illegal actions by the Commonwealth that have resulted in fatalities. If functus officio has not yet been done in the Manus Island settlement, then there are extremely significant public interest issues that make it essential that the issues be brought before the Court. It would be a highly inappropriate action for your Court to ratify a taxpayer funded settlement that, in practice, allows the Turnbull Government to conceal illegal conduct in the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers by avoiding a transparent review of the facts of the matter in an open court hearing.

Nolle Contendere – the Cost to Taxpayers.

Over the life of the applicant, this nolle contendere decision is likely to have a Nett Present Value of $100,000 – $150,000 to taxpayers.

Whilst that figure is extremely modest compared to the $90 million Manus Island settlement, both settlements may consist the use of taxpayers’ monies for the express purpose of concealing illegal abuse of power that have resulted in fatalities.

  1. In the Manus Island settlement, the cost to taxpayers is $90 million to conceal illegal activity that involved one fatality.

  2. Conversely, the AAT 2016/5334 settlement is a far less substantial 6-figure cost to taxpayers for the concealment of a much larger unreported and officially “irrelevant” death toll.

If the ABS statistical data that provides insight into the scale of welfare penalties and Robo-Debt deaths is valid, then the culpable homicides caused by Australia’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices pose a modest cost to taxpayers of concealing these murders as it effectively works out to $1 per welfare recipient fatality. From an actuarial perspective, that represents excellent value for taxpayers, although welfare recipients and the families of the deceased may not agree with the actuarial viewpoint. Conversely, from an actuarial perspective, the expenditure of $90 million of taxpayers’ money to conceal from the public the unlawful actions and human rights atrocities that resulted in the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed does not represent appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and any such payout made in the absence of transparency is not in the public interest, i.e. $90 million for one death.

People working at the Manus Island concentration camp, or who visited the camp to provide humanitarian aid, e.g. doctors, nurses and teachers, were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that is totally inconsistent with section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. You need to see and evaluate that nondisclosure agreement, and if it is inconsistent with s. 149.1, then you need to have every person who signed that agreement, often under duress, testify in your court as to what they say and what they did, or did not do, about the conditions in this concentration camp.

I would remind you that the secrecy surrounding the death of Matthew Fuller in October 2009 led to 3 further preventable fatalities because of the lack of transparency. Transparency and accountability are supposed to be a fundamental part of Australia’s democratic process and yet, with the death toll from the unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ laws currently, unreported by the Department of Human Services and officially classified as “confidential” and “irrelevant” by two Senate committees, the public interest is not being served by ’nolle contendere’ decisions that hide illegal deaths caused by a plethora of bad government decisions.

I would remind you of Commissioner Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2 of the HIP Report:

14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED  [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.

  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;

  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

Perhaps, in law, the most credible, relevant and significant of all is Commissioner Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2.1, which is as relevant to the deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Curtis Cheng, Kia Hoi and Faysal Ishak Ahmed, i.e.

The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

That statement is a relevant precedent for the death of Faysal Ishak Ahmed; the expenditure of $90 million in taxpayer monies in order to avoid possible criminal charges in relation to that death is totally inappropriate. When it comes to the 22 deaths in Manchester and the other deaths caused by Islamic State elsewhere in Britain, the above statement is equally valid because the British Government should also not seek to avoid accountability for its role in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I would again refer you to the points previously raised in the Chilton Report: When it comes to the concept of the “disastrous chain of events” that eventually led to the illegal establishment of the Manus Island Concentration Camp, as stated previously, it is manifestly obvious to any reasonable person who has full knowledge and awareness of the key matter of fact that if there had been no illegal invasion of Iraq, then one of the key factors that has led to the current world-wide refugee problem, i.e. the establishment of Islamic State as a world-wide terrorist force, would never have occurred because, God forgive me for stating this, Saddam Hussein’s repressive regime would have promptly murdered Islamic State leaders as soon as their threat to his regime became apparent. The lack of appreciation of what the Coalition of the Willing were unleashing upon the entire world can be reasonably adduced from the following statements from the Executive Summary Chilton Report

  1. Although the UK expected to be involved in Iraq for a lengthy period after the conflict, the Government was unprepared for the role in which the UK found itself from April 2003. Much of what went wrong stemmed from that lack of preparation.

  2. In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance:

  • the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard-headed assessment of risks;

  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and

  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

  1. All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in post-conflict Iraq.

The key fact to be adduced from the 12 volumes of the Chilton Report is that the Invasion of Iraq was never legally justifiable.

It is therefore my contention that neither is the avoidance by politicians of accountability for that illegal activity, for today, 15-years-on, no person anywhere in the world who is not an Islamic State supporter can be considered safe from Islamic State attacks, a matter of fact that has been graphically emphasized by the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and at Brighton in Victoria. The truths with the Chilton report are truths that must be confronted, and those politicians and senior military leaders who can be held accountable responsible for the global harm that they have caused by their illegal conduct must be called to account before a court for the harms that they have caused.

Victoria: The murder of Kai Hao

The murder of Kai Hao on 6th June at the Buckingham Arms Serviced Apartment complex occurred just a few days after the London attack. Your Honour, This murder occurred in your jurisdiction and, for the reasons stated previously in this communication, you need to act in the public interest and, if it not too late to do so, factor this terrorist attack into your consideration of the Manus Island settlement.

The murder of Mr. Hao was allegedly committed by an alleged Islamic State supporter, Yacqub Khayre, and this attack has underscored the fact that the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie is a lethal today as it was in March 2003 when the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq and killed an estimated 100,000 people in the 3-week-long duration of the ‘official’ war. In what may have been a colossal act of hypocrisy when speaking to the media about the Brighton terrorist attack, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reportedly stated that he had “grave questions’ as to why Yacqub Khayre had been recently released on parole. Mr Turnbull said their [sic] had been “too many cases of people on parole committing violent offences of this kind”.

[Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brighton-siege-what-we-know-so-far-20170605-gwl0w9.html ]

Still listed on the Australian Senate’s website as “Not yet available”, submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry in November 2005 is secretly classified as “confidential” and in an undated letter posted to me on 3-th November 2005, I was instructed to not make and distribute copies of MY submission, i.e. the ‘confidential” classification came with its very own suppression order. Similar suppression orders have also been received from the Senate’s EWRE Committee and ECA Committee in response to submissions concerning the defrauding and murder of an as yet undisclosed number of welfare recipients.

The secret classification of submission 287 and two other Senate submissions now means that in the aftermath of the murders of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak and Mr. Kia Hoa, there are a number of grave questions that Mr. Turnbull also needs to answer:

  1. What was his personal role in the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie, i.e. did he tacitly support this lie or, like Commissioner Mick Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie, did Mr. Turnbull go on the public record and oppose the (now blown & known) illegal invasion of Iraq?

  2. How many members of Prime Minister Turnbull’s current administration were members of Prime Minister John Howard’s administration when Prime Minister Howard was actively disseminating the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie?

  3. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, how many of the members of Prime Minister John Howard’s administration went on the public record at that time and opposed the recklessly dangerous, illegal invasion of Iraq?

The following statement has relevance not just to the illegal invasion of Iraq but also to the issue of the unreported, secretly classified death toll caused by the foreseeably dangerous unconstitutional ‘Breaching penalties’ fatalities that at least 3 separate Senate committees has taken action to conceal from the public, and by extension, from the courts:

  1.  Ground truth is vital. Over-optimistic assessments lead to bad decisions. Senior decision-makers – Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, senior officials – must have a flow of accurate and frank reporting… A “can do” attitude is laudably ingrained in the UK Armed Forces – a determination to get on with the job, however difficult the circumstances – but this can prevent ground truth from reaching senior ears. At times in Iraq, the bearers of bad tidings were not heard.

The question as to how many times have public servants advised Ministers of these fatalities and how many times have Ministers disregarded this advice because it was neither politically expedience nor legally wise to formally acknowledge these fatalities is an question that is validated by Section 7.11.88 of the Home Improvement program Inquiry, Risk assessment: knowledge and involvement of Senator Arbib.” A closed scrutiny of this report reveals that there are over 130 references to Senator Arbib in this report:

  • Mr Arbib’s recollection was that DEWHA had not done a lot of work about ‘risk to government’ but his concern was mainly on fraud and malfeasance at that He denies receiving the risk assessment document at this time and said he did not see it prior to 12 February 2010 and referred to an email of 22 February 2010 in support of this contention. It would not have been sufficient, even if the OCG had told Mr Arbib that DEWHA was now taking matters more seriously (which is what he offered), to quell the concern that Mr Arbib earlier had that DEWHA had done insufficient work on risk.

  • I find that Mr Arbib did receive the risk assessment shortly after his request for it and reject his denial of having done so. I do so for these reasons:

    • it is not a request likely, in any event to have been refused given Mr Arbib’s position and seniority;

    • In the weekly update 20 to 26 March 2009 it is recorded that a risk identification workshop was held on 23 March It is then recorded: ‘First draft being presented to executives Friday 27 Mar Presentation to Senator Arbib on Tuesday 31 March’;

    • On 26 March 2009 Juliana Marconi sent an email to Harry Zevon, David Hoitink and others at 08 pm thanking them for participating in that afternoon’s working group meeting and circulating a copy of the Risk Register and asking for their comments by 11 am the following day. It was noted that the Risk Register would be presented at a meeting with Mr Arbib on Tuesday morning (31 March);

    • In the note of the meeting of 31 March it is contemporaneously recorded: “A meeting was held today with PM&C/OCG

staff, DEWHA staff, a representative from Mr Garrett’s office and Mr Arbib to discuss delivery models and risk assessments.”

  • Mr Levey’s note of the 31 March meeting records Mr Arbib as having written down what ‘political risk’ means. This is likely to have been the result of Mr Arbib having seen the risk assessment and read the words ‘political fallout’ which it contained (in many places), and that the political risk was one of three that remained extreme;

  • a note written by Mr Levey of a discussion in which he participated on 20 April 2009 is to the effect that an advisor in Senator’s Arbib’s office was to ‘talk to everyone about risk assessments’

  • it is highly unlikely that Mr Arbib would could have personally requested such a document, only to have dropped the issue and never pressed for its delivery;

the 22 February 2010 email contains an assertion that the Senator’s office has checked its records and can advise that neither he [Mr Arbib] nor his staff saw the Minter Ellison report prior to receiving it on 12 February 2010. That adds little. There is nothing to suggest that the usual course would have been for that Office to record receipt of such a document in the circumstances in which it was provided.

  • The Risk Register likely seen by Mr Arbib was that with Ringtail number 002.018.2220.

  • As Mr Arbib said, had he read the risk assessment in or about March or April 2009, it would not have been any notice of a potential risk to installers, because it was silent on that

  • The real difficulty is that Mr Arbib seems to have formed a view that participants in the HIP might act fraudulently or dishonestly, but not had an understanding that this might readily extend to a serious failure to adhere to their occupational health and safety Those views, whilst not absolutely inconsistent, are most difficult to reconcile.

  • Had Mr Arbib read the risk assessment in or about March or April 2009, he ought also to have seen that it omitted any reference to installer safety.

For decades past, the core problem with Australia’s welfare laws, policies and practices has been that, like Senator Arbib’s concept of risk assessment measures in the Home Improvement Program, i.e. “that Mr Arbib seems to have formed a view that participants in the HIP might act fraudulently or dishonestly, but not had an understanding that this might readily extend to a serious failure to adhere to their occupational health and safety obligations.”

Just as the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie posed a potential ‘safety problem’ for the entire world, the unconstitutional ‘no show, no pay’ welfare penalties enshrined in Section 42C of the Social Security (Act) contain risks that Members of the Federal parliament appear to have been incapable of comprehending ever since these penalties were first proposed and then legislated decades ago. Safety in Australia welfare laws is locked into the concept that it to be focused solely on fraud prevention measures, i.e. the idea that welfare recipients might act fraudulently and dishonestly. Four significant facts provide insightful evidence of the extend to just how far from any perception of the lethal reality of this fraud focused mindset that Australian politicians, public servants and the criminal justice system currently adhere to with a diligence that matches the former enthusiasm in South Africa for upholding that nation’s Apartheid laws;

Fact #1: – The “irrelevant” deaths of welfare recipients.”

On 14th April 2010, whilst the Senate’s ECA Committee inquiry into the 4 Home Improvement programs was in progress, I wrote to Senator Arbib expressing my concerning the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s highly illegal enforcement of recklessly dangerous “Performance Indicator Targets” that Cheryl Kernot has publicly exposed in a media release made on June 28th 2000.

Senator Abib is just one of many Federal Government Ministers that I have written to expressing concern over the classified death toll caused by the unconstitutional welfare penalties and criminal abuses of power using that legislation such as the ‘vocational sport’ of ‘Breaching’ that I encountered when managing a CES job club at Salisbury and the issue of “Breaching for financial gain” by

Some Job Network agencies who nearly bankrupted the Job network twice in the first 6-months of operations because this fraud was so pervasive and extensive, despite a warning given to Senator Vanstone by ABC presenter Kerry O’Brien that the Job Network would be wide open to systemic rorting

How many past and present Members of the Federal parliament have been investigated for their roles in either actively or tacitly supporting the defrauding or murders of an unknown number of welfare recipients?

In my letter to Senator Arbib, a specific question asked in bold Italic text was:

“As a direct consequence of Mr. Abbott’s comments, I am requesting from you the specific details of the numbers of people who died after being breached by the DSS and/or Centrelink.”

It would be 58 days before Senator Arbib, at that time the Minister for Employment Participation, responded to my request. In his letter dated 11 June 2010, in paragraph 2 of his response, Senator Arbib wrote:

“I note that you have requested me to provide you with the specific details of the number of people who you allege died after being breached by the DSS and/or Centrelink.”

In paragraphs 5 and 6 Senator Arbib wrote:

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

“Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.”

One month later, 18th May 2010, I received a letter (C10/1866), which was written by Assistant Secretary Neil Skill, the senior public servant responsible for the ‘Portfolio Coordination and Parliamentary’. Paragraph 2 was essentially a re-statement of Senator Arbib’s letter:

“Centrelink collects compliance data on behalf of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcome Statistics’ and is therefore unable to assist with your request for this information.”

Any investigation into Neil Skill’s knowledge of the unreported fatalities should also pay close attention to 2 different documents, letters to Nick Champion MP, which are both numbered C10/3221, and are both dated 22 July 2010 but contain different content. In addition, the investigation should compare Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect…” response to the fatalities caused by tortious conduct, i.e. ‘Breaching’, with the issues raised in 6.160 and 6.161 of Queensland lawyer, Aaron Anderson, in his submission to the Home Insulation Program on behalf of some of the victims of this disaster:

6.160 In his evidence, Andrew Wilson highlighted the need for effective reporting lines to Ministers on issues of risk.”

MR HOWE: Yes. And just on this question of the rollout date of 1 July 2009, if it had emerged that that was not achievable in a way that satisfactorily accommodated a risk of injury or death, it would have been the responsibility of a number of senior public servants to have drawn that fact to the attention of relevant Ministers; wouldn’t it?

THE WITNESS: It would have been the responsibility of the Department of Environment to draw it to the attention of their Minister, but it would also have been the responsibility of the Department to draw it to the broader public service community, ourselves included in the Office of the Coordinator General, because if you got to a situation where, as the responsible area, you felt that you were not going to be able to deliver a key plank of the government’s economic stimulus package, it would have flow-on effects to the Department of Finance and the Department of – and the Treasury, so you would need to inform a broad range of people within the bureaucracy, but the first port – the first point of call would be your Minister, to inform them that it is not possible to – these are the issues that we face, these are the risks that we face, we need to discuss and analyse whether or not you can actually achieve the date that the government has given you.

MR HOWE: And it might seem obvious, but in fact, Minister Garrett, Parliamentary Secretary Arbib, and the Prime Minister would have needed to be informed.

THE WITNESS: “That’s correct. Yes.”

 

In paragraph 6.161 of his submission to the HIP Inquiry, Aaron Anderson summed up the above testimony with the following statement:

6.161 It is clear by the evidence given by Mark Arbib, Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd that critical information in relation to the risks of death or serious injury to installers arising out of the performance of work under the HIP was not brought to their attention.”

Re: “…not brought to their attention.” I believe that a very common euphemism or term used to describe the practice of deliberately keeping Ministers in the dark about the real world down-side to their political policies, a practice that is colloquially known as “Plausible Deniability.”

Fast forward from the comments of Senator Arbib and Assistant Secretary Neil Skill in April and May 2016, to April 2016 when the Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley, was forced to apologize because the Federal Health Department had sent letters to people who had been dead for up to 20-years, or even longer.

[ The comments below were sourced from: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dead-people-given-ehealth-records-in-latest-bungle-for-1-billion-government-program/news-story/966ec22c7fe8a40e7ecf66aa98b1ed90  ]  (Emphasis added.)

The Department of Human Services says it sent letters to people who were deceased because it did not have a date of death recorded against their customer records.

“The department is aware that of the one million letters sent about the My Health Record trial, a small number have been sent to deceased individuals*,” a spokeswoman said. “The department sincerely apologises for any distress this has caused.”

[*My comment: How small is ‘small’; was it 100,000 out of 1,000,000?]

“The department says it is notified of a death from family members and other authorised persons such as health professionals, funeral directors and, in more recent years by data-matching with Birth, Deaths and Marriages registrations.”

“If the department is not notified, a date of death will not be recorded on a customer’s record,” [it said.] Minister for Health Sussan Ley offered a direct apology to any family affected by “the unfortunate’ administrative error”.

The one constant in all of the points raised in these points is that currently, the number of people who have died as a result of what Senator George Brandis almost flippantly described as “terrible human consequences” of the [unconstitutional] Robo-Debt policies and practices during an Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast of the Q& A program on the evening of 20th February 2017, and the deaths triggered by ‘breaching’ are still classified and unreported.

Fact #2 – Tortious conduct triggered deaths of welfare are “irrelevant”.

In a letter dated 1st March 2006, John Carter, the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee wrote:

“Your most recent letter attempts no argument as to the relevance of your submission, and only replicates earlier “irrelevant’ claims.”

 

Here I raise matters of fact for your professional consideration as an Officer of the Court:

  • Since governments cannot abrogate accountability for the lethal consequences of policies, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” death that may have been caused by recklessly dangerous unconstitutional legislation.

  • To so casually and brutally dismiss concerns that government policies and practices are killing vulnerable people is an issue that no politician or public servant, especially one holding the rank of Secretary to a Senate Committee, should ever disregard.

  • Whatever the precise number of undisclosed deaths, they are culpable homicides.

 

Fact #3  See no evil is the official policy when it comes to defrauding and murdering welfare recipients or drug mules.

No police force or other agency with the power and the jurisdiction to investigate the easily foreseeable lethal impact of depriving impoverished people of their sole means to survive by depriving them of a subsistence allowance, has ever conducted a thorough investigate of the human impact of the ‘No show, no pay’ laws. This includes Federal Agent Denley’s letter, dated July 7th 2004 (File ref# 3286232), which is documentary evidence of the AFP’s refusal to investigate any deaths caused by the Howard government’s illegal enforcement of performance Indicator targets, i.e. Breaching Quotas. In paragraph 3 of her letter, AFP reference # 3286232, Federal Agent Denley wrote:      [Italics added for emphasis

“Our Operations Monitoring Centre (OMC) has assessed this matter, taking into account a number of factors such as the gravity/sensitivity of the matters, the current investigational workload, available resources, and whether any Commonwealth laws have been breached.  Each case is assessed and a decision made whether or not to allocate the required investigative resources.”

In paragraph 4 of her letter, Federal Agent Denley wrote:

“It is noted that you are making allegations based on items that you have seen in the media.”

The above statement was a partial-truth that conveniently ignored the fact that I was whistle-blowing on matters of facts that I had personally experienced. Some of the issues of law raised were based upon my personal experience as a CES Job Club manager and as an employee of a Job Network agency in the period 1996 – 1998. However, regardless of my sources of information, abuses of power that violate sections 3, 4, 134, 135, 137, 138, 142,2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and are violations that have resulted in an unknown number of fatalities that are almost certainly culpable homicides in every state and territory in Australia and are also murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute are most definitely crimes that the Federal Police, and every other police force in Australia, should, regardless of the original source of information, have been immediately investigated.

Federal Agent Jeff Pearce’s email of 14th September 2009 was almost a form letter copy of Agent Denely’s letter but added this statement:

“As you yourself identify, this matter has been the subject of an Auditor-General report. Where matters have been the subject of an Auditor-General investigation it is not necessary for members of the public to advise the AFP of this, government protocols exist for this purpose.”

The legal validity and merit of that statement was invalidated when I followed up Federal Agent Pearce’s response and wrote to the Australian National Auditor-General; I received the following response in a letter dated 21 October 2009, ANAO file reference 2009/1496, from Mr. Brian Boyd, the Executive Director of the Performance Audit Service group, who responded with the statement on page 2 of this letter:

“Responsibility for determining whether any individual Parliamentarians may have acted outside of the limits of their entitlements, and, if so, whether any recovery action should be initiated is a matter for Finance, as the agency responsible for administer[ing] the public money expended in relation to the entitlements examined by the audit.”

Until I read the High Court’s decision at paragraph 53 of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11, I was of the mistaken belief that the Auditor-General’s Office was buck-passing on the issue of rorting by federal parliamentarians.

i.e. [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  

I now understand that the Office of the Auditor-General does not investigate fraud complaints because that is a matter for the Federal Police, who have made it expressively clear in very plain language that “government protocols” and the “gravity/sensitivity” of the complaint take precedence over the constitution, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, and the need to protect the public from criminal abuses of power by the Federal Parliament. Neither the Executive of the Federal parliament nor the Australian Federal Police have the constitutional power, i.e. the jurisdiction, to set aside the constitution or statute laws, but that is exactly what they have been doing and it is in the public interest that the politicians, public servants and police commissioners involved in these abuses of power be held fully accountable, both for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

In a letter dated 1st November 2011, ACMA file reference ACMA2011/9-15 C21620, Ms. Rochelle Zurnamer, the manager of the Broadcasting investigations unit, responded to a complaint lodged with the ACMA in regard to statements by Minister Tanya Slibersek and Hank Jongen, the General Manger, of the Department of Human Services Media Unit that I believed constituted misleading and unlawful abuses of power for the purposes of intimidating and defrauding welfare recipients. Following the lead taken by the AFP in deliberately ignoring paragraph 5 of the constitution, sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, and section 147(1) (h) of the Broadcasting Services Act, on page 2 of her letter, Ms. Zurnamer wrote the following ‘blanket’ policy statement:

 

“The ACMA does not investigate politicians or participants in broadcasts.”

On page 3 of her letter Ms. Zurnamer then stated that the ACMA would not investigate complaints unless the plaintiff specified the precise statutes that the broadcaster had allegedly violated. At that time, I did not know about Sections 12, 137, 138, 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, Article 7(1) (a) of the Rome Statute or the multitude of statutes dealing with culpable homicides contained in State and territory criminal law statutes, e.g. Section 13.7 of the South Australian Criminal Code, Section 157 of the Tasmanian criminal Code, et cetera. I most certainly did not know about this statement in paragraph 32 of Chief Justice Gibbs findings in Boughey v The Queen; [HCA 29, June 6th 1986]:

The words “ought to have known” are included in s.157 (1) (c) as an alternative to “knew”. Reliance upon them is necessary only in a case where it is not positively established that an accused actually knew that his act was likely to cause death. That does not, however, mean that the content of the knowledge laid at the door of an accused is to be assessed by reference to the notional knowledge and capacity of some hypothetical person.

The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed.

Inevitably, the word “ought” requires the making of a subjective judgment by a jury. The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial that the established circumstances were such that the particular accused, with the knowledge and the capacity which he or she actually possessed, ought to have thought about the likely consequences of his or her action.

Note the statement, The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial.” In Kioa, Justice Brennan prefaced his “credible, relevant and significant” statement with this statement:

Administrative decisions are not necessarily to be held invalid because the procedures of adversary litigation are not fully observed. As Lord Diplock observed in Bushell v. Environment Secretary, at p 97:

” To ‘over-judicialise’ the inquiry by insisting on observance of the procedures of a court of justice which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients would not be fair.”

On the 28th August 2013, Justice Duncan Kerr gave a speech to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers titled “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court.” In a sub-section of that speech titled, “Statutory Directions”, Justice Kerr made the following statement:

“It is understandable that lawyers familiar with and expert in the way things are done in court, and arguably privileged by expertise in contrast to unrepresented litigants, might call for those rules to also apply in any tribunal in which they appear. It is equally understandable that such lawyers might, as does Rees, share the view expressed obiter dicta by Evatt J in R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 256 that every departure from the rules of evidence will necessarily advantage one side and necessarily disadvantage the other.”

If Lord Diplock, Justice Brennan and Justice Kerr are of the belief that lawyers are professional people with privileged expertise, is it reasonable that members of public should be required to have this level of expertise when filing complaints to the policy or other government agencies? Surely, the obligation on all of Australia’s parliaments, Federal, State and Territory, ‘protect the people’, requires that when complaints are made to the police or to a statutory authority, the issue that has to be dealt with is the protection of the public rather than focusing upon appropriate legal ‘form’ instead of the function of the authority?

Adding weight to the above question of law are the results of two Adult life Skills surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1996 and 2006. The 2007 survey results summary, Australia’s literacy and life skills: ABS was released on 28 November 2007 and this can be viewed at:

Approximately 17% (2.5 million) of people were assessed at the lowest prose literacy level (down from 20% in 1996), while 18% (2.7 million) were assessed at the lowest document literacy level (down from 20% in 2006).

Other findings from the survey include:

  • Just over half (54%) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years were assessed as having the prose literacy skills needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work. Results were similar for document literacy with 53% and numeracy with 47% achieving this level.

  • Women had higher scores for prose and health literacy, while men had higher scores for document literacy and numeracy.

  • Across all the different types of literacy, people with jobs were more likely to be assessed as having the skill levels needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work than were the unemployed or those not in the labour force.

  • The median weekly income for people assessed with the highest level of prose literacy was $890 compared to $298 for those assessed at the lowest level.

The statement that 53% of people were document literate was a positive on the fact that 47% of Australians are NOT document literate. Note also that in 2006, the median income for workers with high levels of prose literary skills was $896 whilst that with the lowest levels of literary prose skills was just $298, i.e. functionally illiterate people have a weekly income that is just 33.25% of the median income of people with high prose levels. The 2006 survey identified unemployed people and people with English as a second language as being the people on the lowest income, many people who are the victims of systemic abuses, e.g. the unconstitutional ‘No show, no pay’ laws and the digital data fiction fraud colloquially known as Robo-Debt, have little or no understanding of the fact that they are being defrauded and if they file a complaint to the police or a regulatory authority with jurisdiction to investigate, they encounter the Denley/Pearce/Zurnamer ‘Barrier to justice”, i.e. although they are not licenced investigators or lawyers, members of the public, who may be functionally illiterate, are required to either provide evidence of a criminal abuse of power or state the appropriate statutes before police or regulatory authorities will take appropriate act and investigate complaints.

The current situation is perhaps best described by Queensland Chief Justice, Tim Carmody, when, on 7th May 2015, he recused himself from an appeal by Brett Cowan with this statement:

“I will not allow this court to become a Dickensian Bleak House, where parties will be ‘tripping one another upon precedents, groping knee deep in technicalities [and making mountains of costly nonsense]’. Otherwise, to cite Dickens, it will become a ‘scarecrow of a suit… so complicated that no man [or woman] alive knows what it means’.”

If law cases can be so complex that a Supreme Court judge considers a case to be “… ‘so complicated that no man [or woman] alive knows what it means’ “ what chance do impoverished, functionally illiterate people have of receiving justice, or of ensuring that when politicians or senior public servants exploit these socio-economic limitations and deliberately violate constitutional, statutory and common law rights?

It would appear that the “government protocols” mentioned by Federal Agent Pearce have the practical effect of ensuring that when federal politicians rort the system, the Federal Police leave any investigations to the Auditor-general, who in law, having no jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations, leave that task to the Finance Department, who also have no jurisdictional power to undertake criminal investigations under sections 3, 4, 134 and 135 of Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), because it is a task for the  Federal Police, who expect the Auditor-General to do it, et cetera.

By refusing to uphold section 5 of the Australian Constitution, the AFP effectively grants Members of Parliament immunity from prosecution, not only for alleged of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund, but also when the Parliament exceeds its constitutional authority and enacts and enforced laws that violate civil rights, e.g. the persecution, intimidation, exploitation, defrauding and even the wholesale serial murder of welfare recipients.

Your Honour, do not deceive yourself, collectively, the populist-driven ‘No show, no pay’ laws and digital data fiction frauds such as Robo-Debt and the Disability pension ’20 Point Assessment Score’ are nothing more than criminal abuses of power and all of the unreported, “confidential” and “irrelevant” fatalities that a flotilla of agencies have refused to investigate are, in law, “reckless indifference murders.” Although no Evidence Act in Australia requires that motive for these homicides are proven, there is ample evidence in Hansard and in official departmental reports that these deaths are all cases of Murder for financial gain.”

Fact #4 – Drug mules are expendable and can be excluded from the protection provided by Section 115 of the Crimes Act.

In a clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibit executions for offenses such as drug trafficking, on 29th April 2015, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by an Indonesian firing squad.

On the 1st May 2016, page 5 of Adelaide’s only daily newspaper, The Advertiser, contained a brief article titled “Deaths Politicized,” which stated:

‘FOREIGN Affairs Minister Julia Bishop has accused Labour of politicizing the Bali 9 executions by questioning the Abbott Government’s removal of anti death-penalty provisions (sic) in Australian Federal Police internal guidelines. The guideline, which instruct officers to consider the possibility of the death penalty before giving information to foreign police, have now been re-instated. “To think that less than 24 hours after those executions have taken place, the Labor Party is seeking to take a cheap political shot. Shame on them,” said Ms. Bishop.’

 On 4th May 2015, the Australian Federal Police held an hour-long press conference during which a statement was made indicating that, in violation of the Constitution and statute laws, e.g. the Human Rights Act, operational procedures would continue to take precedence over preventing people from placing their lives in peril in cases that may involve alleged drug trafficking. The media conference was reported by major news services around the world, e.g. the BBC in Great Britain. The video recording of this AFP conference may be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsV9N_4G8Ng

When Justice Gavan Duffy handed down his judgment in ‘The Engineers Case’, (HCA 54: 31st August 1920), at paragraph 3 His honour quoted the following case law precedent from an 1854 case, Jeffreys v Bossleys:

Lord Wensleydale, when Baron Parke, advising the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey 14 H.L.C., 815., expresses the same proposition in very terse language. He says 24 H.L.C., at p. 926.:—The Legislature has no power over any persons except its own subjects—that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the kingdom. The Legislature can impose no duties except on them; and when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws, and whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.”

Please note the following points of law that can be adduced from that statement in regard to Ms. Bishop’s statements.

“…when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws,”.

Point #1: Her Majesty is the Constitutional Monarch who reigns over the people of Australia, and is the titular Head of the Commonwealth of Australia. There is an obligation upon all Australian Houses of Parliament, Federal, State and Territory, to make no laws or executive decisions that would comprise Her Majesty under Australian laws, international laws, or human rights obligations to which the Crown is a party by way of contract or international convention.

There are no death penalty laws in Australia and international human rights conventions that the Commonwealth of Australia is a signatory party to, do not authorize the death penalty as a legitimate penalty for drug trafficking. Therefore, any executive decision that circumvents statutory laws or obligations owed to the Crown, or owed by the Crown, e.g. abolishing protection for Australian citizens who may unwisely engage in illicit drug transport was a decision that compromised the Crown. This decision was an action inconsistent with the Lord Wensleydale’s advice, when Baron Parke, in advising the House of Lords in Jefferys v. Boosey that the interests of those to whom we owe our obedience must be considered.

The plural in those to whom we owe our obedience” is also a reference to the fact that all members of the Parliament are, in law, Servants of the people, i.e. the voters in the Federal electorate or the State or Territory who granted them Powers of Agency to act as their Representatives in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The legal status of all Members of the Federal parliament as “a servant of the people” may be adduced from the Word “for”, which is to found on parliamentarian’s letterhead stationary, e.g. Senator for Victoria or Member for Kingsford.

The Executive decision that resulted in the deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was therefore legally invalid because it was inconsistent with both the parliament’s obligation and the Executive obligation to engage only in “legislating for the benefit of,,, those who owe obedience to our laws,”

“In the words of a distinguished lawyer and statesman. Lord Haldane, when a member of the House of Commons, delivered on the motion for leave to introduce the bill for the Act which we are considering:“The difference between the Constitution which this bill proposes to set up and the Constitution of the United States is enormous and fundamental. This bill is permeated through and through with the spirit of the greatest institution which exists in the Empire, and which pertains to every Constitution established I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, is almost the creature of the Legislature.”

When the English Parliament drafted the Bills that would create the Commonwealth of Australia, the intent and purpose of that parliament was to ensure that under the Australian Constitution, “good government”, or as is mentioned in Lord Haldane’s statement, “responsible government”, required that the Executive be fully accountable to, and constrained, by the Parliament. As Lord Haldane stated to the English Parliament:

“I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible tonay, is almost the creature of the Legislature.”

Clearly, if the Executive is almost the creature of the Legislature” and is constrained by its accountability to the Parliament, which has the responsibility to review and ratify through legislation, the decisions of the Executive, then it is the Constitution function, i.e. a constitutional obligation, upon ‘The Queen’s Loyal Opposition’ to expeditiously hold the Executive fully accountable for arbitrary violations of Executive power and jurisdiction that result in foreseeable, totally avoidable loss of life that occurred when Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were summarily executed by the Indonesian Government.

Point #2: The statement can also be condensed down to this second constraint that places yet another Duty of Care obligation upon the Parliament and the Executive: when legislating for the benefit of persons, must, primâ facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those… whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.”

The Parliament, which includes the Executive, has a “correlative obligation to protect” those whose interests the parliament represents, i.e. any-and-all persons within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. This is so because all people who are Members of the Federal Parliament owe both a Common law duty of care as well as the previously mentioned duty of care to the people that represent, as agents, in the Federal Parliament.

Point #3:  In considering the merits of the above case law points, please note the following statement by Justice Isaacs at paragraph 9 in his comments:

“See also the observations of Sir Henry Jenkyns in British Rule and Jurisdiction Beyond the Seas, at p. 90. We therefore look to the judicial authorities which are part of our own development, which have grown up beside our political system, have guided it, have been influenced by it and are consistent with it, and which, so far as they existed in 1900, we must regard as in the contemplation of those who, whether in the Convention or in the Imperial Parliament, brought our Constitution into being, and which, so far as they are of later date, we are bound to look to as authoritative for us.”

The people who created the Australian Constitution and established by Act of the English parliament, the Commonwealth of Australia, deemed “responsible government” to government in which the Executive power and jurisdiction was constrained by the Parliament’s own powers under Section 51 of the Constitution and the obligation to ‘protect the interests of the people to whom the parliament owed a correlative obligation to protect.”

The basic of reasons why Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were summarily executed by the Indonesian Government on April 29th 2015, was the failure of the Australian Government acting responsibly to protect them because. The 1st Domino in that process was the failure of the government-of-the-day, i.e. Prime Minister John Howard’s mindset was apparently unable to accept the truth, which in turn led to the abandonment of the basic principles required for “Good Government.” i.e. the protection of the people, an obligation that includes people that Prime Minister Howard did not approve off. Whilst not liking people who act as ‘drug mules’ is understandable, under international laws and Australian laws, it is not a death sentence. Consequently, it was an abuse of Executive power to authorize the setting aside of Australian Federal police administrative guidelines that instructed Federal police officers to obey the Constitution and a valid law, i.e. section 115 of the Constitution.

That this guideline was not apparently re-instated until after the slaughter of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was totally inconsistent with the concept of “good government” and the Executive decision, which was not apparently ratified by the parliament may in itself constitute a violation of section 142.2 with “detriment” specified in this statute being a decade of internment in an Indonesian jail and the executions that took place on 29th April 2015.

It cannot be stated too often, it is not the function of any government to impose any form of ‘detriment” that a court, adhering to the judicial and constitutional principles upon which the Commonwealth of Australia was founded, has through Due Process of Law, determined the primary facts of the matter and adduced a lawful response. Skipping the courts may be politically or administratively expedient, but as the Justice Toohey stated when handing the High Court ruling at paragraph 8 in ,

“…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”.

It is beyond reprehensible when personal bias, bigotry and/or prejudice, usurps the Constitution, constitutional, common law rights and common sense and people die. That is not “good government” that is a criminal abuse of power and when people die, those deaths are culpable negligence deaths that must be accounted for in accordance with Due Process principles upon which the Commonwealth of Australia was founded.

Fact #5: – UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE:  Victoria’s waived speed camera fines and the Commonwealth’s Robo-debt Fraud.

It is a matter of fact that last week, the Victorian Government acknowledged that a virus had unintentionally been loaded in the operating system that controlled over 500 of Victoria’s speed cameras. The presence of this unauthorized software in the speed camera operating system rendered the output of all cameras suspect, i.e. in a Victorian court, the output would have to have been regarded as ‘Unreliable evidence’. I do not know if the Victorian Government’s decision was a willingly made act of integrity or a begrudging response to the Police v Butcher decision, i.e. Police V Butcher; [SASC 130 on 17th August 2016]. Although the respondent in this case had been detected driving at an alleged speed of 105KPH in a 50KPH zone, minor non-compliance irregularities in the calibration and testing of the Lidar speed device used to record the speed of the respondent’s vehicle meant that a Court could not be reasonably confident of the reliability of the device and any speeds recorded by the device.

The judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley in Police v Butcher at 8,

  1. The magistrate found that it was not possible for Chief Inspector Quinn to certify that the testing performed on 14 September 2012 was “accurate within a limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph”. He said:

[42] That the fixed distance zero velocity testing performed by SC Goldsmith does not reveal the accuracy in terms of limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph. That his tests did not amount to the testing required in order to measure a target’s speed to the relevant set of accuracy criteria set out at Clause 2.6.1(a) and Appendix A of the Australian Standard.

[43] That Ex P2 could not be used to certify the level of accuracy of the Lidar device because the testing referred to therein was not testing that occurred either on the day of the charged offences or the day after. Further Ex P2 could not assume the status of a certificate as it was not signed by the Police Commissioner or any other police officer of or above the rank of Inspector.

[44] That in the light of CI Quinn’s admission that he would not have signed Ex P1 if the only information given to him had been the record of field testing conducted by SC Goldsmith because this did not show the test to be accurate within the limit of error not exceeding plus 2 or minus 3 kph, it must follow that CI Quinn signed Ex P1 on the erroneous basis that he considered that it was the calibration report Ex P2 that enabled him to make the certification.

[45] A certificate under s.175(3)(ba) can only be used to prove the accuracy of the Lidar device ‘to the extent indicate in the document’.

[46] The line of cases referred to leave open the proposition that the agreed facts in this case at Ex P11, particularly numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7, together with Ex P10 can be used by defence as evidence to provide a basis for establishing ‘proof to the contrary’ for the purposes of s.175(3)(ba) RTA.

[47] Indeed I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this evidence is sufficient to displace the presumption of the level of accuracy on the basis that it establishes

  1. That the fixed distance zero velocity testing cannot form a basis of certification of the extent of accuracy of the Lidar device in terms of a limit of error of plus 2 and minus 3 kph on the day of the charged offences or the following day, and

  2. That the calibration report Ex P2 cannot form such a basis, because the testing referred to therein was not testing that occurred either on the day of the charged offences or the day after. As well and in any event Ex P2 itself cannot assume the status of a certificate as it was not signed by the Police Commissioner or any other police officer of or above the rank of Inspector.

[48] In other words I am satisfied that there is evidence which establishes that the testing did not show the Lidar device to be accurate within the stated limit of error.

[49] I am further satisfied that in the absence of evidence of limit of error I cannot find proved beyond reasonable doubt the precise, or range of speed of the vehicle.

[50] Further, while the Defendant admitted to speeding, the nature of the charges to which he has pleaded requires a precise speed or a range of speeds to be able to be calculated. Such matters cannot be proved from the Defendant’s admission of speeding or from imprecise observations of the vehicle contained in the evidence.

[51] Without reliable evidence from which the speed or range of speed of the vehicle can be calculated both counts are incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Note the statement at paragraph 51 of the magistrate’s original decision, “Without reliable evidence from which the speed or range of speed of the vehicle can be calculated both counts are incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” There are clear parallels between the Police v Butcher decision and then lack of reliability of the Victorian speed camera network due to the presence of a virus in the camera operating system. As with the Butcher decision in South Australia, any output from the Victorian speed cameras would constitute unreliable evidence and the decision to waive the fines was, from a legal perspective, a valid, common sense decision that, a financially inconvenient as the decision to waive speed camera fines may have been, the decision was totally consistent with the principle of “good government.” However, the same cannot be said for the Turnbull Government’s continued use of the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, aka ISIS, for the purpose of evaluating disability pension claims and the recovery of ALLEGED overpayments by Centrelink.

When it comes to the legal principle of Unreliable Evidence, the ISIS computer network established a world-class benchmark for the lowest standard of unreliable evidence, which conversely also establishes new benchmark of the principle of “reasonable doubt”.

Consider the following uncontested statements in the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of facts & Issues concerning the reliability of the ISIS computer network and officially acknowledged systemic errors with this system:

  1. A reported 50 million keystrokes (transactions) per day, with the potential for up to a million potential keystroke errors per day.

  2. Over-worked and under-trained, non-certified-data-entry staff.

  • 21 Billion Http calls per day in an operating system that contains 30 million lines of partially undocumented system code.

  1. Undocumented system code can result in a 3-month effort by a team of programmers just to change the date format on a form letter.

  2. Public discrediting of a key algorithm that uses inappropriate logic, e.g. ‘Income annualizing’ of income earned by casual and part-time workers with the subsequent false automated-assumption of the non-reporting of the annualized income when people were not working.

  3. Medically unqualified data entry operators making “If-Then-Else” decisions when entering medical data into the ISIS computer system.

  • Untested and therefore uncertified data entry operators

  • Like the LIDAR speed guns used by police, data entry operators need be re-tested and re-certified in accordance with Australian Standards to “certify the level of accuracy of the data entry operator.”

  1. Without ‘Current Competency’ certified testing to Australian Standards to ensure, the accuracy of data used in Centrelink initiated tort actions is not possible to adduce with any reasonable degree of certainty.

  2. In the absence of ‘Current competency certification’, the accuracy of data entered is, to quote from Dr. Chettock’s testimony at the USS Scorpion inquiry, a case of scratching our heads and coming up with our best guess.”

  3. Whilst UNIX and Solaris operating systems are very stable, their security is compromised by the Windows systems which are constantly being updated to ensure security.

  • Centrelink’s I.T. personnel have reported to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the ISIS computer system is subjected to virus attacks and therefore certification each personal computer or terminal used by a data entry operator at the time of an alleged error by a welfare recipient is also essential in order to ensure that, on the balance of probability, as per Police v Butcher, the equipment used was unaffected by viruses and functioning as per design specification.

  • In order for ISIS input data to be used as evidence in a civil dispute, all data-entry staff must be appropriately certified as to their individual knowledge level of the relevant statute laws, regulations, policies and procedures at the time any data relevant to a dispute was entered in ISIS.

  • The endemic problem of bad advice being provided to Centrelink clients by inexperienced or unqualified Centrelink staff is known to be of such a broad scale that incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials (Sic) security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”

  1. An unknown number of “Failure to Code to zero” data entry errors.

  • Manual data-matching so far behind real-time inputs that violations of federal and state ‘Menace’ and ‘Blackmail’ laws have been used for years as an ‘administrative convenience’ when attempting to data-match ATO reports to the real-time income reports of Centrelink clients.

  • A reported reduction in staffing levels of 5,000 staff by Ms. Nadine Fleet, the National Secretary of the Community & Public Sector Union, for the purported purpose of reducing operating costs, raises issues of workload stress and increased workload error rates that cannot reasonably be accurately determined.

  • Frequent changes to legislation in what are some of the nation’s most complex and comprehensive legislation also raises questions as to the impact upon both workload stress and workload competence.

  • 30% call-blocking to protect infra-structure from overload failures.

  1. People required by law told they are not required to report income and automatically shut out of the ISIS system when trying to report.

  • The On-line income reporting system icon was deleted so that there was no way for welfare recipients to report income via the Internet.

  • Unlike commercial receipts, on-line income reporting ‘receipts’ do not include income reported details when using default print-out option.

  • The system can hang or crash at random times. [N.B. Video recorded]

  • Icons on the Income reporting screen do not comply with appropriate standards for people who may be ‘visually challenged.’

  • There is no consumer standard on-screen ‘Save’ or “Save as” option for welfare recipients to locally save data files of income reports.

  • Some welfare recipients reporting on-line informed that they are “NOT ELIGIBLE TO REPORT”. Any attempt to then report by phone then fails.

  • ANAO Report #37 contains details systemic faults, e.g. people phoning in to ask questions about benefits or to report income spent a total of 811 years on hold. [I have a video of being on hold for 50 minutes.]

  • Many Department of Human Service public accountability reports mislead both the Parliament and the public.

  • No accurate data on clients who have been dead for 20-years or more.

  • No data on the real-world human impact of welfare penalties, e.g. loss of essential services, inability to purchase essentials of life such as food, clothes or medicine, evictions and unreported post-breaching fatalities.

  • In February 2015, Senator Payne stated that the system needed to be replaced with a Billion dollar system that will provide integrity” to payment systems. [*Note: “will provide integrity” is future tense.]

  • 20% of 170,000 tort claims since June 2016 have been acknowledged as erroneous and 73,000 erroneous alleged debt notices issued on 1st January 2016.

  • The publicly acknowledged total of 107,000 erroneous claims out of 243,000 is a massive error rate of 44.03%.

MY LAY-ADVOCATE COMMENT

If the Butcher decision is a reasonable guide to how a court would deal with the litany of systemic problems within Centrelink that make the adducing of a correct, fair and just decision impossible, I believe that, on the balance of probability, any court appraised of these systemic problems would be unlikely to consider upholding a Centrelink tort claim. As the precedent below reveals, in the highly unlikely event that this should occur, the decision might be overturned on appeal when an appellate court conducts “…a real review of the evidence.”  

Continued: The judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley in Police v Butcher at 10,

Approach on appeal   [Extract from Police v Butcher at 10]

  1. The appeal is by way of re-hearing. The nature of such an appeal was considered in Martin v Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. ]White J said:

In short, on appeals against conviction under s 42 of the Magistrates Court Act, this Court is required to conduct a real review of the evidence put before the Magistrate. On issues which involved an assessment of the quality and reliability of a witness, this Court must make due allowance for the advantage of the Magistrate in seeing and hearing the evidence being given. However, the fact that a Magistrate reached his or her conclusion by an acceptance of the evidence of the witnesses of one party does not prevent this Court carrying out its statutory function. There may be cases in which incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony or the glaring improbability of the Magistrate’s conclusion will, despite the Magistrate’s preference for the evidence of a particular witness, warrant this Court’s interference. Further, if the question is one of inferences to be drawn from facts found or which are not in dispute, this Court can substitute its decision if it comes to a different conclusion as to the correct inference to be drawn. [Reference cited: Martin v Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure [2010] SASC 141 (13 May 2010) at 38.]

ISIS UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE IN THE NUTSHELL:

Understaffed by some 5,000 staff who have been laid off, uncertified, over-worked, data entry operators struggle with a dysfunctional computer system that lacks “integrity” due to undocumented system code and a database that may contain 8 billion data errors and bad advice by Centrelink staff is nothing “markedly different from the usual run of cases.”

AATA case file 2014/???6 and “…nothing markedly different from the usual run of cases.”

When it comes to Dickensian Bleak house travesties of justice, the AAT hearing for AAT case file 2014/<Redacted> probably set a new Commonwealth of Nations Administrative appeals decisions” low-point.

Given the known systemic problems within Centrelink and the ISIS computer system’s lack of functional “integrity”, it is unlikely that a court would validate Centrelink’s claims. However, the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision below, which was made in the absence of any findings as to the primary facts of the matter by a court, produced the ‘Dickensian Bleak House Farce’. This “finding” brazenly ignored s 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e. the waiver of a debt if it solely due to a Commonwealth error:

  1. <The applicant’s> contention that (s) he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA. [The case file details are withheld to protect the traumatized victim of this gross travesty of justice.]

It is an accepted principle that employers are responsible for errors or misleading statements made by their employees, e.g. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd [FCA 1369 on 15th December 2014] At paragraph 60 (f) in this case, Justice White stated:

[60] (f) In assessing advertising material, the “dominant message” of the material will be of crucial importance: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [HCA 54;(12th December 2013) 250 CLR 640,  at paragraph 45] the High Court ruled:

The approach of the primary judge was correct

  1. First, the Full Court erred in holding that the primary judge was wrong to regard the “dominant message” of the advertisements as of crucial importance: neither of the statements of Gibbs CJ in Puxu which the Full Court applied was decisive in the circumstances of this case. Secondly, the Full Court erred in failing to appreciate that the tendency of TPG’s advertisements to mislead was not neutralised by the Full Court’s attribution of knowledge to members of the target audience that ADSL2+ services may be offered as a “bundle”.

When a 60-year-old welfare recipient who left school 45 years early whilst in Year 9 , phones a Centrelink call-centre seeking advice and is given incorrect advice by a call centre operator who was not authorized to give that advice, which is complied with in ‘good faith’ but results in alleged overpayments of almost $14,000 before the error is discovered some years later. The alleged overpayment error was solely a Commonwealth error and under section 1,237A of the Act MUST be waived but was not. It is impossible to win an AAT appeal when the presiding Senior AAT Member is an Officer of the Court:

  1. Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that deliberately ignored the Commonwealth error and ‘good faith’ error provisions in section 1,237A of the Social Security Act.

  2. Ought to know of, but apparently ignores, Kioa, ASIC v TPG, Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  • Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful under section 142.2, but ignores this statute;

  1. Ought to know that conspiring to hold a ‘trial’ is unlawful;

  2. Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties, and that the placing of life in peril is a crime as per Faure and Boughey;

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when the Ombudsman’s Office also ignores all of the above and upholds the decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above procedural fairness violations. With the AAT making unconstitutional finding of fact on original decisions where the primary facts of the matter have not been  adduced by a court because this process costs Centrelink an average of $25,000 per tort claim, it not surprising that the Turnbull Government is deliberately steering people away from the courts and into the AAT appeals where decisions may be based solely on the basis that the applicant is a welfare recipient who, through no fault of their own has received overpayments that, for reasons of political expediency, the Turnbull government wants to recover without recourse to Due Process of Law. Robo-Debt is a classic example of “The Craven Effort”, an attempt by a Dr. Craven to determine why a US Nuclear submarine, the USS Scorpion, sank in 1968 with the loss of the entire crew of 99 men.

GAGO: THE CRAVEN EFFORT: Public domain information about how the ISIS algorithms currently being used to determine ALLEGED overpayments have been modeled, indicate that these algorithms can reasonably be compared to theCraven Effort’ algorithms used by the United States Navy in 1968 to determine why, on 22nd May 1968, the nuclear submarine, USS Scorpion, descended below crush depth and imploded, instantly killing all 99 crew members. http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20SCORPAIN%2027%20MAY%2068.pdf

 

  1. Speaking about the Craven Effort during the Navy Board of Inquiry, Gabriel Santore and Dr. George Chettock, experts from the Naval Ship Research Development Centre [NSRDC ], gave their expert opinions on the use of some 10,000 computer algorithm driven simulations that had been used in an attempt to determine, why the USS Scorpion had been destroyed.

  2. Santore informed the Navy Board of Inquiry, “The variables are there for you to juggle and you juggle those variables and each one gives you a solution” , i.e. manipulating the data enables manipulation of the ‘solutions’.

  3. Chettock then further summed up the Craven Effort with the statement: “We can make estimates but we don’t need a precise computer to do this. We can do this by scratching our heads and coming up with our best guess.”

  4. That statement is equally valid for output from the questionable algorithm driven simulations used by Centrelink to identify alleged overpayments, or alternately, to simulate the eligibility of a person for a disability pension.

  5. The “20 Point Score” used to determine a person’s eligibility for a disability pension is of grave concern as it presumes that a computer simulation can be programmed to make better decisions than the doctors treating the patient.

  6. The simulations produced by ISIS are assumptions that needs to be tested in a court that takes evidence from a broad range of independent medical and computer programming experts before any real-world decisions that may comprise the health and welfare of people with disabilities are made.

  7. The consequences of “A failure to code to zero” error could be fatal and therefore, given the proven track record of a lack of “integrity” of the ISIS system, Centrelink is, to quote Justice Brookings’ words in the 1999 Faure decision, playing “Russian roulette” and recklessly “placing lives in peril.”

Statements by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, endorsing the continued use of questionable algorithms that have not been tested by a court, to search the flawed “Failure to code to zero” data in the ISIS database may have placed Mr. Turnbull in serious contention with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission, and the Federal Police cyber-crimes unit. If Mr. Turnbull was a banker using the ISIS computer to arbitrarily recover ALLEGED overpayments from bank customers accounts, would ASIC approve of this conduct?

  1. Would the High Court or the Federal Court, or even ASIC, accept as credible and reliable the output from a system with 50 million input keystrokes per day with, at best an untested, presumed accuracy of 98% for a period of 5 minutes during a 7.5 hour working day, with the data being into an operating system with 30 million lines of code, some of which is undocumented, and which can randomly produce alleged-overpayment-claim-errors at a publicly acknowledged error rate for ALLEGED overpayment claims of 20% and a calculated error rate from reported errors indicating that the real error rate may exceed 44%?

  2. The algorithms used to find the alleged overpayment errors may be more ‘flakey’ than a freight train load of Kellogg’s Cornflakes and with a now uncontested 44% error rate on alleged debt claims in 2016, no further demands for repayment should be issued by the Department of Human Services, and no rejection or revoking of disability pensions should be undertaken until a court-ordered independent audit of the entire system is completed.

  3. Given the clearly identified tsunami of systemic problems associated with the ISIS system over the last 30-years, in the absence of  independent audits of the ISIS operating system and data entry systems are performed by impartial, accredited forensic auditors, a Court of Law has no alternative option intort or alleged fraud cases but to acknowledge that the output from the ISIS computer system should be classified as UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE that, like the Police v Butcher decision and the virus infected Victorian speed camera operating system, could not be acceptable as a basis for the accurate determination of fault in alleged overpayment claims by the Turnbull Government.

  4. Because of the endemic systemic problems with the ISIS computer network, which includes very unreliable input and output, a criminal trial lawyer defending a person accused of defrauding Centrelink would have to be extremely negligent in order to lose a case once these systemic problems are known.

  5. The Complexity Report, received by the Federal Government in early 2015, is an unpublished government report that details the deficiencies in the ISIS computer network and outlines why the $1 billion upgrade that should have occurred in 1997, now needs to be down as a matter of extreme urgency.

  6. The Complexity Report has been colloquially referred to by Senator Payne as ‘”The Candy Crush Report”; without knowledge of this report, access to it, and the functional literacy skills needed to comprehend its content, fraudulently recovering ALLEGED overpayments for welfare recipients is “as easy as stealing candy from a baby” and appeals are as easy to ‘crush’ as stepping on a bug.

  7. In the absence of access to ‘the Candy Crush Report’ recommend accessing the Bromwich Report, which reports on the systemic deficiencies in the City of Houston Crime labs. A copy of this report can be sourced from: http://www.hpdlabinvestigation.org/reports/070613report.pdf

  8. In addition, I recommend reading George Rodriguez statement of claim filed in 2012, with special attention to the issue of “Inadequate supervision” on page 21 – 23, “Deliberate Indifference on page 24 – 30 and “Constitutions Violations” in the remaining sections of this report which can be downloaded from: http://www.nsbcivilrights.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/docs/Rodriguez_2dAppeal_AppelleeBrief_022912.pdf

  9. In South Australia, the case of Henry Keogh is a saga worth studying as it closely parallels the Rodriguez case, i.e. unqualified or inadequately qualified pathology ‘expert’ reports that were in consistent with the findings of qualified experts who reviewed the same forensic evidence.

  10. Frits Van Beelan’s conviction was reportedly the 1st of some 400 cases that culminated with the Keogh case. Mr. Van Beelan currently has an appeal before the High Court to overturn his conviction, and if successful, this case could be crucial in challenging the validity of some 5 million decisions made using the appallingly dysfunctional “Commodore 64 with spoilers” ISIS computer network.

AT WHAT COST?

It is should be of grave public concern that a very significant proportion of suicide and heart attack victims in Australia are Centrelink clients. An as yet unknown number may be victims of highly questionable tort actions that ignored Hellicar and by-passed the courts when Centrelink ‘recovered’ overpayments that it may have has no legitimate right to reclaim. Given that the core obligation on the Federal Parliament is to protect the people that the politicians and public servants serve, how is possible to justify a decades-long humanitarian disaster in which the deaths of vulnerable, at-risk people are deemed to be “irrelevant”?

Last week a South Australian court gave bail to Ms. Lisa Barrett, a former midwife who has been charged with two counts of manslaughter because of the deaths of two babies during home births. Like the upcoming trial of Cardinal Pell, this case is attracting international attention. If either Cardinal Pell or Ms. Barrett use the information in this and the two previous emails, plus the3  volumes of the 3 Emcott Report and the various Emcott report issues papers and videos, the international attention may be on the role of the AFP, the CDPP, SAPOL, the SA DPP, and the other agencies who knew about but did nothing to prevent a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions that may have claimed the lives of 100,000 or more welfare recipients over a period of abuse measured in decades.

At this point, I am mindful of two quotations by Sir Winston Churchill:

  1. “Action this day” – If Sir Winston decided something should be done, then it should be done now. With reports that the Turnbull Government is imposing Robo-Debt on up to 20,000 victims per week, action this minute may be more appropriate than action this day!

  2. “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” History will not be kind to the politicians responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq, a point made quite clear by both the Chilton Report and this email.

Your Honour, my communications to you are a public interest submission, which means that they posted on the Internet as part of Volume 4 of The Emcott Report, an ePub book that I hope to distribute freely to former, current and potential victims. In closing, I ask you to consider this question of law, is the hardship, suffering, fear and deaths caused the unlawful tactics used to  save taxpayers’ money really more important than the  lives of your less fortunate Aussie Battlers?

I do not think so.

 

THE MACAULAY LETTERS: WHERE TO FROM HERE? Paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”

The word “binding” applies to both you and I, and also to the people responsible for the defrauding of welfare recipients over the last 30 – 40 years. Work for the Dole, ‘the lethal “No show, no pay” laws, Robo-Debt and the farcical Disability Pension ’20 Point eligibility assessment program’ are examples of criminal abuses of power that collectively constitute the worst case of mass fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. The deaths caused by these crimes are the worst case of serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia and these crimes all happen for precisely the same reason that Apartheid flourished in South Africa for a century; people in South Africa either actively or tacitly approved of Apartheid laws, policies and practices and that is exactly what has happened here in Australia.

Breaching is a deliberately removal of the only financial means of survival; do you seriously believe that successive governments could do that to 5 million people and no-one would die?

With all due respect your Honour, only a hard-core bigot or a moron would support that logic, so which one are you?

A bigot, a moron, or a moronic bigot?

The defrauding of 4 – 5 million welfare recipients and the undisputed “irrelevant” deaths of an 100,000 victims of unconstitutional tortious conduct practices can only go to one place, THE COURTS.

As Philip Sydney said, “I will either find a way or I will make a way.” Whatever it lawfully takes to get the seemingly endless, ruthless, senseless, brutal persecution of welfare recipients into the courts, that will I do, which I why I have written these email letters to you. These allegations are so serious, and yet so easily verifiable, that by doing nothing about them, you will be making yourself an accessory before the fact to the next violation of constitutional rights and if that violation results in a fatality, you will be an accessory be the fact to an unlawful homicide.

One way or another, I am going to court, whether it is an Australian court, or the International Criminal Court and my closing question to you, Your Honour, Justice Macaulay of the Victorian Supreme Court, is, where do you go from here?

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


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

Part 44 C. Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. The 2nd national interest letter to Justice Macaulay.

Below is the 2nd national interest letter to Justice Macaulay, the Victorian Supreme Court judge who was given the task of presiding in the Manus Island Class action against the Commonwealth of Australia. My viewpoint is that there should be a formal public inquiry into the human rights atrocities that the Manus Island concentration camp detainees endured.

NOTE: The shortlink URL for this web page is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-14F

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

Your Honour,

Re: A public interest ‘Facts and Issues’ submission pertaining to the proposed $90 million settlement of the Manus Island class action.

Further to my previous email on 23rd June 2017 in which I point out that the proposed settlement in the Manus Island class action is not in the public interest and if you have not ratified that settlement, that you should not do so, I submit the following precedents and points of law for your consideration.

Case Law:  Precedents from: The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (HCA 54; 31st August 1920)

In paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated:

In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary. Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says. The State law is to have no efficacy for them as against the valid Federal law: they must obey the Federal law as if the State law did not exist, and whether they act for State or for corporation or company. Here, the Minister for Trading Concerns is, by the Trading Concerns Act W.A., constituted a corporation. The successive Ministers have the rights and duties conferred by the Act, and must obey the Act except so far as it is inconsistent with a valid Federal Act; but to the extent of the inconsistency the Minister has to obey the Federal Act, not the State Act (sec. 109 of Constitution).

There are a plethora of points of law in the above statement but I would draw your attention to three key points that I believe are relevant to the Manus Island class action settlement:

Point #1:

“I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation.”

Under section V of the constitution, the courts, judges and the people are all bound by valid commonwealth laws, i.e. no-one is exempt from the laws of the Commonwealth, including Members of Parliament, a point emphasized by the statement “but to the extent of the inconsistency the Minister has to obey the Federal Act.”

Point #2

  • It is clearly evident from the statement “the Minister has to obey the Federal Act” that being a Federal Government Minister is not grounds for exemption in either administrative decisions or decisions where, whether intended or not, there may have been violations of criminal laws.

  • It is also logical that the obligation to obey the law extends to the Prime Minister and, jointly and severally to all members of the Federal Cabinet and all are accountable for violations of criminal laws in precisely the same manner as any other person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Point #3

“Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.”

 The above statement is inclusive of both Local government and State Government being bound by the laws of Commonwealth because these organizations act through people, a principle that also applies to the Federal Parliament itself.  It is therefore logical that if members of Local Government or State government entities are bound by the laws of the Commonwealth, so also are the Federal Members of Parliament. Where Members acting in concert violate the law, for whatever reason, then they are accountable both individually and as a corporate entity.

It should be noted that Senator Edwards, a Senator for South Australia has used the statement “Liberal Senator for South Australia.” on his official stationary. By identifying himself as a Liberal Party member, Senator Edwards is assigning corporate responsibility for his conduct to the Liberal Party. Therefore, where conduct as a “Liberal Senator” violates Commonwealth or international laws, the Liberal Party has a degree of legal liability for any such unlawful conduct.

In the same manner, if the Executive of the Parliament violates Commonwealth or international criminal laws, then both the members of Executive, and the members of the Parliament for whom the Executive is acting, are jointly and severally accountable for any violations of the law. In paragraph 8 of his opening remarks in the Engineers Case, Justice Isaacs stated:

 [In the words of a distinguished lawyer and statesman. Lord Haldane, when a member of the House of Commons, delivered on the motion for leave to introduce the bill for the Act which we are considering:—”The difference between the Constitution which this bill proposes to set up and the Constitution of the United States is enormous and fundamental. This bill is permeated through and through with the spirit of the greatest institution which exists in the Empire, and which pertains to every Constitution established within the Empire—I mean the institution of responsible government, a government under which the Executive is directly responsible to—nay, is almost the creature of—the Legislature.”

Note the statement, “a government under which the Executive is directly responsible to—nay, is almost the creature of—the Legislature.” The Executive is directly responsible to the Legislature and therefore, if the Executive engages in criminal abuses of power, which is an abuse of power, then the individual people who comprise the legal entity that is the Membership of Parliament, are legally liable for those criminal abuses of power.

Section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) is as binding upon individuals who are Members of the Federal Parliament as it is binding upon all other persons within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction.

142.2  Abuse of public office

            (1)       A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

            (a)       the official:

            (i)        exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

            (ii)       engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

            (iii)      uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

            (b)       the official does so with the intention of:

            (i)        dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

            (ii)       dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty:         Imprisonment for 5 years

$90 million of public monies misused to buy exoneration for crimes under either Australian law or international law is a massive “detriment” to taxpayers and it is essential that, in accordance with the constitutional obligation to provide “good government” that a court be satisfied that neither the Prime Minister or the Executive, past and/or present, has not violated criminal laws when acting as a corporate entity, or entities, administering the governance of the Commonwealth. Iif criminal abuses of power occur and one of the consequences of that criminal activity is loss of life, then, in law, every Member of the Parliament must account for their conduct in accordance with due process of law.

For the Prime Minister, or the Federal Executive, to attempt to use public funds to literally buy their way out of accountability before the courts is an abuse of power that is totally unacceptable.

   The integrity of the Members of the Federal Parliament should never at any time be assumed by a Court of Law.

There is a substantial body of evidence to support the argument that Members of the Federal parliament lack integrity.

Example #1:

“As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”

(Source: Page 12, Auditor-General’s Report No.3, 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation.)

In 2009, an audit of parliamentary entitlements claims by the Office of the Auditor-General revealed that 144 Members of the Federal Parliament had ‘double-dipped’ on printing costs of election material to the tune of $4.64 million in public monies. This just one of many examples of possible rorting of public funds by federal politicians who are quarantined from prosecution for criminal conduct by “government protocols’ that were identified in an email by Federal Agent Jeff Pearce that was transmitted to me on 14th September 2009.

Example #2

 “Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.” 

SC 1497 – 25th April 2016

Full Bench decision

Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court

Note the very clearly statement, “…the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention.”

After a careful scrutiny of the facts and issues of the matter, the Full Bench of the Papua & New Guinea Supreme Court was in no doubt that both the “Australian and Papua New Guinea governments” had acted illegally. It is therefore a vital matter of public interest that an Australian Court ascertain the facts of the matter pertaining to extent of the illegal conduct of the Australian Government, with the issue of precisely which government, or governments, acted illegally being determined.

At the moment, no politician or political party is accepting responsibility for illegal conduct that involved unintended fatalities, possibly because under Australian laws, illegal conduct that results in fatalities are culpable homicides, a fact of law evidenced by r v Finch in the South Australian Supreme Court in 2005 -06. Although many details of this case are not in the public domain, the following statement was made by the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions:

 “R v Finch – Josiah Finch was charged with the murder of Karim Morrison. Mr Morrison was shot once to the head in the carpark of the McDonalds restaurant on Anzac Highway at Morphettville before his body was dumped nearby in one of the entrances to the nearby racecourse.  The prosecution case was that Mr Morrison was shot in the course of a drug rip-off gone wrong.  Whilst it was not alleged that Mr Finch was the shooter, it was alleged that he was present when Mr Morrison was shot and was instrumental in the arrangements that led to Mr Morrison being in the carpark at the relevant time.  The shooter remains unknown to the prosecution.”

  “Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder.  That is, the learned sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major indictable offence to which he was party”. (“14 years”: The minimum parole period is 15 years, but time on-remand was take into account.)

Annual report 2005-06, Page 3: Trials:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (South Australia)

The PNG Supreme Court has found that the Australian Government had conspired with the PNG government to engage in unlawful conduct and fatalities had occurred. For any Australian court to endorse a taxpayer funded settlement that would have the practical effect of allowing the Australian Government to avoid accountability is unconscionable, especially in the light of this statement by Scott Morrison: This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations’ 

Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014

 Commenting on that statement, Professor Ben Saul, the Emeritus Professor of International Law, Sydney University stated:

“The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.”

The light of human rights is fading in Australia.’ ABC – ‘The DRUM’ 7-10- 2014

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/saul-the-light-of-human-rights-is-fading-in-australia/5794640

 The findings of the PNG Supreme Court clearly indicate that the actions, as defined by the Australian Parliament in regard to at least one of its solutions was an illegal violation of human rights under international law. On March 26th 2016, a tribunal at the International criminal Court at the Hague in the Netherlands handed down the findings of a 5-year-long trial into Bosnian war crimes that had resulted in an estimated 100,000 deaths:

“Karadzic was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed. Far from that, the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the on-going killing, Karadzic declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”

Trial of Radovan Karadzic for alleged Crimes against Humanity. O-Gon Kwon – Presiding judge: International Criminal Court of Justice.

Within Australia, the integrity of members of the Federal Parliament in respecting the constitutional and civil rights of vulnerable people is subject to question, a fact evidenced by the High Court’s Poniatowska and Keating decisions.

The Poniatowska Decision – HCA 43 (26th October 2011.)

“The Poniatowska Blunder”: On 20th March 2000, , the Federal Parliament unintentionally extinguished a law that required welfare recipients to report income to Centrelink. In 2009, Ms. Malgorzata Poniatowska was one of some 15,000 welfare recipients who were convicted of what was literally a non-existent crime. Ms. Poniatiwska appealed her conviction all the way up to the High Court which upheld her appeal. On the 26th October 2011, the High Court upheld Ms. Malgorzata Poniatowska’s argument that she could not be prosecuted for a non-existent law. The Poniatowska Decision draws attention to the shameful fact that 15,000 times, people had been convicted of a non-existent crime! It is an absolute disgrace that in each of these cases, investigators, prosecutors, counsel for the defendant and the presiding judges in this Dickensian Bleak House farce further added insult to injury by all failing to notice that people were being prosecuted for a non-existent law. The ultimate ‘injury’, in the legal sense of the word, occurred on the 4th August 2011 when the Federal Parliament included a retrospective provision a Bill that intended to rectify the error made in March 2000. This retrospective legislation was intended to legitimize convictions made under the extinguished legislation.

 The Keating Decision – HCA 20 (8th May 2013.)

In December 2012, the High Court agreed to hear an appeal from Ms. Kelly Keating who was appealing a conviction made under the 4th August 2011 retrospective law. In its findings, the High Court ruled that the retrospective law was a “statutory fiction:”

  1. The Director observes that ignorance of the content of a law affecting the scope or operation of an offence does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility. He notes that proof of the element stated in s 135.2(1)(a) requires the prosecution to establish (i) as a matter of fact, a person intentionally does not perform an act, and (ii) as a matter of law, there is a duty to perform the act. His point is that the prosecution is not required to prove an intention to breach a legal duty. These considerations support his principal contention, which is that s 4.3(b) is silent as to the point in time at which the duty to act is imposed.

  2. On the Director’s construction, s 66A creates a statutory fiction with the effect of attaching criminal liability to the defendant for her failure to advise the Department of an event within 14 days of its occurrence. This is so notwithstanding that at the time of the failure she was not required by law to inform the Department of the event (putting to one side receipt of any information notice) and that the duty is incapable of discharge.

  3. A clear statement of legislative intention is required before the courts will find that liability for a serious Commonwealth offence is imposed by means of a statutory fiction. The ascertainment of such an intention proceeds by the application of well-understood principles. In issue is proof of an offence under the Code. This directs attention to the law creating the offence and to the general principles of criminal responsibility under the Code. To observe that s 66A of the Administration Act operates with retrospective effect is not to conclude that the deemed duty it imposes engages with s 135.2(1)(a) and s 4.3 of the Code so as to render the latter nugatory in the case of an omission to inform the Department of an event or change in circumstances on and from 20 March 2000 to 4 August 2011, the date on which the Amendment Act received the Royal Assent.

  4. It is not to the point to observe that ignorance of the law affords no excuse or that the prosecution is not required to prove an intention to breach a legal duty. The submission ignores that the failure to do a thing is not an offence in the absence of a legal duty to do the thing. As explained in Poniatowska, s 4.3 of the Code is a reflection of an idea that is fundamental to criminal responsibility: that the criminal law should be certain and its reach ascertainable by those who are subject to it. This idea underpins the strength of the presumption against retrospectivity in the interpretation of statutes that impose criminal liability. Mr Bennion explains the principle in this way:”

 Poniatowska and Keating were un-necessary High Court decisions caused by the Federal Parliament’s deliberate violation of welfare recipients rights.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar (& Ors) [HACA 17 on May 3rd 2012]

This decision was a ‘Millionaires Row’ decision in which the constitutional constraint that in tortious conduct between the Commonwealth of Australia and other legal entities, the determination of the primary facts of the matter upon which a fair and reason decision can be based must be adduced by a court.

There is widespread community concern over what is being called ‘Robo-Debt’, the automated process of  determining that an overpayment has been made to a welfare recipients and then automatically assigning fault for the ALLEGED overpayment.

In my previous communication, emailed  on 23rd June 2017, I pointed out that during an Australian Broadcasting Commission program called Q & A, the federal Attorney-general and Ms. Tanya Slibersek, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labour Party, quibbled over which government, the Turnbull Government of the Gillard Government was most efficient in implementing the automated process of debt recovery.

This process totally ignored the following findings in Hellicar:

  1. The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:

“A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”

How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined. 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 for at least two reasons.

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.

  1. 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 bold highlighted text in the 3 paragraphs above:

  1. 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 for at least two reasons.

  2. ” Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, …Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

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

 Since the Office of the Solicitor-General publishes legal briefing papers on High Court decisions, both the Attorney-General and Ms. Slibersek, “ought to have known about these decisions. Prime Minster Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce are on the public record with statements supporting Robo-Debt collection methods despite the acknowledged “20% error” in arbitrarily determining that if welfare recipients cannot Centrelink officials within 21 days that Centrelink has made a mistake, then Centrelink’s decision will be upheld.

The Turnbull Government’s current Robo-Debt practices and the policy of automatically assuming that a welfare recipient is at fault is totally inconsistent with the High Court’s Hellicar decision at 141 – 143.

In December 2015, I provided copies of the above Hellicar determinations along with the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision in correspondence related to AAT case file 2014/<Redacted>. In a letter dated 7th February 2016, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Services, Alice Linacre.

In her response to my communications, Ms. Linacre arbitrarily ignored the High Court’s decisions in Hellicar and Bhardwaj and rejected my argument that the applicant in AAT case file 2014/<Redacted> was the victim of serious abuses of power and procedural error, e.g. the withholding of crucial evidence and no adducing of the facts by a court upon which any fair and just decision could be made.

At this point in time I am convinced that the applicant is the victim of the previously stated section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. section 142.2 (1)(b) (ii) “dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.”

It should be noted that in November 2014, just days before the AAT hearing, a number of issues where taken up with the then Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.

  1. An audio-recording of the Directions hearing was provided in which a senior AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT member discussing ‘the matter going to trial on that date.”

  2. A copy of an email from the AGS lawyer who would represent the Secretary of the DSS at that “trial”, which stated that Centrelink had no recording of the disputed conversation. What makes this statement so outrageous is that when anyone contacts Centrelink via telephone, they are told that “For your security this call will be recorded.”

I am of the opinion that no court would have accepted such a cavalier disregard for procedural fairness or section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Since Kevin Andrews was a former barrister, I had expected that he would have immediately known that the Secretary’s claim was a procedural fairness disaster and withdrawn the claim. This did not occur.

In February 2015, I wrote to the Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, and provided the same information. In addition, in my correspondence I pointed out that when I raised the issue of the applicant having human rights that needed to be respected, the AGS lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS responded with the rebuttal, “Let’s leave the issue of human rights for other courts to decide.”

I would draw your attention to the phrase “other courts”, a statement that clearly inferred that the AAT hearing was a court hearing. As you are probably well aware, the AAT has no jurisdiction to hold trials; however, as I pointed out in my previous email, this is standard operating procedure.

Although Scott Morrison has a law degree and therefore “ought to have known” that the applicant was the subject of very serious procedural errors, e.g. no jurisdiction to hold a trial and adduce the primary facts of the matter upon which a legally vaid decision could be based, Scott Morrison responded in precisely the same way as Kevin Andrews, i.e. he ignored the legally invalid decision and took no action to have it overturned.

Once bitten, twice shy. [Kioa v West HCA 81; 18th December1985]

“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. (Justice Brennan’s determination at  paragraph 38, of the Kioa v West HCA 81; 18th December1985.)

In AAT 2016/5334, under the applicant’s Right of Discovery, as per Justice Brennan’s determination at  paragraph 38, I requested the findings of fact as adduced by a court. In doing so, I was requesting information that did not exist because there had been no court hearing.

  1. It is totally beyond the bounds of credibility that since the High Court handed down the Hellicar decision on 3rd May 2013, not one Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, federal or state, has learnt about this decision.

  2. It is also beyond the bounds of reasonable belief that no person who has held the portfolio of Minister of Human Services, Minister for Social Services, Minister for Employment and Minister for Home Affairs, has not known about the Hellicar decision.

  3. There are several AGS lawyers that know about the Hellicar decision because I have provided them with copies of Hellicar and Bhardwaj.

At this point in time there is no legally valid excuse for the Turnbull government to be ignoring Hellicar and Bhardwaj and yet, if reports in the media and on the Internet are accurate, this is occurring at a rate of up to 20,000 per week!

In closing I repeat my viewpoint that it is not in the public interest to ratify the settlement between the Manus Island detainees involved in the class action against the Commonwealth of Australia. It would be a gross travesty of justice to allow any taxpayer-funded settlement that may obstruct and pervert the course of justice to the extent that the Australian politicians and other persons involved in the illegal violation of the human rights of almost 2,000 people who were unlawfully detained at the Manus Island concentration camp are not called to account for their actions before the courts. There have been deaths, and regardless of the cause of death, since they occurred during, or as a consequence of a crime, the manner of death is Homicide.

You and I both know this, and thanks to the Internet, many others, some of who may be facing criminal charges, will soon know this as well. If Australia’s criminal justice is to avoid descending to the levels of a Dickensian Bleak House farce, it is imperative that the people who govern our nation are held fully and transparently accountable for possible violations of criminal laws and unlawful violations of human rights. As Justice Higgins stated in 1920, “I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation.”

Ronald Medlicott – An 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 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 44 B. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Work for the Dole, no show, no pay penalties, Robo-Debt, and the 20 Point Disability Assessment Score are collectively the worst system case of FRAUD in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Deaths caused by  recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional laws that exploit the lack of knowledge of welfare recipients, and the general community, are MURDERS, and there have been a lot of them over the last 40 years or so.

The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-14b

“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.”

Statement of Facts & Issues – Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Case# 2016/5334 – The Emcott Report, Volume 3: A Complaint to the UNHRC, page 3 – [Submitted to the AAT via email: 21st February 2017]

Complying with High Court decisions is not optional

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html

Citation: Justice Isaacs in 4th paragraph: It is therefore, in the circumstances… 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.

 Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427; (1994) 120 ALR 415; (1994)

Aust Torts Reports 81-270; (1994) 68 ALJR 401; (1994) 72 A Crim R 32

(13 April 1994)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.html

Administrative inconvenience is not grounds for violating common law rights.

[By extension, it is also not grounds for violating constitutional rights.]

Citations: Justice Toohey at paragraph 8: “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

Justice Toohey at paragraph 9: “That approach is consistent with statements of principle made by this Court, to which we shall shortly
refer. 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”. And, in Morris v. Beardmore, Lord Scarman observed ((7) (1981) AC at 463.):

“When for the detection, prevention, or prosecution of crime Parliament confers upon a constable a power or right which curtails the rights of others, it is to be expected that Parliament intended the curtailment to extend no further than its express authorisation.”

At paragraph 10: “The insistence on express authorization of an abrogation or curtailment of a fundamental right, freedom or immunity must be understood as a requirement for some manifestation or indication that the legislature has not only directed its attention to the question of the abrogation or curtailment of such basic rights, freedoms or immunities but has also determined upon abrogation or curtailment of them. The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language. General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with fundamental rights ((8) See Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 12 per Mason CJ).”

 HELLICAR – THE HIGH COURT’S ROBO-DEBT KILLER PRECEDENT.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Brown; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Gillfillan; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Koffel; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Terry; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v O’Brien; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Willcox; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Shafron [2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012)

 Bureaucrats have no jurisdiction to make legal findings of fact – courts do that.

Citation: {Full bench decision]

[141] The Court of Appeal recorded that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said:

“A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”

How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined 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 for at least two reasons.


[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.

 [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.”

BHARDWAJ – THE 2ND DECISION THAT ALSO EXPOSES THE ROBO-DEBT FRAUD.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 209 CLR 597; 187 ALR 117; 76 ALJR 598 (14 March 2002)

“A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”  – No findings of fact by a court upon which to base a fair decision means that, in law, there has been no decision that can be enforced by Centrelink.

Citation:  Chief Justice Gleeson at 51 to 53: Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

 [51] There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all[33]. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

[52] The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

“As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”

In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.

[53] In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. 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.

Hellicar – only the courts have jurisdiction to decide the facts once a decision is challenged. Bhardwaj A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. The proper function of the AAT is to review the “original decision”, which is based upon the findings of a court. If there is no court findings, any administrative decision is, in law, no decision at all, and THAT is the only decision an AAT registrar can make. Any other decision, e.g. the presiding AAT registrar substitutes themselves in place of a court and makes a decision that only a court can make is, in law, no decision at all.

 Australian Government Service

Legal Briefing – Number 67, 15 August 2003

‘Don’t Think Twice – Can Administrative Decision Makers Change Their Mind?’

http://ags.gov.au/publications/legal-briefing/br67.htm

The Solicitor-General’s advice to all government agencies in regard to the Bhardwaj decision was set out in Legal Briefing Paper #67. In the absence of any finding of the primary facts of the matter being made by a court, as per Hellicar at 141 – 143, this advice is even more relevant. The following advice in Briefing Paper #67 sets out the appropriate response of all Federal Government agencies, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, when welfare recipients appeal and the original decision-maker, i.e. a Centrelink official, or its dysfunctional computer, “skips the court” and makes an arbitrary decision that is, in law, “no decision at all.”

Agreement of the parties

This is one important factor which the majority Justices do not directly comment on. The Tribunal, at least impliedly, thought that the September decision was invalid. Mr Bhardwaj also, at least impliedly, thought the decision was invalid. There is a line of thought that where the relevant parties agree that a decision is invalid they can treat it as such. 26 This thinking was expounded in particular in the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Comptroller-General of Customs v Kawasaki Motors Pty Ltd. 27 It is a line of thought which resonates with the practical issues which arise in relation to variation or revocation of administrative decisions.

On one view the decision in Bhardwaj may therefore stand for the unarticulated proposition that if the parties to a decision agree that a court would set aside the decision as invalid, then they can treat it as invalid and ignore it.

As the High Court ruled in Bhardwaj, any {challenged) decision not based upon finding adduced by a court is, in law, no decision at all.” The advice of the Australian Solicitor-General’s Office is that if the parties to a decision agree that a court would set the decision aside, they can treat it as invalid.

The key to ensuring the AAT, or the AGS representing the DSS, to agree that a decision is legally invalid is to request the findings of fact adduced by a court. If there are no such findings, then as far as the High Court is concerned, in law, there is no decision and it still has too be made. Since that is the High Court’s ruling, it is binding on the government and all government agencies, e.g. the DSS and the AAT as per Justice Isaacs statement at paragraph 4 in ‘The Engineers Case in 1920.

AAT 2016/5334 – A Legal Time Bomb.

The speedy settlement of AAT 2016/5334 appeal is an example of how Coco Hellicar, Bhardwaj and the Solicitor-General’s advice in Legal Briefing Paper #67 coalesced to result in a just outcome for the applicant whilst leaving a legal time bomb ticking away that could wreak absolute havoc on Australia’s legal and political systems. One of the issues raised in a 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues lodged with the New South Wales branch of the AAT via email on 21st February 2017 was the 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.”

That statement, accusing the Federal Parliament of decades of fraud and murder, should have been vigorously challenged by Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, the AGS lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Security. Instead, in a Nolle contendere response that directly parallels, and pre-dates, the Turnbull Government’s nolle contendere response to the Manus Island class action, Ms. Ulrick responded with a ‘Without prejudice’ Void ab initio proffer that restored the appellant’s pension and paid withheld monies. Function officio on the accepted proffer occurred on 6th March 2017 when the Deputy President of the AAT, J W Constance, signed off on this agreement. Whether-or-not Deputy President Constance realized it, the performing of Functus officio on the AAT 2016/5334 settlement was effectively a tacit endorsement of the ‘officially “irrelevant” death toll – 100,000’ statement that the Australian Federal Parliament has been committing Crimes against Humanity for decades and that “…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.

 If Cardinal Pell, or any other person accused of a serious crime, e.g. Ms. Lisa Barrett, should succeed in serving a Duces tecum search order on the Department of Human Services that requires full disclosure of the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by the unconstitutional violations of constitutional and other civil rights, the consequences for Australia’s political and legal systems will be ‘significant’, i.e. beyond belief. High profile federal agencies involved in the concealment of these murders includes the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, the Office of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The $90 Million Manus Island settlement only involved 1 culpable homicide, a matter of fact that raises the question as to just how concerned is the Turnbull Government to avoid having the unreported, classified, “officially irrelevant” death toll kept under wraps. In point-of-fact, due to the AAT 2016/5334 settlement, that is now an unachievable goal.

However, until the death toll is disclosed to a court, from a legal negotiating perspective, it is a powerful negotiating bargaining point for victims of the Robo-Debt fraud who may want to resolve their own situation without involving the police. If all else fails, welfare recipients can “call the cops” and cite the following federal statute, which just happens to be “binding” on every police force in the nation:

142.2  Abuse of public office: A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if the official exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and the official does so with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

NOTE: The penalty is imprisonment for 5 years.

Plus the penalty for any deaths that occur, e.g. 25-years in South Australia for a Robo-Dent triggered suicide. (Section 13.7 of the SA criminal code.)

Therefore, the very public endorsements of the Robo-Debt fraud by Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce, Senator George Brandis foot-in-mouth comments about the ‘terrible human consequences’ of Robo-Debt, i.e. the suicides, when combined with Hank Jongen’s “phone Lifeline” comments are explosive statements that collectively add fuel to a smouldering legal conflagration.

 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (30 June 1938)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/34.html

In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.”

Justice Dixon at paragraph 11 of his findings:Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.

Justice Dixon’s finding makes a farce out the Turnbull Government’s ‘Guilty until proven innocent” policy, i.e. the arbitrary requirement that welfare recipients must prove within 21 days that Centrelink did not make a mistake. That is an exploitive abuse of power as per section 142.2 of the criminal code Act, for it is a bullying, unlawful demand that neither does not prove who was at fault when overpayments were made, a point of law that all members of the Federal Parliament with law degrees, including Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, “ought to know”.

Scottish Council of Law Reporting

“THE CHALLENGES OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”  [2nd March 2011]

The Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell (Canadian Supreme Court Judge)

http://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/publications/macfadyen-2011.html

Justice Cromwell’s speech reviewed technical evidence issues and principles such as The Ontario Protocol, the Canadian National Judicial Institute specialized programs designed to assist judges in understanding the fundamental principles of scientific investigation as well as the basics of some commonly encountered problem areas of scientific evidence. Issues related to defining “scientific evidence” and “expert opinion” that are directly  relevant to Centrelink tort actions:

It seems, however, that even quite rigorous admissibility standards are not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by scientific and technical evidence. Clear professional standards, appropriate training, credentialing and quality control for expert witnesses have the potential to address more directly the sorts of problems that arise from the evidence of unqualified, careless, overworked or even unscrupulous experts.  Finally, the legal profession and the judiciary need to improve their scientific literacy.  To that end, training and resource materials have the potential to help the Bar and the bench to understand the science underlying proposed testimony and to be aware of potential pitfalls and signs of danger in that evidence.  As Justice Breyer of the Supreme Court of the United States put it in his Introduction to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, “we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law. … [through] a joint scientific-legal effort that will further the interests of truth and justice alike.

Police v Butcher [2016] SASC 130 (17 August 2016)

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

The findings in this case highlight the very deficiencies mentioned in Justice Cromwell’s speech, i.e. the sorts of problems that arise from the evidence of unqualified, careless, overworked or even unscrupulous experts are the very issues that plague Centrelink’s fraudulent claims and make it absolutely essential that Due Process of Law be avoided, i.e. claims be referred to the courts, with welfare recipients being diverted into an unconstitutional appeals system that “derives its powers from the authority of the Governor-General’. When it comes to “we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law. … [through] a joint scientific-legal effort that will further the interests of truth and justice alike”, whilst the Turnbull Government and government agencies “skip the courts” that standard of justice will not apply at the lowest socio-economic levels of Australian society, if Robo-Debt policies and practices or the Dickensian Bleak House travesties of justice implicit in following case study are applied.

<Appellant> and Secretary, Department of Social Services; AATA 904 (5 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/904.html

When it comes to a Dickensian Bleak House Travesty of Justice, also known as ‘The Principle of Necessity’, it may be very difficult to top this statement in paragraph 42 of this AAT decision:

<The appellant’s> contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.

The Turnbull Government’s clearly stated policy is that welfare recipients have 21 days in which to prove that Centrelink made a mistake, I believe that the above Statement of Findings is what is known as Probable Cause for Reasonable Doubt” about the validity of ALL Centrelink claims. The problem with the above finding, apart from the very clear statement that Commonwealth errors are “…not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary, is that it does what a court would not do, i.e. totally ignore Section 1217A of the Social Security Act, which clearly states that if the sole cause of the error is a Commonwealth error, the alleged debt MUST BE WAIVED. This finding was a decision of “necessity”, i.e. what legal logic can be applied that can be used to compel the applicant to repay the alleged debt? The problem with decisions of “necessity” is that the High Court dismissed them as invalid in 1920, i.e. 96 years BEFORE this decision was handed down by the presiding AAT Member.

‘The High Court and the ‘Principle of Necessity’: In the previously-mentioned “Engineers Case” [HCA 54, 31st August 1920], when Justice Isaacs presented the Majority decision in this case, in his opening comments His honour stated: The more the decisions are examined, and compared with each other and with the Constitution itself, the more evident it becomes that no clear principle can account for them. They are sometimes at variance with the natural meaning of the text of the Constitution; some are irreconcilable with others, and some are individually rested on reasons not founded on the words of the Constitution or on any recognized principle of the common law underlying the expressed terms of the Constitution, but on implication drawn from what is called the principle of “necessity,” that being itself referable to no more definite standard than the personal opinion of the Judge who declares it. The attempt to deduce any consistent rule from them has not only failed, but has disclosed an increasing entanglement and uncertainty, and a conflict both with the text of the Constitution and with distinct and clear declarations of law by the Privy Council. Justice Isaacs further stated, 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.” A so-called ‘administrative appeals system’ that serves the political purpose of the government-of-the-day, whilst exceeding both constitutional and statutory jurisdiction and making decisions based up perceived legal “necessity” rather than statute law as it applies to the facts of the matter, has no place in Australia’s legal or administrative systems. Every AAT pecuniary decision that is not based upon the findings of fact adduced by a court is, in law, no decision at all, and, consistent with Bhardwaj at 53, legally valid decisions in many thousands of appeals that have come before the AAT have yet to be made.

Readers please note: The Justice Macaulay Letters are long-winded and difficult to understand – if you cannot understand the points of law above, you will have problems with The Macaulay Letters. Hopefully, I will find the time to publish letter #2 on Thursday or Friday.

Ron 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 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 44(A) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Cardinal George Pell, his lawyers, and about 1.5 Billion Catholic Christians need to read this letter to Victorian Supreme Court Justice Macaulay. (So also does every Australian.)

Cardinal George Pell, his lawyers, and about 1.5 Billion Catholic Christians, including the Pope, need to read this letter to a Victorian Supreme Court judge, Justice Macaulay.

This is the 1st, and at 3,510 words, the shortest of 3 letters to Justice Macaulay, the Victorian Supreme Court judge handling the $90 million Manus Island class action against the Federal Government.   The announcement late last week that Cardinal Pell would prosecuted made me realize that this letter and 2 more recent  letters to Justice Macaulay could be of benefit to Cardinal Pell.

  1. If you are of the Catholic faith, please advise your parish priest of this letter.

  2. Note that all 3 letters have been forwarded to the Federal Police with a request that they be forwarded to Cardinal Pell.

  3. If that request is ignored, it may provide Cardinal Pell with a procedural fairness violation that could invalidate the Crown Prosecution’s case against Cardinal Pell, a point of law that all Catholic Church members should point out to their parish priest.

  4. Note that AAT 2016/5334 was the 1st ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement by the Turnbull Government and that the (somewhat more expensive) $90 Million Manus Island settlement is the 2nd ‘Nolle contendere‘ settlement.

  5. My view, as expressed to Justice Macaulay, is that the Turnbull Government is using taxpayers money to hide human rights atrocities and therefore it is the public interest not to ratify a taxpayer funded cover-up of these human rights abuses.

  6. Ripped off welfare recipients take VERY careful note of those 2 facts.

The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-13f

 

Attention: Justice Macaulay

Re: The Manus Island class action is the micro-tip of a decades long violation of human rights that involves millions of people and an undisclosed death toll that may be around the 100,000 mark, or more, at this stage. The $90 million settlement between the Commonwealth and the Manus Island detainees, i.e. Kamasaee v Commonwealth of Australia, is not in the public interest as there is a very serious conflict of interest.  Treasurer, Scott Morrison, the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and 14 other current or former Members of the Federal Parliament, have been or are, the subject of violations of human rights complaints that have been lodged with the International Criminal Court during the last 3 – 4 years. Therefore, it is not in the interests of Mr. Morrison, the Federal Treasurer, members of the Government and who are also members of the Liberal Party-National Party Coalition  to authorize the expenditure of $90 million in public monies in order to achieve a legal outcome that may be of very significant assistance in helping political party members avoid criminal prosecutions in the International Criminal Court of Justice.

A functus officio decision in the Manus Island could even constitute a violation of section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code for reasons which are very briefly detailed in the following text. I strongly recommend that before the following text is read that you take 15 minutes to watch a compilation of videos that provided insight into the issues that many people, including myself, have been raising in public arena, in the AAT and with law enforcement authorities for some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4

I would point out that Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek, during their quibbling on an ABC program on 20th February 2017, unintentionally and unwittingly confessed to fraud and murder.

That statement, whilst totally unbelievable, is provable in court; the question is, how do impoverished Aussie Battlers who cannot afford lawyers, get these politicians into a court where their actions can be subjected to impartial scrutiny by the court?

FACTS NOT YET IN EVIDENCE:

His Honour, Justice Macaulay, or whoever is presiding in this tort action, needs to know that this is the second time this year that the Turnbull Government has opted to use public funds when confronted with a tort action that involved allegations of violations of human rights and fatalities.  I strongly recommend that the presiding judge consider this statement by the Victorian State Coroner, Judge Ian Gray, the Chief Coroner of Victoria, who, in a letter dated 28 October 2014, wrote that I was raising “…important general issues to do with justice and human rights, both nationally and internationally.”

AAT 2016/5334 – “Void ab initio and Nolle contendere”

On 21st February 2017, in my capacity as the volunteer lay advocate representing the applicant, Mr.[Redacted], a resident of New South Wales, At 1.44 PM on 21st February 2017, via email, I filed Statement of Facts & Issues documents with the Sydney registrar of the AAT, i.e. [Redacted] and the Secretary of the DSS, [AAT case file 2016/5334.] One of these documents contained the following statement, which was not contested:

 “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.”

The data on these fatalities is based upon ABS data, although as a former CES Job Club manager, Job Network recruitment agency employer, and as a church social justice coordinator, lay-advocate and pensioner, I have first-hand personal knowledge of the harm caused by the Federal Parliament’s non-compliance with a range of constitutional, statute law, common law and human rights obligations. Dirty tricks in the CES included ‘Breaching for administrative convenience’ and the even more iniquitous, ‘Breaching competitions.’ Some of these abuses were  provided in documents provided to Judge Ian L. Gray in August 2014.

Please note the following case law decisions that the Turnbull government is deliberately ignoring at the present time with its Digital data Fiction Fraud, aka the  ‘Robo-Debt’ recovery processes used to recover ALLEGED overpayments to welfare recipients:

  1. ASIC v Hellicar at 141 – 143 [HCA 17 on 3rd May 2012]
  2. Bhardwaj at 51 – 53 [HCA 11 on 14 March 2002]
  3. Coco v R at 8 – 12 [HCA 15 on 13 April 1994]
  4. Police v Butcher [SASC 130 on 17 August 2016] The legal issues that go beyond authorized, i.e. the issues of qualified, certified and in accordance with the law.
  5. Boughey v R [HCA 29 on 6th June 1986] “ought to have known”, e.g. Justice Brennan at 10 ““ …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)).”
  6. R v Faure [VSCA 166 on 24 September 199] Justice Brooking’s at 29 quoting from an 1839 Royal  commission report to the English Parliament, “It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

The fatalities caused by the recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional “No show, no pay” penalties in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act  are:

  1. unreported by the Secretary of the Department of Human Services,
  2. classified as “confidential” by the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005; and’
  3. twice dismissed as “irrelevant” by the Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee. Although Term Of Reference #3 for the Environment, Communication & Arts Committee hearing into the HIP disaster was “Any other matters”; and,
  4. Although “breaching” fatalities are murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, the ECA Committee dismissed my submission on the grounds that it was “outside the terms of reference” for the inquiry.

I would remind you of 7.2.1.1 – Bench Notes: Judicial College of Victoria. Forms of Murder. Unconstitutionally depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence and then dismissing subsequent fatalities as “irrelevant’ is consistent with the Mindset of Murder, i.e. 1.         There are three ways in which murder can be committed:

  1. The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;
  2. The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes;

AAT 2016/5334 – “Void ab initio and Nolle contendere.”

The response by the Turnbull Government to being accused of a being a party to decades of constitutional deprivation, intimidation, exploitation, enslavement, fraud and murder was swift.

By-passing me in my lawfully appointed role under several provisions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) as the representative of Mr. {Redacted], the AGS lawyer handling the case, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, (on behalf of the Secretary of the DSS), made a ‘without prejudice’ proffer directly to Mr. [Redacted] that, in law, constituted a void ab initio withdrawal of the Secretary’s ‘original decision’ in March 2016. The proffer included the reinstatement of Mr. [Redacted]’ disability benefit and the payment of all withheld monies.

The legal advantage or benefit of by-passing me was that I would have counselled {Redacted]  to wait until the Secretary responded to my discovery request for the precise number of time that the DHS and/or the DSS and other government agencies had violated the constitution and by-passed the courts when determining liability in tort actions against welfare recipients and the number of fatalities caused by this violation of civil rights? Ignoring the constitution, Hellicar and Bhardwaj, and several other relevant court decisions, and by-passing the courts constitutes a criminal abuse of power under s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth criminal Code (1995) and cases like R v Finch in the SASC in 2005 highlight the fact that in law, ‘skip the court’ fatalities are felony murders in South Australia. Since Victoria does not have felony murder statutes, these fatalities are most likely simply reckless indifference murders.

MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS:

A major issue for all courts across the nation when dealing with fraud, intimidation, reckless endangerment and homicide cases is the twice expressed view of the Australian Federal Police that the “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue determines whether or not the they will investigate a case; an unconstitutional that I have been raising, since July 2004. Apparently, like the Federal Parliament, the AFP does not agree with the High Court’s 1920 findings in The Engineers Association v Adelaide Steamship Co, [HCA 54 on 31st August 1920] that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people.” In a spectacular example of manifest ostensible bias, the AFP is providing politicians and bureaucrats who defraud and murder welfare recipients with immunity from prosecution by refusing to investigate these crimes.

 THE COURTS SHOULD PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

This view is shared by at least 2 federal judges:

Precedent #1. Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2012] FCA 1411 at 199.

Justice Steven Rares stated:

“The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings under r 26.01.”

 Quite clearly, the Courts have both the power and the duty to protect their jurisdiction so as to ensure Due Process. With welfare torts, that means that a court, not bureaucrats, decides the facts of the matter in legal disputes.

Precedent #2. [Case reference unknown as a minor is involved.]

This viewpoint is strongly emphasized by Justice Stuart Brown in a Federal Circuit Court hearing held in Adelaide in November 2015.

Justice Brown put the Immigration Department on notice that he expected a Nigerian girl, Crystal Iluno, to remain in Australia while he heard her case, stating that he would consider any move otherwise to be “deeply contemptuous”. Justice Brown said he considered the application filed by 10-year-old Crystal Iluno for a review of her visa was arguable and should “proceed to hearing.” ‘Noting her current bridging visa expired on Tuesday, November 10th 2015, Justice Brown made his opinions about immigration detention and deportation to Nigeria very clear.’

“I’m the lowest rung on the judiciary bench of this country, but I am still a judge. It would be my view that, if anything occurs prior to the hearing, it would be deeply contemptuous of the system of this country, which has separation of powers.  “I know little of the merits of this matter so far but I’m satisfied there’s a matter to be dealt with, and I’m doing it as expeditiously as I can.”

As a volunteer lay-advocate I am only one step up from the very bottom of the justice system, i.e. people who self-represent themselves. However, I too am deeply and utterly contemptuous of a justice system that prosecutes private citizens whilst quarantining Australia’s federal politicians, not only from rorting the Parliamentary Entitlements fund, but also from accountability for murderous crimes against humanity. ‘Work for the Dole’  has been in place for decades even though it is civil conscription, which s.51 (xiii)(A) of the constitution prohibits, i.e.  the linking of welfare payments to civil conscription activities is expressly prohibited and yet, because it is politically expedient to do so, laws have been passed that require either compliance or the denial of welfare benefits.

How does any jurist explain why the Courts have yet to prohibit that activity?

It is a fortiori that since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, then so also are the recklessly dangerous ‘No show, no pay’ penalties that arbitrarily deprive welfare recipients of what may be their sole means to survive. Since s.51 (xiii)(A) of the constitution requires the Parliament to provide unemployment benefits, it is also a fortiori that the removal of the benefits, by any means, is unconstitutional.

This has been going for 4 decades! Anyone care to explain why this is so?

The real-world reality for our nation’s struggling Aussie Battlers is that our legal system is itself being “deeply contemptuous of the system of justice in this country” by now allowing the Turnbull Government to use taxpayers money to buy it’s way out of human rights violations involving fatalities that are raised in both the AAT 20167/5334 appeal and the Manus Island class action.

Please watch the YouTube video at the URL that accompanies this submission, take note of the documents displayed and, at the very least, subpoena a copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes Statistics” letter, i.e. document C10/1866, dated 18 May 2010. The next step beyond that is an order for Centrelink to collect the data on the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” number of fatalities resulting from the administratively convenient process of by-passing the courts, the constitution, and due process of law as per Kioa and Briginshaw, et cetera.

In addition, please check out the text in this URL:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dead-people-given-ehealth-records-in-latest-bungle-for-1-billion-government-program/news-story/966ec22c7fe8a40e7ecf66aa98b1ed90

Statistically, ‘a small number’ out of 1 million letters is ‘Chi’, i.e. 5% or less. The reason why the phrase “a small number” may have therefore been used is that, statistically, sending 50,000 letters to dead people is does represent “a small number”

I emphasize strongly enough that it would not be in the public interest to perform ‘functus officio’ on the Manus Island case at this stage. Whilst $90 million is a considerable sum of money, it must be remembered that in the Ashby case, Justice Rares was scathing in his criticism that Mr. Ashby had received a compensation payment of $50,000 from the Gillard Government for what Justice Rares believes was a spurious claim that lacked legal merit. The Manus Island refugee case has merit and substance and in order to actively discourage further human abuses, both within Australia and abroad, substantial punitive damages should be awarded as per the John Knight case in South Australia, i.e. $3.6 million for Wrongful Dismissal. If the High Court upholds the Frits Van Beelen appeal, then the Rodrigeuz v City of Houston tort for wrongful imprisonment is relevant as compensation awarded represented about $250,000 for each year of wrongful detention.

$35,000 per refugee whilst the lawyers get $20 million is also a highly questionable outcome that needs to be intensely scrutinized as the value of the work put in by the lawyers seems excessive, especially since some of the time may have been devoted to the P &NG Supreme Court case. Should we taxpayers have to fund what may possibly be double-dipping by Slater & Gordon?

When it comes to punitive payments, Commissioner Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2.1 of his report is extremely significant:

“The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.”

This principle both to the Manus Island case and the issue of the unreported death toll associated with Australia’s “irrelevant”: breaching fatalities.

During an AAT hearing in November 2014, [AAT case file 2014/2456], I pointed out that in the 10-year period 1997 to 2006 there were 20,914 suicides with 1 in 3 being an unemployed welfare recipient. In point of fact, recovering from a severe infection, I had miscalculated for there were 23,254 suicides, a figure that implies approximately 7,700 unemployed people committing suicide during this period. The presiding AAT Member, Senior Member Walsh, apparently did not consider these deaths to be credible, relevant or significant in this appeal. This was perhaps not surprising as the Senior Member Walsh also did not consider Centrelink withholding or destroying an audio-recording that was central to the appeal as this recording contained the empirical evidence as to “who said what”, i.e. it was the only empirical evidence upon which an objective assessment of the facts of the matter could be determined.

In Briginshaw v Briginshaw [HCA 34 on 30 June 1938], Justice Dixon stated ‘But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.’

How well does that finding match up with the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, telling people that they have 21 days to prove their case to Centrelink, not a court, or they would automatically be found to be at fault and required to rep[ay the alleged overpayments.? In asking that question I would point out that both Alan Tudge and the DSS Minister, Christian Porter, have admitted to an error rate of 20% ,and in AAT 2016/5334, the DSS did not contest my professional estimate that the error rate could be over 44%.

Although the AAT has no constitutional or statutory jurisdiction to hold trials, this has been occurring for 40 years. and despite High Court decisions such as Briginshaw, Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco, Kioa and Police v Butcher, if the applicant is a welfare recipient, that is all the evidence needed to find in favour of the Secretary of the DSS.

Please take just 30 seconds to listen to the conversation at the start of this YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0hpUJ9wTk&t=6s

 

Any misguided belief that you may have that the AAT does not hold trials will also be hammered if you study Thomson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 255 (1 March 2017), the finding are at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/255.html

 From paragraph 13 to 85, the presiding AAT Member, Mr. Conrad Emert makes a series of findi9ngs as to the what evidence constitutes the facts of the matter. At 86 Mr. Ermert states:

CONCLUSION

  1. After considering the available evidence on the totality of the relationship, taking into account where applicable the reasoning in Jones, I find:
    • There is no financial relationship between Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson;
    • Their sleeping arrangement may indicate a relationship, the form of which needs to be considered in the context of all factors;
    • Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson share no social activities, nor do they hold themselves out to be married or in a de facto relationship;
    • Their sexual relations do not appear to have the emotional connection required of a sexual relationship; and
    • There is no degree of commitment to one another other than that of mutually convenient and reasonably friendly arrangement.
  2. I am not satisfied that the relationship between Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson is a de facto relationship in the terms of subsections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act.
  3. This means that:
    • Ms Dolma and Mr Thomson were not members of a couple in the debt period;
    • Mr Thomson was not overpaid DSP and Age Pension during the debt period; and
    • Mr Thomson does not owe a debt to the Commonwealth.

 This was a case of the correct decision by entirely the wrong process because there were no facts of matter that had been adduced by a court, as per Hellicar at 141 – 143. The AAT is substituting as a court even though it has no constitutional right to do so.

What the AAT should be doing is reviewing the original decision that was made in the light of a court’s findings in order to ensure that this decision is consistent with the court’s findings.

THIS IS NOT HAPPENING AND THE COURTS NEED TO KNOW WHY THIS IS SO?

The question as to how these sometimes murderous injustices could have been occurring unchecked for decades is a question that very jurist in the nation must now ask of themselves. Please do this ASAP and use the Manus Island tort case to ascertain the extent to which the Federal Parliament has undermined our nation’s democratic principles. In closing, please consider very carefully this statement by Justice Rares, which was made at the annual AGS Law Administrators Conference in June 2013:

The steady, inexorable and unthinking use of bloated legislation is a real threat to our democracy.

Justice Steven Rares, Paragraph 85, Legality, Rights and Statutory Interpretation. AGS Law Administrators Conference. 20th June 2013

Surely this is especially so when vulnerable people are persecuted and murdered?

Consider this:

“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”

Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps.

Now consider this:

“The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies.”

 “Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values the government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”

 Joe Hockey’s London Institute of Economic Affairs speech on 17th April 2012, titled the “Age of Entitlement is Over”, in which he advocated the undemocratic withholding of a subsistence allowance needed to ensure impoverished people could survive.

And finally, consider this:

“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

 The statement above was Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ‘spit-the-dummy’ response to the Joint Party on Human Rights Committee’s rejection of legislation that would have violated human rights by depriving unemployed people under the age of 30-years-old of a subsistence allowance for 6 months.

 Deaths caused by the federal parliament violating human rights are not “irrelevant” and parliamentary privilege was never intended to cover mass fraud and serial murder.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald Medlicott – volunteer Christian lay advocate

RONALD’S SPACE READERS PLEASE NOTE:

IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF THE CENTRELINK ROBO-DEBT FRAUD, COPY ALL 3 LETTERS TO JUSTICE MACAULAY ONTO A DVD OR CD THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO CENTRELINK, THE ATT, OR THE AGS LAWYER REPRESENTING CENTRELINK, AND ASK:

“PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY I AM BEING DEFRAUDED.”

Letter #2 should be posted on Thursday with the 3rd letter, plus a 10,000 word “note” to the Federal Police being posted on Saturday.

Ron Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate.

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 43H. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. The Robo-Debt fraud video compilation.

If you have been hit with a fraudulent Centrelink Robo-Debt claim, or know someone who has, please take 15 minutes to watch and consider this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4

If you find the information useful, please share the above URL or the short link below to this this posting.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-134

Thank you,

Ron Medlicott

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

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