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.

Advertisements
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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. What each video.

  2. Read the comments.

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

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

Lindt Inquest web links:

Mistakes cannot be papered over

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

New South Wales police waited too long

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

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

July 04 denley letter page 1

SAPOL knew and did nothing

SAPOL

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

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

  2. Study it carefully.

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

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

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

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

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

2002 Centrlink report extract

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

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

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

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

 

 

 

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