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

Email to tasmanian Ombudsman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: 08 8255 3638

Mobile: 04386 26811

Email: romnald48@optusnet.com.au

1st May 2017

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

Dear Ms Hopkins,

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

  1. The word that best describes this email and my previous emails to the Office of the Tasmanian Ombudsman is “EVIDENCE.”
  2. In previsions emails to you, I submitted documents that constitute a Statement of Facts & Issues that was tended to the federal AAT on 21st February 2017 in regard to AAT appeal 2016/5334.
  3. One of the documents submitted, i.e. Volume 3 of The Emcott Report, contained the statement on page 1 of a section titled “The Advocate”: In Australia, just as Clarence Earl Gideon was so many years ago, welfare recipients are being shafted and are in dire need of a court appointed Advocate to represent them in tort actions brought against them by the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink. This is especially so with the Turnbull Government targeting a reported 20,000 welfare recipients a week with tort actions that deliberately by-pass Due Process of Law, i.e. not having the facts of the matter decided by the courts. In doing so, the Turnbull Government is following in the footsteps of previous Liberal and Labour led governments that have, over the last 30 – 40 years,  ruthlessly taken advantage of the fact that, like Clarence Gideon, most of the people who are accused of wrong-doing and are penalized by  Centrelink  cannot afford a lawyer.”
  4. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  5. One page 2 of that document, the following statement was made: “However, there are some victims of this criminal abuse of power who have income levels above the poverty line but suffer from a very different form of poverty, a lack of knowledge of their civil rights that prevents them from realizing that they are the unwitting victims of a massive Federal Parliament fraud. If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”
  6. It is also a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest that statement.
  7. Also submitted to the AAT at the same time was Volume 2 of The Emcott Report ,which contained a certified copy of a letter from a senior Centrelink official, Neil Skill, admitting that Centrelink did not collect and report any fatalities that may have been triggered by with imposition of welfare penalties.
  8. It is a matter of fact that the Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, i.e. Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, did not contest either the validity of that document or the statement that these fatalities were not reported because they were homicides under state, territory, federal and internal laws.
  9. Volume 2 of The Emcott Report also contained a a number of statements pointing out that Australia’s ‘no show, no pay’ in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act was unconstitutional and a criminal act of reckless endanger that violated state, territory, federal and international laws. In point of fact, it was specifically pointed out that Section 42C violated at least 3 provisions in Article 6 of the Rome Statute, which deals with the crime of Genocide and also with numerous provision of Article 7 of the Rome Statute that deal with crimes against humanity, including article 7(1)(a), a provision which deals with state sanctions actions that are, in law, acts that constitute the crime of Murder.

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

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

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

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

Charge: Threatening to murder.

162A. Failing to report the killing of a person

(1) In this section,

proper authority means any of the following:

(a) a police officer;

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

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

(d) a Crown Law Officer.

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

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

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

Charge: Failing to report the killing of a person.

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

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

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

Charge:

Failing to report the impending killing of a person.

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

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

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

Charge:

Failing to report the planned killing of a person.

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

(a) the person knows or reasonably suspects that –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed…The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“157 – (1) Subject to the provisions of section
160, culpable homicide is murder if it is committed

(a) with an intention to cause the death of
any person, whether of the person killed
or not;

(b) with an intention to cause to any person,
whether the person killed or not, bodily
harm which the offender knew to be likely
to cause death in the circumstances,
although he had no wish to cause death;

(c) by means of any unlawful act or omission
which the offender knew, or ought to have
known, to be likely to cause death in the
circumstances, although he had no wish to
cause death or bodily harm to any
person;”

In paragraph 10 Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

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

At 15, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

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

“Homicide … caused–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Robo-debt claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email TasPol 2

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

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

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

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

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

Bhardwaj crop

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

Bhardwaj 53

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

Hellicar crop

Hellicar 141

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

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

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

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

Hellicar 142

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

Hellicar 143

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

 

Hansard 26-2-15

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

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

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

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

  3. P27 A
  4. And this:27 b

  5. And then there is this:

Hansard 3

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

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

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

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

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

“We do not threaten.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the federal level we have these criminal violations:

s 138_2 menaceskjjh

s 139_1 Unwarranted demands

s 139_2 Unwarranted demands

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

Blackmail cropped171

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSW s40 Failure to sustain life

Tasmania s156 homicide crop

Section 156 above is from the Tasmanian criminal code.

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

Engineers case 1920 crop

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

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

Engineers case 4 B

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

Engineers case 5 A

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

Engineers case 11b

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

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

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

Constitution 51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Part 42H. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The case law decisions behind the AAT2016/5334 win.

The mass media is referring to the Tudge Fudge Fraud as the Robo-debt fraud, a term that I shall use in this and future postings. Using AAT 2016/5334 to beat the blatant Abuse-of-Power fraud means not just looking at the following case law decisions but studying them until you understand why they are Robo-debt Killer decisions that could  potentially put dozens of politicians and senior bureaucrats who are responsible for the Robo-debt frauds and murders behind bars for life.

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

Anyone sucked into the unconstitutional AAT appeal needs to be aware of these case law decisions and that means going to each URL and copying and pasting the  case law decision and paragraphs mentioned for each decision into a word processor for of-line study.

  1. Please do not complain that this is too difficult to understand: you will be up against A TEAM OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS if you file an AAT appeal as per Alan Tudge’s unconstitutional advice, which I sincerely believe is intended to simply suck victims into The Robo-Debt Fraud Trap.

  2. These lawyers do hit victims with dozens of case law precedents that ignore or conceal the case law precedents below.

  3. The key to the staggering success of the Robo-Debt Fraud Trap, is the ignorance of victims about both their legal rights and how the Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] actually works.

  4. Having previously how the Turnbull Government and previous governments have worked the 2D2F scam, it is time to get down to the hard stuff, the, case law decisions.

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

Engineerscase 1920

  1. Commonly referred to as the “Engineer’s Case”, according to the High Court at the time, this was the most important decision ever made by the High Court.

  2. Guess what? It still is, especially for Robo-debt victims.

  3. Unfortunately it is also the most confusing decision I have ever studied; you have to pain-stakingly dig out the critical points of law from un-numbered paragraphs of text littered with dead [Latin} language terms that are a numerous as dog-dropping on a public park.

  4. Important points to note are that the laws of the Commonwealth are “binding”; however, neither political expediency and necessity nor legal necessity are valid grounds for violating the constitution, which places limits on what laws the Federal parliament can make.

  5. If a law is not constitutionally valid, then it effectively no law at all.

  6. A CRITICAL point to note is that the constitution separates the powers of the Parliament from the Courts, which makes the next High Court decision a powerful Robo-debt Killer decision.

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

HellicarThe key paragraphs in the Hellicar decision that you need to copy are paragraphs 141 to 143.

  1. These 3 paragraphs were made known to the acting Chief-Legal-Counsel for the Department of Human Services in December 2015 and promptly ignored, probably because they invalided 5 million decisions and underscored the fact that the DHS was engaging in criminal abuses of power that sometimes resulted fatalities that I believe constitute Genocide and Murder under state, territory, federal and international laws.

  2. Paragraph 141 makes it clear that Centrelink bureaucrats, and politicians, who believe that they have the right to make legal decisions are wrong.

  3. Paragraph 142 makes it clear that the legal principles that apply to criminal law cases also applies to civil cases that involve a financial penalty, i.e. a pecuniary penalty such a the dole being cut off or Centrelink demanding that an ALLEGED DEBT be repaid.

  4. Finally, paragraph 143 makes it very clear that once a legal decision is challenged by a welfare recipient, IT IS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS, NOT ALAN TUDGE OR CENTRELINK BUREAUCRATS.

  5. The burden of proof is on Centrelink, not Centrelink clients, when Centrelink seeks to engage in what is know as “Tortious Conduct” for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENTS.

  6. Centrelink officials, and Alan Tudge, have no constitutional JURISDICTION to make legal decisions as to the facts of the matter, a key legal point of law that is NOT PUBLISHED on the Australian Government Service Legal Briefing Papers website.

  7. Hellicar leads to the next crucial Burden of Proof court decision.

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

  1. BhardwajThe key paragraphs to copy in the Bhardwaj decision are 51 to 53.

  2. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 51 is: “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

  3. That is the actual legal status of Centrelink’s fraudulent Abuse of Power actions in which, if people cannot prove that Centrelink was at fault, Centrelink arbitrarily takes money from people or alternately, tries to force people into the federal government’s unconstitutional appeals process, i.e administrative reviews and the shonky Administrative Appeals Tribunal system.

  4. NOTE: The President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr, was informed of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions in December 2015. However, the AAT also ignores these High Court decisions and even ignores criminal abuses of power, e.g. the withholding of evidence.

  5. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 52 is: “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.”

  6. The CRITICAL STATEMENT in paragraph 53 dovetails with the above statement: “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.”

  7. ANY DECISION made by Centrelink officials, review officers, or an AAT Member that is not based upon the facts of the matter that have been determined by a court of law, is in law, “NO DECISION AT ALL.”

TRANSLATION:

  1. You do not have to prove to Centrelink that they made a mistake.

  2. The Burden of Proof is on Centrelink which must prove the validity of its claim to a court that you made a mistake that resulted in overpayments.

  3. Until that happens, Centrelink has no legally right to impose any penalty, especially a penalty arising from a claim based upon its exceedingly dysfunctional, 35-year-old Integrated Social Infrastructure System, i.e. the ISIS computer system.

  4. This brings us to the next critical Robo-debt Killer decision.

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

Police v. Butcher 2016 is a very recent South Australian Supreme Court decision that focused procedural errors in the legal process. Copy and paste the entire case findings, which are not that long and are relatively easy to understand. The Key Points of Law to note from this decision are that People who are involved in making a legal decision must be:

  1. Authorized to make that decision.

  2. Qualified, i.e. competent, to make that decision.

  3. Currently certified to make that decision.

  4. Comply with Due Process laws, standards and procedures.

  5. Anyone can be “authorized” to make a decision, however, if the other 3 criteria are not met, then in law, as per Bhardwaj at 51 – 53, then in law, any decision is, in law, NO DECISION AT ALL.

  6. Centrelink’s ISIS Computer is not a legal entity, and just like your DVD recorder or refrigerator, it cannot legally impose a fine as it does not meet points 2, 3 and 4 above.

  7. Even worse, the ISIS system produces “UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE’

  8. The official, but ‘informal’ Statement of Facts & Issues that I submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal attacked the “lack of integrity” of the ISIS system:

The following are points raised that the lawyers representing the Department of Social Services, which handles the Centrelink tort actions against welfare recipients, included the following legal points that highlight why the output from the ISIS system should not be accepted by a court:

the-advocate-cropped

“…on the balance of probabilities.”  Centrelink’s self-arbitrated tort claims are a ‘landmark case” for the legal concept of Unreliable Evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Untested and therefore uncertified data entry operators

  • Like the LIDAR speed guns used by police, data entry operators need be re-tested and re-certified in accordance with Australian Standards 2708 to “certify the level of accuracy of the data entry operator.”

  1. Without ‘Current Competency’ certified testing to AS 2078/2015 so as to ensure the accuracy of data used in Centrelink initiated tort actions, it is impossible to adduce accuracy with any reasonable degree of certainty.

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

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

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

  • In order for ISIS input data to be used as evidence in a civil dispute, all data-entry staff must be appropriately certified as to their individual knowledge level of the relevant statute laws, regulations, policies and procedures at the time any data relevant to a dispute was entered in ISIS. [Current competency of accredited trainers, training programs, and relevance and accuracy of content.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Some welfare recipients reporting by phone told they “ARE “NOT ELIGIBLE TO REPORT”. Any attempt to then report by phone then fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BY-PASSING THE COURTS: THE GOVERNMENT’S APPEAL SYSTEM

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

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

It is very hard to win an AAT appeal when the presiding AAT Member:

  1.  Ought to know of, and ignores, both Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  2. Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful;

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

  1. Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties;

  2. Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that deliberately ignore s 1,237A of the SSA.

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when the Ombudsman’s Office also ignores all of the above and upholds the decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above procedural fairness violations.

AT WHAT COST? It is should be of grave public concern that a very significant proportion of suicide and heart attack victims in Australia are Centrelink clients. An as yet unknown number may be victims of highly questionable tort actions that ignored Hellicar and by-passed the courts when Centrelink ‘recovered’ overpayments that it may have had no legitimate right to reclaim.

OTHER KEY COURT CASES:

Following cases are all relevant to the Robo-Debt Fraud:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2017/4.html

  1. The key phrase to note in the Culleton Decision is the Latin phrase “void ab initio”. An easy-to-understand definition of this is found at this link.

  2. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/VoidorVoidAbInitio.aspx

  3. Void Ab Initio –

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

    Oddly, what is void or voidable is, as far as it matters between the participants, still in force until challenged or rebuked, as the actors to the legal drama not yet unfolded proceed as if the void document or status was lawful. But if and when judicial determination is required, the Court will declare a document or purported legal status void, an exercise that is by definition retroactive. Of course, any time a court of law exercises its prerogative of time travel, the declaration that something that had been relied upon for years was void from the start, can sometimes produce unusual results and consequences.

  4. NOTE: A purported legal status that has never been valid or enforceable. from the start, is a very good summary of Centrelink’s Robo-Debt decisions.

  5. NOTE ALSO: “…the declaration that something that had been relied upon for years was void from the start, can sometimes produce unusual results and consequences.”

  6. This has been going on for decades, with any fatalities not being included in official reports for the very obvious reason that if investigated, criminal charges would almost certainly be laid against the politicians and bureaucrats and lawyers responsible for the violations of civil rights that triggered these deaths.

OTHER RELEVANT LAW CASES:

There are literally hundreds of cases that provide legal precedents for the prosecution of anyone involved in the Robo-Debt Fraud. If I am correct in my estimate of around 100,000 fatalities from all causes over the last 30 – 40 years, it is possible that hundreds of politicians and bureaucrats, past and present, could face homicide charges because there is no statute of limitations on deaths that are the result of criminal activity.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/43.html Poniatowska

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/29.html Boughey

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2005/243.html Leck & Keating

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2010/216.html Denlay

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2014/85.html Police v Butcher r2014

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2006/42.html Trevorrow

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2005/243.html Finch

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/87.html Brett Cowan

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2015/265.html Baden Clay 2015 QSC

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/35.html Baden-Clay HCA 2016

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2009/351.html Martens

I hope this information is useful to those who are victims of the Robo-Debt Fraud, aka the 2D2F Scam.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay-advocate for justice.

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

Part 42G. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016.5334 and the issue of Unreliable Evidence.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016.5334 and the Centrelink non-disclosure issue of Systemic Unreliable Evidence. 

The short link URL: for this page is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-WH

UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE: Police v Butcher [2016]

The following text comes from Volume 3 of The Emcott Report, one of the Statement of facts & Issues documents submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal. Any person who wishes to challenge a Centrelink claim can copy and submit this information as part of the process of legally refuting Centrelink’s alleged “You owe us money” claims.

the-advocate-cropped

The Police v. Butcher mentioned case highlights the need for anyone involved in a Centrelink “You owe us money” claim, to not just be [1] Authorized to make that claim to also be appropriately [2] Qualified AND [3] Currently Certified AND to comply with [4] Due Process of Law when making any such claim.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF:

In law, the reality is that the Burden of Proof is upon Centrelink, not welfare recipients, to prove to a court that any alleged over-payment claim is legally valid. However, as the list of issues below reveal, Centrelink has so many legal issues in validating a claim with the courts that unlawfully “skipping the courts” is Standard Operating Procedure.

Step 1 in fighting what I call the Tudge Fudge Fraud is point out Centrelink’s claim is a matter for the courts, as per the High Court’s 2102 Hellicar decision and that the matters of fact and issues of law raised by the applicant’s representative in AAT 2016/5334 were not contested by lawyers representing the Department of Social Services.

Step 2 in the process is to then copy and paste the text below into your letter and point out that these are issues for a court, not Centrelink officials to consider if Centrelink wishes to proceed with what may be a fraudulent abuse of power that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). You can point out that these issues make it ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that any digital data output from Centrelink’s dysfunctional computer system be diligently checked by a currently accredited and appropriately certified person to ensure that Digital Data Fiction Fraud also known as 2D2F, is not occurring.

Police v. Butcher

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

The lesson of Police v Butcher [2016] SASC 130 (17 August 2016) is that unreliable evidence is not acceptable to adequately informed courts. The following statements are verbatim extracts from the preamble in these findings:

“This is an appeal from the judgment of a magistrate who dismissed charges against the respondent that on 14 September 2012 he drove at a speed which was dangerous to the public contrary to s 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (the RTA) and drove a vehicle at a speed 45 kms per hour in excess of the applicable speed limit contrary to r 20 of the Australian Road Rules and s 45A(1) of the RTA.”

“At trial evidence was called from Senior Constable Goldsmith who gave evidence that on 14 September 2012 he used an Ultralyte laser speed gun to record the speed of the vehicle driven by the respondent at Helps Road, Burton. He recorded the vehicle’s speed at 102 kms per hour. The applicable speed limit was 50 kms per hour.”

“He gave evidence that both before and after his shift on 14 September 2012 he conducted fixed distance tests on the device to ensure that it was working correctly.”

“The magistrate dismissed the proceedings on the basis that the respondent had proved on the balance of probabilities that the test conducted by Senior Constable Goldsmith on 14 September 2012 did not show the speed gun to be accurate within the specified margin of error. Accordingly he could not find proved beyond reasonable doubt the speed of the respondent’s vehicle.”

[41] Reasons of the magistrate

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

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

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

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

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

[46] The line of cases referred to leave open the proposition that the agreed facts in this case at Ex P11, particularly numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7, together with

Ex P10 can be used by defence as evidence to provide a basis for establishing ‘proof to the contrary’ for the purposes of s.175(3)(ba) RTA.

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

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

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

[48] In other words I am satisfied that there is evidence which establishes that the testing did not show the Lidar device to be accurate within the stated limit of error.    [NO VALIDATION means no valid case and consequently, thousands of speeding fines were INVALIDATED.]

[49] I am further satisfied that in the absence of evidence of limit of error I cannot find proved beyond reasonable doubt the precise, or range of speed of the vehicle.   [NO VALIDATION: “in the absence of evidence”. Centrelink has to validate its claim to the same standard of proof.]

AAT2016/5334  issues raised:

“…on the balance of probabilities.”  

Centrelink’s self-arbitrated tort claims are a ‘landmark case” for the legal concept of Unreliable Evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Untested and therefore un-certified data entry operators

  • Like the LIDAR speed guns used by police, data entry operators need be re-tested and re-certified in accordance with Australian Standards 2708 to “certify the level of accuracy of the data entry operator.”

  1. Without ‘Current Competency’ certified testing to AS 2078/2015 so as to ensure the accuracy of data used in Centrelink initiated tort actions, it is impossible to adduce accuracy with any reasonable degree of certainty.

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

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

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

  • In order for ISIS input data to be used as evidence in a civil dispute, all data-entry staff must be appropriately certified as to their individual knowledge level of the relevant statute laws, regulations, policies and procedures at the time any data relevant to a dispute was entered in ISIS. [Current competency of accredited trainers, training programs, and relevance and accuracy of content.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Some welfare recipients reporting by phone told they “ARE “NOT ELIGIBLE TO REPORT”. Any attempt to then report by phone then fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY LAY-ADVOCATE COMMENT

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

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

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

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

UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE?:  Uncertified, over-worked, data entry operators, a dysfunctional computer system that lacks “integrity” due to undocumented system code, a database that may contain 8 billion data errors and bad advice by Centrelink staff is nothing “markedly different from the usual run of cases.”

BY-PASSING THE COURTS: THE GOVERNMENT’S APPEAL SYSTEM

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

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

It is very hard to win an AAT appeal when the presiding AAT Member:

 Ought to know of, and ignores, both Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  1. Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful;

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

  1. Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties;

  2. Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that deliberately ignore s 1,237A of the SSA.

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when the Ombudsman’s Office also ignores all of the above and upholds the decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above procedural fairness violations.

AT WHAT COST? It is should be of grave public concern that a very significant proportion of suicide and heart attack victims in Australia are Centrelink clients. An as yet unknown number may be victims of highly questionable tort actions that ignored Hellicar and by-passed the courts when Centrelink ‘recovered’ overpayments that it may have had no legitimate right to reclaim.

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

Part 42F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT2016/5334, Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] and possible inveigling of Centrelink staff to commit these abuses of power.

The AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues, which was not contested by the lawyer representing the Department of Social Security, accused the Turnbull Government of fraud and homicide.

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

the-advocate-cropped

The Emcott Report – volume 3(b) “The Advocate”.

Part  of the Statement of Facts & Issues submission made on 21st February, the cover page of this 82 -page report repeatedly rammed home the point that the Turnbull Government was criminally abusing power by ignoring both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions. (Along with many other legal decisions of significant relevance.) In addition, this document contained this politically and legally sensitive 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.”

THIS STATEMENT WAS NOT CHALLENGED!

The ‘Nole Contendere’ responsive, i.e. the “No contest” response was a tacit admission that the statement was fair and reasonable comment [Tick the box for TRUE]

The legal ramifications are profound:

Turnbull Government Ministers actively endorse or support what Centrelink is doing, i.e. Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F], i.e. criminal activity more commonly referred to as CYBER-CRIME or CYBER-FRAUD.

Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F]

The best statement about Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] cyber-crime that I know of comes from a recent Patricia Cornwell novel titled “Depraved heart”:

“It’s what can happen of we’re so reliant on technology that we become completely dependent on things that we cannot see. Therefore, we no longer judge for ourselves what’s true, what’s false, what’s accurate, what isn’t. In other words, if reality is defined by software that does all the work for us, then what if this software lies? What if everything we believe isn’t true but a facade, a mirage? What if we go to war, pull the plug, make life-and-death decisions based on data fiction?”

As the following examples show, Digital Data Fiction is an accepted, normal part of our lives:

  1. Super Mario games.

  2. Angry Birds app.

  3. Star Wars space ships.

  4. The floating mountains in the movie Avatar.

  • All of the above are Digital Data Fictions used to entertain us, i.e. they are perfectly legitimate Digital Data Entertainment Fictions [2DEF] that you know are not real (At least I hope so.)

  • We have come to accept digital data as part of our lives; the danger is when that data is used not to entertain but to cause great harm.

  • The Turnbull Government, like previous governments before it, is ‘pedal to the metal’ pushing Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] using Centrelink’s dysfunctional Integrated Social Infrastructure  System[ISIS] computer network mainframe software, which was purchased about 35 years ago.

  • Yesterday, in the space of just over an hour, this clapped out digital scrap sent me the same SMS notice 8 times informing me that I has mail on the MyGov website .

  • It is a completely unreliable system that should never have been purchased as it was not fit for intended purpose even in 1982 when ordered. However, once purchased, no-one was willing to admit the error.

  • The unlawful solution to overpayments has been to blame welfare recipients and then con them, or brazenly intimidate them into repaying overpayments that a court would probably decide do not have to be repaid.

  • 2D2F triggered deaths due suicide or emotional trauma induced heart attacks and strokes are homicides.

  • The problem with these politically driven homicides is that there are so many of them that the Federal Police flatly refuse to investigate them.

  • This possibly because of a not unreasonable concern that once the major parties are dumped by outraged voters, the nation will be managed by politicians like Pauline Hanson, Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon and their narrow-interest political parties.

  • AAAAA08 Denley letter

    The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that’s what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    Politicians like Pauline Hanson, Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon running the country may or may not be desirable. It is for voters, not the Federal Police to decide. However, it appears that the AFP does not want to risk the extinction of the Liberal-National Coalition or the ALP  and consequently do nothing about the murderously lethal 2D2F problem.

As I have said numerous times in previous posting, the standard of justice that you get is the standard of justice that you accept. If you are prepared to accept 2D2F by doing nothing, then you are accepting gross injustice.

INTERNET EVIDENCE  

 The following videos should be viewed AFTER giving serious though to these  2 High Court decisions. Just click on each Internet URL to automatically go to each website and check out these High Court decisions for yourself:

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

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

[Paragraph 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…”

 [Paragraph143] Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

 and

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

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11

[Paragraph 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.”

 

YOUTUBE: Most of these videos contain evidence of criminal abuses of power by politicians and/or centrelink officials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfzklJRUm8

ABC News 24 interview with Michael Griffin about Centrelink #notmydebt 6/1/17

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA

Honest Government Advert – Centrelink Fail

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482  In law, Senator Brandis – “…terrible human consequences” statement may well be an unintentional admission that the Turnbull Government is murdering people for financial gain. Were Tanya Slibersek’s scornfully comments an admission that the Gillard Government was far better at ripping off vulnerable, impoverished welfare recipients than the Turnbull Government?

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58cD6Zc1MIc

Alan Tudge won’t budge on Centrelink debt recovery insisting there are no problems

 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-apology-from-barnaby-joyce-as-government-doubles-down-on-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170106-gtmzaw.html

‘No apology’ from Barnaby Joyce as government doubles down on Centrelink debt clawback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCBN7l34VSg

Assembling furniture in the dark’: Christian Porter to spring the welfare trap

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s63ClyyiKH8

Social Services Minister Christian Porter admits not knowing how to help people off welfare

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4BZ9WYx764

‘Organised, fair’: Christian Porter defends automated Centrelink debt recovery system

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dShMgVLJz8

Dealing With Centrelink Debt $10,913 #NotMyDebt 17010

 If you have not seen any of my Yadnarie12 videos, consider watching some of these, especially the first 5 videos listed:

Burn Notice: The Others https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0 

 Waivergate – Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60

 Waivergate – Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I

 Waivergate – Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBNxr7iY7E

 CHILCOT REPORT ISSUES (and John Howard’s other lethal lies)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_kltEXaNcY 

 The Culleton factor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctoEN-ZuE8

Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH3TEMiSNgM

 Centrelink and the 6 week Rule. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBonJY5Z-k&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WEN5ix0Fc

 Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSdj5gXsx8  

 Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTmc2nA8Kc

 

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

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

Part 42E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 may be a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and bankrupt federal politicians.

BackflipAustralia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity have hit a major legal snag. One potential consequence of the AAT 2016/5334 “Nole contendere” decision in favour of the welfare recipient that I represented was that this decision is potentially a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and also bankrupt every political party and very politician who ever supported breaching laws and other laws that deliberately violate the civil rights of welfare recipients.

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

It could also bankrupt mass media entities that have very actively promoted Australia’s unconstitutional, genocidal laws whilst editors and journals who have peddled criminal defamation statements as ‘news’ could face criminal prosecution for their unlawful comments:

20-10-11 Bludgers loose dole

Not one of the 93,682 suspensions of payments mentioned above was based upon findings of fact adduced by a court, every penalty was unconstitutional and therefore, in law, no decision at all, i.e. NOT LEGALLY VALID.

Ron, It’s too hard too understand!

Some of the feedback that I have received from people who read these postings is that it is too hard to understand. and I totally agree with that viewpoint.

The Burden of Proof.

For decades the Federal Parliament has deliberately made its legal actions against welfare recipients too hard to understand. Most deceitfully, Malcolm Turnbull and his government, with the apparent full support of ALL Opposition Members, has consistently concealed the fact that Centrelink does not have the constitutional right to make legal decisions about fault if or when welfare recipients challenge those decisions.

The High Court’s Hellicar decision made it very clear, in plain language, that “regulators” , e.g. Centrelink administrators are wrong in believing that the can make legal findings of fact and arbitrarily impose penalties.

If a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, IT IS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS, NOT CENTRELINK, TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER UPON WHICH A LEGALLY VALID DECISION MUST BE BASED.

  1. By not revealing this simple constitutional fact, successive governments have literally gotten away with defrauding a welfare recipients for decades.

  2. The concealment of fatalities caused by the this criminal abuse of power is understandable for they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime, i.e. felony murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

  3. When Centrelink alleges a welfare recipient has been overpaid or is not entitled to a welfare benefit, in law, the Burden of Proof is upon Centrelink  to prove to a court that its legal claim, called a TORT ACTION, is legally valid.

  4. In law, statements made by Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Potter and Centrelink’s chief spin Doctor, Hank Jongen may constitute the inveigling of Centrelink staff into engaging in civil rights abuses that defraud and endanger the lives of welfare recipients.

  5. By not denying my AAT 2016/5334 Facts & Issues statements that for decades successive governments had been defrauding and murdering welfare recipients,  the lawyer representing the DSS in this appeal, has made a voluntary ‘Nole contendere’ act of commission acknowledgement as to the accuracy of those statements.

  6. Translation: the government lawyer representing the DSS agreed with what I had written, and in order to avoid the ‘penalty’ of having these statements repeated and written into the record at an AAT that was to have been held on 24th March 2017,plugged the plug on the DHS claim that the welfare recipient was not entitled to a disability pension.

Below is a link to the criminal.lawyers.com website, which contains a definition of the legal term “Nole contendere”.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/no-contest-pleas-nolo-contendere.html

The key points of law to note is US attorney, Michael Schwartzback’s  article are the following statements:

  1. Guilty pleas settle lots of cases, but not all. Sometimes prosecutors and judges agree to accept pleas of “nolo contendere,” Latin for “I do not wish to contend” or “no contest.”

  2. “No contest” pleas often appeal to defendants looking to avoid an admission of fault in a related civil case.

“…an admission of fault”

2 key points to note:

Firstly: the “admission of fault in a related civil case” to be avoided in AAT 2016/5334 was  the accusation that Centrelink had acted illegally against the applicant that I was representing, and that such actions had occurred for decades with a substantial “irrelevant” death toll that has never been reported..

Secondly: When Centrelink claims that you have been overpaid, it is VITAL to immediately RESPOND by stating, IN WRITING, that you believe Centrelink has made a mistake.

  1. If you do not, you may be putting yourself for a ‘no contest – no win’  situation where you wind up have to pay up, even if Centrelink’s claim is a textbook example of “Digital Data Fiction Fraud” [2D2F], i.e. Centrelink has used GIGO  [Garbage In – Garbage Out] data as the basis for its possibly deliberately fraudulent claim that you owe them money.

  2. The moment you “challenge” Centrelink’s decision, as the High Court ruled in Hellicar, the facts have to be determined by a court, not Centrelink.

  3. The problem for Centrelink is two-fold: Firstly, it costs about $25,000 per case to go to court. Secondly, Centrelink’s has admitted that on 1st January 2016, its computer system wrongly issued 73,000 incorrect claims that were withdrawn a week later. On top of this, The Minister for Social Security, Christian Porter, admitted during a televised interview that 20% of 170,000,000 claims (34,000) were wrong.

  4. That means that in 2016, Centrelink admitted that a massive 107,000 out of some 243,000 (let’s skip the courts)  claims were wrong.

  5. That it an admitted massive error rate of 44.03.%

  6. it any wonder that Malcolm Turnbull has officially endorsed Centrelink’s fraudulent abuse-of-power practice of by-passing the courts and unilaterally demanding “repayment of alleged overpayments if welfare recipients cannot prove to Centrelink, within 21 days, that it was a Centrelink mistake?

  7. To unilaterally or arbitrarily impose an administrative decision action that causes a “detriment”, i.e. Centrelink takes money out of your welfare payments without the court first deciding the facts of the matter is a criminal abuse of power that carries a 5-year jails sentence.

  8. Even a threat to arbitrarily take repayments from welfare payments if welfare recipients cannot prove Centrelink to be at fault within 21-days is a criminal violation of section 138 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995.)

AAT submission 1 Redacted

AAT submission 2 redactedAll of the matters of facts and the points of law mentioned above were in the Statement of facts & Issues that I submitted to the Mark Tange, an AAT Case Services officer on 21st February 2017.

  1. The 1st part of the submission was sent at 12.44PM on 21st February 2017.

  2. The 2nd part of the submission was emailed at 12.49PM on 21st February 2017.

  3. The next day, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government services lawyer representing the Department of Social Security, and by extension, the Turnbull Government and the Federal Parliament, sent a written “Without prejudice” offer to the person that, under section 32 of of the AAT Act (1975), I was (legally) representing.

  4. NOTE: Had Ms. Ulrick followed Due Process of Law, a copy of that “without Prejudice”  offer should have been sent to me so that I could advise the applicant on what options were available that were in his best interest.

‘Nole contendere – No Contest’

The offer made by Ms. Ulrick within a day of receiving my initial Statements of Facts and Issues was effectively a ‘Nole contendere – no contest’ admission that the statements submitted were legally valid

  1. I had accused the Turnbull Government of fraudulent abuse of power in its dealing with the welfare recipient that I was assisting as a volunteer REPRESENTATIVE under section 32 of the AAT Act.

  2. The following statement on page 3 of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report document was not contested and is therefore evidence that any person can use in any court or administrative appeal :

    “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.”

  3. Ms. Ulrick works in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services {DHS].

  4. It is therefore highly likely that she had the ability to test the above claim against information contained in the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, i.e. the ISIS computer system used by Centrelink and the DHS.

  5. The documents that I submitted submitted are legal documents that any person can use in their own legal case, be it a Centrelink “you owe us money’ claim,  or even in criminal cases, e.g. being charged with multiple counts of fraud or even multiple counts of murder!

  6. The outcome of AAT 2016/5334 is therefore a legal precedent,  for fighting Centrelink’s often criminal abuses of power that are openly manifested in criminally dangerous Breaching penalties, unconstitutional forced slave labour, i.e. Work for the Dole,  and ruthlessly depriving people of disability pensions and other welfare entitlements.

  7. The failure to report fatalities is understandable as, regardless of the actual Cause of death, the MANNER of Death is HOMICIDE.

COMPENSATION

At the beginning of this posting I placed this news article:

Backflip

Earlier this month, the South Australian Government tried to sneak legislation through the SA Parliament that was intended to exempt the South Australian Government from paying compensation to the victims of abuse in SA government child protection programs.

Even if the Weatherill Government had succeeded in sneaking this disgrace legislation through the Parliament, it is highly likely that the High Court would have dismissed it as “statutory fiction.”

In Section 14.7.3.2 of the Home Improvement Program Report, Commissioner Hanger addressed the issue of Risk in government programs. The recommendations are particularly relevant to the as yet unreported fatal impact of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties.

 14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED    [Emphasis added.]

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

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

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

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

Commissioner Hanger’s findings in 7.3.2 above are directly relevant to Senator Brandis almost dismissive comment about the “terrible human consequences” of the Turnbull Government’s unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, draconian use of a computerized debt recovery  using the dysfunctional ISIS computer system.

Australia’s “No Show, No Pay” penalties

genocide-law

  1. In Volume 2 of The Emcott Report, I pointed out that the above legislation was unconstitutional, a deliberate criminal act of Reckless Endangerment, with foreseeable potentially fatal consequences, i.e. if you deprive impoverished people of the means to survive, it is glaringly obvious that some of the victims WILL NOT SURVIVE

  2. No Show – No Pay penalties triggered fatalities are unreported, secretly classified as confidential,and dismissed as irrelevant”, e. they are officially ignored.

  3. Statute laws that involve reckless acts of endangerment that result in fatalities are criminal acts that are totally inconsistent with “good government’.

  4. It is my considered viewpoint. clearly stated many times in the documents submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal, that these deaths are violations of Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International criminal court, i.e. they are MURDER.

  5. Ms. Ulrick’s “no contendere – No contest’ action in seeking to end the legal action BEFORE I could read these documents into the hearing transcript, i.e. place them on public record, was a tacit admission that these deaths are murders, not only under international law, but also under state, territory and federal laws.

How Much Compensation?

How much compensation will victims of the Australia’s unconstitutional welfare bashing laws and mass media defamation receive in compensation is a key question?

The following examples may provide insight into that question:

Case Study#1: Raymond Akhtar Ali $3,000

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/convicted-baby-killer-to-keep-prison-food-compensation-20140604-zrxt7.html

  • Everyone is entitled to Justice, even Raymond Akhtar Ali who was convicted in 2000 of murdering his baby daughter in 1998. In August 2013, he was awarded $3,000 in compensation because, as a Muslim, he had been forced to eat non-Halal food.

Case Study #2: Hockey V Fairfax   $200,000

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2015/652.html

  • Joe Hockey scored a tidy $200,000 from Fairfax newspapers in June 2015 for the 3-word posting on Twitter:  “Treasurer for sale”

Case Study #3: Winifred Brennan $380,166.50.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWDDT/2001/2.html

On 2nd March 2001, the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded Mrs. Winifred Brennan $380,166,50 in compensation for having developed an asbestos related disease. Only $20,000 of that award was for loss of expected life. In view of the case study below, far higher payouts can be expected in 2017 and beyond.

Case Study #4 Ian Ward’s family $3.2 million

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/multimilliondollar-payout-to-mr-wards-family-after-prison-van-death-20100729-10x1l.html

  • In July 2010, the Western Australian Government made a $3,200,000 ‘Ex Gratis” compensation payment to the family of Ian Ward, an aboriginal elder who was “roasted to death” when being transported in the back of prison van that did not have a working air-conditioner.

Case Study #5: Dr. John Knight $4.3 million

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-07/surgeon-wins-big-payout-over-job-loss/4558290

The South Australian Government has agreed to pay a cardiac surgeon $4.3 million in compensation over loss in income and damage to his reputation.Professor John Knight was stood down by Flinders Medical Centre in 2009 during an investigation of an 81-year-old heart patient’s death.The surgeon later was cleared by the Coroner of any wrongdoing. But after a brief period of re-employment Professor Knight’s contract with the hospital was not renewed.

Opposition health spokesman Rob Lucas said it would cost taxpayers even more once legal costs were added. “This is a disgraceful example of incompetence and financial mismanagement by the South Australian Government and Health SA and ultimately the cost to taxpayers will be in excess of $6 million,” he said.

  1. The problem with Rob Lucas trying to score political points over Dr. Knight’s dismissal is that Breaching, Work for the Dole, No show – no pay penalties, and Malcolm Turnbull’s Digital Data Fiction Fraud {2D2F], aka “the Tudge Fudge Fraud, are all unconstitutional abuses of power, which raises the question of what is adequate compensation for victims of these crimes?

  2. Adding further complexity to the compensation is is the question of the [anything but] “irrelevant” death toll that Centrelink has never reported.

  3. The death of Ian Ward may have been negligent, but no-one ever claimed that it was “irrelevant.”

    Senate EWRE committee regards post-breaching fatalities as irrelevant.

    Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia’s already disadvantaged unemployed by making them even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a “job”. Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as “not relevant”. Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous dismissal of the unreported, secretly classified, post breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” was appropriate?

  4. No death caused by Federal laws, policies and practices is ever “irrelevant”.

Every politician and every political party that ever supported unconstitutional laws, policies and practices needs to held accountable for their decisions.

AAT 2016/5334 – ” A duces tecum subpoena”

The following statement was contained in the Statement of Facts & Issues submission in Volume 3 of the Emcott Report; it was not contested by the lawyer representing the Federal Government and any person seeking compensation can issue a duces tecum subpoena that would compel the Minister for Human Services to “produce the documents, i.e. the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues.

The problem for state, territory and federal prosecutors, and the national community in general,  is that any person charged with crimes such as fraud, recklessly  endangering life, manslaughter or murder, could also issue a duces tecum subpoena if they want to mount an apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias defence or an appeal of an existing conviction.

Ron Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate for Justice.

 

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

Part 42d. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Understanding how to use the AAT 2016/5334 appeal to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent claims.

AAT appeal decision 2016/5334 is a landmark decision but to use it to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent claims, you need to understand what is so important about this decision.

Point #1: Most of  Centrelink’s legal actions, [known as TORT ACTIONS or as TORTIOUS CONDUCT], to recover money or to deprive A PERSON of a welfare benefit are done in an unlawful manner. If you know the laws being broken, Centrelink officials can face serious jail time if they try to con you AND YOU FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE. [No complaint – no charge – no conviction.]

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

AAT 2016/5334 in the nutshell

The High Court’s Hellicar decision on May 3rd 2012 stated that if regulatory authorities, e.g. Centrelink bureaucrats, decided that they could make legal decisions and impose financial penalties, THEY WERE WRONG because:

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

In addition, if Centrelink says that you have been overpaid, the person [not Centrelink’s computer system] making that claim has to meet ALL OF the following legal criteria:

  1. Be appropriately Authorized to  claim that you have been overpaid; almost all Centrelink staff assume that they are authorized to do so, but, IN LAW, only people who comply with the following criteria can make valid claims

  2. People must be appropriately qualified to make that financial (or medical) claim, e.g. they have to be a qualified Auditor or a doctor, et cetera.

  3. Appropriately certified to make that claim, e.g. you may be able to drive a car but you cannot do so legally without a current license; Centrelink Auditors must have current professional certification.

  4. The whole process must be done in accordance with Due Process of Law, e.g. Centrelink’s dysfunctional computer may produce data that indicates that you have been overpaid but, thanks to the AAT 2016/5334  Statement of Facts & Issues, this computer system has a undisputed, unchallenged [Nolo contendere]  44.03% ERROR RATE

  5. The lawyer representing the DSS did not disputemy 44.03% error claim, which was in the applicant’s Statement of Facts & Issues.

  6. Consequently, Centrelink is now stuck with a defacto admission that its computer system is extremely inaccurate and its output is unreliable evidence that “lacks integrity”.

  7. That 44.03% error rate means that until a qualified, currently certified Auditor double-checks  data outputs for validity and accuracy, any demand from Centrelink for information withing 21 days is, IN LAW, an unlawful “fishing expedition”, A BLUFF!

  8. IN LAW, any “fishing expedition” for information is about seeking information when there are no legally valid grounds for doing so.

  9. Any request for information requires “Reasonable Grounds” that indicate a “Reasonable Probability” that the request is justified.

  10. If There are no “reasonable grounds” to lawfully justify a request for information, the request can lawfully be rejected as an Abuse of Power “fishing expedition”.

  11. The best way to do this is respond by requesting the “reasonable grounds” for the request for information, the name of the person making the request, and their current qualifications and current certification for making that request.

“THE LAW SAYS WE CAN” IS NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR A ‘FISHING EXPEDITION’.

Paragraph 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with public servants who abuse laws and cause detrimental harm to members of the public. When Centrelink staff use “the law says we can” excuse, you can point out that if they are not qualified and certified and have no “reasonable grounds” to make a “law say we can” demand, then they are facing a 5-year jail sentence.

THE HELLICAR DECISION ABSOLUTELY NUKED CENTRELINK.

 If Centrelink claims that a person is at fault, e.g. allegedly overpaid or in breach of supposed ‘Mutual Obligations’; If that person says “NO, Centrelink has made a mistake, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes a matter for the courts BEFORE Centrelink can lawfully take any action.

  1. AAT 2016/5334 – Statement of Facts & Issues, page 3, “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…”

  2. In the official 2016/5334 Statement of facts & Issues documents that I filed on behalf of a welfare recipient, I made a claim that the Turnbull Government could either fight or not fight:

  3. Forcing people to comply with unconstitutional demands also violates this criminal code; management or ministerial statements that encourage this illegal conduct violate section 12.3 of the code.

  4. Deliberately “skipping the court” is a criminal offence that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. [5-year sentence.]

  5. To save both time and the cost of a court decision, with the knowledge and approval of the Federal Government, Centrelink officials unlawfully “skip the court” and make arbitrary decisions that are, in law, “no decision at all.”

  6. TAKE NOTE: It costs Centrelink an average of $25,000 to get a court decision as to what are the ‘primary facts of the matter’ BEFORE a legally valid decision can be made by a Centrelink official.

  7. In law, Centrelink must first prove to a court that it’s claim is legally valid, a tough task because of extremely serious systemic problems within Centrelink, some of which are detailed in the Statement of Facts & Issues: – SEE PART 40 for a redacted copy of some of the problems that inval;idate Centrelink’s fraudulent scams.

In the video at the internet link below, Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unwittingly argue over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.

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

Both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek had wrongly assumed that no-one in Australia who cared about what they were doing knew about the Hellicar, Bhardwaj and   Coco decisions.

In the High Court’s Coco decision [HCA 15] on 15th April 1994, in paragraph 8 the court ruled that:

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

In paragraph 9, the High Court then said: .” 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.”

The High Court also stated in the same paragraph: “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.

UNLESS, AND UNTIL, CENTRELINK PROVES TO A COURT THAT YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERROR THAT CAUSED ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENTS, CENTRELINK’S DECISIONS ARE, IN LAW, NO DECISION AT ALL.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HIGH COURT SAID IN MARCH 2002 IN THE BHARDWAJ DECISION:

“…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.”

When Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen make statements indicating that they have the “right” to force you to repay alleged overpayments if you cannot prove that Centrelink made a mistake within 21-day, they are making criminally fraudulent statements.

HELLICAR YET AGAIN:

The Hellicar decision can be read at:

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

Here are the exact words from paragraphs 141, 142 and 143 of the Hellicar decision; pay close attention to the words that are in italic print” and ignore the boxed [reference numbers.]

  1. The Court of Appeal recorded[128] 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[129], however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said[130]:

“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[131]. And insofar as the duty was said[132] 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.

 

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”[133]. 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”[134]. 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.

I REPEAT:

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

No Court decision as to the facts of the matter, then, in law, no decision at all.

It really is that simple,

Ron Medlicott – A Christian volunter lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

 

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