Source: https://yadnarie48.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/part-28-australias-irrelevant-crimes-against-humanity-the-high-courts-keating-decision-and-the-refusal-of-the-federal-police-to-investigate-politicians/
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 09:44:12
Document Index: 237666701

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 28', 'art 29', 'art 28', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3']

Part 28: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity: The High Court’s Keating Decision and the refusal of the Federal Police to investigate politicians | Ronald's space
← Australia’s other “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The Chilcot Report on the unauthortized invasion of Iraq.
Part 29: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Social Justice Issues for Australian Christians. →
Part 28: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity: The High Court’s Keating Decision and the refusal of the Federal Police to investigate politicians	Posted on July 31, 2016	by yadnarie48 The refusal of the Australian Federal Police to investigate federal politicians who may have committed crimes against humanity, or simply ripped us taxpayers off, looks extremely ‘suss’ when compared with The High Court’s Keating Decision. Check this out and pay special attention to the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 4.
[NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-AQ ]
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20
8 May 2013 M5/2013 [Check it out at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/20.html ]
The questions in the stated case dated 19 December 2012 be answered as follows:
Question 1: Does section 66A of the Administration Act create a duty, from 20 March 2000, for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to inform the Department of the occurrence of an event or a change of circumstances as required by section 66A of the Administration Act amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?
Answer: No. Question 2″ If yes to Question 1, is section 66A of the Administration Act invalid, insofar as it has retrospective effect, because it infringes the separation of judicial and legislative powers mandated by the Constitution?
Answer: Does not arise. Question 3: Did the notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, or any of them, create a duty for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?
Answer: The notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, were, in each case, capable of creating a duty for the purposes of s 4.3(b) of the Code such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to “engaging in conduct” for the purposes of s 135.2(1)(a) of the Code.
In Question 1, the High Court booted out a retrospective law dating back to March 20, 2000 that was intended to validate some 15,000 convictions fro a non-existent crime. Having accidentally wiped it off the books, on August 4th 2011, the Australian Federal parliament tried to “fix” this problem by backdating the law 11 years. The High Court judges turfed out the retro’ law with this statement in paragraph 46 of their findings:
On the Director’s construction, s 66A creates a statutory fiction[32] with the effect of attaching criminal liability to the defendant for her failure to advise the Department of an event within 14 days of its occurrence. This is so notwithstanding that at the time of the failure she was not required by law to inform the Department of the event (putting to one side receipt of any information notice) and that the duty is incapable of discharge.
The retro law passed by the Gillard Government, with the support of the Liberal-national Coalition was a “statutory fiction”, i.e. it was not legally valid, and so the High Court squashed it.
The answer in Question 4 is extremely interesting because the High Court ruled that “acts of omission”, i.e. no doing something when you should, are a crime under section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The refusal of the AFP to apply s. 4.3 (b) and s. 135. (2) (1) (a) to rorting federal politicians is a case of extremely partisan [ostensible] bias. Federal Agent Pearce’s letter of 7th July 2004 and Federal Agent Pearce’s email of 14 September 2009, are valid grounds for an appeal on the basis of Apprehended Bias and Manifest Ostensible Bias. Perksgate unrestricted: The Federal Police response to Trish Draper’s apparent violation of section 135 (2) (1) (a) is absolutely astounding, for it is has apparently been Standard Operating Procedure for many years now.
It is my belief that the principle of “Equality before the Law” means that the refusal; of the Federal Police to investigate rorting by politicians, or the Crimes against humanity implicit in the Howard Goverment’s illegal enforcement of “Performance Indicator Targets” creates BIAS in Australia’s JUSTICE SYSTEM. It is also my belief that this BIAS undermines criminal prosecutions because anyone charged with a criminal offence can legitimately claim to have been treated to have been treated differently from politicians These are views that I am presenting to both DDP lawyers and criminal law defence lawyers and it only takes 1 successful appeal and the members of parliament involved in the 2007 “Perksgate” rip-off that was the basis of ANAO Report #3 in 2009, could face fraud charges as could all other politicians who made the “mistake” of rorting the parliamentary entitlements fund, e.g. Tony Abbott, who spent $9,400 of taxpayers money promoting his book “Battlelines.” Like Trish Draper, at this point in time, all politicians have to do is claim “I made a mistake” and repay the money and they are not prosecuted.
With the unreported Breachgate and Waivergate death toll possibly close to, or even over the 100,000 mark, the bias of the Federal Police is absolutely staggering. Please check out these videos if you have not seen them yet:
Chilcot Report Issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_kltEXaNcY
Waivergate – Part 1: https://youtube.be/YEfQ7PuBz60
Waivergate – Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I
Waivergate – Part 3: https://youtu.be/ktBNxr7iY7E
BURN NOTICE:The others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0
The Federal Government, relying on Centrelink’s computer system, has been sending letters to people who have been dead for 20 years or more.
Complaints against Centrelink rise
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-08/centrelink-complaints-continue-to-rise/7148618
These complains should rise, given that Centrelink has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO IS TO BLAME IN ITS TORT ACTIONS WHEN PEOPLE ARE OVERPAID.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/20.html
This entry was posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights and tagged afp, Centrelink, crimes against humanity, felony murder, fraud, high court, murder, perksgate, quotagate, Tony Abbott, waivergate. Bookmark the permalink.	← Australia’s other “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity: The Chilcot Report on the unauthortized invasion of Iraq.