Source: https://yadnarie48.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/part-20-australias-irrelevant-crimes-against-humanity-another-email-to-queenlsands-justice-minister-yvette-darth-with-yet-another-example-of-centrelinks-waivergate-rip-off/
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 08:11:03
Document Index: 218527922

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 20', 'art 19', 'art 21', 'art 20', 'art 19', 'art 41', 'art 41', 'art 40', 'art 40', 'art 40']

Part 20: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Another email to Queensland’s Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, with yet another example of Centrelink’s Waivergate rip-off. | Ronald's space
← Part 19: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Another email to the Queensland Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth re the wisdom of a High Court Challenge to the Baden-Clay decision.
Part 21: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Once more the Federal Police are asked to investigate these crimes. →
Part 20: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Another email to Queensland’s Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, with yet another example of Centrelink’s Waivergate rip-off.	Posted on February 21, 2016	by yadnarie48 Below is another email to the Queensland Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, with details of another victim of Centrelink’s civil rights violating “Account payable” scam. I strong recommend that readers check out the ABC’s AM program web link below for details of how Centrelink tried to defraud a woman of $25,000 by falsely accusing her of failing to provide information when in point of fact a human error, i.e. a “Commonwealth error” had occurred and the Waiver of Debt rule in paragraph 1,237 (A) of the Social Security Act should have been applied. [Note: The short link URL for this website is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-td ]
Keep in mind that the civil rights issue is simple; Centrelink has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, and therefore no legal right, to issue demands for repayment until a court has independently and impartially determined “the primary facts of the matter.” Consequently, anyone who gets hit with a demand for repayments should immediately ask “When did a court decide that I was to blame for the over-payments and why didn’t the court ask for my input?” REMEMBER: If there is no court decision, then there is no legally valid claim.
Okay, below is my email to Yvette D`Arth:
Dear Minister D`Arth, In case you think that the information that I am providing to you is a load of bunkum, check out this ABC AM web link from 6th February 2016. Complaints against Centrelink soar, Govt blames IT can be found at the following web link.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4401576.htm
I would draw your attention to the following comments on that ABC webpage:
MEREDITH WARD: I received a phone call from somebody from Centrelink just saying, “You owe us $25,000.”
ANGELA LAVOIPIERRE: Centrelink staff had made a mistake in registering her income four years prior, recording a zero instead of what she declared.
Having discovered the error, Centrelink investigated Ms Ward – and then confronted her.
MEREDITH WARD: It was an attack, basically, on my integrity because at first, with the first phone call I thought, you know, “Am I up for criminal charges? Am I going to be- Am I going to go to jail?” You know, “Is this… you know, what’s going to happen?”
ANGELA LAVOIPIERRE: With the help of a free community legal service, she won a lengthy appeals process to clear the debt.
But the problems haven’t stopped there for her, or thousands of others.
AM can reveal there were 3,896 complaints about Centrelink to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the second half of last year.
Conveniently omitted in Centrelink being forced to finally acknowledge this traumatizing ‘Commonwealth error’ is the no so minor detail that the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions invalidate Centrelink’s practice of automatically blaming welfare recipients for overpayments and rudely demanding repayments. It is standard operating procedure and it is also a criminal abuse of civil rights for financial gain. Note that where Centrelink refuses to acknowledge fault and welfare recipients are forced to repay thousands of dollars, Centrelink does NOT refund monies claimed even though it is legally a “Commonwealth error.” The civil rights reality, as set out in 141 and 143 of the ASIV v Hellicar decision (HCA 17) on May 3rd 2012 is the constitutional fact of law that regulatory authorities cannot determine the “primary facts of the matter” in legal disputes in which they may be involved because it is a matter for the courts to do this. Like Tracie Mitchell in NSW, Meredith Ward fought back and obtained justice. Your problem, is that this abuse of power kills people, and some have been Queenslanders.
Consequently, Gerard Baden-Clay may be able to ‘wipe-the-floor’ with the QLD DPP appeal and may even eventually have the conviction overturned if he opts to use the thousands of pages of data/evidence that I can provide to him.
Homicide by heart disease (See also Serve and protect below)
Centrelink’s fraudulent torts or breaching can easily kill a person but producing a fatal emotional shock, a textbook scenario that violates s 295, s296,s297, s 302(4) when the death of person is hastened by criminal misconduct, such as the deliberate abuse of the civil rights of an at-risk individual, or worse, the deliberate violation of the civil rights of a large group of individuals, with the result that there are a number of potentially fatal or fatal cardio-vascular ‘events.
Aortic Valvular Stenosis (AVS) is a thickening of the muscle wall in one or more of the heart’s pumping chambers. This can easily be caused by s throat infection, e.g. a Strep’ infection that develops into Rheumatic Fever. It is a matter of medical fact that any person who has ever had Rheumatic Fever is potentially at risk of AVS which produces medical symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, or heart palpitations. Unless a doctor tests for AVS, a person may never know that they are at risk of death from cardiac arrest due to AVS which could have been triggered by the acute emotional stress caused by recklessly dangerous, criminal misconduct by Centrelink officials. Either Breaching, which is a crime against humanity because it violates the basic human right to what may be the only assured source of subsistence, or alternately, Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” scam which by-passes the courts, can trigger such an emotional stun that it triggers heart failure and results in the death of the victim of this criminal misconduct.
Another easily foreseen danger posed by traumatizing people with unlawful, civil rights violating tort actions is the problem of undiagnosed circulatory problems, e.g. MSSCH, i.e. Massive Spontaneous Subarachnoid Cerebral Haemorrhage.
This medical problem can cause death within moments as can a similar problem known as OAS, i.e. Abdominal Aortic Stroke. The sudden traumatizing of vulnerable individuals can place a person under such duress that they are emotional overwhelmed and stupefied and the resulting hypertensive event proves fatal.
As pointed in a previous communication, welfare recipients are top of the list for suicides and high on the list for causes of death due to heart failure or stroke. The role played the DHS/DSS in ‘fast-tracking’ the recovery of over-payments to welfare recipients by violating the civil rights of welfare recipients may be the single most common cause of both suicides and deaths by heart attacks. The statistical data is in the state and territory coroner’s courts databases and the New Year’s day “Account payable” rip-off of 73,000 people may have triggered a ‘glitch’ or a ‘blip’ in the statistics that will be evident once the statistical data on causes of death is published. In the meantime, police or investigators working for insurance companies or defence lawyers should be looking very closely at the available data. Unfortunately, the track record of police forces across the nation is not good when it comes to addressing systemic abuses of vulnerable people, a point underscored by the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children, e.g. the findings in Interim Report #9, the HIP disaster report, and the Bundaberg Hospital massacre being just a few horrific examples of how those who duty is to serve and protect the public failed to do so.
The farce of “Serve and protect” is highlighted by the failure of the Federal Police to uphold the law when dealing with people who appear to have been regarded as “life unworthy of life.”
In 1979 the original mandate or charter of the Australian Federal Police was basically to serve and protect the Australian public. However, as both Federal Agent Denley’s letter dated 7th July 2004 and Federal Agent Pearce’s email on 14th September 2009 make quite clear, over the last 25 years that mandate has morphed into something else. Protecting politicians from the public appears to have become a more important priority so as to provide them with immunity from prosecution when caught out breaking the law, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop and the disgraceful “Chopper-gate” scandal which the AFP have failed to investigate despite what appears to be numerous “physical acts of omission” violation of 4.6.5 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund rules that indicate that Ms. Bishop was in violation of s 134 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Such blatantly biased and unlawful abuse of statutory powers by the AFP is totally unacceptable for it involves Broad Ultra Vires decision-making by senior AFP officers.
Even worse, the AFP appears to have morphed into a vigilante organization:
The slaughter of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran on 29th April 2015 is further empirical evidence that the Federal Police have abandoned their original mandate. The action of Federal Agent Phelan in passing on information to the Indonesian police was inconsistent with the provisions contained in s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), e.g. 115.1 – Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia
(a) the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and
(b) the conduct causes the death of another person; and the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and
(d) the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.
(2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).
(d) the first‑mentioned person is reckless as to causing serious harm to the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.
It is my belief that all of the provisions contained in s 115 should be evaluated when considering the conduct of Federal Agent Phelan and his team in regard to the information provided to the Indonesian Police why ultimate resulted in the executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Ditto to the repeated refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the deaths of welfare recipients caused by the unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” deaths of welfare recipients, either from Breaching or from the fraudulent “Account payable” Waivergate rip-offs.
I would again remind you that if you fail to conduct an inquiry into the deaths caused by the civil rights violating Breaching legislation and the civil rights violating “Account payable” frauds that have occurred in Queensland then you will be obstructing justice, a crime that violates s 132 of the Queensland crimes Act:
132 Conspiring to defeat justice
(1) Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent,
pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.
(3) A prosecution for an offence defined in this section shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General.
Clearly s 132 (3) above would create a serious conflict of interest given your official position.
In addition, s 133 of the Queensland Crimes Act may also be relevant if you fail to either pass this email to Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal representative.
133 Compounding an indictable offence
(1) Any person who asks for, receives, or obtains, or agrees or
attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself, herself or any other person, upon any agreement or understanding that the person will compound or conceal an indictable offence, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay, a prosecution for an indictable offence,
or will withhold any evidence thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence.
(2) If the indictable offence is such that a person convicted of it is
liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
(3) In any other case the offender is guilty of a misdemeanour,
and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
(4) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.
In addition to being the Justice Minister, you are also a member of the Australian Labour Party, hereafter the ALP. You are a thus a member of a political party in which members who were or currently are Members of the House of Representatives or senators, have violated the civil rights of vulnerable Australian residents and in doing so have caused and concealed fatalities that may have been triggered by those violations of civil rights.
To say that you have a serious conflict of interest is a gross understatement.
Unless you make available the contact details for Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal representative, I shall have no option but to forward this email to the Clerk of the Court for the High Court and request that this email be further forwarded to the legal representative of Gerard Baden-Clay.
My legal authority to do this is found in the provision in paragraph 5 of the constitution that states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges and the people.” This is actually a very empowering provision in the constitution for ordinary people like myself. If all people, which includes myself, have a constitutional obligation to obey the law, then we have a responsibility to ensure that the courts and judges also comply with this provision, i.e. to act as a ‘Good Samaritan’ in ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.
The legal determination of Gerard Baden-Clay’s actions in regard to the death of his wife is a matter for the courts and, regardless of the emotional response of a vocal minority in Queensland who are outraged at the downgrading of his conviction from murder to manslaughter, ensuring that he receives justice is an obligation upon everyone, including both you and I. Consequently, if you opt for politically expediency to withhold information from Gerard Baden-Clay by not passing on the information that I am providing to you, then you must accept both the political and legal accountability for your actions.
I would remind you that all breaching triggered deaths in Queensland that are unreported by government officials, including politicians, public servants, Crown Law officers, the mass media or members of the public, are homicides:
300 Unlawful homicide
Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime, which is called murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case.
302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other
person some grievous bodily harm;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender
may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder.
(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
The statement in s 302 (4) above that “it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result” cannot be applied to Breaching triggered fatalities.
Please note warning in the appended Centrelink letter dated 11th December 2015 which I downloaded from the MyGov website on 16th December 2016. This letter contains a blackmail threat that, just for starters, violates s 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act, i.e.
A Centrelink form letter that violates South Australia’s criminal laws.
“If you do not contact us by 15 January 2016, your payment(s) may be stopped.”
That is a clearly worded, easily understood threat to deprive me of my constitutional right to an age pension if I do not contact Centrelink by that date. The justification for this blackmail threat? My wife had obtained a casual job over the Christmas season and had filed a tax form with her employer which had been lodged with the Australian Tax Office. The purpose of my contacting Centrelink was so that Centrelink could arbitrarily record a phone call advising me that my wife needed to report income earned. Had Centrelink bothered to check their ISIS computer system records, they would have discovered that my wife’s earnings in the previous two reporting periods when she had been working had been reported. Rather than check my wife’s file, I was threatened with having my sole source of subsistence withdrawn if I did not contact Centrelink on a contact number where “For security, this call will be recorded.”
This threat also violates the human rights obligations set out in Article 1 (2) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, hereafter the ICCPR. This convention is found in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act (1986), i.e. a federal law.
You need to come to grips with the legal reality that when it comes to the federal crime of Abuse of Power as set out in s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), our parliamentary peers in the Federal Parliament have been “putting the pedal to the metal”. The situation is now so out of control that the Federal Parliament and a number of federal government agencies are “red-lining the tacho” when it comes to abuses of power.
At best, I can only estimate the cumulative death toll caused by Breaching and Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” rip-offs. I believe that the death toll may fall within the range of 15,000 – 60,000 from all causes, i.e. suicide, misadventure, and hastening of death through ‘natural causes’ such a heart attacks and strokes, exposure, or fatal asthma attacks caused because Breached people had no means of meeting “their basic costs of living” which just happened to include the need to buy asthma medications needed to sustain life in the event of an asthma attack. Even 1/100 of that death toll, an absolutely unrealistically low figure configuring the degree of risk and huge numbers of people involved, would be 150 – 600 fatalities.
Even that is still an appalling figure
Fouled Up Beyond Any Recovery
FUBAR – yielding to intense emotional public pressure instead of upholding the Queensland Appellate Court’s impartial decision to downgrade Gerard Baden-Clay’s to manslaughter makes sense from a political viewpoint. However, from a legal perspective it was extremely foolish, especially given the information that I sent to your electorate office in December 2015. The law applies 24/7/365 and as the Justice Minister, you need to be on-the-ball 24/7/365. Justice in Queensland, and indeed all over Australia, took a long-weekend break over the new year period and this provided an opportunity for the Waivergate rip-off to target 73,000 people.
When you and your staff took a long-weekend break, you left Queensland’s vulnerable citizens fair game for bureaucratic predators. Therefore my consistent mantra is how many died?
Even one fatality is one too many.
Concatenated below is an email to Playford Baptist Church containing 2 reported that were tabled to the church members on 29th November 2015. Take note of the content of the Social Justice report; the pastor, Rev. Denis Hillson, asked members to report instances where Centrelink abused its power to me.
The decades of the DHS/Centrelink criminally abusing the civil rights of vulnerable people are coming to an end. Once I get these issues into court, either via Baden-Clay or via someone else who is facing criminal charges, or even by filing a criminal complaint against Centrelink for the appended letter, Centrelink’s unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” death toll will be exposed to the courts and quite likely, the federal ALP will face bankruptcy at the very least.
The Emcott Report is again appended as it is my intention to forward this email to numerous people and organizations who may be able to use the information in this communication.
This is a 328 page report that is still being edited. it identifies politicians, public servants and police officers involved in hiding the death toll caused by both Breaching and Centrelink’s “Waivergate” rip-off. It also looks at other deaths caused by lousy decision making by politicians, bureaucrats and police.
Please note the “Proceed to trial” WAV file. Legally recorded during an AAT Directions hearing, the Crown Law lawyer makes specific reference to the case proceeding “to trial on that date.” Given that the AAT has no legal jurisdiction to hold trials, the failure of the presiding AAT to then inform me of this critical fact is in itself a serious procedural fairness violation that that invalidated the government’s case but this was ignored by Ombudsman’s Officials who even hid my appeal submission for a week. The criminal abuses of power are mind boggling, as is the lethal harm done. However, the body of evidence of this criminal abuse of power is now at the stage where the focus can switch to accountability.
As stated above, if you do not pass on this information to Gerard Baden-Clay, you could face serious criminal charges in relation to both the fraud and the fatalities that have occurred as a consequence of the violation of the civil rights of millions of very vulnerable people.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.
Below is a printout of the email to Playford Baptist Church’s office which was posted in the Quarterly Reports to Members, a public document, which was tabled and accepted on 29th November 2015. From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2015 6:25 PM
To: ‘Playford Baptist Church’ <office@playfordbaptist.org.au>
Subject: Multi-media and social justice reports
Multi-Media Report.
It is likely that in the next 2 – 4 months the multi-media computer will be upgraded to Windows 10. As the current Easy Worship 2009 presentation software is incompatible with this operating system, it will be necessary to upgrade to the newest version, Easy Worship 6.
This version is already installed on the computer but, ironically, it does not work well with Windows 7 with users around the world reporting minor reliability problems caused by Windows 7 drivers. Once Windows 10 is installed, updating of presentation skills may be required and I have therefore decided to defer a proposed multi-media presentation training course until that time. I shall provide details of this training in the church newsletter at the appropriate time.
Ron Medlicott – Multi-media Coordinator.
Social Justice Report.
With a major regional hospital and an average of 1 doctor for every 1,000 people serving our community, we take medical services for granted. However, in many countries, doctors and medical services are rare. At the moment, John and Lorraine Foote are in Papua-New Guinea providing much needed medical services to indigenous people in an isolated area. Communications from John and Looraine via email indicate that they are fulfilling a vital role at this time, a timely reminder that individuals can make a big difference in the lives of others when they respond to God’s call to be of service in time of need.
Locally, we live in a community where a very a significant proportion of people subsist on a welfare allowance. Sometimes, errors in payments can occur and the government attempts to recover these overpayments in a manner that is inconsistent with its legal obligations and due process of law and this is an area where anyone in this church may be able to help individuals, some of whom may be asked to repay thousands of dollars that they do not have.
Paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act contains a “Waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error” provision that requires that if the overpayments were caused by a mistake made by Centrelink, then that agency has just 6 weeks to discover and rectify the error. After that period, the entire overpayment “debt” must be waived. However, with some $4 Billion in overpayments since the start of the century, successive governments have been keen to recover as much of this money as possible and people who do not have to repay this “debt” have been asked to repay it. If you know someone in this situation, you can inform them of the waiver of debt law and the following High Court decision.
The High Court’s decision, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 was handed down on May 3rd 2012. Paragraph 143 of this decision states:
“The proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory authority relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require that regulatory agency to make some final judgement about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”
“…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.”
This little known High Court decision, based upon a 1912 decision (Melbourne Steamship Co) and more recent High Court decisions in 1985 (Kioa) and 2002 (Bhardwaj, means is that whilst Centrelink auditors can determine that overpayments may have occurred, they do not have the constitutional or legal authority to make any ruling or determination as to who was responsible for the error that caused the overpayments because it is a matter for a court, not Centrelink officials to make this legal decision.
Unfortunately, when seeking to recover alleged overpayments, at the moment with $4 Billion in overpayments having been made, it is very much a case of this ruling being honoured more in the breach than the observance. Therefore, if you hear of someone who has received a Centrelink letter of demand, i.e. an “Account payable” bill from Centrelink which asks them to repay the alleged debt within a week, you may be able to help in this situation by advising them of the waiver of debt rule and the Hellicar Decision.
Ron Medlicott – Social Justice Coordinator.
Final Comment in this posting:
The implication for politicians is that violating the civil rights of welfare recipients and then concealing the consequences is going to far harder to do in the future as more people become aware of their civil rights. Sooner or later, those politicians and bureaucrats who mistakenly believe that it is their “right” to commit these crimes are going to be held accountable. Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later, because of the very dangerous, very traumatic hardships imposed upon very fragile, very vulnerable people.
This entry was posted in News and politics, Uncategorized and tagged abc am, abuse of pwer, am 6 February 2016, angela lavoiprerre, Centrelink, city of playford, complaints against centrelink soar, gerard baden-clay, meredith ward, playford baptist church, tracie mitchell, waivergate, yvette d`arth. Bookmark the permalink.	← Part 19: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Another email to the Queensland Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth re the wisdom of a High Court Challenge to the Baden-Clay decision.
Recent Posts	Part 41(B) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. An even bigger “Elephant in the room” was Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek arguing for credit over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.
Part 41: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. The Elephant in the Room is the unreported fatalities.
Part 40 (I) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. More on the Centrelink order to a parent to disown their child.
Part 40 (H) Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Centrelink ordered a parent to disown their child and cancelled the Family Tax Benefit payments when the parent refused.
Part 40(G) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. Still more state and territory criminal laws that Centrelink’s staff are not not to violate.
Categories	crimes against humanity
WordPress.com	Blog Stats	41,627 hits