top of page

FRANCIS v COLE Direct Bias

2018-04-20 Janette Right Eye Vibration B

When a physician files a photo of a genetically normal hand claiming its a foot, thereafter the Judge agrees the hand is a foot because a physician filed it, despite that its obviously a hand.   That's this direct bias simplified.

In my personal unbiased opinion: Considering the matter placed before the civil court included “serious medical crimes” with a distinct Nazi style and that according to the internet the name Bochner” is a traditional Jewish name, in my mind that makes this Judge Bochner decision distinctively repulsive.

Card 2012 Terrorist Crime AU Politicians
Card JOIN MRI x2 Elon Musk NAZI styled B


Proving also the major CONSUMER LAW fatal flaw & constitutional breach in State and Federal Court “Rules of the Court” is the interlocutory application that's allowed to be filed by defendants BEFORE they file any defence at all, seeking to dismiss an original application to the court on the grounds the defendants claim are co case to answer - which is the purpose of the defence. Like the child with chocolate around their mouth and in their teeth insisting they ate no chocolate; Lawyers for first defendant (GP) Alison Barbara Jane COLE & second defendant GPAXIS PTY LTD filed affidavit evidence they say proves they'd done no wrong. Their affidavit attachments proved multiple obvious and visual misdiagnoses (or wilfully false & criminally defamatory diagnosos) they claim were proper. The JUDGE dismissed my application based on claim by defendant's that I had no evidence to prove my claims, which was an obvious DIRECT BIAS. In other areas of (criminal) law it may be termed "corruption" or "an act of terrorism".

The principle that anyone must be able freely to apply to the Courts was explained by Lord Wilberforce in Raymond v Honey, who said:

“any act done which is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice, or the lawful process of the Courts, is a contempt of court.”


Card Finlaysons Ralph Boing Professional

Setting aside any inferred allegation of corrupt conduct by the Judge as this paper is not about the judge its about Mr Bonig's conduct.

Flushed Australia Flushed Down
Card Gpaxis Alison Barbara Jane COLE exp
Nick Hadjisavva Letter to Cole.png
2011 Bruce Lander ICAC Health Crimne Rep

In primary school, did you ever play "What's the time Mr Wolf?" 

The "Mr Wolf" in that child's game is basically the representation of the people in Government who have slowly but surely crept up on us with laws that block all access to our legal rights.  

The large complaint on this page in black complies with an official complaint to the South Australian organisation tasked to hear complaints about lawyers.

In reality “protection” under the written Australian law is a “privilege” not a right.


Like the South Australia, 55 Currie Street Adelaide staff behind the shield wall protected by an armed security guard, who refused to forward my complaint to the Commissioner, in the ICAC office not the Federal Police office, independent complaint's groups in Australia are only “independent” by name. Its like the Local Government Act, its about a “Government” by name only as there is no thing that is a “Local Government”. Its like the registered business “Cheap Domains” or “Lucky Cat Chocolates” its all smoke and mirrors.


There's nothing we can do about Australia's falsely alleged "independent" groups who claim to help us when government staff become "radicalised" because they're activities are not a "consumer translation" they're not protected under Australian Consumer Law, section 18 Misleading or Deceptive Conduct.


There's little to nothing we can do to stop their misleading or deceptive or unconscionable conduct by their spreading of (fake news) propaganda and false hope to secure your access to your legal rights that you really don't have until you ask for it in a time hungry application to any Australian Court where they they can refuse you if they want to forcing you to have to ask another Court in an time hungry appeal process that can equally be refused.


Look at

The emphasis in their website is on is on "aim" and "monitor" they don't actually do anything for any individual who isn't in political favour with someone. Lip service NSW Council for Civil Liberties operate "for" the government their very name makes it look like there's an independent origination when they are merely a puffed up body of invisible hot air the news media go to for "fake care" comments.


"NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) was founded in 1963 with the aim of protecting the rights and liberties of persons in Australia and its Territories. It is now one of Australia's leading human rights and civil liberties organisations." and


"Concerned about your civil liberties? NSW Council for Civil Liberties ... "Our focus as an organisation is as an advocacy body. We undertake advocacy in the media and engage with government about civil liberties issues, but we do not undertake advocacy for individual complaints. To this end, we keep a record of civil liberties issues we receive from our members and the general public so we can monitor current and emerging civil liberties concerns in NSW. If you would like to advise us of an issue to add to our log, please email -"

After I'd publicly complained about NSWCCL doing nothing, from out of the blue. This lot "Australian Civil Liberties Union" popped up, they want a $20 membership. Despite the national inference the "contact" was the president of the Victoria's equivalent of the NSW ones and is still in VIC. Lets see the list of people they've successfully assisted to access their legal right. Bet if any its a long list of asylum seekers.

They do the same as the NSW lot. I did a Google search, found this complaint about statute indicating its a political organisation. If someone doesn't like a statute your only option for change is to apply to the High Court on the grounds of reference to the Australian Constitution, not write the to body empowered by the statute to enforce the statute.

Despite the risk of repeating myself like a broken record; at the completion of my appointment with the State Legal Services Commission in Adelaide where they exactingly documented and electronically recorded my situation with COLE and my unlawfully rejected application to the highest State court, Adelaide Supreme Court, I was informed they're only funded to assist in matters for Family Court (federal) and Magistrates Court (State); despite being jointly funded by State and Federal Government, to the tune of millions of dollars.


So you see the reality is that the block on our access to our rights under Australian law is completely premeditated and absolutely 100% unconstitutional. I may be able to get it into High Court in Canberra, that all depends of the whim of the registry staff.


However In the interim the “party faithful” spend their time criminally defaming me for the “political cause” with the assistance of State and Federal police who are illegally “turning a blind eye”. As I'm not in a detention centre and its not in the interests of the political party to appear to be following the law, there's no one who'll stand beside me as the majority of the human species are (Stanley Milgram confirmed) self obsessed psychopaths who couldn't give a damn and the rest are too scared to poke their head up in fear they'll be the next target.


Welcome to Australia don't forget to pay your goods and services tax at your local supermarket whose doubling as an agency for the police during “these trying times”.



In the summary of (my) complaint:

  1.  Please say when the conduct of you are complaining about occurred

  2.  If the conduct you are complaining about occurred more than three years ago, please explain the reasons for the delay in making the complaint

  3.  Please tell us about the events that led to your complaint

  4.  Please say what the lawyer did or did not do

  5.  If there are witnesses who can provide independent information that will help us deal with your complaint, please provide their names and full contact details and say why you think they could help


Respondent:  Mr Ralph Bonig (left),

  • Special counsel for Finlaysons Lawyers.

  • 2010 president of The Law Society of South Australia, (LSSA.)

  • 2018 reciprocate of LSSA 'Brian Withers Award' allegedly, “The award is presented to a member of the LSSA who has provided outstanding service to the Society, it's members and the profession above and beyond the call of duty.”

  1. The matter occurred about 26 June 2019 to 30 October 2019 inclusive.

  2. Point “2)” above not applicable.

  3. The case, Francis v Cole & ANOR [2019] SASC 179. Mr Bonig was engaged by Finlaysons to represent first defendant. Thereby I was his opponent self-representing and unqualified at law.

    1. I had evidence that established that the first defendant (COLE) was an overseas trained physician on a work visa, who had seriously falsified a federal transport law medical certificate in multiple instances. This forgery resulted in the fruition of an obvious conspiracy to do an unlawful action, being forge the certificate at election time in 2018 when the State was in caretaker mode and (politically) cancel my driving licence on the basis of the forged certificate. The second defendant is the practise COLE worked from in my residential area.

    2. State Transport contacted me to instruct me to give them prior contact with COLE before she completed the medical certificate. This is in breach of the certificate instruction, infers State's intent to conspire to do an unlawful act.

    3. There had been no driving event before State Transport contacted me. Evidence suggests this contact was in direct response to my reporting to SAPOL by fax that I was being harmed by an ongoing series of medical crimes that fail to respect my right to refuse secret and illegal invasive medical procedures back in the 1990s when I was in NSW and an elected member of my local council.

    4. Subsequent discovery establish the existence of a typed document from an unknown person with no signature and SAPOL logo was allegedly sent to Transport (falsely) claiming I needed a medical certificate, because this unidentified person claimed without supporting evidence that I was “schizophrenic, delusional”. The inference drawn is that the official stance of Government is that is anyone claims they've been subjected to "illegal implants" then simply stating the claim on its own is automatically deemed proof of mental illness, specifically “schizophrenic delusional”.

    5. My commercial class licence meant that COLE was unqualified to complete the certificate, it had to be a specialist in the field of the “alleged” condition. COLE is a general doctor. From the official (State website located) actual instruction State normally use is that they send the blank form to the licensed driver to complete their own set of medical conditions. This was included in my affidavit attachments. Transport sent the document directly to COLE who completed my part of the form. COLE had seen me only once before for sinus congestion there was no long history of my attendances at this or any other medical centre for any illness or condition, yet COLE managed to fabricate a life long medical history for me. Despite that I've had poor vision from birth and wore eye glasses since I was six years old COLE didn't bother to do an eye test which is demanded on the certificate as “mandatory”. Mr Bonig and all other attending lawyers knew the instructions on the blank certificate, I made sure I repeated them in court. Evidently they too had joined the “political cause” conspiracy. Equally evident is that COLE had already agreed to criminally falsify my medical certificate to effect State's illegal cancellation of my licence, gleaned from her lack of mandatory eye test results, for this medical certificate to drive. We both know Mr Bonig and his certified colleagues aren't illiterate or stupid.

    6. I'd just finished my second course in tort law for my half done law degree in the last semester in 2018. I'd achieved a high distinction in my 'defamation tort law' assignment. Which was the main reason I started the law degree after being unable to secure local lawyers to represent me in any of the multiplicity of wilfully blind, factually or contextually false defamations flung at me for the past couple of decades. Presumably the inference is I can't be defamed any more as no one anywhere likes me anyway.

    7. COLE wrote on her legally void and incomplete medical certificate that she believed I was “delusional” this was only the second time I'd consulted COLE. There was no medical evidence from the other doctors housed by the second defendant to establish this condition.

    8. I had a audio recording of another consultation at second defendant's practice where the physician threatened to “call police to section” me in direct response to me informing him that defaming me to the practice manager was unlawful. So I was under considerable disadvantage due to the criminal defamations filed in the shared records of this medical centre.

    9. Also at the end of 2018 I received response from the newly elected Liberal Government to a Freedom of Information (FOI) application that was indirectly applicable to this matter which proved by inference that COLE had indeed conspired to falsify the medical certificate for benefit of herself or some other. In these FOI documents was one that stated without doubt that, four years earlier in 2014 at the previous State election time, I was imprisoned and forcibly drugged under Mental Health Act (illegally) and under threat of being subjected to another illegal (terrorist's) lobotomy 'because I had intended to sue our State health department'. Also uncovered the written conspiracy to do the unlawful act and intention to falsify State medical records, which they did. Can't get any more unconscionable than that. (CROSSREFERENCE see image on left ICAC LINK)

    10. I took the matter to SA State ICAC as official complaint but his staff refused to pass it on to the Commissioner. The SAPOL refuse to investigate any part of it as crime despite that I've ample evidence of the many crimes, including that my drivers licence was unconstitutionally politically cancelled without lawful authority. My amateur litigation is all I have to access my right not to be a victim of 40 more years of sadistic crime, where everyone in Government evidently believes I should be subjected to decades of torture, for the greater good, or else are far too intellectually dull to understand the associated long-term “public harm” (the “crimes against humanity”) of what's really happening here, its precedent, the foundations for more of the same for everyone else. Am I the only one who sees the danger in the fact we must seek permission from the “political party” government to privately prosecute the likes of Adolph Hitler's Nazi Party's crimes against humanity.

    11. 26 June 2019 was the court hearing for interlocutory application by the two defendants each alleged in supporting affidavit that my application did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexations.

    12. Each defendant filed identical interlocutory applications, however second defendant asked for it to be heard by “Judge Bochner on 26 June 2010”. They both (unlawfully) sought;

      1. That (my) claim against defendant be dismissed.

      2. Or that (my) Statement of Claim be struck out.

      3. That (they) be excused from filing a defence.

      4. Costs.

  4. Mr Bonig mislead the Court when he stood in his submission speech to speak for his application to dismiss my application. He reasonably knew he had no proper basis in law as he had no evidence the refuse my evidence. His only claim inferred that because I didn't word my document in line with a "!secret formula" known only to lawyers and Judges. Disregarding the alleged incompetence in the "content" of my application, my evidence amply established the COLE document was an unlawful medical certificate in every aspect. The Government refuse to release any "example" of what will be accepted by the court, therefore there is no "standard" for me to fail to achieve. Therefore it was his own convoluted “personal” opinion that my words were incompetent. 

    1. Rule 17.4 - A solicitor must not make submissions or express views on evidence or issue to convey or appear to convey a personal opinion on merits. Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules, (ASCR) adopted 25 July 2011.

      1. ( Previously I'd complained to various persons that Crown Solicitors had claimed in their documents thsat my application "had no merit" pointing out that only the Judge can deem that so presumably I've aided in making some change )​

  5. r Bonig knew I was the victim of breach of Statute and Australian Consumer Law. Yet he maintained his contempt for Australian law demonstrating his only recognised “duty” was to himself and his professional reputation if he lost against a self representing novice. This was a gross miscarriage of justice. The overtly obvious existence of this obvious conspiracy to exert direct bias with State judiciary indicates I'd loose in any State Court appeal. No point complaining to ICAC the staff had already criminally blocked my complaint on the COLE issue.  It was a true “David & Goliath” battle with no recognition of procedural fairness, no natural justice, only contempt for Australian law; and I had no slingshot. The way I read the rules I was unable to appeal from an interlocutory decision of a Master such that Judge Bochner was, as I discovered when she read her final decision. I had no “informed consent” to the “Master", Judge Bochner, taking on the application, which is a direct breach of the Civil Rules of the Supreme Court. It appears that if a self-representing novice or trained lawyer fails to complain about a breach of the Rules the Judge will ignore the breach. ( So what's the point of having any judge at all if their purpose is to rubber stamp one party's application ignoring the other party's evidence and statute and the rules of the court. Heaps of non judicial staff will do that and on less pay Therefore in this circumstance, isn't employing a rubber stamp judge, misappropriation of government resources? ) Because the legal profession and the State keep the secrets of access to justice from the impoverished, by refusing to educate us on an “acceptable” statement of claim, I've been without my driving licence for three years through absolutely no fault of my own and no legal justification whatsoever. State Supreme Court have “federal jurisdiction”, therefore they're bound by s 78 Appearance of parties Judiciary Act 1903, (Cth) which grants me express right to self represent and with absolutely no "competence" restriction or limitation or level to achieve. ( Equality before the courts means relevant to competence in same way anti-discrimination law makes it illegal to discriminate against a person based on their gender, equality of gender doesn't mean women must grow a penis. Equality before the court doesn't mean the novice must have the same knowledge as the lawyer or barrister or Queens counsel. ) The High Court may well deem as unconstitutional, this arbitrary or automatic application by lawyers and automatic judicial exclusion of self-representers, using autocratic State “Rules of the Court” to bully a meritorious claim from court's case list in favour of remunerated representatives, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the self-represented originating application. High Court may see reason and deem this an unconstitutional and unconscionable breach of Statute and our sacred Australian Constitution. The necessity for a novice to attain a higher level of comparative expertise in the face of the courts to a trained lawyer is in itself breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) "Section 10(1) of the RDA states that all people are entitled to equality before the law regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin." Regardless means that if this Act applies to a black Australian it equally applies to a white Australian.  How are parties treated “equally” before the Court when Rules deem a novice must have knowledge of an expert when the political interests of the State is under threat, as it clearly was in this matter? Would sound like bias to any reasonable person. By his own actions Mr Bonig isn't a reasonable person or one who cares to bother with Australian law that stands in the path of his personal goal.

    1. Rule 3.1 - A solicitor's duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to extent of inconsistency with any duty ASCR.

      1. ( Which means that despite his clients wishes he's not allowed to say or do anything he knows is in breach of Australian law or which may be in breach of section 18 misleading or deceptive conduct in the Australian Consumer Law, Competition & Consumer Act 2010 (Cth); which this Interlocutory Application was as they inferred COLE had done the correct thing by Australian law when in fact she clearly did nothing of the sort. )

    2. Rule 5 Dishonest and disreputable conduct, diminishing public confidence in administration of justice and the profession into disrepute ASCR.

  6. Mr Bonig asserted that COLE had not intended the medical certificate to be a diagnosis. This was not in writing anywhere. Mr Bonig and his other legal professional representing the third party had no relevant evidence whatsoever. None. Absolutely completely nothing relevant.

    1. Rule 17.1 - A solicitor must not act in court as a “mere mouthpiece” must exercise “forensic judgments … independently” ASCR.

    2. Rule 19.1 - “A solicitor must not deceive or knowingly recklessly mislead the court” ASCR.

    3. Rule 21.3 - A solicitor must not allege any matter of fact that has no proper basis on all submitted evidence ASCR.

  7. Mr Bonig acted as if he thought he was losing to me due to my submission and repeatedly tried to bait me with disrespectful sentences, unchecked by the Judge. He was so outwardly angry at me that the Judge had to call security, he stood with his arms arched out as if he wanted to punch me.

  8. When the judgement was delivered four months later and before the Judge entered the room Mr Bonig sat grinning at me as broad as his mouth stretched. He already knew he'd won. How is 'knowing a judgment before its public' not Rule 5 Dishonest and disreputable conduct?

  9. Setting aside any inferred allegation of corrupt conduct by the Judge as this paper is not about the judge its about Mr Bonig's conduct; on the evidence in the documents themselves, its more likely than not that Mr Bonig was a party to a judicial bribe or threat. This is quite obvious on the facts, which includes the Judge's direct bias decisions, completely ignoring my expert medical evidence and my claims of breach of Australian Consumer Law and defamation with malice.

  10. Documents as witness, all the court documents themselves its obvious I put a lot of effort into mine. I don't have the luxury of building up years of experience, I need access to justice now due to the physical presence of illegally implanted pulsating and sparking medical component burning my skin and pressing against nerves and muscles, causing me constant pain and suffering. This crime has morphed into blatant acts of sadistic unjustified political terrorism to cover up a multiplicity of past government's political crimes, the actions of which have caused me notable and irreversible brain damage. Clearly acts of terrorism Mr Bonig has sought to "officially" cover up or completely conceal, thereby becoming an accessory to this "political cause" terrorism himself. Australian law demands my medical rights are honoured and protected. Below we have the evidence in my comprehensive eight documents. Nothing but empty “political terrorist's” puffery in their sparse and combined seven documents, certainly not any expert medical evidence whatsoever, yet on their blatantly gross misrepresentation of evidence and absence of relevant evidence, they win. Surely not what you want to bequeath to future generations.

    1. Link to my (8) eight only filed documents here;


    2. Link to first defendant's (4) four only filed documents here;


    3. Link to second defendant's (3) three only filed documents here;


    4. Link to Judge Bochner's order and reasons document is here;


  11. State's witness is the audio court recording which I don't have despite formally requesting transcript in email from the court clerical staff.

  12. Myself as my own witness if you're affected by rumours please visit my website ( therein linked or stored are Government's own documents and my adaptations to better present the truth of everything. Included on the grounds there are a multiplicity of false or misleading rumours circulating about me claiming without any corroboration (other than another false rumour) that I've allegedly said or done things that I simply have not.


Digitally signed: 15 February 2021.

Janette Gail Francis, 34 Whitestone Crescent, Seaford Rise SA 5169.

Chief Justice Kourakis 2012.png
bottom of page