FRANCIS v COLE Direct Bias

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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;

       1. https://app.box.com/s/kj2xuzh1a5sruw4k05jk49shchkqi57q

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

       1. https://app.box.com/s/ly5c6ml0x1q246mf6g9lu357vliw9402

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

       1. https://app.box.com/s/z1ouys1s20rdmjdpn2juomw21pgnenvs

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

       1. https://app.box.com/s/z2tfmibgelgdc0bdeb93mwhvnizyrad2

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

13. Myself as my own witness if you're affected by rumours please visit my website (http://janettefrancis.com) 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.