THREE TERRORIST GOVERNMENTS
Truth of who you really are is evident
when you have power over someone else. (me)
Three Terrorist Governments:
Commonwealth of Australia,
State of New South Wales,
State of South Australia and (refer to video above) the sorts of terrorist community wankers (top right) they use to criminally stalk their victims
That's the Lancaster Flag over the "image" link, its still recognised today. Not bragging, its a fact: Through my mother and our great+ grandfather Rob Roy MacGregor and his mother's Campbell Clan, my hard copy family tree and my DNA results confirm by inference that I'm a descendant of the House of Plantagenet, also called house of Anjou or Angevin dynasty, royal house of England, which reigned from 1154 to 1485 and provided 14 kings, 6 of whom belonged to the cadet houses of Lancaster and York. Some of my ancestors are Yorks and Lancastrian but I relate more to the Lancaster side, warts and all. I'm also descendant of the Scottish royal Stewart clan and a few hundred other rulers across Europe dating back to Ptolomy I Sotar according to gathered historical records of many others; if you look at the photos of my brother, Alan, you can see his facial resemblance to the accepted Ptolomy I Sotar bust.
The fuked-up normal: Explaining how "brain-fuked" English speaking governments are by using their own dictionaries.
The long accepted dictionary definition of "rational" is "based on clear thought and reason" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rational
"Brain-fuked" psychopath controlled English speaking academics for governments and their registered medical doctors define "rationalization" as "an attempt to find reasons for behaviour, decisions, etc., especially your own: This is just a convenient rationalization for something you wanted to do anyway. Entitlement may include rationalization of negative behaviour." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rationalization?q=rationalisation
Therefore I say this for those of you a considerable slow in the brain-logic department; if these three governments aren't trying to hide something involving the alleged murder of Leanne Walters by alleged 1%er outlaw biker members from in Comancheros or Bandidos Motorcycle Clubs in ex-prime minister Paul Keating's federal electorate at FEDERAL ELECTION time in 1984 - then why have they gone to such great lengths to defame me and prevent me from accessing the natural course of justice in all associated matters? Especially as I'm not associated with any Motorcycle clubs whatsoever, but I am a 'whistle-blowing' associated of Australian police detectives, politicians and judiciary through my Freemason pedophile male parent, NSW born and life-long resident Aubrey Bernard FRANCIS 1923-2017.
These aforenoted neighbours obviously knew I went to shops on my bicycle. They waited outside until I came back. Its usually in his back yard but for this, he parked his Harley Davidson motorcycle between him on the window sill and me at the gate. He sat and took video of me with Harley Davidson in foreground to perpetuate government's bullshit of the "fake Leanne 1984 murder" story they used my face to ID as a teenage Rebels MC whore. Obviously her is or pretends to be with the Rebels MC. Whomever hi is with his multiple alias names one stolen from a dead person, he's been illegally protected by Adelaide Police from his multiple actions of criminal defamation about me the State SECRETLY put into government record in 2016 to 2018 denying me my legal right to natural justice and acted on his say-so denying me my right to procedural fairness. When I applied under Freedom of Information Act in 2018 for his “words” the State redacted them, denying me my right to sue the prick in civil court. In reality I'd said NOTHING to him or his equally lying family and done NOTHING to them or anyone else. His name at State housing in Paul Shildarien-Henley, alias Paul Henley on my State health records, alias Alexander Paul (an ex-Seaford SA retirement village elderly male person) to State Electoral Roll. He told State he was afraid of me, I'm old enough to be his elderly mother. You're a lying spinless brown nosing arsehole Paul, no one's ever been afraid of one of those. I think most bikers would call you a dog. I wouldn't that'd be an insult to all 4 leg dogs. You're more like an 'ant' an insect that can't survive on its own, in their groups they undermine foundations. He's also a rubbish curator who 'permanently stores' his three council bins on the public footpath where they're almost always overflowing and expects his neighbours to pick up his rubbish blowing up and down the street. Classic narcissist.
Anything's possible in Australia, including destroying lives of innocent people for a political cause. All people named or linked to this website and associated with the terrorist governments or terrorist medical practitioners, possess no capacity whatsoever for genuine human empathy; proved by their own actions or inactions towards me, despite being compelled by Australian law. If you can't understand my message then you're part of the problem that needs to be eradicated from and prohibited in positions of power in Australia. All defamation if any in this website is intended in and compliance with Australian law because the whole truth is in the public interest. Janette Gail Francis. AUSTRALIA.
These two (and many other) High Court decisions prove the many decisions made by public officers to harm me and physically or legally restrain me on political grounds are unconstitutional acts of terrorism.
Members of the Australian High Court confirmed the view that in order for a law to be invalid its purpose or objective must be directed at achieving an object which is forbidden in the Australian Constitution, (presumably also forbidden in existing federal criminal law.) Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 (Stolen Generations case.)
Mason ACJ and Brennan J in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120 (Scientology case.)
"Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and to act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint. Such a definition affects the scope and operation of s. 116 of the Constitution and identifies the subject matters which other laws are presumed not to intend to affect. Religion is thus a concept of fundamental importance to the law."
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 52
Exclusive powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(i) the seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes;
(ii) matters relating to any department of the public service the control of which is by this Constitution transferred to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) other matters declared by this Constitution to be within the exclusive power of the Parliament.
There are three levels of government: Parliament (elected); Executive (contracted or employed shit-kicker); Judiciary (unconstitutionally appointed by head of a political party).
That all State and Federal Australian police have been declared by parliament as NOT members of the public service is in breach of section 52 of the Constitution as its contrary to "the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth".
Another of many xamples of BAD government is in Judge made Supreme Court South Australia RULE 292(3)
In the case of an appeal against a judgment of a Master, the appellant may, within 14 calendar days after the judgment against which the appellant wishes to appeal, make a separate application to the Master for permission to appeal.
(4) An application to a Master under subrule (3) may be made—
(a) unless the Master otherwise orders, by oral application at the time of any attendance before the Master in relation to the action; or
(b) by interlocutory application supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds of the application.
ONE MORE EXAMPLES OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL indirect LEGISLATION
Commonwealth (Parliament made) Judiciary Act 1903
section 78— appearance of parties
In every Court exercising federal jurisdiction the parties may appear personally or by such barristers or solicitors as by this Act or the laws and rules regulating the practice of those Courts respectively are permitted to appear therein.
South Australia (ex-lawyer State Judge made) Rules of the Supreme Civil Court 2006,
rule 22—General principles of representation
(1) A person may only be represented in proceedings before the Court by a lawyer.
Exception—The Court may, however, authorise representation of a company by a director who is a non-lawyer (see rule 27).
(2) A party who appears personally in proceedings before the Court may, with the Court's permission, be assisted in court in the presentation of his or her case by a person approved by the Court.
The evidence establishes, in the government's own multi-decade records that well over 100 government public officers from the three accused governments have unlawfully abused their position as a public officer to conceal serious organised crime involving the cult known as Freemasons, (the CULT) and their chosen or elected political party known as Australian Labor Party (ROB) and Liberal Party of Australia (LAR) and all other defendants / respondents.
The backward representation of the party names as ROB and LAR is used to identify them so as not to confuse the two names as being the same organisation that start with the same letter as their name is the only distinguishing feature about their mutually agreed unlawful actions towards the applicant / plaintiff over the decades.
Many of the 100 plus political terrorist names are identifiable as separate individuals in the government records, and as many again unidentified political terrorists also permanently enjoy illegal Federal and State police protection in their Australian communities. All these hundreds of persons wilfully or recklessly participated in the crimes in concert with the three governments. However, there are too many for one person to include in any one legal action and see through the government's court process in one lifetime.
Some of defendants / respondents actions are automatic wrong under common law defined as;
“misfeasance” described on page 84 of, The CCH Macquarie, Concise Dictionary of Modern Law, student edition, Sydney Australia, 1988 (MACQUARIE) being “the improper performance of some lawful act or duty”; and
“misfeasance in a public office” described on page 410 of the, LexisNexis Concise Australian Dictionary, 2015 printed in China (LEXIS) being “an invalid or unauthorised act or omission done knowingly or maliciously by a public officer in the purported discharge of his or her public duties, causes loss or harm to the plaintiff” see Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307; 129 ALR 1; and
“defamation” described in MACQUARIE on page 37 “at common law the tort of damaging another's reputation by the publication of false statements either by word of mouth (slander) or the more permanent form (libel). (At common law, libel may be tortious or criminal.)”
“defamation” described in LEXIS on page 173 “At common law the tort of damaging another's reputation by the publication of false statements either by word of mouth (slander) or the more permanent form (libel). In all jurisdictions, the distinction has now been removed” by uniform Defamation laws where Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) states in section 9 “In assessing whether defamation has occurred the intention of the defendant is irrelevant.”
The NSW section 9 is completely missing from the SA Act where section 9 has been replaced with a notation about corporations and the “intent” clause is nowhere to be found in SA's Defamation Act, establishing their wilful intent to unconstitutionally deviate from the nationally agreed uniform Defamation Act indicating the State's intent to unconstitutionally use a defence of “no intent in defamation” in breach of common law and the intent of uniform laws. Which is what they did by unlawful proxy in Francis v Cole and Gpaxis Pty Ltd  SASC 179, when the State's judicial officer, Judge Katrina Bochner acted with misfeasance in public office in multiple actions of direct bias that include refusing to acknowledge the plaintiff's evidence and refusing to apply Australian statute law and due process of the law in a manner that automatically excluded the Plaintiff from her natural right of appeal, by using the interlocutory applications of defendant's.
The interlocutory applications were filed without first filing a defence on consent of Judge Bochner. The only affidavits defendant's filed were in support of their own and each others interlocutory applications and where the alleged evidence for COLE was argued by an ex SA State Law Society president.
State of SA misused the interlocutory applications to dismiss the entire case; and as the Judge is a Master the rules of the court say there's no right of appeal on a decision by a master on an interlocutory application; and the State wilfully declined to inform the self-representing plaintiff that the Judge was a master and the potential consequences and where agreement of the parties is written their own Rules of the court and the matter was not assessment of damages.
Not informing the plaintiff was wilful intent to apply direct bias and breach of their own rules and Australian law generally where the outcome caused and is causing ongoing ancillary serious physical harm to the plaintiff that's a, “judicial government public officer organised” act of terrorism which may or may not involve the CULT considering their historical member occupations are, generally, law and medicine.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA)“Division 2 Jurisdiction of Masters, rule 15(3) Jurisdiction of Masters, Subject to this rule, a Master may exercise the same jurisdiction as a single Judge of the Court. An action (other than one involving the liberty of the subject) can only be tried by a Master if— (a) the Chief Justice (or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice to give directions under this paragraph) directs that it is to be tried by a Master; (b) the action involves only the assessment of damages (or damages and interest) and incidental or consequential questions; or (c) all parties consent to trial by a Master.”
Additionally these matters are also defined as acts of politically motivated terrorism against Australians in Australia as defined in Commonwealth criminal law pursuant to Criminal Code 1995, Schedule, The Criminal Code;
Division 100.1, “the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political cause and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State or intimidating the public or a section of the public”; and
division 101.1 terrorist act , “A person commits an offence if the person engages in a terrorist act”; and
division 101.2(1) “A person commits an offence if the person provides or receives training; and the training is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act; and the person mentioned in paragraph (a) knows of the connection described in paragraph”; and
division 101.2(2) “A person commits an offence if the person provides or receives training; and the training is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act; and the person is reckless as to the existence of the connection (to a terrorist act).” and
division 101.2(3) “A person commits an offence under this section even if: a terrorist act does not occur; or the training is not connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a specific terrorist act; or the training is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in more than one terrorist act.”
These matters have caused and are still causing serious harm and fear of reprisals amongst the community at large if they attempt to assist the plaintiff realise her legal rights in Australia. Therefore the political driving force has been the two political parties that hold the alternate governments in Australia; ROB and LAR, Australia's Supercrooks are thick as a brick politically organised criminal psychopaths.