Certain conduct may not indicate mental illness A person does not have a mental illness merely because of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular political
opinion or belief;
(c) the person expresses or refuses or fails to express, or has expressed or refused or failed to express, a particular philosophy;
(e) the person engages in or refuses or fails to engage in, or has engaged in or refused or failed to engage in, a particular political activity;
(i) the person engages in or has engaged in illegal conduct;
(l) the person engages in or has engaged in anti-social behaviour;
(m) the person has a particular economic or social status or is a member of a particular cultural or racial group.
As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and religion. Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done primarily through reflection.
It appears from the documents that Andrew CHAMPION, Annette JONES, Georgina Ai Chin CHENG, Belinda MOYES and other inferred Communists decided Janette had a "philosophy" that disagreed with their personal philosophy as if they were followers of a Communist belief based system as loosely defined in following text:
Very broadly speaking, according to some commentators, Western society strives to find and prove "the truth", while Eastern society accepts the truth as given and is more interested in finding the balance. Westerners put more stock in individual rights; Easterners in social responsibility.
The illegality of their conspiracy is expressed in Mental Health Act 2009 (SA), s102 Offences relating to authorisations and orders which says:
s102(1) A medical practitioner or authorised mental health professional who signs any authorisation or order for the purposes of this Act, without having examined the person to whom the authorisation or order relates, is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $25 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.
s102(5) A person who, by fraudulent means, procures or attempts to procure any person who does not have a mental illness to be received into a treatment centre, or to be treated as a person to whom an order applies under this Act, is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: $25 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.
As it turns out the South Australia Health Department 2014 Criminal Conspiracy includes the CEO of SA Health Belinda Moyes or one of her staff forging her signature had this to say:
"In accordance with the Mental Health Act 2009, you were placed under an Inpatient Treatment Order (ITO) for the purposes of a mental health assessment."
"During this admission you were diagnosed"
"Conspiracy whether civil or criminal traditionally has been defined as agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means A tortious conspiracy accordingly consists in the agreement of two or more persons to cause loss or damage to another by doing an ’unlawful’ act or by doing a lawful act by ’unlawful’ means Professor Howard’ has pointed out that ’as a matter of logic the first of these two categories of conspiracy includes the second. If there is an agreement to do an unlawful act there is a conspiracy. It is immaterial whether the act question is the ultimate object of the agreement or one of the steps along the way to that object. In either case the reason for calling the agreement a conspiracy is that it contemplates the performance of an unlawful act Recent Australian decisions nonetheless have affirmed the existence of two types of civil conspiracy."
Written in 1991
by Ellen Goodman LLM (Syd) BA (Macq)
Barrister, Supreme Court of NSW
Business Law Discipline
1991 Case Law:
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd & Ors v Australian Federation of Air Pilots & Ors (1989) Aust Torts Reports 80 290.
Conspiracy Offer - Plan - Government Coverup
This is a true crime story about how state mental health law was criminally used by vexatious, sadistic psychopathic public officers, as a political weapon to ‘TOP DOWN’ circumvent Australian law and the individual's legal rights under statute.
Written by: Janette Gail FRANCIS (by birth) student-at-law HD grade in Defamation Law
December 2013 Adelaide AUSTRALIA:
A group of not too bright public officers in State health department decided they'd teach Janette a lesson for complaining about government conspiracies, so they discussed their conspiracy at length in group emails before Christmas in December 2013. Made their plan on paper on 15 January 2014. Then carried out the plan to the letter on 22 January 2014. Followed by the obligatory government cover-up that blamed their actions on an "order" issued by their boss "the Minister" the political head of their department.
Guess the Einstein’s never considered the probability that Janette might seek evidence of the Ministerial order in a Freedom of Information Act application. Naturally there was nothing to be found from the Minister.
Janette's personal philosophy is that 95% of government public officers have committed crimes that should put them in prison for a very long time, including the individuals whose documents appear on this page.
News Flash: It's the same in every country across the globe, there's only 3 types of people: those who happily expose the criminal
activities in, (our Labor and Liberal) government; those who are too stupid to see it; those so evil they support it.
At the risk of insulting the majority - there is no 4th option; 'don't care' is either stupid or evil.
Who are you? Happy Stupid or Evil.
"Tyranny is a product of engaged followership predicated on identification with those in authority - whose cause is believed to be right, and that belief is the basis for followership"