Political Smoke & Mirrors

    How to make things look right even when they're not.






    We've been conned into believing police are employed to protect us when that's simply not the truth of the matter. Police are employed solely to protect the best interests of the government. If their actions don't 'look good' for the government (or can't be politically exonerated) they won't act. Let me expand on that with irrefutable evidence.


    Forced unlawful social visits by my landlord's agent, and the landlord's agent committing unlawful break and enter to my property (see my 21Feb18 security camera video) are in any situation, irrefutable breaches of the Residential Tenancy Act (SA) section 65 Quiet Enjoyment.


    They're also breach of section 251 Abuse of Public Office, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) as my landlord is South Australia state government, my landlord's agents are Government Public Officers.


    Despite these events are crimes, and despite that I have these crimes on clear video security camera footage clearly identifying the criminal offenders, police still refuse to charge the criminal offenders.



    In the carriage of these crimes, the criminal perpetrators have, criminally assaulted me (causing me fear) illegally gained entry to my rental property, and abuse their public office causing me harm. As I'm over 60 years, the assault is automatically deemed aggravated assault.


    However because like the police, my landlord's agents are also Government Public Officers. Police won't charge them because police protect the best interests of the government NOT the people in general.


    If it doesn't 'look good' for the government police won't arrest a criminal. That's why police refuse to charge the Labor Party and Liberal Party illegally protected criminals who have offended against me under criminal law.


    CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - South Australia Consolidated Acts

    Abuse of public office section 251(1)(a) A public officer who improperly exercises power or influence that the public officer has by virtue of his or her public office with the intention of section 251(1)(d) securing a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or section 251(1)(e) causing injury or detriment to another person, is guilty of an offence.


    Assault section 20(1)(d) A person commits an assault if the person, without the consent of another person (the "victim") does an act of which the intended purpose is to apply force (directly or indirectly) to the victim.


    Aggravated offences section 5AA(d)(i) the offender committed the offence - intending to prevent or dissuade the victim from taking legal proceedings or from pursuing a particular course in legal proceedings.


    Aggravated offences section 5AA(f) the offender committed the offence knowing that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the offence, over the age of 60 years.


    Police are tasked with discovering the source of crimes, however selective that generally is, is not the topic here.


    When you get a 'smart arse' letter from police Government Public Officers in reply to say, my procedurally correct application Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) its not because that police person was stupid. Far from it. That they refuse to supply their NAME is evidence of their sly underhanded and calculating criminal mind. Police make a habit of 'acting ignorant' with premeditated intent to attempt to (arguably criminally) provoke you to anger ,hoping you'll act irrationally so they can arrest you or say to their equally psychotic buddies, "See I told you she/he is crazy."


    Let me explain with some pictures. Below is the FIO application response letter I recently received. It claims I failed to meet s13 of the South Australia Freedom of Information Act 1991 when in fact I properly met and legally complied with every applicable condition in section 13 being:


    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1991 - SECT 13 - South Australia Consolidated Acts

    13—Applications for access to agencies' documents 
    An application for access to an agency's document 
                (a)         must be in writing; and 
                (b)         must specify that it is made under this Act; and 
                (c)         must be accompanied by such application fee as may be prescribed; and 
                (d)         must contain such information as is reasonably necessary to enable the document to be identified; and 
                (e)         must specify an address in Australia to which notices under this Act should be sent; and 
                (f)         must be lodged at an office of the agency, and may request that access to the document be given in a particular way. 




    Anyone with a functioning brain can tell my recent FOI application to police did provide "such information as is reasonably necessary to enable the to be identified."


    If you skip down to the Police Department's, illegally anonymous letter below dated 12 June 2018 and signed by Mr Squiggle, you'll see they re-quoted my information which I worded my FOI application this way, exactly:-


    "All correspondence between SA Police and SA Department of Transport, regarding myself Janette Francis and my drivers licence number AV4314 - from 14 Feb 2018 to 7 Mar 2018."


    The unlawfully anonymous and cryptic letter below from the South Australia police department is in effect an unlawful refusal to provide me with the information that I am legally entitled to, and which incidently demonstrates PERFECTLY why many people call police pigs.


    I myself used to have respect for Australian police before I had many items of irrefutable evidence in their own documents that they are indeed populated in the majority by classic mongrel pigs.



    Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a crime anywhere in Australia. Everyone in Australia is protected from torture pursuant to Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH) Division 274 Torture. My state police in Adelaide can arrest and charge people for torture. The Minister responsible for enforcing our protection from and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is the Minister for Australian Federal Police. AFP is an agency within portfolio of Minister for Home Affairs. In 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs is Peter Dutton MP. If Minister Dutton fails to protect any one of us from torture, we are eligible to apply to the High Court in Canberra Australia, for a Writ of Mandamus, in which the High Court will direct Minister Dutton to protect us pursuant to Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH) becasue that's his statutory (legal) obligation.

    My government refuse to allow me access to my legal rights because they, (politicians and their political parties) receive financial profits from criminally denying me access to my legal rights. Which makes them the ultimate human parasite. Evidently Australian lawyers, (solicitors and barristers) are happier to take bribes from Australian governments not to sue them than they are to uphold Australian law and sue Australian governments for these massive breaches of my Common Law rights, my other legal rights under criminal law and health services laws, and my basic human rights. The same can be said for news media outlets in Australia who refuse to publish any of these current Australian government human rights atrocities.

    The depth of their depravity (Australian officials) would amaze any reasonable person, from ENT specialist Paul Charles Varley who said 'vision of the illegal implant cable on my nose' (video seen in CT Scan film, 'was probably evidence of my nose having been broken in the past' (it hasn't ever been been) to the criminally anonymous police person who contacted department of transport to have my 'mental health' assessed after I made an official complaint to police, about being criminally medically assaulted with illegal implants, GP Alison Barbara Jane Cole falsified her medical report to government (16 March 2018) stating I was unfit to drive due to mental illness. All refused to look at ANY of my evidence that irrefutably corroborates my claim of physical criminal assaulted in 1990s.

    If I'd written the above without linking corroborating documents, you'd probably dismiss me as totally insane! Australian state and federal government public officers ignore the evidence to allow me to be falsely categorised as severely mental ill, based solely on my public complaints about the crimes they've inflicted upon me, without legal excuse. It’s not a conspiracy theory when its proven by fact.  In this website is irrefutable proof that in Australia we have 2 governing political parties whose members continue to feed money into the party, to maintain their secreted militant strength against their own citizens, arbitrarily secretly maiming and killing selected dissidents to maintain the farce of democracy. You'd have to be brain-dead not to understand the obvious. Clearly there's no long-term member of a governing political party in history of Australia who could be honestly considered as honourable, if they were they'd have not allowed the festering of criminal practices we see in government every day or resigned from their party in their first term. The problem is the political parties squeeze the criminals out like puss and you fix the problems of the country.

    The 21 February 2018 criminal break and enter at my residence during state election time, was deemed by the new Liberal Party housing Minister and (police minister) as a 'legal action.' Despite that there was NO legal authority and NO prior appointment with me for housing staff to visit my residence with mental health staff and jump my locked fence in a criminal action clearly calculated to criminally threaten and intimidate me as a future witness to a court hearing. Clearly my security video proves they'd pre-arranged their illegal trespass with each other.

    Evidently, because I've been forced into public housing by criminal political theft of my NSW Torrens Title then illegally forced into bankruptcy and illegally forced to pay for my defacto's loans (I had NOT co-signed) all illegally sanctioned by the Federal Australia government, it appears that South Australia state housing Public Officers believe they also have the legal right to force social visits on me by falsely inferring they have legal right to make appointments for social visits with me and bring state mental health staff into my rental residence pursuant to Residential Tenancy Act 1995 (SA). Which is total bullshit. Evidently Government Public Officers want to ensure I have no privacy, no sanctuary and no security, even in my own residence. Which was probably the ultimate aim of the theft of my real estate in 1990s.

    For political party members to have acted like pack predators and prey on individuals like me, separating me from my social support people so they can attack in breach of Australian law without (me) their victim having any defences, indicates the mindset of our current Government Public Officers.

    The path to politically deceiving the masses is a very slippery slope that leads only one way. Down.





  • (no comments)