Abuse of Public Office State Transport

    However Its ok to defame and abuse transport department clients.

    This is a letter I recieved on the Monday before the stated cancellation of my drivers' licence will come into effect on the Thursday, being the day after ANZAC Day leaving me with less than three working days to arrange a legal appeal against this gross criminal section 251 Abuse of Public Office, Criminal Law Consoladation Act 1953 (SA)

    The Government Public Officer (GPO) writer claims to be a ''delegate'' of the ''Registrar'' at the Transport department. They could be just about any shit-kicker with no qualifications. Which appears to be the case.

    The formal cancellation the writer claims is pursuant to section 80 Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) yes its a 60 year old legislation that came into effect the year I was raped by my Freemason dad who has been continually protected by other criminal GPOs.

    There is no right of appeal under this 60 year old Act. So the comment the GPO writer makes suggesting I can appeal to them is legally incorrect. That means their statement was wrong. Or in other circles its a FAIL. Even BUSTED.

    However appeals are allowed for cancellations by the Registrar (or their delegate apparently) section 98ZA allows an Appeal to District Court. We all know how well that has gone for me in the past with the criminal actions of an ex-judge who insisted on court record that was probably wiped, I file a Statement Of Claim against the South Australia government (Crown) written by an anonymous person as my own document swearing in court that I authored it and no one else. He threw my Common Law claim out of the court because I refused his illegal request to perjure myself in court. How fuked is that ex-Judge Griffin?


    An astute reader will notice the ''acting'' Registrar GPO writer failed to state exactly what they they believe I have that is severely and medically preventing with me to hold a drivers licence and qualify me for an immediate section 80 disqualification.

    So I wrote a letter in the evening. An email actually to be pedantic.

    As it is my right, I also emailed a late night Freedom Of Information Act application to secure an exact copy of the alleged medical report authored by a ''Dr Cole''.

    Quick as a flash on the very next day I got a response. The writer of that email told me that my Freedom Of Information application was refused on the grounds that providing me with copy of the medical report about my alleged medical condition, would be a breach of privacy for the mysterious ''Dr Cole''.

    They even quoted the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) as their legal ground citing section 139D - Confidentially which is an Abuse of Public Office as the Freedom Of Information Act contains the only grounds upon which an application ''under'' the Freedom Of Information Act can be refused.

    But the legal implications don't stop there. Refusing me copy of the alleged ''medical report'' about me allegedly authored by the obviously shy ''Dr Cole'' is in effect an unconstitutional attempt to legalise Common Law Medical Negligence and legalise section 257 Criminal Defamation.

    If the incompetent Government Public Officer FIO section writer of the email I received actually read section 139D they would see that 139D(1)(a) allows the release of the information. However they probably already know that in which case it's their admission of their criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice and criminally intimidate a future court witness in breach of an other section of the Criminal Law Consoladation Act 1953 (SA)

    Reaffirmed by the Government Public Officer FIO section writer who claims my confidentially would be breached if the document was released to me.

    They quote the below as their ''legal'' excuse under the FIO Act to refuse me,

    Schedule 1, Part 3, section 13—Documents containing confidential material which states; 
           Schedule 1, Part 3, section 13(1)         A document is an exempt document— 
                (a)         if it contains matter the disclosure of which would found an action for breach of confidence;  


    The doctor in a medical consultation has no right of confidentiality under any law. Neither does the writer of a criminally illegal outrageous email. Who appears to have a fake name using part of my name, Janette Gail Francis.


    Stay tuned for updates!   Crown Solicitor provided me with the (criminally defamatory) document authored by 'Alison Barbara Jane Cole' so this court date is cancelled.




  • (no comments)