City Council 2018
just up from Australia's willy behind that big old boot east of the bight
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.
Evil South AUSTRALIA Health opposition spokesperson Chris Pictom MP & Bruce Thomas Lander QC both think you're stupid.
166,766 = Onkaparinga 2016 census population.
125,163 = Onkaparinga residents over 19 years old.
25,973 = voted for the Councillor vacancies (20.75%)
SA councillor paid up to $23,350 pa plus $230 per meeting.
3,394 = voted for Mayor vacancy (2.71%)
Mayor is always paid much more.
Why did the press refuse to report ONLY about 20% of Onkaparinga residents decided 2018 councillors and 2% decided who would be Mayor? Answer? Its bipartisan PARTY political.
Partly due to voluntary voting, partially due to fact a huge number of residents are private renting their residence. Mainly due to the fact that's how the political parties want it.
It’s not in the interests of State government to have State housing rentals or multi individual private home ownership - as the residents stay longer.
Considering Yvonne Kirsteen WENHAM made over 40 politically aggressive many totally false public assertions on her Facebook page about Janette, (that may be considered indefensible criminal defamation) it’s more likely than not that WENHAM is responsible for the malicious September/October 2018 complaint about Janette to the State Electoral Commission. A complaint they should NOT have accepted due to lack of evidence from WENHAM. The complaint correspondence is linked under the ECSA logo. There was no, (up to $5,000) fine from ECSA as they withdrew their action against Janette. They know Janette is right but declined to put 'pen to paper' to admit it. There is no withdrawal letter. There was no decision. What’s perhaps worse is there was no newspaper story.
Unlike the September 2018 newspaper story backing candidate Beau COWAN seeking a bronze statue for 'Gary the Goat' after being elected, fellow student-at-law COWAN, was reported in 2019 by newspaper as wanting his constituents 'Gary the Goat' signs removed in support of bipartisan supported State government’s sale to private developers of the State owned ex-public housing land. That's the height of the poor quality extensively politically censored news Adelaide Advertiser is capable of as they back yet another potential puppet for parliament.
WEHNAM was upset because she believed Janette defamed her in Janette’s response, (left) to WENHAM’s defamations. NB as administrator of the OCW page, WEHNAM is legally responsible for all posts on her facebook.com page. What did WENHAM and her band of electronic gypsies say about the ex-public housing land when thousands in the State are homeless and cheap housing rentals are a distant memory?
When an authority of a State government makes a decision THEY must prove their decision is lawful, NOT the victim of their political crime as the ECSA demanded from Janette on 2 and 17 October 2018, in an action that attempted to unlawfully politically absolve the NSW State Government’s local council entity of their requirement to establish legal grounds to dismiss Janette from her democratically elected position in a State where council elections are mandatory, unlike South Australia where generally only supporters of political parties and aggrieved residences vote in NON-compulsory local council elections.
The applicable Labor Party and Liberal Party parliamentarians and their legal representatives all know Wollondilly Shire Council could NEVER establish legal grounds to dismiss Janette Gail Francis, (known as Councillor Jenny Hall) from her public office in 1999.
Dear Yvonne & Brenton,
Guess who got a High Distinction grade, (highest level) on my defamation law assignment in last quarter of 2018 during my Torts course in my yet to be finished university law degree? This is not legal advice, merely general information based on research any person can undertake on the internet.
In a defamation suit a plaintiff does not have to prove they suffered any harm or that the defendant had a motive. Really only the basis of defendant’s defence needs to be disproved by plaintiff. Youtube is most informative but will never replace a good textbook.
In a defence to a defamation lawsuit, defendant must prove any stated ‘belief’ is reasonably formulated from the available evidence without using reference to any personal belief/concept; anything stated as fact by the author/publisher must be proved by the author/publisher, not disproved by plaintiff; ignorance of available fact when republishing a defamation is not a defence; paraphrasing out of context is not ‘truth’; prefixing a defamation with “I believe” is not a defence; attacking a political candidate/politician on their personal life is not a political defence.
Only thing plaintiff has to prove really is that the matter was published by defendant to one or more people other than plaintiff and was ‘capable’ of being defamatory; a matter can be defamatory if even only one person has special knowledge of the plaintiff; a defamatory effect can be drawn from the ‘actual’ words or any number of relevant ‘implications’ drawn from published words or image.
eg: If you said police falsely accused you of murdering your boss, and ‘someone else’ asked you publicly, what’s your “alleged involvement” in the murder of your boss? Then ‘another’ says publicly, “yes I’m saying the quotes made by ‘someone else’ are not defamatory”; that gives the false defamatory inference that police made some ‘criminal responsibility’ link between you and the murder of your boss; and gives you the right to file an action in defamation against the ‘someone else’ and ‘another’.
Only place an Australian can say whatever they want without fear of lawsuit or criminal charges is when a parliamentarian in sitting PARLIAMENT or when totally alone. A local council meeting is NOT a parliament.
Janette Gail Francis.
If the government that gives your
local council legislated power is corrupt
then your local council is more likely than not
to be corrupted.
Politics brings out the primal savage in
your favourite prominent citizen
if it doesn't they're not worth your vote.
We don't need more laws, we just need competent enforcement of the ones we already have
Its true: a community usually gets what it deserves.
The press don't report that about 14% of Onkaparinga residents decided the councillors at the 2018 election. WHY? Partly due to voluntary voting, partially due to fact a huge number of residence are private renting their residence. They can move on whenever. Its not in the interests ogf State govrnment to have State housing rentals as the residents stay longer.
To those who voted for me thank you for your support. (results so far here) I didn't have a scrutineer available to look after my interests so the true number of you will never be known. I know from past experience that the count of votes is fraught with crooks who do shuffle votes to the wrong candidate, circumstances meant I was not able to have any scrutineers. Elections, in Australia at least, is all about who is the best politically aligned candidate, not whose best for the job. More so when the voting is voluntary as our local councils are. Most who vote voluntarily are the party faithful. The Mid Coast Ward final year Flinders University, fellow student at law, who watched and remained silent as others falsely (criminally) defame me on Onkaparinga Council Watch Facebook page has been elected, so too has the Thalassa Ward ex-police officer who did esactly the same. The results are no surprise to me, exactly what I expected. Stay strong.
Yes its true I'm an emotional person - we need to elect only emotional people to make decisions in government ancillaries and parliaments because these places are about the day to day lives of people not corporations. One of my personal goals is to see the cannabis industry achieve the chance to be in direct competition with Australia's wine industry. We have the right to decide that we don't want to die from liver damage in pursuit of that serotonin high. Politicians and political parties don't have the right to decide that for us simply because they get kick backs from the medical industry and wine industry because of the multiplicity of bad health conditions associated with alcohol, that keeps the medical industry funded with alcohol related medical problems and wine industry happy. While the multiplicity of good reasons for having cannabis in our lives are totally ignored on the basis of existing capitalism and only existing capitalism.
I know of people to whom commercial medicines alter their brain to turn them into killers that drug is ibuprofen, the paracetamol partner sold over the counter in any supermarket near you. Parliaments are silent of this fact because the commerce that supports these killer drugs is already generating billions of dollars in revenue.
Australia's wine industry single-handedly killed my husband aged only 55 and destroyed his once beautiful personality ruthlessly robbing me of the love of my life and stealing from his children and grandchildren their right to know what a fantastic person he really was. The other plant product cannabis that could have kept him from alcoholism and alive has been outlawed by the same parliamentarians who happily swill the killer-wine on official parliamentary occasions funded by Australian tax payers. What's the difference between killer-wine and life-saving cannabis? Its a no-brainier - life-saving cannabis is a threat to Australia's $2 BILLION dollar wine industry and therefore a threat to the stability of our criminally corrupt political parties.
If elected to our council, I will devote my time to be the very loud 'reasonable' voice of my constituents in the interests of the betterment of our community, regardless of any political persuasion but not because of one. My time will be devoted to seeking out and identifying corruption in Onkaparinga City Council administration. As previous councillors know full well its up to the elected members of any council, as a group, to take appropriate action, and its up to the State government to legally enforce our laws without prejudice or favouritism. One person is powerless to enforce Australian law without any other, the ones doing the best job have the largest numbers of vocal haters. Beware the politician who is publicly loved in their community and always in the local newspapers, under Australia's current political regime the news media's most popular person is more likely than not corruptible for the benefit of the 'party faithful'.
Remember that playground fist fight over who was to ride the see-saw that's what Australian politics is like. While its true politics (compromise) is important to get things done in any community its also true that when a people put politics before the best interests of the people, then that's when we know they've been corrupted which is the problem with the vast majority of party faithful. Sacrificing even one person to your ritualistic cause is NOT in the best interests of the group and proves how barbaric you are if that's the way your brain works. When all is said and done being honest and caring is much harder than being corrupt.
I came from the outer south Sydney region in NSW to live in the Onkaparinga council area in 2004. Since 2006 I have been tirelessly tackling the problem of criminal corruption in your governments that is prevalent in my current life in this area. I have irrefutable proof that prominent citizens controlling the events from the government who controls our local council in Onkaparinga are an unincorporated group of organised criminals whose sole purpose is to commit crimes. If elected I will have a better position to continue my fight against this steady undercurrent of government crime. My goal is to make our area a safe place to raise a family, pursue any interests, and retire in peace free from the types of criminal government interventions I've endured in Noarlunga.
Its true I have been guilty of calling out area Oinkaparinga, I had good reason. Circa 2007 Onkaparinga council staff attached an infringement notice to my car when parked in the car park near council. The fine stated or inferred the unreasonable claim that I took up more than one car space. My sign-written family sedan had anti police corruption slogans on it and a standard box trailer attached. Hence Oinkaparinga.
In about September 2018 an unidentified person linked to the Facebook page of 'Onkaparinga Council Watch' (administered by ex-councillor Yvonne Kirsten Wenham) made a formal complaint about my statement that I was “illegally dismissed from my elected position in Wollondilly Shire Council (NSW) in 1999” this complaint was made to Electoral Commissioner Mike Sherry, on behalf of the State of South Australia pursuant to s 28 Local Government (Elections) Act 1999 (SA) which states in effect that: a person can be fined up to $5,000 for making a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to influence an election. Thus far staff at Commissioner Sherry's office have unconscionably and unreasonably refused to take my evidence that I was indeed “illegally dismissed”.
For the benefit the Crown I make this “statement of fact”: everything on this website can be proved as fact using the commonly recognised standard of proof used in civil or criminal law courts in this our Australia (its not just yours);
(balance of probabilities) “A fact is proved to be true on the balance of probabilities if its existence is more probable than not, or if it is established on the preponderance of probability, (Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517) or to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal of fact, taking account of matters such as the gravity and inherent improbability of the allegation, (Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449; 67ALJR 170; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s140(2))” (Standard of proof) “In criminal proceedings a defendant's case is proved if the court is satisfied that the case is proved on the balance of probabilities: R v Carr-Briant  2 All ER 156, 158-9. There is provision to this effect in the uniform evidence legislation Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 141(2).”
Source: Finkelstein, Ray., Hamer, David., Howie, Rod. and Butt, Peter. (2015) LexisNexis concise Australian legal dictionary, Chatswood, LexisNexis, 56, 593.
Not too long ago in our Christian history if a woman told police she'd been raped by her dad, the (all male) government had her deemed insane and locked up in a mental asylum. NSW government had a "Lunacy Department" these days it'd probably be named simply parliament. See also Ten Days in a Mad-House, written 1887 by American author Nellie Bly, an exposé of asylum abuse that's still relevant of psychiatrists in Australia today 150 years later.
Over a decade ago I told police I've been surgically raped by
doctors, and had the proof, instead of investigating my crime report the government had me (illegally) locked up in a mental asylum (2014) on a bizarre claim I had harmed myself by a dentist extracting my teeth in a government hospital when I was under general anaesthetic - some 40 years prior. Our barking mad Government Public Officers in Noarlunga and greater Adelaide Australia have been (illegally) defaming me ever since at least 2006.
What mikes me “special” is that I have the legal proof to put some (many) Australian GPO's in prison and prove they're the lowest scum on this planet. Some of the good ones are published here in this website (and elsewhere).
PS I'm sure (not) everyone will be as ecstatic as I am to hear that I got just a High Distinction for an assignment in which I was tasked to identify why an internet published mainstream news story was DEFAMATION, a HD is best grade you can get.
No Australian resident should be forced to study for their law degree specifically to get a medical diagnosis of an injury or foreign item that can be clearly seen by a layperson through the naked eye or in radiology pictures and which hasn't been diagnosed because to do so would be detrimental the the political control of any Australian parliament - yet here I am Australian by birth proving that outrageousness has existed for at least the past 20 something years due to the intentional false diagnoses of a substantial number of imported medical doctors who possess considerable criminal contempt for their Australian patients like me and Australian law in exchange for favours from corrupt Government Public Officers. Res ipsa loquitor, I've had an undiagnosed dislocated thumb since 2007 with no diagnosis in sight so that's exactly what the totality of the evidence in this website and on my person says, prime minister 'whomever-you-are-this-week'.
We in an alleged democracy dispensed with Kings and Queens to be free from inbred tyrannical dictators, yet here we are being inhumanely dictated to by the two major political parties in Australia DESPITE Australian law.
Recently I discovered that Onkaparinga council staff are on employment contracts that expire after a stipulated period of time. All Australians should realise that this type of contract breeds the criminal corruption of your local council, your state government, your federal government and every other corporation or employer that exists. Because if someone spills the beans they can't be dismissed for unlawful or inappropriate conduct but more likely than not their contract will not be renewed. Time or performance employment contracts should be outlawed. They're a recipe for corruption and control of criminal activities in any organisation out of public sight and out of mind. Employment should exist without contracts because obviously their very intent is to undermine and pervert Australian law. Evidence of this exists in the fact that not even one Government Public Officer has been charged under state criminal law for Abuse of Public Office despite that such criminal abuse has routinely occurred when State and Federal GPO's have been dealing with me since I arrived in Adelaide from New South Wales, in 2004.
rescind all employment contracts.
2nd step: all complaints should be handled by a series of relational databases so that only the events are blandly seen at the end where the decision is made. To my knowledge Microsoft Access was the first commercially affordable (dynamically life changing) relational database software program in the 1990s I used it when I had my computer shop.
The relational database was first defined by Edgar Codd, at IBM's San Jose Research Laboratory in June 1970 they are linked to each other each store something specific so that access to one database will tell you nothing much at all, each storing specific groups of data and all with different security clearance levels to ensure no person has access to all databases. In the end the decision can be seen via access to another online server with a random number so no phone calls are made to identify the victim, or accused, no letters or emails are sent to either party. But the complainant must have evidence to support their complaint and all results should expose the person or entity found to be at fault. Public shaming is more effective a form of prevention that its given credit. In the end it would only require elementary software programming. The beauty of such a system would be that many civil law cases could be solved this way freeing up the courts for criminal law or constitutional discussion.
A computerised complaints handling system would increase employment opportunities and force lawyers to be consistent, very cheap to use compared to the present civil court processes. Any appeal could still go through thew current and expensive court system, but there would be a lot less of those as the letter of the law would be followed and justice would be truly blinded without fear or favour. Yes it would reduce interaction with lawyers as the databases would provide the area of law and case references not a lawyer. But justice would be accessible to everyone, not those who can afford it or understand it. Lawyers would be needed to provide the legal solutions in the databases and to add new cases from the High Court which is where most case references should be used in court but at present corrupt officers of the court use old cases that had been successfully appealed thereby swindling an inexperienced self-representing complainant or junior lawyer. Legal challenges after all should be about the merits of the case not the experience of the lawyers as they are now. Presently justice is denied most Australians. Under a computerised system justice would be accessible to literally everyone making a fairer and less discriminatory community as the added benefit. Crooks will object to computerisation of civil cases but in the end its in the best interests of the community to computerise civil law court complaints, specifically complaints about Government Public Officers, after all there is only ONE law for all of us.
What would I'd prefer to be doing if I didn't have to be on this one person political campaign?
I'd be researching family history, helping to convert old church records into the electronic version. I'd learn to play the Uilleann the most beautiful sound on this planet. I'd write a book about my experiences as a lifelong seer and with an ubiquitous group of entities that I believe are behind the false belief that there is a single God / Allah etc. in a point of time in human progress when we're looking to our neighbours in outer space because to many humans the grass is always greener somewhere else, in reality we have an extensive undiscovered source of life right here on our planet waiting to be discovered. Most of all I'd be a self sufficient farmer in a remote evergreen place far away from everyone.