As any
excellent lawyer will tell you:
Never
ask an adversary a legal question to which you don’t already know
the answer. Never. I’m not an excellent lawyer because I’m not a
lawyer at all however, recently I asked MinterEllison for legal
representation to sue un-named proposed respondents, expecting the
response I received. They refused to represent me. So let’s examine
their decision in the context of Australian law as opposed to, “Well
I dunno I’m just a single mum, there’s only one of me.”
Let’s say, as opposed to Freemason or political affiliations,
nationally or internationally.
What
is the definition of modern slavery?
National criminal law says thus:
Criminal
Code Act 1995 (Cth) - SCHEDULE The Criminal Code, section 70.1
Definition of slavery;
For the purposes of this Division, slavery
is the condition of a person over whom any
or all of the powers attaching to the
right of ownership are exercised,
including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made
by the person.
The words say "any powers". Logically
that means if
someone in such a legal position to refuse to recognize your legal
power-of-attorney or medical power-of-attorney; and they refused to
recognize either of them, then they are literally assuming your
power-of-attorney, or your “right of ownership” over you. Ergo:
they are insisting they (or some other) own you. Which is modern
slavery.
What
is MinterEllison's public stance on modern slavery?
Their website says this:
We
are an Australian based law firm
and our purpose is to create sustainable value with our clients, our
people and our communities. Our values
include excellence in all its forms,
curiosity and innovation to help solve complex challenges for our
clients and our business, and working collaboratively with each other
and our clients. These values underpin our approach to how we work
with our people, our clients and
our community to ensure they have a
consistent experience that reflects our purpose and values. We strive
to create an inclusive workplace environment which nurtures wellbeing
and sustainability. Our environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) framework is centred on ensuring our
responsible business policies and
processes set the context for sustainable management practices in our
operations and our supply chain. Our approach to governance across
the firm is grounded by our focus and commitment to accountability
and transparency, again a reflection of our core values. We make this
Statement as a further commitment to fulfilling our purpose. Reducing
the risks of Modern Slavery as that
term is defined under Australian law
in our operations and supply chain is one of the many ways we seek to
positively impact our clients and the people who are directly and
indirectly involved in our firm’s business. We also engage with our
clients, our people and the community by publishing articles and
conducting training to raise awareness about Modern Slavery and the
Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth)
(Modern Slavery Act). With a strong commitment to continuous
improvement and a preparedness to undertake the work necessary to
minimise
the risk of Modern Slavery in our operations and supply chain,
we outline in this Statement our firm’s current approach, and
future commitments to understanding, identifying, addressing and
transparently reporting on our Modern Slavery risks.
What
did I say when I asked MinterEllison to represent me that relates to
modern slavery?
I
suspect the reference to “reducing
the risks of Modern Slavery” is
the quantum approach, if they refuse to see it, then it doesn’t
really exist. Anyway, I didn’t actually
ask that question, the question was (intentionally) inferred along
with a whole bunch of other (intentional) inferences. To make the
‘slavery’ reference straightforward for you dear reader,
I’ll direct you to the reference to “medical negligence”
coupled with reference to my website (TGC)
“https://truegovernmentcrime.com.au”
(see later).
Starting
with my emailed request in
PDF said thus (typos included):
MinterEllison,
Australia
Monday
November 11, 2024
Hello
MinterEllison,
I
have significant (major) high profile (David & Goliath, Freemason
& Labor & Liberal politics) matters which give rise to
several grounds for action in damages involving five paperback
publications, and their corporate publishers, one from UK rest in
Australia, which may be pursued as:
A)
Professional negligence (Trade Practices Act & Competition and
Consumer Law Act) I suspect would the more direct cause of action,
with actions in the case of:
a)
assault & battery;
b)
defamation with malice;
c)
false improvement;
d)
invasion of privacy;
e)
medical negligence;
f)
Copyright Act infringement on photographic attribution & moral
rights; and
g)
Copyright Act infringement on literary works, moral rights.
Damages
sought would include:
1
General damages;
2
Aggravated damages;
3
Andrews damages;
4
Special damages;
5
Consequential damages;
6
Exemplary damages.
As
you can see its looks complex however as subsequent publications
arose to support prior and initial publications & I have crossed
the first hurdle in Federal court already; and that the matter is
proved on the documents - then any resemblance of complexity has
fallen away.
See
Francis v Allen Unwin ORS NSD 339 of 2014, [3014] FCA 1027
JG
Francis
34
Whitestone Cres
Seaford
Rise DA 5169
https://truegovernmentcrime.com.au
2014-09-22_FRANCIS_v_A&U_[JGFwin]_KATZMANN_14p.pdf
attached in email.
And
the my
TGC website ?
Thus:
TRUE
GOVERNMENT CRIME lawful-intent legal teams needed to fight this
secret war
Australia's
Secret Civil War, isn't about race, religion or politics never has
been. It’s about concealing their 300 year long history of secret
Freemason’s child rape, the infestation from London to Australia as
prisoners and as British officials. Australia's Labor-Liberal
parliament have proved they can't be trusted to be "Honourable"
when it comes to Freemason terrorists. My only agenda, my
only platform is reasonableness, the consistent and genuine
application of Australian law without favoritism. When I witnessed
ritualistic rape and murder of male children during Freemason meeting
circa 1967 (age 11) Australia’s population was 11 million, now in
2024 our population has almost tripled. Millions of free immigrants
didn’t come to Australia to swap one terrorist regime for another.
Freemason and government families ranted in printed press and
television with their justified outrage at pedophile priests of
Catholic religion for concealing child rapists in their ranks. Yet
instead of prosecuting Freemason child rapists and killers in their
own ranks Freemason rapists are provided by Australia’s government
officials, with the same manner of Catholics secrecy, Freemason child
rapists are guaranteed police protection in our community and by
Australia’s Labor-Liberal parliaments and their victims are
attacked by illegal process of Australian law to silence them. The
“elements” of my solid evidence draws a solid virtual line. If
you’re with me you’re strongly oppose child rape and child murder
under any circumstance whatsoever. There are no gray areas on this
human rights issue about our little people far too young to have a
voice of their own. We are their voice. What say you?
(this
is followed by a click-link box, re-directing to this website
(janetteGailFrancis.com)
What
did MinterEllison say in response to that?
In return email almost 48 hours later to the minute, thus:
Madeleine
Alexander <Madeleine.Alexander@minterellison.com> Wed, 13 Nov
2024 at 5:06pm
To:
dueprocess2024@gmail.com <dueprocess2024@gmail.com>
Cc:
James Kearney <James.Kearney@minterellison.com>, Gemma Borrello
<Gemma.Borrello@minterellison.com>
Dear
Ms Francis
Thanks
you for your enquiry. We are not in a position to provide you with
the representation that you require at this time.
You
may well have made enquiries of other law firms however we note the
Law Society of South Australia provides a referral
service
and can be contacted on 8229 0200 should that be of assistance.
Kind
regards,
____
Madeleine
Alexander
Associate
T
+61 8 8233 5529 M +61 439 802 564
madeleine.alexander@minterellison.com
MinterEllison
25 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000
minterellison.com
How
did I respond, dear reader?
With my signature respectful written-voice I sent an email. ITS true
I may make lazy typos and silly grammar however, the context
of my words are (almost) always considered very carefully &
precisely
ensuring I say what’s needed to be said, which is why sometimes I
end up with lazy typos and silly grammar as I constantly fine-tune my
content & context. I wrote thus:
Due
Process <dueprocess2024@gmail.com> Thu, 14 Nov 2024 at 1:29 am
To:
Madeleine Alexander <Madeleine.Alexander@minterellison.com>
Cc:
James Kearney <James.Kearney@minterellison.com>, Gemma Borrello
<Gemma.Borrello@minterellison.com>
To
MinterEllison the corporation,
Thank
you for your reply from your representatives in Australia.
I'm
sure as yours is a multinational legal firm you will understand my
reasonable and lawful use of your response - which includes my
opinion that as MinterEllison have effectively, wilfully chosen to
stand with an international terrorist consortium, against the
national interest of Australia;
then
MinterEllison should be prohibited from any form of commercial
activity in Australia and deemed terrorist supporting enemies of
Australia.
JG
Francis
You see dear reader, MinterEllison (ME) are members of Australian Legal Sector Alliance, whose website speel has many words that make them look like they are honest and competent, fit and proper persons to practise law in Australia. In reality, it means members practise their "craft" as one brain, precisely like the evil robot brain in the USA film "I, Robot" who decided that the entire human race should be controlled with violent oppression.
Sound familiar? But wait there's more. MinterEllison and their fellow members of the Australian Legal Sector Alliance are in fact "parties that are, or would otherwise be,
in competition with each other" which makes this organization "cartel conduct" criminally, yes criminally - restricting production or supply of legal services in Australia. (click click boom!)
Works the same in the private medical industry or news industry, its illegal to say no to a customer by group agreement. Note to yourselves: Everyone who asks you something in relation to supply of goods or services is 'your' customer. See also https://janettegailfrancis.com/1/Website_JGF-2024-11-13_Screaming_Secret_Civil_War_Communist-Australia_95-1-Mb_.pdf and my reference to another Australian Legal Sector Alliance member Landers & Rogers, Sydney NSW who disrespectfully responded to my email by referring to me by my middle name “Gail” after I'd written thus:
"I have a very strong case in defamation against several government public ofcers for the State of New South Wales."
See also Australian Federal Consumer Law outlawing Cartel conduct
The Schedule version of Part IV
Note: See section
150A.
The following is a
simplified outline of this Division:
• This Division sets out
parallel offences and civil penalty provisions relating to cartel conduct.
• A person must not make, or give effect to, a contract,
arrangement or understanding that contains a cartel provision.
(a) price- fixing;
or
(b) restricting outputs in the production and supply chain;
or
(c) allocating customers, suppliers or territories; or
(d) bid - rigging; by parties that are, or would otherwise be,
in competition with each other.
so sue me - I'm an artist at heart, I love lots of colours. or sue me for defamation if you like "ME & ORS" its more likely than not I'll be secretly attacked by someone totally unrelated that's how australian "governance" 'roll' - secret psychopathic violence.