The sex shop item I do NOT own - affixed to my STOLEN photo.
click the pictures above & below for full size view
|Page 50 describes the sex shop item - incorrectly describes my photo.|
|Sydney Morning Herald Page ONE 3 September 1984 |
|Lindsay Simpson's FALSEt version of the newspaper clipping|
|Leanne Walters or Lorraine Walters or Lindsay Simpson or Sandra Harvey or all four at the wedding of Jennifer Sloman and Peter Curtis in December 1985|
|Sandra Harvey according to FAIRFAX Newspapers in Nov 2000, before her alleged death from cancer.|
|The same Sandra Harvey according to someone else in which TV station?|
| Leanne Walters in the Sydney "The Sun" the day after the shootings September 3, 1984 which was NOT refered to or reprinted in the Allen & Unwin book, it's not Jane Francis.|
| Rex Walters her alleged father holding the same photo that appeared on the front page of The Sun, the caption says it's a "cherished photo of Leanne" the by line says he wants"the truth" which was NOT refered to or reprinted in the Allen & Unwin book.|
| Another photo in September 1984 in the Sydney "Daily Mirroe" it's supposed to be the same Leanne Walters which was NOT refered to or reprinted in the Allen & Unwin book, it's not Jane Francis.|
THE photo in the Allen & Unwin book refered to on page 50 with "lips pursed" and alleged to be the same "bikie moll" and "cheap little slut" refered to in the book, Leanne Walters.
This is a photo of Jane Francis at the age of 27 (almost 28) in February 1984.
It's MUCH MORE than simple Defamation
| Some MORE basic TRUTHS about the 1984 Milperra murders which was NOT refered to in the Allen & Unwin book.|
|And then.... yet MORE basic TRUTHS about the 1984 Milperra murders which were fabricated in the Allen & Unwin book.|
|Which book id FRAUDULANT?||Which country supports CRIMINAL falsification of modern history?|
Allen & Unwin still keep on advertising it for sale breaching both the Defamation Act and the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the malicious infringement of my copyright photograph with specific intent to defame me. They continue to allege the copyright for my photo belongs to NSW Police, yet despite that their page 50 is an admission that they used the wrong photo or intended to defame me and plee they made a mstake - NO LAWYER in AUSTRALIA is willing to rtepresent me unless I pay upfront. This has been publshed for 20 years - this law suit is worth megabucks and I can't get probono assistance!
It's long been CRIMINAL defamation but all of the relevant Australian police refuse to prosecute and all of the relevant Parliaments refuse to intervein, they do however use this story to pass anti-association legislation in breach of Human Rights from the many United Nations Treaties.
That spells extensive professional negligence and criminal intent to defraud me of my legal rights by over of the AUSTRALIAN Parliaments and legal firms in this God forsaken lawless land down under.
Allen & Unwin Sydney Australia just sit back pulling the bucks and keep on laughting....
At least one company had the decency to act lawfully, thank you Google USA.