Retail and Restraint on Trade
Updated: Nov 13, 2022
Author - Ms Initially No, policy writer for Abolish Psychiatry, CEO of Gallery.
Restraint, as in the limitations that are there, that are laws, that must be abided by.
Abridged versions of the law, on anti-competition, usurping, and mechanical contrivances via footbridges, and other bridges, to attempt to Bridge the Gap, and usurp another’s business.
There isn’t a law-abiding usurp, and espionage contrivances that are obvious, and repeated, and sabotage in themselves, are not permitted to take another’s business into something else and make false claims.
‘Toad in the Hole’ dishes served, used to be means and ways cooks could speak to an issue, with a daily menu, that was public, so that the public could subtly know the goings-on. That isn’t what is occurring via catering, that is subjected to Health And Human Services Department; and when a business imposters as a small business, and is actually part of a big corporation, that asks for espionage weapons to be tested, and witnesses to be intimidated.
There isn’t an excuse, for espionage. The crime is too horrible, and obvious.
People want excuses, and they must not be permitted that induction, ‘but everyone does it’. No, they do not. When too many people perpetrate espionage there is cartel increase, and fascism, becomes obvious to the rest of the world, and the unarmed-civilians, and honourable citizens, are violated, and so are their work-places.
That when there are RANZCP fellows, attempting to use the legal term restraint, and push to not permit a victim of psychiatrists’ violations, to speak of that which is perpetrated against them, in their own house, or anywhere else, as if that were Gag Order of the Court. That RANZCP fellows, have been told to no longer use physical material on a human’s mouth, though still bind a person to a bed, their human body tied down with straps, so the person cannot move. This, is because RANZCP fellows want to substitute that person for a patent. The RANZCP fellows, then speak of the patent, they are not permitted to speak to. And they tell the person they are violating, to be silent, about all and sundry, to put the writ from the courts on the victim of psychiatrists’ violations.
That, horror, is then said to be ‘transference’ in a RANZCP fellow’s session, with Supervision RANZCP fellow, that releases the RANZCP fellow from the Court Order Gag, and Contract, and puts that on the victim of psychiatrists’ violations.
RANZCP fellows, work in 3 on one person, when a person gets forcibly assigned to the RANZCP fellows. Reason for this is Circuit Court, attempts to stop molestation, and other dangerous situations with Family Court, via Triage Assessments and Treatment. Once again those Legal terms are being used incorrectly by RANZCP fellows, whom attempt to usurp the Circuit Court, and conceal the espionage assaults, and other assaults, as ‘medical treatment’.
The details of the violations of RANZCP fellows, are obvious, though very horrible to go into details of the torture on people.
There is such horrible violations, on people, by attempts to name them waif, and waive, or wavers. A waif is a thing, and when referred to it is a stolen thing. Any laws that refer to humans as waif, really are not permitted, and deprive a person of protection of the law, by espionage contrivances that are not lawful. Women, have the right to lawsuit. To say a person has deprived by her conduct of protection of the law – what would that be referring to? A contract, that she agreed to, without being tortured into, there wasn’t duress, it was a Contract of the Court. And that contract must not breached.
I do not want to be exploited for someone else, whom is breaching a contract of the courts. Anyone whom perpetrates that breach is criminal conduct, or aiding and abetting violent theft of purpose and reason – to exploit another to attempt to gain, and put the gag order on the person whom didn’t sign a contract to refrain from publicly discussing facts of a case.
Melbourne 1990s – put forth a fashion on women, to wear black, and look thin. That then got discredited in 2000s as ‘junkie’ fashion label, and no longer interesting. The puppeteers wore black, so did stage-hands, and thespians employed in both roles, wore black, to disappear illusion, for the audience. They purchased limited clothes, when not signed to a fashion label and contract, the thespians, performing artists on that via Agent for Performing Artists. That an employment contract, that is in writing, and formally agreed upon.
In 1996 I went to a Thespian’s Acting Class, that sort of class that is for clowns of the theatre, whom want to think about thespian skills, and do not expect to be subjected to another’s Court Justice Gag Order, that they’re not permitted to speak of, then, told they have to keep silent about that which is so horribly disturbing, and they didn’t expect to be subjected to, and then given no reasonable supervision discussion, or understanding of the Legal Issue that the unwitting thespians were subjected to. The contract of the Thespian’s Acting Class, no binding. The people whom signed the Court Justice Gag Order, should never have blurted out their secret to a class of thespians (whom paid for the class, and were not paid to look after legal issues and were youthful.) That there were several breaches, likely, and that the blame-shift, involved mechanical contrivances, and there was interrogation, via sister, on a tired thespian, after class, also mechanically contrived. And, if there were not that, and the spinning spider on the roof, there was a situation that was this – don’t blame shift. Contract law, is with the person whom signed the contract, to not speak of their Courtroom Justice issue, that is Formal, Courts, not thespian’s clown class.
That there were cartel in 1996, violators that travelled to South Australia and to Victoria, and attempted binding on people, jamming things into cans, and attempting to name that ‘an instrument’. Usually cartel were deport issue, on that, and Australian resident. That should have been easy to stop, for authorities in Australia. All carer pensioners should have been denied, if drug-deal carrier issues were in any way suspected, and they were. Why were residents of Australia getting pensions as carers? Queried. Especially when the people they claimed to be carer of, wanted nothing to do with them, and were not electronic devices (that might get mucked) that needed care-for. And the cartel that were Australian resident – look like they have no money. Have nothing in the bank to view; and live in a ‘parent’ house, regularly cartel fraud and deport issue. That the cartel exploit an Australian citizen’s biometric ID.
To exploit another’s biometric ID, and say ‘we thought it funny or other’ is not an excuse. And Military must think about where that non-excuse is coming from, because it could be dangerous if identified with, the non-excuse. The citizen exploited should not be subjected to that horrible insult, while being exploited and thefted from – by another that is inducting Military to accuse a citizen of being ‘funny or other’. The patent is going off is a thing ‘in danger’, is claim, and ‘patience needed’ turned into ‘patients needed’ is horrible forced human experimentation. And dangerous machines, or poisons going off, an Addict, to be shifted to another location, due to the holder’s of the Addict not being law-abiding. And the infect, when dangerous machine used off-licence. That is ‘thing’ not human. And when human is referred to as a ‘thing’ or ‘biometric ID’ that is wrong. A biometric ID pertains directly to one human, and should not ever be thefted, exploited, and said to be ‘funny ID’. The thief of biometric ID, is the ‘funny ID’ not the human thefted from. And ‘funny’ here means dangerous, going off and perpetrating horrible crimes, not permitted to be thespian, performing artist. That and ‘hot property’ slang in reference to a person, is not legal language, though should mean – the person is sought after for employment, and if you as employer are so want, make sure the contract is something that is good enough, and pays the person that which they desire, so they will sign. That, means, contract, and there can be legal secrecies, for such employment.
Unrelated to employment, are intrusions. Cartel data-theft in West Bendigo Electorate, into that which is breaching the Court Gag Order. Trade secrets, restraint of trade, anti-competition, fixated data-theft of intercorporate cartel.
Related to employment, though, not my employment, so not me: Editors breach Contract Law, by allowing the journalism to be published, when the journalist names a breach, admits by the accomplice breaching of contract, or Court demand to refrain from discussing the facts of a case. That breach, is then used by intercorporate cartel, to discuss further breaches, that and co-conspire crimes further. (reference, ‘Sophie’s fight to have her day in court against a man who allegedly molested her has dragged on for 20 years’ , Angelique Donnellan, ABC news/ 7:30.) That is a journalist article, in question, are they permitted, to publish that, and is espionage being used, to by-pass certain laws on the breach, while, unarmed-civilians, law-abiding citizens of Australia, whom are biometric ID thefted, are being subjected to espionage molest, as in fires from an electronic weapon, and obstructed from understanding, and prosecution of a war crime perpetrated against them.
I do not permit my biometric ID to be exploited for another, no matter how much a person thinks that they have a right to pursue historical offenses, and deny justice for other people, whom have never been given the right to prosecute.
Speaking to a contract, without breaching that, is tricky, and the journalist, has clearly breached code of conduct, by going ahead with that, instead of choosing people such as victims of psychiatrists' violations, that are molested by espionage weapons, whom do not have a Court Order Gag. Which, should be easier, then to write, lawfully.
What happens, when, I, as a writer, whom isn't bound by Contract of Court Order Gag, is being exploited by the journalist and the accomplice, to attempt to get around the Court Order Gag? Very wrong, not permitted substitution, for a Legal Issue. And horrible Crime Against Humanity. As if I were somehow responsible for another’s biometric ID theft of my biometric ID, and, their Court Breach of Contract, that has nothing to do with me.
Substitute never one person for another in a Formal Legal issue, involving Courts.
Substitution for thespians, Performing Artists, is clowning, it isn’t meant to be Legal Issue. That word, substitution, for thespians, doesn’t mean Court of Law Contract breach and blame-shift. Not the same for journalism and politicians, very serious if intention, and act is to breach the contract, and blame shift onto a person whom is being denied publicity by that journalist, accomplice and editor.
Be serious. The medico-pharmaceutical intercorporate cartel espionage, blame-shift is horrible violence, sabotage, fascism.
Gager del ley; wager of law – that method of proof in which a person defends against a claim by swearing that the claim is groundless, and by enlisting others, to swear to the defendant’s credibility. Horrid crime when that involves intercorporate cartel, swearing for their personnel, and using espionage to do that, and exploiting another human’s biometric ID.
Ridiculous if: Biometric ID theft, is that named ‘waif’? That a person leaves their biometric ID around? That is ridiculous, that whether stolen or merely abandoned, and seized before the owner reclaimed it, is then said to be title vested in the Crown. The owner punished for leaving the property or failing to recover the property – is usually about owning something such as a house, that is a thing that can be sold. However, a biometric ID is owned only by one person, the person the biometric ID pertains to.
Women whom could not be outlawed named ‘waif’. Why? Did anyone want to outlaw a woman they couldn’t outlaw and declare a ‘waif’ and ‘waiver’ and seem to have all the effects of outlawry.
Waivery – act of putting a woman outside protection of the law.
9 AM 11-11-22 Espionage weapons assaults on author, whom is CEO of Gallery.
Fires are said to be intrusion that is ‘Sussan Ley’; with transmission, ‘I do not know what this is about but Larrissa Waters didn’t like her either’ – is Pfizer device. Obstruction attempt, is said to be that.
Old laws against married women abolished – that a woman cannot undertake legal proceeding without her husband’s consent, is abolished.
That and Henry of Bratton, the Judge of the King’s Bench of Assize - horrible crime when that is usurp of that old legal Judgement laws.
Further violations when ‘waif’ is firearm. Very dangerous, to have that attempt to name people 'things' that are firearms or espionage, in data-theft put into electronic weapons.
Fires of espionage associated with that data-theft, and Govt have a duty to act, to arrest the perpetrators of unlicenced, or off-licenced use of firearms and electronic weapons.
The inheritance of ‘horse hair’ paintbrush; stolen from CEO of Gallery, prior to 2010. The theft of the inheritance was someone else, ‘ley’ and ‘sus’ theft, from a desk. The inheritance isn’t ‘brush with the law’, it is inheritance stolen from Ms Initially No, CEO of Fine Art Gallery. The tease in espionage, there for more than a decade, outrageous.
Waive, is archaic, not permitted to deprive a person of protection of the law, and say that by conduct deprived he or she deprived him/ her self of protection of the law.
That intercorporate cartel are suspect when they ‘bingo’ the term ‘waiting list’.
Waive – to abandon, renounce, surrender (a claim; privilege; right) to give up (a right or claim) voluntarily.
Ordinarily to waive a right, one must do it knowingly, with knowledge of the relevant facts.
History has attempts to enslave via waif. Facts - slavery is not permitted.
Regularly there: Inheritance, denied by courts when espionage is perpetrated (by those whom demand inheritance that is contested).
There are logistics and other intrusions, that attempt box, and ‘plastic box’ and ‘play stick’ – that are not relevant to CEO of Fine Art Gallery. That should not be intruding.
Then, there is former workplace that breached Contract with Government. Serious breach, once again nothing to do with CEO of Fine Art Gallery. Attempts to contrive ‘similar sounding names’, should more easily have been understood by looking at positions and access, and potential foreign interference, that impostor, infiltrate, and make false claims.
Waiver of notice, Parliamentary Law – the waiver that occurs when defective notice for a meeting is issued but every member attends and participates without objecting to the defect.
Repugnant legislation is a defect, a joker, that must be objected to.
Administrative law, with that intercorporate cartel Pfizer is ‘bingo’. Following with usurp break down attempt on:
An administrative agency’s discretionary decision to refrain from enforcing an existing statutory requirement. The idea that an immunity is conferred on all parties otherwise covered by the requirement.
That means, a question is there
How does a Constitution governing all legislation differ in authority from statutes, that are an act that isn’t binding on all acts?
Easily understood, necessary to reinforce:
Constitution is – binding, requires enforcement. 1-v-51-xxiiiA of The Federal Constitution of Australia Act, must be complied with in all legislation. That there must be no legislation that forces provisions, services of medicine, dentistry, pharmaceuticals on Australian citizens.
Non-enforcement, is not permitted. A governmental actor’s discretionary decision to not enforce a statutory requirement in a particular instance, waiver, is outlawry if applied to the holocaust prevention writ 1-V-51-xxiiiA.
That is the waif, here. Theft of purpose, unreasonable legislation not yet made null and void. The thing that is defect, the repugnant, non-compliant, unconstitutional legislation.
RANZCP fellows muck into trade law by restraint and restrict, and result is that theft is not to be retail or retain, theft of human biometric ID, theft of right of victims of crime to justice. Those things, necessary for civil rights, and equality before the law.
Anti-competition, criminal activity to exploit biometric ID, and name reason is ‘service industry’ and ‘social service’. It is utter fraud, deceit, violence, and espionage of spies evasion to claim another’s identity.
When a ‘waif’ is a thing that has thefted property on it and people are using that ‘waif’ as a waiver and really need to be charged with espionage, not use the waif laws. The perpetrators are a crime of espionage, exploiting an unlawful electronic weapon, with fixated data-theft, that includes human biometric ID theft, and other fixated data-theft, pertaining to old military codes, regarding war zone, (and not wanting waif being applied to women with babes, whose homes had been destroyed; that is ’District Nursing Arrangements’, it isn’t to be applied to Victoria, Australia. That there may have been data-theft, in attempts to liaise with UK to compare Sacred Trees to that of women and babes necessities in a war zone. And the attempts were sabotaged.)
Ms Initially No, author, subjected to intrusions, that is where that understanding pertains to.
Other people trying ‘make same claims’ as the author of this writing, cannot be using espionage, must be Australian citizen, unarmed civilian law-abiding.
As regards to another’s contract, that is binding, they may not claim that the author of the writing here has in any way breached their contract. That is their contract, not the author’s Ms Initially No.
There isn’t permission, to use author’s work, without talking to the author, or asking the author, and contract, or agreement. There must not be assuming that the legal work, is free to grab due to referencing Black’s Law Dictionary.
It is important to not have unfair use of an author’s work, and this isn’t unfair use of Black’s Law Dictionary. There shouldn’t be an issue with using legal terms, and definitions, and citing where that definition was from.
Civil rights, is that which is law-abiding, anything else, is criminal breach.
Black's Law Dictionary; 11th Edition; Bryan A. Garner; Editor in Chief; Thomas Reuters
Federal Constitution of Australia Act
ABC news/ 7:30