Please do not place your deluded ideas about the nic-name or anything else; Information requested is required as a matter of public interest and is vital to the prevention of any culture of fraud causing death and/or destruction to property as a result of the culture of abett criminal acts committed by 3rd parties that existed within the organisation of LA Legal Aid ACT (maybe not today - you could of cleaned up your corruption and purger - but hows yesterday, many suicides from the text of 3rd party that threatened a woman - and has a white card today after you gave protection to the criminal committing a fraud upon the respondent and that of the threatening of a woman). Please provide job data if possible upon the 3rd party (many work for Government - had contact with ministers)

To the applicant:
(1) It is not necessary to explain on every request why you have chosen your user name. A user of Right to Know can choose any name she likes.
(2) If you make your request with a long user name like ouhootookiuauaraadoileemeeraosiuhiacailoameolaoauuvoeqoiqiinie then it is also sensible to keep this name on all your emails and not call yourself "Concerned Citizen" on another email from the same address.
(3) Your request is invalid under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 of the Australian Capital Territory because it does not clearly identify the specific documents that you want. The request for a "legal basis", etc. asks for legal research or for information but not for a document. The request for death counts is also a request for information. A officer will not know exactly what document to look for and the document probably does not exist. The same is also the existence with questions 4 and 5. Question 6 has no meaning; it is not a request for a document and is also invalid.

There is also a failure by the Legal Aid Commission. Section 14(3) of the FOI Act of the ACT says that if a person makes an application that is not valide then "it is the duty of the agency to take reasonable steps to assist the person to make the request in a manner that complies with this section." The Commission did not do its duty.

Thankyou for the provision of extra information, my understanding of the law in regards to FOI is that the request can not be completed because of improper record keeping at the organisation whom I may add collects information on the service use (their counterparts in the Womens services division of legal aid may have the information in document form). Some of the information I have learned can also be entered in such a manner as to allow the use of computer record keeping and court processes to be abused. Other issue I located before submission was in regards to refusal pending 'any person' reasons. The request asked for the searching of documents to produce another with tallies - the media department of the womens la legal aid would never allow this request (it harms their interests in past or future issues but sadly enough they use the same FOI to produce information citing the amount and forms of abuse against women)

I missed the 'document' requirement - a FOD will be the revised submission lol. Considering the need for a 'document' to be requested then it would not be possible to file a request as the organisation would simply bound the information within a document that its self could be placed within another format like a book to prevent seeking information upon the document. In relation to documents because of the nature of request I would assume that to allow for discovery of information and documents a review would needed to be performed (which to my understanding has occurred - Stanhope being appointed to perform the last review some years ago).

I agree with the last point but sadly the organisation is well known for not providing assistance (they would not be funded to provide such assistance and I assume would use an escape clause in their funding to avoid any compliance with FOI)