Misleading Response to FOI Communication
Dear Federal Court of Australia,
On the 27th of October 2021, Rohan Muscat in the position of National Registrar, responded to a FOI communication "A Court of Law" dated 22 October 2021 and can be viewed at the following URL:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
Rohan's Response:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
In Rohan's response, Rohan either deliberately or from oversight re-styled the scope of the documents sought by changing "a man (or woman)" to "person" (a legal entity) as the part response below shows:
__________
Documents that cannot be found or do not exist – subsection 24A(1)
The second part of your email says that you “require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other)” that would be relied upon by public servants including to deny a person right to justice and access to the Court. To the extent that your request – or at least this part of your request – does seek access to “a document of an agency”, I am unable to provide you with any such documents, because those documents cannot be found or do not exist.
___________
i require any internal emails or documents that relate to the response to the original FOI communication; and an explanation from Rohan why the scope was changed; and a qualified employee to correctly carry out a search of said documents from said FOI communication.
The original text from said FOI Communication is below as a fyi:
____________
The Federal Court of Australia is a Court of Law and the Law of the land is common law and there is no public Federal legislation, law, rule (or other) to the contrary. Is there an internal policy, directive, rule, law (or other) that:
1. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice? and,
2. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access to the Federal Court of Australia - a Court of Law, to prosecute a claim in common law?
i, require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other) that makes the above (or similar) claim/statement (point 1 and 2) that a PUBLIC SERVANT or qualified employee or assign of the said Court would depend on to: deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice, and, deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access the said Court, and, the name of the qualified employee, PUBLIC SERVANT or assign (or other) that made it.
_____________
godspeed
dated 22nd day of February 2022
i: a man; Shaun
OFFICIAL
Dear Shaun
Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.
Kind regards
FOI Officer
-----Original Message-----
From: i: a man; Shaun <[FOI #8497 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 5:33 AM
To: External FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Misleading Response to FOI Communication
Caution: This is an external email. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Federal Court of Australia,
On the 27th of October 2021, Rohan Muscat in the position of National Registrar, responded to a FOI communication "A Court of Law" dated 22 October 2021 and can be viewed at the following URL:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
Rohan's Response:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
In Rohan's response, Rohan either deliberately or from oversight re-styled the scope of the documents sought by changing "a man (or woman)" to "person" (a legal entity) as the part response below shows:
__________
Documents that cannot be found or do not exist – subsection 24A(1)
The second part of your email says that you “require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other)” that would be relied upon by public servants including to deny a person right to justice and access to the Court. To the extent that your request – or at least this part of your request – does seek access to “a document of an agency”, I am unable to provide you with any such documents, because those documents cannot be found or do not exist.
___________
i require any internal emails or documents that relate to the response to the original FOI communication; and an explanation from Rohan why the scope was changed; and a qualified employee to correctly carry out a search of said documents from said FOI communication.
The original text from said FOI Communication is below as a fyi:
____________
The Federal Court of Australia is a Court of Law and the Law of the land is common law and there is no public Federal legislation, law, rule (or other) to the contrary. Is there an internal policy, directive, rule, law (or other) that:
1. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice? and,
2. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access to the Federal Court of Australia - a Court of Law, to prosecute a claim in common law?
i, require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other) that makes the above (or similar) claim/statement (point 1 and 2) that a PUBLIC SERVANT or qualified employee or assign of the said Court would depend on to: deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice, and, deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access the said Court, and, the name of the qualified employee, PUBLIC SERVANT or assign (or other) that made it.
_____________
godspeed
dated 22nd day of February 2022
i: a man; Shaun
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #8497 email]
Is [Federal Court of Australia request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Federal Court of Australia? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL
Dear Shaun
Please find attached correspondence from the Federal Court of Australia.
Kind regards
FOI Officer
Federal Court of Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: i: a man; Shaun <[FOI #8497 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 5:33 AM
To: External FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Misleading Response to FOI Communication
Caution: This is an external email. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Federal Court of Australia,
On the 27th of October 2021, Rohan Muscat in the position of National Registrar, responded to a FOI communication "A Court of Law" dated 22 October 2021 and can be viewed at the following URL:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
Rohan's Response:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/a...
In Rohan's response, Rohan either deliberately or from oversight re-styled the scope of the documents sought by changing "a man (or woman)" to "person" (a legal entity) as the part response below shows:
__________
Documents that cannot be found or do not exist – subsection 24A(1)
The second part of your email says that you “require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other)” that would be relied upon by public servants including to deny a person right to justice and access to the Court. To the extent that your request – or at least this part of your request – does seek access to “a document of an agency”, I am unable to provide you with any such documents, because those documents cannot be found or do not exist.
___________
i require any internal emails or documents that relate to the response to the original FOI communication; and an explanation from Rohan why the scope was changed; and a qualified employee to correctly carry out a search of said documents from said FOI communication.
The original text from said FOI Communication is below as a fyi:
____________
The Federal Court of Australia is a Court of Law and the Law of the land is common law and there is no public Federal legislation, law, rule (or other) to the contrary. Is there an internal policy, directive, rule, law (or other) that:
1. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice? and,
2. deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access to the Federal Court of Australia - a Court of Law, to prosecute a claim in common law?
i, require the internal policy or directive or law or rule (or other) that makes the above (or similar) claim/statement (point 1 and 2) that a PUBLIC SERVANT or qualified employee or assign of the said Court would depend on to: deny or defer a man (or woman) right to justice, and, deny or defer a man (or woman) right to access the said Court, and, the name of the qualified employee, PUBLIC SERVANT or assign (or other) that made it.
_____________
godspeed
dated 22nd day of February 2022
i: a man; Shaun
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #8497 email]
Is [Federal Court of Australia request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Federal Court of Australia? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FOI Officer/Public Servant,
i require clarification as a result of your communication as your response is unclear and doesn't appear to address the original search requirement:
It is claimed by Rohan from the said Federal Court, responding to the second part of the original FOI email ("A Court of Law" dated 22 October 2021), that a search was in fact undertaken, but that search was deliberately or by oversight, restyled/modified to exclude "a man (or woman)" and to include "a person".
Was a search for documents from the referenced original FOI email conducted and without the restyling/changing of the content from "a man (or woman)" to "a person" (a legal entity)? If so, what documents were found, If no search was conducted, why not?
godspeed
dated 1 April 2022
i: a man; Shaun