Dear Federal Court of Australia,

On the 26 August 2019, an Affidavit was affirmed by PHILLIP CHARLES SWEENEY (not sworn) and on 29 August 2019, an electronic copy was filed on the Court File of NSD1654/2018 {ASIC v NAB Superannuation Trustees}.

Included in this Affidavit was a copy of an undertaking given by ASIC before the Honourable Justice Kenny of the Federal Court in VID 323 of 2011 where ASIC undertook to investigate allegations of maladministration of a Defined Benefit occupational pension scheme which has been administered by one of the NAB Superannuation trustees {NULIS Nominees (Australia) Ltd} since 1 July 2016.

The copy of the undertaking was Affidavit Exhibit PCS38, being an extract from the case transcript of VID 323 of 2011.

A failure to honour an undertaking is a Contempt of Court.

On the 19 September 2019, Justice Yates ordered that this Affidavit and Affidavit Exhibit PCS38 be removed from the Court file pursuant to Federal Court Rule 2.28(1)(b)(i).

That is, the question as to whether ASIC had honoured the undertaking given to the Honourable Justice Kenny would no longer be a subject for NSD1654/2018 as would the question as to whether ASIC was now in Contempt of the Federal Court and whether proceedings in NSD1654/2018 could be impugned as an “Abuse of Process” {as well as possibly in other proceedings as well} as an outcome of such a Contempt of Court.

ASIC has not sought to have the undertaking given before the Honourable Justice Kenny discharged.

No mention was made in the Order by Justice Yates as to a specified way as to how this document should be stored after being removed from the Court file.

Therefore, the District Registrar must direct how this document must be stored pursuant to Federal Court Rule 2.28(3)(b).

I do not seek a copy of the Affidavit nor Affidavit Exhibit PCS38.

The document(s) I seek are copies of any email, phone log or other documents that would reveal how the original affirmed paper document and electronic copy were to be stored pursuant to Federal Court Rule 2.28(3)(b) after removal from the Court File on 19 September 2019.

These document(s) will assist in obtaining advice as to how ASIC may be held accountable to honour the undertaking given before the Honourable Justice Kenny in VID 323 of 2011 and so that current proceedings where ASIC is the Applicant/Plaintiff cannot be impugned as an "Abuse of Process" should these proceedings not be stayed until such time as the undertaking has been honoured by ASIC or the Court has discharged this undertaking given before the Honourable Justice Kenny by Counsel for ASIC, Mr Christopher Horan QC.

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney

Dear Federal Court of Australia,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Federal Court of Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Storage of Documents removed from the Court file'.

The matter before the Federal Court in NDS 1654 of 2018 is now of much public interest and I will be appealing this and other FOI responses to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the basis that there must be some record of compliance with Federal Court Rule 2.28(3)(b).

Otherwise, the inference to be drawn is that five affidavits by the "Interested Person" were removed from the Court File in response to a Contempt in the face of the Court by reporter James Frost who disparaged a Whistleblower with an article titled " Serial Pest hijacks case against NAB over fees scandal" and put through the Federal Court office shredder.

These affidavits confirmed that ASIC had given an undertaking to the Federal Court in VID 323 of 2018 to investigate allegation of fraud (or more correctly a fraudulent breach of trust) that had been instigated by a convicted fraudster, Ken Jarrett, and where NULIS Nominees (Australia) Ltd had become a party to a conspiracy to defraud several hundred widows out of their survivorship pensions in their time of need and distress.

The Attorney-General's Department of South Australia and the Parliament of South Australia has been able to provide a wealth of supporting evidence that confirms the widows' entitlement to a survivorship pension which the directors of NULIS refuse to pay from at least 1 July 2016 when NULIS gained control of the Trust Estate of this occupational pension scheme established by a Trust Deed made on the 23 December 1913.

The removal of evidence of fraud and a conspiracy to defraud hundreds of vulnerable widows from the Court File with no record of where this evidence ended up is now very much a subject of public interests and on this basis I am requesting an Internal Review before lodging an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

I have previously successfully appealed FIO related matters to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Phillip Sweeney