Conspiracy to commit
Janette says: On the Friday before ANZAC Day, as a reasonably computer literate person and competent self-representing litigant in Australian law, I filed appropriate documents with the Federal Court eLodgement but encountered a problem when they refused to accept my affidavit alleging it was "corrupt".
So I sent all the documents to be filed as email attachments to the South Australian (SA) registry of the Federal Court of Australia, clearly identifying the "primary Act" in which I had my cause of action (Copyright Act infringement of my copyright, my moral rights and lack of attribution); and included an appropriate affidavit outlining the specific grounds for my application to the Federal Court and my right to sue within jurisdiction of the court.
CONSPIRACY BABY: Presumably, after discovering my underlying matter occurred primarily in Sydney NSW regions and was "Australian Labor & Liberal Party terrorism", SA registry staff decided to send my documents to a Victoria state judicial registrar (JR) to determine if they should be filed.
The JR Adelaide registry chose (Alissa Crittenden [CRITTENDEN]) was not an authorised "National Judicial Registrar".
CRITTENDEN, a qualified solicitor/lawyer, decided to have carriage of the matter despite that she had obvious indirect bias.
CRITTENDEN rejected my documents giving her grounds pursuant to Federal Court Rules as my lack of "basis in law".
CRITTENDEN declined to include how I may "appeal" her decision in the event I found it overly unjust or oppressive or discriminatory or had failed to take into account relevant matters or appears to have acted with bias in the matter.
Perusing the "Federal Court Rules" and the "Federal Court Act" I was unable to find any reference to "basis in law".
EVIDENCE of UNLAWFUL BIAS: The underlying matter (Copyright Act infringements) that gave rise to my statutory rights to sue was clearly outlined within my affidavit where I mentioned the name "Paul Keating" (point "11.") but declined to specify all members of the inferred (unincorporated "terrorist organisation" which include members (past & present) of Australian Governments or the two major political parties in Australia (Labor & Liberal); which incidentally, now includes CRITTENDEN herself.
Not only had CRITTENDEN been employed for over three years by the Victoria State, "Department of Premier and Cabinet" her primary pratcising address as a solicitor is still registered (10 May 2021) at the "Victorian Legal Services Board & Commission" as being "Department Of Premier & Cabinet, Fitzroy North, VIC 3068"
AND CRITTENDEN's prior employer for almost ten (10) years had been the legal practise Clayton UTZ one of Australia's "top six legal firms" the same prior employer of multiple Liberal Party members & members of Federal parliament, including ex-Prime Minister John Howard MP and ex-leader of Liberal Party Julie Bishop MP.
During those ten, CRITTENDEN was employed almost five (5) years as a "lawyer" at "Sydney NSW" office of Clayton UTZ.
CRITTENDEN was also a "Senior Associate" for almost five (5) of her ten years at Clayton UTZ.
source: CRITTENDEN profile photo & detail
A fair summary of the purpose of Australian law is to facilitate access to justice as fast and as economically as possible.
There is no provision in any Act of parliament or any Tort law or the Common law that expressly protect the interests of terrorists at the expense of victims of terrorism and contrary to existing written law - yet that's exactly how I've been treated in the Australian court system since I lived in the Adelaide area of South Australia.
Recently I applied to the Federal Court. The application was via their online lodgement portal. Being a more than average computer literate person I can expertly say the portal process appears to be intentionally cumbersome and faulty. It accepted my Form 15 application, then asked for a “supporting letter” (my reason to lodge) to accompanying the Form 15 application. This is not a part of the normal court process. I wrote a brief note which was accepted by the lodgment portal. However when I tried to lodge my Form 59, the supporting affidavit that is mandatory in the court process, the lodgement portal refused to accept it.
As I was still trying to get the lodgement portal to accept my Form 59 supporting affidavit a person emailed me at my, lodgement portal registered, email address thus, the COURT originating email informed me that my “application was rejected on the grounds it was incomplete”. I responded to the email by attaching copy of the Form 59 supporting affidavit, explaining that I had been attempting to lodge it without success. I naturally presumed the absence of my Form 59 affidavit was the reason my “application” was deemed incomplete.
A person emailed me back to tell me I had to email them all my application documents, “so that the a can be considered together” and requested that I complete the un-numbered form headed, “Application for Exemption from Paying Court Fees” despite that I had already submitted to the lodgement portal's required ID documents as requested by the lodgement portal for the same purpose. The un-numbered form, “Application for Exemption from Paying Court Fees” demands that you accompany the same ID documents I had already submitted through the lodgement portal.
This was an immediate RED LIGHT for my logical brain, clearly, I reasoned, the person at the end of the second FEDERAL COURT email had no access to my “lodgement portal” Form 15 submitted through the secure online lodgement portal, despite that my lodgement portal application stated noted that ADELAIDE was the Federal Court for the hearing and that this email was from the same Adelaide Federal Court.
Being a person happy to take Government evidence of foul play, I responded to the second COURT email email. Ensuring I was through, I'd attached a new, 27 April dated Form 15; the unconstitutional random supporting “letter”, my Form 59 affirmed 23 April, my exemption application dated 27 April, and my ID picture documents. As I was not used to this process I'd also accidentally included the first From 15 dated 23 April which did not mention the ”primary Act that the matter was applicable to”.
Despite that there was a later dated Form 15 (27 April) which was obviously intended to replace the earlier dated Form 15 (23 April) the response to my application included “consideration” of the 23 April Form 15 and was rejected. Dated 29 April thus:
“I am of the view that the Documents should be refused for filing under rule 2.26 of the Rules
on the basis that they are an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious. The Documents do
not disclose any basis in law to support the Relief Claimed, nor any serious question to be
tried.” adding “The Documents are returned to you.” which means they COURT refused to even keep evidence of my “unconstitutionally” failed application.
But wait there's more.
Being an intrepid Miss Marple type personality, I researched the sender of the rejection. Which I might add is probably why terrorist Government public officers often write to me anonymously.
The 29 April rejection letter came from was signed off thus, “Alissa Crittenden Judicial Registrar” this has several meanings one of which I will detail at the end.
I naturally researched “Alissa Crittenden”. Then sent the below emailed note thus and attached my supporting evidence from the Internet:
Federal Court Australia
RE: prior Alissa Crittenden "DOC" attachment, Kindly review your rejection in view of a Constitutional approval.
It appears that "Alissa Crittenden" has an inferred bias at work in his / her inferred decision, on the basis that recently Alissa Crittenden was or is a senior associate at the law firm "Clayton Utz" whose principals, partners or associates have been members of at lease one major Australian parliament or political party from time to time. A matter which is relevant in consideration of the well known fact that the underlying "matter" in this application is evidence of act/s of terrorism perpetrated by multiple members of major Australian political parties and parliaments.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s32 Jurisdiction in associated matters
Associated matters—civil proceedings (1) To the extent that the Constitution permits, jurisdiction is conferred on the Court in respect of matters not otherwise within its jurisdiction that are associated with matters (the core matters) in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked.
Reference to being "associated" with the "core Act" would naturally extend to the address for service of any party with a case to answer if the case were already filed.
I also highlight Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s37M "the ‘overarching purpose’ provision, that the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible..."
Your rejection is both derived from an inferred indirect bias and is unconstitutional, where every citizen in Australia is equal with every Government, or part thereof, before the courts and therefore equal before any "registrar" when attempting to file in any court.
Kindly review your rejection in view of a Constitutional approval.
See my Internet evidence sent to from “The College of Law” in a .com.au website which established that yes, prior Claton UTZ lawyers included two very prominent Liberal Party federal parliamentarians, Julie Bishop and John Howard. Its also true that when John Howard was Prime Minister I sent him a letter about the “underlying matter”. Despite that I have the same first name as John Howard's wife (Janette Howard) the letter from Prime Minister John Howards parliamentary staff was addressed to me as “Jeanette Francis” indicating it was written by a Labor Party supporter, not a Liberal Party ally as it inferred.
All this is relevant and entwined in the overall corruption of the “underlying matter” has many elements evidenced in State Government documents also in South Australia's centre of State Government in Adelaide. In 2009/2010 the then press secretary for the Labor State Premier signed off on a long letter of response to my complaint to the State Department of Transport as a senior executing of State Transport, when she was employed as the Premier's press secretary according to her Linked-in profile. I refer to the (evidenced) computer hacking expert, Jan McConchie who more recently is the advertised principal owner of a private Internet marketing business for Government entities. “Jobs for the boys” and girls. What was that NSW State Justice Glass said (circa 1997) about nepotism and jingoism when he made his decision in the criminal court hearing related to the fake murder of the fake person Leanne Walters?
State Transport had refused to accept my Australian Birth Certificate as my own, they had deleted my last photo for my driving licence and deleted my Birth Certificate “name” signature from their records after they refused to allow me the right to use my own birth name on my driving licence. They illegally cancelled my driving licence in 2018 soon after I made them correct all the deleted data in 2017. I've been without a driving licence since despite not having done anything to bring that situation into effect.
Back to Alissa Crittenden. As I noted earlier, “Alissa Crittenden Judicial Registrar” has several meanings one of which was the propensity for anyone to have a secret direct bias if they are associated in any way with the underlying matter.
Another, is an inferred indirect bias if they have an indirect association with the underlying matter.
Another is the simple fact that a “registrar” has the power to make an application to the court when there appears to be an abuse of process or MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
Another matter is that pursuant to (State and) “Federal Court Rules of the Court” a “judicial registrar” in Federal court has similar powers to a judge of the Federal Court and can make any order on the evidence. Which means a “registrar” and a “judge” can apply or order with the correct wording to facilitate the discovery I required, to allow me to proceed in the court in compliance with the POLITICALLY AMBIGUOUS judicially made Court Rules made constitutional by an enactment of parliament. Despite that the Rules of the Court are constitutionally lawful, their obvious intended political ambiguity is not constitutional. Judge made, rules of the court, are all too often abused on obvious political grounds to unconstitutionally defeat Australian law in manners inconsistent with other, registry or judicial, decisions made under the same rules. Ergo: an act of terrorism.
So what was my dual, grounds and evidence? My Form 59 AFFIDAVIT has been reprinted below. Well to be precice, its not yet printed below at the time I write this, but it will be printed below when you read this. That my friend is the same method of ambiguity the registrars and judges use to defeat a matter before them when it has propensity to (legally) threaten and defeat an unconstitutionally or illegal political cause they personally subscribe to, ergo: an act of terrorism.
As in many cases before many Australian courts, the “grounds” is also “the evidence” a point that many registers and judges use to dismiss an application to the court by a self-representing applicant where the “rules” of the court deem that the application to the court which must state the “grounds” for the application “must not” include the evidence. This is the basis they have refused many of my application the other basis is the completely ignore my evidence when submitted in the correct manner, as if its invisible to their terrorist brain.
One of the “party” pricks that have criminally stalked me since the 1980s approached me around the same time the John Howard falsified response letter was sent to me, when I lived in Goulburn NSW near the NSW Police Training Academy. This short male approached me, made some throw away comment, grinned and blurted, “Oh what a web we weave”. The complete saying is “Oh what a web we weave when first we practice to deceive”. This short prick approached me around the beginning of April, very recently outside Bunnings hardware store in Old Noarlunga, some 1500 kilometres from Goulburn NSW. He approached me said another throw away comment as he walked past then stood a few feet away leaning on the Bunnings exterior wall, requiring him to turn his head away from the Bunnings entrance as he was staring at me while I packed my Bunnings purchase on my bicycle trailer, indicating, (to me) in retrospect that he was more likely than not, a prominent “party” to the unconstitutional Adelaide Federal Court emailed court application rejection.
I've discovered Australian law is all about remembering the written law, in your head. I suspect that due to my lack of efficient vision, hearing well and remembering just about everything with the ability to pattern match like a computer (but not as fast mathematically but better in some other areas, obviously) is where my brain excels. Remembering relevant detail is something I do do well, but was expected to do less well after the Government performed multiple illegal lobotomies on me in 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately for them their evil arse-fuker plots failed.