TA v Chadi[2020] QCAT 448

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   This is a complaint by TA that he was victimised by Adam Chadi contrary to section 129 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
2. [2]
   In such complaints the word ‘victimise’ is used in a strict legal sense and not used colloquially.  Victimisation is defined in section 130 of the Act and it is helpful to set it out in full, together with section 131:

130 Meaning of victimisation

1. (1)
   Victimisation happens if a person (the respondent) does an act, or threatens to do an act, to the detriment of another person (the complainant)—

1. (a)
   because the complainant, or a person associated with, or related to, the complainant—

1. (i)
   refused to do an act that would amount to a contravention of the Act; or

2. (ii)
   in good faith, alleged, or intends to allege that a person committed an act that would amount to a contravention of the Act; or

3. (iii)
   is, has been, or intends to be, involved in a proceeding under the Act against any person; or

2. (b)
   because the respondent believes that the complainant, or a person associated with, or related to, the complainant is doing, has done, or intends to do one of the things mentioned in paragraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii).

2. (2)
   In this section, a reference to involvement in a proceeding under the Act includes—

1. (a)
   making a complaint under the Act and continuing with the complaint, whether by investigation, conciliation, hearing or otherwise; and

2. (b)
   involvement in a prosecution for an offence against the Act; and

3. (c)
   supplying information and producing documents to a person who is performing a function under the Act; and

4. (d)
   appearing as a witness in a proceeding under the Act.

131 Victimisation continues even if proceedings etc. do not

The application or continued application of section 129 (Victimisation) is not affected by—

1. (a)
   the failure or otherwise of the complainant or the person associated with, or related to, the complainant, to do 1 of the things mentioned in section 130(1)(a)(i),(ii) or (iii) (Meaning of victimisation); or

2. (b)
   the withdrawal, failure to pursue, or determination of a proceeding under the Act.

3. [3]
   It is convenient to call the thing which is protected by these provisions as the ‘protected act’.  In the complaint before me, the protected act is another earlier complaint made by TA to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland (ADCQ) on 1 November 2018.  That complaint was against somebody other than Mr Chadi. The complaint before me was made to the ADCQ on 18 May 2019.  It was not resolved, and the ADCQ having become the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC), referred the complaint to the tribunal on 18 October 2019. 
4. [4]
   As the hearing of this complaint approached, the parties were uncertain about the issues which were to be heard and determined by the tribunal.  This was clarified through directions.  In this manner, the issues have been identified by the tribunal and confirmed by the parties as:^[1]

1. Whether TA made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland on 1 November 2018.
2. Whether on 23 November 2018 when speaking to TA in the library and on 24 November 2018 on a second occasion, Mr Chadi said to TA that if TA did not withdraw the complaint he would act adversely by:
   1. (a)
      generating malicious correspondence;
   2. (b)
      engaging in negative and retaliatory actions;
   3. (c)
      using his family connections to affect TA’s potential future employment.
3. Having admittedly prepared a document dated 23 November 2018 (Exhibit B in the complaint of 18 May 2019) and having sent it to (the university), whether Mr Chadi also sent the document to:
   1. (a)
      tenants;
   2. (b)
      friends of TA; and
   3. (c)
      (the relevant state professional body).
4. Whether any of the above acts which are admitted or proved:
   1. (a)
      occurred because TA had made the complaint;
   2. (b)
      were to the detriment of TA.
5. Whether there was a contravention of section 129 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (victimisation).
6. If there was a contravention of section 129 of the Act what order should be made under section 209 of the Act.

5. [5]
   The context of the complaint is that both TA and Mr Chadi were overseas students attending university in Queensland.  They were in the same study program and they also lived next door to each other in the same complex of apartments.
6. [6]
   On 1 November 2018 TA made a complaint to the ADCQ about his ‘head tenant’, that is to say his residential landlord from whom he sub-let.  TA asserts that Mr Chadi was good friends with the head tenant and on hearing of TA’s complaint to the ADCQ, Mr Chadi set about trying to get TA to withdraw it in the manner set out in the list of issues.

Nature of the hearing

7. [7]
   Both parties now live overseas with a considerable time difference with Queensland.   TA asked for a hearing on the papers,^[2] and in the circumstances the tribunal considered this as a possibility.
8. [8]
   Such a hearing seemed possible bearing in mind that a voluminous amount of written material had been submitted and each party was able to argue their case and comment upon the other party’s case on paper.  In the light of the agreed issues, the important evidence comes from the parties themselves, rather than from supporting witnesses.  The prospect of an on the papers hearing was assisted by the fact that the tribunal must conduct proceedings in an informal way, is not bound by the rules of evidence, and may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.^[3] 
9. [9]
   Both parties agreed to having an on the papers hearing.
10. [10]
    I am satisfied that it has been possible to provide both parties with a fair hearing, and to reach a proper determination of this complaint, by deciding it on the papers.
11. [11]
    I should point out that there are a number of documents in the file which are marked ‘without prejudice as to costs’ or ‘without prejudice’.  I have ignored any document which appeared to be privileged in this way.

Considerations

12. [12]
    Issue 1 is not in dispute.  The precise nature of the complaint made to the ADCQ is not in evidence,^[4] but it seems to me, having regard to the terms of section 130(1)(a)(iii) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), that this does not matter because any complaint to the ADCQ is a protected act. 
13. [13]
    Issue 2 concerns the threats allegedly made by Mr Chadi on two occasions when meeting TA in the library, that he would act adversely if TA did not withdraw the complaint against the head tenant.  TA’s case is that Mr Chadi was very good friends with the head tenant and made the threats when he heard about the complaint to the ADCQ.
14. [14]
    Mr Chadi denies making any threats at all.^[5]  He also denies having any family connections referred to in issue 2(c), and he denies being ‘very good friends’ with the head tenant although he admits having engaged him to do some work.^[6]  In that respect, TA says that Mr Chadi wrote several positive reviews about work done by the head tenant.^[7]
15. [15]
    It seems to me that it is unnecessary for me to determine the truth of these matters because TA has difficulty showing that there is an arguable case on issue 2.  The problem appears from an analysis of the allegations as they appear in the paperwork.
16. [16]
    I start with TA’s original complaint to the ADCQ which was seven months after the event.  TA said:

On or around November 3^rd, 2018 Mr Chadi became aware of (the complaint to the ADCQ) and thereafter advised and threatened (TA) to withdraw his ADCQ complaint .. insisting that (TA) would face retaliation should he choose not to abide by Mr Chadi’s request .. which (TA) refused to do.

Mr Chadi also threatened (TA) that Mr Chadi’s family were prominent, and that he had ‘connections’ to the provincial (professional body) (TA) was known to be from.

17. [17]
    TA was directed by the tribunal to file ‘contentions’ and he did so on 11 February 2020.  In those contentions he described the allegation in issue 2 as:

(Mr Chadi) threatened me that I would face adverse action from him if I did not withdraw a QHRC statutory protected complaint I had filed in good faith against (the head tenant) in or around November of 2018 .. including that Mr Chadi would generate malicious correspondence and engage in other negative and retaliatory actions me, including but not limited to, use his ‘family connections’ to affect my potential future employment.

Mr Chadi made threats that if I did not withdraw the initial QHRC complaint lodged by me against (the head tenant) then Mr Chadi would engage in the victimisation campaign, which Mr Chadi followed through with, including by engaging in a number of actions and taking a number of steps, including but not limited to, relaying the disparaging, discriminatory, retaliatory and denigrating correspondence about me and/or causing the same to be done so by others.

18. [18]
    TA was directed to file evidence and submissions and he did this on 24 June 2020.  In that evidence he describes the allegation in issue 2 as:

During the library encounter with Mr Chadi I was harassed, threatened and intimidated by Mr Chadi and was aggressively questioned by Mr Chadi why I made complaints about him .. and why I complained about the head tenant to the ADCQ.  I was also told to withdraw the ADCQ complaint against my then head tenant and to move out or I would be forced out or threats to that effect.  The following day, November 24^th 2018, the threats continued from Mr Chadi which necessitated me to send an email specifying ‘I did not want any problems with him whatsoever’ or words to that effect so as to diffuse the situation and avoid further hassle, harassment and maintain the situation cordial.

19. [19]
    TA filed an affidavit in the tribunal made on 4 August 2020.  In that affidavit he described the meetings with Mr Chadi as follows:

On or around November 23^rd 2018 .. Mr Chadi .. approached me in a very angry demeanour with closed fists and said to me in a rather quiet but serious manner .. and stated ‘what’s your problem with (the head tenant)?’, ‘what’s this discrimination shit? If you don’t leave (the head tenant) alone and drop the bullshit complaint you filed against him, you’re gonna have problems.  I’ll make sure of it.  You know who my family is right?  .. If you have a problem with (the head tenant) just talk to him’ or words, threats and statements to that effect.

(then having told Mr Chadi that he would not be withdrawing the complaint) Mr Chadi said words and statements to the effect of ‘sorry, but if you can’t sleep or breathe, then move out! I won’t tell you again’.

20. [20]
    It is noticeable that the original complaint reported somewhat vague threats but as time progressed those threats were reported more and more dramatically.  In its ultimate form, the complaint included both physical and oral aggression, swearing, contempt for discrimination law, and a threat of forced eviction, none of which were in the original complaint.  Perhaps of rather less importance, the date when the events occurred changed from the beginning of the month to nearer the end of the month, and in his later descriptions, TA was able to specify where the events happened which he did not previously do.
21. [21]
    The result is that I have considerable doubt from TA’s case alone whether he is correct about what happened.
22. [22]
    We must add to that, Mr Chadi’s denial.  The closest Mr Chadi goes to TA’s case in issue 2 is:^[8]

Also, around this time, I suggested to the Applicant the possibilities of alternative methods of addressing issues with the head tenant and other individuals, without necessarily resorting to the Commission.

23. [23]
    I am satisfied therefore that there was at least one discussion between the two men about TA’s ADCQ complaint.  But I need to decide whether, when discussing the matter with TA, Mr Chadi acted in the way now alleged.  The answer lies in the documentary evidence.   There are two emails from TA dated 24 November 2018.  I am satisfied that they were sent after whatever discussions took place because they are referred to by TA in the above extract from his evidence and submissions of 24 June 2020.^[9] 
24. [24]
    The relevant part of TA’s email says:^[10]

24 November 2018

There are some implications right now between myself and (the head tenant) given his conduct and I would appreciate if you simply don’t get involved or decline involvement if he continues to coerce you otherwise.  Thanks.

25. [25]
    Then three hours later TA send a further email to Mr Chadi saying:

Also, please know that I consider you a friend and I think you are a cool person overall and simply don’t want any problems with you.

26. [26]
    It seems to me that this email from TA is much more consistent with Mr Chadi’s case than it is with TA’s case.  TA gives no hint of any discussion of the type now alleged in issue 2.
27. [27]
    In addition to all this, TA has produced a letter that he wrote to Mr Chadi’s flatmate dated 9 December 2018, merely a month after the events complained if they occurred on 3 November, and only two weeks after the events if they occurred on 23 and 24 November 2018.  In that letter TA refers to Mr Chadi ‘who I also respect very much’.^[11]  This comment also seems to be quite inconsistent with what is now alleged in issue 2.
28. [28]
    TA has also produced a letter he wrote to Mr Chadi on 9 December 2018.  The letter was an obvious opportunity to refer to what is now alleged in issue 2.  Instead, the letter says that he holds respect for Mr Chadi and continues:

I can however unequivocally confirm and advise that since I was approached by yourself in the library on or around November 23^rd, 2018, I have informed (the head tenant) to cease knocking on your unit door and I also understand he has since left the unit and taken his belongings.  I wish to apologise if I, in any way ever appeared aloof on such above November 23^rd, 2018 date, for I was approached by yourself at a time when I had not properly rested given my heavy course load and studies.

29. [29]
    This passage itself and the remainder of the letter is quite inconsistent with what is now alleged in issue 2.  Yet this letter was written by TA to Mr Chadi just a few days after the alleged events.
30. [30]
    This means that what is alleged in issue 2 seriously lacks consistency when compared with the original complaint to the ADCQ and its later iterations, and is also inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentation.  For that reason, and in the light of Mr Chadi’s denial, I answer issue 2 in the negative.
31. [31]
    Turning to issue 3, Mr Chadi admits writing the document of 23 November 2018 and sending it to the university.^[12]  Mr Chadi also admits giving the document, or at least an earlier version of the document, to TA’s head tenant.  Mr Chadi says that what happened was that the head tenant asked him for a statement about TA for use with the ADCQ and so he prepared this document and gave it to the head tenant.^[13]  He also says that this was after he had been aware of multiple complaints lodged by TA in the ADCQ in early October 2018 ‘against the head tenant and others’.  This explains why, says Mr Chadi, there are two dates on the document – 4 October 2018 and 23 November 2018. 
32. [32]
    Although this does not tie in exactly with the date of TA’s complaint to the ADCQ against the head tenant which we know was 1 November 2018, there is a possible explanation here for how the document got into TA’s possession – it might have been submitted by the head tenant in response to TA’s ADCQ complaint of 1 November 2018.  There is another possible explanation for this, however.  In his submissions of 18 October 2020, TA explains that he received the document on about 12 December 2018 from QCAT.  It had been relied on by the head tenant in eviction proceedings brought against him.  It is unnecessary to resolve exactly how or when TA received the document.  He certainly had it when he made his complaint to the ADCQ on 18 May 2019.
33. [33]
    In his submissions, TA attempts to show that other documents made by various people appeared to be in the same font, style and font size as the document dated 23 November 2018 drawn up by Mr Chadi.^[14]  The documents are in exhibit E attached to final submissions, which is an email of 24 September 2020.  In this exhibit there are four relevant sub-exhibits which include Mr Chadi’s document dated 23 November 2018.  The other documents are TA’s tenancy agreement of 12 September 2018 prepared by the head tenant, and two statements from other tenants complaining about TA.  Although the documents (as printed out anyway) used a similar font, I cannot see that this evidence assists me to decide to whom Mr Chadi gave the document dated 23 November 2018.
34. [34]
    Issue 3(a):  Mr Chadi denies sending or giving the document to tenants generally although as stated above he admits to giving it to the head tenant at least in its earlier form.^[15]  I think Mr Chadi also gave the same document as redated 23 November 2018 to the head tenant because it appears to be the case as TA says, that the head tenant relied upon it in QCAT proceedings to try to evict TA,^[16] and that is one explanation of how it came into TA’s possession.  There is no evidence that Mr Chadi gave it to anyone else and he denies that he did.  There is no reason for me to disbelieve Mr Chadi.  The answer to issue 3(a) is therefore ‘no, except that Mr Chadi did give the document to the head tenant’.
35. [35]
    Issue 3(b):  There is no evidence that Mr Chadi sent or gave the document to friends of TA other than TA’s assertions that this did happen.  Mr Chadi denies doing this.^[17]  The answer to issue 3(b) is ‘no’.
36. [36]
    Issue 3(c):  Although in the document dated 23 November 2018 Mr Chadi said that he intended to contact the relevant state professional body about TA, Mr Chadi denies that he did,^[18] and there is no evidence to the contrary.  The answer to issue 3(c) is ‘no’.
37. [37]
    Turning to issue 4(a), this concerns Mr Chadi’s reason for sending or giving the document to the head tenant and to the university.  The word used in section 130 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) is that the act complained of must be because of the protected act.  The question arises how close the causative link must be.
38. [38]
    In Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925 Buchanan J reviewed the authorities on this question and noted in passing that the causation test in such cases (as I would apply here to a victimisation complaint) has variously been stated as whether the protected act was ‘the substantial or operative factor’ or ‘a substantial operative factor’, and it can be noted that in some QCAT decisions it has been said that it is sufficient if it was ‘a substantial or operative factor or reason’.^[19]  It is clear from Penhall-Jones that the protected act does not have to be the sole factor but it must be a substantial and operative factor,^[20] so that is the test I propose to apply.
39. [39]
    I also bear in mind here that although by section 204 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) TA has the burden of proving that the document was given because of the complaint, I am able to infer that this is so in an appropriate case.^[21]
40. [40]
    For the giving of the document to the head tenant, I accept Mr Chadi’s evidence that he was asked by the head tenant to provide a statement about TA for the head tenant’s defence to the ADCQ complaint of 1 November 2018.  As it turned out, it seems that the head tenant nay have used the statement differently: he may have used it to support the QCAT eviction proceedings, or the head tenant may have used it for both proceedings. 
41. [41]
    So did Mr Chadi give the document dated 23 November 2018 because of the ADCQ complaint?  It is true that if TA had not made a complaint about the head tenant to the ADCQ, the head tenant would not have asked Mr Chadi for a statement.  So if a ‘but-for’ test is applied, the answer would be ‘yes’.  It is understood however, that the but-for test, although useful to show what is not caused by an event, is not a good test for positive causation.^[22]  To apply the but-for test to these circumstances would mean that a person facing an ADCQ complaint would be unable to gather any effective evidence from third parties to defend themselves because such evidence would be given by the third party because of the complaint.  Instead, it can be seen that Mr Chadi gave the document to the head tenant because the head tenant asked him for a statement. 
42. [42]
    On that basis, Mr Chadi did not give the document to the head tenant because of TA’s complaint to the ADCQ.  For the giving of the document to the head tenant therefore, the answer to issue 4(a) is ‘no’.
43. [43]
    For the giving of the document to the university, had I found as was suggested in issue 2 that Mr Chadi had contempt for anti-discrimination law, a strong desire to help the head tenant, and was threatening towards TA, then my finding would be straightforward.  But I have found that what is alleged in issue 2 did not happen.
44. [44]
    I do agree with TA’s submission that there is a coincidence of timing between the making of the complaint to the ADCQ and the giving of the document dated 23 November 2018 to the university.  But Mr Chadi denies that there was any link.  It does emerge from the papers that, TA having moved in next door to Mr Chadi  on 26 September 2018,^[23] matters were fast moving in October and November 2018, and over that time a number of different people considered that they had reason to complain about TA, and eventually a complaint to the university was made about him.^[24]  In this context, the fact that on 1 November 2018 TA had made a complaint to the ADCQ was merely incidental. 
45. [45]
    Mr Chadi lists in his response to the complaint a number of matters of concern which led him to prepare the document dated 23 November 2018 and send it to the university.^[25]  I accept that Mr Chadi had these concerns.  The concerns are largely what he stated in the document.  There is nothing to show that having the concerns, setting them out in the document, and sending the document to the university, was in any way because of TA’s complaint to the ADCQ about the head tenant.
46. [46]
    So for the giving of the document to the university, the answer to issue 4(a) is ‘no’.
47. [47]
    The above findings mean that I would have to dismiss the complaint but since I have considered issue 4(b) it is right I should make my findings about it.  It is whether the giving of the document to the head tenant or to the university was to TA’s detriment.
48. [48]
    The difficulty with this issue is that TA’s evidence describes hurt and upset and even medical intervention, but he describes it in very general terms without specifying the precise cause.^[26]  In order to show that Mr Chadi’s giving of the document dated 23 November 2018 to the head tenant was to his detriment, some better evidence is required.  There is nothing to show for example, that the document damaged the case that TA wanted to present to the ADCQ against the head tenant.^[27]  It seems likely that the head tenant used the document in his application to QCAT to evict TA, but TA does not say that the document made it more difficult to defend those proceedings.
49. [49]
    Although TA says that detriment is shown by the contents of a medical report, this is incorrect because the report refers to the effects of the case, not the effects of the document dated 23 November 2018.^[28]  And TA also says that part of the detriment was ‘having to move out’,^[29] and having to move somewhere where the rent was higher,^[30] and having to purchase an air ticket to return home,^[31] but he does not explain how these things are linked to the giving of the document.
50. [50]
    It is however, just possible to understand from TA’s evidence that there were two things in particular that upset him when reading the document.^[32]  The first was that the document referred to TA’s poor performance as a student, when TA says this was because of a disability.  The second was Mr Chadi’s intention stated in the document to warn the relevant state professional body about TA.  Objectively it can be understood that these two things could properly be very upsetting to TA upon reading the document.  Reading the document was therefore a detriment to him.
51. [51]
    That is not the end of this question because any detriment to TA must have been caused by Mr Chadi for it to be relevant to the complaint of victimisation.  It seems to me that such detriment was caused by Mr Chadi because if Mr Chadi had not given the document to the head tenant, TA would probably never had seen it. 
52. [52]
    For the giving of the document to the head tenant therefore, the answer to issue 4(b) is ‘yes’.
53. [53]
    I take a different view about the giving of the document to the university however.  This is because although we know that as a result of receiving that document, and possibly similar documents from other people, the university appointed an external consultant to investigate TA’s conduct,^[33] there is no evidence as to what happened then.  We do not know for example, whether TA was ever affected by, or even knew about, any such investigations.  To the contrary, he seems to deny that he was investigated.^[34] 
54. [54]
    The closest we get is TA’s email of 2 October 2020 in which he says that the document intimidated him at university ‘including in front of my lecturers, professors, friends, acquaintances and associates’.  A better description of what happened appears in TA’s final submissions of 18 October 2020 paragraph 3.  He says that people approached him and they said they knew about the document and this caused an atmosphere at the university. 
55. [55]
    Clearly if this is the case then TA suffered a detriment.  Although this evidence is weakened by being given in later, rather than in earlier evidence and submissions, if it is to be accepted as correct it faces the difficulty that there is nothing to show that any such detriment was as a result of anything done by Mr Chadi.  Generally I have accepted Mr Chadi’s evidence that he published the letter in a limited way.  On that basis, he did not pass it around.  So if it did get passed around and it came back to TA in the way he says it did, this was not caused by Mr Chadi’s actions.  I think the chain of causation is broken by the actions of others.
56. [56]
    For the giving of the document to the university, the answer to issue 4(b) is ‘no’.

Other applications

57. [57]
    There are other applications which I need to hear and determine at the same time as the main complaint.  Mostly these are all informal applications in the sense that no tribunal form was used to make them.  It is convenient for these applications to be dealt with after making my main findings.  The applications, and my decisions on them are:

1. (a)
   Mr Chadi’s application of 22 June 2020 for any recording of a private conversation on or about 4 October 2018 to be excluded from the evidence.^[35]  This is refused because I do not regard any of the recordings as relevant to the issues and I have not listened to or viewed them.
2. (b)
   TA’s application of 13 March 2020 for Mr Chadi to be punished for a contempt.  This is dealt with below.
3. (c)
   TA’s application of 18 June 2020 for part of the complaint (that is, the common nuisance and other possible offences which occurred on 4 October 2018) to be transferred to the Queensland Police Service under section 52 of the QCAT Act.^[36]  This is refused because what happened on 4 October 2018 is not part of the complaint being heard by the tribunal.
4. (d)
   TA’s application of 13 March 2020 for Mr Chadi to pay costs.^[37]  This is refused because there is nothing to demonstrate that TA incurred any costs capable of being part of a costs order.
5. (e)
   Mr Chadi’s application of 15 June 2020 for TA to pay costs.^[38]  This is refused because there is nothing to demonstrate that Mr Chadi incurred any costs capable of being part of a costs order.

Application for punishment for a contempt

58. [58]
    TA’s application for punishment for a contempt is very obscure.  It was made in submissions of 13 March 2020 ‘for the above noted grounds and reasons’, without stating what exactly was relied on, and later submissions said that the contempt hearing was ‘to address Mr Chadi’s inconsistencies’ which had ‘misled, embarrassed, vexed and unnecessarily disadvantaged me’.^[39]  TA seemed to wish to add to this an application for punishment for a contempt on the basis that Mr Chadi was in breach of a non-publication order in this matter by disclosing TA’s name to others.^[40]
59. [59]
    In the area of contempt, the jurisdiction of non-judicial members of the tribunal is limited.  Where there is a contempt in the face of the tribunal I could certify the contempt in writing to the President.^[41]  It seems to me however, that none of the allegations made by TA could amount to a contempt in the face of the tribunal.
60. [60]
    Section 219(5) of the QCAT Act provides that the tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers to punish a contempt of the tribunal may be exercised only by a judicial member.  In the light of the statutory provisions, in Wheeler v Rockhampton Regional Council [2011] QCAT 115, [53] where there was no contempt in the face of the tribunal, Member Favell regarded himself, as a non-judicial member, unable to deal with the contempt application at all.  I respectfully agree with this.  The only thing I could do would be to refer the application for punishment for a contempt to the President.  However, I decline to do this because the application is not properly made.^[42]  This means that this application will simply remain on the file.