Abstract
In order to get away with the massive misjudgement in Qizhi Chen vs Monash University case, Monash University even plotted to poison Chen’s food.
1. In Qizhi Chen vs Monash University case, Chen’s appeal was to reverse the primary judgement (Judgement A). If this judgment had been revoked, the subsequent judgements, including the costs order Judgement B, would all be abolished.
2. For the purpose of coverup the enormously grave miscarriage in Judgement A, Monash University and Australian Federal Court jointly deceived during the appeal proceedings, attempting 3 times to replace Judgement A with Judgement B.
3. Firstly, an admin staff of Australian Federal Court unnecessarily re-listed Chen’s appeal documents, and in her list the staff replaced Judgement A with Judgement B. Chen corrected the list immediately.
4. Secondly, Monash University’s lawyers offered to assist the court to produce a joint Court-book of the appeal proceeding. Taking this opportunity, Monash lawyers replaced Judgement A with Judgement B in the joint court-book. Chen pointed it out right away.
5. In November, Judge Davies ordered an unnecessary court hearing for the parties (Monash University and Chen) to finalise the court-book of her appeal. The hearing would be held on 6 November 20##. Just as Chen anticipated, during the finalising process Monash University and Judge Davies jointly attempted to replace Judgement A with Judgement B again.
In order to succeed with the above plot, the Australian Party had Qizhi Chen’s milk poisoned. Details are:
6. On 3 November morning, when taking out her milk from fridge and drinking, Chen sensed a strange smelling and taste with the milk, which was to be “Used before 5 November”. To prove the milk was soured, she heated it and the milk was clotted. Milk becomes soured before its USE DATE had never ever happened to Chen throughout her whole life, except for this incident. Fortunately Chen has a sensitive nose such that she discovered sourness before she swallowed the milk.
7. Anyone would anticipate that:
(1) If Chen had not had a very sensitive nose, she would have taken the milk on 3 November.
(2) If Chen had drunk the milk, she would have been ill from 3 November through to 6 November.
(3) If Chen had been ill during 3-6 November, she would not have been able to check through the manipulated Application Book produced by Monash University Respondents and would have been absent from the Court hearing (which finalized the Application Book contents) held on 6 November.
(4) If she had failed to attend the court hearing on 6 Nov, Monash University Respondents would have succeed with the plot: replacing Judgement A with Judgement B. (Attachment 2).
8. On 3 November evening, Chen confronted her landlord about the unusually soured milk. The English man explained the cause straight way without any thinking. Apparently he had already prepared the answer, and showing no normal reactions of an innocent person.
9. The soured milk alarmed Chen that the landlord was bribed by Monash University and Chen began evidence collection.
10. On 8 November, Chen collected a breakthrough evidence. To her deep surprise, the landlord called her by her Chinese given-name and even in an Australian accent GiGi, (Chen’s Monash University’s colleagues pronounced her Chinese name Qizhi as GiGi).
11. Because Chen wanted to live in a house free of the information of her legal case and she did not want people around her to be misled by the authority but wrongful judgements and related reports on the Internet, she has been using her English name Grace throughout the whole communication with the landlord, and never ever told them her Chinese name Qizhi (if she had, she would have pronounced Qizhi in Chinese mandarin, absolutely NOT ‘GiGi’). The landlord could not possibly know her Chinese name and pronounce it with the accent of Monash University’s respondents if they were not contacted by Monash party. The landlord must have got her Chinese name and its Monash Respondents’ accent “GiGi” from the Monash University party. This incident proves that Monash University was in contact with the landlord in London.
12. In April 2022, Chen commenced a judicial review proceeding with the High Court of Australia, in which Chen raised her concerns over the above issue (Fraud II). Shortly after the proceeding, Davies J was announced retirement, 4 years earlier than standard retirement age of the court Judges.
qizhichen04 