Thursday, August 16, 2012
letter to Ruth Harley 16th August
Level 4,150 William St.
Woolloomooloo 2011 16th August 2012
As I have made clear on numerous occasions, I have little interest in the outcome of my defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW on 5th Sept. other than in securing from you both copies of correspondence that you claim I have written and which I claim I have not. If it were not for the reluctance of Glen Boreham, Simon Crean and the Ombudsman to request from yourself the release or identification of my ‘intimidating’ correspondence I would not be bothering with the Supreme Court.
I imagine, on purely technical grounds Screen Australia might win the case. If so, that’s fine – as long as, in the process, I acquire copies of the correspondence that you claim bears witness to my having intimidated, harassed and placed at risk members of Screen Australia staff; as long as I get hold of copies of the correspondence Fiona Cameron refers to in her letter of 12th Nov. 2010 – for which I have been asking for 21 months now and which Screen Australia refuses to supply me with in accordance with FOI legislation. Once I have these documents, or at least the dates on which I wrote them, I will then publish these on the internet and my small band of interested blog followers can make up their own minds as to who has been playing fast and loose with the truth.
In an ideal world, in a world in which what you write is in sync with demonstrable fact, you would write to me a letter in which you acknowledge that:
- Clare Jager and Ross Mathews did not view the ‘promo’ I submitted in my first CHANTI’S WORLD application and that my complaint regarding this was legitimate.
- I did not write the correspondence Fiona Cameron refers to in her letter of 12th Nov 2010 by way of dismissing my complaint.
- There is not one letter or email on file at Screen Australia in which I have, in accordance with whatever dictionary definition you choose to rely on, intimidated or placed at risk a member of Screen Australia staff.
As for the word ‘harass’ (“To trouble or pursue relentlessly”) I am as guilty as is anyone who relentlessly pursues the truth and is not prepared to accept spon in its place.
That it should be necessary to prove the existence or non-existence of the contentious correspondence in the Supreme Court strikes me as absurd. It would have been much more appropriate for an independent Conciliator to determine the existence or non-existence of the correspondence rather than waste time, energy and financial resources in the Supreme Court.