The one part of your assertion that Screen Australia’s legal counsel might have some luck with is the word ‘harassing’ – if, that is, my continuing to ask questions that Screen Australia refuses to answer is a form of harassment. If my repeatedly asking Fiona Cameron and yourself to identify correspondence that I claim does not exist constitutes harassment, I am guilty as charged. However, if I did not persist in my asking the false assertions that both you and Fiona have made would remain on file and have deleterious effect on my reputation.
If Screen Australia wishes to leave it up to the Supreme Court to determine the existence on non-existence of correspondence, so be it. This strikes me being a dreadful waste of time, energy and financial resources. And it will yield the same result as would be achieved by your self, Fiona and myself sitting around a table with an independent Conciliator – as I suggested months ago. At such a meeting you could produce the correspondence you both refer to in justification of Screen Australia’s banning of me. And Fiona could produce the correspondence I have been asking her t produce or identify for 18 months now. If correspondence exists in which I intimidate, harass and place at risk members of Screen Australia staff, I owe these staff an apology at the very least and my banning is appropriate to the crime I have committed. If the correspondence does not exist, Screen Australia owes me an apology, in writing, and the lifting of the ban that has been placed on me.