Sunday, August 19, 2012
letter to Screen Australia FOI officer 20th August
Thanks for your email of 17th August acknowledging receipt of my FOI request of 9th August and letting me know I would receive a response within 30 days. There are a few problems with this:
1. Screen Australia will provide me with copies of the correspondence from me referred to in Fiona’s letter of 12th Nov 2010 three days after the 5th Sept hearing in the Supreme Court. Given that I have been asking for this correspondence for 20 months, why do you need another 30 days to locate it? If the correspondence exists (I insist it does not), if you can send it to me poste haste, not only am I going to look like a fool but one of the central platforms of my Supreme Court claim collapses.
2. Your email of 17th August somewhat disingenuously implies that I had made no prior FOI request for the correspondence Fiona referred to on 12th Nov 2010. I did, of course, back in March - my 9th August letter to you being merely a follow up. That your email of 17th arrived a few hours after I made a formal complaint to Jacob Suidgeest, from the Information Commissioner’s office, and posted it online may, of course, be a co-incidence!
3. My only purpose in making a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court is to acquire copies of correspondence that I have not been able to acquire through FOI or through utilizing the services of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The time for you to provide me with the correspondence, surely, is prior to 5th Sept; not after the court hearing!
In relation to the correspondence Ruth Harley has cited as evidence of my having intimidated, harassed and placed at risk members of Screen Australia staff you might say, “But James, I have sent you this!” Yes, indeed you have sent me copies of pretty well every letter or email I have sent to Screen Australia. However, with two dictionaries at my side, I have been through it all and have not found one paragraph, one sentence, one phrase that could be construed as ‘intimidating’ or ‘placing at risk’ members of SA staff. Screen Australia’s legal counsel is going to have to draw a very long bow indeed to convince the Supreme Court that any of my correspondence is intimidating.
In the interests of saving the time and energy of many people (including the Supreme Court Judge) could you please provide me with three examples from my correspondence (the relevant sentences, phrases or words highlighted) in which I have intimidated or placed SA staff at risk? If you can provide me with these three examples of the alleged offenses that have led to my being banned, along with the correspondence Fiona refers to in her 12th Nov 2010 letter, there will be no need to proceed to the Supreme Court. I will have been exposed as having (and I am being kind to myself here) played fast and loose with the truth and it will be clear that my being banned was an appropriate course of action for the Screen Australia Board to take.