letter to Ruth Harley 2nd July 2012

Ruth Harley

Chief Executive

Screen Australia

Level 4

150 William St.

Woolloomooloo 2011                                                                                    2^nd  July 2012

Dear Ruth

Following on from my letter of 14^th June.

You would be quite within your rights to sue me for defamation for calling you a liar. And I would be within my rights to sue you for having passed on to third parties documents that defame me. Either or both law suits would cost Screen Australia a lot of money, whilst costing me very little since I would defend myself. A waste of money, time and energy I am sure you would agree.

Even bearing in mind the dictum that the man who defends himself in court has a fool as his client, I would win the case because, as you know, the correspondence to which you refer as evidence of my harassing, intimidating and placing Screen Australia staff at risk, does not exist. It is for this reason that you have made scarcely veiled legal threats that you have no intention of carrying out.

I have suggested a conciliation process whereby some independent arbiter with no vested interest in the outcome would look at the relevant correspondence and make a decision regarding who is playing fast and loose with the truth and who is not. You have ignored this offer, one that would bring this absurd matter to a rapid conclusion – as could have been the case at any point this past 18 months (in relation to Fiona’s allegations regarding correspondence from me) and the past two months, in relation to your allegations. I suspect that you have rejected the conciliation proposal because, like the Supreme Court option, it is one that would require you to produce non-existent correspondence.

It seems to me that you have only one realistic alternative – to apologize for the allegations you have made regarding correspondence from me and for having banned me from having any thing to do with Screen Australia. There is also, of course, the ‘Ostrich Option’ – burying your head in the sand (along with Glen Boreham, Simon Crean and the Ombudsman) and pretend that there is no problem here that will not disappear if you ignore it for long enough. This strategy might work but the longer this drags on the more egg is going to be on various people’s faces when it does eventually become apparent (as it will) that the correspondence to which you refer does not exist.

best wishes

James Ricketson