Fax from Don Kerrison to ADT EEO


To: The Registrar, ADT Equal Opportunity Division
From: Don Kerrison
Date: 14 November 2005

Re: Case Conference 16 November 2005 Val Kerrison, matters 9840, 991019, 991020

Dear Registrar

Regarding the case conference proposed for Wednesday 16 November 9.30 am, we accept with thanks the ADT’s kind offer that, due to Val’s ongoing breast cancer treatment problems the conference could be conducted by telephone link.

Accordingly, unless notified otherwise, Val will be available at that time on (02) 6562 6767.

Unfortunately the cancer treatment seems to have damaged Val’s vocal chords and there is a slight possibility that she may have trouble speaking. However we don’t anticipate that it will be a problem and if it should occur her communications could be faxed to the ADT.

While we acknowledge that we do not know the cause of the cancer, recently published studies state that stressful life events may contribute to breast cancer risk. For that reason I and others sometimes assist her.
To help conduct the conference effectively the ADT EEO Div may be assisted by some background and an update on the situation from Val’s and some public opinion:

1. Due to the respondents’ more than 10 years unremitting and remorseless threats and harm to Val’s person, safety and rights it is considered unsafe to her health and safety to allow the respondents, their legal representatives, and/or their participating staff access to her.

We have previously tried to have this addressed, but while thousands of pages of what appears to be damning evidence has been circulated to politicians, departments and courts during these 10+ years as yet none have acted to protect her and address identified issues. See WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed

2. Additionally, recently the Teachers Federation union contacted Val warning her of even more alarming emails circulating and the respondents’ named personnel meeting at North Coast Institute of TAFE (NCI TAFE) Port Macquarie discussing her and proposing to "… all chip in and buy a bullet". The respondents’ lawyer/s have, for years emailed to Port Macquarie NCI TAFE staff. See WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed

3. Val’s ADT cases are similar to others involving Department officers’ actions against their internal reporters (whistleblowers). Not only departmental lawyers but also those legal teams employed and hired by Crown Solicitor’s Office (CSO) are involved.

Seemingly some have now been indicted on criminal charges with probably more to follow. IndyMedia report and publish at

Special Prosecutor Indicts Crown Solicitors on Criminal Charges The accused have been indicted on multiple charges of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice including perjury and withholding of evidence by valid legal process commenced under IRC Rule 237 subrule (1) which preserves a long existing and now singular common law right of private initiation of criminal charges. As Special Prosecutor Mr Crewdson will be laying additional charges at a later date and will add as tendency evidence similar conduct in other proceedings [probably Kerrison and TAFE in IRC] involving … government organization HealthQuest and involving government solicitor and barrister Menzies and Brus…”

This leaves previous actions under a cloud and therefore not to be relied on.

4. Years ago when Val asked that the ADT matters proceed, the request was not granted at the Respondent lawyers’ request. It was all deferred pending the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) proceedings as they were a superior body to the ADT.

The IRC panel of Justices Walton, Staunton, Staff either applied or condoned a forced “medical retirement” against Val. As it is unknown what day, year/century this purported and illegal ‘medical retirement’ they suppose this to have happened in TAFE, there is therefore still no definitive employment status change date or signature for the ADT (or Val) to rely on.

5. More seriously, it may be considered that, as the AntiDiscrimination Act clearly prohibits such ethos and acts (e.g. forced age retirement, forced marriage retirement, forced medical retirement etc) the IRC set an alarming precedent as its December 2004 declaration effectively negated the AntiDiscrimination Act, the AntiDiscrimination Board, and the EEO Division of the ADT. It is considered that this should be corrected immediately by the responsible parties. Perhaps this could be addressed by responsible organisations such as Attorney General’s Department, Justice Department, Premier’s Department, ADT, HREOC, and others as soon as possible due to the detriment ongoing to Val and the public’s perception that the justice system has been brought into disrepute.

6. Despite the longevity of the case in the IRC, and all the public resources spent supporting the judiciary and Respondent’s legal teams, it appears that this has not assisted the ADT or justice. Increasingly the public’s viewpoint on the administration of justice has been critical. Recently members of the public commenced considering the justice or lack thereof in Val’s case. As is their right they considered what decisions and acts should have been summarily voided from 1994 due to their basic lack of procedural fairness and natural justice. They contacted the decision makers and writers of offensive decisions and documents and, after applying procedural fairness and natural justice joined with these people, agreeing that many documents and decisions were enacted without procedural fairness. Those documents were then duly stamped “NULL AND VOID” and Val’s identity obliterated from more than 30 known documents. The circulated personnel included the Respondents’ staff and lawyers, Attorney General, CSO etc. Therefore it was by consent that the old documents currently attached to affidavits lodged in the ADT are not usable against Val. This is published on the site WhistleBlowers’ Documents Exposed – Current Actions section,

As stated above, Val will be available for phone conference on Wednesday 16 November 9.30 am, unless we are notified that this is changed. We are not sure of the process proposed by the ADT at this time, but if ADT considers it appropriate, we have no objection to this fax being supplied to the Respondents’ legal representatives.

Regardless of where Val is, both CSO and ADT may still contact Val by mail addressed “[Postal address]".

Yours faithfully

Don Kerrison