Document

From: Val Kerrison [mailto:kerrison1@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Monday, 7 May 2007 5:03 PM
To: Steven Davison CEO HealthQuest
Cc: Val Kerrison
Subject: Seeking Urgent Assistance
Dear Mr Davison

You may recall we met recently at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal at the Case Conference between Ms Brus of Crown Solicitor's Office and others representing TAFE, HealthQuest, and Dept Health's Medical Appeals Panel.

Louise Roy phoned me regarding your conversation with her, and forwarded to me your contact numbers.

I am contacting you urgently because HealthQuest's documents especially its "Retirement Certificate" is widely quoted and used against me by TAFE and its lawyers in the Industrial Relations Court where they have applied for massive costs against me. This is set down for hearing next week, therefore the need for haste if HealthQuest intend to now assist me..

1. Freedom to Communicate:
In case you may have been informed, or for some other reason believe that there may be some embargo on our freedom to communicate personally without any lawyers, I refer to the relevant guidelines that it is only considered unprofessional for lawyers to contact directly another lawyer's client/witness. This is found in Lawyers' Professional Responsibility in Australia and New Zealand by G. E. Dal Pont. LBC Information Services, 1996, and supplied to Ms Brus and other lawyers in 2003. The guide states in part: "Lawyers are professionally, though not legally, prohibited from communicating orally or in writing with the person whom they know is represented by another lawyer in the matter without the latter's consent. ... The rationale for the prohibition on communicating with the client of another lawyer does not prevent a direct approach to another party from a client as opposed to his or her lawyer."

As I am not represented in any jurisdiction by a lawyer I am contacting you now in the hope that we can work towards a conclusion which is less damaging to me than that sought by TAFE and its lawyers.

2. Background.
The background and my current plight up until around early 2006 is published on the web including http://www.wbde.org/documents/2006_Mar_03_IndyMedia_HealthQuestingValKerrison.php .

3. Remedy

HealthQuest holds and has held documents and communications which are personally and professionally disparaging and destructive of me and/or my family members. We were given no procedural fairness/natural justice to enable us to mount a defence to protect our reputations and rights to our possessions (reputation, job, income, safety) before others in the organisations HealthQuest, TAFE, Medical Appeals Panel etc, made secret decisions to carry out, write, circulate, and store the damaging statements and actions.

I ask that the documents pertaining to this and sent to and from HealthQuest etc be formally declared NULL and VOID, and be so stamped, with our identities obliterated.
I ask that these corrected copies be not only supplied to me to use, but also forwarded to all of the places with which HealthQuest has communicated regarding them, together with formal notification that these Null and Void copies replace the previous offending documents.

3. Procedural Fairness Test
To assist in identifying whether or not the documents were generated within the requirements of natural justice, there are a number of self-explanatory references on the website WhistleBlowers' Documents Exposed at < a href="http://wbde.org">http://wbde.org, in the Reference section, and I draw your attention to some used in courts http://www.wbde.org/references/proceduralFairnessGuidelines.php especially that showing the simple fundamental right as:

THE RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS: General Principles. "The laws of God and man both give the party the opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam', says God, 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat'. And the same question was put to Eve also. "
Lord Fortescue in R v Chancellor, etc, of Cambridge (1823) 1 Stra 557 cited by Byles J in Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180
Some WhistleBlowers Documents Exposed (WBDE) members have also performed this task http://www.wbde.org/documents/Procedural_Fairness_Panels.php, however the published nullities are seemingly ignored or derided in court. Therefore it could be a great assistance to me if HealthQuest, as soon as possible, confirmed the nullity of its documents, especially HealthQuest's and other/s' manufactured "Retirement Certificate" dated 16 June 1995, manufactured in Sydney while I was capably working in Kempsey. Your records should confirm that It was issued and circulated widely without my knowledge or consent, and without allowing me the basic right to mount a defence.

Please feel free to contact me personally, preferably by email, regarding any aspects of this email, situation, and request.

Yours faithfully
Val Kerrison

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/792 - Release Date: 6/05/2007 9:01 PM