What happened to the investigation involving Carole McDiarmid?

Carole McDiarmid

Anonymous discovered this amongst emails sent to Julie Brown.

5^th July 2008

Dear Mr Marley,

Complaint of Perjury and falsifying documents by Regional Director Carole McDiarmid and Teacher Welfare Officer Janice Anderson and others

Complaint that Catherine Melville conspired with Dr Peter Dodwell to deny me the right to work as a casual relief teacher and caused my character to be defamed and that these actions were directly related to lies placed on my employee file by Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid in 1997

Relevant Act

Crimes Act 1900 Sect. 327 (No statute of limitations)

                           Sect. 330 (false statement on oath)

                           Sect. 335 (false statements in evidence)

                           Sect. 336 (false entry on a public register)

                           Sect. 337 (false instruments by public officer)

                           Sect. 317 (fabricates evidence)

      Sect. 318 (using false official instrument to pervert the course of   justice)

      Sect. 319 (act or omission intending to pervert the course of justice)

I am writing to request that you investigate matters which led to a number of catastrophic events for myself and my children and have left me in an untenable situation having suffered huge financial losses over the years. The actions of DET employees including Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson of Bathurst Regional Office, principals George Peacock and Graeme Viles, have left me financially devastated and the effects of their lies and perjury are ongoing, with schools refusing me work due to the perjured evidence being published on the ADT website and recently, following my application for casual teaching in 2004, this ‘evidence’ was used by Dr Peter Dodwell in an attempt to persuade a neurologist to decide that I was insane. Dr Dodwell sent the ADT findings including the perjured statements by DET employees to the neurologist.

Dr Peter Dodwell has been dismissed from HealthQuest, and I feel that it might not be entirely his fault that he tried all kinds of desperate measures to prevent my re-employment on a casual basis. Since he was sent the lies written by McDiarmid and Anderson and the findings of the ADT case which were based on perjury to a neurologist in an attempt to have him find me unfit, it is clear to me that Dr Dodwell was convinced these things were true and that I am an unfit person to be a teacher.

Since I am an employee of the DET I would like to have this acknowledged as a protected disclosure.

Possible Conspiracy by DET Legal Officer Catherine Melville and Dr Peter Dodwell

You may be aware that Dr Peter Dodwell, government medical officer, has been dismissed as a result of his actions against me (see newspaper article on internet “Teacher’s Pest: Top Health Official Sacked”, Sydney Morning Herald 17/6/08). During his three-year ‘investigation’ of me, Dodwell used false evidence provided by employees of Bathurst Regional Office as well as perjured evidence from my ADT case in 2001 in an attempt to certify me as ‘mad’ and unfit to work as a casual relief teacher. However, in the end, he was sacked due to having breached my privacy. The person within the Department with whom he conspired to have an inquiry set up to investigate me under the Code of Conduct was Catherine Melville. I have already complained about her in a separate letter and I hope she is currently under investigation for the same crimes as Dodwell.  You will see from the article in the SMH that Dodwell has been reported to police and Catherine Melville should suffer the same fate. I was an employee of the Catholic Education Office at the time the Code of Conduct inquiry was instigated, so it was quite illegal.

If Catherine Melville is not already under investigation, I request that you find out whether she aided and abetted Dodwell in keeping me out of work between 2005 and January 2008.

Use by the DET of evidence by Hadi Stambouliah which was found to be false in January 1998 and which caused Stambouliah to be dismissed by HealthQuest. The DET permitted this false evidence to be used in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal knowing that I had been found fit for work in 1998 and that Stambouliah was under investigation by the Psychologists Registration Board. This led to Tribunal members making a finding that I was unfit for work in 1997 because Stambouliah made that statement

Hadi Stambouliah was sacked from HealthQuest for lying about me and was put on trial by the Psychologists Registration Board. I gave evidence at that trial and Stambouliah blamed Dr Helia Gapper, government medical officer, for finding that I had ‘dementia’. Gapper left HealthQuest voluntarily and is not registered as a medical practitioner any more so I suppose she has been deregistered. Dr Helen Jagger who co-signed the ‘certificate of insanity’ which led to my being forcibly medically retired also left HealthQuest but is still a registered doctor. Stambouliah, Gapper and Jagger were put up to this misbehaviour which led to their leaving HealthQuest by Carole McDiarmid, Regional Director of Education in Bathurst, and the Bathurst teacher welfare officer Janice Anderson. I firmly believe there was a conspiracy against me and my intention is to take a number of matters to police if I am not satisfied with the Department’s response to this complaint.

It is a very serious matter when a Regional Director of Education has placed false information on a teacher’s file and has given perjured evidence in court.

I was prepared to let all these matters rest but when the Catholic Education Office interviewed me for casual employment in 2004 their legal officer questioned me for over an hour, claiming that I was a teacher who had been sacked from the DET in 1997 and was now looking for further employment which I was not entitled to. I could not understand what he was talking about as I was medically retired at my own request in 2003 from the DET following injuries that I suffered (including a fractured spine). However I did not know that the ADT case at which McDiarmid and Anderson told lies was still on the internet. In 2002 my solicitor had written to Austlii which was the only place where that case could be found, pointing out some of the perjury and pointing out that it was extremely defamatory and Austlii removed it. I did not know the ADT then published the findings based on perjury on its own website.

I was doing well with the CEO, getting regular work until Catherine Melville, in another breach of my privacy and at the insistence of Dr Dodwell, telephoned St John’s School  and told the principal things that caused the school to stop employing me. Catherine Melville asked about my work and the principal of St John’s gave me a very good reference, however, Melville put doubts in his mind and perhaps that caused him to look on the ADT website. Anyone reading those findings is never going to employ me.

Conspiracy between Catherine Melville of the DET and Dr Peter Dodwell to deny me casual employment

From the time Melville telephoned St John’s school I have had less and less work with the Catholic Education Office. I received approval to work for the DET this year and have only had 3 days’ work. This may well be because of the Sydney Morning Herald publishing the perjured evidence of several DET officers in the newspaper in 2001, at the time of my ADT case, which ruined my reputation. It may also be because rumours have spread that there are court findings on the ADT website which are absolutely shocking in their nature and if anyone reads those they are not going to employ me.

In contrast, from 1975 to 1981 I worked as a casual relief teacher  and I had work every week including a lot of ‘blocks’.

Therefore I believe Catherine Melville’s actions have caused me considerable financial loss.

Did Catherine Melville agree to pay a bribe to HealthQuest?

Please see the documents regarding the HealthQuest quote for services. At that time I was working regularly as a teacher for the CEO, had been declared fit by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (I was never mentally ill, I suffered physical injuries and was not reported to be mentally ill by ****** Public School) and the CRS had provided additional certificates of fitness for FULL TIME work – although I only wanted to do casual relief work.

There was no reason for Catherine Melville to agree to pay for anything other than a basic HealthQuest assessment in these circumstances and yet she was prepared to allow HQ to send me to several specialists including a psychiatrist. I believe this attitude was related to the lies placed on my file in 1997 by Janice Anderson and others. It seems to me the intention was always to deny me employment as a casual relief teacher and the reasons were a combination of the 1997 situation and my public opposition to HealthQuest in the past which led to Gapper, Jagger and Stambouliah being stood down for dishonest conduct at HealthQuest.

The $3,000 cannot be called a fee for service when I had already provided ample evidence of fitness, not only for part time work, but also full time work. It seems to me there was a conspiracy between HQ and Catherine Melville to ensure I never worked again. When the HREOC prevented HealthQuest from sending me to a psychiatrist and I obtained the services of a solicitor, Dodwell was in a corner as far as lying about my fitness any further. I remind you that he has been reported to police by HealthQuest itself. Having nowhere to go, and being unable to provide the report that Melville seemed to want (ie that I was permanently unfit) he then provided her with another way out: an inquiry under the Code of Conduct into whether I wrote articles for Sydney Indymedia which appeared on the internet. I was not an employee and therefore not under the Code of Conduct. My only employer was the Catholic Education Office at the time this inquiry was set up.

Vexatious meddling: The placement on my file of dozens of articles from Sydney Indymedia by DET officers with a view to deception Sect. 317 and 337 of N.S.W. Crimes Act

Someone from the DET has placed on my employee file dozens of articles from various websites including Sydney Indymedia written by various persons including Tom McLoughlin, Solicitor, whose email of protest I enclose, and which should also be on my employee file. Another writer prepared to come forward and state that he wrote many of these articles is Takver. He has not as yet written a letter to the DET but he is willing to speak to the DET about his articles on the environment and whaling.

The inference was that I had written all these articles on topics as varied as the environment and State Rail. I believe the person who did this was Catherine Melville, after she received them from Dodwell.

I was not even an employee of the DET when these items were placed on my file – dozens and dozens of pages – with the intention that they would somehow prevent my employment, even though at the time I retired, there were no complaints about me on file. I know there were no complaints as I have done a FOI request on ********* Public School, where I worked from 1999 to 2003. There is not a single complaint from a parent on record.

I also enclose my teacher assessment from ***** Public School in 2001 which shows that my performance was satisfactory. I never returned to work following the injuries I suffered so no-one could comment on whether I could have managed to work after April 2003. I asked the Principal Mrs ***** to write a report for me supporting my retirement as I was not sure I would ever recover. Mrs ***** said she did not like to write anything negative about anyone and requested that I provide her with some assistance with that report to support my retirement, and I did.

Perjured Evidence at ADT Case in 2001 Affected My Employment

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 337

False instruments issued by public officers

337 False instruments issued by public officers

A public officer who, being authorised or required to issue an instrument whereby any person may be prejudicially affected, issues the instrument for an improper purpose knowing it to be false in a material particular is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

In 2001 when the newspaper articles appeared about the ADT case which I lost, which suggested that I was mad and had been sacked by the DET in 1997, some parents spoke to the principal at ******* by phone and asked that their children not be placed in my classes in the future. Many parents were very frightened by the newspaper articles, which contained the untrue and perjured statements by DET officers from the Bathurst region to the court, and as a result I was given the position of RFF teacher in order to take me off class to allay the parents’ fears. At that point I knew that my career was over, and that Bathurst Regional Office had succeeded in completely destroying my life. The terrible shame that I and my children and family members felt at the publication of the findings of that court case caused me to decide to retire following the accident which happened on 11^th April 2003 even though I knew it was possible I would recover in a few months and be able to return to work, which was in fact, what happened.  Of course, I had been very shaken by being stood down between 1997 and 1998 and never regained my confidence so I probably did not do as good a job as I could have, had I not been sent to HealthQuest and ‘certified’ as punishment for speaking up against child abuse in Lithgow.

At the time I retired from ******, I was not on an improvement programme, there were no parental complaints against me and there was no suggestion that the principal wanted me to leave the school. I remain on good terms with everyone, attending retirement luncheons and outings with my former colleagues. Mrs ***** wrote me a letter supporting my retirement which was not a letter of complaint as it was written at my request following my accident.

The ‘Cognitive Dysfunction’ (Dementia) Lie

HealthQuest changed its diagnosis in January 1998 and attached to this complaint is a letter written by eminent psychiatrist Dr Ellard who examined me for fitness for work and who you will notice, writes

“I do not think there was any medical issue at all.. I believe that there has been an attempt to medicalise a disciplinary issue because this is often an easy way out….I find that there is no reason at all to using medical issues into the present situation.”

I think I have shown you that recent events are linked to the problems I suffered in 1997. These problems are not going away and the lies, conspiracy and perjury must be addressed. If the DET is unable to address them, then I intend to make complaints to police.

I visited a solicitor on Friday, Mr Donnelly, to ask about the statute of limitations on perjury. Mr Donnelly told me there is no statute of limitations, and that I should take my documents to the police. Recently police have thoroughly investigated statutory declarations written by staff at Iguanas restaurant, by Mr Della Bosca and Ms Neal. This caused me to wonder whether police would in fact investigate my complaint of perjury and Mr Donnelly says that they would. If the perjury were not having such lifelong consequences for me, and causing me huge financial losses and terrible ongoing shame and embarrassment, I would not be so concerned. However it has to stop, and it has to stop now. I would prefer the Department thoroughly investigate this rather than the police.

Work History: I should not have to go back any further than this as that would be ancient history and not relevant to 1997. However I worked from 1972-1975 full time, 1975-1981 casual relief.

1983 – workers compensation leave. Received compensation. Reason was a very difficult school and class. I should not suffer condemnation because of this.

1986 – ********* Public School: No complaints whatsoever about my work.

1986 – 1988 – Maternity Leave

1989-1993 – ******** Public School. Again no complaints about my work.

1994 – Mullion Creek Public School: applied for transfer closer to Sydney where my children were receiving specialist medical treatment. Mullion Creek proved too far to travel. During my time as acting Principal, a number of complaints were received from parents, about Mrs Liz Stair, the principal. These complaints were related to her screaming at people for no reason and frightening children. Two school secretaries and one librarian had left due to her behaviour. Mr Sutton of the DET received the complaints and suggested I write a referral to HealthQuest for Mrs Stair. I did not do so, as I believed she did not deserve to be dismissed, and Mr Sutton had suggested HealthQuest could arrange her removal.

1995 ******** (a school in Litghow region)

1996-1997-  (another school in Lithgow region)

The Perjury Relating to Mullion Creek and *******

I will address some things about Mullion Creek and *********.

I left Mullion Creek following my own application for transfer. (See letter of application enclosed written by myself when I was Acting Principal at Mullion Creek). There were no parental complaints about me. There were no complaints received at Regional Office in Bathurst about me.

I emphasise that Bathurst Regional Office had no complaints whatsoever on record about me prior to June 1997. No principal had received any complaint from a parent or supervisor that warranted reporting to Regional Office. Complaints were solicited by Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson in June and July 1997. A note at the end of Liz Stair’s letter  indicates she was coerced into writing it. The complaints were backdated to make it appear there were serious complaints about me from 1994 to 1997 which there were not. If these complaints had been true then I would have been reported to Regional Office and placed on an improvement programme. I was not placed on any improvement programme. George Peacock states that I was, but a teacher placed on that programme must be formally advised that that is what is happening and I was not. George Peacock is referring in his letter which was solicited by Carole McDiarmid and not submitted voluntarily by him to Regional Office, to the usual professional development that happens throughout the year in all schools. ******** School did things very differently from any school I had ever worked at, and their report writing was quite different from what I was used to.

Following the trouble in Lithgow after I made complaints about abusive local teacher Ellen McManus of St Patrick’s School, a woman who was related to everyone in the district and whose brother was NSW Deputy President of the United Mineworkers Union, several friends of Ellen McManus made malicious complaints about me at ******** School. I was told by locals that Janice Anderson of Bathurst Regional Office, and Carole McDiarmid, were distant relatives of Ellen McManus. Paul Anderson, friend of Wayne McAndrew, Ellen McManus’ brother, is on Lithgow Council. I believe he is related to Janice Anderson. All the complainants had links to Ellen McManus. Most of them belonged to St Patrick’s Parish and most of them were members of the U.M.W.F. of which Wayne McAndrew was then N.S.W. Deputy President. Another family who complained about Ellen McManus were run out of Lithgow a few years prior to 1997 after Wayne McAndrew organized victimisation of them.

In early June 1997 a newspaper article appeared which discussed the abusive teacher Ellen McManus although it did not name her. I was interviewed by the Sun Herald about my daughter’s expulsion from St Patrick’s for speaking up about the abuse by McManus and several other parents were also interviewed. Some of these parents warned me that in 1992 another family complained about McManus’ abuse of children and lost their jobs in Lithgow and were run out of town. I did not believe this could happen to me. I was determined to have the abuse of children stopped. So the newspaper article duly appeared and I emphasise that up to that day there were no complaints on record about me in 14 years. No complaints appeared at Bathurst Regional Office until Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid solicited them and coerced 3 principals to write complaints which they otherwise had no intention of writing. In the case of Mr Peacock, it had been two years since I had worked at his school.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 317

317 Tampering etc with evidence

A person who, with intent to mislead any judicial tribunal in any judicial proceeding:

    (a) suppresses, conceals, destroys, alters or falsifies anything knowing that it is or may be required as evidence in any judicial proceeding, or

    (b) fabricates false evidence (other than by perjury or suborning perjury), or

    (c) knowingly makes use of fabricated false evidence,

is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 319

General offence of perverting the course of justice

319 General offence of perverting the course of justice

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

The omission in this case (and there were other deliberate omissions) was that it was not admitted that it was Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson who arranged to place complaints on my file at Bathurst Regional Office after the publication of a newspaper article about abusive teacher Ellen McManus in June 1997. Not one principal prior to this had approached Bathurst Regional Office with a complaint about me. Quite the contrary, excellent references were written for me by George Peacock, Graeme Viles and Carole McDiarmid herself in 1996 between January and November. One might expect it is possible that perhaps one DET employee would write a reference on behalf of a friend and colleague that he later withdraws and states was false, but not three, including a Regional Director. These references were all true, in stark contrast to the false evidence placed on my file after June 1^st 1997.

There was not a single written complaint by a parent on record before publication of that newspaper article relating to Ellen McManus. There were no complaints at *********** school either. So for FOURTEEN YEARS there had not been a complaint about me that was serious enough to warrant putting it in writing, or sending it to any Regional Office.

As you would be aware, teachers suffer many complaints from parents. They are often accused of favouritism, giving too much homework, being too strict or not strict enough and so on. These minor complaints are sorted out by the teacher and the school and no teacher is ever sent to HealthQuest and accused of being mentally ill, or even sacked, because of minor complaints by troublesome parents.

At (Lithgow region) School, a parent complained that she did not like a question on a homework sheet that was meant to be a fun activity for St Patrick’s Day. The question was “What is the capital of Ireland?” The answer was Dublin. This parent was from Northern Ireland and came to the school and made a huge fuss claiming I was being discriminatory. The principal Mr George Peacock saw that this was a silly complaint and the matter was settled by my apologizing and promising to include Belfast in any future homework questions. This complaint was certainly not any reason to send me to HealthQuest and have me certified insane! Yet it came up in a long diatribe written by Mr Peter Constable and signed by Mr Peacock later on.

This minor complaint came up in the ADT findings at Paragraph 8, where Carole McDiarmid claims I was ‘indoctrinating’ children. This is completely at odds with a letter of support written by Mr Gerard Notzon, an itinerent teacher of the deaf at Carenne, who worked with me throughout that year (1996) in the classroom every day. But this shows the malice of Carole McDiarmid in making much of a very minor matter in order to convince the Tribunal members that I was mad, even though she knew the diagnosis of dementia had been overturned by HealthQuest in early 1998, well before these hearings took place, and I was back at work at *********, and there had been no complaints about me at all. I believe it is just one of many pieces of evidence that show McDiarmid was involved in a conspiracy against me.

The coercion by Carole McDiarmid of Liz Stair to write a negative report about me

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 319

General offence of perverting the course of justice

319 General offence of perverting the course of justice

A person who does any act, or makes any omission, intending in any way to pervert the course of justice, is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

It was obvious that McDiarmid wanted to make it appear I had caused trouble at every school where I worked as evidence for HealthQuest so that I could be removed from my position by unwanted medical retirement on psychiatric grounds.

At the bottom of the letter by Liz Stair is written:

“Dear Carol (sic),

I hope this is of some help! It was a difficult task and much water has passed under the bridge since 1997.

Regards

Liz S”

This notation by Mrs Stair indicates that she did not volunteer to write any kind of letter of complaint about me. She had never contacted Regional Office with complaints about me. Neither George Peacock nor Graeme Viles volunteered to write complaints about me either. This was organized by Carole McDiarmid. This evidence was manufactured after 1^st June 1997 and there was no such evidence of complaints on my file before this in relation to my employment by Bathurst Regional Office.

1994 was the year my children’s father was brought before the court on charges of sexually abusing my children. I had to have a lot of days off for police interviews and so on, in *******. Then during the case, which lasted many days, again I had to be in ******. Later in the year I broke my shoulder and was hospitalised for quite a long time. There was no need for Liz Stair to comment on these absences but it is apparent she was talked into doing so.

Mrs Stair wrote:

“Ms ******’s general teaching ability appeared to be quite satisfactory.”

In the second last paragraph she writes that I didn’t attend many community events (I lived in an isolated farmhouse 2 hours drive from Mullion Creek) and yet she contradicts this by saying “…no reports of it reached me….” She says I would attend functions only if my two children could come along. Can you imagine the difficulty of finding a babysitter in the outback of N.S.W., 2 hours’ drive from civilization? Clearly Liz Stair was scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything negative to say about me, but clearly, from her handwritten note at the end of her letter, she had been instructed to provide evidence for any future legal action. Carole McDiarmid was aware that I was threatening legal action at that stage.

These are obviously not real complaints, and demonstrate she was instructed to find something negative to write. I believe she was instructed by McDiarmid that I was insane (since I was referred to a HealthQuest psychiatrist by Janice Anderson) and that she should back up that pre-emptive diagnosis with a report. You would need to speak to Liz Stair to find out just what Carole McDiarmid did say to her that caused Liz Stair to write this letter.

I request that you interview Liz Stair, due to the perjury that was committed in the ADT in relation to my employment at Mullion Creek Public School.

In the last paragraph Mrs Stair writes the reason for my leaving Mullion Creek.

“She left Mullion Creek to be closer to Sydney.”

I did not leave Mullion Creek for any other reason than that. The travelling to and from Sydney and ******** was too exhausting, and falling in the snow at night and breaking my shoulder at my isolated home was the last straw. I certainly did not leave Mullion Creek due to complaints from parents.

Perjury by Carole McDiarmid at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in 2001

Due to her need to ‘demonstrate’ that I had caused trouble at every school where I worked and thus justify suspending me from my position in June 1997 and then arranging referral with a view to enforced medical retirement on psychiatric grounds, Carole McDiarmid committed perjury in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

At Paragraph 7 the tribunal members write “She worked full time until 1975, casually until 1981 and then full time again until the incidents which led to this complaint.”

In Paragraph 8 the ‘incidents which led to this complaint’ are addressed.

Paragraph 8

“Ms McDiarmid gave evidence that in 1995 Ms *** was teaching at Mullion Creek Public school. She stated that Ms ****** was transferred to ****** Public School on compassionate grounds in that year, following complaints from parents of children she was teaching. The complaints alleged that Ms ****** had been ‘indoctrinating’ children.”

This is a lie. Mrs Stair did not receive complaints from parents that led to my leaving Mullion Creek Public School. Mrs Stair did not contact Regional Office with complaints at all during my time at Mullion Creek. I was asked by several parents to contact Mr Sutton about Mrs Stair’s shouting and verbal abuse which I did, but refrained from writing a report for HealthQuest on Mrs Stair. I have no doubt that over the years there must have been many complaints about Mrs Stair, as she would scream at anyone who happened to be nearby when in a bad mood. You could look at her file and check.

Mrs Stair only reluctantly wrote a report about me at the insistence of Carole McDiarmid on 16^th June 1997, 12 days after the Sun Herald published the article about my daughter and others being abused at St Patrick’s School in Lithgow.

I request that you telephone Liz Stair in Orange and ask her in what ways she was pressured to write things about me, and whether she was instructed to write specific things, such as relating to ‘religion’ and ‘dark’ things – things that would make me appear ‘mad’ as evidence for the HealthQuest psychiatrist and things that would appear to back up what several parents had said about me at Cooerwull school in retaliation for my complaints about Ellen McManus.

By allowing the tribunal members to believe I caused trouble at Mullion Creek and had to be transferred due to parental complaints, Carole McDiarmid was leading the tribunal members to think there was a whole series of incidents at different schools.

I repeat that there were no complaints on my file before 3^rd June 1997. There were no complaints on my departmental file in 14 years, until Carole McDiarmid instructed there to be. Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson manufactured evidence, and caused others to manufacture evidence against me in June and July 1997. In the two years since I left ****** School, principal George Peacock had said nothing negative about me, and had provided me with a reference for promotion in 1996. Yet suddenly in June 1997 he was contacted by Carole McDiarmid and agreed to manufacture evidence. He then wrote several pages of complaints, assisted by Peter Constable, the teacher who had assaulted me several times at the school, and who was the reason for my transferring to Cooerwull.

My complaints about HealthQuest led the ICAC to instruct there to be an independent inquiry into HealthQuest and following that report, the Lowe Report, HealthQuest was supposed to stop ‘certifying’ troublesome public servants ‘insane’. I have no doubt that HealthQuest management were very angry with me about that, and that senior DET officials were also angry that it would not be so easy to use HealthQuest to get rid of unwanted employees. There are also questions in Parliament by Peter Breen relating to HealthQuest which can be found on the internet. I believe my actions in actively campaigning against HealthQuest corruption upset the DET and may have caused certain people to decide never to employ me again after my retirement in 2003. I made several protected disclosures relating to the DET and HealthQuest between 1997 and 2006.

In Paragraph 9 of the ADT findings, the tribunal members state:

“Ms McDiarmid further stated that the Principal of Mullion Creek Public School had shown her some school reports which Ms *** had prepared and was going to send to parents. These reports were unsatisfactory in that they were hand-written, contained a lot of mistakes and generally looked unprofessional. Ms McDiarmid stated that the Principal had told her that she had arranged for someone else to type the reports.”

As can be seen from Mrs Stair’s letter, no such incident ever occurred. Again I invite you to telephone Liz Stair and ask her if this was true.

On 4^th November 1996, 28 weeks before Ms McDiarmid claimed I had gone mad and was inefficient, Ms McDiarmid wrote an outstanding reference for me (following) in which she wrote:

“Ms ****** is a competent and resourceful teacher who continually strives to achieve in all areas of her professional life. She willingly shares her knowledge and expertise with her colleagues. Ms ****** seeks and accepts advice from her Principal, Supervisor and staff. She participates fully in the life of the school” (notice how this contradicts Liz Stair’s statement) “…taking on new challenges with enthusiasm…Ms **********’s pleasant demeanour and general thoughtfulness have seen her readily accepted into the staff of her school. She possesses the ability to easily establish a rapport with her charges and their parents. Ms ****** relates well to the school executive and staff. She employs a calm, considered approach to all situations which has gained her the respect of students, staff and parents.”

She has ticked the box “Highly recommended for an Exchange Programme Placement.” This was an application which was merit-selected, to work in England for a year and then return to Cooerwull.

At this stage in my career I was ready for promotion, and indeed I had already applied for promotion as a small school principal and had received a reference from the Principal of Wallerawang Public School, George Peacock.

The principal of Cooerwull Public School Graeme Viles had also written me an outstanding reference. That reference was not, as he falsely stated in order to get himself out of trouble, written by the head teacher in the infants department. I request that you contact the head teacher and ask her if she wrote that reference. She did not.

This is further evidence of the later conspiracy to make it appear I had caused trouble in every school where I had worked, and had been incompetent. I was considered promotion material in 1996 – and in 1997, after complaining about child abuse, suddenly I was considered ‘insane’.

On 13^th November 1996 Mr Viles wrote:

“Ms ***** was appointed to a Kindergarten class at the beginning of this year and accepted the challenge with a positive and enthusiastic attitude. She has excellent classroom practices which are always child-centred….all the children in Ms *****’s care are important to her and treated with respect and thoughtfulness. She is acutely aware of the educational and social needs of her charges. She provides extension for the talented and structured supervision for those who require it. She also cares for the less fortunate in life….”

In February 1996 I had applied for a principal’s position. This was a few weeks after I had accepted a forced transfer from ********** due to a drop in student numbers and due to the assaults on me by Peter Constable.

Principal of  ********* Public School, George Peacock, wrote a reference including some of the following observations:

“A personal interest in special days translated into pupil programs on that topic to enhance pupils’ knowledge. Ms ******’s contribution to the school concert, through her class item, was valued, as was her organization of pupil entries in the Sam Lewis Peace Awards.”

“During the 1995 Australia Remembers commemorations, Ms ****** co-ordinated numerous school activities to develop interest and enthusiasm for the program. Possessing good typing skills Ms ****** developed knowledge of word processing on Macintosh computers ….to report writing and publishing in general.”

Notice how this statement directly contradicts the statement by Mr Peacock which he wrote on instruction from Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid where he claims the reports I presented to be sent home were unprofessional.

These were draft reports retrieved from the rubbish bin by Peter Constable, about whom I will explain later. Mr Peacock knew very well that reports which had words crossed out and so on, were never meant to be sent home to parents – and yet, under instructions from McDiarmid, he lied. Also a supervising teacher, either Mr Constable or Mr Auld, had scribbled suggestions on those reports which proves they were drafts. The reports were sent to HealthQuest and were presented to the ADT.

“Possessing a sound knowledge of EEO principles, Ms ********* unhesitatingly contributed her expertise to staff discussions….”

The reason for my leaving *********** is stated in the last two lines of the reference. Mr Peacock writes:

“Ms ****** was a member of staff at (Lithgow region) Public School during 1995. She came to ******** from Mullion Creek. Ms Roy taught Yr 3 during 1995, and when a staff reduction was necessary, volunteered for transfer.”

At Paragraph 12 of the ADT findings Carole McDiarmid has again committed perjury in order to pervert the course of justice and this was very deliberate.

Paragraph 12 states:

“Ms McDiarmid went on to say that relations between Ms ******* and her Principal at ******** Public School deteriorated, and Ms Roy accepted a nominated transfer to ********* Public School.”

Clearly relations between myself and Mr Peacock did not deteriorate at all.

In would be inconceivable that three employees of the DET would lie in outstanding references for me. This in itself would be a criminal offence. I have checked the NSW Crimes Act and I know there are references to making false entries in public records and so on.

However there were incidents at ******** Public School which were kept hidden from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

The Cover-Up of the Assaults by Peter Constable

Peter Constable is currently Assistant Principal at ********** Public School. Before I arrived there in 1996, Mr Constable was involved in a car accident in which he suffered head injuries. Since that accident, he has had paranoid schizophrenia and has been violent. In particular he is violent towards teachers and staff at the school.

Early in the year at *********, Peter Constable, who was my supervisor, started to believe I was talking about him behind his back, which I wasn’t. On a number of occasions he shouted at me, and these incidents are detailed in a statutory declaration which is on my DET file about things that happened at *******, which I wrote some time in 1997.

On one occasion he ran into my room when I was teaching a class, and slammed his fist on the table, terrifying both myself and the children.

This was an assault. An assault is when you fear you are going to be hit, whereas battery is actually being hit by someone.

Later in the year I was looking for something in a store room near the school office. Suddenly Peter Constable appeared in the store room, with his fist raised ready to punch me. I backed into a corner shouting for help as he said “I am going to kill you. You have been talking about me again.”

The school secretary, who left ******** in about 1997, came running in and asked Peter Constable to go with her. He backed off and left the store room. I went straight in to talk to George Peacock about it. I said I was considering taking out an AVO against Peter Constable. Mr Peacock said he was sorry, but since the accident Peter Constable had been mentally ill, and had attacked a number of people, mostly new teachers at the school, until he got used to them. I said it wasn’t good enough, and I did not have to put up with being assaulted at work. Mr Peacock suggested a solution. He said school numbers were dropping and one teacher would need to leave in 1996. He suggested I apply for the transfer to solve the problem. I agreed. I had mentioned accepting the forced transfer earlier when I had been invited to comment on Mr Constable’s criticism of my student reports. Mr Peacock pleaded with me not to go to police, and promised that he would speak to Mr Constable’s wife, a nurse, about adjusting his medication. He said that Mr Constable had been very nice before the accident, that he had four children to support and that the school had a duty to help him continue in his job.

This was quite a different attitude from that displayed towards me in 1997.

For the rest of that year Peter Constable often shouted at me and made threats. I was terrified.

I would think it is against the Code of Conduct, and even the 1995 Code of Conduct, to cover up violent and threatening behaviour by a teacher.

You would have access to Peter Constable’s file to see if anyone has complained about him before or since 1995.

The witnesses to the assaults on me in 1995 were George Peacock (now retired), Duncan Auld (still at Wallerawang) and the school secretary who actually caught Peter Constable about to punch me. This is not the secretary currently working there. I request that you look into this cover-up, and into whether the cover-up of Peter Constable’s violence is continuing today.

Relations between myself and principal George Peacock did not deteriorate, as falsely stated by Carole McDiarmid at Paragraph 12 of the ADT findings. In fact relations between myself and Peter Constable deteriorated due to his assaults on me.

Further proof that relations did not deteriorate between myself and George Peacock is the reference that he wrote for me for promotion to Principal.

Because of the false evidence given about me to HealthQuest in 1997, I lost my chance to work in England for a year and I lost all chance of promotion forever. I lost my home, as I could not afford the payments on Centrelink benefits when my salary was cut off suddenly in August 1997. I lost all my furniture, most of my possessions. My children lost their pets which could not be taken to a home unit in the city.

Worse still I have lost my good reputation, and the newspaper articles that were published about the ADT case, and the perjury committed in the ADT resulting in the findings now published on the internet, have completely destroyed my life and prevented many schools from employing me as a casual relief teacher.

At Paragraph 13 Mr Viles states that the reference he wrote was prepared by the head teacher of the infants department. If this is so, then he should have faced departmental investigation as it would have been a form of fraud. However, it is just one more item of perjury, as Mr Viles interviewed me at length in an office about my application to teach in England for a year and he formed the opinions expressed in the reference himself. He jotted down his ideas for the reference and the head teacher in the infants department arranged for the reference to be typed up.

Mr Viles is retired, but lives in Katoomba. He should interviewed to discover why he wrote terrible things about me after 3^rd June 1997 on instruction from Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid and why, if he had such a poor opinion of me, he did not voluntarily contact Regional Office before June 1997.

Mr Viles had never complained about me to Regional Office before. As stated above, there were no complaints about me to any regional office in 14 years until the newspaper article appeared on 3^rd June about the abuse of my daughter by Ellen McManus. There was no complaint whatsoever that was considered other than minor and of the same type that is often made about teachers – in fact every day teachers face minor complaints from parents.

Before 3^rd June 1997 Mr Viles held a very high opinion of me as evidenced in his reference.

The Phone Call Record Invented by Janice Anderson

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 317

Tampering etc with evidence

317 Tampering etc with evidence

A person who, with intent to mislead any judicial tribunal in any judicial proceeding:

    (a) suppresses, conceals, destroys, alters or falsifies anything knowing that it is or may be required as evidence in any judicial proceeding, or

    (b) fabricates false evidence (other than by perjury or suborning perjury), or

    (c) knowingly makes use of fabricated false evidence,

is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

Janice Anderson knew that I had obtained the services of a barrister by the end of June 1997 and that there could be court proceedings so her fabrication of evidence was very deliberate.

On 4^th July 1997 Janice Anderson, still an employee of the DET in Bathurst, claimed she telephoned Mr ******* at ********* Public School.

There had been no complaints about me in 14 years and yet she decided to solicit complaints against me to back up Carole McDiarmid’s decision to send me to HealthQuest and have me removed from my position at (Lithgow region school).

Janice Anderson claims that Bob Howes said:

“Each occasion Ms Roy took leave it took many letters to get her to resume.”

This is a fabrication. I was never home on sick leave, receiving letters from the Department to resume work that I recall! On each occasion I took leave? At ********, I took the usual kinds of sick leave – flu and so on – and I never received any letters demanding that I come back. The DET does not send letters to teachers at home with the flu demanding that they return to work.

Janice Anderson writes that Bob ****** said:

“She took on causes with particular children and involved the parents in abnormal ways”

“She was Federation Representative. She gave inappropriate advice to staff.”

“Stories followed her to the school.” (How was this possible? I had been at ******* P.S. without incident in 1986 and on maternity leave from 1986 until 1989, when I started work at *******! It is impossible that stories followed me to the school.)

“She wrote articles for the newsletter which were inappropriate.”

This is nonsense: Bob ******** himself was in charge of the school newsletter and I never wrote anything for it.

This record of telephone conversation with Bob ******* I believe is completely fabricated. I ask that you contact Mr ******* who is retired but living in *******. His phone number is probably in the telephone book in Pleasant Avenue.

Returning to the findings of the ADT, paragraph 18 refers to a complaint by a parent that I tore pages out of a book and threw it across the room. This complaint was made on 28^th May 1997, 6 days before the newspaper article appeared about my daughter being abused and about her teacher throwing books. At that stage, parents had already been interviewed by the Sun Herald and had stated that McManus often threw books. Also, it was part of my written complaint to the Catholic Education Office early in 1997 of which McManus had been given a copy and had handed it out to her friends. This incident cannot be used to state that complaints were occurring before the newspaper article appeared. The reference to the letter to a paediatrician makes it seem I wrote the letter. In fact that parent stood over me at half past four in the afternoon demanding that I write what she told me to. I told Mr Viles how this parent forced me to write the letter when I wanted to get home as it was late.

In any case the letter to the paediatrician is a very minor matter and Mr Viles did not think it important enough to complain to Bathurst Regional Office. He just asked me at the time, to make sure all letters to paediatricians were seen by him first.

At paragraph 23 of the ADT findings, it states that another parent spoke to Mr Viles that same week (that is, after the interviews were conducted by the Sun Herald in relation to the abusive teacher, and after the abusive teacher had photocopied and handed out copies of my official complaints about her). This cannot prove that there was a litany of complaints about me unrelated to the Ellen McManus incidents. It only shows that some parents knew the Sun Herald was about to publish an article about child abuse at St Patrick’s school. This particular parent was Ellen McManus’ husband’s sister in law. The other parents who complained were either parishioners at St Patrick’s, related to McManus or associated with the U.M.W.F., of which McManus’ brother was NSW Deputy President.

At paragraph 26 of the ADT findings, which can be read on the internet under the 2002 cases and of which I will not print every page, it says a fax was received at the school from me on 2^nd June. This is not possible, as the fax related to complaints that were made about me after 2^nd June, so the incorrect date was stamped on the fax, again, I believe, in a conspiracy to make it appear there were complaints unrelated to my complaints against Ellen McManus.

Paragraph 27 ADT findings: Most of these complaints were made by me about teacher Ellen McManus. None of the parents making these complaints had ever been in my classroom. It is true that I had never been in Ellen McManus’ classroom either, but her screams of abuse could be heard from outside the school grounds and many parents had complained about her in previous years. My daughter had come home with scratch marks and bruises where Mrs McManus grabbed her.

In contrast a teacher who HAD been in my classroom, and continued to visit my classroom throughout 1996 and 1997 to teach Auslan to the children of ******, Mr **********, had never witnessed any of this kind of behaviour.

The  deputy principal, Mrs Robyn Bannerman, had her office right outside my classroom in 1997. Both our doors were always open. Yet Mrs Bannerman did not make any statement about me and did not attend court as a witness. If anyone had evidence of inappropriate behaviour or child abuse by me it would have been her, because she was able to watch me teaching all day – and she contributed no evidence at all.

Why did Carole McDiarmid take the evidence of these parents as being the truth, when the parents had never been in my classroom to see what occurred there, and ignore the letter from Mr N***** stating he had worked with me in class and I was never abusive, angry or inclined to throw books? As well, other parents wrote letters or visited Mr Viles’ office to say they had questioned their children about my alleged inappropriate behaviour, and their children stated I never said or did any of those things.

The reason is that Ms McDiarmid was acting maliciously on behalf of Ellen McManus and the angry people of Lithgow who objected to my complaints of child abuse. Before I started to complain of child abuse, there were no complaints about me – none in 14 years. Rather than complaints, there were references demonstrating I was held in high regard.

When Janice Anderson, staff welfare officer, first attended (Lithgow region) School in the week beginning 4^th June 1997, after the letters of complaint about me were received, the first thing she said was “What are you going to do about Ellen McManus? Are you going to sue the school?” This is further evidence that there was a conspiracy and it involved Bathurst Regional Office.

I believe phone records should be obtained from Bathurst Regional Office to see whether McDiarmid and Anderson were in contact with St Patrick’s School, the Catholic Education Office in Bathurst or Ellen McManus herself during June and July 1997.

Janice Anderson also made a phone call to my mother, who is still alive and remembers it well, in which she sought to convince my mother I was ‘suicidal’ and needed to be taken to a psychiatrist. This phone call is further evidence that she was framing me for HealthQuest. I have never been suicidal.

At paragraph 38 of the ADT findings, reference is made to a parent who complained that I shouted at her. This parent had come into my room after school, and had warned me to get out of Lithgow and never come back. I had in fact run to another teacher’s room for help, a fact that is correctly reported in Mr Viles’ report for HealthQuest.

Paragraph 51 of the ADT findings contains further evidence of Janice Anderson’s perjury. Janice Anderson states that I kept changing my name, moving frequently and seeking to work in more isolated schools. I did not keep changing my name. I did not move frequently. I did not seek to work in more isolated schools. In fact, I found Mullion Creek too isolated, and sought a transfer to Lithgow on the grounds of its extreme isolation. If I had wanted an isolated school, I would have stayed at Mullion Creek.

Janice Anderson’s false and misleading evidence in Paragraph 51 led directly to the Tribunal making findings that were based on falsehood. These defamatory findings are now published on the internet for all to see.

All relevant facts can be verified from my file. In the previous 14 years, I had been at ********* school for five years – a fact which was deliberately kept from the tribunal as it would have contradicted these lies. I was then at Mullion Creek, ******** and **********. Janice Anderson stated on a document for HealthQuest that I was at 9 schools in 10 years. This was a fabrication and comes under the NSW Crimes Act. I believe she stated this again in the court room.  I did not change my name at all. I was married in 1982 and the Department had changed my name without my permission. I changed it back. I have been *********** since 19**.

Paragraph 45 ADT Mr Viles also set out concerns that had been expressed to him by other staff about Ms R******s practices while teaching. They were:

                  Ms ****** often left the playground unattended at the end of her playground duty, or to come to the staff room to get a cup of tea;

                  Ms ******* brought children off the playground for misbehaviour while she was still on duty;

                  Ms ****** asked in the staff room who it was who "dobbed her in";

                  Ms ******** sent a quite negative letter to other staff seeking someone to replace her on a Year 3 excursion because she said she had "bus phobia".

                  On 18 June 1997 a meeting took place at Ms McDiarmid's office. In attendance, as well as Ms McDiarmid and Ms ****,  were Ms Anderson, Mr Viles, the Teachers Federation representative and Maggie, a support person for Ms *****.

Mr Viles has not told the full truth. He has withheld certain facts and that is classified as perjury. The playground was never unattended because there were always two teachers on duty in that playground. Mr Viles does not mention that it was school policy not to leave violent children on the playground who were attacking others. They had to be removed from the playground. It is not true that I ever asked who dobbed me in. In the absence of anyone giving evidence that they heard me say that the tribunal members should not have accepted that it happened. I can’t go on buses due to travel sickness. Mr Viles knew this, and he made it look as though a joke I made about being unable to travel on buses was serious, in order to make me appear ‘mad’. In the Crewdson case Justice Boland criticized a member of DHC staff who used a joke to make Mr Crewdson appear ‘mad’.

Para 51 ADT The letter sets out a series of very sad events which the author suggests could cause Ms ***** stress. These do not relate to her teaching, but rather to events within her family. It states that these have caused her to change her name, move frequently, and seek to work in more isolated schools.

I never changed my name. My name is the same as it was in 19**. I never  moved frequently. I lived in only 3 different homes between 1985 and 1997. I did not seek to work in isolated schools. I worked at Mullion Creek which is 17 kms from a large town, Orange. I did not seek to work in any other schools that far from a town. The contrary is true, I applied for a transfer to be closer to the city and that is why I left Mullion Creek, which is stated in Liz Stair’s letter. The tribunal members were deliberately misled by Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid. They both knew that by 2001 when the case was heard, I was working successfully at ******* Public School. There were no parental complaints about me at **********. All my teacher assessments were satisfactory. McDiarmid and Anderson knew that in 1998 the medical appeals panel found that not only was I not insane, I had never been insane, and yet McDiarmid and Anderson led evidence that I was and told lies in documents and to the Tribunal under oath in order to back up that false evidence. They sought to make me look ‘mad’ and they succeeded even though the medical appeals panel found that I never was, and Hadi Stambouliah was dismissed from HealthQuest because he lied about me.

Paragraph 52 of the tribunal findings states that I was at ten schools in nine years. My DET file shows otherwise. I was at  five schools in FOURTEEN years and I was only in 2 regions. This is very serious perjury on the part of Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson. It led the tribunal to believe that I was a very unstable person who kept changing her name and moving from place to place.

From 1985 until 1997 I had lived in only THREE different houses.

Paragraph 58 of the tribunal findings mentions that Hadi Stambouliah, psychologist, had found me unfit for work in 1997. By the time the tribunal heard my matter, Stambouliah had been stood down from HealthQuest for lying about me, was put on trial by the psychologists’ registration board and reprimanded.

Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid knew very well that in January 1998 I had been found NEVER TO HAVE BEEN SICK IN THE FIRST PLACE (see Dr Ellard’s letter, last paragraph.) They knew this and they knew I had gone back to work in early 1998 and yet they hid this truth from the tribunal. They did not tell the whole truth about the situation. When I was found fit for work, Janice Anderson demanded my medical file from HealthQuest. Her letter is on my file and HealthQuest’s file. HealthQuest refused to give it to her.

I sent a fax to Carole McDiarmid in January 1998 stating that I would return to ********** immediately, since I had been found fit for work.

A departmental officer sent me a letter (on my file) instructing me not to report for work but to remain at home on sick leave.

At paragraph 66 McDiarmid states that I requested a transfer to Wollongong. I was forced to fill out a transfer application after McDiarmid refused to let me return to work at (Lithgow region school). It should be evident from my file that I was refused permission to return to the Bathurst region to work.

At that stage I still owned my farm near Portland and could have returned there with my children and might not have lost the huge amount of money that I lost due to the sale of the farm and the move to *********. I was not allowed to return to ************.

Paragraph 74 of the ADT findings is further evidence that the perjury of McDiarmid, Anderson and Viles influenced the findings.

“The respondents led evidence of a history of prior issues and numerous prior transfers.”

Regarding the alleged ‘conflicts with other staff’, Mrs Stair of Mullion Creek said nothing in her letter about conflicts. Mr Peacock wrote me a reference for promotion after I left his school which mentioned nothing about conflict. There was no conflict with staff, other than over the Peter Constable assaults and minor differences of opinions over student reports.

Paragraph 75: “Such a history is indicative of a trend of events.”

But there was no such history. I was not at 10 schools in 9 years or even 9 schools in 10 years. I did not keep changing my name and applying for isolated schools. The proof of this is on my file. The alleged ‘history’ was invented by Carole McDiarmid and Janice Anderson.

Para. 76 again makes reference to complaints made prior to the newspaper article….but not prior to Ellen McManus giving copies of my complaints of early 1997 about her to her friends, and not prior to the Sun Herald visiting Lithgow to interview parents from St Patrick’s School.

McDiarmid, Anderson and Viles tried to make it appear there were complaints prior to the newspaper article, when there was nothing adverse on my file until the week beginning 4^th June 1997.

The evidence was manufactured by Janice Anderson and Carole McDiarmid soliciting complaints after 1^st June 1997 and coercing people such as George Peacock (who had recently written me a good reference for a principal’s position and had never contacted Regional Office with concerns about me) Graeme Viles (who had written me an outstanding reference for exchange teaching in recent months and who was unable to say much other than to repeat what the parents said their children told them) and Liz Stair (who indicated her reluctance with a handwritten note at the end of her letter). Bob ******’ ‘evidence’ was fabricated by Janice Anderson and I request that you telephone him about the alleged record of phone conversation.

Janice Anderson was good friends with one of the parents who complained about me, Julie Barnett. They were both members of Friends of the Conservatorium. At present Janice Anderson is president of Bathurst Friends of the Con and Julie Barnett is President of Lithgow Friends of the Con.  Julie Barnett was one of those who signed the complaint faxed to Janice Anderson in mid July 1997. It appears to me that someone had informed these parents that the first psychiatrist who examined me at HealthQuest had found me fit for work, and that more complaints were needed.

This July complaint is exactly like the complaint I made about Ellen McManus early in 1997. Please compare the newspaper article about my daughter and the complaints of myself and other parents about Ellen McManus of St Patrick’s School. There is very clearly a conspiracy and there is a friend of Janice Anderson on the list of complainants about me. Her name is Julie Barnett. Janice Anderson and Julie Barnett still work together at the Conservatorium.

It also seems the parents knew a psychiatrist was involved in assessing me, as they made statements that would make me appear mentally ill. I believe Janice Anderson told them what was going on and DET phone records from Bathurst office should be checked.

Paragraph 89 of the ADT findings refers to a ‘constant need to move from place to place.” This idea came from Janice Anderson’s perjury that I was at 10 schools in 9 years or 9 schools in 10 years. No mention was ever made of my 5 years at Farmborough Road Public School without any complaint being made about me.

As can be seen, the whole of the ADT’s findings were influenced by the perjured statements of McDiarmid, Anderson and Viles.

This perjury continues to cause problems for me as the untrue statements were used by Dr Dodwell in 2005 and 2006 in his assessment of me including the statements about my constantly moving and changing my name and being at 9 schools in 10 years.  In 2005 Dr Dodwell sent to Dr Corbett copies of all these documents including the findings of the ADT.

In the matter of the reports that I was supposedly trying to send home to parents with words crossed out, it can be seen that there are 2 sets of handwriting on those reports. One is mine, the other either Duncan Auld or Peter Constable (supervisors) who had crossed out things I had written and replaced the wording with their own words. It is obvious these were drafts and yet the ADT was given these draft reports and was told I was planning to send them home like that.

I hope that you will take these things very seriously and will investigate them, as I am no longer prepared to put up with being subjected to this defamation.

Please note that copies quantities of documents have been denied to me under FOI from both HealthQuest and the DET and these may contain even more damaging evidence.

Yours faithfully,

********* ********