revelations

   

REVELATIONS 
FINALLY I CAN REVEAL WHAT WENT ON 

To my ex –work mates I hope you have brushed up on the privacy act I found it a useful tool 

As things are now in progress with the police I can finally reveal details of what I was SO upset about 
verification can be found in my blog most of it in the participants own words signed off as true and correct records 

Will advise all if an when it comes to a hearing 
RELEVANT EXCEPTS FROM MY FRAUD COMPLAINT TO POLICE 
These are excepts as some information needs to be withheld until resolved 
Letter from Kate Wilkinson Minister of labour 
“In the case of fraudulent activity. I encourage you to bring this matter to the attention of the Police. Once they have considered your case, the Police can, if necessary, bring this matter to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office.”
Letter to head of CIB 
“I have found proof that a fraud was committed, written customer complaints, used in initiating the disciplinary process did not exist, and never had...
Finally getting the admission from Telecom with the help of the privacy commission”
Fraud is commonly understood to be dishonesty calculated for advantage i.e. a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of what should have been disclosed –that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act on it to his legal injury
I am instructed by the Minister of labour Kate Wilkinson in her response to my concerns (letter 3rd oct) that this is a matter for the police as above 
I am further instructed by the local office of department of labour “Accordingly, in the event that you consider that there are elements of fraud or criminal wrongdoing it is incumbent upon you to lodge a complaint with the Police should you wish to request an investigation?”
This is what transpired in their words, copies of all can be provided if the decision is made to pursue the charge, telecom will have copies of same signed off as true and correct.
It is the act of fraud, deliberate and to my detriment that is requiring investigation
Participants and Witness 
All participants in this protracted fraud are in my view culpable under the law. As it is part of their job requirements to make themselves fully cognisant with all the laws of the land it is an integral part of their job descriptions
EPIC FAIL check code of conduct and legal responsibility on the intranet 
Bridgette Dalzell: National Manager Telecom: who had oversight of the process as her role dictates?
Michelle Young Site manager 123 Call Centre Hamilton (Bridgette Dalzell is Michelle's manager)Shaun Hoult my Team Leader (Michelle Young is his manager) 
Iain Galloway Site Human Resource Manager Hannah Sullivan head office Human Resource 
Peter Cooper-Davis Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union My support person who took copious notes throughout the entire process will be able to attest to the veracity of the information from an independent view point 
Escalations – 2 customers laid written complaints regarding your customer service
Points of note 
2 written customer complaints affirms there are two complaints 
Manner DESCRIBED BY CUSTOMER as “condescending and rude” described by customer 
EPIC FAIL DESCRIBED BY CUSTOMER NO NO NO IT WASN'T READ ON 
IF YOUR MANAGERS ACCUSE YOU OF A MISDEED ASK FOR PROOF EVERY TIME 
REFER TO POST ON BLOG ENTITLED "WHEN CAUGHT IN THE CROSS HAIRS "
PRINT OF A COPY AND KEEP IT ON YOUR PERSON 
Written warning 300509Consideration of your explanations
Having carefully considered your explanations we do not accept that your explanations satisfactorily justify your actions for the following reasons;
I do not accept that language that could be construed as patronising or condescending is appropriate in your attempts to control a call or were you deem the customer to be intellectually challenged. All customers have the right to expect a polite and professional service standard.
WELL SHAUN AND MICHELLE I DONT ACCEPT BEING LIED TO AND BULLIED 
Points of note 
Reference again to patronising or condescending is appropriate
There is no way this intellectually handicapped girl had the intelligence to make a complaint I’m not denigrating her it just a statement of fact her disability just doesn’t allow her thought process’s to work that way
plus many more over a long period of time all document refer to the fraudulent use of /or mention of a complaint letter which does not exist
Copies of all can be produced detailing date, day time, reason for meeting attendees at meeting etc Unfortunately they fill a least two lever arch files 
And so on it went ending up with a final written warning and mediation and me being exited from the company on 20th of Aug 2010
I persued an investigation on my own via the privacy commission to find the original copy of the written complaint letter describing my actions as condescending and rude 
Meeting stiff resistance from telecom alerted me that I was on the right track 
Proof from privacy commissioner excerpts taking from letter 25 march 2011 
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref: Cr22243)
My Reply 
Subject: urgent questions 
Hi Sarah 
First thank you very much for your prompt reply, it is appreciated You have indicated Telecom are entitled to withhold information under Clauses 29(1)(a)29(1)(b) 29 (2) (b) of the Privacy act 
Can we please provide further details specific to the questions asked, as to which clause of the privacy act referred to which question asked 
These answers need to be precise in their detail as I cannot base any answers in rebuttal unless I know the specific clause each specific exemption was based on 
Unfortunately an answer of both or all clauses fails to provide the necessary clarity I require 
Also as 29 (2) (b) gives two specific reasons please clarify which of the two applies 
Specifically I require their response to the request regarding the written complaint supposedly written by the handicapped girl where it was alleged I was ‘condescending and rude ‘ Where is the complaint letter .Under which clause did they gain exemption under which reason applies 
to you.
Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2)(b) on the basis that it does not exist.
PLEASE NOTE THIS 29(2)(b) MEANS IT DOES NOT EXIST
EPIC FAIL AGAIN not lost gone astray missing dah 
MY REPLY BACK TO COMMISSIONER 
Sarah, 
With a skilful selection of words Telecom has provided a disingenuous response in an attempt to deceive you and to obscure the truth 
completely correct the first request was for a written complaint they say
“Details of two customer complaints which had been made about you, the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you.” 
*************************************************************
Details may have been provided, the original letter has not...Thus information has been provided, the specific letter has not.
*************************************************************
A written complaint was the basis of the disciplinary action, yet there is no actual letter able to be provided, it calls into question its existence. Its specific existence is important as it was one of the major points used in my dismissal it shows their duplicity right from the start of their dealings with me 
Thus they are playing with words Yes there was information containing in emails referring to “two” customer complaints.
However only one of them was real; the other was never there. It doesn’t exist. 
Please refer to the submission to the era I forwarded to you earlier in the year to hold for your own information. (This can be resent if you require)
It contains proof that on Monday June 15th 2010; Shaun Hoult, my team manager admitted no letter existed.
Therefore it is not: “Any additional information is therefore withheld under section 29(2) (b) on the basis that it does not exist.” It is not additional information, it is one half of the two customer complaints they alleged “the information was contained in emails which were included in the documents previously provided to you”.
IF SHAUN HAD ADMITTED IT TO ME WHY THEN UNDER TELECOMS CODE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ALL HIGHLIGHTED ON THE INTRANET DID HE NOT INFORM HIS DIRECT REPORT MICHELLE 
AS SOON AS I SAW THOSE WORDS I KNEW MY CAUSE WAS LOST AND THE WHOLE MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS PITTED AGAINST ME PLUS I KNEW THEY WHERE LYING TO ME 
WITH OUT BELITTLEING THE HANDICAPPED GIRL I WAS DEALING WITH THERE IS NO WAY SHE HAS THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF THE WORDS 
PATRONISING OR CONDESCENDING 
TAKE A MINUTE A DESCRIBE TO YOUR SELF THE MEANING OF EACH WORD OR INDEED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM REQUIRES A BIT OF THOUGH AYE BET YOU ARE HEADING TO A DICTIONARY RIGHT NOW JUST TO GET IT CLEAR IN YOUR HEAD 
FORTUNATELY THE WHOLE MANAGEMENT TEAM LACKED THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL TO SEE THIER MISTAKE THEY JUST KEPT REPEATING IT TO ME TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME KEEP SIGNING IN OFF IN THE MEETING NOTES AS A TRUE A CORRECT RECORD 
I TOLD THEM TO BACK OFF OR IT WOULD GET NASTY I EVEN SAID LETS ADMITT
MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE THIS IS BULLSHIT LETS SHAKE HANDS AND PUT IT BEHIND US 
THIER RESPONSE FOR MY CHARITABLE CONCESSION A FINAL WRTING WARNING
EARLIER THIS WEEK I SEND AN OLIVE BRANCH AGAIN IGNORED AGAIN 
WELL WHEN YOU FEEL HANDCUFFS CLICK AROUND YOUR WRISTS AS YOU ARE LEAD FOR THE DOCK REMEMBER YOU HAD THE CHANCE 
AND DONT FORGET TO HAVE A PICTURE OF YOUR LOVES ONE IN YOUR BACK POCKET SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING 
As to the second they have blatantly lied again (unbelievably so) EPIC FAIL
I can only assume that Telecom has skilfully worded it to direct you to make the conclusion you made 
Sarah, I acknowledge that my approach is becoming somewhat pedantic and appreciate your patience thus far. The 'devil" as they say is in the detail. If the detail requested exists, it is a relatively simple matter to provide it, to the privacy commission.
We have instead, obstrufication, and a less than straight answers from Telecom....why the need??? EPIC FAIL 
finally get the answer in amongst all the other rubbish what follows is the final report from the office of the privacy commissioner in its entirety 
the important excerpts relevant to the fraud are highlighted in red
Dear Mr Evans-McLeod
Privacy Act Complaint: Paul Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand Limited (Our Ref:C/22243)
I refer to previous correspondence concerning the Privacy Act complaint you have made about the actions of Telecom New Zealand Limited (“Telecom’).
I have now had a chance to review this file in full and consider the issues raised.
I am satisfied that in this case Telecom has interfered with your privacy by initially withholding some information from you without a proper basis.
However I am also satisfied that you have now been provided with the information you are entitled to. It is also my view that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Telecom has accessed emails which you had sent and received from your work computer while you were still an employee at Telecom. I note that even if Telecom had accessed these emails, I believe it would have been entitled to do so in reliance on its clear computer use policy.
The Privacy Act
There are two main aspects to your complaint. The first is in relation to your request for information from Telecom. The second is in relation to your concerns that Telecom had accessed your personal emails while you were at work.
Issue I — Telecom’s response to your request for informs at/on.
This aspect of your complaint raises issues in terms of principle 6 of the Privacy Act. Principle 6 sets out that an individual is entitled to request access to the personal information which an agency holds about them. However, this is not an absolute right as the agency may withhold the requested information in reliance on one of the withholding grounds set out in sections 27-29 of the Privacy Act. This aspect of your complaint also raises issues in terms of part 6 of the Privacy Act which sets out the procedural requirements on agencies in terms of how they are required to respond to requests for information.
Request of 26 May 2010
You sent a fresh request for information to Telecom on 26 May 2010 asking for all of the information it held in relation to you.
Telecom provided a number of documents in response to your request, it also withheld information from you under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(f) and 29(2)(b). For the reasons set out in Ms Thompson’s letters of 12 November 2010 and 25 March 2011, I am satisfied that Telecom is entitled to rely on these sections to withhold information from you.
I note that on a number of occasions since Telecom provided you with information in relation to your 26 May 2010 request, you have advised us that you believe there are additional documents which Telecom has not provided to you. We have sought comment from you regarding specific documents which you believe were outstanding and have provided you with Telecom’s responses in terms of why it considers it has already provided you with these documents, to the extent that they exist. As previously advised Telecom is entitled to refuse a request for information which does not exist under section 29(2)(b). 
My words 
Start “there it is the smoking gun “
“this portion refers to the letter that was supposedly written customer complaint by the handicap girl who said I was “condescending and rude” they are therefore admitting fraud in the disciplinary process” end 
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that while Telecom has interfered with your privacy by withholding a small amount of information from you initially without a proper basis
so there you have after a long and deliberately convoluted period of correspondence I finally got information via their lawyer that it did not exist 
So they in my opinion are guilty of committing common law fraud which to my understanding has nine elements and they fulfilled the lot 
1 a representation of an existing fact 
2 is materiality 
3 its falsity
4 the speakers knowledge of it falsity 
5 the speakers intent that it shall be acted on by the plaintiff (that’s me) 
6 the plaintiffs ignorance of its falsity 
7 plaintiff reliance on the truth of the representation
8 the plaintiffs right to rely on it and 
9 consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff 
I think they scored 9/9 100%
Fraud in my view is an indictable offense thus again in my view all participants are liable to a term of imprisonment In my view the act of fraud could be established by proof of the following 
1 the prohibited act being one of deceit, falsehood or some other fraudulent means and
2 deprivation caused by the prohibited act which may consist of actual loss or the placing of the victim pecuniary interest at risk I lost my job hence my income 
Proof of deceit or falsehood is sufficient to establish the actus reus of fraud – no other proof of dishonest action is needed; EPIC FAIL I HAVE THE PROOF 
the fundamental question in determining the actus reus of “other fraudulent means” is whether the means used to carry out the alleged fraud can be characterized as dishonest 
- Dishonesty is determined by applying the standard of a reasonable person – whether a reasonable person would stigmatize what was done as dishonest;
- while dishonesty is difficult to define with precision, it connotes an underhanded design which has the effect, or which engenders the risk, of depriving others of what is theirs – it has, at its heart, the wrongful use of something in which another person has an interest, in such a manner that this other’s interest is extinguished or put at risk;
Use is “wrongful” in this context if it constitutes conduct that reasonable, decent persons would consider dishonest and unscrupulous –
The element of deprivation is satisfied¬ on proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim,
***********************************************************
One of my primary objectives in bringing this case to the ERA attention the fact my good name was impugned 
If not investigated, and proven to the fullest extent these allegations seriously undermine the integrity of myself and my good name, it reflects directly on my self ,and others perception of myself , built on close to forty years service of being honest and a man of good character within the company
************************************************************
It becomes a pervasive form of defamation indeed published by staff in public arenas such Facebook ‘’that I left under a cloud “This can be substantiated by a witness if required as he rebutted the allegation in my defence I left and the confidentially of the mediation left me no way to explain to my peers the reason 
**************************************************************
It completely contradicted my own sense of ethical behaviour .I was quite frankly stunned close to forty years service came to this ..Unbelievable 
**************************************************************
Natural justice would dictate that matters should be addressed on facts in evidence; application of good faith should ensure that.
Disciplining on a document (complaint letter) that is nonexistent taints both the process and the outcome, and prejudices my human rights. As does undisclosed intent as described above, 
"deceit which avoids the contract need not be by means of misrepresentations in words it exists where the party who obtains the consent does so by means of concealing or omitting to state material facts, with intent to deceive, by reason of which omission or concealment the other party was induced to give a consent which he would not otherwise have given....
"[I]t is based upon the proposition that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the party who obtained the consent, acting in good faith, to have disclosed the facts which he concealed 
***********************************************************
SHAUN DISCLOSED THEM TO ME WHY NOT TO THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WHY DIDN'T THE DUE DILIGENCE AND ASK FOR THE LETTER 
WAS IT BECAUSE THE OUT COME WAS PREMEDITATED AND PREDETERMINE SURELY NOT YEAH RIGHT 
THE DECISION WOULD HAVE COME FROM A MANAGER HIGHER THAN MICHELLE 
WHO WAS NATIONAL MANAGER AT TIME
SO WHO HANGS FOR THE OFFENCE
THE LOT AS ALL PARTICIPATED 
THE PERPETRATOR THE NATIONAL MANAGER WHO WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED IT 
************************************************************
I am in receipt of a letter of complaint from a Paul Evans-McLeod alleging fraud 
**************************************************************
Fraud is an indictable offense. All participants are liable to a term of imprisonment 
I HOPE SO 
*************************************************************
The allegations with the supporting documents appears to satisfy all the elements of fraud 
Proceed with charging them 
In conclusion 
It is no small sum approximately $480.000.00 plus a large redundancy due to my length of service 39years 3months and a very very old contract 
My only options left after this the, , the ombudsman and the media The national business review has been in contact and contact has made with Ian Wishart of investigate magazine 
THE OUTCOME LIES NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE AND EVENTUALLY THE COURTS 
MOST PEOPLE KNOW ME AS A FRIENDLY TUBBY CHEEKY LITTLE BUGGER HAPPY TO HELP ANY ONE 
BUT I DON'T LIKE BEING FUCKED OVER,. LIED TO OR BULLIED 
I DON'T THREATEN 
I DON'T BLUFF 
I JUST ACT 
OH AND I DON'T QUIT EITHER UNTIL I HAVE ACHIEVED MY STATED GOALS