to their detriment

I was required to be 100%right100%of the time, an impossible target, to achieve the participants that required it of me could not even achieve it themselves to their detriment

Richard is telecoms senior fraud adviser

John Rooney is telecoms lawyer  

By their actions you shall know them please take time to revisit telecoms code of conduct and code of ethics as part of the management team your are required to be across ALL the laws of the land

Richard,

I refer to your correspondence forwarded by John Rooney.

You have it completely wrong

I strongly suggest you that take the police approach (as I have) in you further investigation which is

A -accept nothing

B –believe no one

C - Corroborate everything

I am delighted you have reiterated, for us that the document never existed, it is better than the disingenuous answers of previous correspondence.

Your conclusion has provided further evidence for the case going forward and thus will become part of it.

This is interesting given the document trail, in which it was constantly referred to as “a written complaint” this in copies of meeting notes signed of as true and correct by some if not all of the participants., fraudulently 

Perhaps apply the following basic criteria (amongst others) to the investigation,

• It’s representation of an existing fact?
• its materiality
• its falsity
• the speakers knowledge of it falsity
• the speakers intent that it shall be acted on by the plaintiff (that’s me)
• the plaintiffs ignorance of its falsity
• plaintiff reliance on the truth of the representation
• the plaintiffs right to rely on it and
• consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff
• they all went into mediation knowing full well it didn’t exist

That is a serious breach around many employment laws it is also a breach of good faith honesty and integrity.

Your presumption that I have relied on a particular section of the act, is a view but that does not conclude the action or the intention to have the matter addressed by the relevant courts

Given that my course of action has in part been decided on guidance from Ministers of the Crown, the Police and others whose counsel I trust...I can respect that you have an opinion, but I will not personally rely on it. Indeed some of these individuals have expressed a firm view as to the impact of employment law of the implications that which has occurred. I was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of police whom have accepted it as a compliant, by a minister of the crown. Thus validating my claims of fraud

So in plain English, the five telecom participants in the successful attempt to exit me from the company are the ones that have committed the fraud .not me. Using a nonexistent complaint (you have just reaffirmed to me its non existence) in a disciplinary process .entering into a mediation conference with the full knowledge that their body of evidence was tainted by it falsity

You as senior fraud advisor, need no further prompting from me to hold them accountable, indeed have them charged ,the breaches inherent within their acts are to numerous to table and will definitely bring Telecoms reputation into disrepute

However I suggest you move extremely quickly, as unless this is resolved, it will, with the support of a Minister of the Crown, a sitting MP will be coming to the attention of the media early in the New Year

We are well involved in the process of organising a petition to parliament requiring questions to be asked in the house around this very issue at the commencement of the next session of parliament mid February I believe

Warm regards

 Paul

Nb this process leads to a select committee I may well require your attendan