Bullying Cancer Survivors

Bullying Cancer Survivors

FROM: Andrew Peacock <ghostofandrew@gmail.com>

4:15 PM 7/5/2021

TO: damian.son.of.sam.mcquestin@hell.liberal.org.au; robert.clark@hell.liberal.org.au

My, oh my. The very very long distance angry mean stares I am getting from way down below by Che Guevara, a person who always preferred a Quick Solution, that usually involved a bullet or a bayonet – heck, there’s no chance hell is going to freeze over.

Well, it seems show trials are the new norm. But unlike Georgy Molchanov who at least allowed the victims to be in the Court room before banishing them to the Gulag, the 257 (formerly known as 104) apparatchiks are conducting their witchhunts in absentia. It just would not do to have anyone say a word against them. Not at all. No sir. A Quick outcome is a good outcome.

It doesn’t matter a jot if the person being charged writes: ” I have a right to be present, to hear the specifics of the allegations made against me and to reply to them. Any meeting held before I can be present would be unfair. I cannot send a representative as you have not provided me with the actual evidence for, or details of, the allegations so I cannot instruct them.

Also, if new allegations or facts are presented at the meeting, I will be unable to provide a response. Any meeting held without me being present is therefore a show trial and I object to it being conducted. I do not waive my right to be present.”

Imagine if someone with a shred of decency were to suggest the show trial be adjourned until a 70 year old cancer survivor could return to Australia from overseas. A simple majority adjournment to allow them the right to be present, to face one’s accusers and respond to their allegations. That just won’t do. We can’t have people who believe in fair play and democracy deciding to act with integrity and defy the leadership. No. No one is going to be allowed to stand up and argue that the matter should be adjourned.

It is always good to give someone the wrong date too, preferably one in the past during lockdown. Surely, you can’t make the same mistake twice. Unless of course your correspondence is far too Quickly written. A Quick interpretation of the Constitution allows a 12 month maximum suspension to be 15 months and counting. The commissariat cannot be bound by rules that do not suit them.

Such tragedy turning to farce.

Anyway, one of the benefits of being dead is that we can sniff the Internet and take correspondence straight off the wire. Believe me as I’m in heaven – the attachments are all authentic. Read and weep at the loss of the heart of the once great Victorian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia.

ATTACHMENTS

From: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com
Date: Thu, May 6, 2021 at 7:09 PM
Subject: RE: REFERRAL TO STATE ASSEMBLY – RESPONSE PETER ADAMIS 7 MAY 2021
To: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Cc: Robert Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
Dear State Director,
Thank you for your email message of 6 May 2021. I have read your correspondence carefully and it
seems to me that you have not picked up the error made in the notice sent to me on 14 April 2021. I
was told that the meeting would be held on 7 May 2020 – i.e. last year. I suggest you read the
correspondence again. This is not valid notice under the Constitution. You cannot confirm that which is
not advised before.
When I received the correspondence of 14 April 2021, I thought it was a re-send or duplication of earlier
correspondence last year. This was particularly because the correspondence did not respond to any of
my correspondence from February this year (3 and 11 February).
It was only when I received a call from a member of the Party a few days ago, that I realised it was
intended to be a meeting tomorrow (as I write this in Greece) or today (when you receive it).
Let me be clear about a few incorrect comments in your recent email below.

  1. When you wrote to me on 31 January 2020, I replied to you that same day. (Note that the time
    difference must be taken into account). It is therefore misleading to claim otherwise. I did not receive a
    reply to my questions to you. Instead, a few days later, the Administrative Committee purported to
    suspend me.
  2. When you wrote to me on 2 February 2021, I replied to you on 3 February 2021. You did not
    reply to me until today and then you did not address any of the matters I raised.
    Now that I am aware from today’s correspondence from you that the Administrative Committee has
    included both Ms Okotel and Mr Hutchinson in its purview, I can disclose that both of these people
    sought and obtained interim intervention orders that have not been heard substantively.
    The interim orders were obtained in mid February 2020 and have been in place for approximately 15
    months, an inordinately long time for an interim order. The proceedings are at the stage of a mention to
    occur in July this year. No hearing date has been set. You may of course confirm with Ms Okotel or Mr
    Hutchinson if you do not believe me.
    I am sure you know how to get in touch with them. If not, perhaps Mr Ian Quick, the Communication
    ‘Supremo’ of the Party, can access the membership database on your behalf and provide their contact
    details.
    You have not provided a responsive or proper answer to my request for details of the words or phrases
    or sentences or paragraphs that I have written that constitutes, in the opinion of the Administrative
    Committee, defamatory or intimidatory or harassing conduct.
    You have also not replied to my contention that my suspension ceased with the effluxion of the
    maximum time permitted by the Constitution in February this year.
    I have not been charged by the Administrative Committee with a breach of the National Code of
    Conduct. Accordingly, there is no case to answer in relation to your claim that certain publications are
    breaches of the Code. To be clear, I reject any assertion that my comments were made in my capacity as
    a member of the Party. They refer to matters of public interest and were not done in the course of any
    official capacity or in any official forum of the Party.
    I produce a newsletter as a commentator on matters of controversy. If it relates to political discourse, it
    is protected speech. The newsletters are sent to the general public and people can subscribe or
    unsubscribe. The National Code does not cover the private conduct of party members. The Party has no
    jurisdiction to hear private disputes between members.
    These are matters for the Courts. This applies a fortiori to matters where defamation is alleged. It seems
    the Administrative Committee is seeking the State Assembly supplant the judicial process in this country
    and determine whether a matter is defamatory or not. What chutzpah bordering on contempt of court!
    In relation to your claim that I can have a representative present, this could only work fairly if I was
    present to inform the representative of the facts to any allegations that were made against me. This is
    not the case. To use the legal analogy, clients are present to give instructions to legal practitioners. The
    representative does not supplant the person charged.
    In summary, my primary contention is that I have not received lawful notice of the meeting on 7 May
    2021 and I object to any proceedings against me.
    Please provide all members of the State Assembly with a copy of this email chain, your email of 31
    January 2020 and my reply of that date, your email to me of 2 February 2021 and my reply of 3 February
    2021.
    I would expect that a fair minded member of State Assembly would, upon being appraised of the facts,
    move that the proceedings against me be adjourned until I return and that in the interim proper
    particulars of the allegations against me be provided by the Administrative Committee along the lines I
    have requested.
    I have attached a PDF copy of my replies of 31 January 2020 and 3 February 2021 that you have
    misleadingly failed to mention. I also include my response of 1 February 2021.
    Yours sincerely
    Peter Adamis
    From: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Date:
    Thu, May 6, 2021, 11:16 AM
    Subject: Referral to State Assembly
    To: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com
    Cc: Robert Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
    Dear Mr Adamis
    Notice of meeting
    I confirm your matter will be raised at the State Assembly to occur this Friday 7 May 2021.
    I provided you with notice of the meeting date via email on Thursday 14 April 2021, which is within the
    requisite timeframe.
    Intervention orders
    You have previously informed me that two party members obtained interim intervention orders that
    prevent you from discussing the allegations to be heard at State Assembly. In order to substantiate the
    existence of intervention orders I require a copy of the intervention orders to validate your claim.
    Please also advise if the interim intervention orders transpired into final orders (or whether the interim
    orders have now lapsed).
    I previously requested this information from you on 2 February 2021, and note that to date you are
    unable to demonstrate the existence of current intervention orders.
    In the event you are unable to furnish evidence of the existence of current intervention orders, then this
    will not be taken into consideration at this Friday’s State Assembly.
    Your attendance at State Assembly
    As previously mentioned to you, whilst you are currently overseas you have the ability to exercise the
    right to be heard at the meeting via the appointment of a nominee to attend the meeting in person on
    your behalf.
    To date you have not elected to be heard at State Assembly with this option. In the event that you do
    not exercise the right to be heard, your matter will still be discussed at this Friday’s State Assembly.
    Materials that support the charges against you
    On 31 January 2020 I sent an email to you, which requesting you (amongst other things) remove from
    your website, or any public platform, all material that is, or may be considered to be defamatory,
    denigrating or harassing of other Party members or otherwise in breach of the National Code of
    Conduct, and to cease sending any further such material to Party members. My request occurred in
    excess of 12 months ago, and to date, I have not received a response from you on this request.
    Examples of materials include:
  3. ENewsletter Edition 8 of Abalinx Newsletter – with particular reference to comments with
    regard to Mr Sali Miftari
  4. ENewsletter Edition 3 – with particular reference to comments with regard to to Mr Russell
    Joseph contained under the heading Flinders.
  5. ENewsletter Edition 12 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  6. ENewsletter Edition 3 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  7. ENewsletter Edition 2 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  8. ENewsletter Edition 8 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  9. ENewsletter Edition 11 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  10. ENewsletter Edition 10 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  11. ENewsletter Edition 6 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  12. ENewsletter Edition 9 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code
    of conduct.
  13. Article entitled “Would the real Karina Okotel please stand up.” – with reference to comments
    that it is alleged breach the National code of conduct.
  14. Article entitled “unmasking the prophet alias Grant Hutchinson.” – with reference to comments
    that it is alleged breach the National code of conduct.
    13.Article entitled “Who is running this circus” – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the
    National code of conduct.
  15. ENewsletter Edition 14 – with reference to comments that it is alleged breach the National code of
    conduct.
    Regards,
    Sam McQuestin
    State Director
    FROM: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com
    DATE: Thur, May 6, 2021
    SUBJECT: RE: REFERRAL TO STATE ASSEMBLY RESPONSE – PETER ADAMIS
    TO: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Cc: Robert
    Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
    Dear State Director
    Thank you for your formal advice below. I remain confused. The meeting date you have set out is last
    year. You are also aware that I am overseas and cannot return to Australia to be at the meeting. I
    have a right to be present, to hear the specifics of the allegations made against me and to reply to
    them.
    Any meeting held before I can be present would be unfair. I cannot send a representative as you have
    not provided me with the actual evidence for, or details of, the allegations so I cannot instruct them.
    Also, if new allegations or facts are presented at the meeting, I will be unable to provide a response.
    Any meeting held without me being present is therefore a show trial and I object to it being
    conducted. I do not waive my right to be present.
    Clearly, I cannot be, now present at a meeting held twelve months ago let alone a meeting where you
    know I would need to quarantine myself on arrival and hence could not attend.
    Even if I received your correspondence immediately (which I did not) and was able to get permission to
    come to Australia (which I do not have) and was able to secure an immediate flight (which I cannot do),
    I would need to be in quarantine for 14 days at least.
    You clearly know all this so it is a mockery to purport to give me notice, even defective notice.
    I first asked for specifics more than twelve months ago. I have not received these specifics.
    To make it easier for you, here is my request again.
  16. What are the newsletters the Administrative Committee determined (or its representative
    determined) are the ones which constituted the documents meeting the description of “repeatedly
    sending … newsletters defaming, denigrating and harassing a wide range of Party members”
  17. what is the specific content (words, sentences, paragraphs, images) it is alleged constitutes “
    defaming …” and who are the “wide range of Party members” allegedly defamed?
  18. what is the specific content (words, sentences, paragraphs, images) it is alleged constitutes ” …
    denigrating …” and who are the “wide range of Party members” allegedly denigrated?
  19. what is the specific content (words, sentences, paragraphs, images) it is alleged constitutes ” …
    harassing …” and who are the “wide range of Party members” allegedly harassed?
    Furthermore, I do not appear to have received a reply to my assertion that my temporary suspension is
    no longer in operation as it cannot be for a period longer than 12 months under the Constitution and
    that term has already expired. Please reply to my legitimate and reasonable point.
    I would also like a list of the members of the State Assembly so I can write to them sending them a copy
    of this correspondence. Alternatively, I am prepared to accept your assurance that a written copy of this
    correspondence will be placed before the members of the State Assembly prior to them considering my
    situation.
    Kind regards
    Peter Adamis
    From: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au
    Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:53 AM
    Subject: Referral to State Assembly
    To: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com
    Dear Mr Adamis
    As you are aware at a meeting of the Administrative Committee held on Friday 7th of February 2020 the
    following motions were passed; Motion 1:
    That in accordance with clause 4.1(b) of the Constitution, the Administrative Committee submit the
    following motion to State Assembly:
    ‘That Mr Peter Adamis be found guilty of conduct gravely detrimental to the best interests of the Party
    on account his repeatedly sending to large numbers of Party members newsletters defaming,
    denigrating and harassing a wide range of Party members.’
    Motion 2:
    That in accordance with clause 4.1(c) of the Constitution, Mr Peter Adamis be suspended from the
    Liberal Party until the next meeting of State Assembly at which the motion submitted by the
    Administrative Committee is eligible to be considered.
    In light of these motions passing you have the right to be heard at the next State Assembly meeting.
    Please note that while you are suspended from the Party you remain subject to the obligations of a
    Party member to comply with the constitution and with the National Code of Conduct.
    The next meeting of the State Assembly is scheduled for the 7th of May 2020 at Scots Church, Cnr
    Russell St and Collins St from 7 pm
    Regards,
    Sam McQuestin
    State Director
    Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division)
    Level 12, 257 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
    Phone: 03 96542255
    EA: 03 9652 3114 Mobile:
    0409 314 486
    www.vic.liberal.org.au

From: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com Date: Thu, May 6, 2021 at 7:09 PM Subject: RE: REFERRAL TO STATE ASSEMBLY – RESPONSE PETER ADAMIS 7 MAY 2021 To: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Cc: Robert Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
Dear State Director,
Thank you for your email message of 6 May 2021. I have read your correspondence carefully and it seems to me that you have not picked up the error made in the notice sent to me on 14 April 2021. I was told that the meeting would be held on 7 May 2020 – i.e. last year. I suggest you read the correspondence again. This is not valid notice under the Constitution. You cannot confirm that which is not advised before. When I received the correspondence of 14 April 2021, I thought it was a re-send or duplication of earlier correspondence last year. This was particularly because the correspondence did not respond to any of my correspondence from February this year (3 and 11 February). It was only when I received a call from a member of the Party a few days ago, that I realised it was intended to be a meeting tomorrow (as I write this in Greece) or today (when you receive it). Let me be clear about a few incorrect comments in your recent email below. 1. When you wrote to me on 31 January 2020, I replied to you that same day. (Note that the Time difference must be taken into account). It is therefore misleading to claim otherwise. I did not receive a reply to my questions to you. Instead, a few days later, the Administrative Committee purported to suspend me. 2. When you wrote to me on 2 February 2021, I replied to you on 3 February 2021. You did not reply to me until today and then you did not address any of the matters I raised.
Now that I am aware from today’s correspondence from you that the Administrative Committee has included both Ms Okotel and Mr Hutchinson in its purview, I can disclose that both of these people sought and obtained interim intervention orders that have not been heard substantively.
The interim orders were obtained in mid February 2020 and have been in place for approximately 15 months, an inordinately long time for an interim order. The proceedings are at the stage of a mention to occur in July this year. No hearing date has been set. You may of course confirm with Ms Okotel or Mr Hutchinson if you do not believe me.
I am sure you know how to get in touch with them. If not, perhaps Mr Ian Quick, the Communication ‘Supremo’ of the Party, can access the membership database on your behalf and provide their contact details. You have not provided a responsive or proper answer to my request for details of the words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs that I have written that constitutes, in the opinion of the Administrative Committee, defamatory or intimidatory or harassing conduct. You have also not replied to my contention that my suspension ceased with the effluxion of the maximum time permitted by the Constitution in February this year. I have not been charged by the Administrative Committee with a breach of the National Code of Conduct. Accordingly, there is no case to answer in relation to your claim that certain publications are breaches of the Code. To be clear, I reject any assertion that my comments were made in my capacity as a member of the Party.
They refer to matters of public interest and were not done in the course of any official capacity or in any official forum of the Party.
I produce a newsletter as a commentator on matters of controversy. If it relates to political discourse, it is protected speech. The newsletters are sent to the general public and people can subscribe or unsubscribe. The National Code does not cover the private conduct of party members. The Party has no jurisdiction to hear private disputes between members.
These are matters for the Courts. This applies a fortiori to matters where defamation is alleged. It seems the Administrative Committee is seeking the State Assembly supplant the judicial process in this country and determine whether a matter is defamatory or not. What chutzpah bordering on contempt of court! In relation to your claim that I can have a representative present, this could only work fairly if I was present to inform the representative of the facts to any allegations that were made against me. This is not the case. To use the legal analogy, clients are present to give instructions to legal practitioners. The representative does not supplant the person charged.
In summary, my primary contention is that I have not received lawful notice of the meeting on 7 May 2021 and I object to any proceedings against me. Please provide all members of the State Assembly with a copy of this email chain, your email of 31 January 2020 and my reply of that date, your email to me of 2 February 2021 and my reply of 3 February 2021.
I would expect that a fair minded member of State Assembly would, upon being appraised of the facts, move that the proceedings against me be adjourned until I return and that in the interim proper particulars of the allegations against me be provided by the Administrative Committee along the lines I have requested. I have attached a PDF copy of my replies of 31 January 2020 and 3 February 2021 that you have misleadingly failed to mention. I also include my response of 1 February 2021. Yours sincerely
Peter Adamis
Peter Adamis Bachelor of Adult Learning & Development, Grad Dip Occupational Health & Safety, (Monash), Dip. Training & Assessment, Dip Public Administration, Dip Management, Dip Frontline Manage
RESPONSES TO STATE DIRECTOR – PETER ADAMIS 1 & 3 FEBRUARY 2021 – 31 JANUARY 2020.pdf

RESPONSES TO STATE DIRECTOR – PETER ADAMIS 1 & 3 FEBRUARY 2021 & 31 JANUARY 2020
From: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:56 AM Subject: Re: Removal of all defamatory, denigrating or harassing material To: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au
Dear State Director
I am very confused by your email. No one has had the courtesy to contact me and point out to me any comment about them or a colleague they find incorrect or in breach of the Code.
Please advise with specificity the particular comment or comments that you have been instructed fall(s) outside the rights of all members to engage in robust exchanges of views and expression of honestly held opinion.
Please state explicitly for each comment the person you believe the comment relates to, their role in the Party, the provision of the Code that the comment infringes and what it is about each comment that causes it to fall outside the National Code of Conduct. Please explain why it does so and what could be done to alter the comment so it does not breach the Code.
It seems to me that in circumstances where a special State Council is being convened to consider whether it lacks confidence in the Administrative Committee that it would be completely at variance with the intent and purposes of the Constitution for vigorous animated debate to be curtailed.
I am all in favour of the Code protecting those without a voice or power but it ought not be used by the powerful or in authority (or pulling the strings behind the scenes) to stifle criticism of their actions. This would be breathtakingly hypocritical, completely at odds with its stated objective and offensive to party members. If my written comments have hurt the feelings of anyone who falls within the category of an innocent victim, I will promptly and wholeheartedly retract any comment and apologize for it.
Yours sincerely
Peter Adamis Director Abalinx & Associates Peter Adamis Bachelor of Adult Learning & Development, Grad Dip Occupational Health & Safety, (Monash), Dip. Training & Assessment, Dip Public Administration, Dip Management, Dip Frontline Management. Website: abalinx.com
From: Peter Adamis abalinx@gmail.com Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Referral to State Assembly To: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Cc: Robert Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
Dear State Director I refer to your email below wherein you state “confirmation of the time and location for this meeting will be provided to you once the Steering Committee has confirmed it”. I have received no confirmation but I have just become informally aware via party members that the matter of my conduct is on the agenda for the next meeting of State Assembly to be held this Friday nearly a year. I have not received the notice required by the Constitution under sub-clause 4.1(d) which requires 21 days’ notice. Notice provisions are set out in full in clause 2.2 and notice must be either sent by post or email. In any event, I am overseas at present and unable to return due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. My internet connection is patchy at best and often down so it is not possible to successfully use remote communications such as zoom or equivalents. I do not foresee being allowed to return to Australia anytime soon. My medical advice received from my specialists in Australia is that I am required for health reasons to avoid winter in Melbourne so it is likely I will be forced to remain overseas until late Spring. Also, two party members obtained interim intervention orders that have the effect of preventing me from discussing, even in my defence, any of the allegations that form the basis of the charges. The prohibition extends to me communicating with anyone about these matters or to me instructing anyone to discuss these matters including at any meeting. I cannot possibly defend myself in these circumstances and the interests of justice require the matter to be adjourned even if you reject my primary contention that proper notice has not been given and the matter cannot proceed on Friday. As such, I formally request the matter not be heard until I am able to return to Australia and the interim intervention orders are vacated. Please have the Administrative Committee consider my request. While matters remain pending, I again request particulars of each of the things that you say amount to defamation, denigration or harassment and the identity of the persons who have been allegedly defamed, denigrated or harassed.
Finally, please advise the status of my membership. Yours sincerely Peter Adamis
Peter Adamis Bachelor of Adult Learning & Development, Grad Dip Occupational Health & Safety, (Monash), Dip. Training & Assessment, Dip Public Administration, Dip Management, Dip Frontline Management. Website: abalinx.com
From: abalinx@gmail.com Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:49 AM Subject: PETER ADAMIS – STATE ASSEMBLY SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 2021 To: Sam McQuestin Sam.McQuestin@vic.liberal.org.au Cc: Robert Clark Robert.Clark@vic.liberal.org.au
Dear State Director The Interim Intervention Orders were served on me on 20 February 2020, 10 days after the decision of the Administrative Committee. Unlike family orders which have a return date within a week or two, the applicants sought a later date and the matters were due to be heard in April 2020 (about a month after the original March 2020 schedule for the State Assembly meeting). COVID restrictions have prevented contested matters from being heard and the hearing has been delayed multiple times. There is now a directions hearing rescheduled to July this year to set the timetable for hearing the application for permanent orders. Due to the delays in hearing the matter, no evidence has been provided to me by the “protected” persons supporting the allegations they made to the Magistrate and which they assert satisfies the standard for obtaining a permanent order. Accordingly, out of caution to prevent any risk of committing a contempt of the interim orders, after your request I sought legal advice. The advice is that I cannot comment publicly on any of the matters that relates to them nor can I allow anyone else to do so. As such, I cannot answer any allegations they make against me or have made to the Party or which their supporters make against me at the hearing nor can persons who support me make any statements about the subject matter. You asked for the identity of the persons. For the same reason as I cannot comment publicly in relation to the allegations made against me, I cannot provide their names but they are persons who are senior members of the Party. However, you no doubt know the names of the persons who complained to you about my conduct and members of the Administrative Committee would know the names of the persons who complained to them. They can identify themselves if they wish or you can make inferences or if you wish. I again ask for the particulars from you as I have previously requested. For ease of reference, my request was for: particulars of each of the things that the Administrative Committee says amount to defamation, denigration or harassment and the identity of the persons who have been allegedly defamed, denigrated or harassed. Yours sincerely Peter Adamis
Peter Adamis Bachelor of Adult Learning & Development, Grad Dip Occupational Health & Safety, (Monash), Dip. Training & Assessment, Dip Public Administration, Dip Management, Dip Frontline Management. Website: abalinx.com

Related Posts