FW: Does an email account constitute a "letterhead"? (was
Re: [LINK]Licences required for IPTV)
link at todd.inoz.com
Sun Mar 19 10:45:59 EST 2006
At 09:37 PM 18/03/2006, Anura Samara wrote:
>As this thread has already forked at least once, here's my favourite
>take on email as authority ...
>I have long insisted that anything done over the phone is confirmed in
>writing - email or snail mail.
>When moving away from Telstra, I was in dispute with them over the
>period of time they were taking. I was pretty cranky, and some poor
>soul was making various offers to calm me down. When I asked for it to
>be confirmed by an email, they said that they didn't send emails... in
>fact, she implied couldn't send one. Claimed it was a legal concern.
I get that from any Government Agency when they ask me to put something in
writing and I ask them to send a request for it in writing. They always
tell me they can't send a request for me to answer their questions, I
always say I can't answer questions that aren't in writing. I suggest
using e-mail to communicate the issues, but they say that it's then
See the hypocricy in the issue? I have to be official in answering
questions and writing a letter that looks like it was the START of
something, but is in fact a reply, whereas they don't have to do anything!
I've even had people in the Supreme Court tell me they CAN NOT email me
judgements and decisions because of policy, yet after insisting I speak to
a supervisor there is generally no problem and the details are sent almost
instantly. I'm often told that "subordiant" hasn't a clue what they are
I'm so sick of every level of government using "policy' that often doesn't
exist as an excuse as to why they can't do something.
>I pointed out the irony that one of the biggest ISPs in Australia,
>responsible for hundreds of thousands of email accounts, doesn't
>itself use email!
In the late 1980's Telecom (previous name to Telstra) disconnected my phone
lines (the first ISP in Australia) and sued me for the account balance.
The matter went to court at which time I protested (I have since learned
that protesting about a claim at the first listing or motion is a waste of
my time, wait till the trial - it's easier.)
3 years and 99 adjournments (requested by Telecom) later I got angry in the
court and demanded the Judge look at the "Bill" and dismiss the matter on
prima facia evidence.
The Judge reluctantly looked at the bill and read it. Saying "$161.90 in
credit, no need to pay this bill."
The Judge exploded, dresses the lawyers down, and sent a stern message,
which i think I can quote verbatim:
"I find it incredible to believe that a Corporate company like Telecom, who
prides itself in communications has failed so dismally to communicate with
and at the insistence and demands of it's client who happens to be in
CREDIT. Judgement for the Defendant. I'll hear argument as to costs."
Needless to say I won my $2 million cross claim, but was too naive at the
time thinking that when a Court ordered someone pay damages, it happened
automatically. I didn't realise I had to actually get the Sheriff to go to
Telecom's head office and take the computers off the CEO's desk and deliver
them to an Auction house to recover my awards.
No doubt this is the approach my father will take if he wins his
proceedings against me to bankrupt me. http://billtodd.inoz.com/
Even though last Thursday the Judge awarded costs to me for the entire
proceedings to date and previously a Registrar made an order that they
forego all costs prior to their filing a fourth amended statement of
claim. Anyway, on with more interesting things over ground breaking
matters revolving around family disputes, the use of the Internet and who
is right and wrong.
More information about the Link