FW: Does an email account constitute a "letterhead"? (was Re: [LINK]Licences required for IPTV)

[Adam Todd]

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 
unofficial.

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 
talking about.

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.