TAC said the head injury is 'active' & involved proceedings on-foot', there are none ..

this
indicated the document was used recently to deny request by kaia de burgh although not
cited as such in their determination.
Outside the purposes defined.
To conceal this TAC then alleged I still had a claim in relation to a head injury. Despite the
determination above clearly stating TAC stance.
If this were in fact true, that I still had a claim for damages, why did my solicitors not
pursue this ?
TAC had me threatened by my solicitor (exhibits) who unfortunately failed to inform me
that I would NOT be pursued for those sums (exhibit )

I am going to pursue the release of legal costs paid to 3rd parties by TAC.

In vcat review & regulation list

ref z469/2015
kerryn: munday in sui generis
all rights reserved

Vs

transport accident commission

response to respondants legal contentions.

1. see notarised commercial lien & affadavit in truth dated 15th june 2015.
2. I have never abandoned my attempt to seek justice 'matters of import' (Exhibit 1)

That the resulting determination by the supreme court shows character attacked as
opposed to capacity and in so determining has rendered my university degree useless
given that I had completed my major in philosophy by june 2012. That I have born the
cost under hecs to attempt accessing a professional career which I had at the time of the
accident after all my hard work against so much adversity from the TRANSPORT
ACCIDENT COMMISSION negatively impacting while I attempted to do so but any hope of
future prospects related to that hard work & debt I incurred that I possibly could have had
are now grossly unfairly damaged beyond repair.
b the 'litigation' TAC 'took over' was _supposed to_ be independent legal assigned, they
however share the same address & exchange of documents indicating collusion to
pervert the course of natural justice. Nicholas colin MOYSEY v TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
COMMISSION before judge barnett 4th dec 1998 peter fulton for TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
COMMISSION. That is a very long history which belies any independence what-so-ever.
(exhibit 2)
TAC unlawfully sought the discharge of the march 2012 hearing due to their no longer
wishing to rely on 'expert evidence' as it must have conflicted with both my parents
evidence. This is evidenced by the 3 days in which TAC were SUPPOSED to hand over the
report but made a deliberate choice to not do so immediately they said they were relying
upon. Transcript march 2008
3 I, unlike TAC, am unfamiliar with the various court processes as my attempt to follow
matters of import (exhibit) seeking justice shows.
point in fact. the filthy phil release. date first formal FOI request lodged re release early to
mid 2014 numerous replies indicating 'could not locate' (exhibit 3 bundle filthy phil ) even
when I pointed out surely barcode leads to location.
This document was signed with an under duress (exhibit bundle filthy phil) & this had
been made clear prior to FOI request and after discovering the age article, post june 2012
(exhibit 3 bundle filthy phil)
That the TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION provided to my solicitors a front & back
page only of this document which was the accepted exhibit (exhibit 3 bundle filthy phil)
despite clause 6.2.
That my confusion led me to believe minter ellison, The MOB listed on the cover page
acted for me. It now explains the lack of response to my email sent to richard west
following numerous phonecalls (exhibit) frustrated by no reply I called minter ellison &
spoke to management about the lack of courtesy in no reply. I soon got one in the mail
pointing out the other solicitor who worked for me should have a copy. I called minter
ellison to confirm they did indeed hold version. obvious now the original, I was informed
that minter ellison had been instructed to not release, this despite FOI request being
simultaneous. The public have an interest in the processes and deliberations that bring
about these conditions whereby a member of the public is informing FOIC that they
discovered location of document & that TAC had been dishonest in their communications.
(exhibit 4 )

The assertion by Lewis to the court june 2012 1105 21-28 would appear to amount to an
abuse of process. (exhibit 3 bundle)
The documents outlining the lack of consent to handle sensitive confidential information
outside any legislative authority. (exhibit 5 bundle consent forms unsigned. 1 signed for
sue pickering specifically.)
The correspondences outlining the dates clearly show the popp report was lodged with
solicitor to avoid disclosure thereby fulfilling the conditions of abuse of process and an
abuse of legal professional privilege. (exhibit 6 bundle of date ordered FOI requests)
(exhibit 7 affadavit of fulton 16th may 2012 & A 23rd may communication to an address
jared court once lived at.) was this sent was it returned to sender or sent into the wind
my privacy be damned?
The attempt to gain an authority of consent via chris bakers medical appointment and my
refusal being included as 'Abusive to reception for no apparent reason' in the body of that
report would appear an abuse of process as would his inclusion of medial arches not
depressed in 2010 opposing to david bowyer in 2009 & clayton thomas reports.
The discharging of march 2012 because the evidence of .both parents and myself
including the evidence of some retrograde amnesia conflicted with the chosen witness of
the TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION the ONLY neuropsychological medical opinion
sought between 1998 and 2011 that of NATHANIEL POPP. Also an abuse of process in
unlawfully conspiring to discharge a fair hearing because the evidence didn't suit
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION. KL Bourke was employed by TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
COMMISSION prior to her move to the bench that same year K.L Bourke, solicitor for the
transport accident commission in MARIA DELUCA v CHRISTOPHER PINKNEY AND
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION [2007] vcc 1307. (exhibit 8)
That communications to minister show TAC provided NATHANIEL POPP with my
confidential information by TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION to which they had no
signed consent nor had they tried to inform me they were doing so. That providing the
results to PETER FULTON was acting outside their staturory authority & acting unfairly in
the treatment of my claim depriving me of a fair hearing and beneficiary status.
4. judge king deserves no great weight given her endorsement of andrew gibb in his
superiority in having the most up-to-date report that court can be upheld while allowing
myself to be unfairly atrributed with that delay. andrew gibbs for his less than honest
evidence on the stand and adducing of popp evidence judge king chose to overlook. That
judge king was not as adequate as the judge in o'connor vs TAC who recognised the
inadequacies in andrew gibbs evidence in chief. (exhibit 9) 59 to point 62 where the
similarity in reports solicited by TAC was noted. The phone call to TAC 'mentioning' if new
appointment made would have been better served by asking his secretary 20/4/12 or his
call on 1st june to interact with TAC while compiling his 'independent' report (exhibit 10
bundle of andrew glibb communications) or how that conflicts with his report & evidence I
did not perform or did not engage. He stated I performed well. That conflicts with what
was produced in court. that would also seem an abuse of process

judicial review act 1 a b e f g & 2 a b d e & J acting in bad faith.

Andrew Glibb did not warrant the great weight the court afforded him despite 7 tests in 3
hours 2 of which were not conducive to anything beyond honesty, the personality one
was not completed or rather not interpreted, what does it mean if there are more than 11
answers not responded to? That left 4 tests with which to refute history. were these four
tests suggested by the prior to be relied upon non consulting report reading without
consent doctor popp who writes legal information amounting to 10 pages in anticipation
of an expert medical witness gig.
o'connor Vs TAC review and regulation [2013] vcat 235 there is public interest in how
given the same methodology by andrew gibb was used in drawing inferences from old
hospital records in his reports, there is such polar opposites by judges in acceptance of
andrew gibb as a credible witness.
Connor Vs TAC also raises the question which is of public interest, given the resulting
verdict of reputational damage in breach of the human rights charter, how such weight
was afforded to a self acknowledged incomplete assessment which the author attested to
the quality of opinion & research of equal import to peter dowling extensive examination.
Andrew Gibb gave evidence he wasn't that aware of dr dowlings qualifications yet
o'Connor Vs TAC shows they have met before.
5. due to the above the exemption should be overridden & it is imperative in the interests
of the public , the judicial review act 1977 and ensuring the public funded bodies
corporate are not acting in a manner detrimental to the health & wellbeing of the public.
the document amounting to 10 pages of neuropsychological report/opinion relevant to
me derived from access without due authority be disclosed.

witness statement

1. As a senior solicitor with the TAC CLAIRE ROWAN must be familiar with the practice of
non disclosure until last minutes to deprive claimants of adequate time to defend, which
is ironic the applicants always defend.
Exhibit Cracknell Vs TAC at 49, adequately describes the business model I encountered
which has no regard for injured claimants. transcript ref to non disclosure of twitter
material march & june 2012
2. Under FOI it appears I have some CLAIRE ROWAN did not view or was not provided
access to. see enclosed exhibits
3. see 2b 'response to..'
4 & 5. and no doubt it would have appeared as 'expert witness' material on the day. The
TAC sought no formal consultation with a medical practitioner in regards an ABI from high
speed MVA until 31st may 2012. They were reliant on Popp as their ONLY

neuropsychological medical report sought. common law protocols 4.3.4 footnote 8 state
reports cannot be paid for that are not relied upon.
The public has an interest in scrutinising the public funded body corporate TAC & what
constitutes the difference between a report produced by an individual acting as a doctor
or renamed as a consultant .
I find it disturbing to at this late date find my reports have been copied & transmitted
electronically. The breaches in handling of my confidential & sensitive information just
keep coming.
6. It is not a 'letter'.
7. Prepared outside any statutory authority & without due authorisation not even sought
in breach of transport accident act. There is also a workcover amendment specifically
discouraging this practice.
8. The 'independence' cannot be adequately established,see 2b
9. Popp also makes an appearance in Oconnor Vs TAC. Popp had no right whatsoever to
view my reports, TAC had NO RIGHT to pass them over and by EMAIL ffs. THIS IS HIGHLY
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION provided in confidence that it would be handled in
accordance with KJ Vs wentworth medical services and public expectations. Popp fully
prepared to 'expert witness' for public dollars on a regular basis is engaging in the same
unethical and unlawful conduct of TAC.
10. The document was provided to Jared Court solicitor appointed by TRANSPORT
ACCIDENT COMMISSION. The same Jared court who got 12 months jail & offers from
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION in regards his car.
I the premium paying party in this claim & the 'victim' have some how been accorded
fault as a male in a 100 klm ph high speed MVA would be treated differently according to
the road safety committee inquiry into serious injury (exhibit 12) pp315 Mr Woodroffe.
And as we can see even the male heroin addict who caused this accident which saw me
seriously injured got afforded some special treatment from TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
COMMISSION which seems grossly unfair and a failure to adequately administer the fund.
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION has enabled a perversion in the course of justice.
Used a extraordinary amount of money to deny me access to the beneficiary status I
SHOULD be accessing to alleviate my pain & suffering & financially deprived status. Not
filling the coffers of TAC lawyers.
That the TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION instead of meeting the 30k difference in
mediation chose to 'show me'.
That K.L. Bourke would have trouble containing TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION
desire to incessently attack character to misrepresent twitter & produce fraudulent
documents & have them accepted as evidence.Then A false claim made in regard that
'evidence' plus parents evidence & my own conflicting with the proposed 'expert witness

popps' saw march 2012 unlawfully discharged.

The absolute wanton waste & redirection of claimant compensation via manipulation of
documentation is disgusting & dangerous to the health & wellbeing of the general public.
11. That Andrew Glibb virtually accosted me as I tried to enter his room by raising my
attendance with peter dowling to cover his unauthorised access to peter dowling report is
perverse.
Andrew Gibb will be called to attend & adequately respond to the false & misleading
claims in his regurgitated TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION defence paper. It is a N
grade uni paper as is klepfitz whom TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION deliberately sent
me to after filthy phil to attain some 'defence' none of these reports are independent as is
required. This is evidence bound for court being unlawfully manipulated by the public
funded statutory body.
12. Meldrum seems to have been more concerned with his future employment prospects
than ensuring I was adequately defended. That whole court failed in its duty to defend
me when I was overwhelmed by pain. the court recording clearly shows the fatigue &
inability to respond due to chronic pain & injury.
13. The court of appeal such a farce that fact is overlooked in favour of TRANSPORT
ACCIDENT COMMISSION fiction & adversarial too judge forrest claims on his blog supreme
court are watching for this he never said anything about engaging in it.

errors in fact BY supreme court appeal. a few examples.

Facebook never mentioned in this claim as I don't use it
no assault charge has ever been pleaded guilty to. The woman involved was not the
girlfriend of my ex partner but paid for sexual services.
at the time of the accident I was a working single mother and had been for years. This is
not indicative of a woman who on the birth of her four children chose to not work. That is
not based upon fact. A limited work history is also not FACT.
Filthy Phil comments are outrageous. 'fairly dripping with cynicism' .. I guess they haven't
seen that age article (exhibit 3 bundle filthy phil) . That the TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
COMMISSION have targeted vulnerable demographics subjecting them to psychological
harm to confound injury making it non-compensable is unconscionable conduct. Public
Funded too.
high insteps in april 1998 some months after january 1998 .. so the flat feet currently
being 'hobbled' about on are not congenital but arrived due to traumatic injury. flat feet
WILL make you hobble. This resulting flat footedness from serious injury is recorded FACT
and conceded aggravation of prior injury. prior injury amounted to 1 injury at the base of
the big toe, not a separation between metartasals not a bone chip midfoot & no ankle
tendonitis.

To fairly assess whether TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION best case stands SCA
needed to ensure it is based on fact not false & misleading evidence unsupported by fact.
so what do we do about a SCA determination asserting an 'assault charge & subsequent
admission in court' that NEVER happened based upon information provided by
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION?
or between one point and another completely contradicts self. 44.. then 45 that
motivation they were speaking of! that choice to be just a mother!.
I should have been earning at least 60k per yr now as I would have completed my
training qualifications years ago. My skills were portable & timeless and not restricted by
my parenting responsibilities. Children grow & childcare access is a thing you know.
That I refer to the June 2012 criminal trial of my person as a psychological battering with
the SCA giving voice to that and I will never fully recover from.
public interest reasons

To permit the TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION to act outside its statutory authority or
outside its charter is to deny the public from ensuring the health privacy & information
privacy principles are being adhered to.
That it is imperative in the public interest that bodies employed under state legislation
respect the human rights charter and apply these diligently. page 317 paragraph 2 of
road safety inquiry into serious injury (exhibit 12) outlines the discrimination TRANSPORT
ACCIDENT COMMISSION employs in arbitrarily dislodging claimants. paragraph 6 shows
the mass scale misuse of personal data. page 318 paragraph 7 clearly states TRANSPORT
ACCIDENT COMMISSION have acted outside thier mandate in the collection & handling of
personal information. clearly not with any respect to 'privacy constraints'. Page 319
discusses the risk management approach to mishandling of personal private &
confidential information. The internal deliberations are such that unlawful acts are being
performed regularly. It is imperative this is exposed & highly discouraged.
That great social harms are being caused by this conduct and the court have a
responsibility to ensure it discourages public funded bodies from acting outside their
mandates or unlawfully as in this case. Road Safety inquiry page states that is the
collection of road safety data, not health data.
The public has great interest in scrutinising whether justice has been served or perverted
by public funded bodies corporate such as TAC.
The public has expectations on how their personal private & confidential medical
information is being handled. exhibit A petition I started with 1 hour gathering signatures.
The public interest in the fair an equitable administration of the transport accident fund
cannot be underestimated.

I will advocate for the rights of the public in regards to the correct handling of their data.
The public have no idea their information is being treated with such gay abandon and
should have the opportunity to direct otherwise.
That when the public funded statutory insurer claims independence it can clearly
demonstrate no conflict of interest in covering up information from public scrutiny.
That when assertions backed by documentation involve the unlawful conduct of public
officials the responsible minister adequately investigates. as matters of import suggests
almost 2 years and here I am alone with the evidence at the administration tribunal.
The imperative public interest when the minister fails to adequately investigate it is for
the public to scrutinise and ensure the conduct of the public funded officials, does not
include adversarial malicious vindictive conduct directed at injured parties reliant on the
insurers acting according to their statutory duties and model litigant guidelines.
That when public bodies engage 'consultants' the advice which they are entitled to
receive should not be subjugated or influenced in any way by actual or perceived
conflicts of interest on the part of those consultants.
That when public funded bodies are privatised there is interest in scrutinising the
performance & adherence to their statutory function which is to fairly & expeditiously
manage the fund.
That the public interest cannot be minimised in the stress the insurers are placing upon
public and community funded networks in managing the claimants the insurers are and
have been dislodging & treating unfairly.
That documentation solicited from doctors acting as consultants to gain unauthorised
access to patient information without consent be always accorded no right to privilege as
doing so is to act in bad faith and contrary to public interest & expectations.
That it is paramount public interest that natural justice is preserved and when public
funded bodies go to extraordinary lengths to conceal documents then the FOI laws must
be seen to be effective in revealing negligence incompetence, corruption, conflicts of
interest, breaches of duties, improper or unlawful conduct or violations of HPP IPP or the
human rights of the public.
The public interest in ensuring the adversarial conduct & improper practices now almost
legendary of TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION are adequately addressed.

Is clare rowan related in any way to philip vincent rowan?

Federal Privacy Commissioner of Australia case notes. Disclosure of medical reports IPP 2
(1991) PrivCmrA7

Cracknell Vs TAC [2007] vcat 1615

KJ Vs wentworth area health service [2004] NSW ADT 84
O'connor Vs TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION review and regulation [2013]
Thwaites Vs MAS [1998] vcat 568