My question relates to complicity and whether or not the…

Hi John, it's Andrew here from Brisbane. You spoke to me last month in respect of how to properly file my complaint about Dominique Grubisa and the DG Institute with the VLSC.

I have since re-filed the complaint. The disciplinary member from the VLSC (Tina Stagliano) contacted me to discuss the file that she was trying to get her head around. Re-filing the complaint definitely helped in that regard. She had been in touch with Ms Grubisa and to no surprise Ms Grubisa went straight on the defensive by claiming that - she shouldn't be investigated because there's a court case on foot in which her product is being tested at law for vindication. I could hardly believe my ears. In short yes, there is a court case and her DGI POA (which she advertises, sells and trains as irrevocable) is part of the argument with the QLD state government. However, neither Ms Grubisa, DGI or her legal firm are a party to the proceedings in any capacity. Similarly, I'm not suing her personally or DGI or her legal firm. I also have multiple emails and correspondence in which Ms Grubisa repeatedly denies any connection, responsibility or accountability to the failure of her product. Prima facie, her behaviour to continue to advertise, sell and train people in the use of it, as though there's nothing wrong with it has demonstrated she doesn't regard the issue as relevant to her business. Likewise she's made no disclosures of any kind to anyone since it failed.
Now, all of a sudden, because I've filed a complaint against her, Ms Grubisa wants to claim the court case she has nothing to do with is of significant relevance, and as such precludes her from investigation. She wants her cake and to eat it too.
My gut tells me we have a couple of options here. One is to file a notice of discontinuance so as to remove the QLD state government from the court case - thereby making it a simple breach of contract case against the vendor. The other is to approach Ms Grubisa and to say something like, if you want to claim significant relevance then you're immediately opening the door to a PI claim where you're now admitting prima facie that your product 'isn't irrevocable' and that as a consumer, we 'do' have to go to court to prove it at law. This situation is in complete contrast to the statements I have on audio file (dated 11th June 2018 - Sydney training day) wherein Ms Grubisa is heard to say the DGI POA is irrevocable and as a consumer you don't have to go to court to prove it works. I have the audio file and the resubmitted complaint to the VLSC on hand if you'd like to see/hear them. Is this where I ask you to draft a letter to Ms Grubisa to say we are prepared to settle the matter in line with the original offer she made back on 31st October 2016? Or do I go after her inner circle (her property coaches that she employs) who have been complicit and accessories after the fact in promoting and training people in the use of a broken product that they would reasonably know is broken.

Hi John, are you planning to call?

Hi John, how's your afternoon looking? Don't want to call and interrupt if you're busy. Am happy to wait until later on this evening if that works better for you?