Due process in my understanding doesn't mean you get to view exact word for word transcripts of interviews given in confidence.
You might get given a summary of the evidence that resulted (i.e. the breach notice which the club received) or you might be entitled to view a document made with the understanding it would be viewed (i.e. the reported 70 page sworn statement, which the club was reportedly provided).
Trying to obtain a transcript of interview given in confidence in addition to the details already provided seems highly unusual in terms of my understanding of due process, and likely to be ruled a vexatious request under appeal. I can't think of any equivalent process where a party is entitled to receive transcripts of in confidence interviews with investigators....
Just an opinion - just my 2c toward us not having unrealisitic expectations about the results of "fighting on".
In a criminal matter what you have described above is essentially the opposite of how it works. Any witness would give a statement to the police the main purpose of which is to allow the defendant to know what the evidence is that that person is going to give at a hearing and then at the hearing the witness gives their evidence orally without the statement there to help them. The defendant gets to say "hang on in your statement you made months ago you said this now you say the opposite YOU ARE A LIAR!! why would we trust anything you have sworn to" - these are called prior inconsistent statements and spell doom for a witnesses credibility.
Its the same in civil matters. You get an affidavit sworn by the witness, they tender that at a hearing and say this is absolutely the truth and then they get cross examined about their affidavit.
Its the lack of cross examination here that leaves you concluding well this guys evidence is totally untested (unless you have faith in the investigator - his mate Greenberg), which stinks when you think he is right in the thick of it and is by his own admission a person of dubious character who is willing to cheat the salary cap. Why would you trust that persons evidence.
