You can access my book, Absent Justice,  Ordering Now—it's Free.  However, if you recognize the value of the research and evidence that underpin my narrative, I would appreciate your consideration of donating to Transparency International. 

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud. 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government entirely owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power, today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

How does one weave together a narrative so remarkable that it raises even the author’s eyebrows, prompting a detailed investigation of records before proceeding with the story? What strategies can we employ to unravel the intricate web of conspiracy that existed between an arbitrator, various governmental entities, and the defendants in this case? How can we illuminate the shocking reality that these defendants, during the arbitration process, intercepted and misappropriated confidential materials to fortify their defence while jeopardizing the claimants' chances for justice?

Furthermore, how prevalent is the issue of compromised arbitration processes across Australia? Are instances of electronic eavesdropping and breaches of confidentiality still commonplace in the realm of legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

A particularly alarming example surfaced in January 1999, when a thorough report was delivered to the government, confirming that Telstra Corporation—which stood as the defendant in these arbitration disputes—had been unlawfully intercepting confidential arbitration-related documents. The report detailed a troubling procedure where these unauthorized individuals not only accessed sensitive information. Still, it meticulously screened the hacked documents for relevant content before re-faxing them to their original destinations, thus obscuring the illegal activities. This critical report, attached here as evidence (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), raises profound questions about the integrity of the arbitration system in Australia and the extent to which such unethical practices may have infiltrated legitimate processes, casting a shadow over the pursuit of fair and just resolutions.

Discover the shocking crimes and unscrupulous criminals who, alongside corrupt politicians and lawyers, wielded significant control over the arbitration system in Australia during the 1990s. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface when describing these lawbreakers. I received a call from the Victorian State Ombudsman's office informing me that they had read my paper on The Brotherhood—an organized group of professionals, including lawyers, police officers, accountants, and legal academics, who successfully infiltrated the arbitration system in Victoria. This revelation underscores the depth of corruption that plagued our legal framework.

It became apparent that the operational methods employed by the Brotherhood were controlling arbitrations and utilizing these proceedings to obscure unlawful activities committed by Telstra. The then-arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, notably disregarded this pervasive misconduct throughout most COT arbitration processes. Following his departure from this role, Dr Hughes joined a prominent legal firm representing Telstra in ongoing disputes. Notably, he had not addressed the significant systemic billing issues I had previously raised. Yet, he aligned himself with a firm formally denying the existence of such problems. This situation underscores a troubling pattern, as detailed within our COT narrative.

Additionally, the validity of the forenamed report issued by Scandrett & Associates in January 1999, presented to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999, has been regrettably unacknowledged. This report corroborated the interception of faxes during the COT arbitrations, involving both the arbitration advisors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, which was assisting in our Freedom of Information requests. The evidence within this report also indicated that faxes sent to government ministers at Parliament House in Canberra, including communications directed to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, were similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Senator Helen Coonan, acting on behalf of the Australian Government, engaged in a significant and formal agreement with Senator Barnaby Joyce. This agreement is fundamental to the ten amendments the National Party Government committed to during Senator Joyce's tenure. Senator Joyce's critical vote in the Senate was instrumental in facilitating the passage of the privatization legislation for the final share of Telstra. In exchange for this support, the government has committed to addressing my claims regarding outstanding arbitration privacy issues. This includes the submission of false evidence by Telstra during the arbitration proceedings related to my claims in 1994 and 1995, as well as similar unresolved claims from the other thirteen COT Cases that were registered with Senator Joyce

However, after Senator Joyce fulfilled his critical role by casting that indispensable vote, Senator Coonan unexpectedly and controversially reneged on the commitment. This reversal undermined the agreement and left unresolved issues related to the 14 COT Cases hanging in the balance. These issues could have been settled a staggering eighteen years ago, in 2006.

"Dear Mr Smith" 

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued

On 17 March 2006, I received a written communication from the office of the Minister for Communications, indicating that the government would investigate these critical issues (Refer to File 657 - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700). As shown in File 657, Senator Helen Coonan's government public servants assured me that, should evidence emerge demonstrating that Telstra had acted unlawfully during my arbitration, my findings would be referred to the appropriate governmental department. Following the submission of this pertinent evidence, I received a subsequent correspondence from the Senator on 17 May 2007 noting:

 "I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer File 616-B - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700      

As the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, it was undeniably the responsibility of Senator Helen Coonan to launch a thorough and official inquiry into the alarming issue of Telstra’s intercepting of confidential documents. These documents originated not only from my office and residence but also from the offices of several Senators and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations.

The situation raises profound and critical questions regarding the systemic breach of privacy and trust that has gone unaddressed for an alarmingly long time. It is particularly troubling that a private citizen felt compelled to initiate legal action against Telstra due to the interception of important documents meant to remain confidential. This incident draws attention to issues of accountability and oversight in handling sensitive information.

The gravity of this situation is accentuated by the fact that the Senate Estimates Committee had previously received advisory briefings indicating that some crucial faxes were intercepted during their transit from Parliament House. This interception occurred as these faxes left Parliament during the arbitration process that was supposed to resolve the underlying issues. Such high-level oversight raises significant concerns about why no actions were taken in response to these briefings, primarily when the government engaged the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in February 1994 to investigate these matters.

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

Furthermore, the arbitrator assigned in April 1994 was tasked with examining the same issues. It is alarming that despite the involvement of two supposedly highly trained entities—the AFP and the appointed arbitrator—no documented findings were submitted regarding the severe breaches of privacy rights experienced by the COT Cases. This is particularly perplexing given that the arbitration process was designed to address these concerns and incorporate the findings from the AFP’s investigation.

Question 81 in the AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, clearly confirms that the AFP informed me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and government communications authority, provided evidence to the AFP indicating that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. It's baffling why the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, especially after being presented with these AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, 

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

When the COT Cases formally requested an immediate and transparent investigation into the ramifications these fax interceptions had on the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process, which was intended to protect citizens' rights in government-endorsed arbitration, their calls went unanswered. This lack of action undermines the trust in these institutions and highlights a disturbing failure to protect the rights of individuals in a system meant to safeguard them.

Rupert Murdoch - Cable Roll Out

The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 provide crucial insights into their observations regarding my communications with a bus company named O'Meara. In September 1992, I negotiated with O'Meara to arrange transportation for students and single club members travelling from Melbourne to my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. A Telstra file note from that time includes a handwritten annotation in the top right-hand corner, where "Meara" is noted as the bus company I was interacting with. It is essential to highlight that my letter has no formal identification. I simultaneously dealt with four other bus companies during this period regarding the same transportation tender.

The document's significance, dated September 9, 1992, became apparent to the AFP when they later examined a separate fax document from October 29, 1993. This second document was processed ten months after the O'Meara negotiations concluded. The accompanying attachment to the October 29, 1993, Telstra fault record indicates that faxes exchanged between my office and the office of the COT spokesperson—designated as a test station by Telstra due to my reported issues with fax communications—were documented and retained by Telstra after going through a screening process. (Additional details can be found in the attached evidence labelled File 9-C - Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C).

Given these circumstances, the AFP began to speculate about the possibility that the faxes pertaining to the COT Cases arbitration, specifically those exchanged with their advisors and various government ministers, may have been intercepted through this fax screening device. This concern raises critical questions about the security and confidentiality of sensitive communications during a pivotal time in the arbitration process.

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

When these fax and phone interception issues were discussed in the presence of two Telstra executives, Steve Black and Ted Benjamin and two arbitration consultants, Sue Hodgkinson and John Rundell, with the transcripts of this oral arbitration showing Pia from the Legal Counsel overseeing my arbitration, Dr Gordon Hughes advised all parties including me if I submitted evidence to prove these privacy issues were genuine he would address them as part of my arbitration claim. Dr Hughes never commented anywhere in his 42-page findings that I had been subjected to this intrusion by Telstra. 

Dr. Hughes chose not to investigate my claims regarding the interception of arbitration-related faxes, along with those of other COT Cases who raised similar concerns. If he had initiated such an investigation, it would have revealed significant issues that I brought to the attention of the IAMA in 2009. Notably, the IAMA was supposed to pursue these matters but ultimately halted their investigation.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company's] Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

In April 1994, a young Julian Assange alerted Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the COT Cases, that he and two friends had gained unauthorized access to Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne. They discovered alarming evidence of illegal activities undermining the arbitration process we were involved in. This raises an important question: did the hackers uncover misconduct by the four arbitration professionals, Telstra, or both? Notably, the electronic surveillance that invaded the private and professional lives of the COT Cases continued for three years, while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator ignored the evidence we provided. This scenario highlights Telstra's considerable influence over the AFP during a government-sanctioned arbitration designed to investigate such abuses. 

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena [sic].

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024

The hyperlink https://shorturl.at/5EALA and the https://shorturl.at/vFCzd the Kangaroo Court highlights a troubling trend of growing concern among both the Australian government and the media regarding the questionable operational practices used by the prominent "Big Four" accounting firms. The two segments of the Kangaroo Court presented on absentjustice.com serve as crucial reminders that the pressing concerns of corporate misconduct and governmental corruption remain relevant in 2024. These issues echo the struggles of the COT Cases, who faced intimidation and harassment from Telstra during critical arbitration discussions three decades ago. Despite their plight, the arbitrator and administrator failed to provide meaningful support.

It raises a critical question: How can the arbitrator and administrator credibly address unlawful actions by Telstra when they secretly eliminated the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of the arbitration agreements (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct? Two government officials and the claimant’s legal team had thoroughly reviewed and approved these agreements, establishing a clear framework for the arbitration process showcased on absentjustice.com.

Moreover, how could they confront corruption issues involving Telstra while simultaneously allowing the Telecommunications Industry Office's arbitration special counsel to be completely exempt from any liability, as explicitly stated in the original arbitration agreement before any amendments?

Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, I worked with Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to request a copy of Telstra's arbitration file under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This file was crucial as it would reveal who was involved in altering clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 from my arbitration agreement. Additionally, it would provide insight into when AUSTEL received the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. Notably, Home Page File No/82 confirms that Mr. Wynack did not believe Telstra's claim about destroying the file.