Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

This website is a work on progress last edited June 2022

As the website grew, I also discovered that some of the issues related to more than one event and, in fact, were sometimes linked to multiple events and that meant that the one event needed to be repeated in a number of different sections of the website, so that the depth of the corruption and the illegal activities that were committed during the arbitration could be fully and properly understood i.e.; Tampering of Evidence Intimidation and menacing - Telstra's Falsified BCI Report - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Bribery and Corruption - Part 2.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully 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. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations yet, up to this day, the government have been been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in this corruption, accountable.

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 20 or so years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond. Of all the places in the world I had visited, I chose Cape Bridgewater my home.

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp

My business is hospitality, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age. It was located in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland. Everything seemed perfect. I performed my “due diligence” to ensure that the business was sound; or at least, all of the due diligence I was aware I needed to perform. Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business I knew I had a problem. I was hearing from customers and suppliers alike that they had tried to call and couldn’t get through to me.

Yes, that’s right. I had a business to run and a phone service that was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, just not there at all. Of course, we lost business as a result.

And so, my saga begins. It has been a quest to get a working phone at the property. On the way I have received some compensation for business losses and many promises that the problem is now resolved. It has not been resolved to this day. I sold the business in 2002 and subsequent owners have suffered a similar fate to me.

Other independent business people similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we want is for Telecom/Telstra to admit to our various problems, fix them all, then pay compensation for our losses.  A working phone: is that too much to ask?

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. The story of how for years Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed as our story shows.

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant arbitration faxes, screeing the material on them before sending them onto there intended destination. In my case, 43 sets of claim documents were not re faxed onto their intended destination as my story shows. 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates fax hacking report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates fax hacking report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 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)

Absent Justice - My Story

The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered. 

Another setback for the COT Cases was Telstra's failure to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.

How the central points of our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence Intimidation and menacing).

Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seems to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal?

What convinced the arbitrator to change the original draft findings in both the financial report on my business losses as well as the technical evaluation of my lost incoming and going out telephone calls and fax transmissions? 

How can the Australian government who endorsed our arbitrations continue to ignor that the central points of our claim at arbitration was not taken into account by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

But the collusion and corruption did not stop there with the Australian government outside offshore influence allowed to creep into the arbitration when Swedens Ericsson Telecommunications was allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, the main arbitration technical witness.

Lane was chosen late in the arbitration process to be the technical consultant after the official arbitration technical consultant DMR (Australia) was found to have had a conflict of interest. This was never proven in the COT Cases; we were just told they were no longer willing to participate in the arbitrations. As a compromise, DMR (Canada) was brought in as the decoy.

In my case, Lane did all of the technical assessments but did not make a finding on the ongoing problems I was still having with the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment at my local Telstra exchange.

As shown in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, on 18 April 1995, arbitration project manager John Rundell (FHCA) was so openly deceptive he wrote to the first administrator of my arbitration Warwick Smith, copying the same to arbitrator Dr Hughes, stating, “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (See  Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). 

It is clear from this statement that even though Warwick Smith wrote to me and the other three COT Cases on 9 March 1995, promising us if we allowed Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to be appointed to the arbitration process, Lane would only assist DMR Group from Canada stipulating that DMR was the principal technical consultants. The evidence contained on this website shows that Lane did all of the assessing of my claims, and to make things even worse, Lane never investigated my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which were still affecting my business on the day the arbitrator brought down his findings which also ignored my ongoing phone problems. 

I don't see any reference in the arbitrator's written findings concerning the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment problems.

This suggests all involved in the COT arbitrations were well aware Lane had been brought in to whitewash the process. Then their findings would become the property of Ericsson once Ericsson had been allowed to purchase Lane, which is precisely what happened. The author of  Prologue Evidence File No 22-A, John Rundell currently operates an arbitration centre in Collins Street Melbourne and is a member of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.  

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019: as recorded in the Australian media which notes:

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard dated 27 February 1998 shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats. Is this the moneyed incorperations referred to by Thomas Jefferson 200-years or more ago? Is this where the end of democracy creeped into the COT arbitrations?

Absent Justice - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said:

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Sadly, what was predicted in 1816, more than 200 years ago, by undoubtedly America's finest president, happened during the COT arbitrations and is still happening in the USA, BritainAustralia and the once-free world as my statements unfold on absentjustice.com.

While we cannot say that Ericsson and Lane are the moneyed incorperations refered to by Thomas Jefferson referred to when making that statement. What we do know is. the Australian government should never have allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane in an arbitration the governemnt had endorsed. This selling off of Lane, disallowed the COT Cases every reasonable chance of fully proving their claims as well appealing them within the six-year statute of limitations allowed. In my case, after Ericsson purchased Lane, they also purchased all of my Ericsson AXE arbitration claim material which Lane never released back to me before they were sold off to Ericsson.  

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and what the Australian media repored:

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and Australian government refer  Senate Evidence File No/61).

I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Lanes by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (refer to Appendix A & B) below?

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that the same subscribers visit my website absentjustice.com where you can see, yourself, that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra including the Ericsson manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses.

Absent Justice - The Peoples Republic of China

Huawei -v- Ericsson 

The following link Huawei Australia uses Ericsson chief's statement to slam 5G ban  suggests the Australian government believes Huawei is not as trustworthy as Ericsson and yet the Google link https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/ is saying the US Department of Justice states Ericsson has been involved in bribery and corruption over a long period of time. 

So who is more corrupt than the other, Huawei or Ericsson? Are the Australian government bureaucrats branding Huawei more corrupt because they are communist and nothing else? If that is the case then surely bribery and corruption by Ericsson is a worse crime than just having political communist views that democratic views.

Therefore, it is important to link here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and the selling off of Lanes to Ericsson in 1996 during the COT arbitrations because it is clearly linked the the delapidated copper wire Telstra infrastructure as well as the poor performance of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equpment which other countries around the world were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ).

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, John Pinnock (the second administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a Senate committee (see page 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

“Lane Telecommunications, which is one part of the technical component of the resource unit, has withdrawn from the process as a result of a conflict or perceived conflict of interest after being purchased from Pacific Star by Ericsson Australia, the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance is central to some of the claims.”

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator who allowed this transaction to take place. Why didn't the arbitrator make an official note to the TIO and government that for Ericsson to purchase Lane during the COT arbitrations when Lane had been investigating Ericsson during the COT arbitrations and was still investigating Ericsson up to the period the sale was due to take place was a conflict of interest of extreme importance and relevance to both past and present COT claimants.

The fact that Ericsson was being investigated for providing known deficient equipment to Telstra when that same equipment was being removed from telephone exchanges around the world or had been removed at the time of the COT arbitrations was another matter that posed a significant issue where the COT Cases should have been given special consideration to allow them to appeal their awards if it could be proven that Lane did not value their Ericsson claim material in their official reporting to the arbitrator.

In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson which official arbitration records numbered A56132 were investigated including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignor this evidence aginst Ericsson? Perhaps even worse was when my arbitration claim submission was provided back to me after the completion of the arbitration process a clause embedded in the arbitration agreement NONE of my Ercsson documents provided to Lane and the arbitrator for assessment was returned to me.  

I wonder if the government would have allowed Huawei to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (instead of Ericsson)? Would the Australian government have allowed this transaction to take place if Huawei had wanted to purchase Lane?  However, on the other side of this one-sided arbitration process when the COT Cases damanded the arbitrator access under discover the one vital Ericsson AXE telephone logbook that request was not granted either under the official discovery process or under FOI.

It was most important we link the hacker's message to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) see below concerning the corruption they had uncovered, which was affecting the COT arbitrations with the possibility their observation was the fact that it was the Ericsson faulty AXE equipment issues the hackers had stumbled upon when they hacked into Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange. 

Hackers For Justice

Absent Justice - Julian Assagne

A Man With A Conscience

On page 15 in the novel The Most Dangerous Man In The World by Andrew Fowler, he makes the following statement:

"The Lonsdale Telephone Exchange in the centre of Melbourne with its black marble facade, is an eye-catching building. In the last 1980s it was the gatway to other telephone exchanges and organisations linked to super computers around the world".

The information on Bad Bureaucrats Taking on the Establishment and Chapters 1 to Chapters 9 Julian Assange Hacking are all related to the following a discussion Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) had with a group of young hackers who we now beleive was Julian Assange and his friends. These young hackers contacted the group during the early part of COT arbitrations.

That the hackers informed Graham Schorer they had broken into.the Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchanges.  

In June 1993, more than twenty years before Andrew Fowler and Julian Assange had ever heard of the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange, Telstra had left an unlocked briefcase at my premises; it revealed that the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange had poorly been programmed and that the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges equipment being used by Telstra in their telephone exchanges were known to be suffering significant faults.

On 4 and 5 June 1993, I freely provided AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator this evidence without copying much of it because of my limited copying facilities. A facsimile machine and a roll system were OK for faxes arriving, but that was its fundamental limitation. Later AUSTEL's Queens Road Melbourne office discovered from reading further documents that it became apparent other countries around the world were now removing the Ericsson AXE equipment from their exchanges or had removed it from their exchanges. So why was Telstra still using this equipment that destroyed businesses throughout Australia?

I provided the AUSTEL with further damaging information concerning the weaknesses in Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Exchange which showed that 50 per cent of my Melbourne telephone callers from Melbourne calling into my business at Cape Bridgewater 430 kilometres away were trunked through the Lonsdale Exchange. Telstra had somehow forgotten to programme the first six digits 055 267 of the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange into the system for at least eight months. While this was bad enough, those callers received a recorded electronic message telling them my business was no longer trading.

So, when we were offered documents from an unknown source stating the hackers had gained access to Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchange which we knew was linked to the outside world, alarm bells began to ring. We were being offered emails and faxes proving Telstra and others had us COT Cases under electronic surveillance during our arbitration; we thought this might be set up. Was the Lonsdale Exchange the carrot to trap us into accepting documents outside of the arbitration process? Therefore, we declined to take the documents on offer.  

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General the Hon Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers had discovered Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Corruption is a major concern globally, particularly in developing countries, where it is the main obstacle to economic development. Corruption is also mentioned as the major impediment to accomplishing sustainable development. On this website absentjustice I beleive I have shown the reader that some public servants in the Australian government have not acted in the best interest of its citizens.

Absent Justice - My Story

AUSTEL did not want it to happen again 

It is clear from AUSTEL's COT Cases report released on 13 April 1994 (eight days before the arbitration agreement was signed), AUSTEL makes it known that all of the COT Cases phone problems were to be fixed before the arbitrator brought down any award. The reason for this is that in my case, and that of the other three COT Cases Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer no sooner had we four accepted our previous settlement from Telstra the problems continued unabated. AUSTEL did not want that to happen again. 

Well my COT story shows it did happen again, no sooner did Dr Hughes (arbitrator) bring down his findings without addressing my Ericsson faults which included the 008/1800 billing issues those same faults continued. 

 AUSTEL, who facilitated the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who administered the arbitrations breached their statutory obligation to me as a claimant by allowing Telstra to address these Ericsson locking up problems and the 008/1800 billing problems aware by now after reading my claim documents, these two scenarios were linked. The Ericsson AXE lock-up problem was two-fold because this fault affected the service lines for up to 90 seconds after each successful call had terminated.

The lines stayed open for that 90 second period when Telstra's billing system assumed the customers were still talking in that 90 second period when that was not the case.

Telstra's previous CEO Frank Blount manuscript which was released in early 2000 which acknowledges Telstra did have a 008/1800 billing problem Australia wide. However, there is no comment in this book regarding the known Ercsson AXE problem which caused the line locking up faults.

The following link Evidence - C A V Part 1, 2 and 3 -Chapter 4 - Fast Track Arbitration Procedure confirms Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO, after leaving Telstra he co-published a manuscript in 1999. entitled, Managing in Australia. On pages 132 and 133, the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

“Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 

The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can still be purchased online. 

The fact that DMR & Lane stated in their formal report concerning these same unadressed 008/1800 faults at point 2.23 (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues that: "... As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed"... confirms beyond all doubt that none of my billing claim documents were ever investigated. 

Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head 200 years ago when he stated: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

The following admission by Ericsson to the US Department of Justice of a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business" looks like the USA Is paving the global trend to wipe out corruption which is destroying the worlds economay. Is Australia ready to follow the - UNITED STATES STRATEGY ON COUNTERING CORRUPTION?  Is the Australian government going to investigate why the government communications regulator AUSTEL allowed Telstra to continue operating the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment when other countries had removed it or were removing it from their exchanges?

Will the current government communications regulator ACMA demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the technical advisor to the COT arbitrator) during the COT arbitrations when Ericsson had been and was still the primary supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance was central to the COT Cases arbitration claims, including my arbitration claims?

That investigation by ACMA should also include ACMA asking questions as to why in my case was, my AXE equipment which I had supplied AUSTEL, to assist them before they prepared their report. This same information was attached t my arbitration submission along with my technical advisor George Close & Associates submission was not provided back to me after my arbitration. The government endorsed arbitration agreement states clearly all of my arbitration claim material would be supplied back to me after my arbitration. 

Please read our mini-stories in the menu bar and scroll the chapters in dropdown files; you will be amazed at the evidence supporting my story.

We also periodically publish articles on the Weekly-Blog from interested parties who have exposed cover-ups and fraud, If you want to disclose any government corruption or absent justice issues you think should be recorded on this website, please let us know through our Contact. 

This month's Weekly-Blog discusses 

I am currently editing My Story Warts & All which is still in draft format. I have laid out the basic story and will be adding additional evidence as I work through this more extended version of my story. 

Clicking on the LEARN MORE icon (see below) will take you to Unprecedented Deception, which shows beyond all doubt that Telstra's current 2022 Corporate Secretary Sue Laver has been sitting on evidence since January and April 1998, that would have allowed me to appeal an extensive section of the arbitrator award if Sue Laver had officially handed over this evidence to the government.   

Who Are We

Absent Justice was set up in an attempt to publish a true account of what really happened during the various Australian Government endorsed arbitrations with Telstra.

The story of how for years Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found,’ when documents on this website show they were found to have existed as the following government records show see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212

Learn More ⟶

Who We Are
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

IT'S FREE!! Order Now

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents on Alan's website absentjustice.com

Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence that can be downloaded from absentjustice.com is possibly a world first.

ABSENT JUSTICE HAS IT ALL.

Read About Our Dealings With

Learn More ⟶

Quote Icon

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

My Story - Absent Justice

My Story

My name is Alan Smith.

This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 20 or so years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond.

Of all the places in the world I had visited, I chose to make Australia my home.

Read More ⟶

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

– Edmund Burke