Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals and the corrupt bureaucrats who control the politicians and lawyers who oversee the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—government Corruption. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations.
Explore the unsettling actions of the Casualties of Australia arbitrator, who callously disregarded the chilling threats made against several Australian citizens brave enough to challenge the defendants, Telstra. This arbitrator enabled a prolonged obstruction of the arbitration process for an excruciating thirteen months. In an alarming twist, he eventually proclaimed in his final award that Telstra had exhibited remarkable diligence in their so-called cooperation throughout the proceedings, further exposing the depths of corruption at play.
😈 The Devils Three letters → The first remedy pursued
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.
What kind of arbitrator would condone the dispatch of such a deceitful letter about his wife knowing it was not the truth, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged.
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), where he noted:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by me or any of the other first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention what the Senate has since been advised?
⚔️ Echoes of War and Political Silence
Keep reading, and you may find yourself asking the same questions I’ve been asking for over thirty years.
Why would the defendants—Telstra, still owned by the Australian government at the time—feel the need to intercept my telephone conversations during my 1993 to 1995 government-endorsed arbitration?
Why would they go further and intercept my faxes—screening the information through a secondary fax machine embedded in Telstra’s own network?
These weren’t just business communications. Many of those faxes and calls related directly to my 1967 confrontation with Communist China and North Vietnam—issues I had discussed with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who had served as Minister for the Army during the very period I was branded a spy by the People’s Republic of China.
What possible justification could Telstra have had for monitoring such intensely personal and politically sensitive exchanges—primarily while I was engaged in a legal process meant to deliver justice?
These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of institutional accountability, privacy, and the abuse of power. And they remain unanswered.
The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.
Please hover your mouse or cursor over the Canadian flag in the following image and learn that during my time as a merchant seaman in 1967, I stood alongside several British and Canadian colleagues in protest against a deeply troubling revelation. We had learned that Australian wheat—shipped to Communist China under the guise of humanitarian aid—was being redirected once unloaded. Some of that wheat was ending up in North Vietnam.
This wasn’t just a logistical detail. It was a betrayal.
At the time, Australian, New Zealand, and American troops were fighting and dying in the jungles of Vietnam. Many were maimed or slaughtered by North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong fighters. To know that our own wheat—grown on Australian soil—was helping feed the very forces responsible for that carnage was unbearable.
The Canadian seaman who joined our stand understood the gravity of the situation. Like us, he couldn’t reconcile the idea of humanitarian aid being weaponised against our own allies. It wasn’t just about politics—it was about principle. About loyalty. About refusing to be complicit.
Wheat, War, and a Seaman’s Stand
The sentiments expressed resonate with me on a personal level. I draw vivid parallels to my own experiences with bureaucrats and politicians from three decades ago—encounters that began before my 1994 arbitration and continued through the ensuing chaos.
The years spanning the Vietnam War, from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, were especially turbulent. Shifting governments added layers of complexity to my story. What troubles me most is the enduring silence: no representative from those past administrations has stepped forward to acknowledge or apologise for Australia’s decision to trade with an enemy during wartime.
That choice cost lives—not only among Australia’s young conscripts, but also among our allies in New Zealand and the USA. The silence is deafening. And the weight of those decades still lingers.
There is a striking and thought-provoking similarity between my narrative of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Canadian perspective on democracy, along with the fundamental concepts of right and wrong that underpin them. This connection is compellingly illustrated in Tianxiao Zhu's meticulously crafted 2021 paper, developed as part of his Ph.D. requirements at the University of Minnesota. During my extensive research for my first manuscript, which ultimately inspired the launch of the website absentjustice.com, I fortuitously discovered Zhu's insightful work. His paper sheds light on a significant trade that took place during the chaotic and turbulent period I was examining.
Footnote 169 → FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978,
Tianxiao Zhu's Footnote 83, 84, 169: In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said,“I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.” (my emphasis)84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.” 169 "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the other were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time a grain ship usually had crew members about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship..
Examining this wheat agreement made with the People's Republic of China during the Menzies government in the mid-1960s is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications, which were obscured by a government campaign to discredit British and Canadian merchant seamen, including myself. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam.
Instead of receiving praise and support for their stance, they were slandered by the Liberal Coalition government of the time. Twenty-seven years later, the same government allowed five Australian citizens, out of twenty-one who had faced similar challenges with Telstra, to have their arbitration claims assessed by the Senate under a litmus test scenario. If the Senate ruled in favour of the litmus test case, the remaining sixteen claimants would be treated equally in that agreement. However, the Coalition government did not honour this understanding. (Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).
The Coalition government followed with a similar campaign, reminiscent of the slanderous tactics they employed during the Communist China episode in 1967. They labelled the claims of the sixteen COT cases as frivolous and referred to the individuals involved as vexatious litigants.
Introduction: A Beacon Beyond Borders
As a gesture of gratitude and respect, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment to democracy and truth-telling in the introduction to this COT story. Their support stands as a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders, even when it’s denied at home in Australia.
When I sought assistance from the Australian government and its bureaucracies to validate the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) tests allegedly conducted at Portland and Cape Bridgewater, I was met with silence. Had those tests been properly carried out—as the BCI reports claimed—I could have demonstrated to the arbitrator that my phone and faxing issues were still undermining my business operations. Despite my findings being backed by Telstra’s own technical data, they were ignored.
This pattern of bureaucratic indifference echoes a deeper historical failure. In September 1967, Australian officials continued supplying wheat to China, despite warnings from Canadian and British seamen that some of that wheat was likely feeding North Vietnamese soldiers—soldiers who would soon be hunting down Australian, New Zealand, and American troops in the jungles of Vietnam.
Yet, in July 1995, the Canadian government stepped forward once again—this time to support my claims regarding Bell Canada International. Their intervention was not just an act of diplomacy; it was a reaffirmation of democratic values and a commitment to justice.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following images as you scroll down his homepage
Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed
The evidence within Scandrett & Associates' report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was 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.
📠 Fax Screening and the COT Case Ruse
To demonstrate that a secondary fax machine was screening arbitration-related documents before reaching their intended recipients, we devised a ruse. We faxed several government ministers—including Peter Costello, Australia’s Federal Treasurer—along with various lawyers and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
A few days later, we contacted these offices, apologising for a supposed mishap. We claimed we had destroyed the originals after faxing and requested copies of the documents for our records. To our surprise, every request was fulfilled. Some of those returned letters and documents are now part of the Scandrett & Associates report.
This report confirms that two professional fax experts examined the transmissions and verified that the documents had been intercepted and screened by Telstra—the defendants in our arbitration case.
🕵️♂️ Missing Faxes and a Veil of Secrecy
Further investigation revealed a troubling discrepancy in the arbitrator’s document schedule. The faxes I sent between May 1994 and May 1995 did not match those Dr Hughes’ office claimed to have received. A staggering 41 faxes were missing—many containing critical arbitration information.
This evidence, along with Telstra’s billing records for those transmissions, was submitted to John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In a deeply disappointing turn, he refused to investigate the disappearance of these essential documents.
What emerged was not just a failure of process, but a veil of secrecy—obscuring the manipulation and dubious activities that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.
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 .
“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.”
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)
"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, 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.
Dr Hughes's egregious failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration raises grave concerns. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office, a matter of utmost importance that Dr Hughes conspicuously chose to ignore in his award and findings. This omission not only undermines the integrity of the arbitration process but also reflects a disturbing level of negligence that echoes throughout the COT Cases.
Even more alarming is the relentless pursuit by both the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, John Wynack, and the AFP to uncover the dark secrets lurking within Telstra's inner circles. They were attempting to unravel how my private telephone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—discussions steeped in the treachery of my experiences in 1967—were being monitored and documented. At that time, I faced life-threatening danger for being suspected of espionage.
🔍Telstra’s Eavesdropping and Altering FOI Documents
When I finally received the two documents concerning my conversations with Mr Fraser during my 1994/95 arbitration, I was taken aback to find them heavily redacted—crucial truths obscured beneath layers of stark blankness. The thought that, during a government-sanctioned arbitration process, Telstra had been secretly monitoring matters linked to my past in communist China in 1967—twenty-seven years prior—was chilling. This unmistakable betrayal of trust unravels a complex web of deceit and manipulation, leaving me feeling profoundly unsettled. I can't help but wonder: are Telstra or those who orchestrated this invasive eavesdropping still engaged in such practices today?
⛓️ A Web of Deceit and Manipulation
Between 1998 and 2000, amidst my secondment to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, I became actively involved in their investigations relating to four other COT Case arbitrations—those of Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ross Plowman, and Ralph Bova. Melbourne Barrister Sue Owens registered these cases with Barrister Mr Neil Jepson of the Major Fraud Group. I was cautioned that a thorough security check on my history, both past and present, would be essential. If this examination revealed any adverse findings, any reports related to Telstra that Mr Jepson had requested my assistance with could not be utilised should any allegations of fraud against Telstra be brought before the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Just four days later, I was summoned to Melbourne to contribute to the investigation concerning Telstra's use of falsified reporting → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and the tampering with evidence after it left my premises → Tampering with Evidence
Two years later, an inquiry into the previous Arbitration Project Manager for the COT Cases—a partner at KPMG who had disseminated false information about me, claiming I was a suspect in the criminal damage to his Brighton residence—yielded significant revelations. Mr Jepson's investigation determined that I had never been a suspect in any crime, be it in Brighton or anywhere else in Australia. This finding from the Major Fraud Group strongly implies that I was exonerated from being deemed undesirable at that time.
🧾 Pergury that halted the truth from being discovered
Moreover, exhibit → The first remedy pursued reveals that both Dr Gordon Hughes, who previously served as the arbitrator in my case, and John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman overseeing my arbitration, supplied misleading statements about me to Laurie James, the 1996 President of the Institute. These distortions seem to have been crucial in obstructing any serious investigation into my claims that Dr Hughes had failed to conduct my arbitration in accordance with the agreement sanctioned by the government—an agreement intended to protect not only myself but also several other participants in the COT Cases.
During my first and second meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”
British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam → Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on the British tramp ship Hopepeak.
Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Viet Cong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Viet Cong).
As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam, intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible.
In August 1967, I was thrust into the savage heart of chaos, surrounded by the frenzied fervour of the Chinese Red Guards. The air was thick with tension, a palpable terror that clung to everything like an oppressive fog. In the midst of this maelstrom, my gaze locked onto a young Chinese nurse; her warm smile shone through the darkness like a beacon of hope. Moments earlier, I had fought fiercely to prevent a doctor from plunging a dangerously unsterilized needle into my arm—an act that could have spelt disaster. As I stood there, staring down the cold, unyielding steel of a rifle aimed directly at my chest, despair threatened to consume me. But curiously, my tears were not for my own fate; they flowed for that nurse beside me, her face tragically marked by the absence of her nose—a silent testament to the brutality that enveloped us. In that harrowing moment, I wept and strained against my restraints, desperate to convey my solidarity and profound connection to her suffering.
Fast forward to the vibrant and tumultuous days of the early 1970s—a time ablaze with passion and conflict—as I became entangled in the gripping saga of the Painters and Dockers at the waterfront. While labouring tirelessly on the ANL ships at the bustling docks of Web Dock and South Wharf in Melbourne, I began to grasp the astonishing strength of resilience. Confronted with relentless challenges, I learned to stand tall, suppressing the tears that threatened to spill over amidst the brewing storm around me.In the months leading up to the arbitration, I boldly entered the lion’s den—the atmosphere in the union rooms of Collingwood thick with tension and anxiety. With an urgency that crackled in the air, I delivered my message to the union officials: it was time for their members to back off. I made it unequivocally clear that no more threats would be tolerated over the phone. Our claims were aimed at Telstra’s senior management, not the rank-and-file members who had become unwitting victims of the conflict.As I prepared for my Telstra government-endorsed arbitration, the weight of harassment and ominous phone threats loomed over me like a dark storm cloud. The transcripts of my interviews with the Australian Federal Police Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 echo the unrelenting tension of those turbulent days. Yet, through it all, I stood resolute, a bastion of strength against a tide of intimidation.One fateful evening, an anonymous caller tried to instil fear, his sinister tone echoing the malevolent words of Paul Rumble, Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer for the COT Cases. He issued a chilling threat to my life for daring to voice my criticisms of the company. But I refused to cower. When he warned that I was a dead man for my outspokenness, I faced his threats with unwavering confidence. I boldly proclaimed that I was already dead—having experienced a metaphorical demise in China between July and August of 1967. In that moment of defiance, the atmosphere shifted; I could almost feel the caller’s bravado weaken, taken aback by my unexpected resolve.I share these experiences not just to recount my life’s tumultuous journey but to highlight the multitude of traumatic events that have intricately woven my story, many of which remain untold. After dedicating three decades to my career as a Merchant Navy ship’s cook, I have distilled these experiences into a forthcoming ebook titled *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* This collection is set to be unveiled on this website and another in the Christmas season of 2025—a captivating journey that explores not only the culinary world but also the rich landscapes of my life.The most profound trauma I have endured since 1994 is the web of deceit spun by the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They reassured the four COT Cases that if we relinquished our ongoing Fast Track Settlement Proposal in favour of Dr Gordon Hughes as arbitrator, our persistent telephone issues would finally be resolved. Yet in a cruel twist of fate, Dr Hughes failed to demand that Telstra address my ongoing faults. In his statement on May 11, 1995, he claimed my business hadn't faced any further faults since July 1994. However, this website lays bare the stark truth: those issues persisted, tormenting me relentlessly for thirty arduous years after the supposed conclusion of my arbitration—until 2025.To everyone who engages with my story, I implore you to remember the title of my upcoming book, *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* It encapsulates not only the essence of my culinary journey but also the myriad trials and tribulations that have defined my path. These are not just stories of food; they are tales of courage, resilience, and the indomitable human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity.
Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most troubling aspect of the intelligence networks orchestrated by Telstra in Australia is the shadowy cabal within the corporation that possesses the necessary government clearance to sift through the raw information collected. Who among them can be trusted to catalogue this data for future exploitation impartially? I can’t help but reflect on how much confidential information about my conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 — discussions that revealed the dealings of Telstra officials and my encounters with the People's Republic of China, which I confided to Fraser — has been swept under the rug.
Moreover, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which clandestine organisation was given the sinister task of archiving this trove of sensitive material that Telstra had accumulated about its customers over the years?
It is worth noting that, during the incident I referenced in the Senate on June 24, 1997, my bankers had grown weary and dispatched the sheriff to the scene to ensure I remained under their thumb. I didn’t resort to violence during this confrontation with the sheriff, who threatened to confiscate vital catering equipment from my property — equipment I desperately needed to sustain my business. Instead, I executed a wrestling hold known as the "Full Nelson," forcing him out of my office. Ultimately, all charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court upon appeal, when the truth emerged, revealing the murky depths of this treacherous saga and the two sides of the story that had been concealed.
An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This is highlighted by the following statements presented below by six senators in the Senate in March 1999:
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston Sen Richard.
On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
It is with a profound sense of injustice that I recount the troubling circumstances surrounding my case. The arbitrator, whose role should have been one of impartiality, delivered his findings with alarming haste—three full years before the critical Senate investigations even began. This premature judgment was not only reckless but served to shield Telstra, as it occurred before they were compelled to release all the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents I had demanded. As a direct consequence, I, along with several other victims of the COT Cases, was stripped of the opportunity to access the crucial insights and recommendations that emerged from these investigations, insights that could have fundamentally altered the course of our struggles.
The notion of pursuing an appeal against the arbitrator's decision loomed over me like a dark cloud, as the financial toll would have been exorbitant—an expense I was powerless to bear. This entire situation starkly highlights the insidious nature of discrimination faced by the remaining 16 Australian citizens who find themselves entangled in similar predicaments → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. We were not merely victims of a flawed system; we were up against a corrupt apparatus that perpetuates injustice, prioritising self-interest over the rights and dignity of ordinary individuals seeking a fair resolution.
While I grappled with the insidious implications tied to the unethical way in which Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) was conducting my arbitration, I remained woefully ignorant of the depths of Dr Gordon Hughes' treachery at the time—specifically, how he had illegally dispatched George Close's BCI report to Mr Rumble, Tlstra's arbitration defence liaison officer. Compelled by the mounting threats, I meticulously constructed a response letter, yet I was tragically unaware that these threats could be eerily connected to the BCI information that Dr Hughes had shared with Mr Rumble. In that letter sent to Mr Rumble, I professed the following sentiments:
“I promised you on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police, and I intend to honor that promise. I will wait for your response to the following questions I have for Telecom.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr. Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police, etc.”
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response, the senator pressed further:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
I need to take you back to 1967 and the years that followed—years engulfed in trauma, where the shadows of profound suffering loomed large. My time as a merchant seaman and a waterfront delegate for marine cooks exposed me to an underworld of threats and violence, but nothing could prepare me for the treachery that awaited in the dark recesses of Telstra. There, a cabal of ruthless individuals conspired to steal our cherished business, fully aware that our telephone problems were systemic and not the result of poor management.
Losing a business to nature’s wrath—floods, fires—is painful enough. But it becomes a twisted horror when you’ve invested countless borrowed dollars into professional arbitration fees, only to discover that Telstra and government regulators knew those proceedings were nothing more than a sham. This is trauma at its most insidious.
During my arbitration, these unscrupulous players were permitted to present nine separate witness statements, each crafted under the guise of truth, to deceive. Their corrupt influence cast a dark cloud over the proceedings, swaying everyone involved except my loyal staff and me. They successfully convinced the arbitrator that Telstra had miraculously resolved our ongoing phone issues, while in reality, the truth was buried beneath layers of deceit. Blinded by this treachery, the arbitrator accepted these dubious, unverified statements as gospel, compounding the betrayal that engulfed us in the COT Cases.
It was a malevolent scheme that not only stripped us of our livelihoods but also obliterated any hope of justice, leaving us to grapple with the stark realisation of our plight in a world rife with corruption.
😈The Devil’s Three Letters: A Coordinated Attack on Truth
It is crucial to delve into the section titled “The Devil’s Three Letters” early in this narrative. These letters expose a troubling web of deceit and manipulation—woven not by accident, but by design.
The arbitrator, the Arbitration Project Manager, and the second appointed administrator each penned separate letters. Each one was riddled with lies. Each one attacked my credibility. And each one was crafted with full awareness that it would reach the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
This was no mere oversight. It was a coordinated effort to derail the investigation into my claims that the arbitration process had been conducted outside the agreed-upon procedures. These actors knew what they were doing. They knew the damage these letters would cause. And they sent them anyway.
I urge you to read my Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → The first remedy pursued to grasp the full extent of the treachery that unfolded—not just during the COT arbitration, but long after its supposed conclusion.
Silencing the Whistleblower: Threats from the Senate
When I tried to expose this corruption in 2001 and again in 2004, I was met not with support but with threats.
The Chair of the Senate wrote to me, warning that if I released the 6 and 9 July 1998 'In Camera' Senate Hansard, which records several Senators condemning the very arbitration process I had endured, I could be held in contempt of the Senate—a charge that carries a two-year jail sentence → (refer to Senate Evidence File No 12)
Think about that.
It’s apparently acceptable for the government to be aware of my claims in secret. But to allow those claims to be aired in public? That’s when the threats begin.
Watch out, Mr Australian citizen.
1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?
The Missing Response: A Deliberate Withholding?
As of 2025, I still have not received a copy of Telstra’s response to a critical question posed by Mr John Pinnock, the administrator of my government-endorsed arbitration.
That response mattered.
At the time, it could have determined whether I had legal grounds—within the six-year statutory limitation period—to appeal the arbitrator’s findings based on fresh evidence that was not available during my arbitration. Evidence that could have changed everything.
By withholding that response, Telstra effectively blocked my ability to seek justice through the courts. They knew the stakes. They knew the timeline. And they knew that once the statutory window closed, my right to challenge the arbitrator’s decision would vanish.
This wasn’t just bureaucratic delay—it was strategic obstruction.
• The appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimise our claims and losses, ignoring the real damage we endured.• He bowed to Telstra’s influence, effectively letting the carrier run the arbitrations from behind the scenes.• Telstra committed serious crimes during the process—tampering with evidence, withholding documents, and misleading government agencies.
📂 Telstra’s Hidden Knowledge of Systemic Failures
What emerged as chillingly apparent from the documents Telstra released to us years later was the extent of its awareness regarding systemic failures within its network. It was undeniable that the corporation not only recognised these glaring issues but also had the means to rectify them—particularly in rural Australia, where numerous COT cases were focused.
🏕️ Rural Business Owners: Navigating a Minefield
For countless rural business owners at the start of our story, operating a telephone-dependent enterprise felt like navigating a treacherous minefield. In those days, the business landscape was dominated by outdated landlines. The internet was an alien concept, and reliance on email or mobile phones was virtually nonexistent.
Had these tools been in widespread use, the relentless issues with telephone service and faxing might not have jeopardised the future of so many COT cases. The fact that the simple act of checking emails or using mobile phones for daily business tasks didn’t become commonplace until the late 1990s underscores the technological void facing these operators.
Mobile phones were often useless in vast swathes of rural territory, with black spots lurking even on urban outskirts. By the end of the 1990s, this new technology had finally begun to infiltrate the business world.
🧠 Manipulating Public Perception with Chilling Precision
It’s difficult for today’s younger generations to fathom how, just two decades ago, a colossal entity like Telstra—supported by its government puppeteers—manipulated public perception with chilling efficacy.
They orchestrated a façade, convincing countless Australians that they were making a genuine effort to rectify the crumbling telecommunications network. In reality, however, they were entangled in a web of deceit, slapping ineffective band-aids on well-known problems while prioritising short-term profits over the needs of their customers.
💰 Privatisation Over People
This corrupt strategy allowed Telstra to postpone vital capital expenditures, all while privatisation loomed ominously on the agenda. The message was clear: allow shareholders to absorb the fallout while the core issues continued to fester, leaving many Australians at the mercy of an unworkable and deeply flawed system.
😈 The Devils Three letters →The first remedy pursued
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.
In this chilling correspondence, Mr Pinnock levelled a heinous and unfounded accusation against me, falsely asserting that I had confessed, in writing, to making a late-night phone call to Dr Hughes's wife at 2 AM. Let me be unequivocally clear: this accusation is a malicious fabrication; no such letter or admission has ever existed or been authored by me. The gravity of this deceit cannot be overstated, especially given the malicious context in which it was unleashed.Alarmingly, numerous individuals, including various government officials, have chosen to turn a blind eye to this abominable situation, deliberately refusing to investigate or address the burgeoning crisis. This shocking negligence casts a dark shadow over the entire arbitration process, raising profound questions about the integrity and motivations of those involved. It strongly suggests that unseen forces may have coerced the Institute of Arbitrators Australia into hastily halting its inquiries into my legitimate claims against Dr. Hughes, allowing these serious allegations to remain in limbo, unexamined and unresolved.What kind of treacherous individual would orchestrate the dispatch of such a deceitful letter, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged. Such profoundly disturbing actions are vividly illustrated in the Open Letter dated September 25, 2025 (refer to The first remedy pursued), which further underscores the urgent need for accountability, transparency, and justice in this sinister affair.
On September 26, 1997, John Pinnock appeared before a Senate Estimates Committee. Seventeen months after falsely accusing me, he claimed:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
Deception Unmasked:
Pinnock failed to mention that he had previously misled Laurie James about my claims. I had warned Mr James that Dr Hughes lacked control over the arbitration process—exactly the flaw Pinnock now used to deflect responsibility. His testimony concealed the more profound corruption, leaving the committee in the dark.
Primary Source:
📄page 99 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D)
I devoted nearly two decades of my life—heart, soul, and unwavering hope—to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Yet, by December 2001, I was driven to sell it, not by choice but by a ruthless series of betrayals. The insidious phone faults that had tormented my business since 1988 continued to undermine its very foundation. Despite an arbitration process in 1994/95, government officials peddled empty reassurances, knowing full well that the arbitrator would remain powerless to issue a final ruling until Telstra's Arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) confirmed the absence of further issues. But the person in charge of this SVT process—acting more like a puppet in a corrupt game—abruptly halted the testing when the malfunctioning equipment exposed the truth behind Telstra's deceptive practices (See Telstra's Falsified SVT Report).
In the end, the sale price amounted to a mere fraction of the camp's true worth, a calculated move to strip away my legacy. I watched helplessly as my dream slipped through my fingers, fully aware that the new owners were stepping into the same treacherous trap that I had desperately struggled to escape.
• Lies, Deceit and Treachery – Chapter 1: This chapter exposes Telstra’s false claims during arbitration and the government’s complicity in suppressing the truth.• The Casualties of Telstra: A sobering reflection on the lives destroyed by Telstra’s misconduct, including the fate of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.
If removing the $250,000 liability caps for one section of the COT group—while leaving them intact for the rest—isn’t the epitome of corrupt and treacherous discrimination by Australia’s establishment, then what is?
Amanda Davis, then General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, had convinced Maureen to sign, assuring her that the $250,000 liability caps would allow us to pursue arbitration consultants for negligence. It was sold to us as a win-win. After years of battling Telstra, we believed we’d secured a protective clause.
We were wrong.
It was not until the day we were scheduled to sign the agreement, April 21, 1994, that we discovered it had been altered, specifically with the removal of liability clauses 25 and 26. Upon our refusal to sign the revised document due to these modifications, we encountered significant pressure to accept the altered terms, as failing to do so would jeopardise the arbitration process, necessitating legal action against Telstra. This situation presented a serious dilemma, as none of us possessed the financial means to pursue a lawsuit. Ultimately, we acquiesced to the removal of these essential clauses, unaware that Dr Hughes had previously conspired to alter them following Maureen Gillan's signing of her agreement on April 8, 1994. This is substantiated by a covert letter he sent to the arbitration administrator FOI folio A59256/7 → Open letter File No 54-B. This underhanded manoeuvre underscores the reprehensible conduct of the arbitrator and reveals the systemic corruption inherent in the entire process.
This betrayal didn’t just affect me. It fractured the integrity of the entire COT arbitration process. It turned a promise of justice into a trap.
• We were the ones who had already exposed Telstra’s faults.• We were the ones whose cases posed the greatest threat to Telstra’s privatization.• We were the ones who had the most to lose—and the least protection.
• Secret meetings were held without claimant representation• Vital documents were filtered and withheld from me• Binding decisions were used to erase unresolved faults• Government officials turned a blind eye to protect Telstra’s sale
.• Ericsson was named as the main culprit in many technical failures that crippled COT businesses.• Despite its misconduct being exposed globally, Ericsson continued to influence the arbitration process through its entanglement with Telstra.• The Australian Government denied compensation to victims, even as Ericsson’s role became undeniable.
• Secret technical assessments conducted outside the agreed framework.• Undisclosed acquisitions, such as Ericsson’s purchase of Lane Telecommunications, which compromised independent oversight.• Government silence, even as international regulators condemned Ericsson’s conduct.This wasn’t just a failure of process—it was a betrayal of trust. The very institutions tasked with protecting citizens instead shielded a multinational corporation whose practices had already been deemed criminal abroad.
• Regulatory capture: When corporations influence regulators, justice becomes selective.• International hypocrisy: Australia’s failure to act stands in contrast to the SEC’s decisive exposure of Ericsson.• The cost of silence: Lives, businesses, and legacies were shattered while officials looked the other way.
• No arbitrator ruling on the core technical issues.• No opportunity for me to challenge Telstra’s conduct.• No transparency, despite the regulator’s duty to protect consumers.
• Who truly governs our regulators?• What happens when oversight bodies become complicit in concealment?• How many other claimants were denied justice under similar conditions?
🌐 International Vindication, Domestic Betrayal: The BCI Cover-Up
To fully grasp how government corruption became so glaringly evident, one must examine the Australian Government’s decision to pressure Telstra into seeking outside assistance from Bell Canada International Inc (BCI). This move was intended to assess whether the systemic telecommunications faults reported by the four COT Cases—including myself—were legitimate. We were losing business due to mismanagement, and our claims were not the cries of disgruntled customers, but documented failures.
BCI was brought to Australia to conduct testing. However, I personally proved that BCI could not have performed the alleged 15,950 test calls into my local exchange over the five-day, four-hour period they claimed. The math didn’t add up, and it still doesn't add up in 2025. The logistics were impossible.
During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, and every act of betrayal as this corruption entered another horrific phase, known as the Robodebt affair.
A Precursor to Robodebt
This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.
The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.
Is there a troubling connection between the recent Robodebt scandal, the British Post Office scandal depicted in the Mr Bates image, and the murky software issues involving Ericsson, Lane, and Telstra that caught the attention of the U.S. Securities Exchange?
This situation reeks of corruption and deceit, potentially setting the stage for a class action lawsuit surrounding the intentional suppression of evidence regarding Telstra's serious and ongoing billing problems with the Ericsson-installed exchanges. These issues echo the infamous Fujitsu Horizon software scandal that devastated the British Post Office, as well as the disastrous Ericsson AXE billing software failures impacting countless Telstra customers. It seems both the British and Australian governments, which have a vested interest in these corporations, are complicit in hiding these troubling revelations, sacrificing the lives of many for their own gain. The betrayal is vast and insidious, leaving devastation in its wake across two nations.
According to the U.S. Securities Exchange link in Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, there were serious allegations that Telstra's value might have been grossly inflated during its sale, suggesting a web of deceit and corruption at play.
After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which aired in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants were aware that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/
Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office
🕳️ Ericsson’s Infiltration: A Thirty-Year Betrayal
Learn how the Robodebt concealment episode was no different from Ericsson of Sweden's infiltration of the Australian arbitration system—installing faulty AXE telephone equipment that was under investigation by the arbitrator. In a shocking turn of events, the investigation into Ericsson was abruptly halted after the company went to extraordinary lengths to purchase the arbitration consultants. This ensured that the confidential material they had collected during the process remained buried, resulting in devastating consequences for up to 120,000 Telstra customers.
AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) breached its statutory obligation to more than 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers, as the following evidence (Open Letter File No/11) shows. By hiding the truth from those customers and the Australian Telecom/Telstra consumer, the lives of thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens lives were ruined not just by the previously faulty installation of the Ericsson telephone AXE equipment in Telstra's telephone exchange but also by the grossly defective Ericsson testing equipment that was used to verify whether the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was still faulty.
In simple terms, AUSTEL/ACMA allowed Telstra during the COT arbitrations, which our story here is about, the governemnt communications regulator allowing Telstra to place a festering, gangrene-tainted bandage over a festering wound, which in turn made that wound even more corrupted.
The most recent 7:30 ABC Television news report indicates that Optus is now attributing the most recent outages and call dropouts to a problem created by Ericsson. This might well be the truth, as our Ericsson side of this COT Story shows.
(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
The letters dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s Group General Manager to the Chair of AUSTEL (now ACMA), reveal that AUSTEL was not operating as an independent regulator. Instead, these communications demonstrate that Telstra was able to influence AUSTEL’s official findings in the COT report. In multiple instances, Telstra explicitly requested amendments to AUSTEL’s conclusions—and AUSTEL complied. For example, Telstra advised the Chairperson:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. … (See Open Letter File No/11)
And the next day:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal public report notes:
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
It was a treacherous betrayal of public trust when a government regulator drastically altered its findings—slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from over 120,000 to barely 50. This wasn’t a clerical error. It was a deliberate and sinister deception, engineered to protect Telstra and mislead the public. Such manipulation undermines the very foundation of regulatory integrity, casting a long, corrosive shadow over those entrusted with power.
Amid these glaring telecommunications failures, Rupert Murdoch and FOX appear to have been rewarded, their interests seemingly prioritised while everyday Australians were left to suffer. The cost was devastating: bankruptcies, prolonged court battles, and shattered lives—all fueled by the lies and omissions of government bureaucrats. This wasn’t just mismanagement. It was collusion, and it defrauded the nation.
10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.
11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the
At the heart of this betrayal stood the arbitrator, who willfully ignored the looming crisis tied to the Ericsson telephone exchange—a system known to be causing widespread faults. By allowing these issues to persist unaddressed during arbitration, the arbitrator denied the COT Cases any chance of appeal. The damage was locked in. And when Ericsson quietly absconded to Sweden, they took with them thousands of confidential business and personal records—documents entrusted during arbitration under the false promise of return.
It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:
” 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/)
Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ericsson had infiltrated Telstra’s telecommunications infrastructure, acquiring confidential information from the COT Cases. Despite being made aware of this, the Australian government did nothing to assist us in recovering the Ericsson arbitration claim documents—documents that, under Clause Six of the Arbitration Agreement, were supposed to be returned within six weeks of the arbitrator’s conclusion on May 11, 1995.
It is now 2025, and I still do not have those files.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
❓ Where Are My Ericsson AXE Files?
Given Ericsson’s troubling history, can we truly assume they never disclosed the COT Cases’ claims against them and Telstra—a company that still relies on Ericsson as a principal supplier? It feels absurd.
And yet, the pressing question remains:
Where are the Ericsson AXE files I submitted during arbitration in 1994?
The pervasive power of a faceless global corporation has insidiously manipulated Australia’s arbitration system, transforming it into a tool for treachery and betrayal. This corporate giant ruthlessly suppresses dissent, twisting the very essence of justice into an unrecognisable form. As a result, innocent individuals are left in a state of profound anguish and abandonment, enduring countless years of torment as they struggle against this monstrous entity. This corporation's willingness to strike deals with even the most malevolent forces, illustrated by the image that follows, reveals the depths of its depravity and the dire consequences faced by those trapped in its web of greed and cruelty.
🎭 Ericsson: Puppet Master of Deceit
If the reader has not yet grasped the staggering implications of Rupert Murdoch and FOX’s $400 million windfall—facilitated by the Australian-owned Telstra Corporation—then consider the deeper reality. Countless Australians (who were among the 120,000 COT-type fault complainants) had to pay Telstra’s inflated bills or endure gruelling, costly legal battles. This injustice was compounded by the covert complicity of AUSTEL (now ACMA). This government regulator collaborated with Telstra to obscure the truth from both the courts and the arbitration process, revealing that Australia had a systemic billing problem.
Many of these individuals—already suffering severe financial and emotional distress—had legitimate claims tied to malfunctioning Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Yet their grievances were systematically ignored, buried beneath layers of bureaucratic denial and legal obstruction.
The most shocking betrayal, however, stems from Ericsson, Telstra’s principal technical supplier. With calculated precision, Ericsson exploited the arbitration system, manipulating its mechanisms to serve their own agenda. While Australians struggled to navigate the legal maze alone, Ericsson operated behind the scenes—shielded from scrutiny, protected by silence, and empowered by influence.
This manipulation didn’t just erode trust in the arbitration process—it exposed the vulnerability of consumers, caught in the crossfire of corporate collusion and regulatory failure. It is a story of power without accountability, and of ordinary citizens sacrificed to protect extraordinary interests.
This is not just a story of technical failure. It is a national scandal, a moral reckoning, and a call to expose the machinery of deception that left sixteen Australian citizens fighting for justice in the ruins of a corrupted process.
In late 1999, Frank Blount, then CEO of Telstra, co-authored a manuscript with the Telstra Board after they brokered a $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch, detailing the numerous problems Telstra was experiencing with its telecommunications infrastructure. The book, titled Managing in Australia (available online), can still be purchased today. (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...
On pages 132 and 133, the co-author reveals the issues Telstra was experiencing with its 1800 customers. The co-author wrote:
- “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 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).
🧨 Concealed Evidence, Manufactured Legitimacy: The BCI Testing Scandal
Instead of allowing me to proceed with a commercial resolution process—an established framework designed to validate and present my claims—the government forced me into arbitration, derailing my original path and subjecting me to over $300,000 in fees across thirteen gruelling months. This coercion occurred despite the government’s own investigations already confirming the validity of my claims.
The evidence was not vague or speculative. It was meticulously documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings AUSTEL’s, spanning points 2 to 212. Each entry reinforced the legitimacy of my assertions. AUSTEL, Australia’s telecommunications regulator, internally acknowledged that my claims against Bell Canada International (BCI) were factual—yet these findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitrator, cloaking the proceedings in a veil of deception.
One of the most glaring inconsistencies lies in the geographical impossibility of BCI’s testing claims. The only telephone exchange capable of handling the alleged 15,590 test calls was located in Warrnambool—over 100 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater, where BCI claimed the tests occurred. This discrepancy alone should have rendered their report invalid.
Further reinforcing this truth, two Telstra technicians submitted statutory declarations on 12 December 1994, unequivocally stating that Warrnambool was the sole facility equipped to support the technical demands of the CCS7 testing facility. This was the facility that BCI stated in their formal findings was used. These declarations not only expose the limitations of BCI’s claims but also highlight the deeper layers of concealment and manipulation that plagued the arbitration process.
This was not a technical oversight. It was a calculated suppression of truth, engineered to protect Telstra and its partners at the expense of justice.
When I sought formal backing to pursue BCI Canada, the Australian Government refused—despite the Canadian Government stepping forward to support me. Their recognition of my evidence and their willingness to assist stand in stark contrast to the silence and obstruction I faced at home.
As a gesture of gratitude, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment in the introduction to this COT story. Their support is a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders even when it’s denied at home.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
⚖️ The Test That Never Reached The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange.
On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns about the accuracy of test results submitted by Telstra’s legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now Herbert Smith Freehills. These results, supposedly from Bell Canada International Inc., were used to assess the reliability of my phone service during arbitration. They were even sent to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was preparing to evaluate my mental health in Portland, Victoria, Australia.
Bell Canada International Inc. was brought from Canada specifically to test the telephone exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, and claimed to have made 13,590 test calls into the exchange servicing my business, boasting a 99.8% success rate—better than global standards. But there was a fatal flaw: the CCS7 equipment they referenced didn’t exist at the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The nearest compatible exchange was 112 kilometres away in Warrnambool. So where did those calls actually go?
This wasn’t just a technical error—it was a deliberate misrepresentation. And it shaped the arbitrator’s final decision, dismissing my claims of ongoing faults.
🧭 The Canadian Consultant Who Told the Truth
In March 1995, DMR Group Inc. from Canada was reluctantly pulled into the arbitration, but not before the original consultants had confessed to a massive and troubling conflict of interest ten months prior. Telstra, with its web of influence, had secured nearly every prominent telecommunications expert in Victoria as its hired guns, leaving me isolated and powerless in my fight to prove that my ongoing telephone problems had not been investigated under the ambit of the arbitration procedures.
Paul Howell, a Canadian consultant with a reputable façade, was dispatched as the principal arbitration consultant, which seemed to be a strategic ploy. Unbeknownst to him, an ex-Telstra employee had been secretly appointed to investigate my claims, and a finding had been crafted on my case as early as April 8, 1995, even before Howell arrived in Australia in the second week of April. He was fed a limited view, restricted to the deceitful findings presented in David Reid's draft report from Lane Telecommunications. The evidence he reviewed was tainted and manipulated, as our story shows.
🕵️♂️ FILE 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 - The Logbook That Vanished
When silence replaced accountability
File 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006, presented to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). This statement, sworn by Des Direen—a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra who rose to the rank of Principal Investigator—reveals unsettling truths. Direen boldly admits that, following his departure from Telstra in 1999 and 2000, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group in investigating the dark web of fraud allegations tied to the COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases.
In Points 21 and 22 of his statement, Direen recounts a troubling episode during his time at Telstra. He was tasked with investigating suspected illegal interference with telephone lines at the Portland exchange. Yet, upon arrival, he discovered that the Portland telephone exchange logbook had mysteriously vanished.
In a chilling turn, when he contacted Melbourne for guidance, he was told to stand down—another department within Telstra was “handling” the matter. This raises serious questions: Why was the investigation stifled? Who was protecting whom?
Direen further noted that the complainant from Cape Bridgewater was entangled in the COT cases, directly implicating my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in a tangled web of deceit. These revelations cast long shadows, hinting at a coordinated effort to suppress the truth and shield Telstra from scrutiny.
1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin ?2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?
🔥 A System Rigged: Collusion at the Heart of Arbitration
This saga is far more than a collection of technical failures; it is a damning testament to the complete breakdown of public trust, rampant abuse of legal authority, and the chilling silencing of courageous whistleblowers. The COT Cases expose a nightmarish web of collusion among government officials, corporate operatives, and legal professionals—a treacherous triad capable of devastating lives and tearing apart the very fabric of our democratic institutions.
⚖️ Justice Subverted: The Machinery of Betrayal
As we delve into the shadowy corridors of power, we confront the horrifying reality that bureaucrats in charge of global agencies routinely turn a blind eye to the gross inadequacies in their nations’ arbitration and mediation processes. This deliberate ignorance fuels an unrelenting cycle of injustice, leaving countless individuals to suffer while desperately seeking alternatives to conventional court proceedings. Unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated by deceitful criminals and corrupt politicians, often facilitated by unscrupulous lawyers who manipulate these processes into tools of oppression.
The scale of their moral decay is staggering; descriptors like "shameful," "hideous," and "treacherous" scarcely capture the true extent of their repugnant actions. What transpired within the COT arbitrations was not merely a bureaucratic oversight; it was a calculated and concerted effort steeped in corruption. This disturbing narrative of collusion and betrayal uncovers the shocking lengths to which government agencies went to protect Telstra from scrutiny, intricately manipulating legal mechanisms to unjustly target sixteen hardworking Australian citizens.
This is not simply an administrative failure; it represents one of the most grotesque injustices since Federation—a national disgrace that cries out for reckoning and justice. The complicity of so many lawyers in allowing this to unfold is a dark stain on our legal system, a betrayal that starkly illustrates the depths of corruption that have infiltrated the very core of our society.
🏛️ The Institute Entrapped: IAMA’s Complicity in Silence
The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) has been entangled in my claims since late 1995, with a cursory review conducted in 2001. Recently, I uncovered a troubling truth: government influence has insidiously infiltrated their investigations into my serious allegations regarding the arbitrator’s conduct and Telstra’s unlawful actions—conduct I firmly believe borders on criminality.
In June 2009, IAMA informed me they would continue their inquiries—a gesture that felt more like a bureaucratic performance than a genuine pursuit of justice.
📬 The Eleventh Remedy Pursued: A Trail of Submissions Lost
Beginning in July 2009, I submitted a series of detailed documents at IAMA’s request, hoping to shed light on the corruption I had endured. This exchange continued through November 2009, and for a brief moment, I believed the truth might finally prevail.
But since then, IAMA has responded only with vague, evasive communications, refusing to issue findings or return the twenty-three submissions I painstakingly prepared. These documents are not just paper—they are the embodiment of my fight for justice, now trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth (The eleventh remedy pursued).
Feeling abandoned, I took the bold step of publishing my story on absentjustice.com, hoping that somewhere, an institute exists with the courage to confront the evidence. The shadows of complicity loom large, and I invite you to delve into this dark and twisted narrative. Your attention may be the catalyst needed to expose a more profound, more corrupt truth.
📜 False Testimony and the Mockery of Justice
On December 12, 1994, Telstra submitted nine separate arbitration witness statements, all signed under oath and cleverly countersigned in the presence of their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These statements falsely proclaimed that my business had never encountered billing problems, a blatant manipulation of the truth. Furthermore, Frank Blount's co-authorship of (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... four years after the conclusion of my arbitration exemplifies a corrupt betrayal, one that mocks and undermines the very foundations of the arbitration system in Australia.
Even now, in 2025, thirty years after this egregious breach of trust, the claimants remain trapped in a cycle of silence and despair.
🧠 The Machinery of Corruption
Delve into the dark underbelly of horrendous crimes, deceitful criminals, and the corrupt politicians and lawyers who manipulate Australia’s legal profession. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface of the malevolence exhibited by these lawbreakers and the rampant government corruption infecting the system.
Uncover the insidious issues within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT (Claim of Territory) arbitrations—an arena where justice was corrupted and twisted beyond recognition.
Explore ghastly instances of foreign bribery, deceitful practices, and kleptocracy, revealing corruption that poses immense challenges to the very fabric of society. The website AbsentJustice.com serves as a chilling portal into this world, triggering a deeper examination of political corruption and providing a grotesque portrayal of criminal activities—including widespread fraud.
• George Close, a respected technical consultant for the COT Cases, compiled a 21-page report based on extensive telecommunications data and industry contacts, particularly in Canada. This report was intended to expose faults in Ericsson AXE equipment used by Telstra and guide future improvements.• According to the archive at AbsentJustice.com, Ericsson had a pecuniary interest in Telstra, and their acquisition of Lane Telecommunications—Telstra’s arbitration technical advisor—created a conflict of interest. Lane was involved in assessing Ericsson equipment during arbitration, yet was owned by Ericsson during that time.• The COT Cases were denied access to appeal, even though Ericsson’s AXE faults were later acknowledged. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and the handling of technical evidence.
• While there is no direct evidence publicly confirming that Ericsson transported the Close report to Sweden, the absence of the report from the arbitration record, combined with Ericsson’s history of withholding internal reports (as seen in the Iraq scandal), suggests a pattern of document suppression.• Ericsson has faced multiple investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for misconduct in various countries, including concealment of internal findings and unethical business practices.
• The failure to compensate George Close or other contributors, despite the strategic value of their work, reflects a broader disregard for ethical standards.• The Australian government’s refusal to investigate the arbitration failures, despite mounting evidence, compounds the injustice faced by the COT Cases.• The loss of the Close report—a document that could have reshaped arbitration outcomes and exposed systemic faults—remains a symbol of the institutional betrayal experienced by whistleblowers.
It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:
” 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/)
📡 Ericsson, Arbitration, and the Vanishing Files: A Global Scandal
The U.S. Department of Justice has made shocking discoveries about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations, uncovering disturbing links to international corruption and even terrorist organisations. These revelations cast a harsh light on the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases, exposing a web of deceit that raises urgent questions:
How was Ericsson allowed to operate unchallenged in Australia—especially during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings?
One of the most troubling aspects is Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a firm that was actively serving as a technical consultant during the COT arbitrations. This move wasn’t just unethical—it was a deliberate manipulation of the process. It occurred while serious allegations were being raised about Telstra and Ericsson’s reliance on the discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment (see File 10-B )—a system abandoned by multiple countries due to its critical deficiencies.
And yet, the Australian government remained silent.
🧠 Connections to Terrorism and Suppressed Evidence
The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t stop at bribery. They uncovered alarming evidence of Ericsson’s past dealings with terrorist groups, including ISIS. According to court documents, Ericsson withheld key details from U.S. investigators, including operations in ISIS-held areas of Iraq. These revelations are not speculation—they’re documented in federal filings and investigative reports.
The internal fax from the arbitration legal advisors (refer to File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541) uncovers a disturbing acknowledgement that, should they choose to investigate my claims, the Bell Canada test could never have been conducted at the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. The statement within this fax, where John, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declares that his "POSITION IS NOT TO OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS," reeks of a calculated effort to suppress the truth.
🕳️ The Erasure of Justice: Clauses Vanished, Truth Denied
When I uncovered the shocking truth that two arbitration consultants tied to the infamous “Can of Worms” fax header had been brazenly exonerated from all liability in my arbitration, I felt a sense of betrayal wash over me. This exoneration occurred after Clause 24 had been deceitfully altered and Clauses 25 and 26 had been completely erased from the agreement—all while my arbitration lawyers had given their stamp of approval to the original, untainted document. It was a treacherous manoeuvre.
In desperation, I turned to John Pinnock, the very person implicated in this web of deceit and also the administrator of my arbitration. I demanded that he release all pre-arbitration documents related to Ericsson, BCI, and the shady drafting of the agreement. I invoked the rules of the arbitration agreement, expecting integrity to prevail.
However, on 10 February 1996, I received a cold and calculated response from John Pinnock. Writing as both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the administrator of my arbitration, he callously refused to assist me in this matter, stating:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
(File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)
This troubling revelation casts a dark shadow over the integrity of the entire process, especially in light of the previously acknowledged, falsified BCI testing results that Telstra deceitfully employed to manipulate the arbitrator into believing my business faced no ongoing issues—when in reality, the problems were stark and undeniable. Had a proper investigation been conducted, the exposure of these treacherous practices could have provided me with an opportunity to challenge the unjust ruling against me. Their silence is not just complicit; it is a telling indicator of the corruption and betrayal lurking beneath the surface.
📞 From Seafarer to Holiday Camp Owner: A Dream Undone
My name is Alan Smith, and this is the harrowing tale of my battle against a behemoth of corruption—the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This twisted saga has spiralled since 1992, revealing a shadowy web of deceit that entangles elected officials, regulatory bodies, the courts, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The pursuit of justice has become a relentless curse, gnawing at the edges of my existence.
It all started in 1987, when I abandoned my life at sea after 30 years, desperate for a fresh start on land. I envisioned running a spirited school holiday camp. When I stumbled upon the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age newspaper, it seemed like the perfect opportunity. Yet, in my eagerness, I neglected one crucial detail—ensuring that the phone lines were functional.
Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting. Even after I sold the business in 2002, the new owners found themselves ensnared in the same treacherous web of deceit.
As I fought against this monstrous entity, I discovered I was not alone. Others plagued by the same foul play joined my cause, and we became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT Cases. Each of us is weaving our own thread into the tapestry of betrayal. All we wanted was for Telstra to admit their faults, undo their treachery, and compensate us for our suffering. Is it too much to demand a simple, working phone line in the face of such insidious corruption?
Gaslighting
Psychological Manipulation
Regrettably for me, hidden amidst a treacherous pile of documents was a damning forty-one-page report titled "Fundamentally Flawed Ericsson AXE BCI Findings - Cape Bridgewater," prepared by George Close & Associates, the ostensibly reputable technical consultants who had agreed to assist eight COT Cases. As this dark tale unfolds, I will expose chilling evidence that demonstrates how an unscrupulous individual, armed with access to Telstra's devious fax screening process, covertly connected a secondary fax machine at Mr Close's residence and office on the seemingly quiet Flint Street in Buderim, Queensland. This treacherous figure leveraged Mr Close's facilities as a sinister conduit to pilfer sensitive information regarding which Freedom of Information (FOI) documents George Close was directing the seven COT Cases to request from Telstra's notoriously opaque FOI department.
The fact that Telstra was not legally bound to respond to each COT Case for a full thirty days was a calculated advantage for the shadowy operator of the secondary fax machine embedded within Telstra's network. This thirty-day delay created an insidious opportunity to gather intelligence on the precise documents that arbitration lawyers would inevitably demand. This allowed Telstra's FOI office to execute a calculated concealment of the very documents they anticipated would be sought, creating a disturbing facade where the arbitration lawyers were met with the relentless refrain that those essential documents could not be found when their searches commenced.
I emphasise this critical detail because, during a pivotal encounter with Rupert Murdoch's sister, Helen Handbury (Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury), I unveiled the alarming evidence surrounding George Close's residence. I presented irrefutable proof that my faxes had been intercepted, along with those of other COT Cases, revealing the extent of this corrupt scheme. It was chillingly clear how vital it was for Telstra to deploy such underhanded tactics to obstruct the COT Cases from conclusively demonstrating that their ongoing phone problems were not merely relics of the past. Helen, recognising the gravity of the situation, assured me she would persuade Rupert to publish my book—a venture that cost me a staggering portion of the fee, totalling $25,000, which I had contracted with George Close for the compilation of my 21-page report, "Fundamentally Flawed Ericsson AXE BCI Findings - Cape Bridgewater." This troubling document was unexpectedly released on June 15, 1994, by Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, to Paul Rumble, five months earlier than his legal entitlement would have allowed. I confirmed that the submission dated June 15, 1994, was an interim report. This was indicated by John Wynack, the Director of Investigation for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his report, which stated that my claim was being delayed due to Telstra's threats to withhold any further Freedom of Information (FOI) documents.
Adding to the sordid narrative, this entire affair revolved around Paul Rumble, the very same individual who had wielded threats against me, promising to withhold any BCI information solely because I was collaborating with the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
🗂️ The Illusive Telephone Exchange Logbook
It was at this moment that I decided to submit a bogus request for a range of documents that would appear trivial and insignificant to most people. I told Mr Rumble that if he was genuine, he should provide proof that Telstra's telephone exchange logbook had been checked for the faults I reported on November 5, 8, and 9, 1993. I planned to verify whether Freehill Hollingdale & Page had recorded my phone complaints during that time and if there was any response to those issues noted in the Portland telephone exchange logbook. As I mentioned previously and on absentjustice.com, I had to formally submit all my ongoing telephone faults in writing to Denise McBurnie at Freehills; otherwise, Telstra would not investigate my complaints.
Some time later, as part of an original Freedom of Information (FOI) request I had submitted to Telstra, I was surprised to receive some of the documents I had requested. However, I was even more astonished when four complete pages of the alleged Portland telephone diary were released, which were completely devoid of any handwritten notations. These pages correspond to the dates of November 5, 6, 8, and 9, 1993—the days when Bell Canada International (BCI) and Telstra allegedly visited the Portland telephone exchange.
In other words, something suspicious was happening. While there was no record of BCI having attended the Portland telephone exchange, the absence of recorded activity on those four pages indicated that, remarkably, there had been no movement at the Portland telephone exchange over those four days. Furthermore, as noted by Telstra's Protective Service Officer Des Direen in his witness statement dated August 8, 2006, when he visited the Portland telephone exchange, staff informed him that it had been removed, possibly due to the COT Cases residing in Cape Bridgewater.
🔍 The Threats Became Reality
Let me say this plainly: the threats weren’t just warnings—they became reality.
To this day, I have never seen the raw data from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater BCI testing. That data was intended to verify whether the tests had even taken place. Without it, the entire foundation of Telstra’s arbitration defence is suspect. And yet, no one has investigated these violations.
That silence speaks volumes.
🧾 Arbitration, Surveillance, & The Briefcase That Could Have Changed Everything
We sought a comprehensive Senate investigation into our concerns, but instead, we were presented with a proposal for arbitration. With a glimmer of hope that our technical problems would be resolved, we accepted this route. Unfortunately, that hope was dashed as the issues remained unaddressed. We were assured access to essential Telecom documents, yet those promises fell flat, leaving us empty-handed. To make matters worse, our fax lines were surreptitiously monitored during the arbitration, a blatant violation of our privacy. Under the weight of government pressure, we ultimately found ourselves on the losing side.
We were lured into signing confidentiality agreements that have since shackled us. Though sharing this information may breach my agreement, I feel there are no viable alternatives left for me.
The two evidence files, Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, unveil a disturbing and intricate pattern of government corruption as well as bribery and threatening conduct that developed before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. They document how government representatives became deeply entangled in a morally questionable framework that betrayed their public duty. In the shadows, powerful officials formed a clandestine alliance, prioritising their own personal interests and agendas over the well-being of the very citizens they were sworn to serve independently.
This breach of trust not only undermined the citizens’ faith in their government but also severely compromised the transparency and integrity of the investigation into the arbitration claims against Telstra. As a result, the process became tainted, leaving COT claimants marginalised and unheard. The telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra relied upon in these dealings was shrouded in controversy, further raising concerns about accountability and ethical conduct among those in positions of power. The ramifications of this corrupt alliance extend far beyond the immediate arbitration claims, impacting the broader landscape of public trust in government institutions and regulatory agencies.
One particularly shocking incident highlights the extent of this corruption: crucial evidence, which could have exposed the secret dealings of a government-owned corporation, was willfully and systematically destroyed. This reckless act raises profound concerns about the accountability and transparency that should underpin public governance. Furthermore, during the review of the highly contentious COT Cases, vital information was purposefully redacted from official records, creating a deceptive façade of compliance while obstructing the pursuit of truth. This deliberate manipulation of information allowed the corporation to evade the scrutiny it so richly deserved, escaping the severe consequences of its actions.
Those tasked with examining archived documents found themselves ensnared in a tangled web of suppressed disclosures, navigating a labyrinth specifically designed to thwart the pursuit of justice. This oppressive environment effectively subverts the foundational principles of fairness and public trust, leaving citizens to grapple with a system that betrays their essential rights. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond mere bureaucratic incompetence; they present a significant threat to the very integrity of democratic institutions.
The relentless tide of corruption and manipulation erodes public confidence. It undermines the societal framework, creating a grim atmosphere where accountability and justice are mere illusions, obscured by layers of deceit. The dark undercurrents of this governmental decay call for urgent and decisive action to dismantle the corrupt machinery and restore the fundamental principles of democracy, ensuring that the rights and voices of citizens are no longer silenced in the shadows of greed and malfeasance.
“COT Case Strategy”
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their case against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
It is evident from the comments made by COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest that when Dr Gordon Hughes became a COT arbitrator, he did not disclose that he had represented Graham Schorer in a similar matter involving Telstra in the Federal Court of Australia two years earlier. Dr Hughes knowingly concealed documents from Mr Schorer at the request of the Government Solicitor. The Telstra representative involved in this concealment was Peter Gamble.
Interestingly, this same Peter Gamble was mentioned in a Senate Committee hearing in June 1997, as the individual who instructed Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White and Graham Schorer, along with three other COT Cases, 'had to be stopped at all costs' from substantiating our claims against Telstra.
GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOCIATES - bugged and disarmed.
The COT Cases never had a chance.
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:
- 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;
- 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”.
- 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 .
“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 exchange was turned off? 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 2022.
On my second request for this detailed data, Paul Rumble, Telstra's arbitration officer, threatened me that if I continued to provide this type of information to the AFP, Telstra would refrain from supplying that information. It was up to me. Stop supplying the AFP with FOI documents, and Telstra will assist me by providing the arbitrator with this type of evidence. I refused to be threatened in this manner.
Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.
This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House, Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those Government offices have officially organised the Fax Streaming arrangement, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system without the Government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private?
Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.
Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra's network were able to use 'keywords' so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close's residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.
How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away, he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.
A secondary fax machine
As a further example of how serious this fax interception issue was during the COT arbitrations, I need to discuss the 12 May 1995 letter, written by the arbitrator the day after he brought down my award, the arbitrator, Dr Hughes condemned the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement as not a credible document to use in the process; however, he still used it to my detriment. I.e.;
“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;
“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …
“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” see Open Letter File No 55-A).
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 report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.
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:
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;
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”.
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),
From Telstra-Corruption to Truth-Tellers: Honouring the Whistleblowers
The twelve chapters—from Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived—form a vivid tapestry of injustice, resistance, and revelation. Though these compelling narratives will eventually be retired, their role in illuminating the tangled web of the COT saga remains vital. They have served as a beacon, drawing public attention to the systemic failures and institutional betrayals that demand accountability.
In their place, we turn our focus to a broader constellation of truth-tellers—whistleblowers whose courage defies silence. These extraordinary individuals risk their safety, careers, and peace of mind to expose the realities buried beneath bureaucratic stonewalls and corporate spin. Their stories are not footnotes to history; they are its pulse.
Governments across the globe must recognise the indispensable role whistleblowers play. Democracy does not flourish in darkness. It depends on the light cast by those who refuse to look away.
These trailblazers walk a perilous path through a world riddled with deceit. The weight of hidden truths is a burden they refuse to carry alone. For them, complicity is not an option. Driven by conscience, they confront injustice with unwavering resolve, determined to reveal what others would prefer remain hidden.
Their sacrifices—often made in isolation, under threat, and without recognition—are acts of profound moral clarity. Their stories compel us to listen, to act, and to honour their legacy. In doing so, we not only defend the principles of justice—we inspire others to rise.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
Seven days after receiving an eagerly anticipated letter from the Canadian Government, I was delighted to receive another letter of support on July 15, 1995. This correspondence arrived two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement regarding my incomplete claim, which had left many questions unanswered.
In this moment, I was grateful to Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA). She graciously provided me with an open letter, a token of her support that I could share with individuals of my choosing. This thoughtful gesture not only reinforced her belief in my integrity and professionalism but also served as a beacon of hope amidst the uncertainty I was facing.
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Two months after I received a letter from the Canadian Government dated July 7, 1995, Amanda Davis, who held the position of General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL—the government agency responsible for overseeing communications—expressed her concerns to Senator Ron Boswell. This discussion took place just four months following the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, who had prematurely delivered his findings regarding my case.
Amanda was acutely aware that I had been systematically denied access to crucial documents needed to effectively build my case against Telecom/Telstra. This lack of documentation placed me at a significant disadvantage.
During the meeting, Senator Boswell, visibly emotional, spoke passionately about the deep injustices endured by the four COT claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. He highlighted the numerous challenges we four had faced both before and during our arbitration proceedings. His remarks, in the Senate under the heading "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST", state in part:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
