Bribery and Corruption My Story Warts & All
Welcome to Absent Justice!
Check out my published book, Absent Justice, on this absentjustice.com. It is free, and so are the 16,000 downloadable exhibits supporting my claims.
Just imagine what would have happened if, in the 1990s, the then Australian government and their public servant bureaucrats had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister and Australian citizens that at least 120,000 telephone faults were being experienced around the country regularly. The government would not have been able to privatise the now sold-off Telstra telecommunication company.
The shareholders who purchased the Telstra shares would not have had to pay the $7.50 share price in 1997 when the first shares were sold. In 2024, the shares are still worth less than $4.00. Had the government investigated these telephone faults, then most of the millions upon millions of dollars of what it cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, 30 years ago. When the government decided not to tell the truth in 1994, upon setting up an arbitration process to investigate the COT claims, those public servants indirectly lied to the shareholders and those operating the arbitration system in Australia.
Read the website absentjustice.com to learn more about corruption in arbitrations. In Australia, that process was used to conceal the truth so that Telstra could be sold off at the highest price, regardless of its value only being worth half its value.
Narcissism is an unjustifiable behaviour.
"Absentjustice.com" is a website that led to a thorough investigation into criminal activities within the government. The website sheds light on the corruption within the government bureaucracy during the COT arbitrations. It also reveals the identities of the individuals who perpetrated these heinous crimes and their current positions in the government.
If you're interested in reading Absent Justice, you can get it for free with a simple click. However, if you appreciate the time and effort spent writing my book and gathering the evidence to support our story, we would be grateful if you could donate to Transparency International Australia.
It takes immense courage to become a whistleblower, and those who do so should be applauded for their bravery. However, governments must not overlook the invaluable contribution made by whistleblowers in exposing corruption and protecting their country's interests. Any government that fails to protect whistleblowers risks betraying the trust of its citizens and ultimately undermining its own credibility. Let us stand together and support those who speak out against wrongdoing for the greater good of society.
Of course, it is a citizen's duty to the country they call home to expose wrongdoings, but at what cost to the whistleblower and their family?
Karina Barrymore's statement hits the nail on the head. The Australian Establishment, consisting of ex-government ministers and senior members of two government regulators, is acutely aware of the collusion between Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in my arbitration case, and Warwick Smith, the administrator of the same process, with the defendants. Rather than using the agreed-upon, totally independent arbitration agreement, they used the defendants' drafted agreement. It's a blatant disregard for justice! Yet, none of the corporate leaders, regulators, or government ministers have courageously investigated this matter. It's high time that we bring this to the public's attention. This is only one of many examples of how Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith acted in a manner that was unbecoming of their positions. We implore you to read on and learn about our COT story.
"Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It's insightful how the words used to describe a whistleblower are so negative.
"Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government.
"So why aren't we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives.
"These 'truth tellers' are shunned and rejected. Telling the truth often means they lose their jobs, their reputations are deliberately trashed, their finances suffer, their mental health fails and all these factors flow on to damage their family, social and professional relationships.
"The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job."
------------oOo------------
Blowing the whistle is coming soon
The text following my video is still in draft format as of 15 May 2024
It is clear from the above YouTube video that I dammed the sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to Ericsson, whom Lane was investigating on behalf of the government and the COT Cases. To have sold themselves to Ericsson the way they did before the arbitrations were complete is one situation that Lane should have even considered if they were a genuinely ethical company. But to have sold themselves without documenting in their reports to the arbitrator concerning the significant faults with the Ericsson equipment, which other countries had dammed shows that the COT Case claims of fowl play are a valid claim against the Commonwealth for having allowed this to happen during a government-endorsed arbitration.
I took the false Bell Canada International Inc Cape Bridgewater testing results to Telstra, the Government Communications Regulator, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Bell Canada International Inc (in Canada), as well as Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who provided these fundamentally flawed test results to Ian Joblin Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist before Mr Joblin viewed my mental health. No one would make a written comment on these flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests.
Although Mr Joblin seemed unnerved when I showed him evidence that these 13,560 test calls could not have been generated into the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges that serviced my business, he gave me the impression he would raise my concerns about the BCI report to Telstra.
A letter from the Canadian Minister for Telecommunications
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."
This unsigned witness statement discussed above (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) and the fact that I proved to the Major Fraud Group Barrister, Mr Neil Jepson, that the BCI tests were impracticable are what motivated the following BCI and Major Fraud Group to want to prove my claims.
The following two transcripts (Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) - Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) are various discussions with lawyers, The Telstra Corporation, the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) spokesperson, a Senator and a negotiator who later became a Senator are an essential part of our COT story and should be downloaded by all who read my story because reading those transcripts at your leisure it will help you understand our story.
For example:
Reading (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) will assist you in understanding why lawyer Sue Owens represented COT Cases Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova and Graham Schorer in their fraud allegations against Telstra. (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) shows Lawyer Sue Owens discussing with William Hunt Graham Schorer’s Lawyer and Mr Schorer why Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, had seconded me to assist the Major Fraud Group in their investigation of the possibility that fraud had taken place during and after the COT Cases arbitrations between 1994 and 1999.
It is clear from (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) that because I had prepared two technical reports, which I passed onto the Major Fraud Group showing where Telstra had committed fraud during COT arbitrations, it was acknowledged by many that I might be smarter than most people in the arbitration process thought.
The draft findings in those two reports are now enclosed here as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. I also supplied two smaller submissions to Mr Neil Jepson confirming the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) had knowingly mislead and deceived thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens, the government, and the COT arbitrator about the integrity of Telstra’s telecommunications system Australia-wide. It was the smaller of these two mini reports (titled Ericsson AXE faults). The fact that the government regulator had misled and deceived the COT arbitrator, as well as the COT Cases themselves, when AUSTEL released their report (into the public domain) in April 1994 saying only 50 or more COT-type phone problems were being experienced around Australia when AUSTEL's reporting to Telstra showed at least 120,000 COT type phone faults, were being experienced around Australia that troubled Mr Neil Jepson because this was a fraud on a 'grand scale' far beyond the four cases now before the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
Click on Evidence Files to view the findings concerning the 120,000 COT Cases-type phone problems being reduced by the government in their April 1994 report to the people of Australia, which stated there were 50 or more COT-type complaints.
Please download those two transcripts to better understand this complex story. I have provided two more sets of transcripts to the office of the Australian prime minister, which are more sensitive than those attached here and could be detrimental to innocent Australians who were not involved in any wrongdoings.
The Australian Prime Minister's office has not acted upon the contents of any of the transcripts provided.
I have, however, been threatened by the Chair of the Senate (see below) that if I disclose in public In-Camera Hansard records dated 6 and 9 July 1998, which the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police provided me, believing these Hansards would assist all of the twenty-one COT Cases in resolving their outstanding claims against Telstra and not just five of the COT Cases claims investigated by the Senate, I will be charged in contempt of the Senate which carries a two-year jail term.
A further mini-report
Re: clauses 24, 25 and 26 provided to Mr Jepson shocked officers within the Major Fraud Group.
The fax imprint on the final arbitration agreement dated 19 April 1994 was already signed by the first of the four COT Cases - Maureen Gillan, on 8 April 1994 with all of the clauses intact. The copy faxed by the arbitrator's secretary to the lawyers for the other three COT cases also showed clauses 24, 25 and 26 all attached. Who removed clauses 25 and 26 and also altered clause 24 when it was submitted on 21 April 1994, as the agreement signed by Maureen Gillan?
The three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and Alan Smith (me), were told that there would be no arbitration if we did not accept these late changes. This meant we would have to undertake legal proceedings against the government to challenge it, as Telstra was still owned by the government when these threats were made.
Removing the original clauses 25 and 26, altering clause 24, and the following threats troubled Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
Four months after the conclusion of my arbitration, the arbitrator's secretary provided me with three arbitration reports that the arbitrator had not released during the arbitration process. Someone had coached the arbitrator on what he should or should not say in his final award on my claim.
Someone also pressured him to remove the $250,000.00 liability caps in the arbitration agreement to exonerate his financial and technical consultants. This removal from the arbitration agreement disallowed the COT Cases to sue the arbitration consultants (see File 2 / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct),
In 2001, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, and I were called to the Supreme Court of Victoria as two witnesses assisting lawyer Sue Owens. While waiting to give evidence at this hearing, Mr Jepson stated that replacing the $250,000.00 liability clauses on the remaining twelve other COT arbitration agreements and that I was not informed of this fact now gave me grounds to appeal the conduct on my arbitration.
Ann Garms, unaware of the replacement of the $250,000,00 liability caps in the COT Case, had already spent well over $600,000,00 on her appeal but lost that appeal. By this time, my award had been eaten up by arbitration fees and debts paid, and I still had a $150,000.00 mortgage, so I could not finance an appeal.
Only those who have suffered abuse through the corruptness of the Australian arbitration system can understand how living with so much distortion of truth through this process destroys your well-being. You cannot put your head on a pillow at night; the anger and frustration do not leave you. To think that a hacker (more than likely Julian Assange) predicted what would happen to us if we did not have the documents to prove what Telstra and others had in store for us during our arbitrations is an added burden.
On 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the arbitration process, the newly appointed administrator to those arbitrations advised a Senate Estimates Committee that:
"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 the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures."
How can an independent arbitrator have no control over arbitration because he conducted it "entirely outside the agreed ambit of the procedures?" The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12) shows I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose these 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though those documents could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.)
Is there any justification to throw me in jail for exposing what Julian Assange tried to reveal to the COT Cases in 1994? What happened to Mr Assange when he exposed what was happening in Iraq? I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing the Australian In-Chamber Senate Hansard of 6th and 9th July 1998, which the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me, thinking that my releasing them publicly may bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion.
Go To Jail
In fact, after one National Party Senator, Ron Boswell, verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:
“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”
A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases. Not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to the 16 COT cases, whatever you have settled". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to be paid to the five 'litmus' test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents, initially these had been concealed from those five cases.
It has since been suggested that the eighteen million dollars that those five 'litmus' test cases received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT FOI cases. It was not.
Worse still is the following fact: a $500.000.00 payment was paid, apart from the eighteen million dollars, to a well-named Queensland Charity Company, which was never on the Senate A or B list Schedule list of 21 unresolved COT cases. The Queensland Charity Company was not considered a COT Case at all. I provided transcripts from a meeting attesting to this secret payment, which was agreed to by at least one Senator, a later to be-appointed Senator, to The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia. It showed how Telstra, the lawyer assisting the five 'litmus' test COT Cases and the then sitting Senator, never questioned this secret payment to this Queensland Charity Company.
My name and fifteen other COT Cases names appear on the Schedule B list, but there is no sighting of the Endeavour Foundation. Will I go to jail in 2023 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens under the guise of being charged in contempt of the Senate?
What is clear about the Senate's involvement in assisting the COT five in accessing the 150,000 plus documents received collectively between them? Was it allowed that five access to a technical consultant appointed by the investigative Senate Committee working team, which included the Commonwealth Omudsman's office, to value the relevance of the 150,000 FOI documents, an advantage not supplied to the remaining unresolved sixteen COT Cases?
What is if this was not discriminative towards the sixteen remaining COT Cases, i.e., free access to a technical unit? Arbitration documents held by several people associated with my arbitration have records concerning my technical consultant George Close, which cost me $25,000.00, plus his travelling and accommodation fees. It took me three years to pay off George Close, who did not charge interest fees, which was a godsend. My forensic accountant Derek Ryan allowed me the same three years to pay off the $51,000.00 for his reporting. However, pressure was applied to me by my claim advisers to pay the $52.000.00 they charged me in professional arbitration fees.
Also regarding Beacombe Printers and Occasional Secretarial Services, I notched up well over $30,000.oo in professional fees, which took me eighteen months to pay off these two accounts. This has been hard to swallow.
The fact remains that the remaining COT Cases and I received only thirty per cent of our arbitration costs, whereas the five 'litmus' COT Cases were awarded 18 million dollars in punitive damages, which was paid to them apart from all the technical assistance they received from the Senate between June 1997 and April 1999. Perhaps there is a stronger word in the legal sense than discrimination which is apparent against the sixteen of us the remaining COT Cases. The term penalised is perhaps better for daring to stand up against Telstra and their government minders.
Telstra - Contempt of the Senate
In October 1997, during the Senate FOI investigation, when Telstra provided documents pertaining to the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, 'On Notice', Telstra and John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) already knew that documentation was false but still no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that, even though their actions were In-Contempt of the Senate.
On 12 January 1998, (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided to the Senate) during the same Senate session of the estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver -Telstra’s current 2023 Corporate Secretary) with a number of documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:
“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report are fabricated or falsified.”
On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the Chair of the Senate legislation Committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in October 1997, was false. (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence).
Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is in In-contempt of the Senate. No one yet, within Telstra, has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate; the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters originally used by Telstra as arbitration defence documents for my claim, aware that the submission to the arbitration was false.
And yet it is I, a claimant in the COT arbitrations, who the Chair of the Senate threatens to charge with In-Contempt of the Senate proceedings for exposing the truth. Telstra gets off scot-free and unpenalized, despite lying under oath during a government-endorsed arbitration, and in addition, lying to a sitting Senate Estimates Committee.
Why doesn't the current 2023 Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver come clean and own up on behalf of Telstra that my claims surrounding the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc report are valid?
It is clear from the above YouTube video that I dammed the sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to Ericsson, who Lane was investigating on behalf of the government and the COT Cases. To have sold themselves to Ericsson the way they did before the arbitrations were complete is one situation that Lane should have even considered if they were a genuinely ethical company. But to have sold themselves without documenting in their reports to the arbitrator concerning the significant faults with the Ericsson equipment, which other countries had dammed shows that the COT Cases claims of fowl play are a valid claim against the Commonwealth for having allowed this to happen during a government-endorsed arbitration.
The following google link "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." shows that the COT Cases were right to demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations. Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were treated so badly when Ericsson was able to nobble Lane?
I took the false Bell Canada International Inc Cape Bridgewater testing results to Telstra, the Government Communications Regulator, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Bell Canada International Inc (in Canada), as well as Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who provided these fundamentally flawed test results to Ian Joblin Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist before Mr Joblin viewed my mental health. No one would make a written comment on these flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests.
Although Mr Joblin did seem unnerved when I showed him evidence that these 13,560 test calls could not have been generated into the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges that serviced my business, Mr Joblin gave me the impression he would raise my concerns about the BCI report to Telstra.
A letter from the Canadian Minister for Telecommunications
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."
It was this unsigned witness statement discussed above (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) and the fact I proved to the Major Fraud Group Barrister Mr Neil Jepson, the BCI tests were impracticable is what set the following BCI and Major Fraud Group into wanting to also prove my claims.
The following two transcripts (Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) - Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) are various discussions with lawyers, The Telstra Corporation, the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) spokesperson, a Senator and a negotiator who later became a Senator are an essential part of our COT story and should be downloaded by all who read my story because reading those transcripts at your leisure it will help you understand our story.
For example:
Reading (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) will assist you in understanding why lawyer Sue Owens represented COT Cases Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova and Graham Schorer in their fraud allegations against Telstra. (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) shows Lawyer Sue Owens discussing with William Hunt Graham Schorer’s Lawyer and Mr Schorer why Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, had seconded me to assist the Major Fraud Group in their investigation of the possibility that fraud had taken place during and after the COT Cases arbitrations between 1994 and 1999.
It is clear from (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) that because I had prepared two technical reports, which I passed onto the Major Fraud Group showing where Telstra had committed fraud during COT arbitrations that it was acknowledged by many that I might be smarter than most people in the arbitration process thought.
The draft findings in those two reports are now enclosed here as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report I also supplied two smaller submissions to Mr Neil Jepson confirming the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) had knowingly mislead and deceived thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens, the government, and the COT arbitrator about the integrity of Telstra’s telecommunications system Australia-wide. It was the smaller of these two mini reports (tiled Ericsson AXE faults) and the fact that the government regulator had misled and deceived the COT arbitrator, as well as the COT Cases themselves, when AUSTEL released their report (into the public domain) in April 1994 saying only 50 or more COT-type phone problems were being experienced around Australia when AUSTEL's reporting to Telstra showed at least 120,000 COT type phone faults, were being experienced around Australia that troubled Mr Neil Jepson because this was a fraud on a 'grand scale' far beyond the four cases now before the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
The findings concerning the 120,000 COT Cases type phone problems being reduced by the government in their April 1994 report to the people of Australia stating there were 50 or more COT-type complaints can be viewed by clicking on Evidence Files.
So, please download those two transcripts to understand this complex story better. I have provided two more sets of transcripts to the office of the Australian prime minister, which is more sensitive than those attached here and could be detrimental to innocent Australians who were not involved in any wrongdoings.
The Australian Prime Minister's office has not acted upon the contents of any of the transcripts provided.
I have, however, been threatened by the Chair of the Senate (see below) that if I disclose in public In-Camera Hansard records dated 6 and 9 July 1998 which the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police provided me, believing these Hansards would assist all of the twenty-one COT Cases in resolving their outstanding claims against Telstra and not just five of the COT Cases claims investigated by the Senate, I will be charged in contempt of the Senate which carries a two-year jail term
A further mini report
Re: clauses 24, 25 and 26 provided to Mr Jepson shocked officers within the Major Fraud Group.
The fax imprint on the final arbitration agreement dated 19 April 1994 was already signed by the first of the four COT Cases - Maureen Gillan on 8 April 1994 with all of the clauses in tact. The copy faxed by the arbitrator's secretary to the lawyers for the other three COT cases also showed clauses 24, 25 and 26 all attached. Who removed clauses 25 and 26, and also altered clause 24 when it was submitted on 21 April 1994, as the agreement signed by Maureen Gillan?
The three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and Alan Smith (me), were told that if we did not accept these late changes, there would be no arbitration. This meant we would have to undertake legal proceedings against the government to challenge it, as Telstra was still owned by the government when these threats were made.
Removing the original clauses 25 and 26, altering clause 24, and the threats that followed troubled Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
Four months after the conclusion of my arbitration, the arbitrator's Secretary provided me with three arbitration reports which the arbitrator had not released during the arbitration process. Someone had coached the arbitrator on what he should or should not say in his final award on my claim
Someone also pressured him to remove the $250,000.00 liability caps in the arbitration agreement to exonerate his financial and technical consultants. This removal from the arbitration agreement disallowed the COT Cases to sue the arbitration consultants (see Chapter 2 / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct),
In 2001, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, and I were called to the Supreme Court of Victoria as two witnesses assisting lawyer Sue Owens. While waiting to give evidence at this hearing, Mr Jepson stated that replacing the $250,000.00 liability clauses on the remaining twelve other COT arbitration agreements and the fact that I was not informed of this fact, now gave me grounds to appeal the conduct on my arbitration.
COT Case, Ann Garms, unaware of the replacement of the $250,000,00 liability caps, had already spent well over $600,000,00 in her appeal but lost that appeal. By this time, with my award having been eaten up by arbitration fees and debts paid and still with a $150,000.00 mortgage, I could not finance an appeal.
Only those who have suffered abuse through the corruptness of the Australian arbitration system can understand that living with so much distortion of truth through this process, how it destroys your well-being. You cannot put your head on a pillow at night; the anger and frustration does not leave you. To think that a hacker (more than likely Julian Assange) predicted what would happen to us if we did not have the documents to prove what Telstra and others had in store for us during our arbitrations, is an added burden.
On 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the arbitration process, the newly appointed administrator to those arbitrations advised a Senate Estimates Committee, that:
"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 the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures."
How can an independant arbitrator have no control over an arbitration because he was condcuting it "entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?" The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12) shows I have been threatened twice, once in 16 August 2001 and again in 6 December 2004, that if I disclose these 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though those documents could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.)
Is there any justification to throw me in jail for exposing what Julian Assange tried to reveal to the COT Cases in 1994? Look what happened to Mr Assange when he exposed what was happening in Iraq? I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing the Australian In-Chamber Senate Hansard of 6th and 9th July 1998 which the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me thinking that my releasing them publicly may bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion.
Go To Jail
In fact, after one National Party senator Ron Boswell verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:
“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”
A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to the 16 COT cases, whatever you have settled". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to be paid to the five 'litmus' test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents, initially these had been concealed from those five cases.
It has since been suggested that the eighteen million dollars that those five 'litmus' test cases received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT FOI cases. It was not.
Worse still is the following fact; a $500.000.00 payment was paid, apart from the eighteen million dollars, to a well named Queensland Charity Company which was never on the Senate A or B list Schedule list of 21 unresolved COT cases. The Queensland Charity Company was not considered a COT Case at all. Transcripts from a meeting attesting to this secret payment which was agreed to by at least one Senator, a later to be appointed Senator, was provided to The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia, by me. It showed how Telstra, the lawyer assisting the five 'litmus' test COT Cases and the then sitting Senator, never questioned this secret payment to this Queensland Charity Company.
My name and fifteen other COT Cases names appear on the Schedule B list, (see Arbitrator File No 67) but there is no sighting of the Endeavour Foundation. Will I go to jail in 2023 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens under the guise of being charged In-Contempt of the Senate?
What is clear about the Senate's involvement in assisting the COT five in accessing their 150,000 plus documents received collectively between them, is it allowed that five access to a technical consultant appointed by the investigative Senate Committee working team, which included the Commonwealth Omudsman's office to value the relevance of the 150,000 FOI documents an advantage not supplied to the remaining unresolved sixteen COT Cases?
What is if this was not discriminative towards the sixteen remaining COT Cases, i.e., free access to a technical unit? Arbitration documents held by several people associated with my arbitration have records concerning my technical consultant George Close, which cost me $25,000.00, plus his travelling and accommodation fees. It took me three years to pay off George Close, who did not charge interest fees, which was a godsend. My forensic accountant Derek Ryan allowed me the same three years to pay off the $51,000.00 for his reporting. However, pressure was applied to me by my claim advisers to pay the $52.000.00 they charged me in professional arbitration fees.
Also regarding Beacombe Printers and Occasional Secretarial Services, I notched up well over $30,000.oo in professional fees, which took me eighteen months to pay off these two accounts. This has been hard to swallow.
The fact remains that the remaining COT Cases and I received only thirty per cent of our arbitration costs, whereas the five 'litmus' COT Cases were awarded 18 million dollars in punitive damages, which was paid to them apart from all the technical assistance they received from the Senate between June 1997 and April 1999. Perhaps there is a stronger word in the legal sense than discrimination which is apparent against the sixteen of us the remaining COT Cases. The term penalised is perhaps better for daring to stand up against Telstra and their government minders.
Telstra - Contempt of the Senate
In October 1997, during the Senate FOI investigation, when Telstra provided documents pertaining to the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, 'On Notice', Telstra and John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) already knew that documentation was false but still no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that, even though their actions were In-Contempt of the Senate.
On 12 January 1998, (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided to the Senate) during the same Senate session of the estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver -Telstra’s current 2023 Corporate Secretary) with a number of documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:
“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report are fabricated or falsified.”
On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the Chair of the Senate legislation Committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in October 1997, was false. (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence).
Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is in In-contempt of the Senate. No one yet, within Telstra, has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate; the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters originally used by Telstra as arbitration defence documents for my claim, aware that the submission to the arbitration was false.
And yet it is I, a claimant in the COT arbitrations, who the Chair of the Senate threatens to charge with In-Contempt of the Senate proceedings for exposing the truth. Telstra gets off scot-free and unpenalized, despite lying under oath during a government-endorsed arbitration, and in addition, lying to a sitting Senate Estimates Committee.
Why doesn't the current 2023 Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver come clean and own up on behalf of Telstra that my claims surrounding the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc report are valid?
It is clear from the above YouTube video that I dammed the sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to Ericsson, who Lane was investigating on behalf of the government and the COT Cases. To have sold themselves to Ericsson the way they did before the arbitrations were complete is one situation that Lane should have even considered if they were a genuinely ethical company. But to have sold themselves without documenting in their reports to the arbitrator concerning the significant faults with the Ericsson equipment, which other countries had dammed shows that the COT Cases claims of fowl play are a valid claim against the Commonwealth for having allowed this to happen during a government-endorsed arbitration.
The following google link "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." shows that the COT Cases were right to demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations. Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were treated so badly when Ericsson was able to nobble Lane?
I took the false Bell Canada International Inc Cape Bridgewater testing results to Telstra, the Government Communications Regulator, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Bell Canada International Inc (in Canada), as well as Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who provided these fundamentally flawed test results to Ian Joblin Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist before Mr Joblin viewed my mental health. No one would make a written comment on these flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests.
Although Mr Joblin did seem unnerved when I showed him evidence that these 13,560 test calls could not have been generated into the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges that serviced my business, Mr Joblin gave me the impression he would raise my concerns about the BCI report to Telstra.
A letter from the Canadian Minister for Telecommunications
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."
It was this unsigned witness statement discussed above (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) and the fact I proved to the Major Fraud Group Barrister Mr Neil Jepson, the BCI tests were impracticable is what set the following BCI and Major Fraud Group into wanting to also prove my claims.
The following two transcripts (Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) - Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) are various discussions with lawyers, The Telstra Corporation, the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) spokesperson, a Senator and a negotiator who later became a Senator are an essential part of our COT story and should be downloaded by all who read my story because reading those transcripts at your leisure it will help you understand our story.
For example:
Reading (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) will assist you in understanding why lawyer Sue Owens represented COT Cases Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova and Graham Schorer in their fraud allegations against Telstra. (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) shows Lawyer Sue Owens discussing with William Hunt Graham Schorer’s Lawyer and Mr Schorer why Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, had seconded me to assist the Major Fraud Group in their investigation of the possibility that fraud had taken place during and after the COT Cases arbitrations between 1994 and 1999.
It is clear from (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) that because I had prepared two technical reports, which I passed onto the Major Fraud Group showing where Telstra had committed fraud during COT arbitrations it was acknowledged by many that I might be smarter than most people in the arbitration process thought.
The draft findings in those two reports are now enclosed here as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report I also supplied two smaller submissions to Mr Neil Jepson confirming the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) had knowingly mislead and deceived thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens, the government, and the COT arbitrator about the integrity of Telstra’s telecommunications system Australia-wide. It was the smaller of these two mini reports (tiled Ericsson AXE faults) and the fact that the government regulator had misled and deceived the COT arbitrator, as well as the COT Cases themselves, when AUSTEL released their report (into the public domain) in April 1994 saying only 50 or more COT-type phone problems were being experienced around Australia when AUSTEL's reporting to Telstra showed at least 120,000 COT type phone faults, were being experienced around Australia that troubled Mr Neil Jepson because this was a fraud on a 'grand scale' far beyond the four cases now before the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
The findings concerning the 120,000 COT Cases type phone problems being reduced by the government in their April 1994 report to the people of Australia stating there were 50 or more COT-type complaints can be viewed by clicking on Evidence Files.
So, please download those two transcripts to understand this complex story better. I have provided two more sets of transcripts to the office of the Australian prime minister, which is more sensitive than those attached here and could be detrimental to innocent Australians who were not involved in any wrongdoings.
The Australian Prime Minister's office has not acted upon the contents of any of the transcripts provided.
I have, however, been threatened by the Chair of the Senate (see below) that if I disclose in public In-Camera Hansard records dated 6 and 9 July 1998 which the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police provided me, believing these Hansards would assist all of the twenty-one COT Cases in resolving their outstanding claims against Telstra and not just five of the COT Cases claims investigated by the Senate, I will be charged in contempt of the Senate which carries a two-year jail term
A further mini report
Re: clauses 24, 25 and 26 provided to Mr Jepson shocked officers within the Major Fraud Group.
The fax imprint on the final arbitration agreement dated 19 April 1994 was already signed by the first of the four COT Cases - Maureen Gillan on 8 April 1994 with all of the clauses in tact. The copy faxed by the arbitrator's secretary to the lawyers for the other three COT cases also showed clauses 24, 25 and 26 all attached. Who removed clauses 25 and 26, and also altered clause 24 when it was submitted on 21 April 1994, as the agreement signed by Maureen Gillan?
The three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and Alan Smith (me), were told that if we did not accept these late changes, there would be no arbitration. This meant we would have to undertake legal proceedings against the government to challenge it, as Telstra was still owned by the government when these threats were made.
Removing the original clauses 25 and 26, altering clause 24, and the threats that followed troubled Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.
Four months after the conclusion of my arbitration, the arbitrator's Secretary provided me with three arbitration reports which the arbitrator had not released during the arbitration process. Someone had coached the arbitrator on what he should or should not say in his final award on my claim
Someone also pressured him to remove the $250,000.00 liability caps in the arbitration agreement to exonerate his financial and technical consultants. This removal from the arbitration agreement disallowed the COT Cases to sue the arbitration consultants (see Chapter 2 / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct),
In 2001, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, and I were called to the Supreme Court of Victoria as two witnesses assisting lawyer Sue Owens. While waiting to give evidence at this hearing, Mr Jepson stated that replacing the $250,000.00 liability clauses on the remaining twelve other COT arbitration agreements and the fact that I was not informed of this fact, now gave me grounds to appeal the conduct on my arbitration.
COT Case, Ann Garms, unaware of the replacement of the $250,000,00 liability caps, had already spent well over $600,000,00 in her appeal but lost that appeal. By this time, with my award having been eaten up by arbitration fees and debts paid and still with a $150,000.00 mortgage, I could not finance an appeal.
Only those who have suffered abuse through the corruptness of the Australian arbitration system can understand that living with so much distortion of truth through this process, how it destroys your well-being. You cannot put your head on a pillow at night; the anger and frustration does not leave you. To think that a hacker (more than likely Julian Assange) predicted what would happen to us if we did not have the documents to prove what Telstra and others had in store for us during our arbitrations, is an added burden.
On 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the arbitration process, the newly appointed administrator to those arbitrations advised a Senate Estimates Committee, that:
"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 the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures."
How can an independent arbitrator have no control over arbitration because he was conducting it "entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?" The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12) shows I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose these 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though those documents could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.)
Is there any justification to throw me in jail for exposing what Julian Assange tried to reveal to the COT Cases in 1994? We only have to see what happened to Mr Assange when he exposed what happened in Iraq. I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing the Australian In-Chamber Senate Hansard of 6th and 9th July 1998 which the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me, thinking that my releasing them publicly may bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion.
Go To Jail
In fact, after one National Party senator Ron Boswell verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:
“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”
A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to the 16 COT cases, whatever you have settled". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to be paid to the five 'litmus' test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents; initially, these had been concealed from those five cases.
It has since been suggested that the eighteen million dollars that those five 'litmus' test cases received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT FOI cases. It was not.
Worse still is the following fact: a $500.000.00 payment was paid, apart from the eighteen million dollars, to a well-named Queensland Charity Company, which was never on the Senate A or B list Schedule list of 21 unresolved COT cases. The Queensland Charity Company was not considered a COT Case at all. I provided transcripts from a meeting attesting to this secret payment, which was agreed to by at least one Senator, a later to be-appointed Senator, to The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia. It showed how Telstra, the lawyer assisting the five 'litmus' test COT Cases and the then sitting Senator, never questioned this secret payment to this Queensland Charity Company.
My name and fifteen other COT Cases names appear on the Schedule B list (see Arbitrator File No 67), and there is no sighting of the Endeavour Foundation. Will I go to jail in 2023 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens under the guise of being charged in contempt of the Senate?
What is clear about the Senate's involvement in assisting the COT five in accessing their 150,000 plus documents received collectively between them? Was it allowed that five access to a technical consultant appointed by the investigative Senate Committee working team, which included the Commonwealth Omudsman's office, to value the relevance of the 150,000 FOI documents, an advantage not supplied to the remaining unresolved sixteen COT Cases?
What is if this was not discriminative towards the sixteen remaining COT Cases, i.e., free access to a technical unit? Arbitration documents held by several people associated with my arbitration have records concerning my technical consultant, George Close, which cost me $25,000.00, plus his travelling and accommodation fees. It took me three years to pay off George Close, who did not charge interest fees, which was a godsend. My forensic accountant, Derek Ryan, allowed me the same three years to pay off the $51,000.00 for his reporting. However, pressure was applied to me by my claim advisers to pay the $52.000.00 they charged me in professional arbitration fees.
Also, regarding Beacombe Printers and Occasional Secretarial Services, I notched up well over $30,000.oo in professional fees, which took me eighteen months to pay off these two accounts. This has been hard to swallow.
The remaining COT Cases and I received only thirty per cent of our arbitration costs. In contrast, the five 'litmus' COT Cases were awarded 18 million dollars in punitive damages, which was paid to them apart from all the technical assistance they received from the Senate between June 1997 and April 1999. Perhaps there is a stronger word in the legal sense than discrimination, which is apparent against the sixteen of us in the remaining COT Cases. The term penalised is perhaps better for daring to stand up against Telstra and their government minders.
Telstra - Contempt of the Senate
In October 1997, during the Senate FOI investigation, Telstra provided documents pertaining to the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, 'On Notice'. Telstra and John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) already knew that the documentation was false, but no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that, even though their actions were in Contempt of the Senate.
On 12 January 1998, (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided to the Senate) during the same Senate session of the estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver -Telstra’s current 2023 Corporate Secretary) with some documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:
“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report are fabricated or falsified.”
On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the Chair of the Senate legislation Committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in October 1997, was false. (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence).
Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is in In-contempt of the Senate. No one yet, within Telstra, has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate; the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters originally used by Telstra as arbitration defence documents for my claim, aware that the submission to the arbitration was false.
And yet it is I, a claimant in the COT arbitrations, who the Chair of the Senate threatens to charge with In-Contempt of the Senate proceedings for exposing the truth. Telstra gets off scot-free and unpenalized, despite lying under oath during a government-endorsed arbitration, and in addition, lying to a sitting Senate Estimates Committee.
Why doesn't the current 2023 Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver come clean and own up on behalf of Telstra that my claims surrounding the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc report are valid?
