Clinical Psychologist Bell Canada
Psychological Warfare and the COT Strategy
When Legal Tactics Cross the Line into Human Cruelty
Weaponising Mental Health Allegations
It is now critically important to continue from Chapter Five, because the possibility has been raised that Freehill Hollingdale & Page—Telstra’s arbitration lawyers—attempted to convince the arbitrator that I was mentally unstable.
This was not an isolated tactic. Telstra had already used the Queensland Mental Health Act to have at least one other COT Case member, Sandra Wolfe, forcibly detained.
The Joblin Assessment
On 12 September 1994, as part of the arbitration process, I was compelled to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist, Ian Joblin, for a mental health evaluation.
I raised with him the trauma I had suffered at the hands of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, the very firm that hired him—despite Telstra being warned by the Chairman of AUSTEL on 3 October 1993 that the government would be “more than a little concerned” if Freehill’s continued to be involved in the COT Cases.
Forced to Report to Lawyers
I had already provided proof to AUSTEL that I was being forced to register my phone complaints in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill’s, under threat that Telstra would
“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. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."
27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."
28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.
29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.
One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.
30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:
- "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."
31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.
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
The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.
What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.
The relentless demand to document every single telephone fault and report these faults daily to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would even condescend to address them was maddening. Ian Joblin, the so-called "clinical psychologist" brought in by Telstra as their arbitration witness, conducted his evaluation of my mental health on December 12, 1994, and made it clear just how twisted the system was. It was no wonder I was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); the very act of having to funnel complaints through Telstra's legal labyrinth before they would deign to investigate was a recipe for depression, warping anyone’s thought processes. Mr Joblin, in a rare moment of truth, ensured that his findings were documented in the grim pages of the arbitration report prepared by Freehills Hollingdale & Page—his employers in this corrupt charade.
Later, when the second-appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) discovered that sections of Mr Joblin's witness statement had not been signed when submitted to arbitration, he contacted Telstra's arbitration counsel, Ted Banjamin, on October 23, 1997. His inquiry? A thinly veiled demand for answers—what was hidden, what had been stolen from the record? The whole affair reeked of deceit and manipulation, leaving a bitter taste of corruption looming overhead.
I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process required me to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under the Freedom of Information Act. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.
I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note that I have repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager of the need to solicit these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without conducting a thorough examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines, citing Legal Professional Privilege.
I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.
The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide the requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.
"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."
It was not in Mr Joblin's hand
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a representative of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr Joblin's signature.
During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
Mr Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness?
On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (see File 596 → ). He raised two crucial inquiries:
1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.
2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.
Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.
What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinised several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the COT case is warranted and essential.
Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was established by Telstra and its lawyers to conceal all relevant technical evidence that the COT Cases indeed had ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses.
Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that statutory declarations had been tampered with by Telstra or their legal representatives during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest that the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police.”
Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, discussed above, 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-"
Mr White's statement provides a stark revelation: he explicitly identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra targeted in a concerted effort to prevent us from successfully establishing our case against the company. Among those mentioned in the Senate Hansard is an individual named "Peter Gamble," who had informed Mr White of the directive to stop the five COT claimants “at all costs.” This Peter is none other than Peter Gamble, who, in a sworn witness statement to the arbitrator, claimed that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) conducted at my business had met all required government regulatory standards.
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 alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected from 'unauthorised eavesdropping' on their customers' conversations before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about its customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep for trading purposes. No punches were exchanged. I actually placed a wrestling hold, known as the ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
In 1997, during the same government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means, as was the case when Wayne Maurice Condon submitted an unsigned 'witness statement' that was apparently prepared by clinical psychologist Ian Joblin, concerning my mental health. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed Dandra Wolf's matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek a resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitated an extended hospitalisation, underscoring the urgency with which these matters must be addressed.
It is my sincere hope that my forthcoming publication will expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny. It is June 2025, and after several emails sent by me to Sandra's email address since the beginning of February 2025, the last email I received told me that Sandra's cancer treatment was becoming intolerable. With Sandra living in faraway Queensland, too far for me to travel, I can only assume the worst, or perhaps for the better, with Sandra now at peace.
