Legal Bullying In Arbitration

A Call to Those Who Can Carry This Forward

If you are in Australia and believe you can transform these meticulously prepared documents — the submissions, evidence files, and chronological records — into a legal, exposé-style, corruption-focused project, you are welcome to contact me.

The documents can be provided on the condition that, if they are used to generate commercial profit, a mutually agreed percentage will apply. The goal is simple: to ensure the truth is not lost.

At 82 years old, living with a pacemaker and having survived two heart attacks, I am realistic about time. By the time this project reaches its full potential, I may no longer be here, but the work must continue.

If you have ideas, skills, or a vision for what can be done with these documents, I invite you to share your thoughts through our Absent Justice Contact page

If the conduct you’re about to see had occurred in a courtroom, many of the individuals involved would have faced criminal charges. Evidence tampering. Document alteration. Unlawful interference with telecommunications. Breaches of statutory duty. All prosecutable. Had the arbitrator been a judge, these matters would have been resolved in 1996—not dragged out, buried, and fought over for 30 years.

And this is where the public still misunderstands what happened — not just in Australia, but in the UK, the US, and anywhere arbitration is used to sidestep judicial scrutiny.

Arbitration is not a court. When an arbitrator is inexperienced, compromised, or unwilling to confront wrongdoing, the process becomes a private arena where misconduct thrives. Evidence can be tampered with inside a claimant’s home. Phone services can be interfered with when no parties are present. Legal documents can be altered after one party signs them. False test results — even those taken 112 kilometres away from the business in question — can be presented as “official findings” and accepted without challenge.

Every one of these things happened in the COT arbitrations. Not hypothetically. Not theoretically. They happened — and they were allowed to happen — behind the shield of a confidentiality clause designed to protect offenders, not victims.

If this sounds familiar, it should. The British Post Office Horizon scandal followed the same pattern:

• a government‑backed corporation

• a flawed system

• innocent people blamed

• evidence withheld

• internal reports buried

• victims gagged

• officials protected

After almost two decades, the British public—and a growing number of British politicians—have insisted that the British Post Office scandal is a matter of profound public interest and must no longer be concealed by the government, the civil service, or the Establishment. For England’s sake, this injustice demands a complete and transparent investigation. Click here to watch the Australian Channel 7 trailer for Mr Bates vs the Post Office, which aired in February 2024, and captures the scale of this national betrayal.

What makes the scandal so disturbing is that public servants inside the British Post Office knew the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the catastrophic accounting and billing errors. Yet they continued to blame innocent sub‑postmasters, many of whom were financially ruined, prosecuted, or imprisoned.

This pattern is painfully familiar to those of us who lived through the Australian COT arbitrations. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to oversee our cases, refused to allow his own technical consultants the additional time they needed to diagnose the ongoing faults in Telstra’s Ericsson billing software. The parallels between the British Post Office scandal and the Australian Telstra scandal are unmistakable. In both cases, faulty technical equipment was at the heart of the problem, as demonstrated in this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

 

Miss Carrage of Justice 

 

Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office

Different country. Different industry. Same architecture of institutional abuse.

In both scandals, the public assumed that because police did not intervene, they must have been complicit. Let me be clear: after compiling 23,000 evidence files myself — and another 15,000 scanned documents of similar weight — nothing implicates the AFP or the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police in the misconduct that destroyed the lives of the COT Cases. The wrongdoing was carried out by arbitration officials and defendants who weaponised the confidentiality clause to commit acts that would never have survived open‑court scrutiny.

This is the global problem. The same structural weakness that enabled the British Post Office to ruin hundreds of lives is the same weakness that allowed Telstra and its protectors to sabotage the COT arbitrations. When disputes are pushed into private arbitration — away from judges, away from juries, away from public oversight — the door opens to corruption, concealment, and the quiet destruction of ordinary people.

This gag‑clause‑driven model is used worldwide. And as long as people keep choosing arbitration believing it to be fair, efficient, or transparent, these abuses will continue.

What you are about to read is not an Australian anomaly. It is a warning — and a map of how institutional power behaves when no one is watching.

The pattern is familiar.