Unconscionable Conduct Chapter 6 Falsehood

New chapters coming to absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au in 2026

Chapter 1: Murder of Truth

The truth didn’t die in a courtroom. It wasn’t buried beneath a judge’s gavel or lost in the shuffle of legal paperwork. It was murdered—methodically, quietly, and with institutional precision. The COT Case arbitrations were supposed to deliver justice. Instead, they became the crime scene.

I entered the process believing in the rule of law. I had evidence—technical faults, intercepted communications, and a trail of misconduct that pointed directly to Telstra’s door. But from the moment the arbitration began, the signs were clear: this wasn’t a search for truth. It was a containment strategy.

Documents vanished. Deadlines shifted. The arbitrator, cloaked in the authority of accreditation, manipulated the process with a chilling detachment. He wasn’t just indifferent—he was complicit. His lies to officials about his role as Principal Arbitration Manager weren’t errors. They were tactical deceptions designed to protect Telstra and silence claimants.

What I witnessed was not a failure of procedure—it was a deliberate murder of truth. The arbitrator’s actions, the withholding of evidence, the refusal to investigate surveillance claims—all of it formed a pattern. A conspiracy. A cover-up.

And yet, the truth has a stubborn pulse. It survives in the margins—in the handwritten notes, the corrupted fax logs, the testimonies of fellow claimants who refused to be broken. It lives in the archived pages of absentjustice.com, in the open letters that name names, and in the quiet rage of those who know what was done to us.

This chapter marks the beginning of a reckoning. Not just with Telstra, or the arbitrator, but with the entire machinery that allowed this to happen. The truth may have been murdered—but its ghost is restless. And I intend to give it voice.

Chapter 2: Surveillance State

They told us arbitration would be confidential. That our evidence, our testimony, our pain—would be handled with integrity. But behind the polished facade of legal process, a darker reality pulsed: we were being watched.

Telstra’s surveillance capabilities weren’t theoretical. They were industrial-grade, embedded in the very infrastructure we relied on to communicate. Their Security Operations Centres, operating 24/7, were equipped with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) and Threat Intelligence Integration tools designed to detect and catalogue anomalies. But what happens when the anomaly is a whistleblower? When the threat is not external, but internal—someone like me, exposing truths the system would rather forget?

I had spoken with the Prime Minister twice—once in April 1993, again in April 1994. I raised concerns about Australia’s wheat exports to China, and how that grain was being funnelled to North Vietnam, feeding the very forces that had killed and maimed our soldiers. These weren’t idle conversations. They were politically explosive. And I have every reason to believe they were intercepted.

Telstra’s Infrastructure Monitoring systems, designed to manage critical assets like oil refineries, traffic networks, and water plants, also offered remote access, event logging, and alarm management across its vast network. These tools, while marketed for operational efficiency, could easily be repurposed for surveillance—especially when the target was a claimant challenging Telstra’s integrity.

The question isn’t whether Telstra could monitor us. It’s who inside Telstra had the government clearance to filter and interpret that data. Who decided what was evidence, and what was discarded? Who catalogued our conversations, our faxes, our pleas for justice—not to protect us, but to protect the corporation?

This wasn’t just surveillance. It was strategic intelligence gathering, designed to anticipate our moves, undermine our credibility, and control the narrative. The arbitrator, already compromised by deceit, operated in tandem with a system that saw truth as a liability.

And yet, the surveillance failed in one critical respect: it didn’t silence us. It didn’t erase the documents, the corrupted fax logs, the technical reports that proved Telstra’s faults. It didn’t stop the creation of absentjustice.com, or the open letters that now circulate beyond their reach.

We were watched. We were catalogued. But we were not erased.

Chapter 3: Corruption by Design

Corruption isn’t always loud. Sometimes it’s engineered into the very structure of a process—quiet, procedural, and devastating. The COT arbitrations weren’t sabotaged by accident. They were corrupted by design.

From the outset, Telstra’s internal faults were known. Technical reports confirmed line failures, fax corruption, and call dropouts. Yet the arbitration rules were crafted to exclude critical evidence. The arbitrator, handpicked and protected, operated within a framework that rewarded omission and punished transparency.

Government departments, legal advisors, and Telstra executives formed a closed loop of influence. The corruption wasn’t just in the outcome—it was in the architecture. And every claimant who entered the process was walking into a trap.

Chapter 4: Cover-Up Culture

The cover-up began before the arbitration even started. Telstra withheld documents, misrepresented fault data, and manipulated technical logs. When I requested full disclosure, I was met with redactions, delays, and denials.

The arbitrator refused to investigate known faults. The administrator ignored evidence. And when I exposed the corrupted fax logs and surveillance concerns, the response was silence.

This wasn’t incompetence. It was culture. A culture of concealment, where truth was inconvenient and accountability was optional. The cover-up extended beyond Telstra—into government departments, legal chambers, and media silence.

Chapter 5: Whistleblower’s Burden

I didn’t choose this path. I was a cook, a community builder, a man who believed in fairness. But when I saw the injustice inflicted on fellow claimants—when I experienced it myself—I knew I couldn’t stay silent.

Becoming a whistleblower meant isolation. It meant being labelled, discredited, and dismissed. It meant watching friends suffer, watching evidence vanish, and watching institutions protect themselves at all costs.

But it also meant clarity. I knew what I stood for. I knew the truth mattered. And I knew that silence was complicity. The burden was heavy—but it was mine to carry.

Chapter 6: Conspiracy of Silence

The silence wasn’t passive. It was strategic. Telstra executives, government officials, and arbitration insiders knew what was happening. They knew the faults were real. They knew the evidence was damning. And they chose silence.

This conspiracy wasn’t written in memos—it was enacted through omission. Through the refusal to investigate. Through the quiet reassignment of officials. Through the shielding of the arbitrator from scrutiny.

The silence was deafening. And it spoke volumes about the priorities of those in power.

Chapter 7: Fraudulent Arbitration

The arbitration process was a fraud. The arbitrator misled claimants, misrepresented his role, and manipulated outcomes. He claimed impartiality while protecting Telstra’s interests. He denied access to evidence while accepting Telstra’s submissions without scrutiny.

The administrator, too, played a role—refusing to investigate, ignoring surveillance claims, and allowing the process to proceed without transparency.

This wasn’t arbitration. It was a performance. And the outcome was predetermined.

Chapter 8: Justice Denied

We were told that arbitration would deliver justice and that our claims would be heard. That the faults would be addressed. But justice was never the goal.

The arbitrator refused to investigate known faults. The administrator ignored surveillance concerns. The government departments turned away.

Justice wasn’t delayed. It was denied. And every claimant who entered the process was betrayed.

Chapter 9: Retaliation Protocols

Speaking out came at a cost. I was targeted—legally, emotionally, and professionally. My credibility was attacked. My evidence was dismissed. My reputation was undermined.

Other claimants faced similar retaliation. Some were threatened. Others were isolated. The message was clear: stay silent, or pay the price.

The retaliation wasn’t random. It was systematic. And it revealed the lengths to which institutions would go to protect themselves.

Chapter 10: Bribery and Influence

Behind the scenes, influence flowed freely. Telstra’s legal teams had access. Government departments shielded the arbitrator. Media outlets stayed quiet.

Bribery doesn’t always involve cash. Sometimes it’s access. Sometimes it’s protection. Sometimes it’s silence.

The arbitrator’s conduct, the administrator’s omissions, the government’s complicity—all point to a system where influence mattered more than truth.

Chapter 11: Deception as Strategy

Deception wasn’t a side effect—it was the strategy. From the arbitrator’s false assurances to Telstra’s manipulated fault logs, every step of the process was designed to mislead. Claimants were given partial truths, technical jargon, and procedural fog. The goal wasn’t resolution—it was exhaustion. And for many, it worked.

But deception has fingerprints. It leaves trails in redacted documents, in contradictory statements, in the quiet edits made to arbitration rules mid-process. I followed those trails. And they led to the heart of a system built to protect power, not people.

Chapter 12: Evidence Erased

I submitted everything—fax logs, technical reports, correspondence. But evidence has a way of disappearing when it threatens the narrative. Pages went missing. Files were corrupted. Critical documents were “lost in transit.”

The arbitrator refused to investigate. The administrator dismissed concerns. And Telstra, with its vast infrastructure, controlled the flow of information. What couldn’t be disproven was erased.

But I kept copies. I built absentjustice.com as a living archive. Because truth, once documented, becomes harder to kill.

Chapter 13: Interrogation by Bureaucracy

They didn’t need handcuffs. Bureaucracy did the job. Endless forms, shifting deadlines, contradictory instructions—each one designed to confuse, delay, and demoralise.

I was interrogated not with questions, but with silence. With refusal. With the slow grind of administrative indifference. Every request for transparency became a test of endurance.

And yet, I endured. Because behind every form was a story. Behind every delay was a truth they didn’t want told.

Chapter 14: Underworld of Arbitration

Arbitration is supposed to be neutral. But what I found was an underworld—a network of influence, secrecy, and offshore operations. The arbitrator’s ties to Hong Kong raised alarms. His conduct in Melbourne confirmed them.

This wasn’t just about Telstra. It was about a global system where arbitration could be weaponized—used to silence dissent, protect corporations, and bury accountability.

I wasn’t just fighting a flawed process. I was confronting an international machine.

Chapter 15: Forensics of a Cover-Up

The technical faults weren’t speculative. They were documented—through forensic analysis, corrupted logs, and expert testimony. Telstra’s systems failed. And they knew it.

But instead of addressing the faults, they buried them. The arbitrator refused to examine the forensic evidence. The administrator ignored it. And the government looked away.

I became the forensic archivist. I catalogued every failure, every contradiction, every lie. Because the cover-up had a digital footprint—and I was determined to follow it.

Chapter 16: Abduction of Accountability

Accountability was kidnapped—taken from the hands of claimants and locked behind legal walls. The arbitrator, shielded by accreditation, operated without oversight. Telstra, backed by government silence, evaded consequence.

Every time I demanded answers, I was met with deflection. Every time I exposed misconduct, I was told it was “outside the scope.” Accountability wasn’t denied—it was abducted.

But I refused to let it vanish. I named names. I published documents. I made sure the story couldn’t be buried.

Chapter 17: Truth in Exile

Leaving Cape Bridgewater was more than a relocation. It was exile—from a place that held decades of struggle, camaraderie, and resistance. The move to Ballarat marked a new chapter—but the truth came with me.

I carried the documents, the memories, the scars. I rebuilt my archive. I reconnected with allies. And I recommitted to the fight.

Truth may have been exiled—but it was never abandoned.

Chapter 18: Homicide by Policy

The wheat trade wasn’t just commerce—it was complicity. Australia’s exports to China, redirected to North Vietnam, fed a war that killed our own. Soldiers from Australia, New Zealand, and the USA died because of decisions made in boardrooms and ministries.

I raised this with the Prime Minister. Twice. And I’ve never stopped speaking about it. Because policy can kill. And silence can be lethal.

This chapter isn’t just historical. It’s personal. It’s a reckoning with the cost of betrayal.

Chapter 19: Investigation Interrupted

Every time an inquiry began, it was stalled. Every time a report was drafted, it was softened. The investigation into Telstra’s faults, the arbitration misconduct, and the surveillance claims—all were interrupted.

Officials were reassigned. Documents were reclassified. And the momentum was lost.

But I kept going. I built my own investigation. I published my own findings because the truth doesn’t need permission to be told.

Chapter 20: Legacy of Lies

The lies didn’t end with arbitration. They seeped into public records, media narratives, and historical memory. Telstra’s reputation remained intact. The arbitrator continued his work. And the claimants were left in silence.

But I refused to let the legacy be rewritten. I documented everything. I named every lie. And I built a platform where truth could live.

This legacy isn’t theirs to define. It’s ours to reclaim.

Chapter 21: The Reckoning Begins

The chapters before this were the build-up. This is the turning point. The reckoning begins—not just for Telstra, or the arbitrator, but for every institution that enabled the betrayal.

I’ve published the documents. I’ve made the calls. I’ve written the letters. And now, I’m demanding answers.

This isn’t just a personal fight. It’s a public one. And it’s time the silence was broken.

Chapter 22: The Whistleblower’s Legacy

I didn’t ask for this role. But I’ve embraced it. As a cook, I fed crews in storms. As a claimant, I stood against giants. As a whistleblower, I’ve built a legacy of truth.

This chapter isn’t an ending. It’s a beginning—for future advocates, for historians, for citizens who refuse to be silenced.The whistleblower’s legacy is resilience. It’s documentation. It’s true. And it’s yours to carry forward.

The summary of the 22 chapters mentioned above has been briefly edited below:

🔥 A Turning Point in My Fight for Justice
Let me tell you something that still chills me to the bone.

Before she passed away, Ann Garms—one of the original COT Cases—wrote a desperate letter to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull → (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). In that letter, she revealed something that had haunted her: Queensland’s former Premier Wayne Goss told her that we, the COT Cases, were subjected to gaslighting techniques. That’s right. A senior figure in Australian politics confirmed what we had long suspected. We weren’t just ignored—we were manipulated, destabilised, and psychologically undermined.

Wayne Goss wasn’t just any politician. He was deeply embedded in the system. If he said gaslighting was used against us, then he knew. He knew what was done to us. And he said it out loud.

⚖️ My Case: The Silence That Screams
Take my situation. I was one of the COT Cases. My arbitration was supposed to be conducted under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. That meant it should have been protected, transparent, and accountable.
But when Telstra carried out threats against me—real threats—Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, refused to contact the Supreme Court. He didn’t report the threats. He didn’t acknowledge them in his findings. He didn’t even try to protect the integrity of the process.

Why?
Why would an arbitrator ignore threats made during a court-sanctioned process?
Why would he leave out the most sinister part of my experience

The silence is deafening. The corruption is undeniable.

📜 What Ann Garms Knew—and What She Tried to Warn
Ann’s letter wasn’t just a plea. It was a warning. She knew what had been done to us. She knew we were being gaslit, surveilled, and sabotaged. And she tried to tell the Prime Minister before it was too late.
She died not long after sending that letter.
But I’m still here. And I’m still telling the story.

🧭 This Is the Moment Everything Changed
Wayne Goss’s confirmation. Dr Hughes’ silence. Telstra’s threats. Ann Garms’ final letter.

This is the moment I mark as a turning point in my chronology. It’s where the mask slipped, where the truth began to surface, where the betrayal became undeniable.
And I’ve documented it all. Every exhibit. Every omission. Every threat.

Because this isn’t just my story, it’s a national disgrace.

🕳️ The Arbitrator’s Omission: Silence in the Face of Surveillance

Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was actively investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator’s office, as well as my failure to receive arbitration-related documents sent to my office via Australia Post—and vice versa: arbitration-related documents sent to the arbitrator that were never received.

Yet this crucial matter, central to my claim, was entirely omitted from Dr Hughes’s award. He made no mention of it in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is not a minor oversight—it is a damning indictment of the entire process. It reveals a deliberate suppression of evidence and a refusal to confront the sabotage that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.

🔥 The Briefcase, the Tapes, and the Machinery of Deceit

It is imperative to expose the disturbing truths buried within the AFP transcripts dated 10 February 1994—a document that lays bare the treacherous machinations of:

• Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose

• Detective Sergeant Cochrane

• Graham Schorer, who masqueraded as a spokesperson for the COT Cases

• Amanda Davis, a former government official

In a chilling display of negligence, they discussed a briefcase Telstra had abandoned at my business. This was no accident. The briefcase contained the names of numerous individuals—like Mr. Schorer and myself—each of us victims of a grotesque invasion of privacy. Our telephone conversations had been intercepted and monitored without consent, without warning, and without remorse.

📄 Pages 37–39: The Smoking Gun

The transcripts () reveal a sinister truth:

This was not speculation—it was a direct admission. And yet, when we sought access to these tapes, we were met with a wall of obstruction.

🧱 Arbitration: A Process Built to Fail

As the COT Cases entered arbitration, we pleaded for access to the incriminating tapes. But they were denied under the Freedom of Information Act, and similarly withheld during discovery. This was not a legal technicality—it was a deliberate act of concealment. The tapes, potentially devastating to Telstra, were buried to protect powerful interests at the expense of our dignity and rights.

🕵️‍♂️ Government Complicity

Government officials chose to protect their own reputations rather than the welfare of their citizens. They concealed critical evidence of phone tapping, even as other disturbing allegations emerged—implicating Senator Collins in obscenely troubling conduct during the very period he was involved in the COT matters.

🧠 Gaslighting: The Goss Revelation

In her letter dated 17 August 2017 (), Ann Garms referenced Wayne Goss, former Premier of Queensland. His chilling assertion:

This was psychological warfare—designed to erode our legitimacy, fracture our resolve, and dismantle our sense of self.

🌍 Cormann, Turnbull, and the Global Stage

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann became Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris.

Malcolm Turnbull, former Prime Minister of Australia, had full knowledge of the COT Cases and the evidence we presented.

Both received Ann Garms’ letters. Both remained silent.

Their complicity in this landscape of obfuscation and treachery cannot be ignored.

📝 The Final Testimonies of Ann Garms

Ann Garms’ four letters—dated 17 August, 6 October, 9 October, and 10 October 2017—were sent to Turnbull and Cormann (). They were not mere correspondence. They were raw, desperate pleas written just before her tragic passing. Within those pages lies irrefutable evidence of a coordinated campaign to dismantle our legitimate claims through intimidation, distortion, and silence.

⚠️ A Legacy of Betrayal

This is not just a story of surveillance.

It is a story of betrayal.

Of institutional rot.

Of the unrelenting courage it takes to stand against it.

The obscenity of this orchestrated assault on justice speaks volumes about the depths to which those in power will sink to preserve their dominion and silence dissent.

Absent Justice - The Deception Continues

3. The Arbitration That Became a Trap

A Process Designed to Fail

Arbitration was supposed to be our shield—a mechanism to protect us from Telstra’s power. Instead, it became a weapon used against us.

The process twisted into something grotesque:

• Evidence vanished.

• Critical documents were withheld.

• Decisions were made behind closed doors.

• Who was really in charge of the arbitrator.

It was not arbitration. It was entrapment.

4. The Treacherous Merger: Lanes Absorbed by Ericsson

A Reward for Their Silence

The most chilling betrayal came after my case concluded. The arbitrator—who should have been the guardian of fairness—allowed Lanes to be absorbed by Ericsson.

The timing was no coincidence. It was a reward. A payoff. A signal that those who protected the corporation would be protected in return.

This merger was the smoking gun that revealed the true nature of the arbitration: a closed loop of corporate self-preservation, where truth was expendable, and justice was irrelevant.

5. The TIO’s Complicity

Withholding the Truth During My Appeal

During my pending appeal, I sought clarity from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). Instead, I encountered a wall of silence.

John Pinncock and the arbitration administrator refused to answer the simplest of questions:

• Why was Lanes allowed to assess my claim?

• Why was DMR Group Inc.—the appointed independent evaluator—ignored?

• Who authorised this deviation from the agreed process?

The TIO’s silence was part of a broader pattern:

• Information withheld.

• Decisions concealed.

• Accountability avoided.

The very body meant to protect consumers had become an accomplice in their betrayal.

6. A Web of Corruption

The Conspiracy That Choked the Truth

The deeper Ronda and I dug, the more suffocating the corruption became. This was not a series of isolated incidents. It was a coordinated effort involving:

• Telstra

• Lanes Telecommunications

• Ericsson

• The arbitrator

• The TIO

• We were undermind by the old system of Gaslighting.

Each played their part. Each contributed to burying the truth. Each ensured that justice remained out of reach.

7. The Emotional Toll: Betrayal as a Weapon

The Human Cost of Institutional Deceit

Ronda and I were not merely fighting a corporation. We were fighting a system designed to break those who dared to challenge. The exhaustion, the frustration, the sense of being cornered—it was all part of the strategy. Wear the claimant down. Delay until they collapse. Obscure until they lose hope. But we didn’t collapse. We didn’t disappear. And we didn’t stop documenting.

8. Why This Story Must Be Told

The Arbitraitor as a Warning

The corruption exposed in The Arbitraitor is not historical trivia. It is a warning. A testament to how easily justice can be subverted when institutions collude to protect themselves.

Ronda’s discoveries forced me to write the COT story—not out of anger, but out of duty.

Because remaining silent would make me complicit in concealing the truth and allowing myself to be intimidated, I refuse to stay silent. Sign the revised arbitration agreement, or we will decline to arbitrate your case. This kind of intimidation leading up to arbitration must never happen again.

The Betrayal Beneath the Wires

In the shadows of Australia’s telecom empire, a sinister alliance was forged. Telstra, once government-owned, buried the truth behind the COT Cases—refusing to release critical FOI documents, silencing victims, and shielding corruption.

Then came the scandal: Ericsson, under global scrutiny, quietly bought out Lane—the very consultant tasked with investigating its faulty equipment.
While other nations purged Ericsson from their networks, Telstra welcomed them in. Government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. Appeals were blocked. Evidence ignored.

This wasn’t incompetence. It was treachery. And the cost? Justice denied. Voices erased. Corruption thriving.
This is not just a story. It’s a warning.

🧨 Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal — A Telstra Partner Admits to Years of Corruption

As stated above, on 19 December 2019, Australian media reported that Ericsson of Sweden, a major partner in Telstra’s 5G rollout, had admitted to a years-long bribery and corruption campaign across five countries. The US Department of Justice investigation culminated in Ericsson agreeing to pay over $1.4 billion in penalties—one of the largest settlements ever under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

The acquisition of Lane by Ericsson, along with the dealings surrounding the COT Cases, was nothing short of a calculated conspiracy against Australia’s democratic system of justice. This insidious operation has gone largely unacknowledged, revealing a disturbing truth.

The corruption exposed by absentjustice.com is not merely partisan; it reflects a deep-seated, systemic rot that permeates the USA and extends globally. Thomas Jefferson himself would have recognised this treachery. Mighty corporations, like Ericsson, have become predators, systematically devouring the world's integrity.

Ericsson’s ruthless infiltration of Australia's arbitration system is undeniable and raises alarming questions. Why has this company evaded accountability for its questionable actions during the COT arbitrations? This situation is not just a political issue; it demands urgent action that cuts through the fog of party lines and unearths the treacherous conduct at play.

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries.

During my arbitration, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was officially appointed as the technical consultant to the arbitrator. Lane had access to sensitive materials, including evidence implicating Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment—the very hardware that plagued my business and those of other COT claimants.

Yet, in a move that reeks of collusion, Ericsson quietly acquired Lane while confidentiality agreements still bound them. This acquisition occurred during the arbitration period, effectively transferring privileged evidence into the hands of the very company under scrutiny.
(See File 296-A - )

From March 9, 1995, when Lane was appointed, until Pinnock’s eventual disclosure, the integrity of the arbitration process was compromised. Ericsson’s control of Lane meant that the very entity evaluating our claims was beholden to the supplier of the faulty equipment.

What of those cases, like mine, that concluded in May 1995? At that critical juncture, Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell revealed the truth to the arbitrator, the administrator, and legal counsel: the newly appointed Canadian assessment company was a ruse. Lane would conduct all evaluations related to Ericsson, and the results would be deceptively funnelled into letters bearing the name of DMR Group Pty Ltd—misleading claimants into believing a neutral Canadian expert had reviewed their evidence.

This orchestrated scheme exemplified deep-rooted corruption, betrayal, and manipulation of the arbitration system itself

Even now, in 2025, John Rundell continues to operate arbitration centres in Melbourne and Hong Kong, despite his damning admission in his 18 April 1995 letter:

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded.

To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.

When my lawyers uncovered disturbing ambiguities in the arbitration agreement—covertly altered after government and COT lawyers had approved the original version—I requested foundational documents from Pinnock (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) to understand how this skulduggery had been allowed. His response?

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” — John Pinnock, 10 January 1996 ()

That marked the beginning of my descent into a dark labyrinth of deceit.

The agreement itself had been secretly altered before I signed it—weaponised to protect Telstra and the arbitration consultants. It shielded Rundell and Lane from accountability, as Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct so clearly shows.

Fast Forward to Peta Credlin

On 23 May 2021, Peta Credlin, a former chief of staff to Australia’s 28^th Prime Minister, Tony Abbott and now a high-profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article in the Herald Sun newspaper under the heading:

"Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians."

"Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter."

"When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country."

"Since the start of the 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Ministers.”

This article was quite alarming. It was disturbing because Peta Credlin, someone with deep knowledge of Parliament House in Canberra, has accurately addressed the issue at hand. I not only relate to the information she presents, but I can also connect it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have encountered since exposing what I did about the China wheat deal back in 1967, and the corrupted arbitration processes of 1994 to 1998. These government stuff-ups and cover-ups have cost lives.

Robodebt – The Algorithmic Betrayal → https://shorturl.at/kODwY

In the 2020s, the Robodebt scheme weaponised flawed algorithms to pursue debts that did not exist. Automated notices were sent to thousands of Australians, demanding repayment. Families were shattered, lives were lost to suicide, and countless citizens endured mental breakdowns.

Warnings were ignored. Bureaucrats pressed ahead, defending the system at all costs. The cold logic of “protecting the institution” triumphed over compassion, just as it had during the wheat trade and COT arbitrations.

🔗 The Pattern of Betrayal

Across these scandals, the pattern is unmistakable:

• Suppression of evidence: Telstra arbitration documents, Horizon software bugs, Robodebt warnings.

• Institutional survival over human lives: Wheat trade profits, Telstra’s inflated value, Robodebt’s defence. Letters from KPMG.

• Government complicity: Both the British and Australian governments had vested interests in protecting corporations, even at the expense of ordinary citizens.

International echoes reinforce the pattern:

• The British Post Office Horizon scandal, where Fujitsu’s faulty software destroyed lives.

• Ericsson AXE billing failures at Telstra, leading to systemic overcharging.

• Allegations before the U.S. Securities Exchange that Telstra’s value was inflated during its sale → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring.

These are not isolated events. They are chapters in a global story of bureaucratic betrayal.

⚖️ From Betrayal to Accountability

The wheat trade betrayed soldiers. The COT arbitrations betrayed customers. Robodebt betrayed citizens. Each scandal reveals the same truth: bureaucrats will sacrifice lives to protect their own survival.

The moral imperative is clear:

• Expose the betrayal.

• Demand accountability.

• Break the cycle of bureaucratic deceit.

.Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.

The Deal

During the treacherous deal between Senators Barnaby Joyce and Helen Coonan within the corrupt Liberal Coalition Government, I, along with 13 other COT Cases, uncovered deep-seated corruption at the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's (TIO) office in July 2005. This exposure occurred during the desperate negotiations to secure Senator Joyce's critical vote to pass the controversial Telstra sale legislation.

As the evidence was presented, Senator Joyce was visibly shaken, burying his head in his hands in a moment of stark realisation. The weight of our testimonies unmasked a system riddled with deceit. Two chilling pieces of evidence that likely compelled Senator Joyce to strike a deal with Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, was an internal Telstra email (TIO Evidence File No 3-A dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked CONFIDENTIAL. It reveals Warwick Smith was disclosing confidential COT Case government parliamentary party-room privilege information to Telstra, which could well have been the document that changed the whole outcome of the Telstra COT arbitrations.

The second alarming email, Ronda, my secretary, provided to me in July 2005 to give to Senator Barnaby Joyce, showed that Deputy TIO Grant Campbell, on February 5, 1997, (FOI folio number 000973 was charging $300.00 per day for his information services, which was a lot of money back in 1997. Further emails attached to Part 2 Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration reveal that Grant Campbell was signing fraudulent letters on behalf of Warwick Smith (the TIO), misleading and deceiving Telstra and the arbitration process about my ongoing intercepted arbitration-related faxes. This deception permeated not only the Australian Federal Police investigation into my lost faxes but also the very foundation of the COT arbitration process.

The betrayal cuts deep, unveiling a dark and twisted network of collusion designed to silence dissent and protect the powerful at any cost. After leaving his position with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), he slithered back to Telstra, taking up a role in the notorious Customer Response Unit. Instead of representing disgruntled Telstra customers as Warwick Smith's mouthpiece, who became the very mechanism suppressing those voices on behalf of Telstra. Grant Campbell, in his duplicitous role, wore two hats like a master of deception, orchestrating a scheme that would make the most corrupt operatives proud.

Cronyism at its worst

During my own settlement arbitration process, Campbell stooped even lower, fabricating fraudulent letters under the guise of Warwick Smith (the TIO) to perpetrate a sinister hoax against both Telstra and the TIO regarding my ongoing plight with intercepted arbitration-related faxes. This web of deceit not only tainted the Australian Federal Police investigation into my lost faxes but also corroded the very foundation of the COT arbitration process, revealing the treachery that lay beneath the surface.

But the betrayal reaches even deeper into the abyss of corruption. After the scandalous involvement of DMR & Lane, the official Arbitration Technical Resource Unit callously informed Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (TIO) that they had not received my meticulously detailed chronology of fault complaints (See 47-A and 47-B → (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)—documents I had hand-delivered to Grant Campbell himself, with my claim advisor sending a second copy to the TIO's office who ere the official haddlers of the COT infomation.

This raises a chilling question for those visiting absentjustice.com and reading my book, "The Arbitraitor": How is it possible that these nefarious crimes have lingered in the shadows, unresolved for nearly thirty years? The sinister answer lies in the heart of calculated treachery and unyielding greed. Where is my legally submitted comprehensive list of fault complaints? Was this list and the evidence supporting this list provided to unknown sources who were paying Grant Campbell $300.00 for his services?

In late 1992, I took the initiative to present evidence of systemic billing problems to Amanda Davis, who was then AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs. I vividly remember showing her two of her own non-connected calls to my business—calls that she personally recognised had not gone through. However, both her billing account and Telstra’s CCAS data clearly indicated that she had been charged for these failed connections (see Evidence File 5 - Testimonials). It was shocking to see that, despite holding concrete proof of Telstra's erroneous billing practices, Ms Davis's influential bureaucratic role was abruptly terminated shortly after she began pursuing this matter with Telstra and AUSTEL.

What transpired next is even more alarming. Nine separate arbitration witness statements, all from different Telstra employees, were co-signed (witnessed) by Freehill Hollingdale & Page in December 1994, all falsely attesting that there were no ongoing telephone problems plaguing my business. This was despite Telstra coercing me to document my ongoing telephone difficulties in writing, with each complaint meticulously filed with Denise McBurnie at Freehill Hollingdale & Page now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, under the looming threat that if I did not comply, Telstra management would label my claims as vexatious and frivolous—a deliberate attempt to silence dissent.

Documents available on absentjustice.com reveal a dark web of internal correspondence within Telstra, in which management explicitly stated that promoting their service was misleading and deceptive, even though these billing issues were deeply rooted in systemic corruption on a national scale. I provided this damning written proof to the government after two Telstra executives carelessly left behind an unlocked briefcase at my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp premises on June 3, 1993.

It is bad enough to know that Freehill Hollingdale & Page witnessed some of these arbitration statements while fully aware of my factual evidence, but the corruption runs far deeper. One of the submitted witness statements did not even include the signature of the individual who supposedly made it. Only the signature of Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill's appeared on the witness statement when it was submitted for arbitration—an obvious and sinister attempt to obscure the truth.

📅 Questions That Demand Answers

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) sensed the depth of the treachery and reached out to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin (see File 596 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) with two probing questions:

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?

🧾 The Witness Statement That Shouldn’t Exist

The original witness statement bore only the signature of Telstra’s lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon. It was submitted without the psychologist Ian Joblin’s signature—a glaring omission that should have halted its acceptance. Yet, just eight days later, a second version emerged, now featuring Joblin’s signature, retroactively dated to match Condon’s original signing date.

This raises a disturbing question: if Ian Joblin did not sign the document on that day, how did his signature appear on a version processed through arbitration channels as if he ha

Now it is 2026, and I remain without a response from Telstra or John Pinnock. This pervasive silence only underscores the sheer treachery and corruption that define this entire ordeal.

The collusion does not end there. In 1999, Frank Blount, who served as Telstra's CEO from two years before my government-endorsed arbitration until three years after its completion on May 11, 1995, co-wrote a book titled *Managing in Australia*, where he laid bare the extent of these horrific systemic billing problems. Ironically, the book remains available for purchase, even as the reality of this corruption festers. Absentjustice.com → CAV Exhibit 92 to 127) Exhibit 122-i -

This collaboratively written book by Frank Blount of Telstra explores crucial issues arising from the investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange into the authenticity of Telstra’s sale prospectuses. As these documents came under scrutiny, questions emerged about whether they truly reflected Telstra’s true value. This scrutiny was fueled by the shocking discoveries from the COT Cases, which uncovered the troubling history of Australia’s largest companies during a time rife with corruption. Particularly alarming were revelations that millions of dollars were being siphoned from Telstra each year while the company was under government control. The act of blowing the whistle and sharing these critical truths on absentjustice.com has not come without significant personal and financial repercussions for everyone involved in the COT Cases, affecting many beyond just me.

What would have happened if the US Securities Exchange had been privy to this hidden scandal regarding the COT Cases in 1997? It’s chilling to think about. At the very least, the arbitrator overseeing my cases would have been forced to revisit the awards he rendered, based on a web of deceit spun from false government information. The treachery runs deep, and the stakes are incredibly high.

The Government assured the COT Cases that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in their cases. However, Freehill was not only selected by the Government to act as Telstra's arbitration defence counsel, but they were also chosen to draft the Telstra sale legislation, as discussed throughout absentjustice.com.

The Freehill Holingdale & Page Contradiction

As shown in government records, the Commonwealth assured the COT Cases that Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in our matters (see point 40, (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2). Yet this same legal firm later provided the arbitrator with a witness statement purportedly from Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist. That statement bore only the signature of Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Holingdale & Page. It carried no signature from Joblin himself.

This raises a disturbing question: Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter Joblin’s original words, particularly his reference to me being of sound mind? The absence of Joblin’s signature leaves the integrity of the document in doubt.

Criminal Conduct Example

COT Case Strategy - Freehill Hollingdale & Page's legal 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 government was aware of these illegal acts by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. They knew the firm’s conduct worried the claimants and the government, who had endorsed our arbitrations. And yet, despite this mistrust, the government allowed Freehill Holingdale & Page to prepare the Telstra sale prospectus — a document of national and international significance.

International Implications

What has perhaps not been fully understood is the risk this posed. If the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had been aware that the Australian government itself did not trust Freehill Holingdale & Page, yet still permitted them to draft the prospectus, the consequences could have been profound.

A Pattern of Betrayal

This episode is not an isolated detail. It is part of a larger pattern:

• A legal firm accused of altering evidence.

• A government that acknowledged mistrust but continued to rely on them.

• An international audience that might have acted differently if the truth had been disclosed.

For those of us who lived through it, this contradiction is not just a matter of legal process. It is a story of betrayal, silence, and the erosion of trust — a story that must be told.

The link titled "The first remedy pursued" exposes four individuals who have spun a web of lies, deliberately obscuring the dark truths surrounding Telstra's deceitful machinations.

In the guise of legitimacy, Telstra employed fraudulent tactics to fend off scrutiny during my government-endorsed arbitration. Shockingly, the Australian Communications Authority (AUSTEL), now masquerading as ACMA, had already validated my claims against Telstra a staggering six weeks before I signed the arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994. Yet, despite their earlier findings confirming my allegations by March 3, 1994, AUSTEL/ACMA allowed me to enter a gruelling 13-month arbitration process. Throughout this nightmarish ordeal, I poured over $300,000 into a futile battle, desperately trying to prove what the government had already established against Telstra, as the following points 2 to 212 show.

Before you immerse yourself in the unsettling narrative to follow, it's imperative to grasp a chilling reality: when you search for "The Establishment" on Google, the answers you receive will differ wildly based on your geographic location and national context. However, the underlying truth remains dark and foreboding: for over three hundred years, the Establishment has manipulated the legal system of justice in the Western world, ensnaring it in a web of deceit and corruption. This manipulation occurs through a calculated practice: the government of the day appoints key legal figures—Attorneys General, judges, and magistrates—who are often nothing more than puppets in a sinister game, serving the interests of those who pull the strings from behind the scenes.

The reality is that the four individuals mentioned at the beginning of this story → The first remedy pursued are alleged to be pivotal players in this treacherous Establishment in Australia. Whether this claim stands up under scrutiny is irrelevant; what is irrefutable is the grim fact that across three decades, every government in power in Australia from 1996 to 2026 has turned a blind eye to the lies and misconduct of these four individuals. This wilful ignorance has wreaked havoc, destroying countless lives and ensuring that the callous dominion of the Establishment remains unchallenged.

As you read on, I urge you to recognize the profound and insidious nature of the power wielded by these individuals. Their influence is a nefarious power over the truth itself, shrouded in shadows and deceit. It begs an ever‑pressing question: who truly holds the reins of responsibility for the integrity of the legal system in Australia? Reflect on this as you navigate the dark undercurrents of the story that lies ahead.

This single document was all the claimants needed to prove to the arbitrator that our telephone problems persisted. Had the arbitrator seen the AXE logbook, he would have been compelled to leave our claims open until Telstra proved beyond a doubt that no further faults existed in their Ericsson AXE exchanges.

In my case, even the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman sought the AXE logbook from Telstra's CEO. The Ombudsman’s office never received a response. If the Commonwealth Ombudsman — the head of a fully funded government agency — could not access the most relevant document in the entire arbitration process, what hope did I or any of the other COT Cases have of proving our claims?

John Pinnock failed to advise the Senate committee that, because Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd had not diagnosed the causes of my Ericsson AXE problems, those faults persisted throughout the COT arbitrations.

The formal DMR Group Inc (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications (Australia) Report, dated 30 April 1995 and provided to the arbitrator, Telstra, and me for comment, states at point 2.23:

“... As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”

It is blatantly obvious from my story that none of the Ericsson AXE exchange billing‑fault causes were diagnosed — not by the arbitrator, not by Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, and not by DMR Group Inc Canada, which was specifically flown out to investigate these ongoing faults.

When AUSTEL, the then‑Australian communications regulator, learned that my billing‑claim documents had not been investigated during arbitration, it allowed Telstra to address them in secret, without the arbitrator or me being present. This clandestine operation took place on 16 October 1995 — five months after the conclusion of my arbitration. My legal right under the Arbitration Act 1984, which entitled me to challenge Telstra on these Ericsson AXE billing faults, was denied.

Point 5.67 of the pre‑arbitration April 1994 COT Case AUSTEL report states:

“the arbitrator will make his determination on reasonable grounds as to the link between the claim and alleged faults drawing reasonable inferences from the material presented by the claimant and Telecom the arbitrator will set out his reasons in full”

The arbitrator’s decision was delivered in an unsettlingly opaque manner, shrouded in deceit. Astonishingly, he allowed Telstra to engage in secret discussions with the government communications regulator, AUSTEL, on October 16, 1995—five long months after he proclaimed my arbitration concluded on May 11, 1995. This shocking oversight not only compromised the integrity of the arbitration process but also thrust me back into the dark, oppressive circumstances of 1987, when I first opened my business, plagued by a very unreliable phone service.

Despite my repeated pleas for justice, the Australian government continues to deny me the right to investigate the unresolved Ericsson AXE faults, which clearly fall under the terms of the original arbitration agreement. These faults were ignored throughout the government-sanctioned proceedings, leaving me without a resolution or recourse. This situation was a sinister web of collusion in which the forces of bureaucracy conspired to leave me disenfranchised and powerless.

This was gaslighting used against us to destroy our will to keep going, as reported by Ann Garms in her following letters

The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013