The legal expertise and qualifications attributed to Dr. Hughes would ostensibly necessitate appropriately addressing the distressing occurrences during my arbitration. The absence of recorded documentation pertaining to the threats posed by Telstra and their subsequent execution during the arbitration within Dr. Hughes's findings is perplexing. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the written confirmation from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia, received in April 2001, indicating that Dr Hughes had not obtained the status of a graded arbitrator until a date after the delivery of his decision on my claim on May 11, 1995.

In mid-2001, I met with Peter Condliffe, Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia at 450 Lt Bourke St Melbourne 3000. On 12 January 2002, in response to a request from Mr Condliffe, I provided his office with further documents to help the IAMA with their investigation into claims that Dr Gordon Hughes did not conduct my arbitration transparently or according to the ambit of the arbitration procedures.

Two of the many documents provided to Mr Condliffe dated 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, were the statements made by the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations, John Pinnock, to a Senate Committee (page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

My question to Mr. Condliffe was: Why were the arbitrations not conducted under the agreed-upon ambit of the arbitration procedures? 

1. How can arbitration be just when the arbitrator has no control over its conduct? 
2. When did Dr Hughes lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, two months or even nine months into the process? And, importantly, who authorised him to conduct the process "entirely" outside the arbitration procedures?
3. Where are these hidden arbitration-related Telstra documents that we COT Cases were told we would receive if we entered our government-endorsed arbitrations?
4. Why hasn’t the government acted upon this official advice given by John Pinnock?

The second document I provided to Mr Condliffe was the three-page Freehill Hollingdale & Page minutes of the covert pre-arbitration meeting to which the COT Cases were not invited. Still, the defendant's Telstra was Open letter File No 54-A. This document alarmed Mr Condliffe after I had alerted him that Dr Hughes had to have specified the removal of the $250,000.00 liability caps, which are discussed in Part 2, Chapter 5, Fraudulent conduct, and the Major Fraud Group investigation, Part 3 below. It meant that Dr Hughes was thinking only of his arbitration resource unit and not the four COT Cases, as Maureen Gillan had not yet signed her arbitration agreement on 8 April 1994, when these $250,000.00 liability caps had not yet been removed.

Mr Condliffe would not comment on the removal of the clauses from the agreement until he read further into my claims. However, Mr Condliffe commented that we had been entitled to a copy of the minutes from the clandestine gathering and was notified by the administrator of the reason sections 4 and 5 of these official minutes had been removed from Open letter File No 54-A).

During this briefing with Mr Condliffe, I also showed him evidence, as shown in Part 3 Chapter 5, of Fraudulent conduct that a secret deal with Telstra by the TIO (the administrator to the arbitrations) to allow the TIO arbitration consultants first access to all significant arbitration-related documents before they were provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator). This covert deal, which undermined the arbitrator and his complete knowledge of what was happening during the first four arbitrations I had been party, freaked out Mr Condliffe. This secret deal left the arbitrator needing a thorough understanding of the documents flowing through the first four arbitrations. Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, was also interested in how such a deal could have been secretly implemented without the arbitrator's knowledge.  

After I had provided my manuscript and several Senate Hansard information to Mr Condliffe, he stated that the IAMA would investigate these matters because several claimants had suffered due to the arbitrator having no control over the arbitration process. This was a matter the IAMA would investigate.    

On 30 January 2002, I received a letter from Mr Nosworthy, Senior Vice President of the IAMA, advising me that:

“It should be clearly understood that the Institute’s role is to take seriously complaints which are articulated against its member arbitrators.  We will do so here.”

Mr Nosworthy again wrote to me, this time on 10 April 2002, stating:

“I note that your most recent actions have involved making a complaint to the police, alleging fraud – at least on the part of Telstra – and I do not propose to conduct further enquiry in relation to the matter if you are pursuing police action.

I have returned your papers to Mr Condliffe, Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia. Will you kindly contact him to make arrangements to collect them.”

Since the police were investigating Telstra—and not Dr Hughes—I found Mr Nosworthy’s decision to stop his investigation into my complaints against Dr Hughes rather puzzling. As shown above, I have already explained the facts surrounding the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group's involvement and that it was at their request that I provided evidence in support of the other COT case claims against Telstra.

I found Mr Nosworthy’s decision to stop his investigation into my complaints against Dr Hughes somewhat puzzling” because, when I personally met with Mr Condliffe at the IAMA office (450 Lt Bourke St Melbourne) in late 2001, I had just had a meeting with Mr Neil Jepson, barrister of the Major Fraud Group. I discussed my pending appointment with Mr Condliffe and Mr Jepson. I asked if the police might see me discussing my arbitration issues with the IAMA as compromising the Major Fraud Group’s investigation into alleged fraud by Telstra against COT cases Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, Ross Plowman and Ralph Bova. Mr Jepson said I was free to discuss anything with the IAMA that I believed was important to my arbitration case.

Mr Jepson made a point of informing me that I should advise the IAMA that, although it had not yet been proven, it was my claims to the government that someone had tampered with Telstra-owned telephone equipment after it left my premises and that Telstra used known Bell Canada International Inc tests to support their arbitration defence of my claims that were of interest to the Major Fraud Group and the reason I had been called in as a witness to substantiate these claims, which I did. Still, this fact Mr Jepson said was not to be made known to the IAMA now. However, senators Richard Alston, Ron Boswell, Chris Schacht, and Len Harris were all provided with conclusive evidence that my claims were one hundred per-cent correct.

What shocked the Major Fraud Group (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report) was that so many Senators were made aware of this fraud and yet had done nothing to assist me in resolving the matter. Senators Schacht and Boswell requested that Telstra prove my claims wrong, but Telstra could not. This upset numerous members of the Major Fraud Group. Of course, I did not reveal this to the IAMA then.

My involvement in the Major Fraud Group investigation can be further viewed by clicking on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

I believed at the time, and I still do today, that this Secret Deal proof and the fact that Dr Hughes had not conducted the arbitrations (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia)  according to the agreed-upon ambit of the arbitration procedures prompted the IAMA to agree to investigate my claims.

Despite being alerted to these issues in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the (IAMA) has failed to act. I supplied the IAMA with 23 spiral-bound submission materials in 2009 at their request, and they have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, former High Court Judge The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate (Burying The Evidence File 13-A). Yet, the IAMA has declined to make a written finding or return my submission material regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes. 

 

 

At point 5.3 (d, c and d) in the arbitrator's findings of 11 May 1995, he notes:

(d)    ”I note the AUSTEL report commented on Telecom’s deficient fault recording practices. Specifically it was stated that Telecom lacked a system capable of recording reports of recurring faults once a fault had already been reported and was awaiting clearance. This meant the full extent of a fault experienced by a particular customer would not be recorded.”

(e)     "In this context, the claimant’s diaries assume a particular significance. Telecom emphasised in its Principal Submission that diaries were lacking for the period 1988-1990 and hence “the magnitude of fault complaints reported by the Claimant is unsubstantiated”. It further points to the fact that for the period June 1988 to August 1991, only the claimant had a “significant level of fault complaints” amongst the customers then connected to Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange. Telecom concluded that the claimant’s claim must be exaggerated because “it is virtually impossible the faults at the exchange or at other exchanges could affect the claimant only, and not other subscribers as well”

(f)    "In this context, 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 claimants diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby casting doubt on their veracity and reliability. This is a factor which I have taken into account although I do not accept Telecom’s conclusion that no evidence at all should be placed upon the diaries in support of the claimants assertions".    

In 2009, I provided new arbitration evidence to the IAMA, which had not been available during their first investigation in 1996 or their second investigation in 2001. On 5th July 2009, the President of the IAMA, the Hon. Michael Kirby (Retired Chief Justice), wrote to inform me that the IAMA's CEO would contact me. In July 2009, Paul Crowley, CEO of the IAMA Ethics and Affairs Committee, agreed to review the new evidence. Due to the large amount of evidence, I released it gradually at the request of the IAMA between July and November 2009. However, fifteen months after the submission, the Ethics and Affairs Committee of IAMA did not take a position regarding the presented material. Furthermore, they have refused to issue a written decision in favour of or against the evidence provided. The IAMA has also declined to return 23 spiral-bound folders of evidence and 1,200 supporting exhibits.

 

During June and July of 2009, which had now become my eleventh remedy pursued, I wrote to The Hon Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, who was then the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australian. I raised the issue of John Rundell (the Arbitration Project Manager), allowing Lane Telecommunications (the TIO-appointed arbitration technical consultant) to assess my arbitration claim, not the principal technical officer Paul Howell from Canada. I provided information on a CD, along with an abundance of documented evidence, to the IAMA, proving beyond all doubt that Mr Rundell had attacked my credibility and character using false statements to stop the first 1996 Institute of Arbitrator Australia from investigating my valid claims as well as assisting Telstra (the defendants) to minimize their liability. 

The Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) appeared to be most concerned that Dr Hughes, while arbitrator hearing the COT Cases arbitrations that he and his partnership in the leading Sydney and Melbourne law firm might have been one of extreme conflict of interests because the Sydney arm of the company was acting for Telstra employees during their conflict with Telstra during the period several Telstra employees were being questioned by both the New South Wales State Police as well as the Australian Federal Police for rorting millions upon millions of dollars from the Australian government purse. The IAMA agreed to investigate my claims of conflict of interest. I believe both claims of this rorting (stealing) were also linked to lost arbitration-related faxes mistakenly sent from Dr Hughes' office to his Sydney office.  

The Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) also agreed to investigate (on 2 July 2009) with any fresh evidence I wish to send confirming the arbitrator did not conduct my arbitration according to the agreed ambit of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984. I also provided evidence showing the previous Arbitration Project Manager to my arbitration, who appeared to be the current treasurer of the Melbourne Chapter of the IAMA. I alerted the IAMA of this because if it was the same person, then the IAMA should be aware that this person knowingly misled and deceived a proposed investigation into several of my valid claims with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In his letter to me, the then president of the IAMA, The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, advised:

“In accordance with established procedure, I have referred the complaint to the Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee of the Institute.

“In due course, you will be informed following this reference.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A)

Within two days of receiving this letter, I received a telephone call from the CEO of the IAMA, who explained that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee would investigate these fresh allegations and notify me of their findings. I advised the CEO that in 1996 and again in 2001 and 2002, the IAMA began investigating similar complaints concerning the same arbitrator but returned my documents without bringing down a finding. The CEO confirmed this would not be the case now. I deduced, from the CEO’s tone, that he had read the damning evidence against the arbitrator that had prompted the president of the IAMA to send the above letter of 9 July 2009.

At the end of July 2009, I provided 21 claim documents to the assistant of the IAMA CEO and stated in my letter:

“My letter to you on 16th July advised that the following documents would be hand-delivered to you. These reports are now attached for your information.” (Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

I forwarded many submissions to the IAMA ethics and professional affairs committee, which comprises either ex-judges or qualified lawyers who should have been concerned about the evidence I provided. It appears they were not interested in assessing evidence showing one of their own had breached more than only his duty of care of a claimant in an arbitration process. I showed that the administrator of the arbitration process alerted the government on 26 September 1997 that “most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures” (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia). This initially seemed to worry the CEO, who telephoned me to confirm they would investigate my allegations against the arbitrator. However, the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee have still not brought down a finding about this information or my other 21 submissions, regardless of their advice to me in five different emails that they were investigating my matters. One of those five emails, sent at 12:50 pm on 21 October 2009, states:

“Presently, IAMA does not require this further documentation to be sent. However, the investigating persons will be notified of these documents and may request them at a later date.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

On 27 November 2009, I sent a further email to the secretary of the IAMA’s CEO, advising him that I could provide solid evidence of the arbitrator’s previous role as Mr Schorer’s legal advisor during a previous Telstra Federal Court matter. The arbitrator was clearly in error in not declaring this primary conflict of interest before he accepted the position, particularly when the company he was a partner in had also been Mr Schorer’s business advisor.

At 2:00 p.m. the same day, I received an email from the IAMA secretary stating, “Your email has been forwarded to the CEO. Regards, Richard.”

On 29 November 2009, I wrote to the CEO of the IAMA regarding fresh evidence received from the office of the lawyer who represented COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in his earlier Federal court action against Telstra between 1990 and 1992.

This now-deceased lawyer replaced Graham’s initial lawyer, who was appointed as the arbitrator for the first four COT arbitrations, including Mr Schorer’s and my arbitration. The arbitrator, therefore, assessed the documents and complaints he had previously been privy to when acting as Mr Schorer’s legal counsel between 1990 and 1992.

This constitutes a clear case of conflict of interest. The IAMA investigated the same arbitrator in 2009.

The crux of the matter, discussed in my letter to the IAMA ethics and professional affairs committee, relates to the events of 12 May 1995, when the arbitrator wrote to the TIO warning him that the arbitration agreement he used throughout my arbitration was not credible and should, therefore, be revised for the remaining three claimants.

This vital letter from the arbitrator was another document the TIO and the arbitrator concealed from me during my pending appeal. My letter explained that two of the other three COTs were allowed an extra 13 months longer to prepare their claims than I was allowed. The arbitrator, who, don’t forget, had previously been Mr Schorer’s business and legal advisor for many years, allowed Mr Schorer a full 36 months longer to prove his case against Telstra than I was allowed.

The five emails dated between 20 and 23 October 2009 from the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee clearly show that they were certainly investigating my claims against Dr Hughes (See Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C) Burying The Evidence File 13-E) and Burying The Evidence File 13-D, and They were still supplying my claim material to their investigators.

On 29 November 2009, I wrote to the CEO of the IAMA regarding fresh evidence received from the office of the lawyer who represented COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in his earlier Federal court action against Telstra between 1990 and 1992. This now-deceased lawyer replaced Graham’s initial lawyer, who was appointed as the arbitrator for the first four COT arbitrations, including Mr Schorer’s and my arbitration. The arbitrator, therefore, assessed the documents and complaints he had previously been privy to when acting as Mr Schorer’s legal counsel between 1990 and 1992. This constitutes a clear case of conflict of interest. This is the same arbitrator the IAMA investigated in 2009.

During the first months of my arbitration, when the Australian Federal Police officially investigated the possibility COT Cases faxes were being intercepted, had Graham Schorer or Dr Gordon Hughes alerted the AFP of the problems being experienced at the arbitrator's office when documents were faxed to their Melbourne office after the close of business each day, any investigation into these lost faxes might well, have uncovered that the arbitrators Melbourne office was not a haven for faxed arbitration documents because they ended up in the Sydney office.  

This diverting of faxes to Dr Hughes's Sydney office was in operation at the time the Sydney office was acting on behalf of several Telstra employees, and it is possible that some of those Melbourne Telstra-titled documents might have been mistakenly taken as Sydney Telstra-related documents and not those diverted from Melbourne. 

COT Case Ann Garms spent over $600,000.00 in her arbitration appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Dr Hughes. Ann might have had a more favourable outcome of this appeal, which she lost, had she and her lawyers known of Dr Hughes's admission to Graham Schorer before the commencement of our four arbitrations. 

Before the government communications regulator, AUSTEL (now AMA) endorsed Dr Gordon Hughes as the independent arbitrator, they had a duty of care to advise the COT Cases in writing that Dr Hughes was not an experienced arbitrator and had not been graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia to perform such complex arbitrations as the COT four processes. AUSTEL did not. Could you inform us of this fact?

Dr Hughes also failed his duty of care as a pending arbitrator to COT Cases Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and me in writing as per the rules of the Victorian Arbitration Act that he had a conflict of interest with the fourth claimant Graham/Golden. And to add further salt to the COT Case's future wounds was that Graham Schorer, in his capacity as COT spokesperson, failed to disclose to us three other COT Cases that we should not send arbitration-related faxes to Dr Hughes’ Melbourne office after the closing of business each day; otherwise, they may not arrive at their intended destination.

This document Front Page Part One File No/1 shows the arbitrator’s secretary advised Tony Watson (of Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) that on 23 May 1994, six of my claim documents did not reach the arbitrator's fax machine. Yet, I was charged on my Telstra account for those six faxes. Why was this matter not investigated? No one from the arbitrator’s or TIO’s office allowed me to amend my claim so that the not-received claim documents could be valued as part of my arbitration process.

Why didn’t Dr Hughes (as the arbitrator to my case) also explain to me as he did to Graham Schorer Front Page Part One File No/1  that my 23 May 1994 faxed claim documents might be in his Sydney office? Did Dr Hughes believe that exposing this faxing problem with his Sydney office would halt the arbitration process in my favour? Was Dr Hughes worried by exposing to me the flaws in his own two offices concerning the possibility this is where my other lost faxes ended up, this admission would bring an end to his remaining the arbitrator to the COT arbitrations?

A further international arbitrator (qualified lawyer) on LinkedIn has continued to show interest in this website, asking him to be updated. Our association on LinkedIn first started in 2015, and as of late July 2021, we are still corresponding on how I can expose how many unlawful arbitrations are conducted in Australia. The Hon. Michael Kirby wanted to be investigated in 2009 by the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. That Committee chose NOT to disclose my claims publicly, as they are valid.  

The reader can decide whether the IAMA should have found my claims by clicking on the following file, Discrimination, including the supporting exhibits IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39 and IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72.

After not hearing from the IAMA between 23 November 2009 and 17 February 2011, I wrote to the Hon. Michael D Kirby AC CMG, asking him to investigate why I had no proper advice on how the IAMA was progressing with its investigations into my matters. Submitting my claim to the IAMA costs close to $16,000.00 in secretarial and administrative fees.

On 21 February 2011, I received a letter from The Hon. Mr Kirby stating:

“Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2011, just received. 

When I wrote to you in July 2009, I served as President of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia. In June 2010, I stepped down from this position. Mr Warren Fisher was elected in my place. 

A possible explanation for your not hearing from Mr Paul Crowley is that, not long after my retirement as President, he resigned and Chief Officer of IAMA.I will send your letter and the attachment to Mr Fischer and request that he respond to your enquiry.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-F)

17 February 2011: I wrote to the Hon. Michael D Kirby AC CMG, stating:

“I am now writing to you because I have twice written to Mr Crowley in late 2010, asking if he could let me know when the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee might hand down their findings in relation to my matters, or at least advise me whether or not the IAMA believe I should continue to provide them further material when it becomes available under FOI.” (AS 719)

6 March 2011: I wrote to Warren Fischer, president of the IAMA, noting:

“I decided to update my previous AAT Statement of Facts and Contentions which the Hon Michael Kirby provided to you therefore, I thought it appropriate you should also receive (see attached) the new updated version also dated 9th February 2011. I have supplied this document because it appears that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee have still not reached their findings on my matters and because of those matters will be shortly discussed in the public arena once I attend the AAT Conference hearing”. (Burying The Evidence File 13-A to 13-I)

21 March 2011: Warren Fischer wrote (IAMA) to me noting:

“I confirm receipt of your correspondence dated 22 February 2011 (forwarded to me by the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG) dated 28 February 2011, 6 March 2011, and 9 March 2011. I advise that I have passed all that correspondence to our Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee for reply to you.”  (Burying The Evidence File 13-A to 13-I)

9 May 2011: I received rather a strange letter from Warren Fischer (IAMA) noting:

“I have to hand your correspondence dated 2 May 2011. I observe that in that correspondence you state that you “have some concern that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee has not yet responded to my claims against , which was lodged in July 2009”.

“I advise that my receipt of your other recent correspondence, dated 17 April 2011 caused me to enquire of the IAMA CEO as to the status of this matter as I had understood that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee had concluded its deliberations and notified you accordingly.” (AS 723)

Mr Fischer’s letter is strange because, in the last week of February 2011, the Hon. Michael D Kirby AC CMG (AS 717) advised him that I was waiting for a response to the IAMA investigation into my previous arbitrator’s conduct. So why, six weeks later, did Mr Fischer write that my letter of 17 April 2011 caused him to enquire of the IAMA CEO as to the status of this matter because he understood that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee had concluded its deliberations?

Between May 2011 and November 2013, I tried all reasonable avenues to have the IAMA explain why they would not bring down a finding of their investigations into my valid claims.

On 11 November 2013, the IAMA CEO notified me in writing that I should:

“… not write to the IAMA, our President, or any person connected with IAMA again on this matter. Any future letters received will be returned to you.”

In the government regulatory communications authority - The COT Cases AUSTEL’s report of April 1994 at point 6.67 it states:

“the arbitrator is to be a person of clear impartiality, independence and integrity with expertise in relevant legal, technical and accounting issues to them and with experience in commercial assessment and arbitration.”

Letters I provided to the government in 2008 and again in 2011 show Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) did not have expertise in arbitration. In fact, in my case, the information I received from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia advises that Dr Hughes did not get his arbitration grading until well past the end of my arbitration. One letter I received from Mr J L Muirhead, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, dated 10 September 1996, states:

"The Institute is a learned society whose principal functions is the training, examination and grading of arbitrators. It will also nominate suitable arbitrators from its list of graded, practising arbitrators if required to do so by the parties. It selects nominees of appropriate of technical expertise and grading (i.e. experience) from its published list.

I am advised by our Chief Administrative Officer that no reference was made to us in the appointment of the arbitrator in the matter in which you were involved and there is always a risk in these circumstances.”     

11-B

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 

Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows beyond all doubt when Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) allowed his previous client, COT Spokesperson Graham Schorer, three years longer than he allowed me to prepare by claim and answer Telstra's defence; he knowingly discriminated against me. The fact he also had a Conflict of Interest in Mr Schorer's previous Federal Court action against Telstra and did not disclose this to me before I accepted him as the COT arbitrator has still not been addressed by the government and Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman who endorsed Dr Hughes and being independent of Telstra when he was not.   

Between June and October 2009, I established, using evidence provided to The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, President of the IAMA, Paul Crowley (CEO of the IAMA) and those in the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee, that I had valid claims against the conduct of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes and those assisting him before, during and after my arbitration. It should have been apparent, from the evidence submitted during the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee investigations, that several parties involved in my 1994/95 arbitration did not conduct my arbitration according to the ambit of the Arbitration Act. It should have also been apparent – to those administering my arbitration – that Articles 7 and 12 were not adhered to, as the website absentjustice.com clearly shows.

I introduce below a report titled Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009, with attached exhibits, as it was provided to Mr Crowley of the IAMA Melbourne chapter at the request of the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. These exhibits show that the IAMA should have provided a finding regarding the evidence I provided. Yet, it refused to do so.

Arbitration Legal Opinion AS 701 to 756

Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009 - ID Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009

Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39 - ID Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39

Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72 - ID Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72

I reiterate. as of 2024, I have still not received a finding from the IAMA concerning the information I requested and/or received back from the IAMA the 23 submissions they asked for I provide.

The evidence I provided to the IAMA was gleaned from the attached CAV evidence files. The highlighted exhibits in the text above support the statements being discussed. The IAMA has not treated me fairly and justly.