Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Continued from the home page.

 

Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following links as you scroll down this home page.  

Absent Justice - My Story - Alan Smith

 

What has unfolded under the watch of government public servants and their treacherous legal advisors amounts to an egregious betrayal of the very taxpayers they purport to serve. These complicit officials, rather than safeguarding the interests of the citizens, have shamefully allowed Telstra—a gargantuan government-owned powerhouse—to seize control of the arbitration process, blatantly disregarding the authority of the arbitrator. The truth emerges ominously from alarming government records, revealing a chilling pact of corruption.

A sinister investigation orchestrated by a Senate Committee, covertly selected by the government to scrutinise a mere five of the twenty-one COT cases under the false pretence of a “litmus test,” uncovered a grotesque tapestry of misconduct orchestrated by Telstra. The findings were staggering—a brazen theft of nearly a billion dollars from the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The Liberal Coalition, led by John Howard, recoiled at the implications, wrestling with the fear that if the Senate pressed on with its inquiries, fresh revelations of Telstra’s unscrupulous corruption would shatter their plans for privatisation. In a chilling display of complicity, they abruptly stifled further investigations, all six senators eerily echoing the conclusion that Telstra operated with an audacity that defied the laws—accountable to no one.

Yet, in the face of this undeniable public exposure, the government quakes in abject fear at the mere thought of probing the remaining sixteen cases. They dread a transparent investigation could peel back the layers of deception, revealing the corrosive secrets safeguarded by a confidentiality clause within the arbitration agreement, revealing the identities of the corrupt officials who have clandestinely perpetuated these COT issues for nearly thirty years. The stench of betrayal hangs heavily in the air, as dark alliances persist, preserving their treacherous grip, while the welfare of the citizens remains shrouded in shadow.

 

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice 

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

 

Moreover, dark and unsettling is the Senate Evidence File No 12 two letters to me from the Senate threatening to hold me in contempt of the Senate, which reveals the sinister reality I've faced—direct threats on two separate occasions, first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. In those chilling moments, I was explicitly warned that if I dared to disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face severe charges of contempt against the Senate. This ominous warning is particularly infuriating, as those records hold critical information that could empower the sixteen citizens who have been unjustly denied legal recourse to finally seek justice.

In a dramatic Senate committee meeting, a confrontation erupted when National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashed a blistering critique aimed at a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable anger, he exclaimed, "You’re really a disgrace; the whole lot of you," his voice cutting through the tension like a knife. This outburst sent shockwaves through the chamber, drawing the immediate attention of the committee chair. Yet, under scrutiny, Senator Boswell was forced to retract his words, stating, "Madam, I withdraw that remark." This moment, though seemingly one of accountability, merely masked the deeply entrenched corruption and lack of integrity surrounding Telstra's dealings with the COT Cases.

"Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: there is a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament—something no one else has ever managed to do—and Telstra has orchestrated it all magnificently. They have managed to unite the Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party, the Democrats, and the Greens—all standing together in a singular and profound distrust of Telstra. You have woven a web of deception that few could have imagined."

Labour Party Senator Chris Schacht further emphasised the corruption when he warned the same Telstra arbitration officer that if they only compensated the five 'litmus test' COT cases while neglecting the other lingering sixteen COT cases, it "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". Yet, the John Howard National Liberal Party (NLP) government sanctioned these punitive damages in only five select litmus cases, simultaneously releasing over 150,000 Freedom of Information documents that had been ruthlessly concealed during the government-endorsed arbitration from 1994 to 1998. 

John Howard and his Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, plotted a nefarious scheme to undermine justice for the sixteen unresolved COT cases listed on the Senate Schedule B concerning Freedom of Information (FOI) issues. They cunningly classified these claims as still pending assessment, all while blocking any opportunity for punitive damages. Their machinations allowed the critical discovery documents to be concealed, crafting a sinister cover-up that ensured the affected individuals remained helpless against their unjust awards. This treacherous manoeuvre tightened the noose of secrecy around their plight, ensnaring them in a web of corruption and deceit.

Was this grotesque attack on the remaining claims merely a sinister ploy to divert attention from the government’s nefarious scheme to bury the horrifying abuse of at least one child within the shadowy confines of Senator Bob Collins' Parliament House office (rb.gy/dsvidd)? Could the fresh probing into the other sixteen claims potentially unravel a far more appalling reality—that Senator Collins is not the only high-profile Australian ensnared in the depraved crime of child rape? 
 
Or perhaps it is tied to my chilling conversation with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser regarding the insidious sale of Australian wheat to The Peoples Republic of China in 1967, fully aware that this grain would be diverted to North Vietnam at a time when our troops—Australian, New Zealand, and American—were being ruthlessly slaughtered by the very enemy that feasted on our wheat. It’s a revolting thought: that our nation's profit-driven machinations could have fueled the very fires of war that claimed countless lives, as unsuspecting soldiers marched into the treacherous jungles of North Vietnam, oblivious to Australia’s grotesque complicity → Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong.
 

Click on the following six Senators' official statements made in the Australian Senate:

 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston  Sen Richard.   

 

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I, along with several other COT Cases, could not take advantage of the valuable insights or recommendations from this investigation. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford, as shown by an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

Two months into my harrowing arbitration process, which unfolded between June 1994 and April 1995, I found myself ensnared in a twisted web of deceit and treachery. Desperately, I appealed to the arbitrator, urging him to hold Telstra accountable for its despicable and underhanded actions. Instead of reaping the justice I so fervently sought, I was met with an ominous silence and a relentless barrage of obstruction. Fast forward to 2025, and I remain trapped in an agonising limbo, still waiting for crucial discovery documents that Telstra has maliciously and deliberately withheld from me throughout the entire arbitration. My relentless quest for these documents dragged me through two excruciating government Administrative Appeals Tribunals,  a nightmare that extended until May 2011—an unconscionable seventeen years after the government duplicitously promised Ann Garms, Maureen Gilland, Graham Schorer, and me that we would receive them if we abandoned our Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), all under the guise of a non-legal resolution.

The Government Corruption Continues 

Despite the oppressive tactics employed by Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, who threatened to withdraw from the FTSP assessment for their Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), we were left with no choice but to abandon our FTSP process. In a striking display of favouritism and injustice, only Ann Garms and Graham Schorer received their documents in late 1998, over three years after they instigated their arbitrations on April 21, 1994, alongside me. Now, as we stand in 2025, I find myself still waiting for the same critical documents, caught in a web of corruption and deceit that seems meticulously designed to silence me.

 

Absent Justice - Senate

(Open Letter File No 57-C)

The motivations of the government were far darker than mere incompetence; they sought to bury the truth surrounding Senator Bob Collins, the minister overseeing our original claims against Telstra. Collins, a predator cloaked in power, was embroiled in serious allegations of pedophilia, accused of violating at least one child within the so-called safety of his Parliament House Canberra office. The Australian Federal Police became entangled in this sordid affair, investigating not only Senator Collins but also probing Telstra's dubious involvement in our FTSP issues, creating a perfect storm of corruption and malevolence that loomed ominously over our case. 

Senator Bill Heffernan calls for an official investigation into paedophilia claims → https://shorturl.at/TUV3k.

As members of the COT Cases, we were thrust into this corrupt arbitration process, wholly unaware of the treachery lurking behind the scenes. The arbitrator enforced a treacherous system designed to minimise Telstra's liability, ensuring that the systemic issues still plaguing our businesses were concealed under a cloak of confidentiality. This cruel arrangement shackled us, silencing our voices and preventing us from addressing the ongoing injustices that the government had assured us would be resolved through this new arbitration process.

Throughout my turbulent experiences from 1994 to 1995, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, wrapped himself in layers of secrecy with the duplicitous assistance of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. He became a spectre, intentionally unreachable, refusing phone calls—a fact confirmed by his complicit secretary, Caroline Friend, who seemed to take pleasure in reinforcing this veil of evasion. It was only when the Commonwealth Ombudsman intervened—a desperate attempt to wrest control from this deceitful arrangement and compel Telstra to comply with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act—that a flicker of reluctant cooperation emerged from the shadows. Government solicitors acted as puppeteers, manipulating my arbitration documents, which experienced inexplicable delays, finally arriving on May 23, 1995—two maddening weeks after my arbitration had purportedly concluded.

In a brazen display of contempt for the entire process, the arbitrator audaciously included a dismissive statement in Section 2.23 of his draft award, insisting.

“Although the time taken for completion of the arbitration may have been longer than initially anticipated, I hold neither party nor any other person responsible. Indeed, I consider the matter has proceeded expeditiously in all the circumstances. Both parties have cooperated fully.”

However, this statement was conspicuously omitted from the final award, revealing Dr. Hughes's blatant attempt to mask his actual acknowledgement that he had lost control over the arbitration, which was thrown into chaos by the forces of corruption surrounding him.

For those intrepid enough to delve into the murky depths of Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2 or navigate the sinister landscape of absentjustice.com, the true horror of our situation may begin to be unveiled. You may find my stark accusations against deceitful lawyers and conniving government bureaucrats—those I label as "The Brotherhood"—difficult to fathom. Yet by the end of this narrative, the very foundations of Australia’s corrupt legal system will appear as an insidious farce, designed to ensnare the innocent and protect the guilty. Once the claimant and opposing side sign confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements, they become ensnared—forgiving the oppressor a shield against justice, stripping us of any real opportunity to contest the unjust awards thrust upon us. The system is a malevolent construct, rigged to protect the powerful, with grotesquely imbalanced odds stacked against anyone audacious enough to confront the dark, treacherous forces lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce on those who dare challenge their sinister status quo.

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee, refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – 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.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, nor was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide behind the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement does not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration, as the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed-upon procedures?

It is essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter attached as document (See File Ann Garms 104 Documentdated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.  
 
French Flag - Absent Justice
 

Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →

Kangaroo Court - Absent Justice It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra.   

Ninety-three concerning questions presented by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my interview reflect a deeply troubling situation. According to the transcripts from Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a disconcerting truth has surfaced: I have been informed that the AFP possesses significant evidence obtained from John McMahon of AUSTEL, who represented the government communications authority. This evidence implicates Telstra in the covert and intrusive electronic surveillance of my holiday camp, a facility designed for children and community gatherings.

It raises critical questions regarding the motivations behind such violations by certain government officials, some of whom are suspected of engaging in paedophile conduct. One may ponder what these individuals could possibly gain from monitoring innocent school camp activities and social club events. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the arbitrator and administrator overseeing my arbitration should have promptly suspended the proceedings upon receiving information from the AFP regarding the unauthorised surveillance of my premises. This blatant disregard for privacy and consent raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the safety of all parties involved.

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), having learnt of the possibility that paedophiles were electronically monitoring my school camp. This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, ominously chose to share my claim documents with Mr. Rumble—an unsettling five months before the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement I was coerced into signing. This troubling decision opens a Pandora’s box of questions regarding the transparency and integrity of the entire arbitration process. What secret motives lay behind this breach of protocol? No meeting was convened to investigate pressing issues, such as the insidious surveillance conducted by Telstra on my business, which was executed without my consent and under the veil of secrecy. Furthermore, a shadowy figure named Micky has emerged, leaking sensitive information about my operations to an unidentified party, presenting a clear and present danger to my business (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

The plot thickened as I uncovered the alarming fact that 81 of my incoming calls had been diverted surreptitiously over two months. At that very time, I was feverishly promoting my holiday camp in the media, which proudly offered a diverse range of enticing activities for social clubs—activities like thrilling horse rides along the idyllic beach, dark caving adventures, serene canoe trips on the Bridgewater Lakes, and lively bush dances followed by enchanting cruises on the picturesque Glenelg River. Each diverted call signifies not just a statistic, but a deliberate sabotage of potential business relationships and opportunities for growth.

In this context, I am left to grapple with the staggering sum of $300,000 that I laid out for professional arbitration fees, all in pursuit of an investigation into my ongoing telephone faults. This exorbitant expenditure seems absurd when the process fails to confront the core issues at hand. I presented Telstra’s own damning fault data—documents clearly showing that those 81 redirected calls, confirmed by Telstra’s own records, were funnelled to an unknown location. Yet, the technical consultants involved in the arbitration either turned a blind eye or were complicit in failing to investigate this significant anomaly, a fact that went unacknowledged in Dr. Hughes’ findings.

To fully grasp the sinister depths of this betrayal, consider this: there are six two-month periods in a year. When we multiply those 81 lost calls by six, we uncover a staggering total of 486 vital calls, wrongfully diverted from my business over just one year of my six-year ordeal. Each of these lost calls isn’t just a missed opportunity; it represents a critical juncture, a potential connection that could have fostered growth, prosperity, and even the survival of my holiday camp.
 
The chilling magnitude of this unresolved issue serves as a stark reminder of the treachery at play, underscoring an urgent need for transparency. Were those redirected calls handed over to Micky, a central figure cloaked in suspicion? If so, what dark realities lurk beneath this association? Was Micky implicated in something as heinous as paedophilia? Why did both the arbitrator and the AFP remain silent, neglecting their duty to expose such a dangerous character during my damaging arbitration? This secrecy is not only corrupt; it’s a betrayal that, even in 2025, demands accountability.
 
 

A Secret Deal

 

Was the decision to remove the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 discussed during the covert pre-arbitration meeting on March 22, 1994? Was this removal of the liability clause intended as a safety net to protect the arbitration consultants from being sued for negligence, similar to how an arbitrator can be challenged on appeal for incorrect decisions (See Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct)Eliminating these clauses to prevent the resource unit from being sued constitutes gross misconduct of the highest order, bordering on criminal behaviour.

 

Absent Justice - Violated Rights

 

Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer wrote to the TIO on 11 July 1994 stating:

“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”. 

The statement in Telstra's letter, Exhibit 590 in File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, reveals a chilling reality: "if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator." This chilling clause indicates a disturbing collusion between Telstra and the TIO, as both were acutely aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had taken it upon itself to filter the arbitration procedural documents before they reached the arbitrator. In a shadowy manoeuvre, if this resource unit deemed a document irrelevant to the arbitration process, it was conveniently kept from the arbitrator and other parties entirely.

This insidious arrangement hints at deeper, more treacherous dealings, which are explored in greater detail elsewhere on absentjustice.com. One can't help but wonder if this secretive pact was crafted to shield egregious evidence, perhaps even evidence of paedophilia, from reaching the light of day. The government's apprehension grows palpable here, suggesting that these TIO-appointed consultants were entrusted with the grim task of ensuring that heinous documentation never graced the arbitrator's desk or the eyes of the claimants. After all, the arbitrator was under a binding duty to disclose all materials received from Telstra to the relevant claimants. This raises an unsettling question: Were the interests of justice knowingly sacrificed to conceal such unspeakable truths?

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

 
The COT cases revolve around a group of self-motivated small business operators, each grappling with ongoing, debilitating issues that critically affected their telephone-dependent enterprises. The government, after a thorough investigation, acknowledged the legitimacy of at least eight out of the twenty-one cases, recognising the grave circumstances faced by these individuals. An arbitration process was established under government oversight, yet it failed catastrophically to identify and rectify the systemic faults plaguing the COTs.
 
Had these COT cases been confronted with genuine tragedies—such as catastrophic fires, devastating floods, or the unrelenting forces of nature—most would have exhibited remarkable resilience, driven by an indomitable spirit to rise from the ashes and reconstruct their lives. However, what unfolded during the disheartening arbitrations revealed an insidious reality. A government-owned entity like Telstra, shrouded in a veneer of respectability, callously evaded its mandated responsibilities, knowingly allowing critical telephone issues to fester. They turned a blind eye, as sinister confidentiality clauses buried within the arbitration agreements stifled the voices of the COTs, effectively perpetuating their silence. These clauses were cunningly crafted to ensure that the severe challenges threatening their livelihoods remained unspoken, even as the arbitrator grossly failed to compel Telstra to rectify the very telephone disasters that led to the arbitration.
 
Absent Justice - My StoryThe betrayal does not conclude there; the arbitrator’s shocking inaction, coupled with Telstra’s systematic evasion, has systematically eroded the foundation on which the COTs sought solace and justice. Instead of receiving the fairness they deserved, they were met with a betrayal so profound it resonates with echoes of criminality and legal intimidation, leaving their lives—and the lives of their families—in shambles.
 
Within this twisted scheme, corruption thrives like a vile weed, festering within the very institution meant to protect these unsuspecting victims. The arbitrator and the administrators orchestrating this flawed process stand complicit, aiding and abetting Telstra’s unconscionable misconduct. Their appalling refusal to step in only amplifies the suffering of those desperately seeking justice, revealing a haunting tableau of deceit and manipulation that casts a long, foreboding shadow over this sordid affair, leaving many to wonder who will stand for the oppressed.
 

Delve further into the alarming and often disturbing realms of horrendous crimes, duplicitous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who maintain a tight grip on the legal profession in Australia. Descriptors such as shameful, hideous, and treacherous vividly encapsulate the nature of these evil wrongdoers and the impact of their actions.

Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatisation of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place. → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.

Let's delve into one of the most treacherous COT cases: Ann Garms. In a chilling display of systemic corruption, a Victoria Supreme Court judge dismissed Dr. Hughes without a second thought, but the Senate, amidst a web of deceit, shockingly acknowledged Ann's claims. The failed appeal, which left Ann with a staggering debt of over $600,000, was just a small part of this elaborate scheme of betrayal. When she was begrudgingly awarded nearly $6 million in punitive damages, it was painfully clear that no amount of money could restore the shattered remnants of her life.
 
In a bold act of defiance against the sinister forces that had targeted her, Ann released a harrowing YouTube video – now hauntingly featured on Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, and KPMG, platforms. This video laid bare the unbearable burden she bore, one meticulously crafted by Telstra and the complicit parties in a sprawling cover-up that has obliterated the lives of over twenty COT claimants. They were lured into a government-sanctioned trap disguised as arbitration and mediation processes, only to be ensnared in a calculated game of deception.
 
Tragically, Ann's life was cut short soon after the video’s release, leaving her as a martyr in a relentless battle against the insidious corruption woven into the very fabric of government operations. Her fight exposes not only her own suffering but the dark underbelly of a system designed to protect the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

 

The link titled Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest unveils perhaps the darkest and most treacherous chapter of this tale, revealing the intricate web of deceit and betrayal lurking behind the scenes of the COT arbitrations. The appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and Peter Gamble from Telstra were on opposing sides, yet their shared history was steeped in collusion and manipulation. While Dr. Hughes advocated for Graham Schorer in his Federal Court Action against Telstra between 1990 and 1993, Gamble was secretly working to obstruct justice, actively concealing crucial evidence that could have altered the course of the case.

As destiny would have it, these two figures clashed once more when Graham Schorer, representing a beleaguered group of Telstra complainants—including Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and me—embarked on the Telstra Fast Track Settlement Proposals from November 23, 1993, to 1998. This scheme, backed by a government that held a firm grip on Telstra, was nothing more than a facade—twelve other individuals would join us, coining ourselves the Casualties of Telstra.
 
What remains chilling is that I was never informed of the entangled connections between Graham Schorer and Dr. Gordon Hughes, nor was I privy to the fact that Peter Gamble had strategically hidden documents from Graham Schorer throughout the Federal Court proceedings, as explicit in the Senate Hansards of June 24 and 25, 1997, where the principal arbitration engineer was implicated in these deceptions.
 
In my ordeal, Peter Gamble orchestrated a flawed telephone service verification test on my four business lines at my holiday camp on September 29, 1994. He signed a witness statement claiming compliance with government mandates, all while willfully ignoring damning missives from the government communications authority, AUSTEL, on October 11 and November 16, 1994, which denounced those tests as grossly deficient. When I alerted Dr. Hughes to Gamble's treachery, he dismissed my concerns. On April 6, 1995, during a second SVT process at my business, when I dared to question the known faults affecting the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the defective Ericsson testing equipment at the Cape Bridgwater switching exchange, both Gamble and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd hastily evaded my inquiries, brazenly refusing to test my service lines.
 
The betrayal deepened when Ericsson swept in, acquiring Lane Telecommunications three-quarters of the way through the COT arbitrations, carting off all private and business records related to the COT Cases back to Sweden, thus ensuring that any evidence of wrongdoing vanished into the shadows. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).
 
Ultimately, I was left with no choice but to sell my business in December 2001, as I found myself ensnared in a web of neglect and malpractice, with no authority willing to investigate my ongoing telephone faults. Dr. Hughes had stated in his final arbitration award that the issues had ceased after July 1994—a blatant lie amidst a convoluted narrative of treachery.
 
Peter Gamble, still lurking in the shadows of Telstra in the 2020s, and Dr. Hughes, now a Principal Partner  | Davies Collison Cave Law (AUSTRALIA), symbolise a system corrupted at its core. I am compelled to share this story, hoping that those who read it grasp the gravity of these incredible and sinister events.  
 

Absent Justice - Order of Australia

 
Anyone linked to Australia’s Establishment, which comprises many powerful figures who profess a commitment to democratic justice, would do well to reevaluate their decisions regarding the awarding of the "Order of Australia" after delving into the unsettling revelations in "Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct and Salvaging What I Could." This chapter uncovers alarming details that expose the dubious integrity of Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith during the critical period surrounding the COT arbitrations in my case. Their treacherous act of withholding two crucial letters from me not only compromised my position but also denied my appeal lawyers the essential grounds to challenge the arbitration’s verdict. In light of this, it is nearly unfathomable that these individuals could have been deemed worthy of such a prestigious honor. This concern becomes even more pronounced considering that both Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith have previously been awarded this accolade, despite their apparent involvement in deceitful conduct both before and after the contentious COT arbitrations. Their actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the honors they received and suggest a deeply troubling complicity in a system that rewards questionable behavior.

 

On 24 June 1997, pages 36 to 39, Senate - Parliament of Australia show an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistleblower, 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-" 

 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving my claims against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his 'false sworn witness statement' to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

 

Absent Justice - Lost Claim Documents

 

Corruption within governmental institutions has resulted in the unlawful manipulation of documents faxed from Owen Dixon Chambers, the legal hub of Melbourne, to the Supreme Court of Victoria. This misconduct has enabled criminal activities to persist in at least two cases associated with Telstra's appeal processes. 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. 

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 7 January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all of which were coordinated within a twelve-month period. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

 

It is now 2025, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life, regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:

"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." 

Absent Justice - Articles 7 and 12

 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

The government communications authority, AUSTEL, writes to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4).

During my arbitration, I provided Dr Gordon Hughes with evidence that, between 1992 and 1995, fax interception issues were concerning me and my partner, as we were now travelling to Portland, 18 kilometres away, to talk to our arbitration officials and her daughter, Amanada.

 

Absent Justice - My Story

Delve into the intricate and multifaceted issues surrounding corruption in arbitration, a topic that profoundly affects the quest for justice. AbsentJustice.com catalyzes a thorough investigation into the pervasive criminal conduct plaguing government institutions. The website sheds light on disturbing phenomena such as narcissism, where self-interest undermines collective integrity, unconscionable behaviour that disregards ethical standards, and thuggery that employs intimidation to silence dissent. Additionally, it reveals the insidious nature of kleptocracy, where those in power exploit resources for personal gain. This tumultuous landscape is further complicated by the treacherous manipulation of evidence, rendering it nearly indecipherable and obscuring the truth from those seeking accountability. 

What was the implication of Julian Assange's phone conversations with Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT), in April 1994? During two separate communications, Assange indicated to Mr. Schorer that the COT cases were subject to electronic surveillance during the arbitration process. (Refer to WikiLeaks exposing the truth).

In April 1994, shortly after my conversation with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, how did Telstra become aware of my plans to travel to Melbourne weeks before my scheduled trip? This raises several questions, particularly about a person at Telstra called "Micky." Documents on absentjstice.com indicate that at least one local Telstra technician in Portland had been monitoring my phone conversations. Alarmingly, this technician was willing to share sensitive information about my personal and business contacts with this "Micky" individual.

Additionally, it is concerning that the arbitrator did not question this technician regarding the unauthorized disclosure of my private and business information. I had previously informed both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator about a threat made against me by Telstra's Executive Arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble. This threat arose from my cooperation with the AFP. I provided them with evidence that this "Micky" character was acting as an intermediary within Telstra (Refer to pages 12 and 13Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. He had access to the telephone numbers of customers I frequently contacted and those who regularly called me.

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

The reluctance to investigate these serious violations raises further concerns about privacy and trust within Telstra, the Australian Federal Police and those who administered the COT arbitrations. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Australian Federal Police

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The ongoing issues regarding Rupert Murdoch's phone interceptions in the United Kingdom https://cutt.cx/PCk1 highlight similarities to the phone and fax hacking concerns that impacted the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1999. By including thorough and compelling information on my Home page by 28 February, I aim to address significant events that deserve attention. During my arbitration, I contributed valuable assistance to the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes tied to my business dealings. I believe that this renewed focus can lead to greater transparency and accountability.

 My decision to cooperate with the AFP was motivated by a concerning incident involving Telstra's liaison officers, Paul Rumble and Steve Black. They issued serious threats, indicating that they would cease providing me with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents if Telstra discovered they were being shared with the AFP. Such actions suggested that any subsequent requests for documentation would be systematically denied, potentially obstructing my efforts to challenge Telstra effectively during the arbitration process.

It is essential to underscore that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) made the decision not to support me when I faced a series of alarming threats. This abdication of responsibility allowed Telstra to exert its demands unchecked and without opposition.

Despite investing more than $300,000 in arbitration fees to uncover the unauthorised diversion of my telephone calls and both incoming and outgoing faxes, Dr. Gordon Hughes ultimately failed to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The evidence presented by the Australian Federal Police explicitly confirmed that this diversion was occurring. This information is documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1)yet it did not lead to any findings—neither supporting nor disputing the claims made.

Consider the actions of Telstra during its time as a government-owned enterprise. Like the British Post Office, Telstra engaged in ruthless practices that targeted small business operators, leveraging their position to crush anyone who dared to oppose them. The parallels are chilling. In the UK, the government has resorted to threatening these contractors, employing tactics reminiscent of Telstra’s intimidation in Australia. 

 

The Alan Bates vs British Post Office story - Absent Justice

 

After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants were aware that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office.

If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to get it delivered directly to your inbox every time a fresh one is published, please consider making a one-off donationbuying my book The Great Post Office Scandal directly from the publishers omaking a donation to the Horizon Scandal Fund.

The "Secret Email" newsletter exposes the dark underbelly of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal in the United Kingdom, a web of deceit that goes far beyond a single incident. This scandal epitomises a pervasive corruption entrenched in Australia’s bureaucratic justice system, revealing a grim reality where those in power operate with impunity. 

 

Don't forget to hover your mouse over the Gaslighting link and/or image, which will help you understand the truth surrounding our story.

Government Corruption - Gaslightingwww.absentjustice.com/tampering-with-evidence/government-corruption--gaslighting. Explore the intricate and troubling intersection of government corruption and the psychological manipulation techniques, commonly known as gaslighting, that are employed against Australian citizens navigating the arduous process of government-endorsed arbitrations.

Gaslighting - Absent Justice

This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.

Consider the question: how many citizens in Australia have been subjected to these insidious methods, which aim to derail legitimate investigations into their claims against bureaucrats entrenched in governmental institutions and influential players linked to KPMG? 

In my personal experience, I have uncovered compelling and troubling evidence showing that a partner at KPMG deliberately misled the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on the legitimacy of my arbitration claims. This misinformation was not merely a misstep; it was a calculated move to engineer a false narrative, effectively obstructing any chance of a thorough and unbiased investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG.

This former KPMG partner now manages two arbitration centres—one situated on the bustling Collins Street in Melbourne, surrounded by the city’s iconic architecture and financial institutions, and the other located in Hong Kong, a global hub of commerce and finance. The existence of these centres raises profound questions about ethical standards and accountability, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reforms. There is a pressing imperative to safeguard citizens from such manipulative practices and to ensure that their legitimate grievances are recognised and addressed in the pursuit of justice.

In the shadowy corridors of power, government corruption festers. Deceptive reporting and a barrage of false information have cloaked the disturbing truths behind the COT cases, allowing them to slip into oblivion. The government-owned Telstra Corporation, a puppet master within this sinister web, has engaged in blatant evidence tampering during arbitration, effectively silencing those who dare to seek justice. Threats hung in the air like a dark cloud, wielded against the vulnerable, as the arbitrator turned a blind eye, complicit in a scheme that denies claimants their rightful day in court. The facade of fairness crumbled, revealing a landscape riddled with betrayal and malice, where truth was sacrificed on the altar of power.

By clicking on the image of the Confidentiality Agreement, you will uncover the hidden truths surrounding my COT story. It is important to note that although the confidentiality clause in this agreement was modified after the COT Cases, both legal advisors and two Senators suggested that it was the definitive arbitration agreement—a claim that is far from true. This flawed agreement continues to be utilised by Wawick Smith, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and other members of the Establishment, who remain committed to protecting an arbitration process that has caused devastating consequences for countless lives.

 

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

 

A deeply sinister pattern unfolds from the outcomes of three distinct COT (Casualties of Telstra) arbitrations, revealing a web of corruption and collusion. Long before these arbitrations even began, Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, found himself entrenched in dubious dealings. With his current stature as a prominent banker and recipient of the ‘Order of Australia,’ Smith operates as if he were above the law, his reputation cloaked in shadows. Dr. Goron Hughes, the arbitrator in these troubling cases, was complicit in this scheme, clandestinely aiding Telstra—the defendant—by supplying them with privileged information extracted from covert government discussions about the COT cases.

In a just world, anyone who would betray the trust of twenty-one vulnerable Australian citizens by leaking sensitive party room discussions to a powerful entity like Telstra would face immediate retribution. Yet, in a shocking twist, Warwick Smith managed to dodge accountability, rewardingly ascending to a key front-bench ministerial role in the subsequent John Howard government. Such a trajectory speaks volumes about the murky waters of political alliances and ethical decay.

It becomes chillingly clear that Smith’s insidious advice to Telstra's senior executives regarding discussions within Senator Ron Boswell's National Party Room was a pivot point in this treacherous affair. By informing them that no Senate inquiry would take place until after the release of the AUSTEL (Australian Communications Authority) report on the COT matters—set to go public on April 13, 1994—Smith effectively handed Telstra a shield against scrutiny. This inside knowledge allowed Telstra to transform its initial four COT Case Fast Track Settlement proposals—intended to be a fair, non-legalistic assessment—into a self-serving, legalistic arbitration procedure.

Armed with government secrets and unfettered by the threat of inquiry, Telstra manoeuvred through this labyrinth of deceit with chilling confidence. The walls surrounding their nefarious dealings grew thicker, ensuring that their betrayal of the very citizens they were supposed to serve went unnoticed, buried beneath a veneer of legitimacy crafted by those in power.

 

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration

 

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) 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 influential members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Even more troubling, in a stark display of deception and betrayal, the so-called Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) was not crafted in good faith by Frank Shelton, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—who would soon be promoted to County Court Judge—but was instead orchestrated by the unscrupulous defendant's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale and Page. They had the audacity to fax this document to Warwick Smith's office on January 10, 1994. In a brazen act of misrepresentation, Watrwick Smith then informed the government and the lawyers for the COT Cases that Frank Shelton—who was a partner in the very firm that was then exonerated from all liability—for having been party to the drafting the FTAP agreement Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, when he had merely made cosmetic alterations to a document designed to serve the interests of the defendants.

Dr. Hughes condemned this same arbitration agreement after he delivered his first arbitration ruling on May 11, 1995 (my arbitration). Just a day later, on May 12, 1995, he penned a scathing letter to Warwick Smith, denouncing the arbitration agreement as entirely lacking in credibility and requiring urgent revision to salvage the integrity of the other three arbitrations.
 
While the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorr—were granted a shocking thirteen months to amend their dubious claims, my arbitration findings were deliberately left untouched and unreviewed. On August 20, 1997, Senator Ron Boswell and his visibly shaken son, Steven, were left nearly in tears after my lawyers sent a two-page letter to the Senator's office in Canberra, exposing the disgraceful conduct of the arbitration process. Steven, a lawyer within the same law firm as Frank Shelton, was overwhelmed and lamented, “What have we done to you people?” (Refer to 51-G → Open Letter File No/51-A to 51-G)
 
Why was the damning letter dated May 12, 1995 → (Open Letter File No 55-A), withheld from me by Warwick Smith and Dr. Gordon Hughes during my designated two-week appeal period? Why was it only revealed to me in 2002, long after the statute of limitations had expired, leaving me powerless to contest my unjust award? The sinister web of deception and treachery surrounding this entire process is chilling and utterly unacceptable.
 
At the heart of this mystery lies a crucial and lingering question: Who made the fateful decision to authorise the removal of the $250,000 liability caps detailed in clauses 25 and 26 of the arbitration agreement? This agreement, which Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I were prepared to endorse on April 21, 1994, had been tentatively agreed upon just two days earlier. During that discussion, all parties recognised the significance of these liability caps, which were intended as crucial safeguards, compelling the arbitration consultants to conduct themselves with the utmost impartiality and integrity in their evaluations and recommendations.

What options did we have left? We had lost the arbitration due to our inability to secure the vital documents and faced yet another defeat in our appeal to obtain them. Should we abandon the fight, or is there a path forward that we can still pursue?

As a single operator aged 81, editing these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600-plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made, should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.

Absent Justice Ebook

PLEASE BE AWARE: We would like to inform our readers that a recent review has uncovered that some of the links referenced in "Absent Justice" have been compromised for reasons that are currently unclear. In some instances, links may now be inactive or point to different content than initially intended, effectively obscuring the information they were meant to expose.

However, it is essential to note that "Absent Justice" is supported by over 1,300 exhibits, which are both available on this website and included in the evidence files related to the narrative. These exhibits provide substantial evidence backing the facts and claims made in the story. Although approximately six links have encountered issues, this does not diminish the overall integrity of the material. We encourage readers to access the truth by clicking on Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, which contain crucial information and documentation supporting our claims.

We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this situation may have caused and appreciate your understanding as we work to resolve these issues. Kind regards,  Alan Smith, Author

 

Quote Icon

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
 Contact Us