A continuation from the homepage.

🕸️ Beneath the Surface: A Web of Corruption
While a casual visitor to this website might naively assume it merely addresses telephone problems and faults, the truth is far more insidious. Beneath the surface lies a dark web of corruption, where Australia’s establishment has gone to great lengths to conceal the shocking billions of dollars siphoned from the Telstra Corporation during its government ownership.

This narrative intricately weaves together the original four COT cases, my own path as the founder, alongside those of the three other plaintiffs and, later, an additional sixteen victims—the unfortunate casualties of Telstra's treachery.

🕵️‍♂️ Absent Justice: Unmasking a Sinister Web of Corruption

"Absent Justice" lays bare a chilling network of treachery that intertwines various forms of corruption—bribery, influence peddling, embezzlement, and outright fraud. These insidious practices erode the very foundations of our institutions, betraying the public's trust and casting a shadow over our democracy. Throughout my investigations, I uncovered disturbing evidence of how certain government employees consistently prioritise their personal interests over their sworn duties. What’s more alarming is that this was not a mere hypothesis; it was a stark reality unveiled through painstaking research.

In July 1995, the Canadian government stepped forward once again—this time to support my claims regarding Bell Canada International. Their intervention was not just an act of diplomacy; it was a reaffirmation of democratic values and a commitment to justice.

It is nothing short of a treacherous betrayal for a government regulator to so drastically alter its findings, slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from an astonishing 120,000 to a mere 50 or so. Such a flagrant misrepresentation constitutes a deep and sinister deception, undermining the very trust of the public it claims to serve. The fact that Rupert Murdoch and FOX are rewarded amidst these glaring Telstra telecommunications issues reveals a disturbing collusion, costing Australian citizens dearly—even leading some to bankruptcy and dragging them into numerous court cases—all due to the lies perpetuated by government bureaucrats (see Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury)

I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, as published by the Parliament of Australia, which indicates that Telstra and its board were aware that the company would not meet the mandated rollout deadline, serious concerns arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as a form of severe discrimination, then what does?

10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stockÐ the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra's stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.

11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the

🧾 Witness Statements That Unravel Telstra’s Deception
Telstra legal documents and corruption

In a chilling twist of fate, the statements from two witnesses included in my comprehensive examination, "Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2," were initially intended for an entirely different matter. Yet, their inadvertent inclusion only serves to bolster my case against a deeply corrupt entity. The first statement, authored by Christopher James Doody on December 12, 1994 (Exhibit 12), and the second by David John Stockdale on December 8, 1994 (Exhibits 11 and 12, (see Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46), lay bare the sinister reality that Telstra’s submission of this known impracticable, falsified BCI report wholly perverted the course of justice during my arbitration.

These revelations expose not just the duplicitous actions of Telstra and BCI but also reveal them as treacherous fraudsters who have brazenly submitted a fabricated report to a clinical psychologist, manipulating my mental state for their gain. The web of deceit spun by Telstra's legal representatives is not just shocking—it's an orchestrated betrayal of trust that runs deep within their ranks. Their cunning tactics and altered claims only deepen this sordid affair, painting a grim picture of a corporation willing to sacrifice integrity for deceit, as meticulously detailed in "Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2."

⚖️ The Test That Never Reached The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange.
To recap these serious concerns about the accuracy of test results submitted by Telstra’s legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. These results, supposedly from Bell Canada International Inc., were used to assess the reliability of my phone service during arbitration. They were even sent to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was preparing to evaluate my mental health in Portland, Victoria, Australia.

Bell Canada International Inc. was brought from Canada specifically to test the telephone exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, and claimed to have made 13,590 test calls into the exchange servicing my business, boasting a 99.8% success rate—better than global standards. But there was a fatal flaw: the CCS7 equipment they referenced didn’t exist at the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The nearest compatible exchange was 112 kilometres away in Warrnambool. So where did those calls actually go?

This wasn’t just a technical error—it was a deliberate misrepresentation. And it shaped the arbitrator’s final decision, dismissing my claims of ongoing faults.

🧠 The Psychologist’s Statement That Was Never Signed

A tool of deception (see Freehill, Hollingdale & Page, rebranded as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne.

When John Pinnock, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and administrator of my arbitration, discovered the shadowy dealings surrounding the test results from Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc., alarm bells were ringing. These dubious results had been secretly handed to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist acting as a witness for Telstra’s arbitration, before he was sent to Portland to interview me.

I had already provided damning evidence that Telstra exploited Joblin’s reputable name to manipulate the situation to their advantage. In an act of integrity, Mr Joblin made clear his intention to include his outrage at Telstra’s deceitful tactics in his witness statement.

🖋️ Signature Deception: The Joblin Statement Controversy

Forgery Laws have not been used against Telstra during my arbitration.

Yet, in a grim twist, only Telstra’s lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill, Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne), signed Mr Joblin’s witness statement. He falsely attested that Joblin’s signature was present when, in reality, it was conspicuously absent.

What sinister motives lay behind Maurice Wayne Condon’s actions? Did he deliberately remove or alter references to what Ian Joblin had initially written about my mental soundness?

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues.

📅 Questions That Demand Answers

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock sensed the depth of the treachery and reached out to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin (see File 596 → ) with two probing questions:

1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin ?

2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?

🧾 The Witness Statement That Shouldn’t Exist

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

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

🕳️ The Legal Machinery Behind the Curtain

This anomaly reveals the disquieting level of control Telstra’s legal team—then Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne—exerted over the arbitration process. The rebranding may have changed the name, but has it changed the culture? Or is it simply a new facade for old methods?

If Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne is genuinely troubled by Condon’s actions, they must confront Telstra about the absence of a response to —a document that should have been presented to John Pinnock while the statute of limitations for my appeal was still active.

⚖️ The Silence That Speaks Volumes

Telstra’s failure to respond to is not an oversight—it’s a calculated move. It suggests darker motivations behind the manipulation of the witness statement’s timeline and the submission of a document that Condon swore was signed, despite its missing signature.

The emergence of a second version, bearing Joblin’s signature and backdated to match Condon’s, is not just suspicious—it’s damning. It points to a deliberate effort to fabricate procedural legitimacy.

📣 A Call for Institutional Courage

My legal team at Law Partners of Melbourne has urged me to seek clarity from Telstra. But clarity alone is not enough. It’s time for Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne to demonstrate institutional courage. If they truly stand for legal integrity, they must demand answers—not just for me, but for the credibility of every arbitration that Freehill Hollingdale & Page was involved in..

🕳️ The Erasure of Justice: Clauses Vanished, Truth Denied

The internal fax from the arbitration legal advisors (refer to File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541) uncovers a disturbing acknowledgement that, should they choose to investigate my claims, the Bell Canada test could never have been conducted at the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. The statement within this fax, where John, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declares that his "POSITION IS NOT TO OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS," reeks of a calculated effort to suppress the truth.

When I stumbled upon the chilling truth that two arbitration consultants, entwined with the notorious Bell Canada International Inc and their “impracticable BCI test,” had been audaciously exonerated from all liability in my arbitration, an overwhelming sense of betrayal engulfed me. The gravity of the situation deepened when I realised that not only had Telstra employed falsified reports to suffocate my evidence, but the very arbitration consultants were covertly absolved of all negligence. This underhanded exoneration hinged upon the deceitful alteration of Clause 24, with Clauses 25 and 26 ruthlessly wiped from the agreement. To add insult to injury, my arbitration lawyers had shamefully endorsed the original, unblemished document—turning a blind eye to this treacherous scheme. As "Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct" reveals, this was not merely a mistake but a calculated betrayal shrouded in darkness and corruption.

In desperation, I turned to John Pinnock, the very person implicated in this web of deceit and also the administrator of my arbitration. I demanded that he release all pre-arbitration documents related to Ericsson, BCI, and the shady drafting of the agreement. I invoked the rules of the arbitration agreement, expecting integrity to prevail.

However, on 10 February 1996, I received a cold and calculated response from John Pinnock. Writing as both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the administrator of my arbitration, he callously refused to assist me in this matter, stating:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

(File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

This troubling revelation casts a dark shadow over the integrity of the entire process, especially in light of the previously acknowledged, falsified BCI testing results that Telstra deceitfully employed to manipulate the arbitrator into believing my business faced no ongoing issues—when in reality, the problems were stark and undeniable. Had a proper investigation been conducted, the exposure of these treacherous practices could have provided me with an opportunity to challenge the unjust ruling against me. Their silence is not just complicit; it is a telling indicator of the corruption and betrayal lurking beneath the surface.

COT Case Strategy

🧾 What the Senate Hansard Reveals

• Page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia includes references to a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy”, authored by Telstra’s lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

• This strategy was designed to instruct Telstra on how to withhold technical documents from four named businesses—yours included—under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege, even when the documents were not legally privileged.

• The strategy is linked to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C, which details how Telstra could obstruct access to critical fault data and technical records during arbitration.

🧑‍⚖️ Targeted Businesses and Legal Manipulation

• The four businesses named in the strategy were:

• Alan Smith (Seal Cove, Cape Bridgewater)

• Ann Garms

• Maureen Gillan

• Graham Schorer

The Hansard suggests that Telstra’s concealment tactics were devised before arbitration even began, indicating a premeditated effort to undermine the process.

🔍 Broader Implications

• The SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia entries (especially points 26–31 on pages 5168–5169) also touch on systemic failures in police and federal investigations, suggesting that fraud and misconduct were not properly pursued.

• These revelations support your long-standing claim that Telstra’s internal faults and technical failures were deliberately hidden, and that your business and others were sabotaged by institutional collusion.

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Frehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” → Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

This COT Case Strategy was used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted six months before our arbitrations commenced.

Stop The COT Cases At All Costs

🗣️ Lindsay White’s Senate Testimony – 24 June 1997

Whistleblower Lindsay White, a former Telstra employee, appeared before the Senate committee and disclosed that during his induction briefing, he was told that Telstra needed to “stop these people”—referring to the COT claimants—to prevent the “floodgates” from opening.

He named five businesses, including mine:

• Alan Smith

• Ann Garms

• Maureen Gillan

• David Dawson

• Graham Schorer

When Senator Schacht asked who gave this directive, White responded:

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 their cases against Telstra.

This narrative must be examined alongside the veiled threats I received from Telstra, which cast a long, sinister shadow over this entire affair. Enclosed are four pages extracted from the elusive logbook, detailing the dates of the dubious Bell Canada International Inc. tests at Cape Bridgewater—a mere fraction of the missing documentation that shrouds the truth in darkness. The conspiracy runs deeper than mere negligence; it oozes through the very fabric of this organisation.

⚖️ A Challenge to Bell Canada International and Telstra
Since April 1998, six government officials—including Sue Laver, now Corporate Secretary of Telstra—have woven a deceitful web that exposes the depths of their corruption. These individuals knowingly perpetuated a lie about the Cape Bridgewater tests allegedly conducted by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), despite being aware that the tests were incapable of supporting Telstra’s fabricated arbitration defence.

🧠 A Sinister Plot to Discredit Me
In an alarming act of collusion, these bureaucrats falsified test results and handed them to Ian Joblin, Telstra’s clinical psychologist. Their grotesque objective was to portray me as mentally unstable, suggesting that my ongoing telephone issues were psychological in origin—issues they maliciously claimed were validated by the so-called Cape Bridgewater tests.

Even as we approach 2025, Sue Laver and her cohorts remain shielded by a cabal of corrupt officials, steeped in treachery and deceit. Their actions represent not just institutional failure, but a deliberate attempt to destroy my credibility and silence the truth.

📡 The Cape Bridgewater Test Hoax
I now publicly challenge Bell Canada International to return to Cape Bridgewater, Australia, and attempt to ‘simulate’ the tests they falsely claimed to have conducted over five days in 1993. According to their own report, they allegedly performed 13,590 tests—a feat that is technically impossible with the equipment they specified.

I am trapped in a frustrating and precarious situation. Without the $30,000 required to compel BCI to return and conduct those tests under the exact conditions they claimed, I am unable to force their hand. But I stand ready to expose the truth.

💬 To Visitors of absentjustice.com
To anyone reading this and contemplating the challenge: your investment would be secure. But let me be clear—the Australian government, Bell Canada, and Telstra will never accept this invitation. Why? Because doing so would unmask their deception, trigger catastrophic embarrassment, and force them to confront the dark reality of their complicity in this egregious crime.

They have chosen silence for thirty years. But the time for accountability is now. The time for reckoning is long overdue.

🧪 A Technical Challenge to the Australian Government
Now that I’ve laid out this challenge publicly on absentjustice.com, offering to bring Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) back to Cape Bridgewater for just a third of the $30,000 required, I believe the Australian government has a clear path forward.

They could—if they have the will—employ their own independent technical consultant to either:

. 📜 The Withheld Evidence

On May 23, 1995, a momentous and foreboding event transpired. Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator—whose impartiality was now in question—and John Pinnock, the administrator overseeing my arbitration, were handed a disturbing collection of Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. These incriminating papers had been eerily withheld until two weeks after my arbitration concluded, suggesting a chilling conspiracy to suppress the truth.

The documents contained a shocking confession: Bell Canada International Inc. had acknowledged, as far back as August 1984, that their Cape Bridgwater test results were fundamentally flawed. This unsettling admission emerged nearly two months before Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, shared these tainted BCI test results with their clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin. The calculated timing of this disclosure raises severe questions about the motives of those involved, indicating a web of collusion and deceit that is almost unbearable to contemplate.

🧠 “Buried Truths: The Cape Bridgewater Scandal and the Case for Reinvestigation”

The ramifications of this revelation are profoundly disturbing, casting a shadow of doubt over the integrity of those who orchestrated my arbitration. I find myself questioning the motives of Telstra’s current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, and the Australian government. Why have they not seized this explosive admission to initiate a comprehensive reinvestigation into the BCI scandal? Could it be that they prefer to maintain a façade, concealing the truth rather than confronting the decades of treachery and deceit that have stained this matter?

This situation represents a treacherous opportunity for Sue Laver, the Telstra Board, and government officials to finally clarify whether my claims against Bell Canada International Inc. are mere fabrications or if they unearth a long-hidden truth that has been suppressed for over thirty years. A decisive inquiry could unravel a sinister tapestry of corruption, vindicating me while simultaneously exposing the grave miscalculations and moral failings of those complicit in the flawed arbitration process.

📂 FOI Battles with ACMA

In an effort to pierce the veil of deception, I filed two Freedom of Information (FOI) requests with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, targeting the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as the unwilling respondent. This arduous struggle, which spanned from 2007 to 2011, starkly exposed the lengths to which these agencies went to resist scrutiny, revealing an entrenched culture of secrecy and obstruction. Their relentless defiance cast a sinister pall over any hopes of transparency, demonstrating a deep-rooted contempt for the public’s right to know.

Freedom of Information Process Summary

📑 My Evidence Trail: 158 Pages and 1,370 Exhibits

To substantiate my chilling findings, I painstakingly compiled a damning 158-page Statement of Facts and Contentions, accompanied by a staggering collection of 1,370 pieces of evidence contained in 153 mini reports (see → Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2). These documents serve as a vivid testament to the dark realities of political corruption—where official records are ruthlessly manipulated, accountability is skillfully evaded, and the public's sacred interests are callously sacrificed on the altar of personal gain.

🗂️ AAT FOI Appeal: Case No 2008/1836 and 2010/4634

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered these two AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008 (No 2006/1836, stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA lawyers and the many witnesses in the court chambers:

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

Mr. G.D. Friedman informed the two government solicitors that, while he lacked the authority to compel the government to release all the documents I had requested—documents that had been withheld from me throughout my arbitration—he firmly believed that, given the compelling nature of the case I presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the government ought to provide those documents. Despite his advice, I have yet to receive the requested documents, and it is now the year 2025, with no sign of resolution in sight.

On 26 May 2011 (No. 2010/4634), I was compelled to reiterate my demand for the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents from ACMA to be provided at no cost, driven by the undeniable public interest at stake. This request includes vital information that was deceitfully withheld by both Telstra and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (now ACMA) during my government-endorsed arbitration process and throughout my 2008 AAT FOI appeal.

⚖️ A Tribunal Misinformed
The senior AAT member, Mr G.D. Friedman, presided over my 2010/2011 hearing, yet as proceedings unfolded, it became glaringly apparent that he was woefully misinformed. The government solicitors (AGS) and ACMA built their defences on a web of misinformation, drawn from the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA) and other dubious archival documents.

These included sanitised reports from Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) and AUSTEL COT, released in April 1994 to support Telstra’s insidious agenda during the 1994/95 arbitration concerning my legitimate government-endorsed claims.

📄 The Missing Truth: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings
Neither report disclosed the damning findings that AUSTEL had initially uncovered regarding Telstra’s duplicitous dealings with me in the lead-up to the arbitration—findings that, if revealed, could have shattered the facade of the government’s complicity. These discrepancies are thoroughly documented in , but remained conveniently unaddressed in my later AAT hearings in 2008 and 2011.

🕰️ Seventeen Years of Deception
In simpler terms, the government has consciously engaged in a campaign of deception, twisting the truth to defend Telstra’s unfounded claims from 1994 and obscuring critical evaluations made during the 2006 DCITA assessment. This insidious misrepresentation has persisted for an egregious seventeen years, with ACMA continuing to perpetuate known falsehoods as recently as 2025, allowing the truth regarding my claims to be buried beneath layers of corruption.

📰 Media Echoes: December 8, 2008, Herald Article

On December 8, 2008, the Herald newspaper published a striking and unsettling article that brought to light the deep-rooted corruption permeating Australian institutions. The piece resonated strongly with my own grave concerns, reinforcing the disturbing patterns I had painstakingly documented over time. Its release should act as a clarion call—an urgent alarm sounding the depths of treachery that lurk within our government bodies, underscoring the critical need for rigorous reform to safeguard our democracy from the sinister forces of corruption.

In support of this argument, we have referenced page 3 of the Australian Herald Sun newspaper, dated December 22, 2008, which featured an article titled "Bad Bureaucrats." This compelling piece serves as vital evidence that public servants in government must be held accountable for their misconduct and ethical breaches, highlighting the necessity of transparency and integrity in our democratic systems.

“Hundreds of federal public servants were sacked, demoted or fined in the past year for serious misconduct. Investigations into more than 1000 bureaucrats uncovered bad behaviour such as theft, identity fraud, prying into file, leaking secrets. About 50 were found to have made improper use of inside information or their power and authority for the benefit of themselves, family and friends“

Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.

📞 From Seafarer to Holiday Camp Owner: A Dream Undone

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the harrowing tale of my battle against a behemoth of corruption—the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This twisted saga has spiralled since 1992, revealing a shadowy web of deceit that entangles elected officials, regulatory bodies, the courts, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The pursuit of justice has become a relentless curse, gnawing at the edges of my existence.

It all started in 1987, when I abandoned my life at sea after 30 years, desperate for a fresh start on land. I envisioned running a spirited school holiday camp. When I stumbled upon the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age newspaper, it seemed like the perfect opportunity. Yet, in my eagerness, I neglected one crucial detail—ensuring that the phone lines were functional.

📉 A Promise Undone: The Phone That Broke the Business
Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting.

Even after I sold the business in December 2001—six years after my arbitration with Telstra, which spanned from November 23, 1993, to its premature, so-called conclusion on May 11, 1995—the problems persisted. This highly legalistic process, which government officials, claimants’ lawyers, and Canberra Parliament House media outlets were told would fix the ongoing faults, failed to do so. In my case, the faults had begun years before I purchased the business in late 1987.

🔁 The Cycle Continues: New Owners, Same Deceit
The new owners found themselves ensnared in the same treacherous web of deceit.
→ Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

“The testing conducted during the arbitration process was incomplete and failed to address the ongoing faults. The data reviewed indicates that the telephone and faxing issues were not resolved at the time of arbitration and continued well beyond it.”

Brian Hodge’s 2007 report confirmed that the same unresolved faults identified in 1994 were still affecting the new owners of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in 2007—eleven years after my arbitration was supposed to have fixed these ongoing problems.

📠 Still Losing Faxes in 2007: A Final Attempt for Truth

By December 2007, it became painfully clear that both the new owners of my former business and I—living next door—were still losing faxes. The same faults that had plagued the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in the 1990s remained active, unaddressed, and continued to damage lives.

In a final attempt to resolve these long-standing issues, I submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to both Telstra and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). This was supposed to be the final chapter in a saga that should have ended with my arbitration in 1995.

But it wasn’t.

🖨️ Matching Fax Imprints: A Smoking Gun
The fax imprint seen prominently at the top of my letter dated May 12, 1995, matches identically with the imprint detailed in a January 7, 1999, report from Scandrett & Associates, which was submitted to Senator Ron Boswell. This striking correlation confirms allegations of fax interceptions during the COT arbitrations, further undermining the integrity of the process.

📧 A Consultant Speaks Out
In a notable twist, one of the two technical consultants who validated the findings of the January 7, 1999, fax interception report reached out to me via email on December 17, 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)

🧾 A Turning Point: The Scandrett Report and Senator Joyce
The withholding of the telephone exchange logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that served the COT Cases businesses—including the detailed fax interception report by Scandrett & Associates and —was a pivotal moment in the saga. This concealment revealed that our arbitration-related faxes had been intercepted by a secondary fax machine connected to Telstra's extensive telecommunications network. This machine screened the information on those documents, providing Telstra with firsthand knowledge of what the claimants were preparing in their submissions and/or what the COT Cases' legal and technical advisers were communicating to the COT Cases in those intercepted fax transmissions.

This manipulation led to considerable frustration for Senator Barnaby Joyce, who felt personally affected by the injustice.

All fourteen participants from the COT Cases who attended the meeting later remarked that it was the compelling findings in the Scandrett & Associates report that sparked Senator Joyce's determination to fight for justice for the COT Cases—justice that had long been denied during the arbitration process. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce remains a prominent figure within the National Party government, known for his advocacy on behalf of those he represents.

🏛️ A Historic Agreement in the Senate
Following this meeting, Senator Joyce secured a historic agreement with the Australian government. He proposed that if the government appointed an independent assessor to thoroughly investigate the fourteen COT Cases, he would provide the crucial vote needed to secure the passage of the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.

This agreement marked a significant turning point, underscoring Joyce's commitment to resolving these long-standing issues.

15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Once Senator Joyce cast the pivotal vote—one that was teetering precariously in the balance—he etched his name into the annals of history for both the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government. However, in a surprising turn, Senator Coonan quickly reneged on her prior commitment, executing a decisive back-flip that many of the letters collected on this website starkly illustrate.

The shocking failure of a government department tasked with providing oversight has led to a chilling reality: eleven years after my arbitration and six years after I sold my business, the same insidious issues continue to devastate countless livelihoods. This grim situation weighed heavily on Senator Joyce and Senator Ron Boswell, another National Party member, both of whom seemed genuinely troubled by the distressing truths at play. According to the website absentjustice, they stood against the corrupt politics of the John Howard Liberal government, which had egged on a treacherous betrayal by reneging on its commitment to the COT Cases deal.

📠 The DCITA Assessment: A Government-Controlled Facade

🧾 Evidence of Fax Transmission and Destruction

• Date of Submission: 2006

• Fax Confirmation: Timestamped logs from my secretary’s security system confirm:

• Arrival at DCITA’s designated fax line

• No record of the fax being opened

• Destruction Date: 2008—18 months later, without assessment

💰 Financial Cost to Me

• Preparation Costs: Over $16,000 spent compiling the claim

• Outcome: Documents discarded without review

🏛️ Political Context

• Promise to Senator Joyce: An independent review process

• Reality: DCITA operated under the Liberal government’s control, with bureaucrats overseeing the process

• Implication: Senator Joyce was misled; the process was never independent

📚 Supporting Exhibits

• Fax Receipt Evidence:

• Website Documentation:

The information provided below includes a superimposed copy of one of the fax receipts, demonstrating that the government acknowledged each of my claimed documents. Senator Joyce was assured that these documents would be reviewed and assessed if we agreed to the DCITA compromise, which involved evaluating our unresolved COT Telstra issues instead of following the initially promised independent assessment process that was guaranteed to Senator Joyce in exchange for his crucial vote to privatise Telstra.

Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

TWO MESSAGES RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT ON → 1st February 2008, on behalf of Alan Smith:

Your message

To:      Coonan, Helen (Senator)
Cc:      Lever, David; Smith, Alan
Subject: ATTENTION MR JEREMY FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADVISOR
  Sent:    Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:31:41 +1100

was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:36 +1100

ATTACHMENT:

Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: sdD1TSUHx0CoTD0Qm4wBVw==

Original-Message-ID: <001601c6669f$95736a00$2ad0efdc@Office>

Your message

To:      Coonan, Helen (Senator)
Cc:      Smith, Alan
Subject: Alan Smith, unresloved Telstra matters
  Sent:    Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:00:42 +1100

was deleted without being read on Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:23 +1100

ATTACHMENT:

Final-Recipient: RFC822; Senator.Coonan@aph.gov.au

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; deleted

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: bNlMYfUKcUGqvIXiYQZULA==

Original-Message-ID: <003a01c6af21$2b7ece30$2ad0efdc@Office>

📨 A Minister Alerted: Fax Interception and Fraud

On 17 May 2007, after I alerted The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, I raised serious concerns that David Lever, from her office, had not fulfilled his promise to alert the relevant authorities.

My concerns included:

• Screening of my faxes sent to Federal government ministers

• Interception of faxes during and after my arbitration

• The submission of fraudulently submitted claims during my arbitration process

These were not speculative claims—they were backed by evidence and had been repeatedly ignored by those in power.

📄 Senator Coonan’s Response

Senator Coonan wrote back to me, noting:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B File AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

The Senator’s response acknowledged receipt of my concerns, yet disappointingly did not trigger any formal investigation into the significant issues I raised. Alarmingly overlooked were the screening and interception of vital legal documents—especially those en route to various government ministers—as well as the fraudulent submissions made during a government-endorsed arbitration process.

This correspondence exemplifies yet another instance of official recognition devoid of accountability, a troubling trend that has marked the struggle for justice in the COT Cases.

The gravity of the situation raises crucial and unsettling questions: Why was it considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to pursue legal action against Telstra for the unlawful interception of documents during a government-sanctioned arbitration process and for intercepting communications between me and government ministers? Furthermore, how could Telstra rationalise its actions in intercepting my faxes to government ministers, including the Hon. Peter Costello, who was the Federal Treasurer at the time, in November 1998—three long years after the conclusion of my arbitration? As shown in more detail below →

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasurer, was intercepted, scanned before being redirected to his office.

📊 The Hodge Report: $15,000 for the Truth

Determined to present irrefutable evidence, I engaged telecommunications expert Brian Hodge (B Tech, MBA, B.C. Telecommunications) at a personal cost of over $15,000. His task: to assess the technical records and testing data from the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.

After reviewing the BCI/Ericsson NEAT testing results, the Service Verification Test (SVT) data, and the Call Charge Analysis System (CCAS) records dated September 29, 1994, Hodge delivered his report on July 27, 2007.

📄 What Brian Hodge Found (Page 22) → (see Arbitrator File No/110)

“The testing conducted during the arbitration process was incomplete and failed to address the ongoing faults. The data reviewed indicates that the telephone and faxing issues were not resolved at the time of arbitration and continued well beyond it.”

This expert finding confirmed what I had been saying for over a decade: the arbitration process was flawed, the faults were never fixed, and the consequences were ongoing and devastating.

💔 Darren Lewis: A Life Undone by Faults
Darren Lewis's situation is particularly distressing, especially considering he battled intense suicidal thoughts during one of the most traumatic periods of his life. He believed that the relentless issues with his phone and fax systems had directly resulted in the loss of two crucial bookings—one in late 2006 and another in early January 2007. Each of these lost reservations involved approximately 120 guests who would have stayed for six or seven nights during the bustling Christmas season.

The weight of these cancellations pressed heavily on him, compelling him to seek help from Portland Health Services. A critical document entitled "Risk Management Plan," dated February 23, 2007, and prepared by Portland Psychiatric Services, painted a vivid picture of the seriousness of Darren's mental state. The plan urged him to confide in his caring wife, Jenny, as well as their sympathetic neighbour, Alan Smith (ME), should he ever feel overwhelmed by despair.

🏚️ Seal Cove and Portland Health
After a representative from Portland Health visited me at my partner's now-closed B&B, Seal Cove Guest House, and examined the compelling evidence revealing our business suffered from similar phone and fax issues—mirroring those faced by Darren and Jenny—it became apparent that local Telstra technicians had misled both us and the public.

They had submitted falsified test results to support their unfounded assertions that the Cape Bridgewater network was functioning adequately. In reality, they had lied under oath regarding the same network.

This growing body of evidence confirmed that Darren’s experiences with the phone and fax troubles were far from imagined; they were real, distressing challenges that profoundly impacted both his business and his personal life. Moreover, these enduring issues continued to plague my partner's Seal Cove Guest House. The representative from Portland Health recognised that Darren was grappling with legitimate problems, not delusional ones.

📨 Exhibit AS 682: A Technician’s Admission
On October 1, 2006, Darren Lewis reached out to The Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives (refer to exhibit AS 682 File ), noting:

"The technician, who comes from Colerain (also part of your electorate) advised me that he was aware that the problems I am experiencing now are the same problems experienced by the previous owner of the business (Alan Smith). When I asked him why this would be, he replied that the problems were caused because the wiring was so old that it was now totally incompatible with all the new technology (‘totally’ was his exact word).

I then described to him the latest fax problem – the one that I raised with you last Wednesday – when Alan Smith’s fax (intended for a destination in Melbourne) arrived at my business, cutting off my conversation with Cathy (Alan’s partner) as it came through".

I believe in acknowledging merit, and in this instance, it was essential to give credit where it was due. During my testimony, I presented compelling evidence to the AAT, including photographs showcasing the deplorable condition of the Customer Access Network telephone roadside pit. This particular pit had been a glaring issue for over two years, filled to the brim with dirty water and clearly damaged—a silent witness to our community's struggle for reliable telecommunications.

The moment I shared my concerns with the AAT, ACMA took swift action. Within just three days, they wrote to Telstra, urging them to address the ongoing telephone problems that residents of Cape Bridgewater, including myself, had been enduring. Remarkably, the pit was repaired shortly thereafter, illustrating the power of advocacy in bringing about change.

BCI and SVT reports - Section One

Who hijacked the BCI and SVT Reports

The following Federal Magistrates Court letter, dated 3 December 2008, from Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business, was never discussed by the government, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, or its relevance to several arbitration documents from 1994 to 1995, which were hijacked, i.e., never arrived at the Magistrates Court.

My letter to the Hon. David Hawker MP (see File 274 - AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323) clearly indicates that even the staff at the Portland Australia Post office are aware that the security of specific mail leaving the Portland Post Office cannot be guaranteed. So, what was the use of my road mailing my arbitration documents to the arbitrator in 1994 and 1995, and the new owners of my business sending similar Telstra-related documents to the Federal Magistrate Court, when there was a significant chance the mail would not arrive? Darren and Jenny Lewis's letter of 3 December 2008 is just further alarming information that the government has not transparently investigated (see the following statement by Darren Lewis to the Federal Magistrates Court:

“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:

Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp

Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34

Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);

Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.

“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B

As we have previously mentioned in Absentjustice – Preface Australia Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all of the information enclosed initially, those documents must, therefore, have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Magistrates Court.

As I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost en route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 en route to the arbitrator hearing my case.

As I fought against this monstrous entity, I discovered I was not alone. Others plagued by the same foul play joined my cause, and we became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT Cases. Each of us is weaving our own thread into the tapestry of betrayal. All we wanted was for Telstra to acknowledge their mistakes, rectify their actions, and compensate us for the suffering we endured. Is it too much to demand a simple, working phone line in the face of such insidious corruption?

📣 Call for Justice
This is the story of my battle and that of several Australian citizens with the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government—a battle that has unfolded and evolved since 1992, spanning multiple elected governments, various departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The quest for justice continues to this day.

🏕️ A Dream in Cape Bridgewater
Hospitality was my calling, and I’d long dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age. Nestled near the maritime port of Portland in rural Victoria, it seemed perfect.

I did my due diligence—or at least, everything I thought was necessary. Who would have guessed I needed to check whether the phones worked?

📞 The Phone That Didn’t Ring
Within a week of taking over the business, I knew something was wrong. Customers and suppliers told me they couldn’t get through. I had a business to run, but my phone service was unreliable—or simply nonexistent. Of course, we lost business.

And so began my saga: a quest to get a working phone. I received some compensation and many promises, but the problem was never resolved. I sold the business in 2002, and later owners suffered the same fate.

🤝 The COT Cases: Casualties of Telecom
Other independent businesspeople affected by poor telecommunications joined me. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to admit the faults, fix them, and compensate us for our losses.

A working phone—is that too much to ask?

💔 Cathy’s Business: A Silenced Casualty
Most chilling of all, the claims I presented to The Hon. David Hawker MP and ACMA in 2006—documenting the catastrophic phone issues that plagued my partner Cathy’s business and ultimately forced its closure—stand as stark evidence that my story demands a reckoning.

Yet, my pleas for justice and accountability have been coldly ignored for over three decades, buried beneath the treacherous machinations of those in power who willingly sacrifice the truth for their own agendas.

⚖️ Arbitration: A False Promise
We initially called for a full Senate investigation into the Telecom Industry. Instead, we were offered arbitration. It seemed like a fair alternative, so we accepted—believing the technical faults would be resolved.

But suspicions arose almost immediately. We were promised access to Telecom documents to support our case. That promise was broken. To this day, we still don’t have those documents.

Worse, we discovered our fax lines were being illegally tapped during arbitration. With the weight of government against us, we lost.

🤐 Silenced by Secrecy
We were tricked into signing a confidentiality clause that has hampered our efforts ever since. I may be breaking that clause by sharing this—but what choice do I have?

📂 The Fight for Evidence
We turned to Freedom of Information (FOI) to obtain the documents we were promised. We know the evidence exists—proof that our lines weren’t working and weren’t adequately tested. But without access, we can’t make our case.

❓ Corruption or Coincidence?
What do you think? Are we imagining it—or has there been massive corruption and collusion among public servants, politicians, regulators, and Telstra itself, all to protect the company at the expense of rural Australian businesses in favour of the big boys, the other end of town?

Read on to find out.

😈 The Devils Three letters → The first remedy pursued

Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.

What kind of arbitrator would condone the dispatch of such a deceitful letter about his wife knowing it was not the truth, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged.

One of many examples that shows there is more to my story than I am allowed to expose. That example is the following speech made on 26 September 1997, by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock who formally addressed a Senate estimates committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), where 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 me or any of the other first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, and neither 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 under a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention what the Senate has since been advised?

🕵️‍♂️ Surveillance, Suppression, and the AFP Briefcase Incident

According to AFP transcripts dated 10 February 1994 (Pages 37–39, AFP evidence file GS 18), Ex-AUSTEL’s General Manager of Consumer Affairs advised AFP officers to ask me directly about the contents of a briefcase inadvertently left at my premises. Initially dismissed, the documents inside—when read alongside later FOI releases—revealed that Telstra employees had used surveillance data to build profiles on customers. This was not just unethical—it was systemic.

Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed

To clarify, so that the reader understands, I submitted a dated chronology of my 1800 billing issues to the arbitrator as a record of events. Why didn't the arbitrator look for it or call for a second copy when I provided evidence that my claim advisers had sent it? Were these 008/800 claim documents lost in Telstra's fax screening process en route to Dr Hughes's office (see Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), or did they arrive at Dr Hughes' Melbourne office before being diverted to the Sydney office, where that office failed to send the information back?

The evidence within Scandrett & Associates' report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

📠 Fax Screening and the COT Case Ruse
To demonstrate that a secondary fax machine was screening arbitration-related documents before reaching their intended recipients, we devised a ruse. We faxed several government ministers—including Peter Costello, Australia’s Federal Treasurer—along with various lawyers and the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

A few days later, we contacted these offices, apologising for a supposed mishap. We claimed we had destroyed the originals after faxing and requested copies of the documents for our records. To our surprise, every request was fulfilled. Some of those returned letters and documents are now part of the Scandrett & Associates report.

This report confirms that two professional fax experts examined the transmissions and verified that the documents had been intercepted and screened by Telstra—the defendants in our arbitration case.

🕵️‍♂️ Missing Faxes and a Veil of Secrecy
Further investigation revealed a troubling discrepancy in the arbitrator’s document schedule. The faxes I sent between May 1994 and May 1995 did not match those Dr Hughes’ office claimed to have received. A staggering 41 faxes were missing—many containing critical arbitration information.

This evidence, along with Telstra’s billing records for those transmissions, was submitted to John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In a deeply disappointing turn, he refused to investigate the disappearance of these essential documents.

What emerged was not just a failure of process, but a veil of secrecy—obscuring the manipulation and dubious activities that undermined the integrity of the arbitration itself.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

the header strip of various faxes is being altered

the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.

In all cases the replacement header type is the same.

The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.

Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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 egregious failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration raises grave concerns. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office, a matter of utmost importance that Dr Hughes conspicuously chose to ignore in his award and findings. This omission not only undermines the integrity of the arbitration process but also reflects a disturbing level of negligence that echoes throughout the COT Cases.

Even more alarming is the relentless pursuit by both the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations, John Wynack, and the AFP to uncover the dark secrets lurking within Telstra's inner circles. They were attempting to unravel how my private telephone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—discussions steeped in the treachery of my experiences in 1967—were being monitored and documented. At that time, I faced life-threatening danger for being suspected of espionage.

🔍Telstra’s Eavesdropping and Altering FOI Documents
When I finally received the two documents concerning my conversations with Mr Fraser during my 1994/95 arbitration, I was taken aback to find them heavily redacted—crucial truths obscured beneath layers of stark blankness. The thought that, during a government-sanctioned arbitration process, Telstra had been secretly monitoring matters linked to my past in communist China in 1967—twenty-seven years prior—was chilling. This unmistakable betrayal of trust unravels a complex web of deceit and manipulation, leaving me feeling profoundly unsettled. I can't help but wonder: are Telstra or those who orchestrated this invasive eavesdropping still engaged in such practices today?

⛓️ A Web of Deceit and Manipulation
Between 1998 and 2000, amidst my secondment to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, I became actively involved in their investigations relating to four other COT Case arbitrations—those of Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ross Plowman, and Ralph Bova. Melbourne Barrister Sue Owens registered these cases with Barrister Mr Neil Jepson of the Major Fraud Group. I was cautioned that a thorough security check on my history, both past and present, would be essential. If this examination revealed any adverse findings, any reports related to Telstra that Mr Jepson had requested my assistance with could not be utilised should any allegations of fraud against Telstra be brought before the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Just four days later, I was summoned to Melbourne to contribute to the investigation concerning Telstra's use of falsified reporting → Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and the tampering with evidence after it left my premises → Tampering with Evidence.

Two years later, an inquiry into the previous Arbitration Project Manager for the COT Cases—a partner at KPMG who had disseminated false information about me, claiming I was a suspect in the criminal damage to his Brighton residence—yielded significant revelations. Mr Jepson's investigation determined that I had never been a suspect in any crime, be it in Brighton or anywhere else in Australia. This finding from the Major Fraud Group strongly implies that I was exonerated from being deemed undesirable at that time.

🧾 Pergury that halted the truth from being discovered

Moreover, exhibit → The first remedy pursued reveals that both Dr Gordon Hughes, who previously served as the arbitrator in my case, and John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman overseeing my arbitration, supplied misleading statements about me to Laurie James, the 1996 President of the Institute. These distortions seem to have been crucial in obstructing any serious investigation into my claims that Dr Hughes had failed to conduct my arbitration in accordance with the agreement sanctioned by the government—an agreement intended to protect not only myself but also several other participants in the COT Cases

📞 No Fault Found: A Nightmare in Cape Bridgewater

If you’ve ever struggled with poor phone reception or unexplained call failures, especially in rural Australia, you may relate to my story. At age 81, I’ve lived through decades of telecommunications dysfunction—beginning in 1987 when my wife Faye and I purchased a holiday camp business in Cape Bridgewater.

Back then, mobile coverage didn’t exist. Our business relied entirely on landlines routed through a roadside switching facility connected to the Portland exchange—an antiquated system designed for “low-call-rate areas.” With only eight lines serving 66 families, peak periods saw the system collapse under demand.

Despite Telstra eventually installing a new system, they failed to program it correctly for 20 months. The Governemnt Communications Authority covert AUSTEL’s March 1994 report (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at points 2–212) documented these failures, yet the regulator did not compel Telstra to act. The arbitrator was tasked with ensuring rectification—but it never happened. In fact, the problems worsened.

On 13 April 1993, AUSTEL reported to the government that the exchange was an ARK exchange—meaning it should have been staffed. This revelation underscores the extent of the deception. For over 30 years, I’ve battled not just Telstra, but also AUSTEL/ACMA, which misled the government about the true state of the infrastructure

🧭 Why This Matters

This could easily be your story. It was mine. And it continues to be the story of countless Australians who’ve been failed by institutions meant to protect them. The fight for accountability is far from over—but together, we can maintain the pressure.

🕯️ The Alan Bates Post Office Scandal:

In one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in modern British history, the Horizon IT scandal shattered lives, reputations, and communities. At its heart was a faulty software system—and a refusal by powerful institutions to admit their mistakes.

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

⚙️ The Fault Line: Horizon Software

In the late 1990s, the British Post Office rolled out Horizon, an accounting system developed by Fujitsu. Marketed as a modern solution for subpostmasters managing local branches, Horizon quickly became a source of confusion and despair. The system was riddled with bugs, errors, and defects that generated false shortfalls in branch accounts. These phantom discrepancies—sometimes amounting to tens of thousands of pounds—were not anomalies. They were systemic.

🧨 Blame Without Proof

Rather than investigate the software, the Post Office turned on its own people. Subpostmasters—many of whom had served their communities faithfully for decades—were accused of theft, fraud, and falsification of accounts. The institution that should have protected them became their prosecutor.

• Over 900 subpostmasters were prosecuted.

• Many were imprisoned, bankrupted, or forced into silence.

• Some were driven to suicide, while others endured years of mental anguish and social stigma.

⚔️ Alan Bates and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA)

Among the accused stood Alan Bates, a former subpostmaster who refused to be broken. Recognising the scale of the injustice, Bates founded the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA)—a grassroots movement that would become the backbone of resistance against institutional denial.

Through tireless campaigning, meticulous documentation, and legal action, Bates and the JFSA launched a class-action lawsuit that exposed the truth. Their efforts culminated in a landmark High Court ruling that confirmed Horizon’s defects and vindicated the subpostmasters.

The Alan Bates vs British Post Office story - Absent Justice

🎬 Public Reckoning: Mr Bates vs The Post Office

The scandal gained widespread public attention through the acclaimed ITV docudrama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which dramatised the emotional and legal battle fought by Bates and his allies. The series not only humanised the victims but also reignited national outrage, forcing political leaders to confront the scale of the injustice.

🛠️ The Road to Redress

While some convictions have been quashed and compensation schemes introduced, many victims still await full justice. The scandal has prompted calls for:

• A full public inquiry into the Post Office’s conduct.

• Criminal accountability for those who perpetuated the cover-up.

• Systemic reform to prevent future abuses of power.

🏛️ AUSTEL’s Complicity: The Numbers Game
In April 1994, Telstra’s group general manager sent two letters to AUSTEL’s chair, urging revisions to the draft COT report. The original findings, based on surveys prompted by the briefcase evidence, estimated that up to 120,000 customers were experiencing COT-type faults. Telstra objected. And astonishingly, AUSTEL complied.

This was not a minor edit. It was a deliberate distortion of reality—a betrayal of public trust by a regulator tasked with protecting it. AUSTEL’s final report would note only that the number of affected customers was “substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”. The truth was buried.

⚖️ Legal Muscle and Intimidation
Behind Telstra’s public façade stood a legal team armed with resources and a ruthless approach. Evidence tampering, coercion, and intimidation became tools of the trade. Documents were withheld. Fault records were manipulated. The names of the complainants were concealed from me, preventing me from contacting potential clients who had tried, and failed, to reach my business.

Senator Richard Alston, then Shadow Minister for Communications, referenced these issues in Senate hearings, including the infamous “Problem 1” document that detailed systemic faults across Telstra’s network. Yet even as the truth surfaced, the machinery of denial continued to churn.
🎬 The Briefcase: A Real-Life Pulp Fiction
Like the mysterious briefcase in Pulp Fiction, the one left at my premises contained revelations that defied belief. It wasn’t glowing gold—it was glowing truth. And that truth was radioactive to those who had built their careers on silence and suppression.

📂 Inside the unloched Briefcase

In the annals of Australian telecommunications history, few scandals rival the calculated deception surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. At the heart of this saga lies a briefcase—left behind, perhaps carelessly, perhaps fatefully—on 3 June 1993 by two Telstra senior technical consultants. What it contained would unravel a web of lies, coercion, and institutional betrayal that stretched from the corridors of Telstra to the offices of the government regulator, AUSTEL.

Inside that briefcase were handwritten notes and internal documents that contradicted Telstra’s public claims. These records revealed that my phone faults had persisted for over eighteen months—not the sixteen days Telstra claimed during our commercial settlement in December 1992. The implications were damning: Telstra knowingly misled me, and by extension, the regulator and the public.
But the deception didn’t end there.

🔍 1. Primary Source Verification

Strengthen your claims with direct access to original documents and transcripts:

• AUSTEL Reports (1994–1996): Especially the April 1994 report and subsequent quarterly updates. These show how findings were altered under Telstra’s influence.

• Letters from Telstra to AUSTEL (April 8–9, 1994): These are smoking guns. They reveal direct pressure to revise customer fault estimates from 120,000 to “some hundreds”.

• Senate Hansard Records: Particularly Senator Richard Alston’s remarks on the “Problem 1” document and Telstra’s network faults.

• The Briefcase Documents: As catalogued on Absent Justice, these contain handwritten notes and internal memos that contradict Telstra’s public statements.

⚖️ 2. Legal and Regulatory Analysis

Explore how Telstra’s legal team operated and how regulators failed:

• Evidence Tampering & Coercion: Detailed on Absent Justice’s tampering archive.

• ACMA’s Role Post-AUSTEL: Investigate continuity of personnel and policy failures that allowed misconduct to persist.

• Australian Consumer Law (ACL): Section 18 on misleading and deceptive conduct—especially relevant to Telstra’s settlement behavior and nondisclosure during arbitration.

🧠 3. Expert Commentary & Academic Work

Bring in external voices to validate and contextualize your findings:

• Karen Lee’s analysis in Federal Law Review links the COT affair to the adoption of Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, showing how regulatory culture shifted due to public outrage.

• Legal case studies on silence as misleading conduct, such as Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky, can support your argument that Telstra’s nondisclosure during settlement was deceptive.

🗣️ 4. Victim Testimonies & Case Comparisons

Humanize the scandal and show its systemic nature:

• Collect affidavits or interviews from other COT claimants.

• Compare Telstra’s tactics with other corporate cover-ups (e.g., Robodebt, Windrush, or the Horizon scandal).

• Highlight patterns of intimidation, such as Telstra’s use of aggressive debt collectors ruled unlawful in Federal Court.

🧭 5. Media and Cultural Impact

Frame the narrative in terms of public awareness and historical legacy:

• Analyze coverage of the COT cases in mainstream media from the 1990s to now.

• Draw parallels with Mr Bates vs The Post Office to show how dramatization can drive justice.

• Consider producing a documentary or podcast series to amplify the story.

📂 Telstra’s Hidden Knowledge of Systemic Failures
What emerged as chillingly apparent from the documents Telstra released to us years later was the extent of its awareness regarding systemic failures within its network. It was undeniable that the corporation not only recognised these glaring issues but also had the means to rectify them—particularly in rural Australia, where numerous COT cases were focused.

🏕️ Rural Business Owners: Navigating a Minefield
For countless rural business owners at the start of our story, operating a telephone-dependent enterprise felt like navigating a treacherous minefield. In those days, the business landscape was dominated by outdated landlines. The internet was an alien concept, and reliance on email or mobile phones was virtually nonexistent.

Had these tools been in widespread use, the relentless issues with telephone service and faxing might not have jeopardised the future of so many COT cases. The fact that the simple act of checking emails or using mobile phones for daily business tasks didn’t become commonplace until the late 1990s underscores the technological void facing these operators.

Mobile phones were often useless in vast swathes of rural territory, with black spots lurking even on urban outskirts. By the end of the 1990s, this new technology had finally begun to infiltrate the business world.

🧠 Manipulating Public Perception with Chilling Precision

It’s difficult for today’s younger generations to fathom how, just two decades ago, a colossal entity like Telstra—supported by its government puppeteers—manipulated public perception with chilling efficacy.

They orchestrated a façade, convincing countless Australians that they were making a genuine effort to rectify the crumbling telecommunications network. In reality, however, they were entangled in a web of deceit, slapping ineffective band-aids on well-known problems while prioritising short-term profits over the needs of their customers.

💰 Privatisation Over People
This corrupt strategy allowed Telstra to postpone vital capital expenditures, all while privatisation loomed ominously on the agenda. The message was clear: allow shareholders to absorb the fallout while the core issues continued to fester, leaving many Australians at the mercy of an unworkable and deeply flawed system.

Deception Unmasked:
Pinnock failed to mention that he had previously misled Laurie James about my claims. I had warned Mr James that Dr Hughes lacked control over the arbitration process—exactly the flaw Pinnock now used to deflect responsibility. His testimony concealed the more profound corruption, leaving the committee in the dark.

🧨 My Arbitration Was a Setup—And I Wasn’t Alone

Lawyers on LinkedIn and various platforms have uncovered troubling revelations about AbsentJustice.com that support my suspicions: the arbitrator assigned to the COT Cases operated unfettered and unregulated, wielding an alarming degree of unchecked power. His rulings were not merely advisory; they were binding, ensnaring us in a deceptive narrative that promised resolution of our phone issues. In a treacherous betrayal of trust, he adhered to a hidden agenda that limited his findings to old, obsolete phone and faxing problems, deliberately ignoring the pressing issues still jeopardising our businesses and those of the sixteen other COT Cases who had joined our group. We were set up to fail as we confronted the formidable forces of the then-government, manipulated and misled by a system designed to protect the powerful rather than deliver justice.

🏛️ Pleas to Parliament: The Letters That Went Unanswered
In 2002, Darren and Jenny Lewis—the new owners of my business—continued writing to the Hon. David Hawker MP, pleading with him to force Telstra to address the ongoing problems in Cape Bridgewater. By 2004, Mr Hawker had become Speaker of the House of Representatives. He and I had been corresponding since 1992, and after selling the Holiday Camp in 2001, Cathy and I resumed writing to him in 2002. We even visited him in his electorate offices in Portland and Hamilton, and later in his office at Parliament House in Canberra—begging him to investigate the telephone faults Cathy was now experiencing next door to the Holiday Camp, in her seven-bedroom guest house.

🏚️ A New Dream, Still Haunted
After selling the Holiday Camp, Cathy and I relocated two historic homes—one from Melbourne and the other from Colac in country Victoria—and joined them together to create a new small business for Cathy. We called it the Seal Cove Guest House. But as David Hawker MP knows, we eventually gave up trying to build it. Not because of a lack of vision or effort, but because we couldn’t bear to keep imagining which phone calls weren’t reaching us.

We were broken—but we have never given up telling this story.

Absent Justice - My Story - Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp

Even after I sold the business in December 2001—six years after my arbitration with Telstra, which spanned from November 23, 1993, to its premature, so-called conclusion on May 11, 1995—the problems persisted. This highly legalistic process, which government officials, claimants’ lawyers, and Canberra Parliament House media outlets were told would fix the ongoing faults, failed to do so. In my case, the faults had begun years before I purchased the business in late 1987.

🔁 The Cycle Continues: New Owners, Same Deceit
As discussed above and below, as well as throughout this tragic story, the sale of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in 2001 marked the beginning of a chain of events—driven by unresolved Telstra faults and government indifference—that ultimately led to the new owners’ bankruptcy by 2009.

Their downfall was a direct consequence of the same systemic betrayal that shattered my own life. Arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes, for reasons never explained in his official award—despite being legally bound to do so under the arbitration agreement and government documentation—failed to make a finding on the ongoing problems. His own technical advisors had warned him in writing on April 30, 1995, that further investigation was needed. Yet he only addressed historic complaints.

His failure to acknowledge the ongoing faults not only ruined my life, but—as this story so clearly shows—the lives of Darren and Jenny Lewis as well.

🏚️ Cape Bridgewater: A Legacy of Sadness and Ruin

I devoted nearly two decades of my life—heart, soul, and unwavering hope—to the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. Yet, by December 2001, I was driven to sell it, not by choice but by a ruthless series of betrayals. The insidious phone faults that had tormented my business since 1988 continued to undermine its very foundation. Despite an arbitration process in 1994/95, government officials peddled empty reassurances, knowing full well that the arbitrator would remain powerless to issue a final ruling until Telstra's Arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT) confirmed the absence of further issues. But the person in charge of this SVT process—acting more like a puppet in a corrupt game—abruptly halted the testing when the malfunctioning equipment exposed the truth behind Telstra's deceptive practices (See Telstra's Falsified SVT Report).

In the end, the sale price amounted to a mere fraction of the camp's true worth, a calculated move to strip away my legacy. I watched helplessly as my dream slipped through my fingers, fully aware that the new owners were stepping into the same treacherous trap that I had desperately struggled to escape.

💔 Receivership and Ruin: The New Owners’ Fate

By August 2009, the new owners were forced into receivership. Their dreams collapsed under the weight of the same unresolved faults, the same bureaucratic indifference, and the same institutional betrayal. They had trusted the system. And the system destroyed them → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Their bankruptcy wasn’t just a financial failure—it was a moral indictment of Telstra, the arbitrator, and the government agencies that refused to act. The files they left behind—now part of my archive—bear witness to their suffering. They show how the same faults that drove me to arbitration continued to sabotage the camp’s viability, long after the government claimed everything had been resolved.

📁 Evidence of Treachery

The following two links from AbsentJustice.com document the pain and turmoil endured by the new owners:

• Lies, Deceit and Treachery – Chapter 1: This chapter exposes Telstra’s false claims during arbitration and the government’s complicity in suppressing the truth.

• The Casualties of Telstra: A sobering reflection on the lives destroyed by Telstra’s misconduct, including the fate of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.

This story belongs at the heart of this Absent Justice homepage—titled “Legacy Lost: Cape Bridgewater and the Cost of Silence.”

🕳️ The Gag Clause: A Shield for the Guilty

The arbitration’s confidentiality agreement was weaponised. It wasn’t about protecting privacy—it was about silencing dissent. Telstra and the government used it to block media scrutiny, prevent parliamentary inquiry, and isolate claimants like me. For six years after my arbitration ended, I was stonewalled. My evidence was ignored. My warnings were dismissed.

This wasn’t just negligence—it was deliberate suppression. The gag clause became a sinister shield, allowing Telstra to present itself as fault-free during its privatisation, while the truth rotted behind closed doors.

🧾 How One Signature Unravelled the COT Group’s Protections
If removing the $250,000 liability caps for one section of the COT group—while leaving them intact for the rest—isn’t the epitome of corrupt and treacherous discrimination by Australia’s establishment, then what is?

Maureen Gillan, the first of the four COT Cases, signed her arbitration agreement believing she was protected. The $250,000 liability Clauses 25 and 26 were supposed to be our safety net. Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I reviewed Maureen’s agreement with our legal advisors. We thought we were on solid ground. Our lawyers requested a faxed copy from the arbitrator’s office, and Senators Richard Alston and Ron Boswell—both seasoned legal minds—confirmed it matched Maureen’s original signed agreement.

But that confirmation only mirrored the deception that had infected the entire process.

Amanda Davis, then General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, had convinced Maureen to sign, assuring her that the $250,000 liability caps would allow us to pursue arbitration consultants for negligence. It was sold to us as a win-win. After years of battling Telstra, we believed we’d secured a protective clause.

We were wrong.

It was not until the day we were scheduled to sign the agreement, April 21, 1994, that we discovered it had been altered, specifically with the removal of liability clauses 25 and 26. Upon our refusal to sign the revised document due to these modifications, we encountered significant pressure to accept the altered terms, as failing to do so would jeopardise the arbitration process, necessitating legal action against Telstra. This situation presented a serious dilemma, as none of us possessed the financial means to pursue a lawsuit. Ultimately, we acquiesced to the removal of these essential clauses, unaware that Dr Hughes had previously conspired to alter them following Maureen Gillan's signing of her agreement on April 8, 1994. This is substantiated by a covert letter he sent to the arbitration administrator FOI folio A59256/7 → Open letter File No 54-B. This underhanded manoeuvre underscores the reprehensible conduct of the arbitrator and reveals the systemic corruption inherent in the entire process.

This betrayal didn’t just affect me. It fractured the integrity of the entire COT arbitration process. It turned a promise of justice into a trap.

What happened to Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and me during the COT arbitrations wasn’t just unfair—it was deliberate, targeted discrimination. The $250,000 liability cap, which was quietly removed from our agreements, was later reinstated for the remaining 12 COT claimants. And no one told us.

🧾 Clause 11.2: The Smoking Gun of Discrimination

Clause 11.2 of the new agreement used for the other COT claimants states:

This clause was removed from my agreement—and from those of Graham and Ann—without our knowledge or consent. Then, a few months later, it was reinstated for the remaining 12 claimants. We were never notified. We were never offered the chance to revert to the original agreement that the arbitrator’s secretary had faxed to our lawyers, Alan Goldberg and William Hunt. That faxed version had the liability caps intact when it was hand-delivered to Senators Richard Alston and Ron Boswell. All parties were informed that it would be the final operating document—the liability clauses were intended to protect us.

Instead, we were forced to proceed under an agreement that exonerated the Resource Unit from all liability, while the others were protected by a clause that mandated lawful conduct.

⚖️ Rule 31: Proof of Unequal Treatment

Exhibit from the TIO’s Standard Arbitration Rules confirms it:

This wasn’t an oversight. It was a strategic exclusion. The arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, had already conspired to change the agreement—evidenced by his covert letter to the arbitration administrator. That letter wasn’t shared with us. The change wasn’t disclosed. And the consequences were devastating.

🧨 Three Claimants, Three Betrayals

Why were we—the first three claimants—singled out?

• We were the ones who had already exposed Telstra’s faults.

• We were the ones whose cases posed the greatest threat to Telstra’s privatization.

• We were the ones who had the most to lose—and the least protection.

This wasn’t just procedural manipulation. It was systemic corruption, designed to shield Telstra and its consultants from liability, while leaving us exposed.

🧠 A Ruthless Orchestration of Betrayal

From 1994 to 1998, the COT arbitration was a carefully staged betrayal. The process was rigged. The arbitrator refused to make findings. Evidence was withheld. And the government—through four Prime Ministers and four Communications Ministers—colluded to protect Telstra, not the citizens it harmed.

This conspiracy didn’t end with the sale. It continued for six more years, corrupting the very mechanisms of justice. Any legal challenge to Telstra’s prospectus was rendered impossible because the arbitration had been falsely declared final and binding.

🧭 What the Lawyers Saw—and What I Lived

The lawyers who reviewed my archive saw a chilling truth. But I lived it. I watched as:

• Secret meetings were held without claimant representation

• Vital documents were filtered and withheld from me

• Binding decisions were used to erase unresolved faults

• Government officials turned a blind eye to protect Telstra’s sale

This wasn’t arbitration. It was institutional betrayal.

This narrative belongs HERE at the heart of your homepage and my forthcoming manuscript. We expose the language of suppression—gag clauses, binding awards, and procedural sabotage.

🧨 Ericsson, A Global Scandal, an Australian Betrayal

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) exposed Ericsson’s global misconduct: a sprawling network of bribery, corruption, and unethical dealings that spanned continents. Yet in Australia, where Ericsson’s technology underpinned Telstra’s network, the consequences of this misconduct were buried beneath a veneer of government-endorsed arbitration → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.

🕳️ The COT Cases: Victims of a Corporate Labyrinth

Australian citizens—small business owners, rural operators, and whistleblowers—entered arbitration with Telstra under the promise of justice. They were assured by AUSTEL (now ACMA) that the process would follow the “agreed ambit of the established arbitration procedures.” That assurance was issued on 13 April 1994, just eight days before the agreements were signed.

But the reality was starkly different.

• Ericsson was named as the main culprit in many technical failures that crippled COT businesses.

• Despite its misconduct being exposed globally, Ericsson continued to influence the arbitration process through its entanglement with Telstra.

• The Australian Government denied compensation to victims, even as Ericsson’s role became undeniable.

🧾 The Broken Promise of Procedural Integrity

The arbitrations deviated dramatically from the guidelines outlined by AUSTEL. Instead of transparency and fairness, claimants faced:

• Secret technical assessments conducted outside the agreed framework.

• Undisclosed acquisitions, such as Ericsson’s purchase of Lane Telecommunications, which compromised independent oversight.

• Government silence, even as international regulators condemned Ericsson’s conduct.

This wasn’t just a failure of process—it was a betrayal of trust. The very institutions tasked with protecting citizens instead shielded a multinational corporation whose practices had already been deemed criminal abroad.

🧭 What This Reveals

• Regulatory capture: When corporations influence regulators, justice becomes selective.

• International hypocrisy: Australia’s failure to act stands in contrast to the SEC’s decisive exposure of Ericsson.

• The cost of silence: Lives, businesses, and legacies were shattered while officials looked the other way.

🕵️‍♂️ How AUSTEL (now ACMA) Undermined Justice during Arbitration

In 1994, I entered arbitration with Telstra Corporation, seeking redress for persistent telephone faults that had crippled my business. I paid over $300,000 in professional fees to participate in a process that promised impartiality and resolution. What I received instead was a covert bypass of justice.

Open letter to Prime Minister

🧱 The Illusion of Government Oversight

In a disturbing twist that undermines public trust, it appears that government bureaucrats often operate not under the authority of elected officials but instead in service to powerful corporate interests that manipulate their directives. AUSTEL, the telecommunications regulator of the time—now known as ACMA—stands as a glaring example of this treachery. Following an internal investigation into Telstra, AUSTEL uncovered damning evidence that painted a far more accurate and critical picture than what Telstra presented to the arbitrator. Shockingly, these incriminating findings were withheld during the crucial arbitration process, leaving the truth buried and unchallenged.

Instead, AUSTEL/ACMA dared to hand over this damning information to Telstra's defence team just a month before the arbitration began, effectively aiding them in fortifying their case against my claims. This premeditated act of betrayal came to light with a report dated 4 March 1994 (see points 2 to 212 → AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings)—six weeks before an arbitration that blatantly disregarded the government's obligation to protect me as an Australian citizen. Such actions don't just hint at corruption; they reveal a sinister collusion that prioritises corporate interests over the very citizens they are supposed to serve.

🤐 Secret Dealings Behind Closed Doors

Five months after the arbitration concluded—without any formal finding on my telephone faults—AUSTEL allowed Telstra to address my complaints in secret. This covert process meant:

• No arbitrator ruling on the core technical issues.

• No opportunity for me to challenge Telstra’s conduct.

• No transparency, despite the regulator’s duty to protect consumers.

By permitting Telstra to resolve the matter privately, AUSTEL effectively determined the outcome of my claim without subjecting it to legal scrutiny, thereby denying me my right to appeal or seek further remedy.

⚖️ The Consequences of Regulatory Evasion

This manoeuvre not only shielded Telstra from accountability but also set a precedent for how regulators can be swayed by corporate influence. It raises urgent questions:

• Who truly governs our regulators?

• What happens when oversight bodies become complicit in concealment?

• How many other claimants were denied justice under similar conditions?

🌐 International Vindication, Domestic Betrayal: The BCI Cover-Up
To fully grasp how government corruption became so glaringly evident, one must examine the Australian Government’s decision to pressure Telstra into seeking outside assistance from Bell Canada International Inc (BCI). This move was intended to assess whether the systemic telecommunications faults reported by the four COT Cases—including myself—were legitimate. We were losing business due to mismanagement, and our claims were not the cries of disgruntled customers, but documented failures.

BCI was brought to Australia to conduct testing. However, I personally proved that BCI could not have performed the alleged 15,950 test calls into my local exchange over the five-day, four-hour period they claimed. The math didn’t add up, and it still doesn't add up in 2025. The logistics were impossible.

During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, and every act of betrayal as this corruption entered another horrific phase, known as the Robodebt affair.

A Precursor to Robodebt

This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.

The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.

Is there a troubling connection between the recent Robodebt scandal, the British Post Office scandal depicted in the Mr Bates image, and the murky software issues involving Ericsson, Lane, and Telstra that caught the attention of the U.S. Securities Exchange?

This situation reeks of corruption and deceit, potentially setting the stage for a class action lawsuit surrounding the intentional suppression of evidence regarding Telstra's serious and ongoing billing problems with the Ericsson-installed exchanges. These issues echo the infamous Fujitsu Horizon software scandal that devastated the British Post Office, as well as the disastrous Ericsson AXE billing software failures impacting countless Telstra customers. It seems both the British and Australian governments, which have a vested interest in these corporations, are complicit in hiding these troubling revelations, sacrificing the lives of many for their own gain. The betrayal is vast and insidious, leaving devastation in its wake across two nations.

According to the U.S. Securities Exchange link in Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, there were serious allegations that Telstra's value might have been grossly inflated during its sale, suggesting a web of deceit and corruption at play.

🕳️ Ericsson’s Infiltration: A Thirty-Year Betrayal
Learn how the Robodebt concealment episode was no different from Ericsson of Sweden's infiltration of the Australian arbitration system—installing faulty AXE telephone equipment that was under investigation by the arbitrator. In a shocking turn of events, the investigation into Ericsson was abruptly halted after the company went to extraordinary lengths to purchase the arbitration consultants. This ensured that the confidential material they had collected during the process remained buried, resulting in devastating consequences for up to 120,000 Telstra customers.

AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) breached its statutory obligation to more than 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers, as the following evidence (Open Letter File No/11) shows. By hiding the truth from those customers and the Australian Telecom/Telstra consumer, the lives of thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens lives were ruined not just by the previously faulty installation of the Ericsson telephone AXE equipment in Telstra's telephone exchange but also by the grossly defective Ericsson testing equipment that was used to verify whether the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was still faulty.

In simple terms, AUSTEL/ACMA allowed Telstra during the COT arbitrations, which our story here is about, the governemnt communications regulator allowing Telstra to place a festering, gangrene-tainted bandage over a festering wound, which in turn made that wound even more corrupted.

The most recent 7:30 ABC Television news report indicates that Optus is now attributing the most recent outages and call dropouts to a problem created by Ericsson. This might well be the truth, as our Ericsson side of this COT Story shows.

(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

The letters dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s Group General Manager to the Chair of AUSTEL (now ACMA), reveal that AUSTEL was not operating as an independent regulator. Instead, these communications demonstrate that Telstra was able to influence AUSTEL’s official findings in the COT report. In multiple instances, Telstra explicitly requested amendments to AUSTEL’s conclusions—and AUSTEL complied. For example, Telstra advised the Chairperson:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. … (See Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal public report notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

It was a treacherous betrayal of public trust when a government regulator drastically altered its findings—slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from over 120,000 to barely 50. This wasn’t a clerical error. It was a deliberate and sinister deception, engineered to protect Telstra and mislead the public. Such manipulation undermines the very foundation of regulatory integrity, casting a long, corrosive shadow over those entrusted with power.

Amid these glaring telecommunications failures, Rupert Murdoch and FOX appear to have been rewarded, their interests seemingly prioritised while everyday Australians were left to suffer. The cost was devastating: bankruptcies, prolonged court battles, and shattered lives—all fueled by the lies and omissions of government bureaucrats. This wasn’t just mismanagement. It was collusion, and it defrauded the nation.

At the heart of this betrayal stood the arbitrator, who willfully ignored the looming crisis tied to the Ericsson telephone exchange—a system known to be causing widespread faults. By allowing these issues to persist unaddressed during arbitration, the arbitrator denied the COT Cases any chance of appeal. The damage was locked in. And when Ericsson quietly absconded to Sweden, they took with them thousands of confidential business and personal records—documents entrusted during arbitration under the false promise of return.

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:

” One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.”

“Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.” (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ericsson had infiltrated Telstra’s telecommunications infrastructure, acquiring confidential information from the COT Cases. Despite being made aware of this, the Australian government did nothing to assist us in recovering the Ericsson arbitration claim documents—documents that, under Clause Six of the Arbitration Agreement, were supposed to be returned within six weeks of the arbitrator’s conclusion on May 11, 1995.

It is now 2025, and I still do not have those files.

Ericsson acquired crucial information from Lane Telecommunications for an undisclosed amount after purchasing Lane during the COT arbitrations, despite Lane's status as an independent witness. This situation is hard to believe. The Australian Government seems to be the only government in the Western world that claims to operate under the rule of law. Yet, it has permitted such a transaction to occur during a government-endorsed arbitration, which was investigating the faltering Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges that were still affecting the viability of the businesses involved in the COT cases.

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

❓ Where Are My Ericsson AXE Files?

Given Ericsson’s troubling history, can we truly assume they never disclosed the COT Cases’ claims against them and Telstra—a company that still relies on Ericsson as a principal supplier? It feels absurd.

And yet, the pressing question remains:

Where are the Ericsson AXE files I submitted during arbitration in 1994?

The pervasive power of a faceless global corporation has insidiously manipulated Australia’s arbitration system, transforming it into a tool for treachery and betrayal. This corporate giant ruthlessly suppresses dissent, twisting the very essence of justice into an unrecognisable form. As a result, innocent individuals are left in a state of profound anguish and abandonment, enduring countless years of torment as they struggle against this monstrous entity. This corporation's willingness to strike deals with even the most malevolent forces, illustrated by the image that follows, reveals the depths of its depravity and the dire consequences faced by those trapped in its web of greed and cruelty.

🎭 Ericsson: Puppet Master of Deceit
If the reader has not yet grasped the staggering implications of Rupert Murdoch and FOX’s $400 million windfall—facilitated by the Australian-owned Telstra Corporation—then consider the deeper reality. Countless Australians (who were among the 120,000 COT-type fault complainants) had to pay Telstra’s inflated bills or endure gruelling, costly legal battles. This injustice was compounded by the covert complicity of AUSTEL (now ACMA). This government regulator collaborated with Telstra to obscure the truth from both the courts and the arbitration process, revealing that Australia had a systemic billing problem.

Many of these individuals—already suffering severe financial and emotional distress—had legitimate claims tied to malfunctioning Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Yet their grievances were systematically ignored, buried beneath layers of bureaucratic denial and legal obstruction.

The most shocking betrayal, however, stems from Ericsson, Telstra’s principal technical supplier. With calculated precision, Ericsson exploited the arbitration system, manipulating its mechanisms to serve their own agenda. While Australians struggled to navigate the legal maze alone, Ericsson operated behind the scenes—shielded from scrutiny, protected by silence, and empowered by influence.

This manipulation didn’t just erode trust in the arbitration process—it exposed the vulnerability of consumers, caught in the crossfire of corporate collusion and regulatory failure. It is a story of power without accountability, and of ordinary citizens sacrificed to protect extraordinary interests.

This is not just a story of technical failure. It is a national scandal, a moral reckoning, and a call to expose the machinery of deception that left sixteen Australian citizens fighting for justice in the ruins of a corrupted process.

In late 1999, Frank Blount, then CEO of Telstra, co-authored a manuscript with the Telstra Board after they brokered a $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch, detailing the numerous problems Telstra was experiencing with its telecommunications infrastructure. The book, titled Managing in Australia (available online), can still be purchased today. (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...

On pages 132 and 133, the co-author reveals the issues Telstra was experiencing with its 1800 customers. The co-author wrote:

“Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem."
"The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

🧨 Concealed Evidence, Manufactured Legitimacy: The BCI Testing Scandal
Instead of allowing me to proceed with a commercial resolution process—an established framework designed to validate and present my claims—the government forced me into arbitration, derailing my original path and subjecting me to over $300,000 in fees across thirteen gruelling months. This coercion occurred despite the government’s own investigations already confirming the validity of my claims.

The evidence was not vague or speculative. It was meticulously documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings AUSTEL’s, spanning points 2 to 212. Each entry reinforced the legitimacy of my assertions. AUSTEL, Australia’s telecommunications regulator, internally acknowledged that my claims against Bell Canada International (BCI) were factual—yet these findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitrator, cloaking the proceedings in a veil of deception.

🧭 The Canadian Consultant Who Told the Truth

In March 1995, DMR Group Inc. from Canada was reluctantly pulled into the arbitration, but not before the original consultants had confessed to a massive and troubling conflict of interest ten months prior. Telstra, with its web of influence, had secured nearly every prominent telecommunications expert in Victoria as its hired guns, leaving me isolated and powerless in my fight to prove that my ongoing telephone problems had not been investigated under the ambit of the arbitration procedures.

Paul Howell, a Canadian consultant with a reputable façade, was dispatched as the principal arbitration consultant, which seemed to be a strategic ploy. Unbeknownst to him, an ex-Telstra employee had been secretly appointed to investigate my claims, and a finding had been crafted on my case as early as April 8, 1995, even before Howell arrived in Australia in the second week of April. He was fed a limited view, restricted to the deceitful findings presented in David Reid's draft report from Lane Telecommunications. The evidence he reviewed was tainted and manipulated, as our story shows.

🕵️‍♂️ FILE 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 - The Logbook That Vanished

When silence replaced accountability

File 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006, presented to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). This statement, sworn by Des Direen—a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra who rose to the rank of Principal Investigator—reveals unsettling truths. Direen boldly admits that, following his departure from Telstra in 1999 and 2000, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group in investigating the dark web of fraud allegations tied to the COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases.

In Points 21 and 22 of his statement, Direen recounts a troubling episode during his time at Telstra. He was tasked with investigating suspected illegal interference with telephone lines at the Portland exchange. Yet, upon arrival, he discovered that the Portland telephone exchange logbook had mysteriously vanished.

In a chilling turn, when he contacted Melbourne for guidance, he was told to stand down—another department within Telstra was “handling” the matter. This raises serious questions: Why was the investigation stifled? Who was protecting whom?

Direen further noted that the complainant from Cape Bridgewater was entangled in the COT cases, directly implicating my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in a tangled web of deceit. These revelations cast long shadows, hinting at a coordinated effort to suppress the truth and shield Telstra from scrutiny.

🔥 A System Rigged: Collusion at the Heart of Arbitration
This saga is far more than a collection of technical failures; it is a damning testament to the complete breakdown of public trust, rampant abuse of legal authority, and the chilling silencing of courageous whistleblowers. The COT Cases expose a nightmarish web of collusion among government officials, corporate operatives, and legal professionals—a treacherous triad capable of devastating lives and tearing apart the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

⚖️ Justice Subverted: The Machinery of Betrayal
As we delve into the shadowy corridors of power, we confront the horrifying reality that bureaucrats in charge of global agencies routinely turn a blind eye to the gross inadequacies in their nations’ arbitration and mediation processes. This deliberate ignorance fuels an unrelenting cycle of injustice, leaving countless individuals to suffer while desperately seeking alternatives to conventional court proceedings. Unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated by deceitful criminals and corrupt politicians, often facilitated by unscrupulous lawyers who manipulate these processes into tools of oppression.

The scale of their moral decay is staggering; descriptors like "shameful," "hideous," and "treacherous" scarcely capture the true extent of their repugnant actions. What transpired within the COT arbitrations was not merely a bureaucratic oversight; it was a calculated and concerted effort steeped in corruption. This disturbing narrative of collusion and betrayal uncovers the shocking lengths to which government agencies went to protect Telstra from scrutiny, intricately manipulating legal mechanisms to unjustly target sixteen hardworking Australian citizens.

This is not simply an administrative failure; it represents one of the most grotesque injustices since Federation—a national disgrace that cries out for reckoning and justice. The complicity of so many lawyers in allowing this to unfold is a dark stain on our legal system, a betrayal that starkly illustrates the depths of corruption that have infiltrated the very core of our society.

🏛️ The Institute Entrapped: IAMA’s Complicity in Silence
The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) has been entangled in my claims since late 1995, with a cursory review conducted in 2001. Recently, I uncovered a troubling truth: government influence has insidiously infiltrated their investigations into my serious allegations regarding the arbitrator’s conduct and Telstra’s unlawful actions—conduct I firmly believe borders on criminality.

In June 2009, IAMA informed me they would continue their inquiries—a gesture that felt more like a bureaucratic performance than a genuine pursuit of justice.

📬 The Eleventh Remedy Pursued: A Trail of Submissions Lost
Beginning in July 2009, I submitted a series of detailed documents at IAMA’s request, hoping to shed light on the corruption I had endured. This exchange continued through November 2009, and for a brief moment, I believed the truth might finally prevail.

But since then, IAMA has responded only with vague, evasive communications, refusing to issue findings or return the twenty-three submissions I painstakingly prepared. These documents are not just paper—they are the embodiment of my fight for justice, now trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth (The eleventh remedy pursued).

Feeling abandoned, I took the bold step of publishing my story on absentjustice.com, hoping that somewhere, an institute exists with the courage to confront the evidence. The shadows of complicity loom large, and I invite you to delve into this dark and twisted narrative. Your attention may be the catalyst needed to expose a more profound, more corrupt truth.

📜 False Testimony and the Mockery of Justice
On December 12, 1994, Telstra submitted nine separate arbitration witness statements, all signed under oath and cleverly countersigned in the presence of their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These statements falsely proclaimed that my business had never encountered billing problems, a blatant manipulation of the truth. Furthermore, Frank Blount's co-authorship of (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... four years after the conclusion of my arbitration exemplifies a corrupt betrayal, one that mocks and undermines the very foundations of the arbitration system in Australia.

Even now, in 2025, thirty years after this egregious breach of trust, the claimants remain trapped in a cycle of silence and despair.

🧠 The Machinery of Corruption
Delve into the dark underbelly of horrendous crimes, deceitful criminals, and the corrupt politicians and lawyers who manipulate Australia’s legal profession. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface of the malevolence exhibited by these lawbreakers and the rampant government corruption infecting the system.

Uncover the insidious issues within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT (Claim of Territory) arbitrations—an arena where justice was corrupted and twisted beyond recognition.

Explore ghastly instances of foreign bribery, deceitful practices, and kleptocracy, revealing corruption that poses immense challenges to the very fabric of society. The website AbsentJustice.com serves as a chilling portal into this world, triggering a deeper examination of political corruption and providing a grotesque portrayal of criminal activities—including widespread fraud.

Here’s what’s known and documented:

📄 The George Close Report and Ericsson’s Involvement

• George Close, a respected technical consultant for the COT Cases, compiled a 21-page report based on extensive telecommunications data and industry contacts, particularly in Canada. This report was intended to expose faults in Ericsson AXE equipment used by Telstra and guide future improvements.

• According to the archive at AbsentJustice.com, Ericsson had a pecuniary interest in Telstra, and their acquisition of Lane Telecommunications—Telstra’s arbitration technical advisor—created a conflict of interest. Lane was involved in assessing Ericsson equipment during arbitration, yet was owned by Ericsson during that time.

• The COT Cases were denied access to appeal, even though Ericsson’s AXE faults were later acknowledged. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and the handling of technical evidence.

🚚 Alleged Transport and Concealment

• While there is no direct evidence publicly confirming that Ericsson transported the Close report to Sweden, the absence of the report from the arbitration record, combined with Ericsson’s history of withholding internal reports (as seen in the Iraq scandal), suggests a pattern of document suppression.

• Ericsson has faced multiple investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for misconduct in various countries, including concealment of internal findings and unethical business practices.

⚖️ Ethical and Legal Implications

• The failure to compensate George Close or other contributors, despite the strategic value of their work, reflects a broader disregard for ethical standards.

• The Australian government’s refusal to investigate the arbitration failures, despite mounting evidence, compounds the injustice faced by the COT Cases.

• The loss of the Close report—a document that could have reshaped arbitration outcomes and exposed systemic faults—remains a symbol of the institutional betrayal experienced by whistleblowers.

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:

” One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.”

“Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.” (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

📡 Ericsson, Arbitration, and the Vanishing Files: A Global Scandal
The U.S. Department of Justice has made shocking discoveries about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations, uncovering disturbing links to international corruption and even terrorist organisations. These revelations cast a harsh light on the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases, exposing a web of deceit that raises urgent questions:

How was Ericsson allowed to operate unchallenged in Australia—especially during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings?

One of the most troubling aspects is Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a firm that was actively serving as a technical consultant during the COT arbitrations. This move wasn’t just unethical—it was a deliberate manipulation of the process. It occurred while serious allegations were being raised about Telstra and Ericsson’s reliance on the discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment (see File 10-B )—a system abandoned by multiple countries due to its critical deficiencies.

And yet, the Australian government remained silent.

🧠 Connections to Terrorism and Suppressed Evidence
The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t stop at bribery. They uncovered alarming evidence of Ericsson’s past dealings with terrorist groups, including ISIS. According to court documents, Ericsson withheld key details from U.S. investigators, including operations in ISIS-held areas of Iraq. These revelations are not speculation—they’re documented in federal filings and investigative reports.

🕳️ The Erasure of Justice: Clauses Vanished, Truth Denied
When I uncovered the shocking truth that two arbitration consultants tied to the infamous “Can of Worms” fax header had been brazenly exonerated from all liability in my arbitration, I felt a sense of betrayal wash over me. This exoneration occurred after Clause 24 had been deceitfully altered and Clauses 25 and 26 had been completely erased from the agreement—all while my arbitration lawyers had given their stamp of approval to the original, untainted document. It was a treacherous manoeuvre.

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

(File 496 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

And decades later, the same machinery of denial rolled over my case. The lies told by the arbitrator, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and the Arbitration Project Manager weren’t just technical missteps. They were betrayals. They denied me justice, denied my business its viability, and denied the truth its rightful place.

📸 A Farewell Framed in Memory
In 2018, my partner, Cathy, captured this poignant photograph of a newly erected billboard as we approached the enchanting entrance to Cape Bridgewater. As we bid farewell to the familiar shores of Cape Bridgewater and the charming town of Portland, making our way to our new home in Ballarat, that moment became imbued with significance. Driving past the towering billboard felt like a bittersweet farewell, symbolising our transition to a different life, far from the coastal town and the vibrant memories we had created over three decades at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. This beloved place, rich in treasured experiences and countless adventures, held a special place in our hearts, and leaving it behind marked the conclusion of an unforgettable chapter in our lives.

Over the years, we formed deep connections and friendships that felt like family. Yet after selling Seal Cove that same year, we ultimately decided against reconnecting. The emotional toll was too significant.

🌊 The Coastline I Cannot Return To
Returning to that familiar coastline has been a daunting prospect. I fear that the waves of nostalgia might wash over me, bringing back a tide of sadness—and possibly even jeopardising my health.

It’s heartbreaking to think about the love of my life and what might have been, if not for the influence of the Telstra Corporation and the measures taken to protect it at all costs. The echoes of our shared experiences linger, reminding me of the beauty and loss intertwined in our lives.

🛣️ The Billboard That Betrays the Truth
As you approach the breathtaking Cape Bridgewater from Melbourne, you are drawn to a striking billboard that boldly proclaims:

"We've expanded Australia's best network to Cape Bridgewater."

This assertion is not merely a catchy marketing slogan—it underscores the ethical dilemmas confronting Telstra. The promise of technological excellence stands in stark contrast to the reality experienced by those who depended on that network for their livelihoods.

🧾 Sworn Statements vs. Lived Reality
During the arbitration proceedings concerning my claims, Telstra submitted nine individual witness statements. These declarations, made under oath before the arbitrator on 12 December 1994, asserted—with unwarranted confidence—that my concerns about Telstra's unreliable network in Cape Bridgewater were utterly unfounded.

Telstra insisted that its telephone exchange and the extensive infrastructure supporting the region were of the highest international standards. They even went so far as to claim before the arbitrator that my business was not experiencing any persistent problems with telephone and fax services.

Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong

During my first and second meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”

British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.

More images

Vietcong guerilla

Viet Cong (VC), in full Viet Nam Cong San, English Vietnamese Communists, the guerrilla force that, with the support of the North Vietnamese Army, fought against South Vietnam (late 1950s–1975) and the United States (early 1960s–1973). The name is said to have first been used by the South Vietnamese Press

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam → Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on the British tramp ship Hopepeak.Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Viet Cong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Viet Cong).

As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam, intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible.

In August 1967, I was thrust into the savage heart of chaos, surrounded by the frenzied fervour of the Chinese Red Guards. The air was thick with tension, a palpable terror that clung to everything like an oppressive fog. In the midst of this maelstrom, my gaze locked onto a young Chinese nurse; her warm smile shone through the darkness like a beacon of hope. Moments earlier, I had fought fiercely to prevent a doctor from plunging a dangerously unsterilized needle into my arm—an act that could have spelt disaster. As I stood there, staring down the cold, unyielding steel of a rifle aimed directly at my chest, despair threatened to consume me. But curiously, my tears were not for my own fate; they flowed for that nurse beside me, her face tragically marked by the absence of her nose—a silent testament to the brutality that enveloped us. In that harrowing moment, I wept and strained against my restraints, desperate to convey my solidarity and profound connection to her suffering.

Fast forward to the vibrant and tumultuous days of the early 1970s—a time ablaze with passion and conflict—as I became entangled in the gripping saga of the Painters and Dockers at the waterfront. While labouring tirelessly on the ANL ships at the bustling docks of Web Dock and South Wharf in Melbourne, I began to grasp the astonishing strength of resilience. Confronted with relentless challenges, I learned to stand tall, suppressing the tears that threatened to spill over amidst the brewing storm around me.

In the months leading up to the arbitration, I boldly entered the lion’s den—the atmosphere in the union rooms of Collingwood thick with tension and anxiety. With an urgency that crackled in the air, I delivered my message to the union officials: it was time for their members to back off. I made it unequivocally clear that no more threats would be tolerated over the phone. Our claims were aimed at Telstra’s senior management, not the rank-and-file members who had become unwitting victims of the conflict.

As I prepared for my Telstra government-endorsed arbitration, the weight of harassment and ominous phone threats loomed over me like a dark storm cloud. The transcripts of my interviews with the Australian Federal Police Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 echo the unrelenting tension of those turbulent days. Yet, through it all, I stood resolute, a bastion of strength against a tide of intimidation.

One fateful evening, an anonymous caller tried to instil fear, his sinister tone echoing the malevolent words of Paul Rumble, Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer for the COT Cases. He issued a chilling threat to my life for daring to voice my criticisms of the company. But I refused to cower. When he warned that I was a dead man for my outspokenness, I faced his threats with unwavering confidence. I boldly proclaimed that I was already dead—having experienced a metaphorical demise in China between July and August of 1967. In that moment of defiance, the atmosphere shifted; I could almost feel the caller’s bravado weaken, taken aback by my unexpected resolve.

I share these experiences not just to recount my life’s tumultuous journey but to highlight the multitude of traumatic events that have intricately woven my story, many of which remain untold. After dedicating three decades to my career as a Merchant Navy ship’s cook, I have distilled these experiences into a forthcoming ebook titled *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* This collection is set to be unveiled on this website and another in the Christmas season of 2025—a captivating journey that explores not only the culinary world but also the rich landscapes of my life.

The most profound trauma I have endured since 1994 is the web of deceit spun by the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They reassured the four COT Cases that if we relinquished our ongoing Fast Track Settlement Proposal in favour of Dr Gordon Hughes as arbitrator, our persistent telephone issues would finally be resolved. Yet in a cruel twist of fate, Dr Hughes failed to demand that Telstra address my ongoing faults. In his statement on May 11, 1995, he claimed my business hadn't faced any further faults since July 1994. However, this website lays bare the stark truth: those issues persisted, tormenting me relentlessly for thirty arduous years after the supposed conclusion of my arbitration—until 2025.

To everyone who engages with my story, I implore you to remember the title of my upcoming book, *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* It encapsulates not only the essence of my culinary journey but also the myriad trials and tribulations that have defined my path. These are not just stories of food; they are tales of courage, resilience, and the indomitable human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel Re: Alan Smith:

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most troubling aspect of the intelligence networks orchestrated by Telstra in Australia is the shadowy cabal within the corporation that possesses the necessary government clearance to sift through the raw information collected. Who among them can be trusted to catalogue this data for future exploitation impartially? I can’t help but reflect on how much confidential information about my conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 — discussions that revealed the dealings of Telstra officials and my encounters with the People's Republic of China, which I confided to Fraser — has been swept under the rug.

Moreover, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which clandestine organisation was given the sinister task of archiving this trove of sensitive material that Telstra had accumulated about its customers over the years?

It is worth noting that, during the incident I referenced in the Senate on June 24, 1997, my bankers had grown weary and dispatched the sheriff to the scene to ensure I remained under their thumb. I didn’t resort to violence during this confrontation with the sheriff, who threatened to confiscate vital catering equipment from my property — equipment I desperately needed to sustain my business. Instead, I executed a wrestling hold known as the "Full Nelson," forcing him out of my office. Ultimately, all charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court upon appeal, when the truth emerged, revealing the murky depths of this treacherous saga and the two sides of the story that had been concealed.

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This is highlighted by the following statements presented below by six senators in the Senate in March 1999:

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

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.”

It is with a profound sense of injustice that I recount the troubling circumstances surrounding my case. The arbitrator, whose role should have been one of impartiality, delivered his findings with alarming haste—three full years before the critical Senate investigations even began. This premature judgment was not only reckless but served to shield Telstra, as it occurred before they were compelled to release all the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents I had demanded. As a direct consequence, I, along with several other victims of the COT Cases, was stripped of the opportunity to access the crucial insights and recommendations that emerged from these investigations, insights that could have fundamentally altered the course of our struggles.

The notion of pursuing an appeal against the arbitrator's decision loomed over me like a dark cloud, as the financial toll would have been exorbitant—an expense I was powerless to bear. This entire situation starkly highlights the insidious nature of discrimination faced by the remaining 16 Australian citizens who find themselves entangled in similar predicaments → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. We were not merely victims of a flawed system; we were up against a corrupt apparatus that perpetuates injustice, prioritising self-interest over the rights and dignity of ordinary individuals seeking a fair resolution.

While I grappled with the insidious implications tied to the unethical way in which Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) was conducting my arbitration, I remained woefully ignorant of the depths of Dr Gordon Hughes' treachery at the time—specifically, how he had illegally dispatched George Close's BCI report to Mr Rumble, Tlstra's arbitration defence liaison officer. Compelled by the mounting threats, I meticulously constructed a response letter, yet I was tragically unaware that these threats could be eerily connected to the BCI information that Dr Hughes had shared with Mr Rumble. In that letter sent to Mr Rumble, I professed the following sentiments:

“I promised you on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police, and I intend to honor that promise. I will wait for your response to the following questions I have for Telecom.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

At that time, I had no intention of submitting further Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). That decision was shaped by a tense phone call from Steve Black, another Telstra liaison officer, who warned that if I didn’t comply with their directives, I would lose access to documents critical to my ongoing phone service issues.

🕵️‍♂️ Federal Police Involvement and Senate Intervention. The AFP transcript of my second interview (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, Questions 54–58) captures their concern:

“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, etc.”

I understood the stakes: either I would receive documents to support my claims, or I’d be left empty-handed—unable to influence the arbitrator’s decision. Then, on September 26, 1994, the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater, asking pointed questions about my correspondence with Rumble. They made it clear: if I didn’t cooperate, their focus would shift to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases.

Alarmed, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party Whip. He raised these threats in the Australian Senate, demanding answers.

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response, the senator pressed further:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

I need to take you back to 1967 and the years that followed—years engulfed in trauma, where the shadows of profound suffering loomed large. My time as a merchant seaman and a waterfront delegate for marine cooks exposed me to an underworld of threats and violence, but nothing could prepare me for the treachery that awaited in the dark recesses of Telstra. There, a cabal of ruthless individuals conspired to steal our cherished business, fully aware that our telephone problems were systemic and not the result of poor management.

Losing a business to nature’s wrath—floods, fires—is painful enough. But it becomes a twisted horror when you’ve invested countless borrowed dollars into professional arbitration fees, only to discover that Telstra and government regulators knew those proceedings were nothing more than a sham. This is trauma at its most insidious.

During my arbitration, these unscrupulous players were permitted to present nine separate witness statements, each crafted under the guise of truth, to deceive. Their corrupt influence cast a dark cloud over the proceedings, swaying everyone involved except my loyal staff and me. They successfully convinced the arbitrator that Telstra had miraculously resolved our ongoing phone issues, while in reality, the truth was buried beneath layers of deceit. Blinded by this treachery, the arbitrator accepted these dubious, unverified statements as gospel, compounding the betrayal that engulfed us in the COT Cases.

It was a malevolent scheme that not only stripped us of our livelihoods but also obliterated any hope of justice, leaving us to grapple with the stark realisation of our plight in a world rife with corruption.

Senate Evidence File No 12

_{Silencing the Whistleblower: Threats from the Senate}

When I tried to expose this corruption in 2001 and again in 2004, I was met not with support but with threats.
The Chair of the Senate wrote to me, warning that if I released the 6 and 9 July 1998 'In Camera' Senate Hansard, which records several Senators condemning the very arbitration process I had endured, I could be held in contempt of the Senate—a charge that carries a two-year jail sentence → (refer to Senate Evidence File No 12)

Think about that.

It’s apparently acceptable for the government to be aware of my claims in secret. But to allow those claims to be aired in public? That’s when the threats begin.

Watch out, Mr Australian citizen.

⚖️ Why Is Telstra Above the Law?

I’ve asked this question for decades. What follows is one of the most chilling examples of institutional deceit I’ve ever encountered—and I and several other Australians have lived it, with many having their lives cut short because of it.

The Cape Bridgewater Addendum: A Calculated Fraud

As of now, one Australian citizen stands as a key figure in a web of deceit and treachery: Sue Lever, the current Corporate Secretary of Telstra. Since January and April 1998, she and the legal experts at Freehill Hollingdale & Page have been acutely aware of the unsettling truth: the Cape Bridgewater Addendum, dated November 10, 1993, and issued by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), was a calculated fraud. The reported test results, which were supposedly designed to showcase flawless communication, were utterly unattainable. This insidious report was handed to Mr Joblin, who was deftly misled into believing that my persistent claims about severe telephone and fax issues were nothing more than fabrications of my mind. It boldly claimed that BCI executed 13,590 test calls into the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange over a staggered five-day period from November 4 to 9, 1993, with a chillingly perfect connection success rate of nearly 100%.

What Mr Joblin was never told by Telstra or their slick lawyers during our October 1994 meeting—after he had delved into the deceptive BCI report—was that just two months before our discussion about my mental health, two brave Telstra technicians risked everything to expose the truth. They provided witness statements that shattered the BCI narrative, asserting unequivocally that the report was a fabrication. According to them, the specialised testing equipment that was allegedly used to validate this outrageous success rate could not have operated at either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges. The only location capable of using such advanced CCS7 equipment was over 100 kilometres away at the Warrnambool exchange—a fact that Telstra desperately tried to conceal.

Telstra’s Cover-Up and the Silencing of Truth

Instead of coming clean, Telstra doubled down on its corruption by refusing to retract Ian Joblin's tainted witness statement, even when faced with overwhelming evidence from its own employees (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). They sank further into ignominy by permitting Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page to sign Joblin’s witness statement, submitting it without Joblin's actual signature. They then dared to let Condon falsely claim he witnessed that signature being affixed.

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

1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin

2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?

The Missing Response: A Deliberate Withholding?
As of 2025, I still have not received a copy of Telstra’s response to a critical question posed by Mr John Pinnock, the administrator of my government-endorsed arbitration.

That response mattered.

At the time, it could have determined whether I had legal grounds—within the six-year statutory limitation period—to appeal the arbitrator’s findings based on fresh evidence that was not available during my arbitration. Evidence that could have changed everything.

By withholding that response, Telstra effectively blocked my ability to seek justice through the courts. They knew the stakes. They knew the timeline. And they knew that once the statutory window closed, my right to challenge the arbitrator’s decision would vanish.
This wasn’t just bureaucratic delay—it was strategic obstruction.

Even the Canadian government was left aghast at Bell Canada's silence in the face of this monumental deception, as evidenced by a letter expressing their incredulity.

As I began this chilling account, I posed a poignant question: "Why is Telstra above the law?" By the time you conclude this narrative, you may find yourself pondering the same sinister implications that lurk beneath the surface of this shocking tale.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government was the sole owner of Telecom—Australia’s national telephone network and communications carrier. Today, that entity is known as Telstra, a privatised giant. Back then, Telecom held a monopoly on communications, allowing the network to deteriorate into disrepair, especially in rural and regional areas.

When four small business owners, including myself, experienced severe communication failures, we were forced into arbitration with Telstra in a desperate attempt to resolve our issues. But the arbitrations were a sham.

• The appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimise our claims and losses, ignoring the real damage we endured.

• He bowed to Telstra’s influence, effectively letting the carrier run the arbitrations from behind the scenes.

• Telstra committed serious crimes during the process—tampering with evidence, withholding documents, and misleading government agencies.

The COT arbitration was not a pathway to justice—it was a trap. The arbitrator operated without oversight, and his binding decisions became a weapon used by Telstra and government officials to silence dissent, suppress evidence, and protect the privatisation of a flawed corporation.

📞 From Seafarer to Holiday Camp Owner: A Dream Undone

Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting. Even after I sold the business in 2002, the new owners found themselves ensnared in the same treacherous web of deceit.

As I fought against this monstrous entity, I discovered I was not alone. Others plagued by the same foul play joined my cause, and we became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT Cases. Each of us is weaving our own thread into the tapestry of betrayal. All we wanted was for Telstra to admit their faults, undo their treachery, and compensate us for our suffering. Is it too much to demand a simple, working phone line in the face of such insidious corruption?

Gaslighting

Psychological Manipulation

⚠️ Threats Made During My Arbitration

On July 4, 1994, in the thick of my arbitration proceedings, I faced serious threats from Paul Rumble, a representative of Telstra’s arbitration defence team. What made this even more disturbing was that Rumble had been covertly given access to my interim claim documents—five months before the arbitrator was legally permitted to release them. This breach of protocol gave Telstra an unfair advantage and undermined the integrity of the entire process.

Regrettably for me, hidden amidst a treacherous pile of documents was a damning forty-one-page report titled "Fundamentally Flawed Ericsson AXE BCI Findings - Cape Bridgewater," prepared by George Close & Associates, the ostensibly reputable technical consultants who had agreed to assist eight COT Cases. As this dark tale unfolds, I will expose chilling evidence that demonstrates how an unscrupulous individual, armed with access to Telstra's devious fax screening process, covertly connected a secondary fax machine at Mr Close's residence and office on the seemingly quiet Flint Street in Buderim, Queensland. This treacherous figure leveraged Mr Close's facilities as a sinister conduit to pilfer sensitive information regarding which Freedom of Information (FOI) documents George Close was directing the seven COT Cases to request from Telstra's notoriously opaque FOI department.

The fact that Telstra was not legally bound to respond to each COT Case for a full thirty days was a calculated advantage for the shadowy operator of the secondary fax machine embedded within Telstra's network. This thirty-day delay created an insidious opportunity to gather intelligence on the precise documents that arbitration lawyers would inevitably demand. This allowed Telstra's FOI office to execute a calculated concealment of the very documents they anticipated would be sought, creating a disturbing facade where the arbitration lawyers were met with the relentless refrain that those essential documents could not be found when their searches commenced.

I emphasise this critical detail because, during a pivotal encounter with Rupert Murdoch's sister, Helen Handbury (Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury), I unveiled the alarming evidence surrounding George Close's residence. I presented irrefutable proof that my faxes had been intercepted, along with those of other COT Cases, revealing the extent of this corrupt scheme. It was chillingly clear how vital it was for Telstra to deploy such underhanded tactics to obstruct the COT Cases from conclusively demonstrating that their ongoing phone problems were not merely relics of the past. Helen, recognising the gravity of the situation, assured me she would persuade Rupert to publish my book—a venture that cost me a staggering portion of the fee, totalling $25,000, which I had contracted with George Close for the compilation of my 21-page report, "Fundamentally Flawed Ericsson AXE BCI Findings - Cape Bridgewater." This troubling document was unexpectedly released on June 15, 1994, by Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, to Paul Rumble, five months earlier than his legal entitlement would have allowed. I confirmed that the submission dated June 15, 1994, was an interim report. This was indicated by John Wynack, the Director of Investigation for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, in his report, which stated that my claim was being delayed due to Telstra's threats to withhold any further Freedom of Information (FOI) documents.

Adding to the sordid narrative, this entire affair revolved around Paul Rumble, the very same individual who had wielded threats against me, promising to withhold any BCI information solely because I was collaborating with the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

🗂️ The Illusive Telephone Exchange Logbook

It was at this moment that I decided to submit a bogus request for a range of documents that would appear trivial and insignificant to most people. I told Mr Rumble that if he was genuine, he should provide proof that Telstra's telephone exchange logbook had been checked for the faults I reported on November 5, 8, and 9, 1993. I planned to verify whether Freehill Hollingdale & Page had recorded my phone complaints during that time and if there was any response to those issues noted in the Portland telephone exchange logbook. As I mentioned previously and on absentjustice.com, I had to formally submit all my ongoing telephone faults in writing to Denise McBurnie at Freehills; otherwise, Telstra would not investigate my complaints.

Some time later, as part of an original Freedom of Information (FOI) request I had submitted to Telstra, I was surprised to receive some of the documents I had requested. However, I was even more astonished when four complete pages of the alleged Portland telephone diary were released, which were completely devoid of any handwritten notations. These pages correspond to the dates of November 5, 6, 8, and 9, 1993—the days when Bell Canada International (BCI) and Telstra allegedly visited the Portland telephone exchange.

In other words, something suspicious was happening. While there was no record of BCI having attended the Portland telephone exchange, the absence of recorded activity on those four pages indicated that, remarkably, there had been no movement at the Portland telephone exchange over those four days. Furthermore, as noted by Telstra's Protective Service Officer Des Direen in his witness statement dated August 8, 2006, when he visited the Portland telephone exchange, staff informed him that it had been removed, possibly due to the COT Cases residing in Cape Bridgewater.

📁 The Consequences of Withholding Evidence

What’s appalling is that no one in the TIO office or government ever investigated the devastating impact this had on my submission to the arbitrator. At the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity. The arbitrator and government should have launched an inquiry into why an Australian citizen—who had assisted the AFP in investigating unlawful telephone interceptions—was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the AFP Investigation File No/1 establish Paul Rumble as a central figure in these threats. Two key facts stand out:

1. Rumble obstructed the release of essential arbitration discovery documents, which I was legally entitled to under the FOI Act. These were withheld unless I agreed to participate in the arbitration—an abuse of legal protocol that compromised my rights.

2. Rumble influenced the arbitrator, leading to the unauthorised early release of my interim claim materials. Telstra received my documents five months before the permitted deadline under the agreement. This breach gave Telstra a strategic advantage and delayed my final submission until November 1994, solely because Rumble withheld critical technical information.

According to the arbitration rules, Telstra was to receive my final claim only once it was complete, and then had one month to respond. That timeline was shattered—by design.

🔍 The Threats Became Reality
Let me say this plainly: the threats weren’t just warnings—they became reality.

To this day, I have never seen the raw data from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater BCI testing. That data was intended to verify whether the tests had even taken place. Without it, the entire foundation of Telstra’s arbitration defence is suspect. And yet, no one has investigated these violations.

That silence speaks volumes.

🧾 Arbitration, Surveillance, & The Briefcase That Could Have Changed Everything

We sought a comprehensive Senate investigation into our concerns, but instead, we were presented with a proposal for arbitration. With a glimmer of hope that our technical problems would be resolved, we accepted this route. Unfortunately, that hope was dashed as the issues remained unaddressed. We were assured access to essential Telecom documents, yet those promises fell flat, leaving us empty-handed. To make matters worse, our fax lines were surreptitiously monitored during the arbitration, a blatant violation of our privacy. Under the weight of government pressure, we ultimately found ourselves on the losing side.

We were lured into signing confidentiality agreements that have since shackled us. Though sharing this information may breach my agreement, I feel there are no viable alternatives left for me.

The two evidence files, Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, unveil a disturbing and intricate pattern of government corruption as well as bribery and threatening conduct that developed before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. They document how government representatives became deeply entangled in a morally questionable framework that betrayed their public duty. In the shadows, powerful officials formed a clandestine alliance, prioritising their own personal interests and agendas over the well-being of the very citizens they were sworn to serve independently.

This breach of trust not only undermined the citizens’ faith in their government but also severely compromised the transparency and integrity of the investigation into the arbitration claims against Telstra. As a result, the process became tainted, leaving COT claimants marginalised and unheard. The telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra relied upon in these dealings was shrouded in controversy, further raising concerns about accountability and ethical conduct among those in positions of power. The ramifications of this corrupt alliance extend far beyond the immediate arbitration claims, impacting the broader landscape of public trust in government institutions and regulatory agencies.

One particularly shocking incident highlights the extent of this corruption: crucial evidence, which could have exposed the secret dealings of a government-owned corporation, was willfully and systematically destroyed. This reckless act raises profound concerns about the accountability and transparency that should underpin public governance. Furthermore, during the review of the highly contentious COT Cases, vital information was purposefully redacted from official records, creating a deceptive façade of compliance while obstructing the pursuit of truth. This deliberate manipulation of information allowed the corporation to evade the scrutiny it so richly deserved, escaping the severe consequences of its actions.

Those tasked with examining archived documents found themselves ensnared in a tangled web of suppressed disclosures, navigating a labyrinth specifically designed to thwart the pursuit of justice. This oppressive environment effectively subverts the foundational principles of fairness and public trust, leaving citizens to grapple with a system that betrays their essential rights. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond mere bureaucratic incompetence; they present a significant threat to the very integrity of democratic institutions.

The relentless tide of corruption and manipulation erodes public confidence. It undermines the societal framework, creating a grim atmosphere where accountability and justice are mere illusions, obscured by layers of deceit. The dark undercurrents of this governmental decay call for urgent and decisive action to dismantle the corrupt machinery and restore the fundamental principles of democracy, ensuring that the rights and voices of citizens are no longer silenced in the shadows of greed and malfeasance.

“COT Case Strategy”

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"

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 their case 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 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.

It is evident from the comments made by COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest that when Dr Gordon Hughes became a COT arbitrator, he did not disclose that he had represented Graham Schorer in a similar matter involving Telstra in the Federal Court of Australia two years earlier. Dr Hughes knowingly concealed documents from Mr Schorer at the request of the Government Solicitor. The Telstra representative involved in this concealment was Peter Gamble.

Interestingly, this same Peter Gamble was mentioned in a Senate Committee hearing in June 1997, as the individual who instructed Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White and Graham Schorer, along with three other COT Cases, 'had to be stopped at all costs' from substantiating our claims against Telstra.

GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOCIATES - bugged and disarmed.

The COT Cases never had a chance.

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

the header strip of various faxes is being altered

the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.

In all cases the replacement header type is the same.

The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.

Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

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 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 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)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) 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.

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2022.

On my second request for this detailed data, Paul Rumble, Telstra's arbitration officer, threatened me that if I continued to provide this type of information to the AFP, Telstra would refrain from supplying that information. It was up to me. Stop supplying the AFP with FOI documents, and Telstra will assist me by providing the arbitrator with this type of evidence. I refused to be threatened in this manner.

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House, Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those Government offices have officially organised the Fax Streaming arrangement, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system without the Government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private?

Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra's network were able to use 'keywords' so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close's residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away, he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.

A secondary fax machine

As a further example of how serious this fax interception issue was during the COT arbitrations, I need to discuss the 12 May 1995 letter, written by the arbitrator the day after he brought down my award, the arbitrator, Dr Hughes condemned the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement as not a credible document to use in the process; however, he still used it to my detriment. I.e.;

“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” see Open Letter File No 55-A).

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible).

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13),

From Telstra-Corruption to Truth-Tellers: Honouring the Whistleblowers

The twelve chapters—from Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived—form a vivid tapestry of injustice, resistance, and revelation. Though these compelling narratives will eventually be retired, their role in illuminating the tangled web of the COT saga remains vital. They have served as a beacon, drawing public attention to the systemic failures and institutional betrayals that demand accountability.

In their place, we turn our focus to a broader constellation of truth-tellers—whistleblowers whose courage defies silence. These extraordinary individuals risk their safety, careers, and peace of mind to expose the realities buried beneath bureaucratic stonewalls and corporate spin. Their stories are not footnotes to history; they are its pulse.

Governments across the globe must recognise the indispensable role whistleblowers play. Democracy does not flourish in darkness. It depends on the light cast by those who refuse to look away.

These trailblazers walk a perilous path through a world riddled with deceit. The weight of hidden truths is a burden they refuse to carry alone. For them, complicity is not an option. Driven by conscience, they confront injustice with unwavering resolve, determined to reveal what others would prefer remain hidden.

Their sacrifices—often made in isolation, under threat, and without recognition—are acts of profound moral clarity. Their stories compel us to listen, to act, and to honour their legacy. In doing so, we not only defend the principles of justice—we inspire others to rise.

Contact Absent Justice

Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed

Open letter to Prime Minister

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

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

Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed

Open letter to Prime Minister

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

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

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