Immediately below are 15 examples from the 156 catchwords used in our absentjustice.com narrative:
Threats were duly carried out during my arbitration.
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I invested considerable effort in crafting this detailed letter, carefully selecting every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the attention of the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
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 from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…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?” → Senate Evidence File No 31
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account that establishes Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardising my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorised early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol compromised the integrity of the arbitration process, giving Telstra an unfair advantage in its response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorised to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.
Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under FOI during my government-endorsed arbitration, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, File 20 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.
Despite my heartfelt written pleas to the arbitrator and our face-to-face conversation during an unexpected meeting with Warwick Smith at Tullerine, Melbourne airport, it became painfully clear that Telstra had indeed followed through on their intimidating threats. This situation had a devastating impact on my arbitration claim, as I was left unable to provide the crucial daily fault data needed to substantiate that my business continued to suffer from persistent phone issues. The frustration mounted as I found myself unable to make outgoing calls from my establishment, and to add to my woes, the nearby kiosk telephone booth on the beach was also malfunctioning. Regrettably, no action was taken to rectify these issues, nor was I given any explanation regarding how Telstra planned to address the very real threats that had impeded my ability to operate effectively.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that the road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – 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 the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?
A more unsettling revelation is that the two primary entities under investigation during the COT arbitrations were not only Telstra, one of Australia's largest telecommunications companies, but also Ericsson, a multinational telecommunications giant notorious for its subpar equipment, which has been rejected by numerous countries worldwide. In a brazen act of deception, Telstra categorically denied to the arbitrator that any such significant issues existed, attempting to shield itself from accountability.
"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/)
We must use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.
Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and Australian government refer Senate Evidence File No/61).
All of the main events highlighted on this website are backed by original documents (confirmation data) linked within the text. By clicking these links, you will open a PDF of the relevant exhibits. This method allows you to follow the various file numbers discussed throughout our pages – see the menu bar above – enabling you to verify our claims. Without these documents, many would struggle to comprehend the extent of suffering endured by Casualty of Telstra (COT) claimants under these unjust circumstances. We’ve added mini-stories to contextualise these exhibits, allowing readers to grasp the true significance of what occurred.
How can an Australian company like Lane Telecommunications be sold during a government-sanctioned arbitration process to a major Swedish telecommunications conglomerate, Ericsson, which is simultaneously under investigation for questionable practices? Is it conceivable that this situation represents an alarming instance of collusion and corruption at the highest levels?
Australia appears to be an anomaly among Western nations in allowing a witness—Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—to observe critical evidence presented by the COT claimants and the arbitrator. This evidence gathers significant weight in light of Ericsson's acquisition, raising serious questions about the integrity of the process, especially as the company is under formal investigation.
The acquisition effectively silenced Lane, with the financial transaction quickly completed and the money transferred into their accounts. In a disturbing pattern of political negligence, career politicians have once again turned a blind eye to what many now recognise as a conspiracy, ignoring the deeply unethical implications of these actions. Their singular aim seems clear: to ensure that the COT Cases are "Stopped at all costs" from substantiating their arbitration claims (as documented on pages 36 to 39, Senate - Parliament of Australia).
The Australian government owes its citizens and stakeholders a comprehensive response to several critical questions that need clarity:
1. How long was Lane Telecommunications engaged in discussions or negotiations with Ericsson, the primary telecommunications equipment supplier for Telstra, before the agreement to sell was finalised?
2. Is there a significant connection between Lane's apparent neglect of my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the acquisition of Lane by Ericsson during the ongoing COT arbitration? This raises concerns about the motivations behind the purchase and the potential impact on the integrity of the arbitration proceedings.
3. What is the rationale behind the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)—the government's communications media regulator—denying me access to the crucial Ericsson AXE documentation that I rightfully requested during my two Government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011? (For more on this, (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued?)
These questions not only demand a thorough investigation but also insist on transparency and accountability in a process that fundamentally challenges ethical governance and corporate responsibility. The ramifications of these circumstances extend beyond the immediate parties involved, impacting public trust and confidence in both government oversight and corporate practices in Australia.
“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 the 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 state:
“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.”
Telstra internal (Freedom of Information - FOI folio C04094) from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
