Continued from the home page.
On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, 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.”
This strategy was in place before the COT Cases signed their arbitration agreements
“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 directed against me, my business, and the three other COT case members: Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, along with their respective businesses. In simple terms, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations began. What followed should have halted the arbitrations, as the withholding of the requested COT documents was being coordinated by Telstra’s lawyers from Freehill Hollingdale & Page at their Collins Street office. This was confirmed by Lindsay White, a former Telstra official who is now a whistleblower, disillusioned by the actions he was compelled to take.
Just a single touch on the front page of "The Firm" by John Grisham may transport you back to the era in which this gripping novel was penned. It weaves a narrative reminiscent of the tumultuous events surrounding the Telstra saga. Imagine a reader from the United States reaching out to John Grisham, suggesting he visit the intriguing website absentjustice.com, where they can explore themes of justice and accountability that resonate with the story.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
Worse, 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 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.
Out of desperation, these business owners sought arbitration with Telstra, hoping to resolve their grievances and secure compensation for their losses. However, the arbitration process quickly revealed itself to be a farce. The appointed arbitrator displayed blatant partiality, permitting Telstra to sidestep accountability and diminish the claims made by the affected business owners—collectively known as the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members. Disturbing evidence emerged, showcasing that Telstra had engaged in serious misconduct throughout the arbitration, manipulating the proceedings to their benefit while undermining the integrity of the dispute resolution system.
Despite these revelations, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have inexplicably failed to hold Telstra or its alleged co-conspirators accountable for their actions. This persistent lack of oversight prompts critical questions: Why do Telstra and the bureaucrats charged with ensuring fair communication practices continue to deflect from the truth? Why are the legitimate claims of the COT members dismissed as frivolous when their experiences represent anything but?
The complexities surrounding the arbitration issues of the group known as the 'Casualties of Telstra' are profound and multifaceted, with intricate details that warrant a thorough examination. To facilitate understanding, we have meticulously organised these various concerns into clearly defined sections, accessible via the menu bar above. This structured approach enables readers to uncover the pervasive corruption and collusive tactics embedded within the arbitration processes, which have stifled justice.
Despite the official government records indicating that the COT cases were guaranteed support by the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who were responsible for overseeing the arbitration process, the reality was quite different for me. I was assured that, if I could manage to cover the exorbitant costs of these arbitrations, which for many participants totalled hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in my case surpassed a staggering $300,000, I would eventually receive the critical documents necessary to substantiate my claims. The arbitrator made it clear that no formal decision could be rendered until all the technical issues related to the phone service, which had prompted the claims, were thoroughly resolved.
Hovering your mouse or cursor over the image will lead you deeper into the Government Corruption that permitted these arbitrations to persist..
Newcomers need to recognise that specific exhibits referenced throughout this text, such as Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, are crucial for verification. By clicking on these links, you will open PDF files that contain vital evidence supporting our claims. By following these references and exploring the related documents provided across our multiple pages, you will not only be able to validate our narrative but also gain a more precise and deeper understanding of the significant challenges we face in confronting this issue.
Embark on a revealing journey into the alarming world of egregious crimes by unscrupulous individuals—corrupt politicians and legal professionals manipulating arbitration and mediation systems in Australia. Descriptors like "shameful" and "treacherous" barely capture the severity of their actions. Visitors to this website have recognised the parallels between its content and widespread criminal behaviour, particularly fraud.
How many Australian businesses have faced the gut-wrenching surprise of aggressive and unexpected takeovers while they were teetering on the edge of vulnerability? How many of these enterprises were blindsided entirely by takeover bids because they were operating under the false assumption that their struggles were invisible to outsiders? How many were caught off guard, their sensitive information exploited due to unauthorised access to private telephone conversations?
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 involve the interception of legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before it is sent 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 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.
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),
“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 which is directly related to my arbitration procedure dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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 Portland telephone exchange was turned off whenever this particular officer left the telephone exchange? 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 2025.
The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?
Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) 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 alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use? How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997, Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep for trading purposes. I placed a wrestling hold, known as the ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is navigating an array of daunting challenges as she seeks resolution for her ongoing concerns. A closer examination of her recent correspondence unveils a troubling lack of transparency surrounding her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The behaviour of Telstra and its legal representatives in the arbitration and mediation of the COT Cases reveals a disturbing pattern of neglect. This is profoundly illustrated by the tragic outcomes faced by many COT Cases, where individuals have suffered greatly, some even losing their lives amidst the turmoil.
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 fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.
It is June 2025, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all.
Senator Bill O’Chee (was also most concerned that John Pinnock had not provided me any response to his letter on 21 March 1997 to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin). It was this no response that prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Telstra's Graeme Ward, regulatory and external affairs (see File GS-CAV 293-B -GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998, stating
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."
There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when Graham Schorer was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra three years previous as Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows.
The conduct in question prompted Robin Davey, the then Chairman of AUSTEL's government communications authority, to express his concerns in a letter dated 5 October 1993. This was before the COT Cases signed their arbitrations. In his letter to Telstra, specifically at point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2 , he indicated that the government would be concerned if Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne continued to have a role in matters relating to the COT cases.
Why did the then Dr Gordon Hughes (still the pending arbitrator) allow Freehill Hollingdale & Page to attend a covert pre-arbitration meeting on 22 March 1994, one month before the arbitration agreements were signed to be present to discuss changes to the arbitration agreement that would grossly affect the COT Cases if either of them was to contemplate appealing his award? Just as important was the fact that Dr Hughes allowed such a meeting to commence with only the defendants and their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page to be present and not a COT Case representative. Refer to Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct.
My own health journey, marked by a second heart attack in 2018 that led to a lengthy hospitalisation, underscores the critical need for these issues to be addressed with urgency and compassion.
I am currently immersed in drafting a publication that sheds light on the serious misconduct of Telstra, a corporation that undeniably deserves thorough and unwavering scrutiny. As I look back on my correspondence from June 2025, I can’t help but reflect on the several heartfelt emails I’ve sent to Sandra’s address since early February 2025.
The last message I received from her conveyed the heartbreaking news that her cancer treatment had become utterly intolerable, a painful reminder of her prolonged struggle and suffering.
In a recent email, I reached out to Sandra on behalf of the daughter of Brian Purton Smith, who is one of the sixteen COT Cases listed in the Senate list of unresolved Freedom of Information (FOI) issues. Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. In that message, I sadly informed her that Brian had passed away. Our names—mine, Sandra's, and Brian's—are among those inscribed on the same Senate list, accompanied by two other COT Cases who have also departed without their arbitration and mediation unresolved FOI issues being resolved. Are we to assume the government is waiting for us, sixteen, to all die before they investigate these unresolved FOI Telstra arbitration mediation issues?
From Sandra's home in the vast landscapes of Queensland, I can only dread the worst possible outcomes. Yet, amidst this worry, I find a glimmer of solace in the hope that she may finally be at peace, liberated from the arduous battle she has fought since first registering her phone complaints with Telstra in the 1990s.
In reflecting on my own experience, I am left to wonder how easily my business can be targeted right under the Government's nose. Across Australia, countless legal battles unfold—some open-and-shut cases brimming with compelling evidence—yet many are lost at the critical moment due to the opposition’s shocking discovery of sensitive information, often seemingly pulled from thin air. How much private and confidential data, which everyday Australians and businesses entrust to the Telstra network, believing it is securely communicated, is being intercepted through the network’s vulnerabilities?
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues, referred to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. This question confirms that the AFP informed me that the evidence supplied by AUSTEL's John McMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs, on behalf of the government communications authority, agreed that I and my business, which included my staff and guests, had been electronically placed under surveillance
Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
Take my situation, for instance. Telstra has provided a list of documents they supposedly received as part of my arbitration claim. Alarmingly, this list is missing a staggering forty-three documents that I meticulously forwarded to the arbitrator for distribution to Telstra’s legal representatives. Even the most unethical arbitrator would find it hard to justify withholding such a significant amount of claim material. So, where exactly are those missing documents, and who is accountable for their disappearance?
Beyond the frustration of lost faxes, the real impact of my lost incoming phone calls reveals a far-reaching loss of revenue and opportunity. Despite having built a loyal clientele that has returned year after year for over a decade, losing eighty potential calls in just three months is not a loss I can absorb. Those eighty prospective customers may have now chosen to patronise competing holiday camps, sharing their experiences with friends and family, essentially siphoning away not just my immediate revenue but the long-term relationships I worked hard to cultivate. The sobering truth is that the Australian Government seems utterly powerless to tackle the pervasive influence of Telstra’s corporate management, which operates with an air of authority reminiscent of 'Big Brother.'
In this narrative of absentjustice.com, you will discover just how little the Government seemed to care when a small business operator like me raised a red flag about the alarming consequences of document loss within Telstra’s network. Had I been representing a powerhouse corporation like Ford Motor Company or BHP, I am sure my complaints would have been treated with the urgency and seriousness they deserved long ago.
This predicament is compelling on several levels, particularly when considering that, without the advocacy of Customers of Telstra (COTs), the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) might not exist today. Back in 1992, after numerous futile complaints were lodged with the Regulator about Telstra’s unwavering reluctance to resolve our issues, the Regulator, alongside the then-Labor Government, took decisive action to establish a dedicated ombudsman’s office for the telecommunications industry. Even Telstra’s leadership concedes that it was the relentless advocacy from the COTs that pushed for the establishment of this essential position. Lamentably, since late 1994, we have received an overwhelming number of complaints about the TIO—more than the grievances previously submitted to the Regulator when it handled issues with Telstra.
What’s even more unsettling is that the fifteen members of the TIO Board and Council come from Telstra and other telecommunications industry players, all of whom have vested interests in obscuring negative publicity. I have presented all fifteen members with ironclad evidence of a cover-up regarding my phone and fax faults. Despite this, the only responses I have received came from the Chairman of the Board, an executive associated with another major telecommunications company, and the Chairman of the Council, who is a former Liberal Government Minister, leaving me frustrated and questioning their commitment to transparency.
On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), which Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed. Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, at my business, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, had been experiencing problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they noted:
‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’
During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)
A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.
By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file indicates that Telstra encountered significant issues when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at Graham’s office.
It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.
In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organisations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of its single club members over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.
Following this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider suspending the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, a primary entity in the telecommunications sector, obtained such detailed information regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing the identities and geographical locations of callers, which frequently originated from unexpected regions unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declined to suspend the arbitrations.
Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra could determine when my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. At the same time, I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
During my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which was turned into Telstra's preferred arbitration process, AUSTEL/ACMA wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994, stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” Illegal Interception File No/3.
On 10 February 1994, AUSTEL (now ACMA), the current Australian Communications and Media Authority, informed Steve Black of Telstra that they had provided nine audio tapes containing essential evidence to support the privacy issues raised by the COT cases during their arbitration. This evidence was crucial during the COT government-endorsed arbitrations, as it clearly proved that their business and personal telephone conversations had been tapped and monitored. However, AUSTEL and the Australian Federal Police concealed these nine tapes from the COT cases during their respective arbitrations, and no written findings were made in the arbitrator's award on these privacy issues.
Additionally, one senior Board member from a non-Telstra operator has been persistently reaching out to the TIO since 1996, inquiring about when my unresolved billing matters will finally be addressed appropriately, but to no avail. On May 12, 2004, I received a standard letter from the TIO’s office, indicating that my evidence would be "passed on" to the Board by hand at the upcoming Council meeting scheduled for May 19, 2004. As I write this in June 2025, I still find myself waiting for any follow-up regarding that critical evidence. Who is truly covering for whom in this tangled web, and do the international parent companies represented on the TIO Board and Council even know about the existence of this troubling cover-up?
The Rupert Murdoch and Fox issue highlighted below is included because, in 2025, the vast majority of people who engage with the internet and enjoy television are well-acquainted with Mr. Murdoch and his influential media empire, Fox. I selected this topic for a closer examination due to the profound impact that such a corporation has on public opinion and the media landscape.
In a different context, my quaint Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, though small and employing only four to five dedicated individuals, holds its own significance. Nestled in a beautiful coastal area, it plays a significant role in the local community, offering visitors a unique and memorable holiday experience.
The pervasive culture of corruption within Telstra has created a fertile ground for private companies to exploit both past and present mismanagement, allowing them to profit from Telstra's numerous failures. A striking illustration of this exploitation is the substantial $400 million fine levied against Telstra for its inability to complete the cable rollout for the Foxtel infrastructure. At that juncture, the Telstra Board was acutely aware that the compensation deadlines for the rollout, already burdened by rampant corrupt practices within the organisation, were utterly unrealistic. Millions of dollars had been misallocated and wasted, rendering timely completion nearly impossible. Nevertheless, in a move that starkly highlighted their disregard for both accountability and the welfare of the Australian public, they proceeded. They signed the deal, prioritising their own interests over the obligations owed to the people they serve.
If we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on pages 5164 and 5165 of the official Hansard records of the SENATE official Hansard – 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 issues 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?
Clicking on the following government Senate Hansard records, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, will take the visitor directly to the Australian Government secured archive records, where you can continue to read beyond points 10,11, and 12
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 Minister.
12. The winners will be the purchasers of Telstra shares who can almost certainly expect to see a hefty increase in the price of their stock when Telstra finally delivers on its promise of reducing excessive labour costs. It remains to be seen whether executives responsible for the mess Telstra is in are accountable for their performance and whether our elected representatives, who are supposed to be in control, are willing to act to prevent further loss to the present owners of Telstra.
My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra was obligated to provide or whether they did supply the $400 million missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In several of the COT cases, Telstra made similar commitments to these Australian citizens, provided they financed their arbitrations to resolve ongoing telephone problems that were continuing to ruin their businesses. My arbitration fees between 23 November 1993 and 11 May 1995 cost me more than $ 300,000 in professional fees. Three hundred thousand dollars in 1994 is equivalent to $622,959,207 in 2025; yet, the arbitrator did not force Telstra to fix my telephone problems or those affecting the other members of our group, who are sadly known as the Casualties of Telstra.
Clicking on the following government Senate Hansard records, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, will take the visitor directly to the Australian Government secured archive records, where you can continue to read beyond points 29,30, 31 and 32
29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991. One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.
30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie. The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . .
" 31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride. Eleven purported advantages were listed.
32. In particular, Ms McBride argued that the initial point of referral should always be the Corporate Solicitors Office, "in order to bring into operation the potential protection of legal professional privilege for documentation and other reporting procedures;" and the Corporate Solicitors Office should continue as "the point of referral and control in order to maintain legal professional privilege (where possible) over information and documentation created during the handling of the ‘COT’ case." If technical, fault reports were needed, these should be commissioned by the Corporate Solicitors Office and provided only to the Corporate Solicitors Office in "an attempt to create the initial protection of legal professional privilege for such reports." The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was accepted. 33. Given information from businesses named in the strategy paper on what happened before and after the strategy was implemented, it appears that since 1992, Telstra has adopted a much more adversarial approach in dealing with complaints concerning service or any other form of criticism. This shift in corporate culture makes it more likely than not that in 1993, advice was also sought and received by the Telstra Board on the "management" of travel allowance fraud allegations
Freehill Hollingdale & Page - The underbelly of Telstra
“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. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:
26. A possible reason for the AFP’s lack of enthusiasm emerged the following year. In 1993 and 1994, the Federal Member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker asked a series of questions about public sector fraud relating to the years 1991-1993. On 28 August 1994, the Sunday Telegraph reported under the headline, "$6.5 million missing in PS fraud," "Workers in sensitive areas including ASIO, the National Crime Authority, Customs, the Family Court, and the Australian Federal Police were convicted of fraud according to information given to Parliament."
27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."
28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem." Legal professional privilege.
29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.
One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.
30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:
- "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."
31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.
Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?
And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?
While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.
The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.
What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.
This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems, almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress, having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers before they would investigate my complaints. I provided this information with extreme difficulty while trying to run my telephone-dependent business.
I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.
I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note my repeated reminders to the arbitration project manager regarding soliciting these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.
I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidence, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.
The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.
"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."
It was not of Mr Joblin's hand
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.
During my arbitration proceedings 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.
A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries:
1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.
2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.
Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.
What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.
Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases indeed did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses.
Senator Bill O’Chee expressed serious concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."
There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,
It is October 2022, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all.
Criminal Conduct Example 2
Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.
This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements
Stop the COT Cases at all cost
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 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.
