Chapter Five - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden

 🎙️ Voiceover Script: “The Betrayal Beneath the Wires

In the shadows of Australia’s telecom empire, a sinister alliance was forged.
Telstra, once government-owned, buried the truth behind the COT Cases—refusing to release critical FOI documents, silencing victims, and shielding corruption.
Then came the scandal: Ericsson, under global scrutiny, quietly bought out Lane—the very consultant tasked with investigating its faulty equipment.
While other nations purged Ericsson from their networks, Telstra welcomed them in.
Government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. Appeals were blocked. Evidence ignored.
This wasn’t incompetence. It was treachery.
And the cost? Justice denied. Voices erased. Corruption thriving.
This is not just a story. It’s a warning.

 

Introduction 1

The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock, the official administrator of the arbitrations, to William Hunt and the lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson).  In this letter, Mr Pinnock notes that.

“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.

“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…

“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.

“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …

“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

In fact, on 24 July 1997, John Pinnock wrote a second letter concerning the same Lane Telecommunications conflict of interest, disallowing Ann Garms the right to have a re-hearing of her arbitration claim on the grounds Lane had previously been the technical consultants assigned to her case ( File 298 - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323) 

Telstra's arbitration defence unit stated to the COT arbitrator in several COT arbitrations, including mine, that Telstra had found no significant faults with the Ericsson telephone equipment they used in their telephone exchanges. This lie was of immense proportions. This lie denied all COT Cases a proper assessment of their arbitration claims where Telstra had used Ericsson equipment.

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards, even though it is now apparent that the purchase of the Australian government-appointed technical unit Lane had to have been in motion months before the purchase. The government should investigate each COT Case to determine what was lost due to Lane not addressing the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which destroyed the businesses of COT cases after the conclusion of their arbitrations. 

It is essential to acknowledge the insight of Thomas Jefferson, who also stated,

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed corporations."

This statement, made over 200 years ago in 1816, resonates deeply in contemporary society as we witness the growing influence of large corporations in the governance of the United States, Britain, Australia, and other once-democratic nations. This trend significantly restricts ordinary citizens' ability to engage in fair representation on a daily basis, particularly in the legal process of filing claims against high-ranking government officials, doctors, and even the judicial and arbitration systems.

In the Australian context, the actions of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in the Telstra Casualties arbitration, alongside administrator John Pinnock, raise critical concerns regarding the intersection of public service and private interests. Mr. Pinnock’s correspondence to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, distressingly alleged that I had admitted to making a 2:00 AM phone call to Mrs. Hughes despite the absence of any such letter. This incident underscores the importance of scrutinising the influence of governmental officials on the judicial process.

Upon receiving this misconstrued communication from Mr. Pinnock on February 27, 1996, Mr. James was engaged in a preliminary investigation concerning my claims of unethical conduct concerning the COT arbitrations perpetrated by Dr. Hughes. Regrettably, the false statements in this correspondence, which portrayed my character unfavourably, prompted Mr James to terminate his investigation.

The acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd by Ericsson of Sweden, the principal technical witness in the COT arbitrations, restricted Lane's ability to disclose the actual performance of the Ericsson telephone equipment used by Telstra in Australia. This situation raises concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and the integrity of the arbitration process. The Australian government's initial approval of Ericsson's purchase of Lane, followed by its subsequent endorsement, presents a subject of considerable doubt. This transaction obstructed the COT Cases from fully substantiating and appealing their claims within the six-year statute of limitations. Furthermore, Ericsson's acquisition of Lane conferred control over all COT Cases and Ericsson AXE arbitration claim material, which had been withheld from the COT Cases due to Ericsson's ownership. It is important to note that the arbitration agreement explicitly stipulated the return of all documents by all parties upon the conclusion of the arbitrations.

I requested copies of the Lane working notes during my pending appeal process. However, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, responded on 10 January 1996, stating that he would not provide me with copies of any documents held by his office (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal). It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.   

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/)

It is essential that we 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 officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator, who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases' claims against Telstra, including the Ericsson-manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges that serviced the COT Cases businesses.

The above US Department of Justice (link) supports the COT Cases ' right to demand answers as to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.  Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were mistreated when Ericsson could nobble Lane?

I again ask the Australian government why Ericsson was allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during an Australian government-endorsed arbitration process in which Telstra and Ericsson were being investigated by the arbitrator and the COT Cases technical consultants for knowingly using Ericsson AXE exchange equipment when other countries around the globe were or have removed it from their telephone exchanges.

It is abundantly clear that the arbitrator and their advisors in the COT arbitrations engaged in corrupt, deplorable, illegal, illegitimate, illicit, scandalous, senseless, unlawful, and vicious behaviour when delivering justice to the COT Cases.

Therefore, it is essential to link here the bribery and corruption issue the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and the selling off of Lanes to Ericsson in 1996 during the COT arbitrations because they are linked to the poor performance of Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment that other countries around the world were removing or had removed from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ).

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) to be purchased by the same company officially under investigation by the arbitrator who allowed this transaction to occur. Why didn't the arbitrator make an official note to the TIO and government that for Ericsson to purchase Lane during the COT arbitrations, when Lane had been investigating Ericsson during the COT arbitrations and was still examining Ericsson up to the period the sale was due to take place, was a conflict of interest of extreme importance and relevance to both past and present COT claimants?

The fact that Ericsson was being investigated for providing known deficient equipment to Telstra when that same equipment was being removed from telephone exchanges around the world or had been removed at the time of the COT arbitrations was another matter that posed a significant issue where the COT Cases should have been given special consideration to allow them to appeal their awards if it could be proven that Lane did not value their Ericsson claim material in their official reporting to the arbitrator.

On 11 November 1994 (six months into my arbitration), John Wynack, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s director of investigations, wrote to Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO. The letter was copied to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the administrator), indicating how desperate I was becoming. Mr Wynack was clear that he would be very concerned if my allegations of Telstra redacting information on FOI documents and withholding relevant documents, including the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Ericsson AXE telephone exchange logbook, were correct. Mr Wynack’s concerns were justified. ((See File 114 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

This document – the AXE logbook – was all I needed to prove my claims of ongoing telephone problems. Had the arbitrator been aware of the importance of this document, he could not have issued his findings without making a provision in his award for further compensation until Telstra could prove that there were no more problems with its Ericsson-manufactured AXE telephone exchange in Portland. The ambit of the Arbitration Act permitted this provision for additional payment.

Why didn’t Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd advise the arbitrator of the importance of this Ericsson AXE logbook? Did Lane not inform the arbitrator that such a logbook existed because it worked with Ericsson from the beginning when it was appointed to the arbitration?

Next Page ⟶