Chapter Five - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust
Introduction 1
The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock the official administrator of the arbitrations to William Hunt, 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 [sic] be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)
In fact, on 24 July 1997, John Pinncock 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 was a lie of immense proportion. 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 purchasing of the Australian government-appointed technical unit Lane had to have been in motion months before the actual purchase. The government should investigate each COT Case to determine what they lost due to Lane not addressing the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which destroyed the COT Case businesses after the conclusion of their arbitrations.
Introduction 2
This lie perverted the course of justice.
All events quoted in this "US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden" segment are supported by copies of the original documents: for example, Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued, Bad Bureaucrats - Manipulating the Regulator, and Hacking Julian Assange etc.
So, as you read "US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden", regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading
Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head 200 years ago when he 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 incorporations."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
Sadly, what was predicted in 1816, more than 200 years ago, by undoubtedly America's finest president, happened during the COT arbitrations and is still happening in the USA, Britain, Australia and the once-free world as my statements unfold on absentjustice.com.
It is also important to note that Thomas Jefferson made another important statement that:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
While we cannot say that Ericsson and Lane are the types of 'enemies of the people Thomas Jefferson referred to when he stated 'let us tie the second down with the Constitution'. What we do know is. the Australian government should never have allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane in an arbitration the governemnt had endorsed. This selling off of Lane, disallowed the COT Cases every reasonable chance of fully proving their claims as well appealing them within the six-year statute of limitations allowed. When Ericsson purchased Lane, they also purchased all of my Ericsson AXE arbitration claim material which Lane never released back to me after my arbitration.
When I tried to gain access of copies of the Lane workling notes during my pending appeal process John Pinnock (the administrator of my arbitration) wrote back to me on 10 January 1996 stating: “I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office,” (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal.
Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019 as recorded in the Australian media i.e.;
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 important 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 official 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 which serviced the COT Cases businesses.
It is clear from the following google link "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." that the COT Cases were right to demand answers 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 treated so badly when Ericsson was able to 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 was being investigated for knowingly using Ericsson AXE exchange equipment when other countries around the globe were or have removed it from their telephone exchanges?
Introduction 3
Huawei -v- Ericsson
The following link Huawei Australia uses Ericsson chief's statement to slam 5G ban suggests the Australian government believes Huawei is not as trustworthy as Ericsson and yet the Google link https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/ is saying the US Department of Justice states Ericsson has been involved in bribery and corruption over a long period of time.
So who is more corrupt than the other, Huawei or Ericsson? Are the Australian government bureaucrats branding Huawei more corrupt because they are communist and nothing else? If that is the case then surely bribery and corruption by Ericsson is a worse crime than just having political communist views that democratic views.
Therefore, it is important to link here the bribery and corruption issues 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 it is clearly linked the poor performance of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equpment which other countries around the world were removing or had removed it 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) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator who allowed this transaction to take place. 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 investigating 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.
In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson which official arbitration records numbered A56132 were investigated including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignor this evidence aginst Ericsson?
I wonder if the government would have allowed Huawei to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (instead of Ericsson)? Would the Australian government have allowed this transaction to take place if Huawei had wanted to purchase Lane? However, on the other side of this one-sided arbitration process when the COT Cases damanded the arbitrator access under discover the one vital Ericsson AXE telephone logbook that request was not granted either under the official discovery process or under FOI.
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) and indicated 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 proved correct. Mr Wynack’s concerns were justified. ((See File 114 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)
This one 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 brought down his findings without making a provision in his award for further compensation until Telstra could prove there were no more problems with its Ericsson-manufactured AXE telephone exchange in Portland. The ambit of the Arbitration Act allowed for 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 was working with Ericsson from the very beginning when it was appointed to the arbitration?
The Briefcase Affair
My constant complaints to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) and my local member of parliament the Hon David Hawker MP, finally bore fruit when, for the first time in this story, Telstra investigators came to Cape Bridgewater. Two Telstra representative from the National Network Investigation Division arrived at my office on 3 June 1993. At last, I thought, I would be able to speak directly to people who knew what they were talking about.
I should have known better. It was just another case of ‘No fault found.’ We spent some considerable time ‘dancing around’ a summary of my ongoing phone problems. Their best advice for me was to keep doing exactly what I had been doing since 1989, keeping a record of all my phone faults. I could have wept. Finally, they left.
A little while later, in my office I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold i.e. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B)
The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I was obliged to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled ‘SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER’ - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a major AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.
The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault was a major network problems which noted:.
“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.
“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)
To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
Not only was Telstra’s area general manager fully aware at the time of my settlement on 11 December 1992 that she was providing me with incorrect information which influenced my judgement of the situation, placing me at a commercial disadvantage, but the General Manager, Commercial Victoria/Tasmania was also aware just how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange system they had lied about during my 11 December 1992 commercial settlement process.
The use of misleading and deceptive conduct such as this in a commercial settlement such as mine contravenes Section 52 of the Australian Trade Practices Act. Yet this deception has never been officially addressed by any regulatory body. To get ahead of my story here, even the arbitrator who handed down his award on my case in May 1995 failed to address any of my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems or question Telstra’s unethical behaviour when they provided this false Ericsson AXE information during my 11 December 1992 settlement process.
I took this Ericsson AXE information to the government regulator AUSTEL, and on 9 June 1993, AUSTEL's John MacMahon wrote to Telstra regarding my continuing phone faults after the settlement, and the content of the briefcase documents: this letter states:
“Further, he claims that Telecom documents (found in the briefcase) contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customer concerned.
In summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that, in the context of the settlement, Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information
I ask for your urgent comments on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith’s premises for his inspection. In light of Mr Smith’s claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism which will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made”.(See Arbitrator File No 61)
When I exposed just how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone system was and that Telstra was also using faulty Ericsson AXE testing equipment, AUSTEL asked for further better particulars I provided. From this date onward, as shown throughout this website, I continued to help AUSTEL even to the extent one representative even drove six hours from Melbourne on 19 December 1995 to my business premises. This Ericsson fault was also causing billing faults due to lockup problems in that equipment. But Telstra also had another issue that AUSTEL and I worked on, and this was another billing problem in Telstra's 008/1800 software. The problem with these two faults was which was causing the incorrect billing to the customer account?.
This two-fold Ericsson v Telstra software billing problem is discussed throughout our story.
call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these Ericsson AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggesting he alter that finding:
For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.
When the COT Cases exposed the Ericsson AXE call loss rate from 15% to 50% as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), then instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding. The government did alter that finding which was then given to the arbitrator which stated there were more than 50 of more COT type complaints instead of the governments original finding of more that 120,000 COT type complaint. As can be seen from the below segment those findings were altered to the detriment of those COT Cases in arbitration
For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.
However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.
The fact that on this occasion on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure AUSTEL the Government Regulator (now called ACMA) to change their original findings in the formal April 1994 COT Case report is alarming, to say the least. Worse, is that when AUSTEL released it into the public domain the report states AUSTEL only uncovered 50 or more COT-type complaints.
False Reporting
For a the government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. Were the governments downplaying of the Ericsson AXE fault complaints part of the overall collusion which involved the purchasing of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd who often worked on government contracts?
Because the faulty Ericsson AXE telephone equipment played such an important part in the COT Cases 1994 to 1999 arbitration procedure I have introduced it here along with the selling off of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration technical unit) to Ericsson the very corporation it had been commissioned to investigate. during the COT arbitrations.
How can an Australian company like Lane be sold off during an Australian government-endorsed arbitration to a Swedish International telecommunications company it is investigating? If this is not collusion and corruption of the worse possibly kind, then what is?
Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company who were officially under investigation. This purchase bought the silence of Lane once the money was in the bank. The career politician again had closed their eyes to this collusion, regardless of how unethical all this had become with one aim in mind to ensure the COT Cases were "stopped at all costs" from proving their arbitration claims (See pages 36 and 38 Senate -Senate - Parliament of Australia).
I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra before Ericsson purchased Lane? Is there a link between Lane ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Lane by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued?)
The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that the same subscribers visit my website absentjustice.com where you can see, yourself, that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.
Purchasing all of Lane Telecommunications' COT related arbitration files (during the COT arbitrations) was a most significant coup for both Telstra and Ericsson because all of the arbitration technical information Lane had acquired as a witness during the COT arbitrations which were stored in Lane computer system as well as in hard copy records belonged to Ericsson once they owned Lane.
What the Australian government appears not to have considered when they allowed Lane to be sold off during our government endorsed arbitrations is that Lane had signed a Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement in which each of the COT claimants also signed agreeing under no circumstances, they would disclose to a third party any information they obtained during the COT arbitrations. And here Lane is the main arbitration witness allowed to sell that confidential acquired information to Ericsson, who Lane had been assigned to investigate.
it is on record, that when Lane together with Telstra and me visited the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange on 6 April 1995 both Lane and Telstra would not allow me to view the Portland Ericsson AXE log book. It is most important I attach here the following link although dated 1996 all Ericsson exchanges had their own logbooks (see page 20 > http://www.
If the hackers mentioned on our webpage Hacking Julian Assange/Chapter One were Julian Assange and his friend, and it is very likely it was them, then why hasn't the Australian Government understood what the hackers wanted to share with us COT cases? He did not ask for payment in sharing what he and his friends had uncovered concerning Telstra’s ailing copper wire network, as would have been the case if he had been a common criminal. He wanted us to have a fair arbitration hearing, and that was all. Had we used the information on offer, then the arbitrator would have been compelled to demand that Telstra fix its degraded Ericsson exchange equipment, instead of bringing down his findings which did not disclose the true extent of the corroded network that was destroying the COT cases' businesses and numerous other telephone dependent businesses throughout Australia.
This part of the story is of my battle with the first and second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned since 10 November 1993, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra. This part of the COT story commenced on December 1993 (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993, from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, he appears to have also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.
This terrible conduct by Warwick Smith is still, in 2023, being ignored by the government.
Next Page ⟶
