Chapter 1 - First remedy pursued November 1993

 

Please note as of March 2024, Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993  to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued are works in progress and currently being edited for type errors. I have meticulously researched and collected concrete documents and evidence to support every statement made in these twelve volumes. I am carefully and precisely editing each relevant remedy to ensure that the truth is presented in the most effective way possible. I can confidently guarantee that anyone who reads these twelve volumes will have an unwavering understanding of the truth that I am exposing. It will be strikingly clear to all who read these reports that government bureaucrats and certain government agencies, including self-funded regulators, were complicit in allowing the Telstra Corporation to commit illegal acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is indisputable and will leave no doubt in anyone's mind about the wrongdoing that occurred.

 

Throughout the Absentjustice.com website, 180 mini-report results expose corruption, deception, and misleading conduct that perverted the course of justice during the COT arbitrations. These mini-reports provide clear examples of how justice was subverted.

 

The website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime. In 1992, my business faced a major crisis due to faulty telephone and fax connections. The issues were so severe that they affected our operations and led to substantial billing faults. The lines were frequently locked up for hours. Luckily, Telstra's billing system cut off after 90 seconds of being disconnected, resulting in callers only being charged for a 90-second conversation that never even happened. Even when our customers called us on our 008/1800 free call service, I was still charged for the duration of the non-existent conversation. To clarify, the problem was that my business's phone and fax connections were faulty, causing issues with our operations and billing.

Even when callers were unable to connect to us, Telstra's billing system would sometimes charge us for a short period of time or up to 90 seconds of non-existent conversation. This resulted in lost bookings for our accommodation venue and additional charges for calls to our free call service. Thankfully, Telstra's billing system would cut off after 90 seconds of disconnection, preventing us from being charged for longer periods when our lines were locked. 

This was unacceptable, and we could not continue to bear the financial burden caused by Telstra's billing method. We decided to take action and request an investigation. It was imperative that we found a remedy to the situation to ensure that our business could continue to operate effectively without having to worry about unjustified billing charges.

 

The arbitrator's award confirms he did not address the 'ongoing telephone faults' 

 

 

AUSTEL (now ACMA) was secretly writing to both the arbitrator and Telstra concerning the ongoing billing faults 

AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, visited my business and validated my claims. An arbitration process was set up between Telstra, myself, and the other small business operators who had similar ongoing telephone problems. By this time, we were calling ourselves Casualties of Telstra.

Please take a look at the Home page and the introduction to absentjustice.com. 

The statement made by DMR & Lane at point 2.23 in their 30 April 1995 report provided to the arbitrator as their final report states:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,”  (see Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)

There are discrepancies between the arbitrator’s version and my version of Lane's prepared technical consultant report titled Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report. Mr Alan Smith. CBHC. 30 April 1995. In my copy of the final technical report, the second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence, “It is complete and final as it is”  Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator’s report, also dated 30 April 1995, says:

“There is, however, an addendum which we may find it necessary to add during the next few weeks on billing, i.e. possible discrepancies in Smith’s Telecom bills.” (See Arbitrator File No/28)

The arbitrator’s version contains more information than mine. The reference to my ongoing billing problems states that extra weeks are required to complete the investigation. Why didn't the arbitrator provide the extra weeks needed to investigate these ongoing billing issues?

The report I received as the final report on page two Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) shows no mention of my billing claim document in my version. However, page three in the arbitrator’s version notes:

“One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems.

“Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” (See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D)

How can two identical technical reports with the same 23 technical assessments, both dated 30 April 1995 and apparently both prepared by the same consultants, have one version noting that the “… case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks”, while the other has no mention of it still being open and needing weeks to complete?

These two varying reports, dated 30 April 1995, worried my pending appeal lawyers, Law Partners of Melbourne.

 

After the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995

 

 

The TIO refused to supply me with my arbitration file, which I was legally entitled to 

 

In October 1995, I decided to appeal my arbitration award. The technical unit appointed by the arbitrator had failed to investigate the unresolved billing faults, which formed part of my overall Telstra claim.

According to the arbitration agreement and the pre-arbitration report of the government Communications Authority AUSTEL that facilitated the arbitration, the arbitrator was obligated to make a written finding on the claimant's claim.

The failure of the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, to address the ongoing issues with telephone and billing services is a matter of concern. It is evident that the problems I experienced with regard to telephony and faxing also impacted Telstra's billing system, leading to a twofold systemic issue. It is noteworthy that Telstra and AUSTEL were privy to this matter, and AUSTEL corresponded with Telstra and Dr. Gordon Hughes in a clandestine manner during my arbitration to bring attention to this systemic billing issue. (See Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l and Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

I contacted Law Partners, Barrister, and Solicitors Melbourne, who advised me that I had a good chance of winning the appeal.

They pointed out that the arbitration agreement had liability clauses 25 and 26, which covered the conduct of the technical arbitration and financial consultants who assisted the arbitrator. These clauses provided a basis for the appeal as the technical unit and financial consultants appointed by the arbitrator had failed to carry out their duties adequately.

However, Law Partners observed that the Arbitration Agreement I had signed on 21 April 1994, clauses 10.2.2, 25, and 26 were not on that document and that clause 24 had been altered. It was not the same copy of the final Arbitration Agreement that Carolyn Friend, the arbitrator's secretary, faxed the agreement to Graham Schorer, lawyer William Hunt, and Alan Goldberg QC on 19 April 1994. Maureen Gillan, the first of the four COT Cases, had already signed the agreement on 8 April 1994.

When Law Partners inquired if I was aware of the amendment to the signed agreement executed by Maureen Gillian, I replied in the negative. Furthermore, the answer was again negative when asked if I had received two versions of the Arbitration Agreement for comparison on the day I signed the agreement.

I explained that the three remaining claimants, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I, were pressured to agree to the removal of clause 10.2.2 only. However, we three claimants did not know why this removal was mentioned as being removed, and it did not bother us unduly.

Law Partners recommended that I contact the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to access all of the arbitration-related documents, as they spanned a twenty-month period, and I had limited financial resources to engage Law Partners to perform the task.

I attempted to access all the arbitration agreement documentation held by the TIO office. I discovered that Steve Black, who signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of Telstra on 21 April 1994, was in Sydney at a Telstra Board meeting. Yet, his signature on the arbitration agreement is dated 21 April 1994.

While it is quite possible that Steve Black left Sydney by plane in time to sign the Arbitration Agreement, Barry O'Sullivan, a claim assessor, counter-signed each page of the eighteen-page agreement that we three COT Cases signed.

However, the Telstra-signed agreement dated 21 April 1994 was not received until a week later. It was not witnessed but signed by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, who had been in Sydney that day at a Telstra Board meeting. Waiting for a week to receive our copy of the arbitration agreement we had signed also worried Law Partners; 

Law Partners expressed concern about the possibility of changes to the arbitration agreement occurring after it was signed. When I requested all the arbitration-related documents from the TIO John Pinnock before and on the day it was signed, the request was denied in his letter dated 10 January 1996, in which he states:

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

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

The Commonwealth Ombudsman attempted to access my arbitration files. However, from October 1995 to October 1997, even the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations, John Wynack, was unable to obtain the arbitration file from Telstra. Mr Wynack had flown from Canberra to Telstra's Melbourne Exhibition Street offices to view Telstra's arbitration filing system. He made it clear in his many letters to Telstra that he doubted Telstra's excuses for being unable to provide Telstra's Steve Black arbitration file on my claim, stating it had been destroyed after Steve Black had left Telstra. For more information, please refer to Mr. Wynack's following letters.

The individual, who goes by the name of Steve Black, had entered into a confidential agreement with Warwick Smith, the administrator of the COT arbitrations. This agreement granted Steve Black and the TIO arbitration consultants the power to determine which arbitration documentation should be disclosed to the arbitrator throughout the arbitration proceedings and which should be disregarded (refer to File 590 in AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)

“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request”. 

The statement in Steve Black's letter File 590 in AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647, “if the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator”, confirms that both the TIO and Telstra were aware that the TIO-appointed resource unit had been assigned to vet most if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to the arbitrator. If the resource unit decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed on to the arbitrator or other parties. This secret deal has been linked to further clandestine dealings and is discussed elsewhere on absentjustice.com. 

Gene Volovich from Law Partners was most upset about two letters written by my forensic arbitration account, Derek Ryan, from DMR Corporate. These letters, addressed to Senator Richard Alston and John Pinnock (TIO and administrator to my arbitration), clearly outlined how arbitration financial consultants, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), had erred in reporting to the arbitrator. In fact, FHCA had intentionally removed a section from their findings, which meant that they were not reporting all the known facts about the revenue my business had lost.

 

Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA)

 

The two Derek Ryan letters are shown below.

 

On 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:

“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.

“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.

“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)

On the 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock, noting:

“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.

“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …

“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.”  Open letter File No/45-E

Attached in Open letter File No/45-E is the admission made by John Rundell, which contains some serious allegations against me. However, these allegations have been proven to be fabricated. Exhibit five shows that Mr Rundell's letter was given to Laurie James, the Institute of Arbitrators Australia President, on 17 February 1996 by Dr Gordon Hughes, who was the arbitrator for my arbitration proceedings. Mr. James was supposed to investigate my claims, but he stopped doing so. I wonder if it was because of the false allegations made by John Rundell that the police in Brighton were going to interview me about damage to his property, which was not true, as I have pointed out in Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete and Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter

This situation is particularly troubling. John Rundell, who assisted FHCA in preparing their financial report, wrote to John Pinnock and confessed that FHCA had intentionally left out some of their findings from the formal report submitted to the arbitration as the final report. Astonishingly, John Pinnock kept this vital information from the user until December 2001, after the statute of limitations had expired. Had the user been aware of this letter, it could have been used as significant evidence in which to appeal my arbitration award. This lack of transparency and deliberate withholding of information is unacceptable and has caused immense damage to the user's case.

Neither Telstra nor the TIO has ever released Steve Black's arbitration file to the undersigned.

 

Evidence Files

Example 1:  File AS 942 = AS-CAV 923 to 946 

Example 2 : File 34-C = AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47

AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 – AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91 – AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 – AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 – AS CAV Exhibit 234 to 281 – AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323 – AS-CAV Exhibit 324-a to 420 AS-CAV Exhibit 421 to 469 – AS-CAV Exhibit 470 to 486 – AS-CAV Exhibit 488-a to 494-e –AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 – AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588 – AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 – AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700 – AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789 AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 – AS-CAV Exhibit 819 to 843 – AS-CAV 923 to 946 – AS-CAV Exhibit 1150 to 1169 – AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 – AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019 – AS-CAV Exhibit 996 to 1001 – GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154-b – GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215 – GS-CAV Exhibit 216 to 257 – GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 – GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 – GS-CAV Exhibit 448 to 458 – GS-CAV Exhibit 459 to 489 – GS-CAV Exhibit 490 to 521 GS-CAV 522 to 580 – GS-CAV Exhibit 581 to 609

---

Download Attachments

Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C   Tampering With Evidence File No 2   Tampering With Evidence File No 3   Tampering With Evidence File No 4   Tampering With Evidence File No 5   Tampering With Evidence File No 6   Tampering With Evidence File No 7   Tampering With Evidence File No 9   Tampering With Evidence File No/10   Tampering With Evidence File 11-A to 11-B   Tampering With Evidence File No 13   Tampering With Evidence File No 14   AXE Faulty Equipment

 

Tampering With Evidence File No/12-A to 12-E "...I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers & Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

Next Page ⟶