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. 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.

I created the following four-minute video on YouTube to illuminate the corruption surrounding the COT process during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations.

The legal expertise and qualifications attributed to Dr. Hughes would ostensibly necessitate appropriately addressing the distressing occurrences during my arbitration. The absence of recorded documentation pertaining to the threats posed by Telstra and their subsequent execution during the arbitration within Dr. Hughes's findings is perplexing. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the written confirmation from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia, received in April 2001, indicating that Dr Hughes had not obtained the status of a graded arbitrator until a date subsequent to the delivery of his decision on my claim on May 11, 1995.

Dr Hughes's CV follows:

Dr Hughes is a former president of the Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of Australia, and a former chair of the Law Council’s International Law Section. He is a former president of LAWASIA (the international lawyers’ association for Asia and the Pacific) and is the current Secretary-General of that organisation. He is also the current chair of the South Pacific Lawyers’ Association. He is a qualified arbitrator and a former part-time member of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Dr Hughes has authored, co-authored and/or edited nine legal texts, including ‘Data Protection in Australia’, ‘Computer Contracts: Principles and Precedents’, and ‘Trade Secrets and Privacy.’ He has received numerous awards in recognition of his achievements, including the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Australian Law Awards in 2004 and various honorary life memberships of Australian and international professional associations. He was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law in 2011.

In 2017, Dr Hughes was awarded an Order of Australia “for significant service to the law, to professional organisations and to international affairs and legal practice in the Asia-Pacific region”.

In 2023, Gordon was awarded honorary life membership of the Law Council of Australia in recognition of his “unmatched and remarkable contribution to the legal profession in Australia and internationally”.

Qualifications

Bachelor of Law (Hons), University of Melbourne, 1971

Master of Laws, University of Melbourne, 1973

PhD, Monash University, 1990

Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Law (FAAL)

Awards

Honorary Life Member, Law Council of Australia, 2023

Order of Australia (AM) 2017

Honorary Life Member, LAWASIA, 2007

Lifetime Achievement Award, Australian Law Awards, 2004

Honorary Life Membership, Law Institute of Victoria, 2001

Honorary Life Membership, Victorian Society for Computers and the Law, 1999

Rogers Legal Writing Award (for best article published in Law Institute Journal), awarded by Law Institute of Victoria, 1996

Menzies Scholarship (for research into computers and the law), awarded by the Australia-Britain Society, 1986

Who’s Who Legal: Australia: Recognised as a leading Data Expert, 2019- 2024

Doyle’s Guide: Listed as ‘Preeminent’ in Leading Victoria Technology, Media & Telecommunications Lawyers 2019

Doyle’s Guide: Recommended as a Leading Victorian Technology, Media & Telecommunications Lawyer 2020

Doyle’s Guide: Listed as a Leading Victorian Non-Contentious Intellectual Property Lawyer 2020Memberships

Membership

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE - President: Law Institute of Victoria, 1992 – 1993 - President: Law - Council of Australia, 1999 – 2000 - President: LAWASIA, 2001– 2003- Chair: International Law Section, Law Council of Australia, 2008 – 2014 - Chair: Business Law Section, LAWASIA, 2015 to 2019 - Chair: South Pacific Lawyers’ Association, 2017 to date - Adjunct Professor, RMIT University, School of Business and Law, 2005 – 2014 - Professional-in-residence, Monash University Law School, 2015 Secretary-General: LAWASIA 2023 to date

AUSTRALIA - Chairman: Board of Examiners for Barristers and Solicitors (Victoria), 1992 - President: Victorian Society for Computers and the Law, 1991 – 1994 - Part-time member: Victorian Law Reform Commission, 1992 - Member: Victoria Law Reform Commission Advisory Committee on Workplace Privacy and Surveillance, 2002 - Member: Electronic Commerce Advisory Council, appointed by Victorian Minister for Multimedia, 1995 – 1997 - Member: Data Protection Advisory Council, Victorian Government, 1996 - Member: Commonwealth Government Core Advisory Group on Privacy, appointed by Commonwealth Attorney-General, 1999 – 2001

INTERNATIONAL - Member: LAWASIA Observer Mission to Nepal (to investigate constitutional crisis and breakdown in rule of law), 2005 - Member: LAWASIA Observer Mission to Fiji (to investigate military takeover and threat to rule of law), 2007 - Head of inquiry into corruption in the Fiji Magistracy, offer from Attorney-General of Fiji (appointed declined), 2007 - Member: Eminent Persons’ Panel of Inquiry into Implication of the 1998 Malaysian Constitutional Crisis, convened by Malaysian Bar Council, 2007 – 2008 - Member: US Task Force on Foreign Lawyers and the International Practice of Law, convened by the US Conference of Chief Justices, 2012 to date

Consider the C V of former federal court judge Marcus Richard Einfeld AO. His distinguished list of accomplishments is similar to those of Dr Gordon Hughes discussed above and includes:

Educated at the prestigious Sydney Boys High School
Obtained his BA and LLB from the University of Sydney
Former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Former Judge of the Supreme Courts of New South Wales, Western Australia and the ACT
President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission between 1986 and 1990
Invited speaker at United Israel Appeal (UIA) functions in Britain, the United States of America, Europe, Canada and Australia
Patron of the Australian Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants
Patron of the Sydney Jewish Museum
Former executive member of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies
Councillor on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry
Founder of the London-based National Campaign for Soviet Jewry of the United Kingdom and Ireland
Founder and first chairman of the Australian Campaign for the Rescue of Soviet Jewry
Served as Austcare’s Ambassador for Refugees and as an Ambassador for Children for UNICEF
The United Nations Association of Australia presented him with the Founder’s Award for his contribution to justice and human rights.
And the honours:
Queens Council (QC): Letters Patent granted 1977
Officer of the Order of Australia (AO): June 1988. Specific category, “For service to international affairs and to the promotion and protection of human rights”
Australian Sports Medal: November 2000, as “Chairman of Fundraising Committee for 1988 Paralympic Team, and President of APC 1990-1992
Centenary Medal: January 2001, “for service to the Centenary of Federation celebrations”
And... → The National Trust of Australia named Marcus Richard Einfeld AO as a “National Living Treasure.”

In "Beneath the Bench," author Garth Eaton and an entrepreneur reveal how the weight of a growing accumulation of falsehoods exposes a fundamental flaw in Marcus Richard Einfeld's character (see https://shorturl.at/rm33l).

Despite being alerted to these issues in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators (IAMA) has failed to act. I supplied the IAMA with 23 spiral-bound submission materials in 2009 at their request, and they have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, former High Court Judge The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate (Burying The Evidence File 13-A). Yet, the IAMA has declined to make a written finding or return my submission material regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes. Their handling of the arbitration process suggests a lack of ethical conduct (See Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued).

Our Corrupt Legal System

Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals)

It may be difficult for people to believe that lawyers and arbitrators can (and do) pervert the course of justice for their own gain to the detriment of others. But remember, when accusations first emerged of child molestation linked to clergy, many people had difficulty believing that, too, and that has now been proven to have occurred for decades. Many books have been written over the years detailing the misbehaviour of trusted legal people worldwide (including Australia). Some publications that might help you to understand our story here at absentjustice.com are Evan Whitton’s books, which cover similar topics:

Our Corrupt Legal System; Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals),

The Cartel: Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks, and

Trial by Voodoo; how the law defeats justice and democracy.

Dr. Hughes provided President Laure James of the Institute of Arbitrations Australia with misleading information regarding my arbitration claims. This interfered with the truth during Mr. James's pending investigation of my claims against Dr. Hughes. Dr Hughes also allowed the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, to communicate false information to Mr James, claiming I had written to Mr Pinnock detailing a phone call to Dr Hughes's wife at 2:00 am - which I did not do. I have been battling this misconduct for the past thirty years and can confirm that I did not make such a phone call.

Why didn't John Pinnock send a copy of my letter to Laurie James so that Mr James could read for himself what I alleged to have said? The reason is that no such letter has ever been written, as Mr. Pinnock knows (See Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter).

Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia

The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG

Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued

Despite being alerted to these issues in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the Australian Institute of Arbitrators Mediators (IAMA) has failed to act. I supplied the IAMA with 23 spiral-bound submission materials in 2009 at their request, and they have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, former High Court Judge The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate (Burying The Evidence File 13-A). Yet, the IAMA has declined to make a written finding or return my submission material regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes. Their handling of the arbitration process suggests a lack of ethical conduct.

Transcripts from my oral arbitration hearing on 11 October 1994 confirm that Telstra advised the arbitrator that they considered my singles club information irrelevant and, therefore, should not be accepted into the arbitration process. This evidence supported my claim that I had lost two businesses due to ongoing telephone problems: the school camp bookings and the more lucrative singles club bookings. The transcripts, which I can supply to the AFP if requested, show that Dr Hughes was pressured into accepting Telstra's insistence that my singles club material not be assessed during the arbitration process.

I wonder why Dr Hughes allowed Telstra to decide not to consider my singles club evidence as a business loss, primarily since he had previously understood the advice given to me by Superintendent Detective Penrose and had agreed that the singles club material could be submitted under confidentiality during the oral hearing. It seems like he went back on his word.

Question 24, in the 20 September 1994 interrogatories, shows I answered the following question 24 by stating to Telstra and the arbitrator:

“This matter is currently under investigation by the Federal Police. In the interest of fair justice I believe that I should not further comment apart from what I have already stated that it is true that I was told this by Detective Superintendent Penrose. It the Australian Federal Police are prepared to disclose the details of their investigations and of their conversations with myself, then Telecom will be able to obtain the same”

On 11 October 1994, during this oral hearing, which lasted for close to five hours of nonstop interrogation, Telstra’s Mr Benjamin and Telstra’s other arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, discussed along with the arbitrator and me my claims regarding Telstra’s unauthorized interception issues, noting:

Ted Benjamin (Telstra): “In respect of Detective Superintendent Penrose.”

Steve Black (Telstra): “There has been an allegation that Detective Superintendent Penrose says that the Plummers’ telephone was allegedly unlawfully tapped” —

Me: “I believe Telecom is playing on words – the word “illegally tapped” – it’s like asking me – I’m not a —

Dr Hughes (Arbitrator): “Sorry, if I can interrupt both of you, the issue here is that your answers – your answer to question 24, you indicate that you were told something by Detective Superintendent Penrose.”

Me: “Yes:”

Dr Hughes (Arbitrator): “Is there any documentation to support that statement or is there any other light that you can shed upon that statement you have made in relation to Detective Penrose?”…

Me: “I have spoken to Detective Penrose on two occasions and he has stated that my phones had been listened to.”

I am writing in response to question 24 regarding Telstra's interrogatories and the oral arbitration hearing, focusing on the ethical and moral considerations surrounding Dr Hughes' request to disclose personal and private information about the female members of my Singles Club during the meeting. This pertains to the Australian Federal Police's investigation into Telstra's separate recording of names and phone numbers of female members from the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, an issue the AFP found inappropriate. The AFP sought to understand how Telstra obtained this private information, which had only been exchanged through fax or telephone discussions.

At point 5.3 (d, c and d) in the arbitrator's findings of 11 May 1995, he notes:

(d)    ”I note the AUSTEL report commented on Telecom’s deficient fault recording practices. Specifically it was stated that Telecom lacked a system capable of recording reports of recurring faults once a fault had already been reported and was awaiting clearance. This meant the full extent of a fault experienced by a particular customer would not be recorded.”

(e)     In this context, the claimant’s diaries assume a particular significance. Telecom emphasised in its Principal Submission that diaries were lacking for the period 1988-1990 and hence “the magnitude of fault complaints reported by the Claimant is unsubstantiated”. It further points to the fact that for the period June 1988 to August 1991, only the claimant had a “significant level of fault complaints” amongst the customers then connected to Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange. Telecom concluded that the claimant’s claim must be exaggerated because “it is virtually impossible the faults at the exchange or at other exchanges could affect the claimant only, and not other subscribers as well”

(f)   In this context, 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 claimants diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby casting doubt on their veracity and reliability. This is a factor which I have taken into account although I do not accept Telecom’s conclusion that no evidence at all should be placed upon the diaries in support of the claimants assertions.

Had the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes had AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, he could not have made the statements he did concerning Telecom's assertions that other subscribers trunked through the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange did not suffer the phone complaints that AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show they did suffer.

What has not been revealed in Dr Hughes's findings are the ongoing threats I had received from Telstra during the arbitration or the findings by the Australian Federal Police (Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), that Telstra had been listening in to my telephone conversations for quite some time.

It was the Australian Federal Police, after I alerted them in February 1994, that I had lost my two central camp diaries from 1988 to 1990, which had just disappeared. My yearly handwritten notebooks were records of all incoming inquiries and my logged phone complaints. It was common knowledge within AUSTEL and amongst other COT Cases that several COTs, including me, had been suffering PTS for years trying to run a telephone-dependent business without a reliable telephone.

In late 1993, I confronted an intruder on my property in the middle of the night, and the local Portland police followed up on my confrontation with this intruder and found his story did not match what he had told me. I reported this to the AFP in February 1994 when they began investigating Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telephone and facsimiles. Melanie Cochrane of the AFP suggested that I record all of the content of my daily notebooks into my hard-copy diaries so that I have two sets of records.

Melanie Cochrane, in the company of Superintendant Detective Sergeant Jeff Pemrose (AFP), also stated that Telstra had been documenting the names of various single club patrons on internal memos and could only have acquired that knowledge from intercepting my telephone and facsimiles of their names and addresses in my yearly handwritten notebooks should not be provided to Telstra and the assessor hearing my settlement/arbitration while the AFP was still investigating my claims.

I followed that advice by adding my handwritten yearly notebook statements between 1990 and 1994 to my complex daily diaries for the same period.

In simple terms, the statement by Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, was correct because many bookings or complaints that came in late or were faul reports, which I added sometimes a week or more later over indented the writing of the previous page or even three pages when final confirmation for that booking or fault response for my phone fault was received.

It was AUSTEL (now ACMA) who demanded Telstra stop their pressure tactics being used against me when I was forced to report all of my phone faults in writing to Telstra's lawyer Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale and Page, who sometimes took more than a week to respond to my phone and faxing problems.

Of course, my fault recording and booking records were all over the place because even those patrons trying to make a booking had to be entered in my diaries days after the event was confirmed.