Chapter Ten - The tenth remedy pursued

Bad Bureaucrats

Corruption and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct.

Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), when they requested I submit my claim to Peter Hiland, the CAV was fully aware that during my arbitration, when Telstra relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct when presenting evidence to the arbitration process, they were acting in a corrupt manner.

My corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct evidence provided to Consumer Affairs Victoria was not acted upon.

This remedy pursued via Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) commenced in October 2007, before my first 2008 AAT hearing with the second hearing going through to at May 2011.

Following the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan’s advice, Minister for Communications wrote to me in May 2007, stating I should take Telstra to court regarding these privacy issues.. I contacted Consumer As Affairs Victoria (CAV) through an advisor, who also assisted me in preparing a claim to be provided to a barrister for the CAV. From October 2007 through to late-2008, this un-named advisor, a once very high-ranking Victorian police officer, had a number of discussions with this barrister, who then proceeded to assess our various claims.

The barrister appeared overjoyed that I was able to provide evidence of faxes leaving the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers (the legal hub of Melbourne) being intercepted before they finally reached their intended destination. The barrister was also disturbed to hear that neither the TIO nor Telstra, ever returned to me the evidence I provided confirming faxes left the Crown casino complex arrived at my Cape Bridgewater business, even though they were not intended for me. Five years after the CAV came into possession of this evidence, it was returned to me in a state of disarray that seemed to me to indicate it had been investigated. However, Like the Institute of Arbitrators Mediator Australia (IAMA) see following this chapter never provided a finding either.

Following the Hon Senator Helen Coonan’s advice, I contacted all of the government agencies nominated by the senator, including the TIO’s office, and all declined to investigate my claims.

It became evident there was no one in Australia prepared to tackle Telstra regarding its unethical conduct, prior to and during the COT arbitrations, or its use of known faulty Ericsson exchange equipment.

Since back in 2003, a well-respected, ex-senior-Victorian Police officer, a recipient of the Order of Australia, has been attempting to help me to find a resolution to my 1994 arbitration issues and, during 2007, still on behalf of me but at the request of the Government’s most senior barrister, this same ex-police officer convened a meeting, which included me, in a restaurant just walking distance from the offices of the Victorian Government Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV).  The barrister and this police officer were already known to each other professionally but the barrister had been prompted to request this particular meeting as a result of some preliminary COT Case evidence that he had received.

At that meeting, the barrister stated words to the effect that the CAV had been waiting and hoping – for years – to be able to collect exactly this type of evidence because it so clearly proved (see Australian Federal Police Investigations page and Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13, beyond all doubt, what they had suspected for years: that certain powers to be had access to privileged documents which had been faxed through Telstra’s network between the various parties during litigation processes.  At the same time, the barrister also expressed serious concerns in relation to what he had already learned in relation to the way that, during my Arbitration process, Telstra had openly used falsified reports, had clearly authorised false witness statements and had been able to get away with making, and then actually carrying out, serious threats against claimants during a legal arbitration process that was being conducted in the State of Victoria.

After seeing just some of the COT evidence, and then being told that there was more, similar evidence that was still being collated, the barrister immediately noted that whatever could be provided to the CAV would definitely be investigated.

A short time later, in October 2007, the same ex-police officer personally hand-delivered, to Consumer Affairs Victoria, thirty-two separate, spiral-bound volumes of evidence and, within a couple of weeks, I was asked (again via the ex-police officer) to copy all thirty-two volumes of this evidence onto a CD (a job that actually took me a full two days to complete).  I was told that this would help to speed up the then-ongoing CAV investigation.

More than two years later that CD was returned to me and, so far (i.e. in 2021), the Department of Justice in the State of Victoria has continued to refuse to release any findings based on that material.  This has now led to all that material gradually being added to our website, absentjustice.com, so that the general public can decide for themselves whether I was right to bring this evidence to the Victorian Government’s attention.

The barrister was also concerned that Telstra had used falsified reporting (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report, Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Tampering With Evidence) and made false witness statements (see page|my-story/summary-of-events/|Summary of events]Tampering With Evidence) as well as threatening claimants during arbitrations that were conducted in the state of Victoria (see Senate Evidence File No 31).

You can view some of the types of exhibits provided to the CAV during their two-year-plus investigation by clicking on CAV Part 1, 2 and 3, now collated on the absentjustice.com website, and form your own opinion as to whether the State of Victoria Department of Justice should have made a finding in 2007 regarding these very serious issues. While some of these numbered CAV exhibits are dated well past the period of that investigation and bear the CAV inscription, they were collated during 2011, when I introduced further evidence to the Department of Justice.

It is clear from exhibits AS-CAV 814, 815 and 816 (see AS-CAV 790 to 818) that the Victorian Department of Justice in 2011 would not investigate evidence of facsimiles that were intercepted in the State of Victoria during litigation/arbitration.

After being told more evidence was being collated, the barrister asked for all evidence to be provided for CAV to investigate. This ex-senior Victorian police officer personally submitted Alan’s 32 separate spiral-bound volumes of evidence to CAV. Within a couple of weeks, Alan was advised via this ex-senior Victorian police officer that CAV was investigating and requested all 32 separate volumes to be supplied on a CD (compact disc). More than two years after CAV said it was investigating this material, the evidence was returned and so far, in 2020, the State of Victoria Department of Justice has declined to make a finding on that material.