Chapter Five - The fifth remedy pursued
This remedy pursued ran parallel with the ASIC investigation of 1998.
It is also important for anyone who reads our Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, to understand that although a copy of that report dated June 1996, was originally sent to Paul Fletcher at his request, during the period he was an adviser to Senator Richard Alston (the then-newly appointed Minister for Communications and the Arts) it was also sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office as well as the then Australian Securities Commission (now ASIC). I can only assume that it was this report Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, that first prompted Mr Alan Cameron, chair of the Australian Securities Commission to originally agree to investigate my complaints.
After reading Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it will become clear that the exhibits and evidence that were attached to the report show that, if Paul Fletcher current Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastucture, Cities and the Arts, in the 2022 Morrison government had properly had investigated that evidence in June 1996 then most (if not all) of the issues that I have been trying to have investigated since then, would have been settled in 1996.
In September 1995, the Hon David Hawker MP and I discussed this TF 200 telephone issue (see Bad Bureaucrats - Tampering of Evidence) with Senator Richard Alston (Minister for Communications) in parliament house Canberra. The minister assured us he would have it addressed and asked me to provide further supporting material.
When I discussed this material with Mr Fletcher on the telephone conversation, he told me he would address it and be sure I provided advice on it in the report I was preparing.
It is clear from the reporting that I again raised this TF200 issue in my reporting (see page 18). Why didn't Mr Fletcher discuss this unlawful conduct with Telstra further?
To support my claims that Anthony Hodgson Chairman of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA) misled ASIC or his own company misled him regarding assessing less than 11% (eleven per cent) of my legally submitted claim, see the following points:
Point 1, There are discrepancies between the arbitrator’s and my version of the technical consultants’ report titled Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report. Mr Alan Smith. CBHC. 30 April 1995. The second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence “It is complete and final as it is,” (see Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator’s report, also dated 30 April 1993 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)
Point 2, There is more information in the arbitrator’s version than there is in mine. The reference to my ongoing billing problems states extra weeks are required to complete the investigation. The arbitrator did NOT provide the extra weeks.
My page two of this report (see 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?
Both documents state: “A comprehensive log of Mr Smith’s complaints does not appear to exist.” It did exist, as we have shown. Had this comprehensive log of fault complaints been provided to the technical consultants to assess, they would have had to overrule the arbitrator’s decision not to allow them the extra weeks they had requested, in order to investigate my ongoing billing faults.
My claims to ASIC also raised concerns that my evidence showing the TF 200 telephone beer in the telephone report was fraudulently manufactured by Telstra (see Bad Bureaucrats - Tampering of Evidence) was not provided by FHCA to the arbitrator for assessment.
Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan (my claim advisors) had definitely submitted a very comprehensive list of fault complaints as part of my submission (see Arbitrator File No/31 & 32). One of those reports was a full chronology of events to assist with reading the comprehensive log of fault complaints. Were these documents lost on route to the arbitrators office via Australia Post or the very inadequate faxing system at Dr Hughes’ office (see exhibit G Schorer 717-G stat dec and letter to IAMA)? When I demanded an arbitration meeting to discuss these missing reports, my request was denied (see Arbitrator File No/48).
To be clear, a dated chronology of my 008/1800 billing issues was in existence before, during and after my arbitration. A comprehensive log of faults was submitted to the Federal government prior to my arbitration as well as during, but this record disappeared, leaving only 11% of my claim documents to be assessed. Neither Telstra nor AUSTEL could not allow my 008/1800 billing issues to be scrutinised and exposed. The implications of a systemic charging issue, which affected as many as 120,000 Australian households and businesses (see Chapter One Bad Bureaucrats)
My award was brought down on 11 May 1995. The very next day, the arbitrator wrote to the TIO and discussed one of the deficiencies in the agreement; the insufficient time frame allowed in the arbitration agreement for the “preparation of technical reports”. I had raised this very same issue with the arbitrator the previous week when I requested he give me more time to investigate the disappearance of my comprehensive log of complaints.
Why should my arbitration claim be penalized because of the inadequate handling of the arbitration material once it reached the arbitrator’s office?
Point 3, The next damning letter was from John Rundell (FHCA) the Arbitration Project Manager on 18 April 1995, advised the TIO, the arbitrator and the TIO counsel that:
“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
The four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and (me) were never told about any of these so-called “forces at work” and nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the TIO, the TIO’s legal advisor and the Arbitrator, these un-named “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process wherever and whenever they desired, but always with the aim of helping Telstra to defeat the COT claimants.
Point 4, When these three legal experts, (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts’ directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. If John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once because, with Mr Rundell’s letter as evidence, we would certainly have had a very reasonable chance of being granted the rights to have all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least. And don’t forget, it was the Federal Government who had originally endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.
By viewing exhibits Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, as well as exhibits Open letter File No/45-A to 45-I and comparing them with Open letter File No/46-A to 46-L to Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D, it will be clear my claims against the conduct of the arbitrator and FHCA are valid.
I also hoped ASIC, with its legislative powers, would order a quick assessment of the arbitrator’s written technical findings in his award, as well as compare Telstra’s arbitration defence. ASIC would have proved beyond all doubt that NONE of my Ericsson AXE and NEAT faulty testing equipment procedure was defended by Telstra, or commented on by the arbitrator. Lane Telecommunications (the TIO-appointed arbitration technical advisors investigated NONE of my Ericsson fault data. I can only presume Lane did not assess my Ericsson claims because Lane was already in the process of being purchased by Ericsson. ASIC was misled and deceived by Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory as I had been during my arbitration.
Why then did Anthony Hodgson, the chair of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the arbitration financial resource unit), write to Alan Cameron, chair of the Australian Securities Commission (see Open letter File No/45-I), on 17 March 1998, advising that I was wrong: ALL of my claim documents were addressed during my arbitration when the above-aforementioned points and exhibits show they were not addressed at all. This statement by Mr Hodgson to ASIC was clearly misleading and deceptive conduct. If he wrote on advice he received within his own corporation, then his own company members and partners within profoundly misled and deceived him and when this possibility was brought to his attention and the attention of John Pinnock (the second TIO) the truth of the matter was not relayed back to ASIC.
Had the Australian Securities Commission not been misled and deceived in March 1998, less than three years after my arbitration concluded, and instead made a finding that my claims were justified, as the attached exhibits on absentjustice.com show, then I could have challenged at least one of the sections in the arbitrator’s award, as 1998 was well within the statute of limitations time-frame allowed.
Next Page ⟶
