Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued

• Chapter 5—Who benefited from exonerating FHCA, DMR, and Special Counsel? Explore Chapter 5 of Consumer Affairs in Australian Federal Police Investigations. Discover who benefited from exonerating FHCA, DMR, and Special Counsel…
• Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete. Government corruption and horrendous and horrifying crimes were committed against ordinary small business operators by the Telstra Corporation, Australia…
• Chapter 4: Distorted and unlawful. Dive into Chapter 4 of our exposé on public office misconduct, which reveals the alarming reality of evidence tampering in the justice system.

Fraudulent Treacherous Conduct  

• Unethical behaviour 
• Identifying treacherous conduct
• Combating fraudulent actions 

Check out our website, which shows evil wrongdoing, such as using false reports to the judge and arbitrator to stop you from getting legal advice, interfering with or destroying legal documents that belonged to you, and destroying your documents.

During June and July of 2009 which was now had become my eleventh remedy pursued, I wrote to The Hon Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, who was then the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australian. I raised the issue of John Rundell (the Arbitration Project Manager), allowing Lane Telecommunications (the TIO-appointed arbitration technical consultant) to assess my arbitration claim and not the principal technical officer Paul Howell from Canada. I provided information on a CD, along with an abundance of documented evidence, to the IAMA proving beyond all doubt (see Prologue/Chapter One to Three) that Mr Rundell had attacked my credibility and character using false statements to stop the first 1996 Institute of Arbitrator Australia from investigating my valid claims as well as assisting Telstra (the defendants) to minimize their liability. The CD includes some 1,460 copies of original exhibit documents. These documents are now available to download from CAV Part 1, CAV Part 2 and CAV Part 3.

After the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) appeared to be most concerned that Dr Hughes, while arbitrator hearing the COT Cases arbitrations that he and his partnership in the leading Sydney and Melbourne law firm might have been one of extreme conflict of interests because the Sydney arm of the company was acting for Telstra employees during their conflict with Telstra during the period several Telstra employees were being questioned by both the New South Wales State Police as well as the Australian Federal Police for rorting millions upon millions of dollars from the Australian government purse. The IAMA agreed to investigate my claims of conflict of interest. I believe both claims of this rorting were also linked to lost arbitration-related faxes mistakenly sent from Dr Hughes' office to his Sydney office.  

The Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) also agreed to investigate (on 2 July 2009) with any fresh evidence I wish to send confirming the arbitrator did not conduct my arbitration according to the agreed ambit of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984. I also provided evidence showing the previous Arbitration Project Manager to my arbitration, who appeared to be the current treasurer of the Melbourne Chapter of the IAMA. I alerted the IAMA of this because if it was the same person, then the IAMA should be aware that this person knowingly misled and deceived a proposed investigation into a number of my valid claims with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. In his letter to me, the then president of the IAMA, The Hon Michael D Kirby AC, CMG advised:

“In accordance with established procedure, I have referred the complaint to the Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee of the Institute.

“In due course, you will be informed following this reference.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A)

Within two days of receiving this letter, I received a telephone call from the CEO of the IAMA who explained that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee would investigate these fresh allegations and would notify me of their findings. I advised the CEO that in 2002, the IAMA began investigating similar complaints concerning the same arbitrator, but returned my documents without bringing down a finding. The CEO confirmed this would not be the case now. I deduced, from the CEO’s tone, that he had read the damning evidence against the arbitrator that had prompted the president of the IAMA to send the above letter of 9 July 2009.

AT the end of July 2009, I personally provided 21 claim documents to the assistant of the IAMA CEO and stated in my letter:

“My letter to you on 16th July advised that the following documents would be hand-delivered to you. These reports are now attached for your information.” (Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

I forwarded many submissions to the IAMA ethics and professional affairs committee, which comprises either ex-judges or qualified lawyers who should have been concerned about the evidence I provided. It appears they were not interested in assessing evidence showing one of their own had breached more than only his duty of care of a claimant in an arbitration process. I showed that the administrator of the arbitration process alerted the government on 26 September 1997 that “most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures” (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia). This initially seemed to worry the CEO and he telephoned me to confirm they would investigate my allegations against the arbitrator. However, the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee have still not brought down a finding with regard to this information or my other 21 submissions, regardless of their advice to me in five different emails that they were investigating my matters. One of those five emails, sent at 12:50 pm on 21 October 2009, states:

“Presently, IAMA does not require this further documentation to be sent. However, the investigating persons will be notified of these documents and may request them at a later date.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

On 27 November 2009, I sent a further email to the secretary of the IAMA’s CEO, advising him that I could provide solid evidence of the arbitrator’s previous role as Mr Schorer’s legal advisor during a previous Telstra Federal Court matter. The arbitrator was clearly in error not to have declared this primary conflict of interest before he accepted the position, particularly when the company he was a partner in had also been Mr Schorer’s business advisor.

At 2.00 pm the same day, I received an email from the secretary of the IAMA stating: “Your email has been forwarded to the CEO. Regards – Richard.”

On 29 November 2009, I wrote to the CEO of the IAMA regarding fresh evidence received from the office of the lawyer who represented COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in his earlier Federal court action against Telstra between 1990 and 1992.

This now-deceased lawyer replaced Graham’s initial lawyer, who was appointed as the arbitrator for the first four COT arbitrations, including both Mr Schorer’s and my arbitration. The arbitrator, therefore, assessed the same documents and complaints he had previously been privy to when he was acting as Mr Schorer’s legal counsel between 1990 and 1992.

This constitutes a clear case of conflict of interest. This is the same arbitrator the IAMA investigated in 2009.

The crux of the matter, discussed in my letter to the IAMA ethics and professional affairs committee relates to the events of 12 May 1995, after the arbitrator wrote to the TIO warning him that the arbitration agreement he used throughout my arbitration was not a credible agreement and should, therefore, be revised for the remaining three claimants.

This vital letter from the arbitrator was yet another document the TIO and the arbitrator concealed from me during my appeal period. My letter explained that two of the other three COTs were allowed an extra 13 months longer to prepare their claims than I was allowed. The arbitrator who, don’t forget, had previously been Mr Schorer’s business and legal advisor for many years, allowed Mr Schorer a full 36 months longer to prove his case against Telstra than I was allowed.

It is clear from the five emails dated between 20 and 23 October 2009, from the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee that they were certainly investigating my claims against Dr. Hughes (see Burying The Evidence File 13-E) It is also clear from the next email received from the IAMA dated 23 November 2009 (see Burying The Evidence File 13-D) that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee were still supplying claim material to their investigators.

On the 30 July 2009, according to this letter, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) to Paul Crowley, attached to a statutory declaration and a copy of a letter dated 4 August 1998 from Graham to me, Graham had a phone conversation with the arbitrator early in 1994 regarding lost COT faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail that

“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.”Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

On 29 November 2009, I wrote to the CEO of the IAMA regarding fresh evidence received from the office of the lawyer who represented COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in his earlier Federal court action against Telstra between 1990 and 1992. This now-deceased lawyer replaced Graham’s initial lawyer, who was appointed as the arbitrator for the first four COT arbitrations, including both Mr Schorer’s and my arbitration. The arbitrator, therefore, assessed the same documents and complaints he had previously been privy to when he was acting as Mr Schorer’s legal counsel between 1990 and 1992. This constitutes a clear case of conflict of interest. This is the same arbitrator the IAMA investigated in 2009.

During the first months of my arbitration when the Australian Federal Police was officially investigated the possibility COT Cases faxes were being intercepted had Graham Schorer or Dr Gordon Hughes alerted the AFP of the problems being experienced at the arbitrator's office when documents were faxed to their Melbourne office after the close of business each day, any investigation into these lost faxes might well, have uncovered that the arbitrators Melbourne office was not a safe haven for faxed arbitration documents because they ended up in the Sydney office.  

This diverting of faxes to Dr Hughes Sydney office was in operation at the time the Sydney office was acting on behalf of several Telstra employees, and it is possible that some of those Melbourne Telstra titled documents might have been mistakenly taken as Sydney Telstra related documents and not those diverted from Melbourne. 

Ann Garms spent over $600,000.00 in her arbitration appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Dr Hughes. Ann might have had a more favourable outcome of this appeal which she lost had she and her lawyers known of Dr Hughes admission to Graham Schorer before the commencement of our four arbitrations. 

Before the government communications regulator, AUSTEL (now AMA) endorsed Dr Gordon Hughes as the independent arbitrator they had a duty of care to advise the COT Cases in writing that Dr Hughes was not an experienced arbitrator and had not been graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia to perform such complex arbitrations as the COT four processes. AUSTEL did not. Could you inform us of this fact?

Dr Hughes himself also failed his duty of care as a pending arbitrator to COT Cases Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and me in writing as per the rules of the Victorian Arbitration Act that he had a conflict of interest with the fourth claimant Graham/Golden. And to add further salt to the COT Cases future wounds was that Graham Schorer, in his capacity as COT spokesperson failed to disclose to us three other COT Cases that we should not send arbitration related faxes to Dr Hughes’ Melbourne office after the closing of business each day; otherwise, they may not arrive at their intended destination.

This document Front Page Part One File No/1 shows the arbitrator’s secretary advised Tony Watson (of Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) that on 23 May 1994, six of my claim documents did not reach the arbitrator's fax machine. Yet, I was charged on my Telstra account for those six faxes. Why was this matter not investigated? NO one from the arbitrator’s office or the TIO’s office allowed me to amend my claim so that the not received claim documents could be valued as part of my arbitration process.

Why didn’t Dr Hughes (as the arbitrator to my case) also explain to me as he did to Graham Schorer Front Page Part One File No/1  that my 23 May 1994 faxed claim documents might be in his Sydney office? Did Dr Hughes believe by exposing this faxing problem with his Sydney office halt the arbitration process in my favour? Was Dr Hughes worried by exposing to me the flaws in his own two offices concerning the possibility this is where my other lost faxes ended up this admission would bring an end to him remaining the arbitrator to the COT arbitrations?

In 2015, after putting a number of my documents up on my LinkedIn site, a number of offshore lawyers emailed me to express their shock and disbelief in relation to my situation.  One of them, a lawyer practising in the Egyptian Court in Cairo, said that he would be willing to provide his legal opinion regarding six separate areas where he believed the arbitration process had failed the first four COT claimants and so, with his permission, I then sent a copy of his two-page document to the Australian Federal Police, along with his name, although I decided not to publish his name on the website.  Since then he has notified me that I can now identify him in any manuscript I might prepare regarding the first four COT arbitrations, and I can also explain his reasons for believing that the arbitration process failed the COTs.

So, on one hand, we have two Australian Government investigations and one IAMA investigation that have all apparently ended, but not one of those three will hand down a finding.  On the other hand, an Egyptian legal advisor on LinkedIn clearly sees injustices that he is prepared to put his name to, if or when I publish my manuscript “Ring for Justice.”

The legal advice received from Alaa, my Egyptian lawyer LinkedIn contact concerning the unethical way in which he notes my arbitration was conducted has been provided to the Australian Federal Police as a testament to what Alaa see’s as an injustice.

A further international arbitrator (qualified lawyer) on LinkedIn has continued to show interest in this website asking him to be kept up to date. Our association on LinkedIn first started in 2015 and as of late July 2021, we are still corresponding on how I can expose how unlawful many arbitrations are conducted in Australia. Something the Hon Michael Kirby wanted to be investigated in 2009 by the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. That Committee chose NOT to disclose publically my claims are valid.  

Clicking on the following file entitled Discrimination including the supporting exhibits IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39 and IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72 the reader can make up their own minds as to whether the IAMA should have made a finding on my claims.

After not hearing from the IAMA between 23 November 2009 to 17 February 2011, I wrote to the Hon Michael D Kirby AC CMG asking him to investigate why I had no proper advice as to how the IAMA was progressing with their investigations into my matters. It had cost close to $16,000.00 in secretarial and administerial fees to submit my claim to the IAMA.

On the 21 February 2011 I received a letter from The Hon Mr Kirby stating:

“Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2011, just received. 

When I wrote to you in July 2009, I served as President of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia. In June 2010, I stepped down from this position. Mr Warren Fisher was elected in my place. 

A possible explanation for your not hearing from Mr Paul Crowley is that, not long after my retirement as President, he resigned and Chief Officer of IAMA.I will send your letter and the attachment to Mr Fischer and request that he respond to your enquiry.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-F)

17 February 2011: I wrote to the Hon Michael D Kirby AC CMG stating:

“I am now writing to you because I have twice written to Mr Crowley in late 2010, asking if he could let me know when the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee might hand down their findings in relation to my matters, or at least advise me whether or not the IAMA believe I should continue to provide them further material when it becomes available under FOI.” (AS 719)

6 March 2011: I wrote to Warren Fischer, president of the IAMA, noting:

“I decided to update my previous AAT Statement of Facts and Contentions which the Hon Michael Kirby provided to you therefore, I thought it appropriate you should also receive (see attached) the new updated version also dated 9th February 2011. I have supplied this document because it appears that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee have still not reached their findings on my matters and because of those matters will be shortly discussed in the public arena once I attend the AAT Conference hearing”. (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A to 13-I)

21 March 2011: Warren Fischer wrote (IAMA) to me noting:

“I confirm receipt of your correspondence dated 22 February 2011 (forwarded to me by the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG) dated 28 February 2011, 6 March 2011, and 9 March 2011. I advise that I have passed all that correspondence to our Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee for reply to you.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A to 13-I)

9 May 2011: I received rather a strange letter from Warren Fischer (IAMA) noting:

“I have to hand your correspondence dated 2 May 2011. I observe that in that correspondence you state that you “have some concern that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee has not yet responded to my claims against [the arbitrator], which was lodged in July 2009”.

“I advise that my receipt of your other recent correspondence, dated 17 April 2011 caused me to enquire of the IAMA CEO as to the status of this matter as I had understood that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee had concluded its deliberations and notified you accordingly.” (AS 723)

Mr Fischer’s letter is strange because, in the last week of February 2011, the Hon Michael D Kirby AC CMG (AS 717) advised him that I was waiting for a response to the IAMA investigation into my previous arbitrator’s conduct. So why, six weeks later, did Mr Fischer to write that my letter of 17 April 2011 caused him to enquire of the IAMA CEO as to the status of this matter because he understood that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee had concluded its deliberations?

Between May 2011 and November 2013, I tried all reasonable avenues to have the IAMA explain why they would not bring down a finding of their investigations into my valid claims.

On 11 November 2013, the IAMA CEO notified me in writing that I should:

“… not write to the IAMA, our President, or any person connected with IAMA again on this matter. Any future letters received will be returned to you.”

In the government regulatory communications authority - The COT Cases AUSTEL’s report of April 1994 at point 6.67 it states:

“the arbitrator is to be a person of clear impartiality, independence and integrity with expertise in relevant legal, technical and accounting issues to them and with experience in commercial assessment and arbitration.”

Letters provided by me to the government in 2008 and again in 2011 show Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) did not have expertise in arbitration. In fact, in my case, the information I received from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia advises that Dr Hughes did not get his arbitration grading until well past the end of my arbitration. One letter I received from Mr J L Muirhead, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia dated 10 September 1996 states:

"The Institute is a learned society whose principal functions is the training, examination and grading of arbitrators. It will also nominate suitable arbitrators from its list of graded, practising arbitrators if required to do so by the parties. It selects nominees of appropriate of technical expertise and grading (i.e. experience) from its published list.

I am advised by our Chief Administrative Officer that no reference was made to us in the appointment of the arbitrator in the matter in which you were involved and there is always a risk in these circumstances.”     

11-B

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 

Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows beyond all doubt when Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) allowed his previous client COT Spokesperson Graham Schorer three years longer than he allowed me to prepare by claim and answer Telstra's defence he knowingly discriminated against me. The fact he also had a Conflict of Interest in Mr Schorer's previous Federal Court action against Telstra and did not disclose this to me before I accepted him as the COT arbitrator has still not been addressed by the government and Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman who endorsed Dr Hughes and being independent of Telstra when he clearly was not.   

Between June and October 2009, I established, using evidence provided to The Hon Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, President of the IAMA, Paul Crowley (CEO of the IAMA) and those in the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee, that I had valid claims against the conduct of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes and those assisting him before, during and after my arbitration. It should have been apparent, from the evidence submitted during the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee investigations, that several parties involved in my 1994/95 arbitration did not conduct my arbitration according to the ambit of the Arbitration Act. It should have also been apparent – to those administering my arbitration – that Articles 7 and 12 were not adhered to, as the website absentjustice.com clearly shows.

I introduce below a report titled Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009, with exhibits attached, as it was provided to Mr Crowley of the IAMA Melbourne chapter, at the request of the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. These exhibits show the IAMA should have provided a finding regarding the evidence I provided. Yet, it refused to do so.

Arbitration Legal Opinion AS 701 to 756

Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009 - ID Discrimination IAMA Introduction 15 July 2009

Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39 - ID Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 1 to 39

Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72 - ID Discrimination IAMA Exhibits 40 to 72

I reiterate. as of 2024, I have still not received a finding from the IAMA concerning the information they requested I provide and/or received back from the IAMA the 23 submissions they requested I provide.

The evidence I provided the IAMA was gleaned from the attached CAV evidence files below. The highlighted exhibits in the text above supports the statements being discussed. It is clear the IAMA have not treated me in a fair and just manner.