An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
On September 26, 1994, Telstra threatened me for the second time in six months. They warned me that if I continued providing the Australian Federal Police with sensitive documents about their unauthorized interception of my business phone calls and screening of my faxes, I would be denied crucial documents to support my arbitration claim. What's worse, I learned that Telstra knew about my conversation with the former Prime Minister of Australia regarding the government's selling of wheat to China.
They were fully aware that the wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam while we were in conflict with North Vietnam. The gravity of this situation prompted the Australian Federal Police to investigate how Telstra was able to document my private life over several years and to what advantage. Their unlawful conduct continued until at least 24 December 2001, six years after my arbitration conclusion.
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or Government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the Government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their inquiry into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
In 1994/95, I went through arbitration proceedings. During that time, I shared with the Australian Federal Police a collection of newspaper articles that featured two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who had previously served as the Prime Minister of Australia. Page 12 of the transcripts from my interview with the AFP's Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 reveal that the AFP was interested in the confidential discussions I had with Mr Fraser concerning my correspondence on September 18, 1967, after my return from China.
Mr Fraser's conduct during our conversations was highly professional. He showed great integrity when he decided to report only what was necessary to the media regarding our discussion about phone bugging. This was after I had informed him about a Telstra file note that had redacted significant portions of the information we had discussed. His actions demonstrated his unwavering commitment to preserving confidential information, a testament to his character.
One of three media statements follows:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” (See Senate Evidence File No/53)
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
During my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which was turned into Telstra's preferred arbitration process, AUSTEL/ACMA wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994, stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” Illegal Interception File No/3.
In this 10 February 1994 letter, AUSTEL (now ACMA), the current Australian Communications Media Authority, informed Steve Black of Telstra that they had provided nine audio tapes containing essential evidence to support the privacy issues raised by the COT cases during their arbitrations. This evidence was crucial during the COT government-endorsed arbitrations because it clearly proved that their business and personal telephone conversations had been tapped and listened to. However, AUSTEL and the Australian Federal Police concealed these nine tapes from the COT cases during their respective arbitrations, and no written findings were made in the arbitrator's award on these privacy issues.
This non-recording of a finding by the arbitrator goes against the official arbitration agreement rules, which stipulate that the arbitrator must make a written finding for or against a claimant's claim. This no finding was made despite the Australian Federal Police stating in their 26 September 1994 arbitration interview transcripts (at Question 81 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 "... it does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".
When Geroge Close (the arbitration technical advisor to the COT Cases) visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after learning his Buderim (Queensland) residence and his office was the conduit (the central location) to where this screening of the advice he gave the COT Cases on what documents they needed to access from Telstra under FOI detailing why this technical information was needed to support their individual arbitration claims, I showed him Open Letter File No/12, File No/13, Front Page Part One File No/1,Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E, Front Page Part One File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on the COT Cases overall submissions to the arbitrator. Mr Close later sent me an email on 5 August 2011 to assist me in exposing what the Telstra Corporation had been able to do (and get away with) during the COT arbitrations to gain an advantage over all of the COT Cases claims before the arbitrator. His eyes were full of sadness, thinking it was his residence and office, and the advice was given to the COT Cases from it that had caused the COT Cases so much damage (see Front Page Part One File No/26).
“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.
“He had been shown fax’s [sic] which had clear indication of change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.
“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.
“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred the offender(s) would be jailed.
“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”
So far, no one in Australia has been held accountable, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives. Screening COT Cases Supreme Court and arbitration-related documents by Telstra (the defendants) in the COT arbitrations is serious enough.
This story is significant because it sheds light on what drove Julian Assange to expose corruption by various governments during their involvement in war-torn countries. It raises questions about how Julian Assange knew who was involved in the COT arbitrations and whether he stumbled upon the redacted Malcolm Fraser discussions. Interestingly, someone like Julian Assange, who hated war as much as he hated criminal conduct by governments against their citizens, was driven to expose corruption.
A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General, Hon. Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers discovered that Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations acted unlawfully towards the COT group. In three of the original four COT Cases, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I tried to obtain information as to the identities of the hackers after we contacted the arbitration administrator Warwick Smith (who was also the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman), detailing to him what the hackers had told Mr Schorer concerning the unlawful way in which our arbitrations were proceeding.
“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.
“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …
“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.
“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …
“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3
On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:
“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.
- Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
- The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally.
- In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken by Telstra against the COT Cases.” AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817
I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received Graham Schorer's 7 July 2011 statutory declaration. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report, Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13, which leaves no doubt that the hackers were correct regarding this electronic surveillance.
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” Front Page Part One File No/14
When the hackers stated that the Graham Schorer we COT Cases were under electronic or mass surveillance, and this was relayed back to me by Mr Schorer, I knew just how serious this was because the AFP had already interviewed me in February 1994, where I provided conclusive evidence showing Telstra knew about specific contracts I was tendering for as way back in August 1992, which did not transpire. This particular document is discussed in the 93 questions asked by the AFP again, this time on 26 September 1994, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts.
If it was not Julian Assange, then who was it?
What type of evidence were these hackers concerned about?
This statutory declaration, Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3, prepared by Graham Schorer, COT Cases spokesperson, confirms hackers (more than likely a young Julian Assange) did telephone Mr Schorer during the COT arbitrations. This statutory declaration also shows the offices of two COT cases that were broken into, where only Telstra government records were stolen. What were the thieves looking for? Why were two of my central diaries also taken from my office, which confirmed I was having regular discussions with two different psychologists concerning the ordeal I had suffered under detention in Communist China?
WikiLeak exposing the truth is self-explanatory, Bad Bureaucrats suggests that when Julian Assange told Graham Schorer that Telstra and the government were acting unlawfully towards us, were these illegal acts during our government-endorsed arbitrations to stop us COT Cases from wholly proving our claims as pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia suggests.
Could this statement by Julian Assange (or whoever the hackers were) mean that my claims of Kleptocracy and corrupt public servants and the actions by Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John Ewen (both ex-Australian prime minister from 1965 through to at least 1967) when they sold wheat to Communist China aware that China was redeploying that wheat to Communist Vietnam may be what concerned these hackers? Exposing unethical practices by government bureaucrats seems to fit the profile of Julian Assange.
Four months after the arbitrator prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations, i.e.;
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions], in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
Thus, the government was officially informed of the above concerning an arbitration process it endorsed and should have immediately appointed a review of the whole sordid affair. It never did.
The trauma continues
Why was this official advice not acted upon for the good of all the COT Cases?
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock (the second-appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations formally addressed a Senate estimates committee, stating:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
Why weren't the arbitrations put on hold (abandoned) until the claimants received their promised documents? Why were the arbitrations not conducted under the agreed 'ambit of the arbitration procedures'? How can an arbitration be just when the arbitrator has no control over its conduct? When did Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, two months, or even nine months into the process? And, just as importantly, who authorised him to conduct the process entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures?
No amendment is attached to any agreement signed by the four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process once we signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted outside the agreed procedure?
On 23 March 1999 (see above), almost five years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to wholly support their claims.
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
The following six senators all formally record how Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations. The six senators unanimously agreed that Telstra had acted as a law unto themselves during the COT arbitrations. However, due to the time gap between April 1994 and March 1999, only five out of the twenty-one COT cases that the senators believed were entitled to punitive damages received their due compensation and the previously withheld discovery documents. This injustice was inflicted upon the remaining sixteen Australian citizens, i.e. An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. The reason I am writing this COT story.
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)
It is clear from the "COT Cases Strategy" discussed in the following YouTube video that the first four COT Cases (including me) would never receive the requested technical documents needed to prove our claims against Telstra fully.
MY YOUTUBE VIDEO
Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that is plaguing COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted lawyers and crooked arbitrators who covered up these crimes.
Government Coruption.
Criminal Conduct Example 1
“COT Case Strategy”
"As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."
Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers that Australia had ever known. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such important friends?
And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest chance of being heard under those circumstances?
While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members and, indeed, I don’t believe that either of them could have possibly condoned such a strategy, what I am asking is how any ordinary person could ever get past Telstra's powerful Board? After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.
The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.
What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.
This continual writing up of individual telephone faults for these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing.
I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back from Telstra under Freedom of Information the exact documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.
If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that the lawyer with whom you were being forced to register your phone complaints devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.
It was not of Mr Joblin's hand
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me being of sound mind?
On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking:
1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?"
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, which is further proof that the COT story must be investigated.
What has since shocked a number of Senators, including Senator Joyce, was the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature on the unsigned witness statement was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses.
Senator Bill O’Chee (was most concerned that John Pinnock had not provided me any response to his letter on 21 March 1997 to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin). This no response that prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Telstra's Graeme Ward, regulatory and external affairs (see File GS-CAV 293-B -GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998 from, stating.
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."
There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous as Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,
It is October 2022, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all.
Criminal Conduct Example 2
Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the youtube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which, he advised the Committee that:
"In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
From Mr White's statement, he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. From Mr White's statement, he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to impartially filter the raw information collected before that information is catalogued for future use.
legal-professional-privilege
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust the ground you walk on. Sheer Evil.<
Introduction to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust the ground you walk on. Sheer Evil.<
Senate Schedule COT list -16
Bribery and corruption along with fraudulant conduct is destroying the the democratic system of justice. What the government allowed to happen to the 16 COT Cases is something that most Australians would find most disturbing.
Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who covered up these atrocities
Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It’s worse than double-dealing and cheating.
Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents
These acts are corrupt. Deceptive conduct at its best. Double-dealing trickery, cheating and betraying people's trust. This conduct fester’s corruption. It’s worse than double-dealing and cheating.
