Falsified with intent to deceive
It is currenty November 2026, and still nothing has been achieved to resolve the following issues
The perpetration of fraudulent and treacherous conduct often precipitates systemic unethical behavior with far-reaching repercussions. This behavior is widely recognized as a severe form of treachery, necessitating a concerted effort to counter nefarious actions and rectify the ineffectiveness of misguided bureaucrats within bureaucratic systems. Addressing these issues is imperative to curtail the ongoing perpetuation of corrupt bureaucratic practices, including but not limited to corruption, bribery, fraud, distortion, and thuggery.
Malfeasance, Felonious, and Illicit Dealings
- Legal repercussions of malfeasance
- Addressing felonious activities
- Combating illicit dealings
Selling out the other side of politics—the money grubbers and career dogs, especially politicians—who have compromised their morals and the community's needs to pursue illicit personal gain is shaping Australia's legal process, but no one wants to admit it.
Foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, and international fraud against the government present significant challenges.
Regrettably, corruption among federal public officials is prevalent and threatens the integrity of our government institutions. The events surrounding the Australian government-endorsed Casualties of Telstra arbitrations prompt reflection. The conduct of specific public figures, notably politicians, who prioritise personal gain over ethical considerations and community welfare, clearly influences the Australian arbitration and mediation system. This phenomenon warrants candid and comprehensive examination.
By clicking on Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report, the reader will be able to form their own opinion as to whether the Cape Bridgewater BCI test was impracticable or could have been performed, as Telstra alleged during and after their defence of my arbitration claims. The evidence which supports that report is attached as BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. These exhibits confirm my claims are more than just valid.
Although the following Federal Magistrates Court letter dated 3 December 2008, from Darren Lewis, has been discussed in Absentjustice – Preface it was relevant to again discuss it here, where Darren Lewis states:
“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:
- Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp
- Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34
- Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);
- Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.
“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” (See My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B)
The Australian Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all of the information originally enclosed, those documents must, therefore, have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
As I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost en route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 en route to the arbitrator hearing my case.
As Darren’s letter shows, I helped him prepare his bankruptcy appeal against the Australian Taxation Office (for back taxes) using my own evidence that the Telstra Corporation knowingly submitted two false and fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater reports to the arbitrator during my arbitration, to deliberately mislead the arbitrator into believing that there were no more ongoing phone problems affecting my business.
Bankrupt in 2009
Darren Lewis was walked off the property by receivers, bankrupt, in August 2009.
After reviewing the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (SVT) CCAS data dated 29 September 1994 (see Arbitrator File No/110), Brian Hodge (B Tech, MBA, B.C. Telecommunications) prepared a report on 27 July 2007. On page 22, he states:
“It is my opinion that the reports submitted to Austel on this testing program was flawed, erroneous, fictitious, fraudulent & fabricated, as it is clear that no such testing has taken place as Telstra’s own call charge system DOES NOT record any such activities. Therefore the results are flawed or did not occur.” (See Main Evidence File No 3)
Mr Hodges concluded Telstra fabricated their reports about the many ongoing telephone problems still affecting the holiday camp CAN as late as November 2006. Moisture caused many of these problems by affecting both the CAN's copper wire and optical fibre joints. These problems were so bad that, in late 2006, Telstra had to disconnect the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp from the fibre network and return it to the already-corroded copper-wire network (see Open Letter File No/23).
The fact that Sue Laver, Telstra's current Corporate Secretary, will not acknowledge the truth surrounding the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International testing process suggests she, along with the Telstra board, is protected by a shield that allows certain companies and their representatives to operate outside of the rule of law in Australia.
The fact that Telstra's former CEO Frank Blount was allowed to co-publish a book, Managing in Australia (See File 122-i—CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), confirms Telstra did have a major 008/1800 problem. Yet Telstra concealed its knowledge of this during my arbitration, showing that ordinary Australian citizens have no voice.
It is also important I include here the following link dated 16 December 2021 > Telstra Energy must provide special protections for consumers ... which states in part:
The Essential Services Commission has granted Telstra Energy (Retail) Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Telstra Corporation Limited, licences to sell gas and electricity to Victorian consumers.
As a special condition of its licences, Telstra Energy will establish a specialist team to handle all enquiries and complaints for its Victorian energy customers. This will ensure that Telstra Energy customers in Victoria get dedicated support.
Commission chair Kate Symons said the commission will be keeping a close eye on Telstra Energy’s compliance in the energy sector. Telstra Group has an extensive history of non-compliance in the telecommunications sector and stakeholders expressed significant concerns about this during the consultation on the licence applications.
The Essential Services Commission Chair's note on 16 December 2021: "...Telstra Group has an extensive history of non-compliance in the telecommunications sector" supports my claims that Telstra and its board have a poor track record when dealing with legitimate complaints.
I wonder what the Essential Services Commissioner, Kate Symons, would make of Telstra's refusal to investigate Tampering with Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report?
The Cost of Non-Investigation: How Unanswered Allegations Continue to Damage Small Business in Australia
The greatest injustice is not merely the alleged wrongdoing itself, but institutions' refusal to properly investigate credible evidence of wrongdoing when presented. For many small business operators, the issue is not simply whether mistakes were made during the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations. It is whether evidence suggesting falsified testing, misleading reports, and the mishandling of critical evidence has ever been subjected to independent, transparent examination.
The allegations surrounding Telstra's Service Verification Testing (SVT), Bell Canada International (BCI) testing, and the circumstances involving the TF200 Exicom touchphone strike at the heart of public confidence in Australia's dispute resolution processes. If technical reports presented during legal and arbitration proceedings were inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated, and if equipment capable of proving ongoing faults was altered, damaged, or tampered with after leaving a claimant's premises, then the consequences extend far beyond a single dispute. They raise questions about whether small business operators had a fair opportunity to prove their cases.
For many Telstra claimants, reliable telecommunications services were not a convenience. They were the lifeblood of their businesses. Every failed incoming call represented a lost booking, a lost customer, and lost income. Every unexplained fault damaged reputations painstakingly built over many years. Small business operators depended on their telephone services the same way larger corporations depended on sophisticated communications networks. Yet many claimants believed they were denied the same level of protection, investigation, and accountability routinely afforded to powerful commercial interests.
The ongoing refusal to comprehensively investigate allegations concerning the SVT and BCI testing processes has left many former claimants with a profound sense of abandonment. Some lost profitable businesses. Others lost homes, savings, and years of work. Relationships suffered under the enormous financial and emotional pressure. For many families, the consequences were not temporary setbacks but permanent life-altering events.
Particularly troubling is the perception that evidence supporting the claimants' concerns has never received the level of scrutiny it warranted. Reports prepared by independent telecommunications specialists raised serious questions regarding whether certain testing had actually been performed as claimed. If those concerns had been thoroughly investigated when first raised, many of the lingering doubts surrounding the arbitrations might have been resolved decades ago. Instead, the absence of a full examination has allowed suspicion, mistrust, and unanswered questions to grow.
The allegations concerning the TF200 Exicom touchphone are equally significant. Small business owners naturally expect that equipment removed from their premises for examination will remain in the same condition and retain its evidentiary value. When questions arise regarding the integrity of that equipment after it leaves a claimant's control, confidence in the entire investigative process is undermined. Whether justified or not, the perception created is that critical evidence may not have been preserved in a manner consistent with ordinary standards of fairness and accountability.
The long-term impact extends beyond those directly involved in the original disputes. Every time allegations supported by technical reports, witness statements, and documentary evidence go unanswered, public confidence in regulatory agencies and complaint-handling bodies weakens. Small business operators observing these events can reasonably ask themselves a troubling question: if this could happen to others, what protection exists for us?
The Essential Services Commission's 2021 comments on Telstra's extensive history of non-compliance in the telecommunications sector add further weight to calls for an independent examination of historical complaints. While those comments do not determine the truth of any individual allegation, they reinforce the importance of transparency, accountability, and proper investigation when serious concerns are raised.
Ultimately, the lasting damage from failing to investigate these matters is not confined to one company, one arbitration, or one claimant. It is the erosion of trust. Small business owners must believe that when they present evidence, it will be examined fairly. They must believe that powerful corporations are subject to the same standards as ordinary citizens. Until these longstanding allegations are independently assessed and answered, many former claimants will continue to believe that justice was not merely delayed, but denied.
