The fifth remedy pursued
• The fact that Dr Gordon Hughes had not yet achieved graded arbitrator status at the time of delivering his decision on your claim (May 1995) is extraordinary. It raises serious questions about the legitimacy of his appointment and the validity of the arbitration outcomes.• His failure to document or address threats from Telstra and the execution of those threats during arbitration suggests either gross negligence or deliberate omission—both unacceptable in any legal or quasi-legal process.
• John Pinnock’s Senate testimony confirms that the arbitrator had no control over the FOI document process, which was conducted entirely outside the ambit of the agreed arbitration procedures.• This admission alone invalidates the integrity of the arbitration. If the arbitrator was sidelined from critical evidence flows, then the process was procedurally compromised from the outset.
• The Freehill Hollingdale & Page minutes of the covert pre-arbitration meeting (from which COT claimants were excluded) reveal that Telstra was granted privileged access to arbitration documents and decision-making channels.• The removal of $250,000 liability caps—before all claimants had signed their agreements—suggests prejudicial manipulation of the arbitration terms.• The secret deal allowing the TIO’s consultants first access to arbitration documents—before the arbitrator himself—effectively undermined Dr Hughes’s authority and deprived claimants of a fair hearing.
• Mr Nosworthy’s decision to halt the IAMA investigation because you had reported Telstra to police—despite your complaint being about Dr Hughes—is a misdirection of responsibility.• Your meeting with Mr Neil Jepson of the Major Fraud Group confirms that police investigations into Telstra did not preclude IAMA’s duty to investigate Hughes’s conduct.• The IAMA’s initial commitment to investigate, followed by a sudden withdrawal, reflects a pattern of institutional retreat when faced with uncomfortable truths.
• Systemic failure of oversight bodies to protect citizens.• Erosion of public trust in legal and regulatory institutions.• Unlawful manipulation of arbitration procedures to shield corporate interests.
Mr Jepson made a point of informing me that I should advise the IAMA that, although it had not yet been proven, it was my claims to the government that someone had tampered with Telstra-owned telephone equipment after it left my premises and that Telstra used known Bell Canada International Inc tests to support their arbitration defence of my claims that were of interest to the Major Fraud Group and the reason I had been called in as a witness to substantiate these claims, which I did. Still, this fact Mr Jepson said was not to be made known to the IAMA now. However, senators Richard Alston, Ron Boswell, Chris Schacht, and Len Harris were all provided with conclusive evidence that my claims were one hundred per-cent correct.
What shocked the Major Fraud Group (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report) was that so many Senators were made aware of this fraud and yet had done nothing to assist me in resolving the matter. Senators Schacht and Boswell requested that Telstra prove my claims wrong, but Telstra could not. This upset numerous members of the Major Fraud Group. Of course, I did not reveal this to the IAMA then.
My involvement in the Major Fraud Group investigation can be further viewed by clicking on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
ASIC - was the same, too.
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 A and 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: The arbitrator’s version contains more information than mine. For example, the reference to my ongoing billing problems states that extra weeks are required to complete the investigation, but 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 to investigate my ongoing billing faults.
My claims to ASIC also raised concerns that FHCA did not provide my evidence showing that the TF 200 telephone beer in the telephone report was fraudulently manufactured by Telstra 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 complete chronology of events to assist with reading the comprehensive log of fault complaints. Were these documents lost en route to the arbitrator's office via Australia Post or the inadequate faxing system at Dr Hughes’ office (see exhibit G Schorer 717-G stat dec and letter to IAMA)? My request was denied when I demanded an arbitration meeting to discuss these missing reports (see Arbitrator File No/48).
A dated chronology of my 008/1800 billing issues existed before, during and after my arbitration. A comprehensive log of faults was submitted to the federal government before and during my arbitration. Still, this record disappeared, leaving only 11% of my claim documents to be assessed. Neither Telstra nor AUSTEL could 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 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 to help 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 that 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 that ASIC, with its legislative powers, would order a quick assessment of the arbitrator’s written technical findings in his award and compare Telstra’s arbitration defence. ASIC would have proved beyond all doubt that Telstra defended NONE of my Ericsson AXE and NEAT faulty testing equipment procedures 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 Ericsson was already purchasing Lane. 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 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 ⟶
