The first remedy pursued Nov 1993

The website that triggered the more profound exploration into political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime narrative.

I created the following four-minute video on YouTube to illuminate the corruption surrounding the COT process during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations.

Please note that as of May 2025, The first remedy pursued Nov 1993 to The twelfth remedy pursued May 2011 are works in progress. I have meticulously researched and collected concrete documents and evidence to support every statement made in these twelve volumes. When I set up absentjustice.com I did so because out of the twelth remedy pursued to have the Casulaties of Telstra stories told the only remedy that closely resembled that an Australian government agencey, or self funded ombudsman excluding the Commonwealth Ombudsman who office other than the Administrative Appeals Trinbunal came close to being fully committed to acting on the truth provided to it.

The Victoria State Ombudsman showed concern by contacting me when they began investigating the possibility that a Brotherhood existed in Victoria. I submitted much of the information now attached to absentjustice.com to the State Ombudsman, who contacted me to inform me that the office looked at where they could assist me, and as much as they looked into how their office might have some jurisdiction, allowing them to wholly investigate my claims. That office did not have any jurisdiction to be able to cover itself for having done so.

ASIC did follow up on a preliminary investigation and might have continued to investigate my claims against the conduct of the arbitration consultants Ferrier Hodgeson Corporate Advisory (FHCA) had the Chairman of FHCA not misled and deceived ASIC concerning the conduct of FHCA and the other consultants attached to the arbitration resource unit. In simple terms, the website absentjustics.com was the only course left open to the COT Cases to tell their story the way it happened and not the way the government and its establishment is telling it.

In October 2007, I was at a critical juncture in pursuing justice during an important meeting with a barrister from Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). This meeting was made possible through the invaluable assistance of a highly respected former police officer from Victoria, known for his integrity and dedicated service. He joined me and another witness, lending us the credibility and strength needed to present our case effectively to the barrister.

Our goal was ambitious: to expose a staggering and unsettling reality that had been obscured for far too long. Over a troubling four-year period, the arbitration-related faxes central to the COT cases were systematically intercepted, a calculated manipulation orchestrated by Telstra. This covert screening of our communications provided them with a significant and unethical advantage as defendants in the arbitration process. The evidence I presented during the meeting was so compelling and detailed that it left the barrister nearly speechless, dramatically highlighting the extent of the corruption that had infiltrated this affair.

In addition to the intercepted faxes, I revealed concrete evidence that further demonstrated the depths of this manipulation. Similar Telstra-related legal documents were being rerouted and intercepted as they travelled toward the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This interception was facilitated by a covert secondary fax machine, cleverly hidden within Telstra's sprawling network. This unremarkable device was discreetly positioned among the bustling offices of the prestigious Melbourne legal chambers of Owen Dixon, known for its significant contributions to the legal field. To support my findings and paint a clearer picture of this alarming situation, I meticulously compiled thirty-six spiral-bound volumes of edited information, each page thoughtfully organised to serve as a vital piece of a much larger, intricate puzzle.

Encouraged by the weight of my evidence, the barrister agreed to launch a comprehensive investigation that would unfold over the next eighteen months. After discussing my findings with the senior former police official, I was tasked with digitally documenting all my evidence to help CAV fully grasp the breadth of corruption within Telstra and Melbourne's legal profession. This assignment demanded immense focus and dedication; I devoted five long, intense days to creating digital copies of all the meticulously gathered material.

Regrettably, after my efforts and submitting my thirty-six spiral-bound volumes, I received disappointing news: CAV would not pursue their investigation any further. This moment marked a significant turning point in our ongoing struggle. The website we had established emerged as the only platform through which the COT cases could advocate for the justice that the government had once promised them before their contentious and challenging entry into the arbitration process.

I am carefully and precisely editing each relevant remedy to ensure that the truth is presented most effectively. I can confidently guarantee that anyone who reads these twelve volumes will have an unwavering understanding of the truth that I am exposing. It will be strikingly clear to all who read these reports that government bureaucrats and certain government agencies, including self-funded regulators, were complicit in allowing the Telstra Corporation to commit illegal acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is indisputable and will leave no doubt in anyone's mind about the wrongdoing.

The legal expertise and qualifications attributed to Dr. Hughes would ostensibly necessitate appropriately addressing the distressing occurrences during my arbitration. The absence of recorded documentation pertaining to the threats posed by Telstra and their subsequent execution during the arbitration within Dr. Hughes's findings is perplexing. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the written confirmation from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia, received in April 2001, indicating that Dr Hughes had not obtained the status of a graded arbitrator until a date after the delivery of his decision on my claim on May 11, 1995.

Despite being alerted to these issues in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators (IAMA) has failed to act. I supplied the IAMA with 23 spiral-bound submission materials in 2009 at their request, and they have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, former High Court Judge The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate (Burying The Evidence File 13-A). Yet, the IAMA has declined to make a written finding or return my submission material regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes. Their handling of the arbitration process suggests a lack of ethical conduct (See Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued).

Our Corrupt Legal System

Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals)

It may be difficult for people to believe that lawyers and arbitrators can (and do) pervert the course of justice for their own gain to the detriment of others. But remember, when accusations first emerged of child molestation linked to clergy, many people had difficulty believing that, too, and that has now been proven to have occurred for decades. Many books have been written over the years detailing the misbehaviour of trusted legal people worldwide (including Australia). Some publications that might help you to understand our story here at absentjustice.com are Evan Whitton’s books, which cover similar topics:

Our Corrupt Legal System; Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals),

The Cartel: Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks, and

Trial by Voodoo; how the law defeats justice and democracy.

In Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete," I have carefully articulated that, had the arbitration liability caps delineated in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement not been removed, I would have possessed substantial grounds to initiate a lawsuit against John Rundell for negligence. During the first week of October 1995, my arbitration appeal attorney, Law Partners of Melbourne, conveyed that I had accumulated compelling evidence against John Rundell, an individual associated with Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory and operating specifically within the specialized arbitration finance unit. This compelling evidence was deemed robust enough to warrant legal action under clause 25 of my arbitration agreement, representing a significant turning point in my case.

Law Partners procured the original version of this pivotal arbitration agreement from William Hunt Lawyers, a well-respected firm situated on Lonsdale Street in Melbourne, which represented Graham Schorer, the prominent spokesperson for the Coalition of Transmission (COT). Notably, clauses 25 and 26 were explicitly included in the faxed version of the agreement that was dispatched to William Hunt’s office in April 1994, underscoring their critical significance in the context of potential litigation. Yet, upon examining the copy that Graham Schorer executed on April 2 (year intentionally omitted), it was discovered that clauses 25 and 26 had been inexplicably omitted, alongside alterations made to clause 24 after April 19, 1994, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the document.

Following this disconcerting discovery, William Hunt advised Law Partners that, given Graham Schorer’s ongoing involvement in the arbitration process, he would address these troubling matters on Mr. Schorer’s behalf. However, the arbitration agreement I signed on 21 April 1994 was represented to me as having undergone a modification that removed only clause 10.2.2. Upon presenting this document to Law Partners, they expressed profound astonishment at what appeared to be a deliberate alteration. This modification had adverse consequences, resulting in a significant change to clause 24 and excluding the crucial $250,000 liability caps initially specified in clauses 25 and 26.

At this pivotal juncture, we undertook extensive efforts to obtain my arbitration files from Telstra, the entity identified as the defendant in my arbitration proceedings. To further facilitate this endeavour, we engaged the services of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, a federal independent agency, to assess my arbitration file under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.

The arbitrators had previously indicated that they did not retain an official copy of my arbitration file despite their obligation to do so for a period of six years under statutory limitation laws. However, in an unexpectedly alarming development, Telstra communicated to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in correspondence dated between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997 that they had destroyed my arbitration file. Correspondence labelled as Home Page File No/82 substantiates that Mr. Wynack, Senior Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, did not accept Telstra’s claims regarding the destruction of this critical file.

Law Partners engaged a Queen's Counsel, an esteemed legal expert, to fortify my case at a substantial financial cost, amounting to thousands of dollars. The counsel meticulously analyzed my case and advised me that the absence of the arbitration file, which should have existed in at least four distinct copies held by various entities—Telstra, the arbitrator, the legal counsel for the arbitration, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who served as the administrator for the COT arbitrations—represented a significant obstacle in pursuing a favourable resolution to my claims.

John Pinnock, the administrator to my arbitration letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

I have never received my arbitration file from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock.