This website, absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au, is a work in progress, last edited October 2025, see Chapter 1 and The first remedy pursued

No Donate Button—But a Call to Action

If, while reading this narrative, you find yourself wondering where the donate button is—there isn’t one.

This website does not seek personal donations. Instead, if you believe this work presents a compelling case for justice and equity within Australia’s arbitration and mediation processes, and if you see value in the research, evidence, and advocacy behind it, I invite you to support a cause that aligns with these principles.

Consider donating directly to Transparency International Australia.  Your contribution will help raise awareness of the injustices that threaten our democracy and support efforts to hold institutions accountable.

This work is offered freely, driven by a moral obligation to expose the truth. But the fight for transparency is bigger than one voice—it needs all of us.

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—government Corruption. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations.

Explore the unsettling actions of the Casualties of Australia arbitrator, who callously disregarded the chilling threats made against several Australian citizens brave enough to challenge the defendants, Telstra. This arbitrator enabled a prolonged obstruction of the arbitration process for an excruciating thirteen months. In an alarming twist, he eventually proclaimed in his final award that Telstra had exhibited remarkable diligence in their so-called cooperation throughout the proceedings, further exposing the depths of corruption at play.

 

Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following images as you scroll down his homepage

 

 

Lost faxes meant a lost chance of the truth being revealed  

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office 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,  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.

Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong

During my first and second meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“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.” 

British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman. 

 

 Flash Backs – China-Vietnam → Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

My presence in China was more accidental than intentional; I served as a crew member on the British tramp ship Hopepeak.Our vessel was engaged in the humanitarian task of unloading Australian wheat, which we had loaded at the port of Albany in Western Australia. This shipment was not just ordinary trade; it was sent with the noble intention of alleviating hunger in the suffering nation of China. However, a significant and troubling twist emerged: some of this wheat was redirected to North Vietnam, providing sustenance to the very Viet Cong forces who were at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Viet Cong).

As a result, we may be left in the dark about the sheer volume of Australian wheat that found its way into the hands of the Vietcong guerrilla forces, who marched through the jungles of North Vietnam, intending to slaughter and maim as many Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops as possible. 

In August 1967, I was thrust into the savage heart of chaos, surrounded by the frenzied fervour of the Chinese Red Guards. The air was thick with tension, a palpable terror that clung to everything like an oppressive fog. In the midst of this maelstrom, my gaze locked onto a young Chinese nurse; her warm smile shone through the darkness like a beacon of hope. Moments earlier, I had fought fiercely to prevent a doctor from plunging a dangerously unsterilized needle into my arm—an act that could have spelt disaster. As I stood there, staring down the cold, unyielding steel of a rifle aimed directly at my chest, despair threatened to consume me. But curiously, my tears were not for my own fate; they flowed for that nurse beside me, her face tragically marked by the absence of her nose—a silent testament to the brutality that enveloped us. In that harrowing moment, I wept and strained against my restraints, desperate to convey my solidarity and profound connection to her suffering.

Fast forward to the vibrant and tumultuous days of the early 1970s—a time ablaze with passion and conflict—as I became entangled in the gripping saga of the Painters and Dockers at the waterfront. While labouring tirelessly on the ANL ships at the bustling docks of Web Dock and South Wharf in Melbourne, I began to grasp the astonishing strength of resilience. Confronted with relentless challenges, I learned to stand tall, suppressing the tears that threatened to spill over amidst the brewing storm around me.

 

In the months leading up to the arbitration, I boldly entered the lion’s den—the atmosphere in the union rooms of Collingwood thick with tension and anxiety. With an urgency that crackled in the air, I delivered my message to the union officials: it was time for their members to back off. I made it unequivocally clear that no more threats would be tolerated over the phone. Our claims were aimed at Telstra’s senior management, not the rank-and-file members who had become unwitting victims of the conflict.

 

As I prepared for my Telstra government-endorsed arbitration, the weight of harassment and ominous phone threats loomed over me like a dark storm cloud. The transcripts of my interviews with the Australian Federal Police Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 echo the unrelenting tension of those turbulent days. Yet, through it all, I stood resolute, a bastion of strength against a tide of intimidation.

 

One fateful evening, an anonymous caller tried to instil fear, his sinister tone echoing the malevolent words of Paul Rumble, Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer for the COT Cases. He issued a chilling threat to my life for daring to voice my criticisms of the company. But I refused to cower. When he warned that I was a dead man for my outspokenness, I faced his threats with unwavering confidence. I boldly proclaimed that I was already dead—having experienced a metaphorical demise in China between July and August of 1967. In that moment of defiance, the atmosphere shifted; I could almost feel the caller’s bravado weaken, taken aback by my unexpected resolve.

 

I share these experiences not just to recount my life’s tumultuous journey but to highlight the multitude of traumatic events that have intricately woven my story, many of which remain untold. After dedicating three decades to my career as a Merchant Navy ship’s cook, I have distilled these experiences into a forthcoming ebook titled *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* This collection is set to be unveiled on this website and another in the Christmas season of 2025—a captivating journey that explores not only the culinary world but also the rich landscapes of my life.

 

The most profound trauma I have endured since 1994 is the web of deceit spun by the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. They reassured the four COT Cases that if we relinquished our ongoing Fast Track Settlement Proposal in favour of Dr Gordon Hughes as arbitrator, our persistent telephone issues would finally be resolved. Yet in a cruel twist of fate, Dr Hughes failed to demand that Telstra address my ongoing faults. In his statement on May 11, 1995, he claimed my business hadn't faced any further faults since July 1994. However, this website lays bare the stark truth: those issues persisted, tormenting me relentlessly for thirty arduous years after the supposed conclusion of my arbitration—until 2025.

 

To everyone who engages with my story, I implore you to remember the title of my upcoming book, *Around the World in 80 Dishes... and a Few Disasters.* It encapsulates not only the essence of my culinary journey but also the myriad trials and tribulations that have defined my path. These are not just stories of food; they are tales of courage, resilience, and the indomitable human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel 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,   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 troubling aspect of the intelligence networks orchestrated by Telstra in Australia is the shadowy cabal within the corporation that possesses the necessary government clearance to sift through the raw information collected. Who among them can be trusted to catalogue this data for future exploitation impartially? I can’t help but reflect on how much confidential information about my conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 — discussions that unearthed the dealings of Telstra officials and my encounters with Red Communist China, which I confided to Fraser — has been swept under the rug. 

Moreover, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which clandestine organisation was given the sinister task of archiving this trove of sensitive material that Telstra had accumulated about its customers over the years? 

It is worth noting that, during the incident I referenced in the Senate on June 24, 1997, my bankers had grown weary and dispatched the sheriff to the scene to ensure I remained under their thumb. I didn’t resort to violence during this confrontation with the sheriff, who threatened to confiscate vital catering equipment from my property — equipment I desperately needed to sustain my business. Instead, I executed a wrestling hold known as the "Full Nelson," forcing him out of my office. Ultimately, all charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court upon appeal, when the truth emerged, revealing the murky depths of this treacherous saga and the two sides of the story that had been concealed.

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This is highlighted by the following statements presented below by six senators in the Senate in March 1999:

 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston  Sen Richard.   

 

 

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting: 

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

It is with a profound sense of injustice that I recount the troubling circumstances surrounding my case. The arbitrator, whose role should have been one of impartiality, delivered his findings with alarming haste—three full years before the critical Senate investigations even began. This premature judgment was not only reckless but served to shield Telstra, as it occurred before they were compelled to release all the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents I had demanded. As a direct consequence, I, along with several other victims of the COT Cases, was stripped of the opportunity to access the crucial insights and recommendations that emerged from these investigations, insights that could have fundamentally altered the course of our struggles.

The notion of pursuing an appeal against the arbitrator's decision loomed over me like a dark cloud, as the financial toll would have been exorbitant—an expense I was powerless to bear. This entire situation starkly highlights the insidious nature of discrimination faced by the remaining 16 Australian citizens who find themselves entangled in similar predicaments → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. We were not merely victims of a flawed system; we were up against a corrupt apparatus that perpetuates injustice, prioritising self-interest over the rights and dignity of ordinary individuals seeking a fair resolution.

While I grappled with the insidious implications tied to the unethical way in which Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) was conducting my arbitration, I remained woefully ignorant of the depths of Dr Gordon Hughes' treachery at the time—specifically, how he had illegally dispatched George Close's BCI report to Mr Rumble, Tlstra's arbitration defence liaison officer. Compelled by the mounting threats, I meticulously constructed a response letter, yet I was tragically unaware that these threats could be eerily connected to the BCI information that Dr Hughes had shared with Mr Rumble. In that letter sent to Mr Rumble, I professed the following sentiments:

“I promised you on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police, and I intend to honor that promise. I will wait for your response to the following questions I have for Telecom.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr. Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police, etc.”

I need to take you back to 1967 and the years that followed—years engulfed in trauma, where the shadows of profound suffering loomed large. My time as a merchant seaman and a waterfront delegate for marine cooks exposed me to an underworld of threats and violence, but nothing could prepare me for the treachery that awaited in the dark recesses of Telstra. There, a cabal of ruthless individuals conspired to steal our cherished business, fully aware that our telephone problems were systemic and not the result of poor management.

Losing a business to nature’s wrath—floods, fires—is painful enough. But it becomes a twisted horror when you’ve invested countless borrowed dollars into professional arbitration fees, only to discover that Telstra and government regulators knew those proceedings were nothing more than a sham. This is trauma at its most insidious.

During my arbitration, these unscrupulous players were permitted to present nine separate witness statements, each crafted under the guise of truth, to deceive. Their corrupt influence cast a dark cloud over the proceedings, swaying everyone involved except my loyal staff and me. They successfully convinced the arbitrator that Telstra had miraculously resolved our ongoing phone issues, while in reality, the truth was buried beneath layers of deceit. Blinded by this treachery, the arbitrator accepted these dubious, unverified statements as gospel, compounding the betrayal that engulfed us in the COT Cases.

It was a malevolent scheme that not only stripped us of our livelihoods but also obliterated any hope of justice, leaving us to grapple with the stark realisation of our plight in a world rife with corruption.

 

Senate Evidence File No 12

😈The Devil’s Three Letters: A Coordinated Attack on Truth
It is crucial to delve into the section titled “The Devil’s Three Letters” early in this narrative. These letters expose a troubling web of deceit and manipulation—woven not by accident, but by design.

The arbitrator, the Arbitration Project Manager, and the second appointed administrator each penned separate letters. Each one was riddled with lies. Each one attacked my credibility. And each one was crafted with full awareness that it would reach the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

This was no mere oversight. It was a coordinated effort to derail the investigation into my claims that the arbitration process had been conducted outside the agreed-upon procedures. These actors knew what they were doing. They knew the damage these letters would cause. And they sent them anyway.

I urge you to read my Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → The first remedy pursued to grasp the full extent of the treachery that unfolded—not just during the COT arbitration, but long after its supposed conclusion.

_{Silencing the Whistleblower: Threats from the Senate}

When I tried to expose this corruption in 2001 and again in 2004, I was met not with support but with threats.
The Chair of the Senate wrote to me, warning that if I released the 6 and 9 July 1998 'In Camera' Senate Hansard, which records several Senators condemning the very arbitration process I had endured, I could be held in contempt of the Senate—a charge that carries a two-year jail sentence → (refer to Senate Evidence File No 12) 

Think about that.

It’s apparently acceptable for the government to be aware of my claims in secret. But to allow those claims to be aired in public? That’s when the threats begin.

Watch out, Mr Australian citizen.

• The appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimise our claims and losses, ignoring the real damage we endured.

• He bowed to Telstra’s influence, effectively letting the carrier run the arbitrations from behind the scenes.

• Telstra committed serious crimes during the process—tampering with evidence, withholding documents, and misleading government agencies.

🏕️ Rural Business Owners: Navigating a Minefield
For countless rural business owners at the start of our story, operating a telephone-dependent enterprise felt like navigating a treacherous minefield. In those days, the business landscape was dominated by outdated landlines. The internet was an alien concept, and reliance on email or mobile phones was virtually nonexistent.

Had these tools been in widespread use, the relentless issues with telephone service and faxing might not have jeopardised the future of so many COT cases. The fact that the simple act of checking emails or using mobile phones for daily business tasks didn’t become commonplace until the late 1990s underscores the technological void facing these operators.

Mobile phones were often useless in vast swathes of rural territory, with black spots lurking even on urban outskirts. By the end of the 1990s, this new technology had finally begun to infiltrate the business world.

🧠 Manipulating Public Perception with Chilling Precision

It’s difficult for today’s younger generations to fathom how, just two decades ago, a colossal entity like Telstra—supported by its government puppeteers—manipulated public perception with chilling efficacy.

They orchestrated a façade, convincing countless Australians that they were making a genuine effort to rectify the crumbling telecommunications network. In reality, however, they were entangled in a web of deceit, slapping ineffective band-aids on well-known problems while prioritising short-term profits over the needs of their customers.

💰 Privatisation Over People
This corrupt strategy allowed Telstra to postpone vital capital expenditures, all while privatisation loomed ominously on the agenda. The message was clear: allow shareholders to absorb the fallout while the core issues continued to fester, leaving many Australians at the mercy of an unworkable and deeply flawed system.

 

😈 The Devils Three letters →The first remedy pursued

Why would Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my case in 1994/95 and now the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and former administrator of my arbitration, to draft an insidiously deceptive letter in February 1996? This letter was directed to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, at a pivotal moment when Mr James was preparing to delve into my serious allegations that Dr Hughes had egregiously failed to follow the promised protocols outlined by the government that endorsed the arbitration process.

In this chilling correspondence, Mr Pinnock levelled a heinous and unfounded accusation against me, falsely asserting that I had confessed, in writing, to making a late-night phone call to Dr Hughes's wife at 2 AM. Let me be unequivocally clear: this accusation is a malicious fabrication; no such letter or admission has ever existed or been authored by me. The gravity of this deceit cannot be overstated, especially given the malicious context in which it was unleashed. 

 

Alarmingly, numerous individuals, including various government officials, have chosen to turn a blind eye to this abominable situation, deliberately refusing to investigate or address the burgeoning crisis. This shocking negligence casts a dark shadow over the entire arbitration process, raising profound questions about the integrity and motivations of those involved. It strongly suggests that unseen forces may have coerced the Institute of Arbitrators Australia into hastily halting its inquiries into my legitimate claims against Dr. Hughes, allowing these serious allegations to remain in limbo, unexamined and unresolved. 

 

What kind of treacherous individual would orchestrate the dispatch of such a deceitful letter, fully aware that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the deeply unsettling truth regarding my valid claims? This behaviour reeks of collusion—an insidious conspiracy designed to insulate unethical elements from scrutiny and maintain their corrupt practices unchallenged. Such profoundly disturbing actions are vividly illustrated in the Open Letter dated September 25, 2025 (refer to The first remedy pursued), which further underscores the urgent need for accountability, transparency, and justice in this sinister affair.

On September 26, 1997, John Pinnock appeared before a Senate Estimates Committee. Seventeen months after falsely accusing me, he claimed:

“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.” 

Deception Unmasked:
Pinnock failed to mention that he had previously misled Laurie James about my claims. I had warned Mr James that Dr Hughes lacked control over the arbitration process—exactly the flaw Pinnock now used to deflect responsibility. His testimony concealed the more profound corruption, leaving the committee in the dark.

Primary Source:
📄page 99 of the  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and  Prologue Evidence File No 22-D)

• Secret meetings were held without claimant representation

• Vital documents were filtered and withheld from me

• Binding decisions were used to erase unresolved faults

• Government officials turned a blind eye to protect Telstra’s sale

• Ericsson was named as the main culprit in many technical failures that crippled COT businesses.

• Despite its misconduct being exposed globally, Ericsson continued to influence the arbitration process through its entanglement with Telstra.

• The Australian Government denied compensation to victims, even as Ericsson’s role became undeniable.

• Secret technical assessments conducted outside the agreed framework.

• Undisclosed acquisitions, such as Ericsson’s purchase of Lane Telecommunications, which compromised independent oversight.

• Government silence, even as international regulators condemned Ericsson’s conduct.

This wasn’t just a failure of process—it was a betrayal of trust. The very institutions tasked with protecting citizens instead shielded a multinational corporation whose practices had already been deemed criminal abroad.

 

• Regulatory capture: When corporations influence regulators, justice becomes selective.

• International hypocrisy: Australia’s failure to act stands in contrast to the SEC’s decisive exposure of Ericsson.

• The cost of silence: Lives, businesses, and legacies were shattered while officials looked the other way.

• No arbitrator ruling on the core technical issues.

• No opportunity for me to challenge Telstra’s conduct.

• No transparency, despite the regulator’s duty to protect consumers.

• Who truly governs our regulators?

• What happens when oversight bodies become complicit in concealment?

• How many other claimants were denied justice under similar conditions?

 

🌐 International Vindication, Domestic Betrayal: The BCI Cover-Up
To fully grasp how government corruption became so glaringly evident, one must examine the Australian Government’s decision to pressure Telstra into seeking outside assistance from Bell Canada International Inc (BCI). This move was intended to assess whether the systemic telecommunications faults reported by the four COT Cases—including myself—were legitimate. We were losing business due to mismanagement, and our claims were not the cries of disgruntled customers, but documented failures.

BCI was brought to Australia to conduct testing. However, I personally proved that BCI could not have performed the alleged 15,950 test calls into my local exchange over the five-day, four-hour period they claimed. The math didn’t add up, and it still doesn't add up in 2025. The logistics were impossible.

During the COT arbitrations, I became a target of this corrupt system. The treachery I encountered was not a mere anomaly; it was deeply embedded within the very fabric of the bureaucracy. This realisation propelled me to create absentjustice.com, a platform dedicated to unveiling the deceit and betrayal that defined those proceedings. I meticulously chronicled every deceitful manoeuvre, every backstab, and every act of betrayal as this corruption entered another horrific phase, known as the Robodebt affair.

A Precursor to Robodebt

This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.

The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.

Is there a troubling connection between the recent Robodebt scandal, the British Post Office scandal depicted in the Mr Bates image, and the murky software issues involving Ericsson, Lane, and Telstra that caught the attention of the U.S. Securities Exchange? 

This situation reeks of corruption and deceit, potentially setting the stage for a class action lawsuit surrounding the intentional suppression of evidence regarding Telstra's serious and ongoing billing problems with the Ericsson-installed exchanges. These issues echo the infamous Fujitsu Horizon software scandal that devastated the British Post Office, as well as the disastrous Ericsson AXE billing software failures impacting countless Telstra customers. It seems both the British and Australian governments, which have a vested interest in these corporations, are complicit in hiding these troubling revelations, sacrificing the lives of many for their own gain. The betrayal is vast and insidious, leaving devastation in its wake across two nations.

According to the U.S. Securities Exchange link in Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, there were serious allegations that Telstra's value might have been grossly inflated during its sale, suggesting a web of deceit and corruption at play.

 

 

After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which aired in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants were aware that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office

🕳️ Ericsson’s Infiltration: A Thirty-Year Betrayal
Learn how the Robodebt concealment episode was no different from Ericsson of Sweden's infiltration of the Australian arbitration system—installing faulty AXE telephone equipment that was under investigation by the arbitrator. In a shocking turn of events, the investigation into Ericsson was abruptly halted after the company went to extraordinary lengths to purchase the arbitration consultants. This ensured that the confidential material they had collected during the process remained buried, resulting in devastating consequences for up to 120,000 Telstra customers.

AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) breached its statutory obligation to more than 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers, as the following evidence (Open Letter File No/11) shows. By hiding the truth from those customers and the Australian Telecom/Telstra consumer, the lives of thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens lives were ruined not just by the previously faulty installation of the Ericsson telephone AXE equipment in Telstra's telephone exchange but also by the grossly defective Ericsson testing equipment that was used to verify whether the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was still faulty.

In simple terms, AUSTEL/ACMA allowed Telstra during the COT arbitrations, which our story here is about, the governemnt communications regulator allowing Telstra to place a festering, gangrene-tainted bandage over a festering wound, which in turn made that wound even more corrupted.

The most recent 7:30 ABC Television news report indicates that Optus is now attributing the most recent outages and call dropouts to a problem created by Ericsson. This might well be the truth, as our Ericsson side of this COT Story shows.

 

 

(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

The letters dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s Group General Manager to the Chair of AUSTEL (now ACMA), reveal that AUSTEL was not operating as an independent regulator. Instead, these communications demonstrate that Telstra was able to influence AUSTEL’s official findings in the COT report. In multiple instances, Telstra explicitly requested amendments to AUSTEL’s conclusions—and AUSTEL complied. For example, Telstra advised the Chairperson:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. …  (See Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal public report notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

It was a treacherous betrayal of public trust when a government regulator drastically altered its findings—slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from over 120,000 to barely 50. This wasn’t a clerical error. It was a deliberate and sinister deception, engineered to protect Telstra and mislead the public. Such manipulation undermines the very foundation of regulatory integrity, casting a long, corrosive shadow over those entrusted with power.

Amid these glaring telecommunications failures, Rupert Murdoch and FOX appear to have been rewarded, their interests seemingly prioritised while everyday Australians were left to suffer. The cost was devastating: bankruptcies, prolonged court battles, and shattered lives—all fueled by the lies and omissions of government bureaucrats. This wasn’t just mismanagement. It was collusion, and it defrauded the nation. 

 

 

At the heart of this betrayal stood the arbitrator, who willfully ignored the looming crisis tied to the Ericsson telephone exchange—a system known to be causing widespread faults. By allowing these issues to persist unaddressed during arbitration, the arbitrator denied the COT Cases any chance of appeal. The damage was locked in. And when Ericsson quietly absconded to Sweden, they took with them thousands of confidential business and personal records—documents entrusted during arbitration under the false promise of return.

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:

” One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.”

“Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.”  (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ericsson had infiltrated Telstra’s telecommunications infrastructure, acquiring confidential information from the COT Cases. Despite being made aware of this, the Australian government did nothing to assist us in recovering the Ericsson arbitration claim documents—documents that, under Clause Six of the Arbitration Agreement, were supposed to be returned within six weeks of the arbitrator’s conclusion on May 11, 1995.

It is now 2025, and I still do not have those files.

❓ Where Are My Ericsson AXE Files?
 

Given Ericsson’s troubling history, can we truly assume they never disclosed the COT Cases’ claims against them and Telstra—a company that still relies on Ericsson as a principal supplier? It feels absurd.

And yet, the pressing question remains: 

Where are the Ericsson AXE files I submitted during arbitration in 1994?

The pervasive power of a faceless global corporation has insidiously manipulated Australia’s arbitration system, transforming it into a tool for treachery and betrayal. This corporate giant ruthlessly suppresses dissent, twisting the very essence of justice into an unrecognisable form. As a result, innocent individuals are left in a state of profound anguish and abandonment, enduring countless years of torment as they struggle against this monstrous entity. This corporation's willingness to strike deals with even the most malevolent forces, illustrated by the image that follows, reveals the depths of its depravity and the dire consequences faced by those trapped in its web of greed and cruelty.

🎭 Ericsson: Puppet Master of Deceit
If the reader has not yet grasped the staggering implications of Rupert Murdoch and FOX’s $400 million windfall—facilitated by the Australian-owned Telstra Corporation—then consider the deeper reality. Countless Australians (who were among the 120,000 COT-type fault complainants) had to pay Telstra’s inflated bills or endure gruelling, costly legal battles. This injustice was compounded by the covert complicity of AUSTEL (now ACMA). This government regulator collaborated with Telstra to obscure the truth from both the courts and the arbitration process, revealing that Australia had a systemic billing problem.

Many of these individuals—already suffering severe financial and emotional distress—had legitimate claims tied to malfunctioning Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Yet their grievances were systematically ignored, buried beneath layers of bureaucratic denial and legal obstruction.

The most shocking betrayal, however, stems from Ericsson, Telstra’s principal technical supplier. With calculated precision, Ericsson exploited the arbitration system, manipulating its mechanisms to serve their own agenda. While Australians struggled to navigate the legal maze alone, Ericsson operated behind the scenes—shielded from scrutiny, protected by silence, and empowered by influence.

This manipulation didn’t just erode trust in the arbitration process—it exposed the vulnerability of consumers, caught in the crossfire of corporate collusion and regulatory failure. It is a story of power without accountability, and of ordinary citizens sacrificed to protect extraordinary interests.

This is not just a story of technical failure. It is a national scandal, a moral reckoning, and a call to expose the machinery of deception that left sixteen Australian citizens fighting for justice in the ruins of a corrupted process.

In late 1999, Frank Blount, then CEO of Telstra, co-authored a manuscript with the Telstra Board after they brokered a $400 million deal with Rupert Murdoch, detailing the numerous problems Telstra was experiencing with its telecommunications infrastructure. The book, titled Managing in Australia (available online), can still be purchased today. (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...

 On pages 132 and 133, the co-author reveals the issues Telstra was experiencing with its 1800 customers. The co-author wrote:

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem." 
• "The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i -  AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

🧨 Concealed Evidence, Manufactured Legitimacy: The BCI Testing Scandal
Instead of allowing me to proceed with a commercial resolution process—an established framework designed to validate and present my claims—the government forced me into arbitration, derailing my original path and subjecting me to over $300,000 in fees across thirteen gruelling months. This coercion occurred despite the government’s own investigations already confirming the validity of my claims.

The evidence was not vague or speculative. It was meticulously documented in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings AUSTEL’s, spanning points 2 to 212. Each entry reinforced the legitimacy of my assertions. AUSTEL, Australia’s telecommunications regulator, internally acknowledged that my claims against Bell Canada International (BCI) were factual—yet these findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitrator, cloaking the proceedings in a veil of deception.

One of the most glaring inconsistencies lies in the geographical impossibility of BCI’s testing claims. The only telephone exchange capable of handling the alleged 15,590 test calls was located in Warrnambool—over 100 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater, where BCI claimed the tests occurred. This discrepancy alone should have rendered their report invalid.

Further reinforcing this truth, two Telstra technicians submitted statutory declarations on 12 December 1994, unequivocally stating that Warrnambool was the sole facility equipped to support the technical demands of the CCS7 testing facility. This was the facility that BCI stated in their formal findings was used.  These declarations not only expose the limitations of BCI’s claims but also highlight the deeper layers of concealment and manipulation that plagued the arbitration process.

This was not a technical oversight. It was a calculated suppression of truth, engineered to protect Telstra and its partners at the expense of justice.

When I sought formal backing to pursue BCI Canada, the Australian Government refused—despite the Canadian Government stepping forward to support me. Their recognition of my evidence and their willingness to assist stand in stark contrast to the silence and obstruction I faced at home.

As a gesture of gratitude, I’ve included the Canadian Government’s commitment in the introduction to this COT story. Their support is a beacon in a narrative otherwise steeped in betrayal—a reminder that truth, when acknowledged, can cross borders even when it’s denied at home.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

⚖️ The Test That Never Reached The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange.
On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns about the accuracy of test results submitted by Telstra’s legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now Herbert Smith Freehills. These results, supposedly from Bell Canada International Inc., were used to assess the reliability of my phone service during arbitration. They were even sent to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was preparing to evaluate my mental health in Portland, Victoria, Australia.

Bell Canada International Inc. was brought from Canada specifically to test the telephone exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, and claimed to have made 13,590 test calls into the exchange servicing my business, boasting a 99.8% success rate—better than global standards. But there was a fatal flaw: the CCS7 equipment they referenced didn’t exist at the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The nearest compatible exchange was 112 kilometres away in Warrnambool. So where did those calls actually go?

This wasn’t just a technical error—it was a deliberate misrepresentation. And it shaped the arbitrator’s final decision, dismissing my claims of ongoing faults.

🧭 The Canadian Consultant Who Told the Truth

In March 1995, DMR Group Inc. from Canada was reluctantly pulled into the arbitration, but not before the original consultants had confessed to a massive and troubling conflict of interest ten months prior. Telstra, with its web of influence, had secured nearly every prominent telecommunications expert in Victoria as its hired guns, leaving me isolated and powerless in my fight to prove that my ongoing telephone problems had not been investigated under the ambit of the arbitration procedures. 

Paul Howell, a Canadian consultant with a reputable façade, was dispatched as the principal arbitration consultant, which seemed to be a strategic ploy. Unbeknownst to him, an ex-Telstra employee had been secretly appointed to investigate my claims, and a finding had been crafted on my case as early as April 8, 1995, even before Howell arrived in Australia in the second week of April. He was fed a limited view, restricted to the deceitful findings presented in David Reid's draft report from Lane Telecommunications. The evidence he reviewed was tainted and manipulated, as our story shows. 

 

🕵️‍♂️ FILE 517 →​ AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 - The Logbook That Vanished
 

When silence replaced accountability

File 517 → AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006, presented to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). This statement, sworn by Des Direen—a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra who rose to the rank of Principal Investigator—reveals unsettling truths. Direen boldly admits that, following his departure from Telstra in 1999 and 2000, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group in investigating the dark web of fraud allegations tied to the COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases.

In Points 21 and 22 of his statement, Direen recounts a troubling episode during his time at Telstra. He was tasked with investigating suspected illegal interference with telephone lines at the Portland exchange. Yet, upon arrival, he discovered that the Portland telephone exchange logbook had mysteriously vanished.

In a chilling turn, when he contacted Melbourne for guidance, he was told to stand down—another department within Telstra was “handling” the matter. This raises serious questions: Why was the investigation stifled? Who was protecting whom?

Direen further noted that the complainant from Cape Bridgewater was entangled in the COT cases, directly implicating my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp in a tangled web of deceit. These revelations cast long shadows, hinting at a coordinated effort to suppress the truth and shield Telstra from scrutiny.

1. Any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin ?

2. Were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?

🔥 A System Rigged: Collusion at the Heart of Arbitration
This saga is far more than a collection of technical failures; it is a damning testament to the complete breakdown of public trust, rampant abuse of legal authority, and the chilling silencing of courageous whistleblowers. The COT Cases expose a nightmarish web of collusion among government officials, corporate operatives, and legal professionals—a treacherous triad capable of devastating lives and tearing apart the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

⚖️ Justice Subverted: The Machinery of Betrayal
As we delve into the shadowy corridors of power, we confront the horrifying reality that bureaucrats in charge of global agencies routinely turn a blind eye to the gross inadequacies in their nations’ arbitration and mediation processes. This deliberate ignorance fuels an unrelenting cycle of injustice, leaving countless individuals to suffer while desperately seeking alternatives to conventional court proceedings. Unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated by deceitful criminals and corrupt politicians, often facilitated by unscrupulous lawyers who manipulate these processes into tools of oppression.

The scale of their moral decay is staggering; descriptors like "shameful," "hideous," and "treacherous" scarcely capture the true extent of their repugnant actions. What transpired within the COT arbitrations was not merely a bureaucratic oversight; it was a calculated and concerted effort steeped in corruption. This disturbing narrative of collusion and betrayal uncovers the shocking lengths to which government agencies went to protect Telstra from scrutiny, intricately manipulating legal mechanisms to unjustly target sixteen hardworking Australian citizens.

This is not simply an administrative failure; it represents one of the most grotesque injustices since Federation—a national disgrace that cries out for reckoning and justice. The complicity of so many lawyers in allowing this to unfold is a dark stain on our legal system, a betrayal that starkly illustrates the depths of corruption that have infiltrated the very core of our society.

🏛️ The Institute Entrapped: IAMA’s Complicity in Silence
The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) has been entangled in my claims since late 1995, with a cursory review conducted in 2001. Recently, I uncovered a troubling truth: government influence has insidiously infiltrated their investigations into my serious allegations regarding the arbitrator’s conduct and Telstra’s unlawful actions—conduct I firmly believe borders on criminality.

In June 2009, IAMA informed me they would continue their inquiries—a gesture that felt more like a bureaucratic performance than a genuine pursuit of justice.

📬 The Eleventh Remedy Pursued: A Trail of Submissions Lost
Beginning in July 2009, I submitted a series of detailed documents at IAMA’s request, hoping to shed light on the corruption I had endured. This exchange continued through November 2009, and for a brief moment, I believed the truth might finally prevail.

But since then, IAMA has responded only with vague, evasive communications, refusing to issue findings or return the twenty-three submissions I painstakingly prepared. These documents are not just paper—they are the embodiment of my fight for justice, now trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth (The eleventh remedy pursued).

Feeling abandoned, I took the bold step of publishing my story on absentjustice.com, hoping that somewhere, an institute exists with the courage to confront the evidence. The shadows of complicity loom large, and I invite you to delve into this dark and twisted narrative. Your attention may be the catalyst needed to expose a more profound, more corrupt truth.

📜 False Testimony and the Mockery of Justice
On December 12, 1994, Telstra submitted nine separate arbitration witness statements, all signed under oath and cleverly countersigned in the presence of their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These statements falsely proclaimed that my business had never encountered billing problems, a blatant manipulation of the truth. Furthermore, Frank Blount's co-authorship of  (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran... four years after the conclusion of my arbitration exemplifies a corrupt betrayal, one that mocks and undermines the very foundations of the arbitration system in Australia.

Even now, in 2025, thirty years after this egregious breach of trust, the claimants remain trapped in a cycle of silence and despair.

🧠 The Machinery of Corruption
Delve into the dark underbelly of horrendous crimes, deceitful criminals, and the corrupt politicians and lawyers who manipulate Australia’s legal profession. Words like shameful, hideous, and treacherous barely scratch the surface of the malevolence exhibited by these lawbreakers and the rampant government corruption infecting the system.

Uncover the insidious issues within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT (Claim of Territory) arbitrations—an arena where justice was corrupted and twisted beyond recognition.

Explore ghastly instances of foreign bribery, deceitful practices, and kleptocracy, revealing corruption that poses immense challenges to the very fabric of society. The website AbsentJustice.com serves as a chilling portal into this world, triggering a deeper examination of political corruption and providing a grotesque portrayal of criminal activities—including widespread fraud.

 

• George Close, a respected technical consultant for the COT Cases, compiled a 21-page report based on extensive telecommunications data and industry contacts, particularly in Canada. This report was intended to expose faults in Ericsson AXE equipment used by Telstra and guide future improvements.

• According to the archive at AbsentJustice.com, Ericsson had a pecuniary interest in Telstra, and their acquisition of Lane Telecommunications—Telstra’s arbitration technical advisor—created a conflict of interest. Lane was involved in assessing Ericsson equipment during arbitration, yet was owned by Ericsson during that time.

• The COT Cases were denied access to appeal, even though Ericsson’s AXE faults were later acknowledged. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and the handling of technical evidence.

• While there is no direct evidence publicly confirming that Ericsson transported the Close report to Sweden, the absence of the report from the arbitration record, combined with Ericsson’s history of withholding internal reports (as seen in the Iraq scandal), suggests a pattern of document suppression.

• Ericsson has faced multiple investigations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for misconduct in various countries, including concealment of internal findings and unethical business practices.

• The failure to compensate George Close or other contributors, despite the strategic value of their work, reflects a broader disregard for ethical standards.

• The Australian government’s refusal to investigate the arbitration failures, despite mounting evidence, compounds the injustice faced by the COT Cases.

• The loss of the Close report—a document that could have reshaped arbitration outcomes and exposed systemic faults—remains a symbol of the institutional betrayal experienced by whistleblowers.

It is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, stating:

” One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.”

“Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.”  (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

📡 Ericsson, Arbitration, and the Vanishing Files: A Global Scandal
The U.S. Department of Justice has made shocking discoveries about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations, uncovering disturbing links to international corruption and even terrorist organisations. These revelations cast a harsh light on the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases, exposing a web of deceit that raises urgent questions:

How was Ericsson allowed to operate unchallenged in Australia—especially during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings?

One of the most troubling aspects is Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a firm that was actively serving as a technical consultant during the COT arbitrations. This move wasn’t just unethical—it was a deliberate manipulation of the process. It occurred while serious allegations were being raised about Telstra and Ericsson’s reliance on the discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment (see File 10-B )—a system abandoned by multiple countries due to its critical deficiencies.

And yet, the Australian government remained silent.

🧠 Connections to Terrorism and Suppressed Evidence
The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t stop at bribery. They uncovered alarming evidence of Ericsson’s past dealings with terrorist groups, including ISIS. According to court documents, Ericsson withheld key details from U.S. investigators, including operations in ISIS-held areas of Iraq. These revelations are not speculation—they’re documented in federal filings and investigative reports.

📞 From Seafarer to Holiday Camp Owner: A Dream Undone

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the harrowing tale of my battle against a behemoth of corruption—the telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This twisted saga has spiralled since 1992, revealing a shadowy web of deceit that entangles elected officials, regulatory bodies, the courts, and Telstra (formerly Telecom). The pursuit of justice has become a relentless curse, gnawing at the edges of my existence.

It all started in 1987, when I abandoned my life at sea after 30 years, desperate for a fresh start on land. I envisioned running a spirited school holiday camp. When I stumbled upon the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised in The Age newspaper, it seemed like the perfect opportunity. Yet, in my eagerness, I neglected one crucial detail—ensuring that the phone lines were functional.

Within days of taking the helm, the grim reality set in: the phone service was utterly unreliable. Customers and suppliers were cut off, leaving my once-promising venture to crumble under the weight of isolation and failure. Thus began a decades-long struggle against a massive adversary, filled with empty promises and paltry compensation. The issue remained a dark cloud hanging over me, unresolved and taunting. Even after I sold the business in 2002, the new owners found themselves ensnared in the same treacherous web of deceit.

As I fought against this monstrous entity, I discovered I was not alone. Others plagued by the same foul play joined my cause, and we became known as the Casualties of Telecom—the COT Cases. Each of us is weaving our own thread into the tapestry of betrayal. All we wanted was for Telstra to admit their faults, undo their treachery, and compensate us for our suffering. Is it too much to demand a simple, working phone line in the face of such insidious corruption?

Gaslighting

Psychological Manipulation 

🔍 The Threats Became Reality
Let me say this plainly: the threats weren’t just warnings—they became reality.

To this day, I have never seen the raw data from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater BCI testing. That data was intended to verify whether the tests had even taken place. Without it, the entire foundation of Telstra’s arbitration defence is suspect. And yet, no one has investigated these violations.

That silence speaks volumes.

🧾 Arbitration, Surveillance, & The Briefcase That Could Have Changed Everything

We sought a comprehensive Senate investigation into our concerns, but instead, we were presented with a proposal for arbitration. With a glimmer of hope that our technical problems would be resolved, we accepted this route. Unfortunately, that hope was dashed as the issues remained unaddressed. We were assured access to essential Telecom documents, yet those promises fell flat, leaving us empty-handed. To make matters worse, our fax lines were surreptitiously monitored during the arbitration, a blatant violation of our privacy. Under the weight of government pressure, we ultimately found ourselves on the losing side.

We were lured into signing confidentiality agreements that have since shackled us. Though sharing this information may breach my agreement, I feel there are no viable alternatives left for me.

Why would Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator who presided over my case back in February 1996 and now serves as the Principal Lawyer at Collision Davies Cave Lawyers in Melbourne (see https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), allow John Pinnock—a bureaucrat with dubious motives and the former Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—to draft a deceitful letter to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia? Mr. James was on the verge of exposing the serious accusations I made about the profoundly unethical tactics Dr. Hughes employed during my arbitration.

In this alarming correspondence, Mr. Pinnock leveled a serious and unfounded accusation against me, claiming I had confessed to making a late-night phone call to Dr. Hughes's wife at 2 AM. Let me be clear: this accusation is a complete fabrication; no such letter ever existed or was authored by me. Despite the gravity of this situation and the awareness of numerous individuals regarding my claims, government officials turned a blind eye, opting not to investigate or address the crisis. This negligence raises disturbing questions, suggesting that it may have influenced the Institute of Arbitrators Australia to abruptly halt their inquiries into my valid claims against Dr. Hughes, leaving my serious allegations unexamined and unresolved.

What kind of treacherous individual would allow such a deceitful letter to be sent, fully understanding that it could derail the Institute of Arbitrators Australia from uncovering the truth about my legitimate claims against Dr. Hughes? This behavior reeks of collusion, seeking to protect unethical actors from scrutiny and safeguard their corrupt practices, as illustrated in the Open Letter dated September 25, 2025 (see The first remedy pursued).