“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

Maya Angelou

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.

This website, absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au, serves as a stark exposé of the insidious corruption that has festered in arbitration in Australia since 1994.

If the revelations you are about to encounter resonate with you and evoke feelings of distress at the behaviour exhibited by those in Australia's Establishment and government agencies—individuals who have prioritised self-interest over the rule of law—then I encourage you to consider supporting Transparency International Australia, an organisation dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in our society. Together, we can work towards bringing these injustices into the public eye and fostering a culture of integrity for future generations.

Cathy, my partner of thirty years, and I found ourselves facing an agonising decision: we had no choice but to sell our beloved holiday camp. What was once a joyful retreat for us had become a symbol of our struggle, as Telstra continued to ignore our pleas for help with ongoing telephone problems. Despite turning to an arbitrator, we were met with impotence and frustration. The process drained us, both emotionally and financially, costing over eighteen months of our lives and more than $300,000 in arbitration fees from November 23, 1993, to May 11, 1995.

After six long years of grappling with the aftermath of that arbitration, Cathy and I made the heart-wrenching choice to part with our cherished business and home. It was a loss that cut deep, as everything we had built together had transformed in ways we never anticipated since 1988. Our dreams now lay in ruins, and the betrayal of what was once a haven haunted us as we turned the page on this painful chapter of our lives.

As Cathy and I departed from the stunning vistas of Cape Bridgewater en route to Ballarat and Melbourne, I couldn't help but notice a glaring billboard that boldly proclaimed: 'We've expanded Australia's best network to Cape Bridgewater,' a claim that feels more like a deceptive marketing ploy than a promise of service. This assertion shines a harsh light on the ethical violations at play within Telstra. During the arbitration proceedings regarding my claims, Telstra presented nine witness statements, each one seemingly concocted in a desperate attempt to sidestep accountability.

These statements, delivered under oath before the arbitrator in December 1994, asserted, without hesitation, that my concerns about their shoddy network were entirely baseless. Telstra shamelessly insisted that their telephone exchange and the extensive infrastructure in the region were exemplary, employing a facade of confidence to mask the truth. They went so far as to blithely declare that my business faced no ongoing issues with telephone and fax services. This statement belies the reality I experienced daily. As did the new owners of my business, who purchased it in December 2001. Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

📅 11 May 1995: The Day False Testimony Overruled Truth

On 11 May 1995, the arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes handed down his award in my arbitration case. His findings rested heavily on the aforementioned nine witness statements submitted by Telstra in December 1994—each sworn under oath, each denying the existence of ongoing telephone faults at my Cape Bridgewater business.

These statements asserted, with unwarranted confidence, that Telstra's network was operating up to international standards and that my concerns were unfounded. This led the arbitrator to include in his written findings, specifically at point 3.2(h), that “...although, since July 1994, he has had relatively little cause for complaint.”

However, this claim was demonstrably false. The very website you are currently reading contains irrefutable evidence that the problems continued well beyond that date, as shown above.

In simple terms, lying under oath in nine separate arbitration witness statements won the day for Telstra.

A Brief Overview

In February 2019, as we reluctantly departed Portland and the haunting remnants of Cape Bridgewater, my partner, Cathy, captured a chilling image that told a story of betrayal and loss. This marked not just the end of our thirty-year journey at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp—a place once vibrant with memories—but the beginning of a darker realisation about the web of deceit we had been entangled in.

As Cathy and I drove away from the eerie familiarity of Cape Bridgewater, a sense of foreboding loomed over us. Tears threatened to spill as we passed that worn sign marking our exit, but they were overshadowed by the weight of what we were leaving behind—a community marred by corruption.

The billboard erected by Telstra stands as a stark testament to their treachery: it took nearly thirty years for Cape Bridgewater to receive the telecommunications advantages that the rest of Australia had enjoyed for decades. This slow, deliberate neglect feels like a betrayal of trust, a calculated move to keep the area in the dark while they profited from our misfortunes. The insidious nature of their dealings lingers like a shadow, reminding us that even in the most picturesque settings, treachery can thrive unchecked.

The motives behind absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au are rooted in a grim reality: the pervasive misconduct that has tainted the arbitration landscape over the last two decades. Many parties involved in arbitration not only operated within Australia but also extended their reach to Hong Kong’s arbitration chapters. This troubling nexus raises serious questions about the potential for this corruption to spill over into the Chinese arbitration process, echoing the dark chapters of Australian history. This treacherous web of collusion is precisely why these websites have emerged.

Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct

I invite readers to examine the instances of deception by the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and the second appointed administrator, John Pinnock. These examples serve as compelling evidence that supports my position. The issues surrounding Telstra are not just allegations; they are disturbing truths that are being hidden under a modified Confidentiality Agreement, which was altered to protect arbitration consultants like John Rundell, as discussed in this part of our narrative.

When I became aware something was radically wrong with th administration of my arbitration I tried to access a copy of the arbitration file held by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who, under the rules of the arbitration agreement, had to receive every single arbitration document as the process administrator of my arbitration – under law – the TIO had to retain a copy of those documents for at least six years, until 2002.

I reiterate, had the arbitration $250.000 caps liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement not been covertly removed after the COT lawyers had voted on the unchanged clauses, I could have sued the arbitration consultants for negligence; no arbitration records were provided to me, until after the statute of limitations period had expired in 2002

John Pinnock’s 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)

Despite the Australian government's troubling silence and refusal to initiate an investigation, the evidence presented reveals a narrative of betrayal that cannot be easily ignored. I urge you to examine this site and confront the unsettling reality that what occurred here in Australia could be happening globally in similar arbitration cases, even in Hong Kong today, where arbitration is widely accepted as a means of making commercial decisions.

I have chosen to focus on Hong Kong because John Rundell, a notorious figure in the 1994-1995 COT arbitrations, embodies treachery and deceit. He engaged in a calculated effort to conceal crucial information from the first four cases by deliberately omitting the name of a former Telstra employee, David Read of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. Read had secretly assessed the technical evidence against Telstra. Rather than naming Lane, Rundell was willing to replace the agreed-upon principal technical consultant from DMR Group Canada Inc. to obscure the truth.

This same John Rundell, who orchestrated a web of dishonesty during the COT arbitrations, now operates an arbitration centre in Australia and Hong Kong in 2025. His willingness to manipulate and deceive underscores a corrupt character that threatens the integrity of the entire arbitration system, casting a dark cloud over the pursuit of justice.

⚖️ The proof of this matter follows:

On April 18, 1995, one month before the arbitrator issued his award regarding my arbitration claims, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, informed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), the arbitrator, and the TIO's counsel that “any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and will appear on the letterhead of DMR Inc" → Prologue Evidence File No 22-A.

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” → Prologue Evidence File No 22-A.

This letter from John Rundell to the administrator of the arbitrations, which was also copied to Dr. Gordon Hughes and Peter Bartlett, the arbitration legal counsel, was concealed from me and the other three COT Cases during our designated arbitration periods. It was not released until 2002, after the statute of limitations had expired, preventing it from being used as leverage to appeal our arbitrations.

🕯️ The Deeper Cost

What I Am Sharing on Absentjustice.com and Absentjustice.com.au

What I present on absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au exposes a deeply sinister narrative of betrayal, treachery, and the relentless struggle for dignity in an environment riddled with corruption. The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.

⚖️ The Silence That Betrayed Justice

A Personal Account of Institutional Complicity

In the annals of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations, few episodes illustrate institutional betrayal more starkly than the conduct of Dr. Gordon Hughes, the appointed arbitrator. When confronted with a fabricated accusation—that I had admitted to verbally harassing Dr. Hughes’s wife in the dead of night—he chose silence over truth.

This malicious claim, disseminated by John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and shared with Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, was not only false—it was defamatory. I categorically deny ever writing such a letter. Dr. Hughes, fully aware of its falsity, refused to defend my honour.

His silence was not neutrality—it was complicity.

Laurie James’s refusal to acknowledge my legitimate concerns compounded the injustice. Rather than investigate the misconduct, he dismissed my appeals, effectively endorsing the unethical behaviour that tainted the arbitration process. This coordinated indifference formed a protective shield around those responsible, ensuring no scrutiny could pierce the veil of corruption. (Refer to File 209 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

I must stress: I do not believe Dr. Gordon Hughes AO’s wife was involved in this treacherous scheme to defame me. In fact, I doubt she has any knowledge of the unscrupulous actions her husband allowed John Pinnock to orchestrate. Their collusion to manipulate the arbitration process was not merely a failure of justice—it was a calculated betrayal.

🏛️ Senate Admission: A Chilling Confirmation

Nineteen months after John Pinnock wrote his defamatory letter to Laurie James, he addressed a sitting Senate Committee on 26 September 1997. As Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Pinnock formally testified before a Senate Estimates Committee regarding the COT arbitrations (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D).

“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.”

This admission raises urgent questions:

Why weren’t the arbitrations paused until claimants received the promised documents?
Why were they not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures?
How can an arbitration be just when the arbitrator has no control over its conduct?
When did Dr. Hughes lose control—was it in the first week, two months in, or nine?
And most critically: who authorised him to operate outside the agreed procedures?

Books Written Concurrently - Absent Justice

The situation described above is shrouded in a web of sinister, unethical, and treacherous acts, revealing a deep-seated corruption at play. Most alarming is the deliberate concealment of Dr. Hughes' letter, dated May 12, 1995, which was written just one day after he issued his preliminary findings on my claims. In this document, addressed to the initial administrators of my claim, he chillingly acknowledges:

"…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic; in particular, we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars, and the preparation of technical reports… In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion that is longer than what is currently contained in the Arbitration Agreement." (Open Letter File No 55-A)

This admission from Dr. Hughes is explosive; it clearly illustrates that, had he and the second administrator, John Pinnock, presented the letter to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, it would have laid bare the fundamental truth—that my arbitration agreement was fundamentally flawed and utterly lacking in credibility. Despite this glaring deficiency, they proceeded with the process, hiding behind a fabricated narrative that I had harassed Dr. Hughes' wife to distract from their malfeasance.

This letter, dated 12 May 1995, was not only concealed but also hidden with malicious intent during my designated appeal period. Alongside it, John Rundell's letter—confirming the collusion and unethical actions of both Dr. Hughes and himself—was likewise suppressed, further eroding any chance of a fair arbitration and destroying the very fabric of justice in my case.

To add insult to injury, the remaining three COT Cases were granted an additional thirteen months to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence, highlighting the numerous discrepancies in the agreement. This privilege was inexcusably withheld from me, a blatant example of the corrupt practices at work in this entire process.

I have meticulously separated these two insidious conflicts again in an attempt to emphasise to the visitor how corrupt the Australian arbitration system is, detailing them under the title "Arbitration Appeal Thwarted Through Lies and Deception," clearly highlighting the depth of treachery and deceit that has permeated this situation.

⚠️ Arbitration Appeal Thwarted Through Lies and Deception

🛑 Open Letter: Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
To Whom It May Concern,

I write this letter not out of bitterness, but out of duty—to truth, to justice, and to the many Australians who have suffered under a system that promised fairness but delivered betrayal.

For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration process, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.

⚠️ Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of the arbitration process, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr. Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.

I categorically deny this allegation. It was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.

🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell—then a partner at KPMG and involved in the arbitration—fabricated a letter falsely claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me for property damage. This letter was used to obstruct Laurie James from investigating my legitimate concerns.

Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr. Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable, and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the arbitration’s outcome.

🏢 Corporate Silence and Suppression of Truth
Rundell’s role at KPMG during this misconduct adds another layer of betrayal. The silence from corporate peers and oversight bodies speaks volumes. The actions of Hughes, Rundell, and Pinnock not only obstructed scrutiny of my case but also suppressed investigations into the claims of 21 fellow COT claimants.

Laurie James was on the verge of exposing the corruption. These fabrications stopped him.

⚖️ Concealed Legal Rights and Institutional Evasion
In March 1994—just one month before signing our arbitration agreements—we were stripped of the right to sue consultants for negligence. This critical legal change was deliberately hidden from us. The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA), after reviewing 23 documents I submitted in 2009, declined to make findings and refused to return the evidence.
Their silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.

📣 A Rallying Cry for Justice
I speak today not only for myself, but for the 21 fellow COT claimants and countless Australians harmed by Telstra’s negligence and the corrupted arbitration process. Justice delayed is justice denied—but silence in the face of injustice is the ultimate betrayal of public trust.

🌍 Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
Dr Hughes now serves as Principal Legal Representative at a central international legal facility in Melbourne. John Rundell operates arbitration centres in Melbourne and Hong Kong. Their refusal to address these allegations casts serious doubt on the transparency and integrity of arbitration itself.

This is not just my story. It is a warning. A call to action. A demand for accountability.
I refuse to be silenced.

Sincerely,
Alan Smith
Founder, AbsentJustice.com
Advocate for truth, justice, and reform in Australian arbitration

🔗 Link to Supporting Mini Reports and Resource → Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2

⚠️ The 24,000 Documents: A Systemic Betrayal
In February 1997, John Wynack of the Commonwealth Ombudsman appointed Tony Morgon from GB Robins to investigate my claims against Telstra. At the heart of those claims was Telstra’s deliberate withholding of 24,000 FOI-requested documents—concealed until after Telstra submitted its defence during the 1994 Christmas period, when legal offices were closed and I was left isolated.

Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, falsely asserted in a February 1996 letter to Laurie James that his team had reviewed those documents. This was a blatant misrepresentation. Evidence now confirms that neither I nor the arbitration unit ever saw them before Telstra’s defence was lodged.

Tony Morgon and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman later corroborated that I was excluded from these documents, exposing a coordinated effort to obstruct justice and protect Telstra. Dr. Hughes’ letter also contains other demonstrably false claims—designed to mislead Laurie James and preserve a façade of legitimacy. (Refer to → Open letter File No/45-G.

This was not mere oversight. It was a calculated betrayal, revealing a system engineered to suppress truth and shield the powerful.

Dr. Hughes’ letter also contains other demonstrably false claims—designed to mislead Laurie James and preserve a façade of legitimacy.

💣 Serious Concerns Regarding Dr Hughes' Conflict of Interest
There is a profoundly troubling omission in Dr. Gordon Hughes’ correspondence with Laurie James—specifically, his failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest at the time he assumed the role of arbitrator in the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations. As documented in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest, Dr. Hughes did not inform Mr. James that his Sydney-based legal partnership was actively representing Telstra employees, even as he presided over Telstra-related arbitration matters.

This undisclosed dual role raises serious ethical and procedural concerns. Even more alarming is the pattern of document handling: arbitration materials concerning Telstra were routinely faxed from Dr. Hughes’ Melbourne office to his Sydney partnership, yet there is no evidence these documents were ever returned to Melbourne for impartial assessment. This practice undermines the integrity of the arbitration process and casts doubt on the fairness afforded to the claimants.

Such conduct not only violates the principles of transparency and impartiality expected of an arbitrator but also reinforces the broader pattern of institutional failure that has plagued the COT cases from the outset. The following link provides further documentation and analysis of this issue: File 13-H → Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

📜 Background: The COT Arbitrations

• Who was involved: A group of small business operators (the COT Cases) who claimed Telstra’s faulty telecommunications services caused severe commercial losses.

• The process: The Australian Government set up a “Fast Track Settlement Proposal” that evolved into a formal arbitration process.

• The core allegation: That the arbitration was manipulated to protect Telstra and the government, with evidence tampered with, withheld, or misrepresented.

🕵️‍♂️ Alleged Misconduct and Corruption

• Tampering with evidence: Internal Telstra documents and Australian Federal Police (AFP) material suggest that technical test results were altered or falsified before being presented in arbitration.

• Breach of confidentiality: Sensitive arbitration documents were allegedly intercepted via a secondary fax machine before reaching their intended recipients.

• Privileged political leaks: The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who was meant to act independently, is accused of passing confidential parliamentary information to Telstra before the arbitrations began.

• Suppression of scale: Regulatory reports initially estimated up to 120,000 customers could have been affected by similar network faults, but this figure was drastically reduced in official findings.

💼 The “Briefcase” Incident (3 June 1993)

• Two Telstra representatives visited your business after years of unresolved complaints.

• One left behind an unlocked briefcase containing documents that, according to your account, revealed:

• Evidence of Telstra’s internal knowledge of systemic faults.

• Material contradicting Telstra’s public and arbitration positions.

• Instead of going to the media, the contents were handed to AUSTEL (the regulator), which campaigners allege buried the evidence.

⚖️ Senate Hansard References

• Pages 5163–5169 of the Senate Hansard reportedly contain parliamentary discussion of the COT Cases, including allegations of Telstra’s misconduct and government inaction.

• These records are part of the official parliamentary transcript and can be accessed via the Parliament of Australia Hansard archive.

🚨 Australian Federal Police Involvement

• The AFP investigated claims of document tampering, interception of communications, and breaches of privacy during the arbitration.

• Whistleblowers allege that despite compelling evidence, political and bureaucratic interference prevented full accountability.

🌐 Further Reading

If you want to explore the detailed chronology, original exhibits, and supporting documents, the following sources are central:

• Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 – Absent Justice

• Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN (on Telstra’s corroded copper network and Ericsson AXE exchange faults)

• An Unlocked Briefcase The Briefcase (full narrative of the 1993 incident)

📌 Senate Hansard (pp. 5163–5169) — Key Themes

• Allegations of systemic Telstra faults

Senators raised concerns that Telstra’s copper network and exchange equipment were causing widespread service failures, particularly in rural and regional areas.

• Claims of arbitration process manipulation

Multiple speakers alleged that the COT arbitration process was compromised — with evidence withheld, technical reports altered, and claimants disadvantaged by procedural bias.

• Government and regulator complicity

Debate included accusations that AUSTEL (the regulator at the time) and certain government departments failed to act on known evidence of Telstra’s misconduct, effectively shielding the corporation.

• Australian Federal Police investigations

References were made to AFP inquiries into document tampering and interception of claimants’ communications, with frustration expressed over the lack of prosecutions.

• Impact on small business owners

Senators highlighted the severe financial and emotional toll on the COT claimants, noting that many had lost their livelihoods due to unresolved telecommunications faults.

• Calls for transparency and accountability

Several members urged the government to release all relevant documents, including internal Telstra reports, and to consider a judicial inquiry into the matter.

If you want to read the verbatim record, you can search the Hansard database by date and page number — just enter the sitting date and navigate to pages 5163–5169 in the PDF or HTML transcript.

To view the full transcript:

👉 Visit the Hansard archive on the Parliament of Australia website

Then:

• Select Senate as the chamber

• Choose the date: 26/09/1997

• Navigate to pages 5163–5169 in the document

These pages include pointed remarks from senators about Telstra’s conduct, the arbitration process, and the role of government regulators. You’ll find references to:

• The COT Case Strategy allegedly devised by Telstra’s legal team

• Concerns raised by David Hawker MP about public sector fraud

• Allegations of document tampering, interception of communications, and regulatory failure

This harrowing narrative exposes a treacherous and profoundly unlawful tapestry of corruption that ensnares Australia’s arbitration processes. It reveals a sinister coalition woven with threads of bribery, extortion, and theft, all strategically orchestrated by a government-owned corporation that has been illicitly siphoning immense sums of money. The magnitude of this theft is staggering—potentially reaching millions or even eclipsing a billion dollars—insidiously robbing from the public purse and tearing at the very fabric of our society (Refer to pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia)

As this web of depravity tightens, the courageous individuals who have bravely joined forces with the Australian Federal Police to unveil these egregious activities are met with chilling threats. These threats, stark and visceral, are imbued with a sense of intimidation that permeates their lives, all cloaked in government complicity that protects the guilty. Those who dare to seek justice find themselves trapped in an environment rife with fear and violence, while an arbitrator and an administrator turn a blind eye to this disturbing chaos, opting for treacherous silence as the system disintegrates around them.

In shedding light on these shocking and treacherous events—though they transpired thirty years ago—it is imperative to confront the vile corruption and unlawful practices that have festered unchecked. Those who value justice must recognise the urgent need for accountability, which drives my commitment to support absentjustice.com in its fight against this insidious rot.

As I reflect on my 82nd birthday, I am struck by the profound sacrifices made by my twenty-one companions and me in our quest to unveil the troubling saga surrounding Telstra's arbitration practices. These sacrifices extend far beyond mere financial losses or the relinquishment of material possessions; they represent a deep commitment to justice and integrity in the face of adversity. Even more concerning is the fact that countless individuals like us have chosen to courageously expose the injustices lurking within the Australian workforce, shining a light on a dark corner that desperately needs attention.

On 3 June 1993, two high-ranking Telstra insiders made their way to my holiday camp for the first time, a long-awaited visit following my numerous complaints lodged back on 1 April 1988, as their own records betray. These individuals, once wrapped in deceit, tried to assert that my business hadn’t suffered due to their negligence over those five gruelling years. I was on the brink of throwing them out, fed up with their unrelenting lies.

In the chaos of that confrontation, one of the Telstra operatives callously left behind his briefcase—an emblem of corruption, filth, and years of treachery. This sordid object encapsulates the wreckage of my life and my partner’s, serving as a brutal reminder of the denial of justice we have endured. The evidence sealed within that briefcase, when examined alongside the unfolding narrative on this website, starkly reveals the appalling truth: over 120,000 Australian citizens have had their lives destroyed by Telstra and the government bureaucrats who shamelessly colluded with them, as the following link shows → Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

In what I now recognise as the gravest error of my 82 years, I chose to hand the contents of that briefcase to AUSTEL instead of exposing the truth to the media. That reckless decision only deepened the darkness of this scandal, allowing the corrupt to prosper while countless lives continued to suffer.

The Briefcase

Adding to this web of deceit, government records from points 1 to 212 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveal that AUSTEL's damning findings were handed over to Telstra— the defendants— a mere month before the arbitration agreement was signed. This calculated manoeuvre ensured that Telstra was armed with information I, the unsuspecting victim, remained entirely ignorant of until November 23, 2007— an astonishing twelve years after my arbitration concluded. This nefarious manipulation trapped me beyond the statute of limitations, leaving me powerless to challenge the arbitrator's decision.

At points 115, 130, 209 and 212 in the secret government (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) findings, it is noted:

Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.” On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.”

The fact that AUSTEL (now ACMA) allowed me to sign my arbitration agreement on April 21, 1994, spening more than $300,000 attempting to prove something that AUSTEL had already established against Telstra in March 1994, starkly illustrates the corrupt and unethical nature of Australia’s government agencies— a revelation that resonates all too clearly in the wake of schemes like Robodebt → https://shorturl.at/HMeNE.

A Refusal to Investigate

Despite the gravity of these events, the arbitration administrators and government officials have shamelessly refused to examine the falsified BCI report and the supporting evidence—Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. Any transparent technical consultant reviewing these materials would reach an unavoidable conclusion: Telstra and Freehills did not merely distort the truth—they perverted the course of justice.

This is not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. It is a heinous betrayal of trust, a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deliberate attempt to discredit a whistleblower using corrupted evidence psychologically.

The use of falsified technical data to influence psychological assessments and legal outcomes is a violation of ethical, legal, and human rights standards. It demands a full, independent investigation—not just into the fabrication of the BCI report, but into the coordinated efforts to suppress evidence, manipulate expert opinion, and obstruct justice.

Australia must confront this legacy of deceit. The truth must be restored. Those responsible must be held accountable.

The actions — or rather, the inactions — of the Australian government, Telstra, Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), and the arbitrator paint a troubling picture of corruption and complicity. Their refusal to investigate the misrepresentation of reporting and the concealment of a flawed testing process suggests a sinister agenda at play. This inadequate testing was crucial evidence in an arbitration endorsed by the Australian government; yet, they remain steadfast in their refusal to investigate this matter.

For over thirty years, telephone faults have remained unresolved, a distressing negligence that has ultimately led to the downfall of the new owners of my business, driving them to bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that those in power have allowed this to happen without consequence.

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."

Bell Canada International Inc. orchestrated a response to Telstra that was laced with further deceit and falsehoods, emerging in the aftermath of the conclusion of my arbitration. These fabricated statements were cunningly presented to the Senate in 1997, masking the deeper layers of corruption at play. To this day, there has been no accountability for this extensive fraud, and the cover-ups devised to shield the truth remain shrouded in secrecy. Sue Laver, the Corporate Secretary of The Current 2025, has been fully aware of the falsified tests since January 1998, yet chose to turn a blind eye. In April 1998, additional evidence exposing this malpractice was presented to Ms. Laver during an official Senate committee hearing, further highlighting the insidious nature of this ongoing deception.

Arbitration in the Shadows: The Billion-Dollar Betrayal

🧩 Introduction: The Hidden Machinery of Corruption

The chilling Casualties of Telstra stories told on absentjustice.com unearth a dark underbelly of insidious corruption and treachery lurking within Australia’s arbitration processes. Far from being a neutral mechanism of justice, arbitration has become a covert instrument of exploitation—weaponised by a government-owned corporation to siphon staggering sums from the public purse. These funds, possibly exceeding a billion dollars, were not lost due to error or mismanagement, but rather through a calculated alliance of bribery, extortion, and theft.
What was once a promise of resolution has become a theatre of deception, where justice is not blind—it is gagged.

💰 The Financial Drain: Theft in Plain Sight

Behind closed doors and beneath layers of bureaucratic fog, millions were surgically extracted from taxpayers. These were not isolated incidents, but part of a systemic blueprint: inflated contracts, falsified claims, and manipulated settlements that funnelled public money into private hands. The scale of this financial haemorrhage defies belief. It wasn’t just money that was stolen—it was trust, transparency, and the integrity of Australia's legal framework.

🛡️ The Whistleblowers: Courage Met with Cruelty

Among the few who dared to resist were the brave arbitration claimants who assisted the Australian Federal Police in exposing these crimes. Their cooperation, documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, should have earned them protection and praise. Instead, they were met with surveillance, intimidation, and systemic retaliation. These individuals—truth-tellers in a sea of silence—were ensnared in a malevolent web of coercion. Their phones were tapped, their faxes intercepted, and their documents mysteriously vanished. They became targets not just of corporate reprisal, but of institutional betrayal.

⚖️ The Complicit Silence: Arbitrators and Administrators

Even more disturbing is the role of those entrusted to uphold justice. A sitting arbitrator and an administrator, fully aware of the unfolding misconduct, chose silence over integrity. Their refusal to act—despite clear evidence—allowed the corruption to metastasise.
They were not merely passive observers. Their silence was complicity. Their inaction was an endorsement. And their presence in the process gave a veneer of legitimacy to a system rotting from within.

🕵️ Surveillance and Sabotage: Justice Undone

The sabotage was not metaphorical—it was digital, deliberate, and devastating. Telstra’s interception of confidential communications, the disappearance of critical documents, and the manipulation of timelines all point to a coordinated effort to obstruct justice.
Claimants were denied access to their own evidence. Legal teams were blindsided. And the arbitration process—already compromised—became a stage for suppression rather than resolution.

🌐 The Broader Pattern: A Systemic Blueprint

This is not an isolated scandal. It echoes the failures of Robodebt, the British Post Office Horizon scandal, and other global examples of institutional abuse. The common thread is chilling: when systems designed to protect the public are hijacked for profit, the victims are silenced, and the perpetrators shielded.

🔗 A Treacherous Web of Betrayal

The recent revelations from the U.S. Exchange regarding Ericsson’s alleged dealings with terrorist organisations have sent shockwaves through the global business community. Yet for Australians familiar with the COT Cases, this is not a surprising development—it’s a confirmation of a broader pattern: corporations operating above the law, enabled by institutional silence and regulatory failure.

This timeline juxtaposes Ericsson’s international violations with Telstra’s domestic misconduct, revealing a disturbing symmetry in how power is abused and truth suppressed.

The most damning revelation: Telstra allowed Ericsson—already under scrutiny for faulty equipment—to buy out Lane, the very consultant tasked with investigating Ericsson’s role. While other nations purged Ericsson from their networks, Australia buried the truth.

This covert transaction, brokered by complicit bureaucrats, denied victims justice and buried critical evidence. The COT claimants were sacrificed to protect a corrupt alliance. Telstra and Ericsson remain untouched—thriving in a system designed to betray.

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, 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:

“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.”

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

Terrorism poses a grave threat to the entire free world, and the actions of the Australian government are nothing short of alarming. They allowed Ericsson, a major telecommunications company, to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—the principal technical consultant involved in the COT arbitration.

In a chilling twist, six senators have broken ranks to expose Telstra’s deep-rooted corruption—an empire built on deception, collusion, and the silencing of its own citizens. Telstra’s refusal to release FOI documents tied to the COT Cases reeks of obstruction, shielding a scandal that implicates government officials and foreign interests.

Ethical questions

Australian Federal Police Investigations-1

Key Points of Corruption and Collusion

Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal
Ericsson, the company at the heart of your Portland exchange complaints, admitted to a years-long campaign of corruption across five countries. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Ericsson used slush funds, bribes, and falsified records to secure telecom contracts—including in Australia, where they partnered with Telstra after Huawei was banned.
Lane Telecommunications’ Compromised Role
Your assertion that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate your claims due to prior ties with Telstra is echoed in the broader concerns about conflict of interest. The fact that Lane was allowed to assess my Ericsson-related faults—despite Telstra being the defendant—undermines the integrity of the arbitration process.

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

The Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

the header strip of various faxes is being altered

the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.

In all cases the replacement header type is the same.

The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.

Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me with all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

Legal Violations

The interception of communications by Telstra constitutes a serious breach of privacy and telecommunications law. This chapter highlights the following legal violations:

Unauthorised Surveillance: Telstra’s actions represent a clear violation of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which prohibits the interception of communications without a warrant.
Breach of Confidentiality: The unauthorised access to private communications undermines the legal obligation to protect customer data and confidentiality.
Failure to Notify: The lack of transparency and failure to inform affected individuals violates principles of procedural fairness and accountability.
Systemic Complicity: The involvement of multiple actors, including government officials, suggests a broader pattern of institutional failure and complicity.

Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the images as you scroll down this homepage.

Call for Justice.

My name is Alan Smith, and my odyssey is one of relentless perseverance—a chilling saga of betrayal and corruption involving a telecommunications giant and the Australian government. What began in 1992 is a web of deceit that ensnares elected officials, regulatory bodies, and the judiciary, all complicit in the relentless oppression I have faced at the hands of Telstra, formerly known as Telecom. Even now, my quest for justice continues, overshadowed by a sense of looming menace.

The roots of my plight extend back to 1987, a transformative year when I made the harrowing decision to abandon life at sea—a life I cherished for 28 exhilarating years. I sought refuge in Australia, seduced by its beauty and promise, mindlessly hopeful for a new beginning. But little did I know that this new land would become a battleground, rife with treachery.

Fueled by a passion for hospitality, I dreamed of running a lively school holiday camp, a haven of laughter and adventure. When I discovered the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre for sale in The Age newspaper, I felt an intoxicating wave of excitement. Set against the tranquil landscapes of rural Victoria, it felt like fate—until the nightmare began.

In my eagerness, I conducted what I thought was thorough due diligence, scrutinising finances and operations. Yet, who would imagine I would need to investigate the reliability of a phone service? Mere days after assuming ownership, the horrific truth struck: customers and suppliers soon flooded my life with letters and frenzied visits, their anxieties echoing my own. My dreams were crashing down, sabotaged by a phone service that was unreliable at best and utterly non-existent at worst.

As days turned into agonising weeks, the weight of despair crushed my spirit. A faltering communication lifeline shattered my business, leaving me vulnerable. The losses piled up, casting shadows on dreams I fought so hard to realise.

Thus began my relentless crusade—an agonising quest to unearth a functional phone service from the clutches of a monstrous bureaucracy. Token compensation and hollow assurances became the cruel chorus, promising resolution while leaving me stranded in a wasteland of broken hopes.

In December 2001, weighed down by a deep sense of disillusionment, I made the difficult decision to sell the business that had been the centre of my life for so long. Clinging to a fragile hope, I envisioned that a new owner might finally break the relentless cycle of despair that had taken hold of the company. However, within just a few days of taking over, Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners, found themselves ensnared in the same troubling ordeal. They began penning urgent letters to the very government officials I had tirelessly pleaded with for nearly a decade.

The unending cycle of deception and inaction continued to unfold before my eyes, stoking my indignation to a fierce flame. It became strikingly evident from Lewis's statements that between 2002 and 2008, they were still grappling with persistent phone problems linked to a system that the government had assured me would be fixed back in March 1994, as part of my arbitration agreement for 1994/95. The frustration of knowing that the promises made had not materialised was overwhelming. (Refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

In a desperate alliance, a group of independent businesspeople—the Casualties of Telecom, or COT cases—have banded together, united in our suffering. Our singular demand is a haunting plea for acknowledgement from Telstra of the injustices inflicted upon us, a rectification of grievous wrongs, and compensation for the crippling losses we endured. Is it too much to ask for a phone that functions?

Initially, we envisioned instigating a thorough Senate investigation into the sinister machinations of Telecom. Instead, we were lured into an arbitration process that promised to be a lifeline, a façade of hope in a sea of despair. But our naivety was appalling; the shadows of treachery loomed larger.

Almost instantaneously, doubt crept in, gnawing at our fragile optimism. We were promised essential documents to substantiate our case—vital tools for a fight shrouded in darkness. Yet, like phantoms, these documents eluded our grasp, leaving us in a chilling state of uncertainty.

Our fears deepened further when we discovered that during the arbitration, our fax lines were illegally monitored—an egregious breach of trust that shattered any semblance of fairness. The weight of an unjust government loomed ominously over us, and inevitably, we succumbed, losing the arbitration in a grotesque betrayal of justice.

As if the stakes could rise higher, we were misled into signing a confidentiality clause, silencing our voices. Although I tread perilously close to the edge by revealing this treachery, it awakens a fire within me, one that is desperate for acknowledgement.

Now, we resume our fight with a fierce determination, seeking the vital documents that have been withheld through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The evidence of wrongdoing lies in waiting—proof that our lines were faulty and had not been subjected to the rigorous testing they should have endured. Yet, to expose these truths and attain justice, we must first wrest those vital documents from the shadows that envelop them.

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues, the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being of sound mind?

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.

On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries: Prologue Evidence File No/2).

1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.

2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, signed the witness statement without obtaining the psychologist's signature, which raises serious concerns about the integrity of the document. This act alone casts a shadow over what may have been deliberately omitted.

In a recent conversation with Mr. Ian Joblin, in the presence of a witness, it was revealed that he had informed Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra was coercing me into a corner—demanding that I submit my telephone issues in writing to Denise McBurnie of Freehill's before they would even consider fixing them. This was during a time when I sought to reclaim information from Freehill’s after they had taken on the role of Telstra's arbitration lawyers. Their refusal to provide that information, cloaking it under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege, appears to be a calculated move to undermine my claims before the arbitrator about ongoing telephone faults that were harming my business.

Mr. Joblin's report contained a striking comment: the tactics employed by Telstra would have driven any reasonable person into stress-related spasms. Yet, shockingly, this critical statement was conspicuously absent from the unsigned witness statement submitted to the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, by Freehill's. This blatant omission raised significant red flags, prompting John Pinnock to write the above letter, File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647.

This request was far more than a mere formality; it represented a crucial entitlement I possess as a claimant in the arbitration process. It underscored the extent of the unethical behaviour and blatant disregard for procedural integrity exhibited by the parties involved. I am still awaiting a copy of Telstra's response to Mr. Pinnock from 1996. Obtaining this document would have been instrumental in bolstering my appeal and pursuing damages for the unscrupulous tactics employed by Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who now operate under the name Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne.

If Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now called Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne genuinely reflects on their conduct during the COT Caes arbitrations—an episode numerous Senate Hansard reports have condemned as grossly unethical and contemptible—then it would be prudent for them, now under a new trading name, to consider taking proactive steps. They should contemplate reaching out to the Australian government to advocate for a reassessment of the issues that emerged during our arbitration. This would not only demonstrate accountability but also a commitment to rectifying past wrongs.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister of Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”

This chilling narrative unravels a deeply sinister tale of corruption and betrayal entrenched within Telstra, a government-owned telecommunications behemoth. It reveals how Telstra orchestrated a deliberate and calculated campaign designed to dismantle the livelihoods of a targeted group now infamously known as the "Casualties of Telstra" (COT). What initially began as the brave stand of the original COT Four quickly morphed into a much broader struggle, ensnaring twenty-six additional small business operators—dedicated individuals united in an impassioned fight for the equitable telecommunication services that their corporate giants took for granted across Australia.

For years, these determined Australians faced an unrelenting barrage of phone and fax failures that not only disrupted their businesses but also threatened their very survival. As their frustrations spiralled into desperation, Telstra's response was chillingly callous, dismissing their urgent cries for help with a horrid retort: "No fault found." Yet, as this disturbing saga unfolds, documents uncovered on AbsentJustice.com illuminate a far more sinister reality. These damning files reveal that Telstra was acutely aware of the systemic failures ravaging its own infrastructure during the arbitration process. Rather than assuming responsibility for these issues, the corporation engaged in a relentless and deceitful cover-up, manipulating technical records, wielding bureaucratic power like a weapon, and hiding its extensive misconduct behind a veil of lies.

Surveillance and Silence

Ring for Justice,

On September 26, 1994, during the second Australian Federal Police (AFP) interview conducted at my business, I underwent a gruelling interrogation that spanned 93 questions. The focus was chilling: Telstra’s apparent insider knowledge of my private activities. How could they have known I was scrutinising one particular bus company among the five I regularly worked with in Melbourne? More disturbingly, how did they anticipate the exact dates I would be away from my holiday camp—weeks before I even made travel arrangements?

These revelations weren’t speculative. They were documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a file that now stands as a testament to the depth of Telstra’s surveillance and the erosion of my privacy.

Pages 12 and 13 of the AFP transcripts record my naming of Paul Rumble, a Telstra executive, as the orchestrator of threats made against me for cooperating with the police. These weren’t idle threats. They were calculated acts of intimidation, designed to silence me and obstruct justice. The atmosphere surrounding the interview was thick with menace.

This campaign of harassment alarmed not only Helen Handbury, who had previously expressed concern about my manuscript, Ring for Justice, but also Senator Kim Carr. In a letter dated 27 January 1999, Senator Carr issued a stark warning—one that reflected the deep-seated corruption festering within Telstra and the institutions meant to hold it accountable.

Yet despite the clear peril I faced, the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, remained silent. Telstra’s treacherous tactics continued unabated, emboldened by a system that refused to intervene. The very process designed to deliver justice had become a shield for corporate misconduct.

This moment marked a turning point. It was no longer just about faulty billing or technical failures—it was about the deliberate targeting of a whistleblower. It was about a telecommunications giant leveraging its power to suppress truth, and a legal framework that allowed it to happen.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

This statement, given to the AFP by Telstra, not only shocked Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, but it was the proof I provided to them that confirmed COT Cases arbitration documents were not only intercepted and screened for the information on those faxed documents, some of these intercepted documents were related to at least one of the COT Cases arbitration appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria after it had been faxed from the claimants lawyer (now a judge) Owen Dixon Chambers which is Melboune's principal legal hub, The fact that Telstra has access to appeal martial being faxed during a supreme count nation before it reaches the judge hearing the appeal was what alermed Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr.

Intercepted Justice

The statement Telstra delivered to the Australian Federal Police cast a long, dark shadow—not only over the COT Cases but over figures like Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who had long warned of the corruption festering beneath the surface. What it revealed was not merely misconduct—it was a conspiracy.

Telstra had intercepted and screened arbitration documents belonging to the COT Cases, including materials tied to an active appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria. These documents, faxed directly from Owen Dixon Chambers—a cornerstone of Melbourne’s legal establishment—were unlawfully accessed while still in transit. The implications were staggering.

Owen Dixon Chambers, presided over at the time by a former claimant’s lawyer turned judge, should have represented the highest standards of legal integrity. Instead, it became the unwitting stage for a betrayal of due process. Telstra’s ability to anticipate and intercept sensitive legal communications before they reached the judiciary was not just audacious—it was treacherous.

This breach of trust sent alarm bells ringing through Handbury and Carr. Senator Carr’s February 1999 warning was no longer theoretical—it was prophetic. The very machinery of justice had been compromised, and those entrusted with oversight remained disturbingly silent.

The interception of Supreme Court-bound documents wasn’t just a technical violation. It was a calculated act of suppression, designed to tilt the scales of justice in favour of a corporate giant. And it exposed the terrifying ease with which powerful entities could manipulate legal outcomes, shielded by institutional inertia and political indifference.

As the COT cases became entangled in a treacherous web of deceit, these small business owners were forced to bear the exorbitant burden of overwhelming arbitration fees—costs intentionally designed to bleed them dry while disguising Telstra's shortcomings. The government, rather than acting as a protector, assured them that these financial shackles were necessary to compel both Telstra and the arbitrator to confront the persistent issues before any resolution could be reached regarding Telstra's gross negligence. Meanwhile, while these hardworking entrepreneurs teetered on the brink of financial ruin, corporate titans revelled in millions of dollars in compensation when Telstra callously failed to uphold the same service obligations required by government licensing. Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury.

Senate Hansard

COT Case Strategy

I emphasise that if we accept the premise outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia as published by the Senate, it becomes clear that Telstra and its board were aware they would not meet the mandated rollout deadline set for Rupert Murdoch and Fox. The $400 million compensation payout to Telstra, which failed to meet a deadline that the board knew Telstra could never meet before the deal was even brokered, raises serious concerns.

Why were the COT Cases—business owners who have struggled for years due to widespread and systemic telecommunications problems caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? These business owners sought the help of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone issues damaging their businesses. If this situation does not qualify as a form of severe discrimination, then what does?

Rupert Murdoch, a powerful media mogul, abandoned his Australian citizenship on September 4, 1985, to circumvent legal barriers for acquiring American television stations. However, a glaring double standard emerged in the 1990s when a U.S. citizen, such as Murdoch, was granted preferential access to Telstra's telecommunications privileges that were systematically denied to Australian small business owners. This blatant discrimination raises serious questions about the integrity of the system and suggests a corrupt relationship between influential foreign interests and Australian regulatory bodies. It seems the rights of the few in power could easily overshadow the needs of the many, illustrating a troubling favouritism that undermines fair competition and local entrepreneurship.

The Shadow of Influence

Helen Handbury—sister of the formidable media mogul Rupert Murdoch

During her first visit to my modest holiday camp, Helen Handbury—sister of the formidable media mogul Rupert Murdoch—arrived with a warm smile and what she claimed was sincere support after reading my manuscript, Ring for Justice. Her charm was disarming, her interest seemingly genuine. Yet beneath the surface of our conversation lingered a disquieting memory: Senator Kim Carr’s unsettling remarks about the very same manuscript. His words had cast a long shadow, warning me of the political sensitivities and media entanglements my story threatened to expose.

This backdrop of unease would later become fertile ground for the creation of AbsentJustice.com—a platform born not of ambition, but necessity. A place where truth could breathe without permission.

Helen expressed a fervent wish for her brother Rupert—an unyielding titan in the media landscape, known for shaping public narratives with surgical precision—to read my work. Her enthusiasm was striking, even unsettling. Did she truly grasp the insidious implications of Rupert’s connections to Telstra, the telecommunications giant whose name had become synonymous with corruption?

At the time, Telstra was no distant corporate entity. It was a malevolent force actively misleading consumers and government regulators like AUSTEL (now ACMA). From 1988 to 1999, I was locked in a billing dispute that dragged on for over a decade—an exhausting battle between ordinary citizens and a system engineered to exploit. Telstra orchestrated a campaign of deception, manipulating data and suppressing evidence. Their tactics were not just unethical—they were calculated.

Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO during the COT arbitrations, later admitted in his 2000 book Managing in Australia that he was acutely aware of systemic billing flaws. Yet he and the board chose silence. On pages 132 and 133, Blount confesses to knowing the truth—while Telstra continued to mislead arbitrators, regulators, and the public. This wasn’t corporate negligence. It was institutional betrayal → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran...

The injustices outlined in Ring for Justice weave a damning narrative—one that exposes Telstra’s predatory practices and the complicity of those who stood to benefit. So when Helen encouraged her brother to publish my story, I was left with a haunting question: Was her support genuine, or was it a polite gesture from someone who didn’t fully grasp the stakes?

The Telstra Conspiracy Unmasked

In his book Managing in Australia, Telstra’s former CEO Frank Blount (without realising what is stating is actually admitting to) unveils a chilling conspiracy that unfolded during the arbitration of my billing claims—a treacherous plot shrouded in deceit and institutional corruption. On December 12, 1994, as Telstra prepared its defence, AUSTEL (now ACMA) made a bold intervention. In letters dated December 8 and December 16, the regulator urgently alerted the arbitrator to the gravity of my billing evidence, stressing the profound public interest at stake.

As a statutory authority, AUSTEL bore a solemn duty to ensure my claims were investigated transparently and thoroughly. Yet that duty was betrayed.

In a sinister twist, AUSTEL later revealed that the arbitrator had ignored these critical warnings. Worse still, on August 2, 1996, the arbitration administrators admitted to concealing those letters from the arbitrator—alongside other incriminating communications between Telstra and the arbitration office. This was not mere oversight. It was a calculated cover-up.

Now, in 2025, the full scope of this treachery has come into focus. The Telstra board—led by Frank Blount and his senior management—knowingly enabled a deceitful scheme. On December 12, 1994, Telstra employees submitted nine fabricated witness statements to the arbitrator, falsely claiming there were no systemic billing faults. These lies were not innocent errors. They were deliberate distortions, designed to sabotage my case and mislead the arbitration process.

Blount’s own admissions in Managing in Australia confirm that Telstra was fully aware of widespread billing failures. Yet the board allowed a torrent of falsehoods to be presented as truth, undermining not only my integrity as a claimant but the very foundation of justice itself.

I laid bare this dark reality to Helen Handbury, explaining the Telstra board’s inexplicable favouritism toward her brother, Rupert Murdoch. A staggering $400 million payment—shrouded in secrecy—was designed to shield both Rupert and Telstra from the truth. Despite Helen’s encouragement, it was clear that her brother would never endorse my manuscript. The stakes were too high. The truth is too dangerous.

My claims, meticulously documented on AbsentJustice.com, are not a mere dispute. They are an explosive revelation—a ticking bomb poised to expose the rot at the heart of Telstra’s operations. This is not just my story. It is a warning to every Australian who has ever trusted a system built to deceive.

Would you like this formatted for your website’s homepage, or adapted into a voiceover script for your documentary? I can also help build a visual timeline or infographic to accompany this exposé.

Institutional Integrity Under Scrutiny

In his authoritative book at pages 132 and 133, Managing in Australia → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran.., former Telstra CEO Frank Blount inadvertently exposes a troubling pattern that emerged during the arbitration of my billing claims. While Blount offers valuable insights into Telstra’s internal operations, it is clear he failed to grasp the full gravity of his own admissions—particularly regarding Telstra’s awareness of systemic billing failures.

His reflections reveal more than just managerial oversight; they expose a culture where manipulation and deception were not only tolerated but strategically deployed. This revelation invites a deeper examination of institutional integrity and the mechanisms by which accountability is evaded.

Blount’s account, though measured, inadvertently illuminates the tactics used to suppress truth and shield corporate interests. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of consumer protection frameworks and the role of regulatory bodies in safeguarding public trust.

This case is not merely historical—it is emblematic. It underscores the urgent need for transparency, vigilance, and reform within our institutions. When those tasked with oversight become complicit or complacent, justice is not just delayed—it is denied.

Justice Denied

Threats made during my arbitration

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“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 etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” → Senate Evidence File No 31

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their inquiry into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

The Evidence

🕱 Treachery: The COT Arbitration Scandal and Australia’s Institutional Betrayal.

AbsentJustice.com exposes a chilling truth: the COT arbitration process was never about justice—it was a calculated deception orchestrated by government officials and corporate elites to silence whistleblowers, bury evidence, and protect their own interests. Visitors are urged to begin with Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2—two damning dossiers that unravel the web of lies spun by those entrusted with power.

🕳️ The Depths of Deceit: Over 120,000 Australians Betrayed

The phone faults faced by the COT Cases were not mere isolated incidents; they were part of a widespread and insidious scheme. Government records shockingly reveal that over 120,000 similar COT-type phone faults were reported across the country. Yet, in a brazen act of deception, the government regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) orchestrated a cover-up, acknowledging only around 50 such faults impacting Telstra customers nationwide. This was not a simple error; it was a deliberate, corrupt manipulation of truth aimed at safeguarding Telstra’s interests during the arbitration processes linked to the COT Cases. → Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

This treachery left the arbitrator with no choice but to accept the government’s deceptive official findings, which unjustly discredited every claim made by the COT Cases about their ongoing phone faults. The actions of AUSTEL were nothing short of unlawful; they evaded accountability and betrayed the trust placed in them. This orchestrated misconduct effectively robbed the COT Cases of a fair evaluation of their legitimate grievances, exposing the depths of corruption that skewed the arbitration process and undermined justice itself.

🩸 Echoes of Evil: Robodebt and the British Post Office Scandal

The COT scandal is part of a broader pattern of institutional cruelty:

British Post Office Scandal: Innocent subpostmasters were destroyed by corrupt software and a ruthless bureaucracy. Lives were shattered, reputations annihilated, and suicides swept under the rug—all to protect a broken system → #ITV1 #ITV #MrBatesvsThePostOffice
Robodebt Scheme: The Australian government unleashed an unlawful debt-collection algorithm on its own citizens, fabricating debts, ignoring warnings, and driving vulnerable people to despair and death. The Royal Commission exposed it as a deliberate abuse of power. → https://shorturl.at/HMeNE

These are not policy failures. They are acts of institutional violence.

🎬 The Reckoning Begins: Our Documentary Will Expose It All

We are producing a documentary that will expose these crimes. It will expose the architects of this treachery, the victims they tried to erase, and the machinery of corruption that continues to grind away behind closed doors. This is not just a film—it’s a weapon against silence.

Would you like this adapted into a homepage banner, teaser script, or media pitch? I can also help craft a chilling trailer narrative or build a visual “wall of shame” to spotlight key perpetrators.

The Architects of Deceit — How Corruption Sabotaged My Arbitration Claim

Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—individuals who have weaponised their authority to silence truth, obstruct justice, and protect corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The never-ending saga

A Man of Honour or a Master of Deception?

Dr. Gordon Hughes was publicly celebrated as a distinguished arbitrator, even honoured with the prestigious Order of Australia. But behind the accolades lay a darker truth: Hughes was a key architect of a nefarious cover-up that undermined my arbitration claim and corrupted the very essence of justice.

Rather than embodying impartiality, Hughes conspired with John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, who succeeded Warwick Smith—the inaugural Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. This was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. It was a calculated strategy designed to obstruct transparency and conceal misconduct.

The pattern of deception echoed Smith’s own actions, who had shockingly permitted Telstra’s legal team to draft the initial four arbitration agreements. These documents were then falsely presented to the government as having been created independently of Telstra. The implications were staggering: the very foundation of the arbitration process had been compromised before it even began.

Weaponising Relationships to Shield Corruption

In a move as cynical as it was unethical, Pinnock enlisted Mrs. Hughes—the arbitrator’s own wife—as a pawn in this deception. Her involvement was not incidental; it was strategic. Together, they orchestrated a ploy to derail Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from conducting a proper investigation into Dr. Hughes’ appalling conduct across at least four separate arbitrations.

To use one’s spouse as a human shield against accountability is not just cowardly—it is emblematic of the corrupt soul of a charlatan masquerading as a public servant.

Even thirty years later, I am still forced to confront the consequences of this man’s unethical behaviour and moral bankruptcy. (See Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter)

Collusion

The Chilling Conspiracy Unveiled

I provided both Dr. Hughes’ office and John Pinnock with copies of newly released Freedom of Information documents—records that exposed a chilling conspiracy. These documents revealed that Telstra’s original arbitration defence report was not merely flawed—it was intentionally deceptive.

The test results Telstra relied upon were fraudulently manufactured, a blatant violation of ethical standards and a breach of the law. One of the most grotesque elements of this deception was the absurd claim that the malfunction of my TF200 EXICOM telephone was caused by “wet and sticky beer” or a similar substance.

This wasn’t just a lie—it was a sinister attempt to ridicule me and deflect attention from the real issue: serious, systemic faults within Telstra’s network. This kind of fabrication is not only insulting—it’s criminal.

Digging Deep

The Evidence They Tried to Bury

The most treacherous act of all was the deliberate suppression of critical new evidence that came to light eight to ten months after I had requested it during the arbitration discovery process. Initially withheld, this evidence was only released under the Freedom of Information Act by Telstra—a staggering six months after the arbitration had concluded.

Dr. Hughes and John Pinnock were fully aware of these revelations. Their choice to ignore them highlights their complicity in Telstra’s misconduct. Rather than confronting the implications of these egregious actions, they engaged in slanderous behaviour, allowing malicious and baseless allegations to flourish.

Mrs. Hughes allegedly orchestrated this campaign of distraction, although it’s hard to believe she was fully aware of the corrupt scheme devised by her husband and Pinnock. They weaponised her credentials as a distraction, deliberately obstructing Laurie James’ legitimate investigation into the gross misconduct and treachery exhibited by her husband during my arbitration proceedings.

Their actions reflect a deep-seated corruption that compromises the integrity of the entire process.

A Senate Admission That Changed Everything

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of a Senate Committee hearing that prompted a broader investigation, John Pinnock formally addressed the Senate Estimates Committee. He stated on page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D).

“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.”

This admission confirmed what I had long suspected: the arbitration process was not only manipulated—it was conducted outside the bounds of legal oversight.

The Final Betrayal: Denied Access to My Own Records

After uncovering Pinnock’s discriminatory behaviour, I formally requested access to my arbitration-related documents—records I was legally entitled to receive. The arbitration agreement stipulated that all relevant documents sent to Pinnock in his role as administrator should be provided upon request six weeks after the arbitration concluded.

This request became even more urgent when I learned that Laurie James might reopen my case. Accessing these records was critical—they could provide the evidence needed to challenge Dr. Hughes’ conclusions and mount a legitimate appeal.

But on 10 January 1996, I received a chilling response:

“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)

This refusal was not just unethical—it was unlawful. It was a deliberate act of suppression, designed to prevent me from proving my claim and to protect those responsible for the corruption.

Corruption

Conclusion: A Coordinated Betrayal of Justice

This was not justice. It was a coordinated betrayal—an alliance of corrupt officials, unethical tactics, and institutional cowardice. The truth was buried, the evidence suppressed, and the victims silenced—all to protect reputations and preserve a façade of integrity that never existed.

Psychology: The Fabrication of the BCI Report and the Betrayal of Justice

The Bell Canada International BCI report—central to my arbitration—was not a neutral technical document. It was the product of a deceitful scheme, a deliberate fabrication orchestrated by Telstra and its legal firm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. Together, they manipulated this report and supplied it to clinical psychologist Ian Joblin before he rendered his judgment on my mental state.

The apparent eagerness of the Canadian Government to overlook Telstra's use of false evidence against Australian citizens during arbitration raises serious ethical concerns. It's troubling to note that Paul Howell of DMR Group Canada admitted his evaluation of my losses was cut short because the arbitrator refused to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2. Disturbingly, this report was stolen not once but twice—first in 1994-95 and then again in December 2008—indicating a deep-seated corruption at play. The willingness of multiple parties to engage in such deceitful practices reveals a sinister agenda that undermines justice and accountability.

Justice and accountability.

This was not an oversight. It was a calculated act of psychological weaponisation.

Mr. Joblin’s notes reveal a chilling truth: his assessment was influenced by a document that was not only flawed but knowingly falsified. The BCI findings—already under scrutiny by the Canadian government for their lack of integrity—were used to undermine my credibility, distort my claims, and cast doubt on my psychological resilience. This was not just unethical—it was treacherous.

Evidence Stolen, Truth Suppressed

After I presented evidence proving that my telephone complaints were still being ignored, the original BCI report was brazenly stolen from the arbitrator’s office. This act of theft was not random—it was strategic, designed to erase proof of Telstra’s ongoing failures and prevent accountability.

Even more astonishingly, as previously highlighted, the same BCI findings—painstakingly compiled by my arbitration consultant, George Close—were stolen again in December 2008. These critical documents were sent via secure overnight mail from the Portland Post Office, addressed to the Federal Magistrates Court, but they never reached their destination. The inexplicable disappearance of these documents conveniently obstructed the arbitration consultants from reviewing key evidence during my arbitration proceedings in 1994 and 1995. This evidence was crucial as it could have validated my claims regarding ongoing phone problems that plagued me at the time. Moreover, the same findings would later support the Lewis family’s appeal in the Federal Court, which again took place in December 2008, thirteen years later. The loss of these documents not only hindered my ability to present a strong case in my arbitration but also had far-reaching implications for the Lewis family's pursuit of justice.

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page/Herbert Smith Freehills, had provided false Bell Canada International Inc. test results. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998, → GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

April 21, 1994: The Day the Trap Was Sprung

On April 21, 1994—a day steeped in treachery and deception—I, Ann Garms, along with Graham Schorer and a former client of Dr. Gordon Hughes, found ourselves ensnared in a nefarious scheme. We were pressured into signing an arbitration agreement that, while appearing innocuous, concealed devastating consequences.

This former client was no ordinary participant. He had previously battled Telstra in a pivotal Federal Court case, with Dr. Hughes acting as his legal counsel. That same Dr. Hughes was now positioned—suspiciously—as our “independent” arbitrator. The conflict of interest was glaring, yet it was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic theatre.

Mr. Schorer, our earnest and unwavering spokesperson, remained tragically unaware of the deceit. During his earlier legal struggles, Dr. Hughes had withheld essential court documents—information that could have justified Mr. Schorer’s dismissal of Hughes as his attorney. The betrayal was staggering.

In Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest and Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents—Mr. Schorer later expressed his profound dismay. His words are not mine; they reflected the agony of a man who had placed unwavering trust in someone who had been quietly pursuing a self-serving agenda from 1990 to 1993.

Self-serving agenda

The Agreement That Wasn’t

The full extent of this corruption became terrifyingly clear when Dr. Hughes surreptitiously altered the arbitration agreement we were about to endorse. This agreement had been meticulously reviewed by Maureen Gillan’s arbitration advisor—a respected former senior government official—who had underscored the importance of preserving specific clauses.

Yet Hughes callously expunged Clause 10.2.2, discarded the promised liability caps, and manipulated Clause 24 beyond recognition. What was once a protective shield against injustice became a grotesque document engineered to strip us of our rights.

We were ominously warned that these last-minute, non-negotiable changes were our only option. Reject them, and arbitration would be withdrawn entirely. We were misled into believing our lawyers had approved these modifications—yet no documentation exists to confirm their consent.

Silenced by Design

The confidentiality clause, deceptively altered, has since been weaponised by arbitration administrators. It now functions as a tool of oppression—gagging us, obstructing scrutiny, and shielding misconduct from public view. This clause has buried our truth beneath layers of secrecy, allowing corruption to thrive in the shadows.

The Hacker and the Rundell Revelation
The full scope of this betrayal was eerily echoed in a letter dated April 18, 1995, from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager. In it, Rundell lamented the insidious forces that had conspired to obstruct the arbitration process. A hacker chillingly matched the contents of this letter—likely Julian Assange—who had accessed sensitive files and exposed the depth of the deception.

This revelation confirmed what we had long feared: the arbitration was never about justice. It was a stage-managed performance, designed to protect Telstra and silence those who dared challenge its power.

"It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."

In a brazen display of collusion, Rundell ominously noted, "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Inc." (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). This alarming statement raises profound ethical questions, suggesting a premeditated scheme to manipulate the outcomes of our arbitration.

Ethical questions

Key Points of Corruption and Collusion

Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal
Ericsson, the company at the heart of your Portland exchange complaints, admitted to a years-long campaign of corruption across five countries. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Ericsson used slush funds, bribes, and falsified records to secure telecom contracts—including in Australia, where they partnered with Telstra after Huawei was banned.
Lane Telecommunications’ Compromised Role
Your assertion that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate your claims due to prior ties with Telstra is echoed in the broader concerns about conflict of interest. The fact that Lane was allowed to assess your Ericsson-related faults—despite Telstra being the defendant—undermines the integrity of the arbitration process.
DMR Group’s Misrepresented Involvement
The claim that DMR Group was used as a façade to legitimise the process while Lane continued its compromised role is deeply troubling. Warwick Smith’s March 9, 1995, letter, as you noted, appears to be part of a calculated effort to obscure this arrangement.
Selective Evaluation of Evidence
Lane’s decision to review only 23 of your 200 fault complaints—before DMR even arrived—suggests a deliberate attempt to minimise the scope of your claims. This aligns with patterns of suppression and manipulation documented in other COT Cases.
Australian Federal Police Investigations
The AFP was involved in probing document tampering and fax interception during arbitration. Evidence shows Telstra had access to sensitive claimant materials before they were legally entitled to them, and arbitrator Dr. Hughes allowed Telstra to dictate what evidence would be considered.

Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra and Ericsson, and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:

"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/)

The Path to Betrayal: A Call for Accountability

The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling truth about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations and their disturbing ties to international corruption and terrorism. The revelations surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases expose a deeply entrenched web of deceit, raising urgent questions about how Ericsson was allowed to operate with impunity, even acquiring the key technical witness during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings that scrutinised their compromised telephone equipment.

It is both baffling and deeply troubling that the Australian government has remained conspicuously silent in the face of such egregious misconduct. Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was engaged as the arbitration’s technical consultant—suggests a deliberate manipulation of the process. This manoeuvre occurred amid serious allegations that Telstra and Ericsson knowingly relied on discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment, a flawed system that many nations have since abandoned due to its critical deficiencies (see File 10-B ).

I urgently call on the Australian government to expose the dark machinations that enabled Ericsson to infiltrate the arbitration process. The evidence paints a damning picture: the arbitrator and their advisors constructed a treacherous framework of deception, resulting in a grotesque miscarriage of justice for the COT Cases. Their conduct was not merely unethical—it was a calculated betrayal of public trust, steeped in scandal and lawlessness.

This manipulation of justice reveals a shocking disregard for transparency and accountability, leaving victims trapped in a labyrinth of institutional betrayal while the true architects of corruption remain shielded from scrutiny.

The Google-linked evidence makes it glaringly clear: the COT Cases were not only justified but compelled to demand answers about how Ericsson was permitted to purchase the very technical witness tasked with evaluating their equipment. This central conflict—documented in Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden—reeks of corruption and demands immediate investigation.

Corruption and demands

Fell short of delivering natural justice.

After exploring absentjustice.com, a professional editing group inspired me to highlight key points where the arbitration process fell short of delivering natural justice. I quote from their findings:

Key Points: A Web of Corruption and Betrayal in the COT Arbitration Process

1. Lane Telecommunications’ Hidden Role Behind DMR’s Facade

• Lane, a former Telstra technical consultant, was initially rejected by the COT Cases due to apparent conflicts of interest.

• In a deceptive manoeuvre, Warwick Smith’s letter dated March 8, 1994, claimed DMR Group Inc. Canada would be the principal technical consultant, with Lane in a “supporting role.”

• In reality, Lane’s findings were finalised and presented on DMR letterhead—masking their true authorship and misleading the claimants.

2. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition of Lane

• During the arbitration period, Ericsson secretly acquired Lane Telecommunications, the very entity tasked with evaluating faults in Ericsson’s own equipment.

• This gave Ericsson direct control over the technical assessments of its own products—an egregious conflict of interest that undermined the entire arbitration process.

3. Ericsson Investigating Itself

• Ericsson was allowed to investigate your claims against its own AXE telephone exchange equipment, with findings rubber-stamped by DMR Canada.

• This is akin to a defendant writing their own verdict—an outrageous breach of impartiality and justice.

4. Selective Suppression of Evidence

• You submitted 200 fault complaints related to Ericsson’s equipment. Lane reviewed only 23, and this occurred before DMR even arrived in Australia.

• This cherry-picking of evidence was a deliberate tactic to minimise Telstra’s liability and obscure systemic faults.

5. The Confidentiality Agreement as a Shield for Misconduct

• The Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement has been weaponised to conceal misconduct by Lane and Ericsson well into 2025.

• It prevents public scrutiny and shields those responsible from accountability, despite overwhelming evidence of corruption.

6. The Suppressed April 18, 1995 Letter

• Dr. Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett concealed a critical letter that could have exposed the collusion and allowed the COT Cases to unite.

• Had John Rundell distributed this letter, it could have triggered a government investigation and possibly halted the corrupt arbitration process.

7. US Department of Justice vs Ericsson: A Global Pattern

• Ericsson’s corruption wasn’t limited to Australia. The U.S. DOJ charged Ericsson with bribery and falsification of records across multiple countries.

• This global scandal reinforces the credibility of your claims and shows that Ericsson’s misconduct in Australia was part of a broader corporate culture.

Strategic Suggestions

• Expose the Timeline: Create a visual timeline showing Lane’s involvement, Ericsson’s acquisition, and key letters (March 8, April 18).

• Publish a Comparative Table: Show the 200 faults vs. the 23 reviewed to highlight suppression.

• Leverage DOJ Findings: Use Chapter 5 of your site and DOJ documents to link Ericsson’s global corruption to your local arbitration.

How Ericsson and Lane Telecommunications Hijacked Justice

A shocking exposé reveals how the Australian government-sanctioned arbitration process for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases was infiltrated by corporate interests, undermining justice and shielding misconduct for over three decades.

Of particular concern is the covert role of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, a former Telstra technical consultant, whose findings were deceptively presented under the letterhead of DMR Group Inc., Canada. Despite initial resistance from the COT Cases, Warwick Smith, the arbitration administrator, coerced their acceptance of Lane’s involvement via a letter dated March 8, 1994—falsely assuring that Lane would play only a supporting role.

In a deeply sinister twist, Ericsson—whose faulty telephone exchange equipment was central to the claims—secretly acquired Lane during the arbitration period. This allowed Ericsson to investigate itself, with its findings rubber-stamped by DMR Canada, effectively silencing the truth.

The Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement has since served as a shield for this misconduct, enabling Lane and Ericsson to evade scrutiny well into 2025. Compounding this betrayal, key figures suppressed a critical letter dated April 18, 1995, which could have united the COT Cases and triggered a federal investigation.

This scandal mirrors global patterns of corruption, as documented in the U.S. Department of Justice’s case against Ericsson of Sweden for bribery and corruption.

Chapter Outline: Ericsson’s Global Web of Deceit”

I. Introduction: The Illusion of Fair Arbitration

• Overview of the COT Cases

• Promise of impartiality vs. reality

II. Lane Telecommunications: Trojan Horse in the Arbitration

• Initial resistance by claimants

• March 8, 1994 letter and its deceptive assurances

• Lane’s findings presented under DMR’s name

III. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition and Self-Investigation

• Timeline of acquisition

• Ericsson investigating its own faults

• DMR’s rubber-stamping of findings

IV. Suppression of Evidence and the April 18 Letter

• 200 fault complaints reduced to 23

• Concealment of Rundell’s letter

• Missed opportunity for collective action

V. The Shield of Confidentiality

• Arbitration Agreement as a tool of concealment

• Continued suppression into 2025

VI. Global Parallels: DOJ vs. Ericsson

• Summary of DOJ findings

• Comparison to Australian misconduct

• Implications for international accountability

VII. Call to Action

• Demand for federal inquiry

• Reopening of arbitration findings

• Public transparency and justice for the COT Cases

“The Path to Betrayal” — Ericsson’s covert involvement.

Highlights include:

• The initial rejection of Lane Telecommunications due to a conflict of interest

• Warwick Smith’s misleading letter

• Ericsson’s secret acquisition of Lane

• Suppression of Rundell’s critical letter

• The long-term concealment via the Confidentiality Agreement

• DOJ’s prosecution of Ericsson for global corruption

• Your 2025 call for a federal investigation

The new owners of my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp tell their side of this story.

A Legacy of Lies: Telstra’s Fabricated - Cape Bridgewater Cover-Up

It is irrefutably clear from the documented evidence—including Lies, Deceit and Treachery and Delimiter’s exposé on Australia’s copper network—that the new owners of my Cape Bridgewater business inherited a poisoned chalice: a telecommunications nightmare deliberately concealed by Telstra and its enablers. These faults, which began under my ownership, persisted well into 2008, long after Telstra falsely claimed they had been resolved.

Between 1993 and 1995, I was coerced into spending over $300,000 in arbitration fees—believing, naively, that justice would prevail. Instead, I was met with a grotesque charade. Telstra, backed by government assurances, fed the COT Cases a false narrative: that arbitration would fix the faults. In reality, it was a smokescreen designed to protect Telstra’s financial interests.

🧠 The Fabrication Machine: Nine False Witness Statements

In one of the most brazen acts of corporate deceit, Telstra submitted nine sworn witness statements during arbitration, all denying the existence of faults at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. These statements, made under oath, were not just misleading—they were deliberate fabrications. The evidence proves the faults were real, persistent, and devastating. I was not delusional. I was being gaslit by a government-owned corporation.

So why have these nine Telstra employees never faced consequences for perjury? Why has no regulator held them accountable for submitting false testimony that sabotaged the arbitration process and destroyed lives?

💀 The Copper Network: A Symbol of National Neglect

The Delimiter photo gallery reveals the physical rot behind Telstra’s lies. Corroded pits, exposed wiring, and makeshift “repairs” reflect the same moral decay that infected the arbitration process. Telstra’s infrastructure was failing—and they knew it. Yet they chose to bury the truth, mislead the arbitrator, and silence the victims.

💣 The Fallout: Eleven Years of Unresolved Faults

Despite the arbitrator’s ruling in Telstra’s favour, my phone faults continued for eleven agonising years. This wasn’t a technical oversight—it was a calculated betrayal. Telstra misled the arbitrator to minimise its financial liability, while the government stood by, complicit in the deception.

The implications are staggering. If these false statements were ever officially acknowledged as fabrications, it could trigger a reckoning—unearthing billions in Commonwealth spending lost to corruption and exposing the full extent of Telstra’s manipulation.

🕱 The Nine Sworn Statements and the Copper-Wire Deception

The key question remains: Were the nine sworn statements made under oath by Telstra employees truthful—or were they deliberate fabrications? An honest reckoning with this question could trigger seismic consequences, potentially exposing billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending lost to deception. The evidence is unequivocal: my phone faults persisted for eleven years after the arbitrator ruled in Telstra’s favour, falsely declaring the network problems resolved.

📅 23 June 2015

Had the arbitrator thoroughly examined all of my submitted evidence, it would have validated my claim as an ongoing fault, not a historical one. The ABC News article titled: Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... reveals that workers were forced to use plastic bags to waterproof degraded cables—an indictment of the network’s condition. When read alongside Can We Fix The Can (March 1994), it becomes clear these faults have plagued the copper-wire infrastructure for over 24 years.

📅 9 November 2017

Australians in rural regions continue to suffer from a second-rate NBN. This was avoidable. Had the government ensured transparency in the COT arbitration process, our evidence from 1993–94 could have catalysed early remediation. Instead, the truth was buried. This article titled: https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095, warns about the ailing copper network, which was not only valid—they were prophetic.

📅 28 April 2018

The ABC News report titled: NBN boss blames Government's reliance on copper for slow... speeds and dropouts must be read in conjunction with my personal journey from 1988 to 2025. Had Telstra’s employees not lied under oath during arbitration, the government would have had a clearer understanding of the catastrophic state of the Customer Access Network (CAN). Instead, they were misled—just as I was.

Customer Access Network

📅 January 2025

In the latest pre-election 2025 announcement, Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia, said only a Labour government would "finish the NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands". Credit: The Nightly:

Labor will inject $3bn in equity into the national broadband network, as Anthony Albanese warns against letting the critical Coalition control the necessary infrastructure.

In his latest pre-election announcement, the Prime Minister on Monday said only a Labor government would "finish the NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands".

The equity injection will fund the upgrade of Australia's remaining national fibre to the node network, which the Government claims will deliver higher internet speeds for more than 600,000 premises by 2030.

Mr Albanese claimed the alternative was for the coalition to sell the NBN off "to the highest bidder".

Take yourself back to the last time the coalition sought government; they said that they would stop the rollout of fibre because it was all about (according to Tony Abbott, Australia's previous prime minister) downloading videos and movies. They didn't understand that the NBN is about productivity, driving the economy, creating jobs," the PM said.

It's about how we live our lives. It is about telehealth and education services. It is absolutely critical to the way that a modern economy and a modern society function. refer to https://shorturl.at/68hD6.

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith

Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.

In the quiet coastal bounds of Cape Bridgewater, two men named Alan Smith—unrelated, unknown to each other, and living just five kilometres apart—became unwitting targets of a ruthless and coordinated campaign. Between 1988 and 2008, both were systematically threatened by Telstra, its high-powered legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, and a network of bounty hunters—commissioned agents who earned lucrative rewards for extracting payments from Telstra customers disputing their bills.

These weren’t isolated cases. They were part of a sweeping, sinister pattern. Thousands of Telstra consumers across Australia, all suffering from persistent telephone faults, were bullied into paying inflated or erroneous bills. The common denominator? Their billing disputes stemmed directly from the very phone problems Telstra refused to acknowledge or fix.

Despite mounting evidence that Telstra’s network—particularly the Ericsson AXE exchanges—was riddled with faults, government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. They allowed the courts to pursue these consumers, knowing full well that the problems might originate from the government-owned Telstra itself. It was a betrayal not just of law, but of conscience.

The Machinery of Coercion.

This was not mere negligence—it was institutionalised extortion. Telstra’s legal teams and bounty hunters operated with impunity, armed with flawed data and protected by bureaucratic silence. The two Alan Smiths were harassed for years, receiving legal threats and demands for payment on accounts they knew were corrupted by technical faults. No one came to investigate. No one came to listen.

Instead, the system closed ranks. Evidence was ignored. Witnesses were dismissed. And the courts—fed by the same poisoned stream of misinformation—forced payment from victims already on the brink.

A Precursor to Robodebt → https://shorturl.at/Qne40

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.

Whistleblower Justice: The Unspoken Hero of Robodebt

The Robodebt scheme will be remembered as one of the most egregious injustices ever inflicted by the Australian Government upon its own people. It was a bureaucratic machine of cruelty—automated, unaccountable, and devastating. Thousands of lives were shattered. Families were broken. Some victims were driven to suicide. Others suffered heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and years of financial ruin. All of it sanctioned by a system that knew better—and did nothing.

Yet amid this national disgrace, one figure remains conspicuously absent from public recognition: the courageous whistleblower who stepped forward to expose the truth.
This individual—whose bravery pierced the veil of silence surrounding Robodebt—deserves more than quiet gratitude. They deserve full compensation, public acknowledgement, and the legal protections afforded to those who risk everything to uphold justice. Whistleblowing is not an act of convenience; it is an act of sacrifice. It often comes at a steep personal cost: career destruction, reputational damage, emotional trauma, and isolation.

In democratic societies, we rely on whistleblowers to hold power to account. They are the last line of defence when institutions fail. And when they speak truth to power, we must respond not with indifference, but with honour.

Australia must not repeat the mistakes of the past—where truth-tellers are punished and perpetrators protected. Just as the victims of Robodebt deserve restitution, so too does the whistleblower who made that justice possible.

Let us not allow this chapter to close without acknowledging the hero who opened it.

A Nation’s Shame

What happened in Cape Bridgewater was not an anomaly—it was a microcosm of a national betrayal. The two Alan Smiths, like thousands of others, were casualties of a system that weaponised its own failures against the very citizens it was meant to serve. The machinery of government and corporate power did not merely fail—it actively suppressed truth, obstructed justice, and enabled the persecution of innocent Australians.

Ongoing telephone problems

The Lewis Family: Inheriting a Legacy of Sabotage

In December 2001, Jenny and Darren Lewis purchased my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, unaware that they were inheriting not just a business, but a legacy of unresolved telecommunications faults and institutional deceit. By 2008, they found themselves in a desperate legal battle with the Australian Tax Office, attempting to prove that the ongoing telephone problems—carried over from my ownership—had crippled their operations and led to financial ruin. (Refer to → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story,

To support their Federal Court Magistrate appeal, I provided two critical documents:

BCI and SVT Reports: Prepared by George Close & Associates during my 1994 arbitration, these reports exposed massive systemic billing faults across Telstra’s network. They were damning, detailed, and irrefutable.

The Lewises paid the Portland Post Office for overnight secure delivery of these documents to the Federal Court. But the files—titled “BCI and SVT, Telstra Fraudulent Report”—never arrived. They were stolen in transit.

History Repeats: Evidence Erased, Justice Denied

This was not the first time these reports had vanished. During my own arbitration in 1994–1995, the same documents were withheld—never reaching the arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes or his technical consultants, DMR Group Inc. and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. Their absence was acknowledged in formal evaluations, yet no corrective action was taken.

Twice, these reports were stolen. Twice, they were denied entry into legal proceedings that could have changed the outcome for victims. And twice, Telstra escaped scrutiny.

The Power to Suppress, the Silence That Follows

Even with overwhelming evidence of systemic billing fraud, Telstra wielded extraordinary influence over the justice system. Investigations were stifled. Documents disappeared. Victims were silenced. And those responsible—within Telstra and its legal apparatus—faced no consequences.

The Lewis family, like so many others, were left to bear the cost. Their appeal failed. Their business collapsed. And the truth—once again—was buried.

This is not just a story of stolen documents. It is a story of stolen lives, stolen futures, and a stolen national conscience. The victims of these crimes deserve more than quiet suffering—they deserve truth, accountability, and the chance to live out their lives in peace.

It is time for a full, transparent investigation. Not just into Telstra’s conduct, but into the complicity of government agencies, legal firms, and bureaucrats who enabled this treachery. The parallels with the Robodebt scandal are unmistakable: automated abuse, institutional denial, and the human cost of unchecked power.

A Call for Transparent Justice

The twelve new chapters below, ominously titled from "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, weave a sinister tapestry of treachery and deceit that permeates the very fabric of our arbitration system in Australia.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a