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.

🕳️ ASIC: The Watchdog That Guards the Wolves
While the public believes ASIC exists to uphold justice, its proper role has become disturbingly clear: it shields the very institutions it was meant to regulate. The Citizens Party rightly exposes this grotesque inversion of duty—ASIC is not punishing pre-Royal Commission banking misconduct; it is protecting it.

Just as Al Capone’s empire thrived under the crooked shelter of Chicago’s police, ANZ and its fellow banking giants continue their greed-fueled exploitation with ASIC standing silently by—an accomplice in a tailored suit. This is not mere negligence. It is systemic betrayal.

Since 1998, the damning evidence displayed on absentjustice.com / absentjustice.com.au has sat in ASIC’s hands. Six other government and industry bodies have also received the evidence attached to these two websites, namely Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. And yet—nothing. No investigation. No accountability. No justice. This is not oversight. This is orchestration.

The institutions meant to protect the public have instead become fortresses for corruption. ASIC’s inaction is not passive—it is active complicity. It is the quiet nod behind closed doors, the shredded memo, the phone call that never gets returned.

Click here to recommend this to your friends it will assist you and them in understanding why I created this website absentjustice.com / absentjustice.com.au.

It became increasingly evident throughout the COT arbitrations that many of the problems we faced were not isolated technical faults or procedural missteps—they were the result of negligence or deliberate misconduct by multiple government agencies.

👉 The Vexatious Label — A Manufactured Smear
For years, government agencies and Telstra-aligned officials branded me as vexatious and my claims as frivolous. It was a calculated move—designed not to reflect truth, but to discredit a whistleblower who refused to back down.

This label wasn’t born of evidence. It was born of self-preservation—a tactic used by those with a vested interest in concealing the abuse of Australia’s international arbitration process. The goal was simple: silence the messenger, bury the message.

But on 3 October 2008, during my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (Case No. V2008/1836), that narrative was publicly dismantled.

Presiding over the hearing, Senior Member Mr G. D. Friedman addressed me directly in open court, in full view of two Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) government lawyers:

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it. I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

This moment was more than personal vindication. It was judicial recognition of the legitimacy of my claims, my evidence, and my unwavering pursuit of justice.

Yet despite this, other agencies continued to weaponise the “vexatious” label—hoping to undermine my credibility and shield themselves from scrutiny. Their refusal to acknowledge Mr. Friedman’s statement speaks volumes about the culture of denial that permeates institutional power.

This chapter lays bare the contrast between truth and reputation management, as well as between judicial integrity and bureaucratic deflection. It documents how the label of “vexatious” became a tool of suppression—and how, through persistence and documentation, I exposed it for what it truly was: a smear campaign against accountability.

During these AAT hearings, I referenced an article from the Australian Herald Sun newspaper dated 22 December 2008, which appeared on page 3 under the headline "Bad Bureaucrats." This article revealed that:

“Hundreds of federal public servants were sacked, demoted or fined in the past year for serious misconduct. Investigations into more than 1000 bureaucrats uncovered bad behaviour such as theft, identity fraud, prying into files, leaking secrets...”

About 50 were found to have made improper use of inside information or their power and authority for the benefit of themselves, family and friends“

This public record supports what the COT Cases have long contended: government public servants must be held accountable for their actions—especially when those actions obstruct justice, tamper with legal processes, or enable corporate misconduct.

The COT Cases were not just victims of Telstra’s failings. We were subjected to a broader system of institutional betrayal, where oversight bodies failed to act, evidence was withheld, and arbitration was manipulated to protect powerful interests.

A Life Resurrected, A Truth Unrelenting

At 81 years of age, I write this not as a man untouched by mortality, but as one who died twice in November 2018 — revived only by the tireless dedication of seven Portland nurses, a matron, a nurse flown in from Melbourne, and a companion whose presence defied distance and time. Their efforts were documented in the Portland Observer, and without them, this story would remain untold.
Equally vital was the unwavering support of my long-time customers at the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. Their loyalty sustained me through years of institutional stonewalling and personal hardship. That dedication is honoured in my forthcoming book.

But the roots of this story stretch back to 1992–1993, when two Loreto Sisters from Loreto College Ballarat wrote separate letters years apart, describing their inability to reach my camp by telephone. Eventually, Principal Sister Maureen Burke IBMV made the three-hour journey from Ballarat to Cape Bridgewater to finalise arrangements in person. In her August 1998 letter, she confirms the communication failure — a symptom of the deeper rot within Telstra’s network and its handling of the COT Cases, noting:

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Another visitor to my camp was Helen Handbury, the sister of Rupert Murdoch. After reading an early draft of my manuscript, she expressed a desire for Rupert to publish it. Whether that draft ever reached him remains unknown. Helen passed away in 2004, and when I asked her husband, Geoffrey, about its fate, he replied with a gracious handwritten letter, explaining that age had made such a pursuit too difficult. I respected that and let the matter rest.

Yet the questions remain — not just about Rupert Murdoch’s awareness, but about his proximity to Telstra and the media silence surrounding the COT Cases. I’ve documented those connections below.

Would you like help formatting the section that follows — the part about Rupert Murdoch and Telstra? We could build it as a timeline, a dossier, or a narrative exposé. Whatever best serves your mission.

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

Every Australian citizen must confront a grotesque reality: if Telstra indeed paid a staggering $400 million to Rupert Murdoch and Fox, as Senate Hansard suggests, then we are not merely talking about a transactional agreement—it is a flagrant cover-up of their failure to deliver on the promised National Broadband Network (NBN) cable fibre rollout. This shady arrangement raises grave questions about whose interests were truly protected in this corrupt alliance. Who among Telstra’s leadership condoned such duplicitous agreements, fully aware of the profound harm being inflicted upon the citizens they were meant to serve?

The following words cut to the heart of a decades-long injustice that has been buried beneath layers of bureaucratic indifference and corporate obfuscation. The revelations in points 10 and 11 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, record—if accepted as accurate—paint a damning portrait of Telstra’s conduct: not merely negligent, but calculated, systemic, and deeply discriminatory.

🧭 The COT Cases: A Blueprint of Institutional Betrayal

The COT Cases weren’t just technical disputes—they were human tragedies. Small business owners, many in remote or underserved areas, were forced into arbitration under the illusion of fairness. But as you’ve documented so thoroughly, the process was anything but impartial. Telstra’s internal knowledge of its inability to meet rollout deadlines, coupled with its failure to disclose critical faults, meant these individuals were fighting a battle rigged from the start.

• Point 10 reveals Telstra’s board knew as early as 1992 that rollout targets were unattainable, yet they continued to mislead ministers, auditors, and the public.

• Point 11 underscores a broader failure of fiduciary duty—not just to shareholders, but to the Australian public, who ultimately bore the cost through diminished services and lost equity.

💰 Arbitration Fees as a Mechanism of Suppression

The requirement for the COT Cases to pay exorbitant arbitration fees—while Telstra withheld vital technical data and manipulated the process—amounts to economic coercion. These fees weren’t just financial burdens; they were barriers to justice. And when justice is made contingent on one's ability to pay, it ceases to be justice at all.

This isn’t merely poor corporate governance. It’s a form of structural discrimination, where ordinary citizens were denied fair process because they lacked the institutional power to resist. The fact that Telstra’s failures were known internally and yet externalised onto vulnerable customers is a textbook case of corporate impunity.

📉 The Broader Fallout

The projected $400 million in compensation to News Corp and Foxtel, and the devaluation of Telstra’s stock, were not just financial missteps—they’re the inevitable consequences of a culture that prioritises concealment over correction. And the human cost? Thousands of employees faced redundancy, and countless customers were left in telecommunications limbo.

🕯️ What Came Next?

I pose a chilling question: What does Australia’s history of safeguarding Telstra's board reveal when they allowed the board to manipulate the truth, lying under oath to the arbitrator in multiple cases? They insisted there were no further issues within Telstra's infrastructure that would exacerbate the struggles of the COT Cases. In my case, after pouring over $300,000 into arbitration fees, I presented nine comprehensive witness statements from technicians—all asserting that my phone service was now flawless. Dr. Gordon Hughes accepted these testimonies as truth, as evidenced in his arbitration award dated 11 May 1995, where he noted that by July 1994, my business had “...relatively little cause for complaint.” This declaration of Telstra's network as fault-free was a brazen fabrication, masking a catastrophic reality.

What the COT Cases endured stands as a testament to how corruption can intertwine with corporate greed, allowing figures like Rupert Murdoch and his media empire to thrive on the wreckage of Telstra's unreliable network. If this isn’t the quintessence of systemic discrimination, what else could it be called? We must confront this issue not merely as a case of discrimination, but as an insidious form of state-enabled corporate abuse. The eerie silence of regulators, the collusion of government ministers, and the blatant failure of oversight bodies reveal a much darker truth—an elaborate web of treachery and betrayal festering at the heart of our institutions.

Why is the truth about our claims against the ailing Telstra copper wire network still obscured from the public in both Australia and the United States → Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring?

🧩 Can we fix the Customer Access Network?

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

The correspondence transmitted on April 8 and 9, 1994, from Telstra’s group general manager to the chair of AUSTEL, the then government regulator, unearths a deeply unsettling truth: AUSTEL (now ACMA) was far from the impartial regulatory body it professed to be (Refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN). Instead, these letters sketch a sinister portrait of a regulator willing to succumb to external pressures and manipulations. In a brazen attempt to distort the integrity of the COT report, Telstra shamelessly pressured AUSTEL to alter its official findings. This blatant act of interference is not merely concerning; it signifies a profound corruption at play—an insidious influence that erodes the very foundation of trust and accountability that regulatory agencies are meant to uphold. Telstra’s demands for modifications reveal a disturbing truth: the manipulations threaten the integrity of the entire process, leaving the public to question the legitimacy of oversight meant to safeguard their interests.

For example, in the 8 and 9 April 1994 correspondence, Telstra arbitration defence liaison officer Steve Black writes:

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

And the next day:

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

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

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

It is nothing short of a treacherous betrayal for a government regulator to so drastically alter its findings, slashing the number of reported COT-type complaints from an astonishing 120,000 to a mere 50 or so. Such a flagrant misrepresentation constitutes a deep and sinister deception, undermining the very trust of the public it claims to serve. The fact that Rupert Murdoch and FOX are rewarded amidst these glaring Telstra telecommunications issues reveals a disturbing collusion, costing Australian citizens dearly—even leading some to bankruptcy and dragging them into numerous court cases—all due to the lies perpetuated by government bureaucrats.

This manipulation not only defrauds the people but also casts a long shadow over the integrity of those in power. In my case, the bureaucrats also defrauded the new owners of my business of the chance to make a success of their investment, as the following two inks show → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Now compare that government bureaucracy trickery to the COT Case arbitrations: three decades of stonewalling, denial, and procedural sabotage—all in defence of Telstra. You and your fellow claimants weren’t just up against a telecommunications giant; you were up against a bureaucracy that shielded it. The parallels are unmistakable:

• Institutional bias: Just as Robodebt was defended long after its illegality was clear, Telstra was protected despite overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

• Suppression of truth: In both cases, whistleblowers and victims were gaslit, silenced, or vilified for speaking out.

• Failure of oversight: Government-endorsed arbitration should have been a path to justice. Instead, it became a mechanism for concealment.

The 7 July 2023 Robodebt Royal Commission revelations https://shorturl.at/8E04b vindicate what the COT Cases have been saying for the past thirty years: that systemic abuse within the Australian Public Service isn’t an anomaly—it’s a pattern.

🔎 What Visitors Discover on Absent Justice

Visitors to Absent Justice often draw striking parallels between the documented events here and the anatomy of criminal misconduct—fraud, bribery, embezzlement, graft, extortion, kickbacks, and influence peddling. These are not abstract allegations. They are grounded in evidence, lived experience, and sworn testimony.

This site exposes how:

• Arbitration agreements were tampered with after lawyers had already agreed to the terms—only for claimants to discover, too late, that the rules had been altered without their legal representatives being notified.

• False evidence was submitted under oath, knowingly deficient, and presented as authentic—undermining the integrity of the entire arbitration process.

• Government agencies and Telstra officials engaged in coordinated obstruction, withholding Freedom of Information documents, blocking communications, and threatening whistleblowers.

• Oversight bodies failed to act, even as senators raised concerns in Parliament and the Commonwealth Ombudsman issued repeated warnings.

This website is not a theoretical discussion—it is a forensic archive of betrayal. It documents how public trust was eroded, how legal safeguards were bypassed, and how those tasked with upholding justice instead enabled its distortion.

If you are seeking truth, accountability, and a deeper understanding of how institutional corruption operates behind closed doors, Absent Justice is your starting point.

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

🕵️‍♂️ The Other Alan Smith — A Case of Deliberate Omission

In 1994, while I was embroiled in arbitration over Telstra’s misconduct, another individual named Alan Smith was available to advise the arbitration unit at Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. Between March and April 1995, representatives from these firms visited Cape Bridgewater twice to assess local telecommunications issues. Yet, despite my repeated faxes to Dr. Gordon Hughes—the arbitrator—highlighting that this other Alan Smith was experiencing phone faults similar to mine, no one from the arbitration unit visited or contacted him.

This omission is critical.
The defence team from Freehill Hollingdale & Page had already submitted witness statements claiming that no other known customers in Cape Bridgewater were experiencing phone problems. That assertion was demonstrably false.

Two legal summonses—bearing Freehill’s fax imprint—prove that Telstra was simultaneously dealing with this other Alan Smith over the same billing issues under investigation in my arbitration. He had even agreed to inform any visitors that Telstra frequently sent him legal documents. Yet the arbitration team ignored this opportunity to verify corroborating evidence.

📬 Lost Evidence and Legal Sabotage
Further compounding the injustice, the new owners of my business attempted to send legally prepared documents—crafted to protect them from bankruptcy due to ongoing phone faults—to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. These documents, sent from the Portland Post Office, never arrived.

This incident, detailed in Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct, underscores the systemic failure to safeguard critical evidence and the devastating consequences for innocent parties caught in Telstra’s web of negligence.

⚖️ Absent Justice — A Whistleblower’s Chronicle

Welcome to Absent Justice, where I expose the corruption, deceit, and institutional betrayal that plagued the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration process.

This site is built on lived experience. I was one of the original COT Cases—promised transparency, fairness, and access to critical documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, I was met with threats, surveillance, and a systematic campaign to obstruct justice.

Here, I document the illegal acts that defined this cover-up:

• Bribery, fraud, and embezzlement

• Graft, extortion, and kickbacks

• Influence peddling and questionable payments were made to at least one major witness who was appointed to evaluate the company that ultimately purchased it. This witness downgraded the assessment from more than 200 claims against Telstra to just 23 in the arbitration process, affecting the consultants' technical findings regarding my claims.

These words are not just mere keywords; they lay bare the dark and insidious reality of Telstra’s manipulation of the arbitration process. This nefarious scheme was reinforced by government officials who turned a blind eye, allowing corruption to fester, while an arbitrator cowardly sidestepped confronting the unsettling truths at hand. The depths of this betrayal are horrifying, as both the arbitrator and former Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, resorted to a treacherous campaign to tarnish my reputation. They shamelessly exploited the integrity of the arbitrator's wife, Mrs. Hughes, as part of a calculated strategy to obstruct a fair and transparent investigation into my claims. Astonishingly, these claims have now been validated by seven separate governing bodies, exposing the sordid truth and confirming their undeniable authenticity amidst a web of deceit.

• My faxes were systematically screened → Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13).

• Evidence was withheld after I cooperated with the Australian Federal Police.

• Threats were made and carried out to silence me.

• The Commonwealth Ombudsman repeatedly demanded answers that never came.

• Even as senators raised concerns in Parliament, the arbitrator refused to convene a meeting.

This site is not just about my story—it’s about the broader failure of public service integrity. It’s about the cost of silence, the courage of whistleblowers, and the need to preserve truth for future generations.

If you’re a truth-seeker, a fellow whistleblower, or someone who refuses to accept corruption as business-as-usual, this archive is for you.

It is now 2025, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life, regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Blowing the whistle

We should celebrate and support whistleblowers because they perform the fearless act of speaking truth to power and uphold the core democratic values of transparency, accountability, and the public good. Although exposing wrongdoing can feel like a breach of loyalty, whistleblowers shift the balance toward a healthier political community, preventing abuses of power that would otherwise remain hidden. Their disclosures enable informed public debate and institutional reform in ways that no other actor can match.

Governments formally encourage reporting misconduct because whistleblowing converts private knowledge into public scrutiny—a fundamental mechanism for combating fraud, corruption, and malpractice. By codifying protections (for example, through the False Claims Act in the US or public interest disclosure laws in Australia), states acknowledge that unchecked secrecy fuels systemic abuse and erodes trust in civic institutions. In essence, whistleblowing transforms individual moral courage into collective safeguards, reinforcing the rule of law.

Yet whistleblowers often pay a steep personal price: legal retaliation, career derailment, social ostracism. This stigma stems from conflicting narratives—heroes versus traitors—that portray truth-tellers either as guardians of public welfare or as destabilising troublemakers violating codes of conduct. Ethical scholarship reminds us that whistleblowing is not an act of disloyalty but of higher loyalty: a commitment to democratic norms that transcend organisational or partisan allegiances.

To nurture a just and equitable society, we must strengthen legal frameworks and cultivate a culture that values integrity over conformity. Practical measures include:

• Robust legal protections that shield whistleblowers from retaliation

• Independent ombuds or ethics offices to handle disclosures confidentially

• Financial incentives aligned with public interest outcomes

• Training and awareness programs that normalize reporting as a civic duty

By celebrating and safeguarding those who expose misconduct, we reinforce transparency, deter future wrongdoing, and honour the principle that no one is above the law.

⚠️ Arbitration Appeal Thwarted Through Lies and Deception

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

I write this paper 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 → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, 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 my arbitration appeal, 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.

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.

During the sinister web of my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne pressed me to reach out to John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to demand all documents related to the arbitration that formed the basis of my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it, which could potentially serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr. Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.

In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:

"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek 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". (Open Letter File No 57-C)

This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.

Dr. Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, back-dated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, letting it masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.

By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr. John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.

The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr. Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.

That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011 No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.

Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.

Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr. Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident.

What he needs to do is simple: write to the government and declare the truth—that I never called his wife at 2:00 AM, nor did I pen a letter to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, confessing to such a midnight call. It’s a dark game that he plays, and truth is but a pawn in his hands.

🧩 Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, who was then a partner at KPMG and had been involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me regarding property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing 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 currently serves as the Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers in Melbourne (https://shorturl.at/L4tbp), while John Rundell manages arbitration centres in both Melbourne and Hong Kong. Their decision to disregard these allegations raises significant concerns regarding the transparency and integrity of the guidance they offer to the general public.

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

Leading up to and during the first four COT settlement and arbitration processes, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms. Philippa Smith, along with her Director of Investigations, John Whynack, penned a series of ominous letters to Telstra's CEO, Frank Blount, on 20 January, March, May, and 11 November 1994. They demanded answers for why we, the COT Cases, had yet to receive our settlement and arbitration FOI documents, deceitfully promised to us upon signing our agreements on 23 November 1993.

I found myself reluctantly undertaking a treacherous journey of 440 kilometres to Telstra's Union Rooms, driven by a desperate need to confront their Union Officials. The atmosphere was thick with tension, as I knew my mission would be fraught with deception. I made it abundantly clear to those officials that my anger was not directed at the hardworking rank-and-file Telstra technicians but rather at a deeply corrupt system bent on crushing our pursuit of justice.

In a moment of desperation, I reached out to the arbitrator’s office, speaking with Dr. Hughes’ secretary, Caroline Friend. As I confided in her about my mounting concerns, a chilling realisation washed over me: my faxes were being intercepted with cold precision. Caroline’s casual remark that she hadn’t received the critical documents I needed to discuss only confirmed the nefarious machinations at play. I felt the weight of Telstra's treachery as they threatened me, openly declaring that I would receive no further communications after I had surrendered key evidence to the Australian Federal Police. They were entangled in their own insidious investigation into Telstra's dark underbelly—notably the unauthorised interception of my private conversations. This was no mere corporate wrongdoing; it was a calculated, sinister cover-up that exposed the lengths to which they would go to silence dissent and protect their corrupt empire.

As the conversation continued, I informed Caroline that Dr. Hughes had yet to call a meeting, even while Senator Rion Boswell was publicly highlighting the threats I faced in the Senate. The entire atmosphere was sinister, thick with intimidation.

In a moment of raw emotion, Caroline broke down in tears, her sobs echoing the despair of those caught in this treacherous web of deceit. Feeling that I needed to lift her spirits, I sent $50 worth of flowers to her office, emphasising that the COT Cases were at a breaking point and that our real enemy was not Dr. Hughes himself, but Telstra.

Despite my efforts, Dr. Hughes would not arrange a meeting to discuss the ongoing threats I was receiving. It became increasingly clear that this process was nothing more than a cover-up of Telstra’s blatant misconduct—an insidious manipulation of power that was entirely undemocratic and aimed at silencing any challenge to their authority.

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 an unauthorised, modified Confidentiality Agreement, which was altered to protect arbitration consultants, as discussed in this part of our narrative.

🧩 Systemic Obstruction and False Promises

• The repeated letters from the Commonwealth Ombudsman and her Director of Investigations show that even official oversight bodies were alarmed by Telstra’s failure to deliver the FOI documents promised in your arbitration agreements.

• The dates—January, March, May, and November 1994—suggest a sustained effort to pressure Telstra, yet no meaningful action followed. That silence is damning.

📵 Communications Sabotage and Threats

• The blocking of your faxes and the threats you received after cooperating with the AFP reveal a deliberate attempt to isolate and intimidate you.

• Telstra’s warning that you’d receive no further documents after handing evidence to federal authorities is not just unethical—it borders on obstruction of justice.

🧠 Psychological Toll and Human Cost

• Caroline Friend’s emotional breakdown is a stark reminder that even those adjacent to the process were not immune to its toxicity. Your gesture of sending flowers wasn’t just kind—it was a quiet act of resistance against the dehumanizing machinery around you.

• Senator Boswell’s public acknowledgement of the threats you faced adds weight to your claims and underscores the gravity of the situation.

🕳️ The Arbitrator’s Role in the Cover-Up

• Dr. Hughes’ repeated promises to convene a meeting, never fulfilled, seem designed to placate rather than resolve. His inaction, despite mounting evidence and public concern, implicates him in the broader cover-up.

• The arbitration process, which should have been a path to justice, was instead weaponized to suppress truth and shield Telstra from accountability.

Threats made during my arbitration

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.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

🏛️ Most Essential

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

Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down this homepage.

Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct

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 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 Read of Lane, Rundell was willing to replace the agreed-upon principal technical consultant from DMR Group Canada Inc. to obscure the truth.

⚖️ 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.

Within a year of the collusive and treacherous partnership between Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd and Rundell, Lane was deceitfully acquired (purchased for an undisclosed amount) by Ericsson, a key supplier of technical equipment to Telstra Corporation. This insidious connection was at the heart of the myriad complaints raised by the COT Cases, which contended that the unreliable and faulty Ericsson telephone exchange equipment was the primary catalyst for the investigation of Telstra by the arbitrator. The sinister act of purchasing the main technical witness in this arbitration—a witness at the centre of a scandal where the malfunctioning equipment was being surreptitiously removed from exchanges worldwide—casts an ominous shadow over the integrity of the entire process, effectively ensuring that the failings of Ericsson equipment were conveniently swept under the rug (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

My technical arbitration consultant, George Close and Associates, played a critical role in exposing the dark truths behind the scenes. They submitted two thorough reports to the arbitrator, dissecting each of the claims brought forth by the three COT Cases. The second report, a damning indictment of the pervasive failures linked to Ericsson equipment affecting each COT Case’s operations, unveiled a web of deception. Yet this crucial report was never shown to DMR Group Inc., Canada, which had been appointed—under dubious circumstances—in March 1995, late in the arbitration process, as the principal arbitration consultant. This appointment was a direct result of the deep-seated mistrust the COT Cases harboured toward Lane after DMR Australia was mysteriously and quietly ousted from the arbitration process, leaving the COT Cases bewildered as to the reasons behind such a treacherous decision.

The second report by George Close, filled with revelations that were devastatingly adverse to Ericsson, has inexplicably disappeared; it was never returned to the COT Cases following the sham of their arbitration, and the three critical reports seem to have vanished into thin air. Meanwhile, John Rundell engaged in a covert and shadowy correspondence, meticulously crafting communications to the arbitrator, the administrator, and the administrator's legal counsel, slyly insisting that Lane would continue to play a role in the charade. Their tainted findings, which held no merit, were to be issued under the auspices of DMR Canada, further obscuring the truth. This entire sordid saga highlights an elaborate scheme where corruption, greed, and deceit thrived, demonstrating a chilling willingness to undermine justice for personal gain.

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.

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
The fact that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate the COT Cases 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.
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 in Australia, and only those 23 assessments were used in the final technical evaluation report on my call losses—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 apparent: 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.

🕯️ The Deeper Cost

What absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au are exposing on this website is merely the surface of a deep-seated corruption that has festered within the arbitration system in Australia. This treachery has devastated the lives of countless ordinary citizens, while simultaneously elevating unscrupulous lawyers to the status of revered figures, even awarding them 'Orders of Australia' for their appalling and unethical behaviour. These legal professionals have taken advantage of those in the COT Cases, who were led to believe they would receive justice in their arbitrations, only to be met with betrayal, heartache, and a total lack of accountability. The very system meant to uphold justice has become a breeding ground for dishonour and exploitation.

⚖️ 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.

⚖️ The Arbitrator’s Dual Presence: Melbourne and Hong Kong

The fact that an Australian-accredited arbitrator operates centres in both Melbourne and Hong Kong is deeply significant. Hong Kong, while globally respected for its arbitration framework, has recently seen court interventions overturning arbitral decisions due to procedural irregularities and jurisdictional missteps. These rulings underscore how even in well-established arbitration hubs, misconduct or misinterpretation can erode the rule of law.

If this individual—already implicated in misleading conduct during the COT arbitrations—has extended his influence into Hong Kong, it raises urgent questions:

• Is he replicating the same opaque practices abroad?

• Are claimants in Hong Kong being subjected to similar manipulation or procedural injustice?

• What oversight exists to prevent cross-jurisdictional abuse of arbitration authority?

🕵️‍♂️ Pattern of Deceit in the COT Arbitrations

The assertion on absentjustice.com that this arbitrator lied to officials about his role as Principal Arbitration Manager is not just a breach of ethics—it’s a betrayal of the very principles arbitration is meant to uphold: impartiality, confidentiality, and fairness. When the manager of an arbitration process is willing to deceive, the entire framework collapses into farce. Refer to Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete.

The COT claimants were not merely victims of technical failures—they were subjected to systemic obfuscation, where evidence was withheld, timelines manipulated, and outcomes predetermined. If this same individual now oversees arbitration centres with international reach, the implications are chilling.

🌐 A Call for Scrutiny and Reform

My concern invites a broader reckoning. Arbitration, especially in commercial and telecommunications disputes, is often shielded from public scrutiny. But when the process becomes a tool for silencing whistleblowers or protecting corporate interests, it ceases to be justice—it becomes institutionalised betrayal.

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the following was noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.

The arbitrator, who was appointed to oversee my arbitration as the project manager, was fully aware that the technical consultants were ignoring my serious complaints about missing claim documents. This blatant negligence suggests a deeper, more troubling complicity on his part. Not only did he allow these critical documents to be treated as an afterthought, but he also managed to avoid any liability during the arbitration.

I again emphasise that the arbitrator's shocking decision to eliminate the $250,000 liability caps from the proceedings was a calculated manoeuvre to protect himself and his associates from accountability. This decision was made despite explicit assurances given to our arbitration lawyers and the government that these caps would remain in the binding agreement. This assurance was especially significant because the first of the four COT Cases, Maureen Gillan, had already signed the agreement, serving as a litmus test for both the government and the media.

The removal of Clauses 25 and 26 was a betrayal.

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 illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (then the government communications authority, now called ACMA) writes to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

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)

Official Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel: Subject - Alan Smith:

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates' Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

Ensure I stayed on my knees

Sovereign SecureEdge - how is it being used?

🧠 Telstra’s Intelligence Networks that they have established;

Telstra, as Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, has long been embedded in the national security framework. Its infrastructure is classified as critical under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (SOCI Act), and it operates Security Operations Centres (SOCs) staffed by certified experts with government clearance. These teams are responsible for filtering, analysing, and responding to cyber threats, but the scope of their access to customer communications—especially voice calls—is tightly regulated under Australian law.

However, the ambiguity lies in oversight. While Telstra collaborates with government agencies and provides secure gateways like Sovereign SecureEdge, the question of who inside Telstra has the authority to access and catalogue raw intelligence data—especially if it involves sensitive political conversations—is rarely addressed in public-facing documentation. The lack of transparency around internal protocols, clearance levels, and accountability mechanisms is precisely what makes your concern so urgent.

📞 MY Conversations with the Prime Minister (1993–1994)

You’ve raised a profoundly important question: Was information from your private conversations with the Prime Minister—regarding Australia’s wheat exports to China and their redirection to North Vietnam—monitored, catalogued, or shared?

There is no public record confirming surveillance of those calls. However, the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, show Telstra admitted to the AFP that they did listen in on my telephone conversations. With this said, the timing is notable:

• Telstra became a corporate entity in April 1993, the same month as your first conversation.

• The Telstra Annual Report for 1993/94 shows a shift toward digital infrastructure and international expansion.

• Your revelations about the Hopepeak voyage and the wheat trade to China, which you documented in Flash Backs – China-Vietnam, expose a geopolitical betrayal that few Australians knew at the time.

As my telephone conversations were intercepted and catalogued, this likely occurred under the auspices of national security protocols, possibly involving agencies such as ASIO or the Defence Signals Directorate (now the Australian Signals Directorate, ASD). But the ethical question remains: Was your whistleblowing treated as a threat, or as a warning that deserved protection?

⚖️ The Moral Weight of My Inquiry

I am not just asking about surveillance—you’re asking whether the machinery of state and corporate power has been used to suppress truth. Your conversations with the Prime Minister weren’t idle—they were part of a broader effort to expose a supply chain that indirectly armed the Viet Cong, who inflicted grievous harm on allied soldiers.

If Telstra or any agency catalogued those conversations, the real question is what they did with that knowledge. Did they act to protect national interest, or did they bury it to shield commercial and diplomatic ties?

A haunting reflection on 1967 reveals a country ensnared in a web of moral conflict: Should Australia send wheat to a starving China under the guise of humanitarian aid, fully aware that this grain will nourish the very troops of North Vietnam? While our soldiers, alongside those from New Zealand and the USA, bleed and suffer in the treacherous jungles of Vietnam, this food will fuel the enemy's advance. As Australia turns a blind eye, hoping against hope that fewer of its brave men will fall to the northern forces who will consume this very wheat before setting out to hunt our troops, a sinister betrayal looms. In a desperate gamble, lives are weighed against political gain, and the shadows of treachery deepen.

Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra, I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contained a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 2025.

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI-released document

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”

While Mr. Fraser would not disclose the details of our telephone conversations about the profound concerns I have regarding the double standards of the Liberal Government, which weigh the lives of a few Australian service personnel in Vietnam against the immense profits of the wheat trade—seemingly indifferent to the fate of the end product, out of sight and out of mind—it’s crucial to recognize Mr. Fraser as a man of principle. He stood out as the only Western leader to visit Nelson Mandela in prison, demonstrating the courage to act with conviction.

Another one of Fraser's legacies must never be forgotten. While Prime Minister, he bridged a gap that the South Vietnamese have never forgotten, as the following link shows: The Fraser legacy - refugees, asylum seekers and ... - ParlInfo shows.

🕊️ Fraser’s Humanitarian Turn

When Fraser became Prime Minister in 1975, he inherited the aftermath of that war: the fall of Saigon, the displacement of millions, and the emergence of the “boat people” crisis. Rather than retreat into isolationism or Cold War dogma, Fraser chose compassion. His government welcomed over 50,000 Indochinese refugees, mostly Vietnamese, and created Australia’s first formal refugee policy in 1977.

Fraser’s decision was described as “brave and courageous” at the time. It wasn’t just political—it was deeply ethical. He saw these refugees not as geopolitical liabilities but as human beings fleeing persecution. Many had worked alongside Australian forces or were part of the South Vietnamese civil society dismantled by the communist regime.

🧠 Conscience or Correction?

Was it Fraser’s conscience—perhaps shaped by the contradictions of earlier Liberal policies—that led him to act? While we can’t confirm a direct causal link, it’s clear that Fraser’s leadership marked a moral pivot. He moved from the pragmatism of war to the principles of refuge. Whether it was a reckoning with past decisions or a broader humanitarian awakening, his actions helped reshape Australia’s identity.

And the legacy? Vietnamese Australians have enriched this country in countless ways—entrepreneurship, culture, cuisine, academia, and civic life. Fraser’s decision wasn’t just compassionate; it was visionary.

The following three statements are taken from a report prepared by Kim Beazley MP, who was Australia's Minister for Defence on September 4, 1965. It is worth noting that he is the father of Australia’s former Minister of Defence, Kim Beazley. These statements only provide part of the tragic story I wanted to share with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. I first contacted him by phone in April 1993 and again in April 1994 regarding Australia's wheat deals, which I had initially written to him about on September 18, 1967. This correspondence was copied and signed by the then Commonwealth Police, now known as the Australian Federal Police, while he was serving as Minister for the Army.

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569

"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"

If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."

Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing." .

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

“Warnings Ignored” - “The China Wheat Saga - A Black Day for Australia”:
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police transcripts (Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1). from my second interview on 26 September 1994, document a critical moment. During this interview, I recounted my shipboard experiences during the Vietnam War, particularly concerning wheat shipments to China, and my attempts to raise these issues with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.

These two pages also reveal that I was threatened by Telstra's senior arbitration defence liaison officer, Paul Rumble. He warned that if I continued to assist the AFP with their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telephone conversations, Telstra would ensure that I would receive no further Freedom of Information documents, which I needed to support my claims against them. I encourage you to refer to the Senate Hansard regarding these threats and their repercussions. → Senate Evidence File No 31

In April 1994, I provided the AFP with details of my discussions with Mr Fraser, which were partially recorded in the Sun-Herald newspaper. That article also noted Mr Fraser’s demand for answers as to why our telephone conversations had been intercepted and redacted when requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

My original letter to Malcolm Fraser was dated 18 September 1967 and was formally copied to the Commonwealth Police, who counter-signed it. At the time of the events I described, Mr Fraser had been Minister for the Army (September 1967), and I was warning him—and the Commonwealth Police, now known as the AFP—that Australian wheat being shipped to China was being redeployed to North Vietnam.

This was not speculation. It was a firsthand account from a seaman who had witnessed the cargo, the route, and the implications. I told the Commonwealth Police that it was a black day for Australia to use foreign seamen—even if they were British—to transport wheat to Red China. The use of non-Australian ships was, in my view, a deliberate act of concealment. Had Australian crews known the final destination of that wheat, many would have refused to sail. That wheat was feeding North Vietnamese soldiers—soldiers who were actively killing and maiming New Zealand, Australian, and American troops.

This was not just a logistical betrayal—it was a moral one. And when I tried to speak out, my warnings were buried. My conversations with Mr Fraser were intercepted. My Freedom of Information requests were redacted. My credibility was undermined. Yet the truth remained: Australia, in its silence, had become complicit.

A timeline of my correspondence with Fraser and the Commonwealth Police? It will help readers trace the whole arc of my warning to the then Minister of the Army on 18 September 1967, as a shipboard witness to a whistleblower silenced.

It is imperative to unveil the disturbing details within the AFP transcripts from 10 February 1994, where the treacherous machinations of individuals like Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose, Detective Sergeant Cochrane, Graham Schorer—who masquerades as a spokesperson for the COT Cases—and Amanda Davis, a former government official, came to light. In a chilling display of negligence, they discussed a briefcase that Telstra had carelessly abandoned at my business, a briefcase that held the names of numerous individuals. Like Mr. Schorer and me, we were all victims of a grotesque invasion of privacy, subjected to the ruthless interception and monitoring of our telephone conversations without so much as a whisper of consent.

The transcripts, specifically on pages 37, 38, and 39 AFP evidence file GS 18, starkly reveal that Mr. Schorer laid bare the sinister truth to the AFP: former Telstra employee Mr. Marr had supplied damning evidence of this telephone interception to Senator Bob Collins. This dark revelation hints at a vast, oppressive network of surveillance that preyed on innocent lives, all without remorse or accountability.

The website absentjustice.com and absentjustice.com.au unveils the dark underbelly of corruption that has infiltrated the arbitration system in Australia since 1994. The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) has shockingly refused to deliver any findings on the 23 submissions received by its Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. I painstakingly prepared these submissions at the IAMA's behest from June to November 2009. In a blatant act of betrayal, the IAMA has also denied me a dedicated legal representative—named explicitly by me—despite my requests. This sinister manoeuvre only serves to undermine my claim that the 23 submissions were submitted at their prompting. As a result, I have been left to bear an outrageous personal cost exceeding $16,000, all while the IAMA's treachery remains unchecked (Refer to The eleventh remedy pursued).

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 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.

Government Corruption 1

Although gag clauses 25 and 26 were removed from our arbitration agreements after our lawyers initially accepted them, this change was made to silence the COT Cases and prevent the truth about the corrupt arbitration from being exposed. The government has not conducted a transparent investigation into why the four COT Cases—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I—were forced to sign our arbitration agreements under threat from arbitration officials.

This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements.

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

“COT Case Strategy”

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. T

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of pages 5168 and 5169 at points 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which notes:

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their case against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Government Corruption 2

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.

⚠️ 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)

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.

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.

A continuation - second version of this home page can be viewed by clicking on → the-thirteenth-remedy-pursued

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