Jefferson’s words were not prophecy—they were a blueprint for vigilance. And yet, in the 21st century, we’ve watched as global corporations like Ericsson have infiltrated the very institutions meant to regulate them. Between 2000 and 2016, Ericsson orchestrated a systematic and calculated campaign of bribery and corruption, culminating in a $1.4 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Don't forget to click on the following images as you scroll down this Ericsson page
The acquisition of Lane by Ericsson, along with the dealings surrounding the COT Cases, was nothing short of a calculated conspiracy against Australia’s democratic system of justice. This insidious operation has gone largely unacknowledged, revealing a disturbing truth.
The corruption exposed by absentjustice.com is not merely partisan; it reflects a deep-seated, systemic rot that permeates the USA and extends globally. Thomas Jefferson himself would have recognised this treachery. Mighty corporations, like Ericsson, have become predators, systematically devouring the world's integrity.
Ericsson’s ruthless infiltration of Australia's arbitration system is undeniable and raises alarming questions. Why has this company evaded accountability for its questionable actions during the COT arbitrations? This situation is not just a political issue; it demands urgent action that cuts through the fog of party lines and unearths the treacherous conduct at play.
During my arbitration, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was officially appointed as the technical consultant to the arbitrator. Lane had access to sensitive materials, including evidence implicating Ericsson-manufactured telephone exchange equipment—the very hardware that plagued my business and other COT claimants' businesses.
Yet, in a move that reeks of collusion, Ericsson quietly acquired Lane while confidentiality agreements were still in effect. This acquisition occurred during the arbitration period, effectively transferring privileged evidence into the hands of the very company under scrutiny.
On 16 July 1997, John Pinnock, the official administrator of the arbitrations, wrote to William Hunt and the lawyer for Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). In that letter, Pinnock warned:
“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.
“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…
“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.
“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …
“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - )
From March 9, 1995, when Lane was appointed, until Pinnock’s eventual disclosure, the integrity of the arbitration process was compromised. Ericsson’s control of Lane meant that the very entity evaluating our claims was beholden to the supplier of the faulty equipment.
What of those cases, like mine, that concluded in May 1995? At that critical juncture, Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell revealed the truth to the arbitrator, the administrator, and legal counsel: the newly appointed Canadian assessment company was a ruse. Lane would conduct all evaluations related to Ericsson, and the results would be deceptively funnelled into letters bearing the name of DMR Group Pty Ltd—misleading claimants into believing a neutral Canadian expert had reviewed their evidence.
This orchestrated scheme exemplified deep-rooted corruption, betrayal, and manipulation of the arbitration system itself
Even now, in 2025, John Rundell continues to operate arbitration centres in Melbourne and Hong Kong, despite his damning admission in his 18 April 1995 letter:
“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)
None of the COT Cases was granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded.It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.
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/)
To this day, I have never received the critical reports on Ericsson’s exchange equipment—painstakingly compiled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close. These documents were the backbone of my case. Their disappearance is a blatant violation of the arbitration rules, which require all submitted materials to be returned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator’s award.
When my lawyers uncovered disturbing ambiguities in the arbitration agreement—covertly altered after government and COT lawyers had approved the original version—I requested foundational documents from Pinnock to understand how this skulduggery had been allowed. His response?
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” — John Pinnock, 10 January 1996 ()
That marked the beginning of my descent into a dark labyrinth of deceit.
The agreement itself had been secretly altered before I signed it—weaponised to protect Telstra and the arbitration consultants. It shielded Rundell and Lane from accountability, as Chapter 5: Fraudulent Conduct so clearly shows.
