You can access my book, Absent Justice, Ordering Now—it's Free. However, if you recognize the value of the research and evidence that underpin my narrative, I would appreciate your consideration of donating to Transparency International.
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.
-
Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete - www.absentjustice.com/price-waterhouse-coopers-deloitte/chapter-2Government corruption and horrendous and horrifying crimes were committed against ordinary small business operators by the Telstra Corporation, Australia.
-
Who was controlling the arbitrations?- www.absentjustice.com/manipulating-the-regulator/who-was-controlling-the-arbitrations-?Corrupt practices by government exacerbate inequality, poverty, social division, and environmental crises. Exposing and holding the corrupt accountability…
-
Chapter 3 Dishonestly using corrupt government influence - www.absentjustice.com/manipulating-the-regulator/legal-bullying-in-arbitration/chapter-3-dishonestly-using-corrupt-government-influence.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government entirely owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power, today. Our story is still actively being covered up.
How does one weave together a narrative so remarkable that it raises even the author’s eyebrows, prompting a detailed investigation of records before proceeding with the story? What strategies can we employ to unravel the intricate web of collusion that exists between an arbitrator, various governmental entities, and the defendants in this case? How can we illuminate the shocking reality that these defendants, during the arbitration process, intercepted and misappropriated confidential materials to fortify their defense, all the while jeopardizing the claimants' chances for justice?
Furthermore, how prevalent is the issue of compromised arbitration processes across Australia? Are instances of electronic eavesdropping and breaches of confidentiality still commonplace in the realm of legitimate Australian arbitrations today?
A particularly alarming example surfaced in January 1999, when a thorough report was delivered to the government, confirming that Telstra Corporation—which stood as the defendant in these arbitration disputes—had been unlawfully intercepting confidential arbitration-related documents. The report detailed a troubling procedure where these unauthorized individuals not only accessed sensitive information but meticulously screened the hacked documents for relevant content before re-faxing them to their original destinations, thus obscuring the illegal activities. This critical report, attached here as evidence (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), raises profound questions about the integrity of the arbitration system in Australia and the extent to which such unethical practices may have infiltrated legitimate processes, casting a shadow over the pursuit of fair and just resolutions.
The hyperlink https://shorturl.at/5EALA and the https://shorturl.at/vFCzd the Kangaroo Court highlights a troubling trend of growing concern among both the Australian government and the media regarding the questionable operational practices used by the prominent "Big Four" accounting firms. The two segments of the Kangaroo Court presented on absentjustice.com serve as crucial reminders that the pressing concerns of corporate misconduct and governmental corruption remain relevant in 2024. These issues echo the struggles of the COT Cases, who faced intimidation and harassment from Telstra during critical arbitration discussions three decades ago. Despite their plight, the arbitrator and administrator failed to provide any meaningful support.
It raises a critical question: How can the arbitrator and administrator credibly address unlawful actions by Telstra when they secretly eliminated the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of the arbitration agreements (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct? These agreements had been thoroughly reviewed and approved by two government officials and the claimant’s legal team, establishing a clear framework for the arbitration process showcased on absentjustice.com.
Moreover, how could they confront corruption issues involving Telstra while simultaneously allowing the Telecommunications Industry Office's arbitration special counsel to be completely exempt from any liability, as explicitly stated in the original arbitration agreement before any amendments?
Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, I worked with Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to request a copy of Telstra's arbitration file under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This file was crucial as it would reveal who was involved in altering clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 from my arbitration agreement. Additionally, it would provide insight into when AUSTEL received the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. Notably, Home Page File No/82 confirms that Mr. Wynack did not believe Telstra's claim about destroying the file.
I tried to obtain a copy of the arbitration file the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) held. As the process administrator, the TIO is unequivocally required to retain all documents relevant to the arbitration. This includes my formal request to the arbitrator. While drafting the arbitration rules, I insisted on accessing the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook and all correspondence among the involved parties. Obtaining this information was essential for my appeal attorneys at Law Partners of Melbourne, who were poised to leverage the negligent actions of DMR and Lane from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory. It is critical to highlight that both individuals submitted incomplete reports to the arbitration process while misrepresenting them as final.
John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for arbitration records, states:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
The refusal by John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of my arbitration process, to supply documents held by his office highlights even further the gross misconduct of those who administered the COT arbitrations and shows the need for accountability and transparency in a system that should have protected the interests of the aggrieved parties.
For more detailed information on these pressing issues, continue reading absentjustice.com.