The motivations of the government were far darker than mere incompetence; they sought to bury the truth surrounding Senator Bob Collins, the minister overseeing our original claims against Telstra. Collins, a predator cloaked in power, was embroiled in serious allegations of pedophilia, accused of violating at least one child within the so-called safety of his Parliament House Canberra office. The Australian Federal Police became entangled in this sordid affair, investigating not only Senator Collins but also probing Telstra's dubious involvement in our FTSP issues, creating a perfect storm of corruption and malevolence that loomed ominously over our case. 

Senator Bill Heffernan calls for an official investigation into paedophilia claims → https://shorturl.at/TUV3k.

As members of the COT Cases, we were thrust into this corrupt arbitration process, wholly unaware of the treachery lurking behind the scenes. The arbitrator enforced a treacherous system designed to minimise Telstra's liability, ensuring that the systemic ongoing billing issues still plaguing our businesses were concealed under a cloak of confidentiality. This cruel arrangement shackled us, silencing our voices and preventing us from addressing the ongoing injustices that the government had assured us would be resolved through this new arbitration process.

In late 1999, Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, after leaving the company, co-published a manuscript entitled "Managing in Australia" (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)   https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran. On pages 132 and 133, the author reveals that Telstra lied in their arbitration defence witness statements, which were sworn under oath, stating to the arbitrator that there were no systemic billing problems in Telstra's network, when "Managing in Australia" confirms this was not the case at all as the co-author of "Managing in Australia" states:

“Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem". 

"The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” 

On 16 October 1995, five months after Telstra failed to address the systemic billing faults associated with its 1800 service—faults that numbered over 200—the arbitrator rendered a decision concluding the arbitration process. This decision was made without ensuring that the unresolved issues related to my claim would remain open until Telstra adequately rectified these systemic problems. At this critical juncture, AUSTEL, now recognised as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), made a concerning decision. They permitted Telstra to resolve specific unresolved arbitration claims without prior notification to either me or the arbitrator overseeing the process.

 The unethical actions of AUSTEL/ACMA deprived me of my legal right to respond to Telstra’s submission from October 16, 1995, under the Arbitration Agreement. The government had no authority to deny me this right, which is afforded to every individual in a democratic country during all court and arbitration proceedings.

Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →

It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra.   

Ninety-three concerning questions presented by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during my interview reflect a deeply troubling situation. According to the transcripts from Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, a disconcerting truth has surfaced: I have been informed that the AFP possesses significant evidence obtained from John McMahon of AUSTEL, who represented the government communications authority. This evidence implicates Telstra in the covert and intrusive electronic surveillance of my holiday camp, a facility designed for children and community gatherings.

It raises critical questions regarding the motivations behind such violations by certain government officials, some of whom are suspected of engaging in paedophile conduct. One may ponder what these individuals could possibly gain from monitoring innocent school camp activities and social club events. The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the arbitrator and administrator overseeing my arbitration should have promptly suspended the proceedings upon receiving information from the AFP regarding the unauthorised surveillance of my premises. This blatant disregard for privacy and consent raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process and the safety of all parties involved.

Gaslighting

Psychological manipulation 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records indicate that you are the only customer complaining, despite the documents showing that the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.

This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.

On March 2, 2011, in The Australian Age Newspaper, it was reported that George Brouwer, Victorian State Ombudsman, expressed concerns in his report, tabled after his nine-year tenure as Ombudsman, noting that: "A secret group of men called The Brotherhood, including former and current senior police, is operating in Melbourne, the Victorian Ombudsman says." (Refr to https://shorturl.at/2eMSz).

In a web of deceit, John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator overseeing my claims against Telstra, colluded to mislead Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. All the while, the Australian government lurked in the shadows, allowing Telstra's three fraudulent acts during my arbitration to go unanswered. They completely disregarded my compelling evidence regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater test results. As this corruption unfolded, the Canadian government grew alarmed, recognising that a Canadian telecommunications company was entangled in a nefarious conspiracy, as their statement ominously suggested. 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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."   

On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra's legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne). They were accused of providing falsified test results from Bell Canada International Inc., which were misleading and untruthful. These deceptive results claimed that 13,590 test calls had successfully navigated the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchanges over a five-day testing period. This system was crucial for the operation of my business, and astonishingly, it reported a success rate beyond all expectations (Refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2).

The main issue is that the equipment mentioned in the formal report by the BCI, specifically the CCS7 monitoring device, could not be set up at either the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The closest exchange capable of facilitating this device is in Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away. Therefore, where were the 13,590 BCI test calls sent? They were not generated into either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges.

The Liberal Coalition government would not investigate because to do so would have exposed that the Telstra telecommunications infrastructure it was privatising did not meet the global standards as documented in the sale prospectus.

Australian Senate Hansard, see Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125, records Senator Schacht stating: 

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

The John Howard government deliberately restricted the resolution of COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) cases to just five out of twenty-one during the Senate Committee investigations. By closing the door on the other sixteen cases, they sought to shield the Telstra sale prospectus from any potential fallout. This calculated move ensured that the legitimate claims of those affected would be ignored, all to protect a lucrative sale. It’s a clear illustration of a government prioritising profit over justice, leaving the victims to suffer in silence while the agenda was pushed forward.

The following two links, Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2), found on page 4 of Transcript (1), feature a discussion among Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr. Anthony Honner (another COT case), and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator). They discuss why the government did not permit my arbitration matters to be reviewed by the Senate investigation into the five key COT test cases. Investigating my phone and fax hacking issues, along with the 15 other remaining COT cases, could have potentially hindered the privatisation of Telstra.

After receiving confirmation on March 17, 2006, from David Lever, representing Senator Helen Coonan, I was led to believe the DCITA assessment process would take my claims of phone and fax hacking seriously. This was no mere bureaucratic oversight; it fell squarely within the realm of unlawful conduct. David Lever assured me that the government would bring these serious matters to the attention of the authorities, yet this promise was nothing but a hollow echo—never fulfilled.

One of the 46 examples that confirmed Telstra arbitration-related faxes were intercepted during my 1994 arbitration and were still being intercepted in December 2002 was provided to Senator Helen Coonan's office in person by the Hon. David Hawker MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives (Refer to 442 File GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 ).

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12  and File No/13 also indicates that one of those faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

In this daunting territory, I was fortunate to find a valuable ally—an advisor who was a former high-ranking police officer in Victoria. He became my guiding light, illuminating my path as I navigated the murky waters of my situation. Together, we embarked on a series of challenging discussions with Peter Hiland, a barrister deeply entrenched in the convoluted CAV process. How were Crown's faxes arriving at my business when my business had nothing to do with gambling? 

From October 2007 to late 2008, it became glaringly evident that these so-called guardians of justice were not merely bystanders; they were intricately involved in a disturbing scheme that far exceeded anything I could have anticipated. Hiland’s disconcerting delight in the intercepted faxes—documents that once moved through the illustrious corridors of Sir Owen Dixon Chambers, a hallmark of legal integrity—sent shivers down my spine. His palpable anxiety regarding the interception of crucial evidence meant for the Supreme Court further led me to believe that there was still a glimmer of hope for justice for those entangled in the COT Cases, all of whom had suffered the devastating loss of arbitration-related documents. This tragic loss meant that their essential evidence remained unexamined by arbitrators or their advisors.

It was utterly bewildering that vital documents, intended for guests at the opulent Crown Casino, had somehow ended up in my humble fax machine, nestled in the tranquil isolation of my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. After enduring a gruelling four years filled with uncertainty and despair, CAV finally returned my evidence. However, how it was presented struck me as anything but straightforward. The chaotic disorganisation of the returned documents suggested a deeply unsettling investigation had unfolded behind the scenes. Much like my previous disappointing experiences with the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA), this encounter culminated not in the resolution I had fervently sought but in a profound sense of betrayal (Refer to The eleventh remedy pursued).

Those assigned to evaluate my claims—whom I had once regarded as paragons of fairness—began to reveal themselves as complicit in a far-reaching conspiracy. Hiland's unsettling enthusiasm for the intercepted faxes, especially one that implicated a senior lawyer, only exacerbated my unease. 

Adding another layer of complexity to this intricate case was the unwavering support from this highly decorated senior Victorian police officer, whose guidance proved invaluable throughout this harrowing ordeal. Without his steadying presence, I would have likely faltered long ago. He had previously encountered Hiland in a professional court setting and navigated both sides of the law with a democratic spirit—a rare quality during the COT arbitrations. Despite their past conflicts, a friendly rapport had surprisingly developed between them, which I hoped would be beneficial as our case progressed.

This former officer generously visited my premises three times between 2006 and 2007, offering his expertise as we painstakingly compiled an enormous 36-volume set of evidence files. These files were meticulously organised and now reside securely in a safe house, protected from prying eyes. When I presented these carefully curated files to Hiland in October 2007, I felt an overwhelming pressure to convert them into a CD. This exhausting task consumed four gruelling days of my life, ostensibly for the benefit of CAV officials scrutinising my claims against influential senior lawyers.

However, when I finally received my evidence back—four long years later, polished yet disconcertingly complete—it felt like a masterfully constructed façade intended to conceal more profound, unresolved malevolence. The entire investigation reeked of a calculated cover-up, echoing my tumultuous interactions with the IAMA, both of which had led to frustrating dead ends and left a bitter aftertaste of disillusionment. 

The depths of this betrayal were staggering; those who vowed to uphold justice had instead shown themselves to be mere pawns in a sinister, corrupt agenda—binding me deeper into this unsettling narrative that seemed to defy logic and reason at every turn.

The Brotherhood 

Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith - Order of Australia

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“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.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

When I inquired about obtaining copies of all relevant transactions that would clarify when Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, lost control over the arbitration process—particularly whether this loss of control occurred before we officially signed our agreements or during the arbitration proceedings—I was met with silence. Over twenty-eight years, despite my persistent efforts to seek answers, I received no response.

As my arbitration appeal moved forward, I also reached out to John Pinnock, who had been appointed as the second administrator for my arbitration. He also served as the second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I hoped he might provide additional insights or assistance regarding my ongoing concerns.

John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

It is evident to all visitors of my website, absentjustice.com, that my claims are neither frivolous nor vexatious. As an individual of 81 years of age, I believe I am entitled to be informed regarding the circumstances under which Dr. Gordon Hughes lost control over my arbitration. This process has had a profound negative impact on my life and that of my partner, Cathy, with whom I have shared thirty-eight years.

 

 

 

 

Consequently, Dr. Gordon Hughes, whose impressive legal credentials were supposed to lend authority and credibility to the arbitration process, became entangled in what could justifiably be labelled a "Kangaroo Court-style" arbitration scheme. The confidentiality clauses woven into the Arbitration Agreement were misused not solely to safeguard sensitive information but also to function as a gag order, effectively stifling any legitimate investigation into the TIO's conduct and that of his appointed arbitration consultants during the COT arbitrations. 

 

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal AAT hearings (respondents the Australian Communications Media Authority - ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show the judge (senior members hearing my AAT - Freedom of Information (FOI) case did not find me vexatious or my claims frivolous. However, other government agencies have branded me vexatious and my claims frivolous because they have a vested interest in concealing the truth surrounding my claims that the international arbitration process in Australia was legally abused to protect the Telstra Corporation at all costs.

During this ten-month AAT hearing, I provided the AAT with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the ACMA board, proving beyond all doubt that Telstra had violated my human rights and that their leading arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, had submitted known false documents to the arbitrator concerning his alleged successful service verification testing of my business telephone service lines.

I presented damning evidence to the AAT and the two attorneys representing ACMA, revealing that it was AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) that visited my business on December 19, 1995, a full eight months after my arbitration had concluded. They openly acknowledged that none of the ongoing billing issues had been thoroughly investigated or resolved during the arbitration process. The arbitrator's technical advisors had informed Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) that they were unable to diagnose my persistent phone problems because they required additional weeks—weeks that Dr. Hughes callously refused to grant.

When this evidence reached the two lawyers, the atmosphere turned electric. Mr. G.D. Friedman nearly lost his composure, fully aware that this revelation confirmed the arbitration was nothing more than a meticulously orchestrated farce—a facade put in place to shield Telstra from accountability at all costs. The corruption ran deep, revealing a disturbing alliance determined to suppress the truth and protect their interests, leaving me to grapple with the fallout of their deceit.

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G. D. Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court, in full view of two government ACMA 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.”

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.