Welcome to absentjustice.com. If you are interested in reading about truth against adversity, you can access it for free with a simple click. Reading either my first published book, "Absent Justice," → Order Now— It's Free, or my non-published chronology of events, "My Story Warts and All," will allow visitors to absentjustice.com to form their own conclusions regarding whether my claims are true or false. If you acknowledge the dedication and time invested in its creation, we kindly request your consideration of a donation to Transparency International Australia.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom, now privatized and known as Telstra. Telecom's monopoly on communications allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Despite the significant cost to claimants to mount their claims against Telstra, the issues were not resolved through the government-endorsed arbitration process. Crimes were committed against us, our integrity was attacked, and our livelihoods were ruined, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars and a decline in our mental health. ​

My holiday camp was certainly in a pristine location

If only we had received a reliable phone service comparable to our competitor 

Examine the documented corruption within the Australian government, including the serious offences committed by Australian public officials. Investigate the activities of unscrupulous, illegal, and morally compromised politicians and their associated legal representatives, some of whom continue to practice law in Australia and abroad. Gain insight into the failure to address Telstra's unethical behaviour before, during, and after government-sanctioned arbitrations, as well as the oversight by arbitrators in investigating significant telephone malfunctions that continued to cause widespread harm to numerous small businesses nationwide; refer to (Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN). These transgressions warrant scrutiny. Could you elucidate the reasons behind the persistent adverse impact of telephone issues on the businesses involved in the COT cases, even twelve years after their arbitrations intended to rectify their telecommunications problems as part of the arbitration process?

Evaluate the unsettling realities of corrupt practices, flagrant crimes, and unethical behaviour within Australia's legal and political frameworks. Those involved in corrupt activities may encompass politicians, government officials, public servants, business leaders, and auditing firms who, for monetary gain, manipulate their findings to favour a specific party at the expense of others. Delve into the historical context of the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury aspect of the COT narrative. This account suggests that individuals within the Telstra Corporation were deeply involved in the Rupert Murdoch Fox and Telstra side of the COT story, which hindered a thorough investigation into the deceptive conduct of the Telstra Corporation. For additional information, please refer to page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, and Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

The blog by Shane Dowling, author of the Kangaroo Court website, is featured here on Absent Justice because Australian citizens and several other media outlets are still discussing corruption concerning the big four auditing firms. Three of those auditing firms are linked in some way to the COT arbitrations https://shorturl.at/a9g1S

In the four-minute video above, I discuss the legal document 'The COT Strategy '→ Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C" prepared by Telstra's arbitration lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. The document targeted four businesses, including mine, and attempted to prevent us from accessing Freedom of Information (FOI) documents through legal professional privilege. This hindered my ability to prove that my telephone faults were ongoing and still affecting my business, as the following two exhibits  Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story  and Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct show 

I have provided downloadable government records with specific names and numbers in the attached texts on this website to support my story. Without this evidence, it would have been challenging for visitors to this website to believe what they were reading (refer to Evidence Files).

Coopers & Lybrand's, now part of Price Waterhouse Coopers 1, coercion to alter its conclusions significantly impacted the outcomes of at least four COT case arbitrations, including mine.  Reading this Price Waterhouse Coopers 1  page on absentjustice.com will convince most visitors to this website that Telstra's 

When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct. Still, all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting me and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the proof that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.

Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9 November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (Exhibit 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946), saying: 

"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

These are strong words from the senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country, a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.

Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft, it is noted (Exhibit 943 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:

"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."

I'm grateful for her Helens comments. 

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  

During the Senate hearing mentioned above, it was disclosed that Telstra and its board were cognizant of their need for additional time to fulfil the system requirements Mr Murdoch and Fox stipulated. This revelation also suggests that the persistent telephone issues afflicting the COT Cases' business, which constituted the focal point of government-endorsed arbitrations, were destined to surpass the deadline specified in the arbitration agreement with the COT Cases.

Thus, the question arises as to why the COT Cases were compelled into arbitration, incurring substantial costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, when Telstra and its board were aware of their inability to rectify the ongoing telephone problems, a crucial component of the arbitration processes.

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to pass along my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed that he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices and the promises they rarely ever kept because I greatly respected her. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue that should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the specified deadline. My primary concern, however, does not revolve around the fulfilment of this compensation in the event of a missed deadline by Telstra. Instead, I am troubled by the failure to transparently address the persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration of April 7 and 8, 1994. Despite the prior validation of our claims by the government regulator and the substantial upfront arbitration fees paid by the COT Cases, our ongoing faults remained unremedied. 

The discrepancy highlights a concerning disparity in the treatment of influential Australian citizens who relinquished their citizenship to become American citizens, such as Rupert Murdoch, and ordinary Australian citizens striving to sustain businesses reliant on dependable phone service. This asymmetry underscores the one-sided nature of the COT story.

In simple words, why should Rupert Murdoch receive special treatment from an Australian government-owned telecommunications company, which Telstra was when this deal was made, and the rest of Australia's citizens have to wait years, and in rural Australia, more than a decade to receive the same service which was to be provided to Mr Murdoch and if Telstra failed to do so be awarded 400 million dollars. We will never know how many Australian small business operators went bust because their surname was not Murdoch.

PLEASE NOTE:

I do not anticipate universal viewership of Ann Garms' YouTube video; nonetheless, those who engage with its content may find it worthwhile to retain a copy for future reference. The video presents a compelling perspective on Ann's approach to arbitration and resonates with the adverse experiences reported by other COT Cases. In the context of my arbitration, the Arbitration Project Manager selectively assessed a portion of my claim (See Open letter File No/45-E), neglecting to thoroughly review all pertinent material, as Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete shows. Furthermore, during my arbitration, Deloitte, acting on behalf of Telstra, erroneously asserted that they had conducted tests on my telephone lines, finding no irregularities with the service, contrary to the divergent covert account provided by government communications regulators at points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms the government investigated my ongoing telephone problems finding my claims against Telstra validated. 

One does not have to be a genius to understand that if the arbitrator had been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than his award on a claim.