Evidence files show I received threats and thuggery abuse, as well as being subjected to treacherous and malicious harassment by Telstra and the establishment, which compromised my ability to submit an effective response to Telstra's claims that my p

Evidence files show I received threats and thuggery abuse, as well as being subjected to treacherous and malicious harassment by Telstra and the establishment, which compromised my ability to submit an effective response to Telstra's claims that my phone problems were fixed when they were not.

“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. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements.

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared.

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.

The relentless demand to document every single telephone fault and report these trivial daily issues to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would even condescend to address them was maddening. Ian Joblin, the so-called "clinical psychologist" brought in by Telstra for arbitration, conducted his evaluation of my mental health on December 12, 1994, and made it clear just how twisted the system was. It was no wonder I was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); the very act of having to funnel complaints through Telstra's legal labyrinth before they would deign to investigate was a recipe for depression, warping anyone’s thought processes. Mr Joblin, in a rare moment of truth, ensured that his findings were documented in the grim pages of the arbitration report prepared by Freehills Hollingdale & Page—his employers in this corrupt charade.

Later, when the second‑appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) discovered that sections of Mr Joblin’s witness statement had not been signed when submitted to arbitration, he contacted Telstra’s arbitration counsel, Ted Banjamin, on 23 October 1997. His inquiry was a thinly veiled demand for answers—what had been omitted, what had been removed, and what had been concealed from the record? The entire episode reeked of manipulation and deceit, leaving a lingering sense of corruption hanging over the process.

At the time, I had no way of knowing that I would later require this material for an arbitration process. That process forced me to retrieve from Telstra the very documentation I had already provided to their legal firm under Freedom of Information. The frustration was immense: I had supplied the evidence supporting my claims, yet Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from me.

For years, I consistently explained the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault‑complaint records from exercise books into diaries, ensuring the chronology of events remained accurate. I repeatedly reminded the arbitration project manager—during my oral hearing and as reflected in the meeting transcripts—that these fault‑complaint notebooks had been formally requested. Telstra, however, contested their submission, and the arbitrator dismissed their relevance without conducting any proper examination. Crucially, Telstra failed to disclose that, from June 1993 to January 1994, Freehill Hollingdale & Page had refused to document my phone complaints as I reported them and then withheld those records under FOI, citing Legal Professional Privilege.

Some of those documents were provided to the AFP, some were confiscated by the AFP, and some simply disappeared.

Had the notations from my exercise books been accepted as evidence—alongside the retrieval of my fault‑complaint records held by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in the presence of Telstra’s Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland—the truth would have been far clearer. Such transparency would have dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I understand that aspects of this narrative may seem extraordinary, but the incredulous nature of these events reflects the reality I was forced to endure.

The arbitrator’s written findings failed to document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats Telstra made—and carried out—against me. He also omitted the fact that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to intervene after Telstra refused to provide documents they had promised us when the commercial assessment process was converted into arbitration. Yet Dr Gordon Hughes did include the following in his award:

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

A thorough examination of the fact that only Telstra was permitted to use a forensic document researcher in their arbitration defence—while I was denied the same right—reveals a deeply troubling sequence of events. Dr Hughes accepted the findings of Neil William Holland, a Forensic Document Examiner engaged and funded by Telstra to reinforce their defence, and then dismissed my request for an independent assessment by Paul Westwood, a highly respected forensic expert.

My request for Westwood’s involvement was simple: to explain why my diary notes appeared out of order. The truth is that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had issued official instructions requiring me to remove certain excerpts from my diaries. These excerpts documented phone calls received by single club patrons—calls that demonstrated my telephone service had been monitored over an extended period, not merely on isolated occasions.

The diaries, which the AFP had placed under a cloud, contained nothing implicating me in wrongdoing. In fact, the AFP investigation uncovered that Telstra had listened to my telephone calls, including conversations I had with the former Prime Minister of Australia. Dr Hughes was fully aware that these diaries could not be presented in full because they remained part of an ongoing AFP investigation—one that had not yet concluded regarding Telstra’s conduct.

By prioritising Holland’s compromised findings and refusing to consider Westwood’s independent expertise, Dr Hughes exposed the insidious nature of the arbitration process. His actions reveal a system riddled with bias, corruption, and betrayal.

Adding to this injustice, Telstra issued menacing threats against me as a direct consequence of my cooperation with the AFP. Dr Hughes’s refusal to demand accountability for these threats—even after they were raised in the Australian Senate—underscores a disturbing truth: political and corporate influence has distorted the legal system in Australia.

This blatant disregard for justice not only exposes the treachery of those involved but also highlights the significant risks faced by individuals like myself who dare to stand up for the truth in such a hostile and corrupt environment.

It was not in Mr Joblin's hand

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm provided Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement and notably lacked Mr Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr Joblin, who realised he had been misled by Telstra's legal representatives, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to note that despite the gravity of the situation, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate treatment of me by Telstra. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? 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:

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, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical evidence that the COT Cases indeed had ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses.

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed serious concern about John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997, addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that statutory declarations had been tampered with by Telstra or their legal representatives during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998 from, stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,

Contact Absent Justice

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us