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. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Uncover who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur!

Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition? 

Dive into the unsettling realm where lawyers manipulate the legal profession in Australia. The words “unconsionable,” “evil,” and “malfeciant ” merely scratch the surface of what defines these lawbreakers. Absentjustice.com serves as a crucial platform, shedding light on alarming cases of foreign bribery, pervasive corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and ambitious foreign corruption programs. This platform ignites a profound journey through the murky depths of political corruption, drawing vivid comparisons to real-life crime narratives and the insidious fraud that threatens the very integrity of government.

It is essential to highlight the insightful perspective of Karina Barrymore, a distinguished journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, from her article dated August 3, 2016. She addresses the critical role of whistleblowers in holding institutions accountable. If the government had genuinely listened to the brave COT whistleblowers in 1995 and 1996, who courageously brought attention to significant telephone faults, the outcome could have been vastly different. These issues were supposed to be rectified during the government-sanctioned Telstra arbitrations. Perhaps, if their warnings had been acknowledged, we wouldn't be facing the staggering cost overruns of the NBN project, which have spiralled into the billions. Regrettably, Barrymore’s statement encapsulates this reality with remarkable precision:

“Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It’s insightful how the words used to describe a whistleblower are so negative. 

“Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government.

“So why aren’t we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives.

“These ‘truth tellers’ are shunned and rejected. Telling the truth often means they lose their jobs, their reputations are deliberately trashed, their finances suffer, their mental health fails and all these factors flow on to damage their family, social and professional relationships.

“The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job.”

Karina Barrymore’s statement strikes at the heart of a deeply concerning issue within the Australian establishment. This establishment, composed of former government ministers and high-ranking officials from two key regulatory bodies, is acutely aware of the troubling actions taken by Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator handling my case, and Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the same arbitration process. They collaborated with the defendants, opting to use a self-drafted arbitration agreement rather than the independently prepared agreement we had all previously agreed upon.

Though it may seem that this is merely a tale about telephones, at its core, this narrative unveils a deeper story of human suffering inflicted by a corporation wielding too much power and influence. 

The Australian government, which held ownership of the national telecommunications network, chose to distance itself from a troubling situation that emerged from my evidence. This evidence revealed that Telstra had knowingly relied on fundamentally flawed test results supervised by Bell Canada International Inc., one of Canada’s most prestigious telecommunications firms. Despite my attempts to seek clarification from Telstra regarding the inaccuracies in the BCI reporting, they remained unresponsive. Similarly, Bell Canada did not bother to address my inquiries concerning the discrepancies found in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests. In contrast, as illustrated in the following letter, the Canadian government took the initiative to respond, demonstrating its commitment to accountability.

 

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 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority, now operating under the banner of ACMA), seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

In response to their inquiry on 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson from AUSTEL wrote,

"The tests you refer to were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be directed to those who conducted or claimed to have conducted them."

A storage letter to have been sent after Cliff Mathieson had already written eighteen months previous on 9 December 1993, before Telstra used the BCI report as Defence Material, advising Telstra to provide the “assessor(s)” of the COT processes with a copy of his letter regarding the BCI tests, which he declared did not go far enough. This letter was NOT provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) or the COT Cases, as AUSTEL had directed, which makes Telstra’s use of the BCI Report even more unconscionable.

It is essential to highlight that critical information was not communicated to the Canadian Government or Tait Lawyers, who may have taken a different approach based on this knowledge, regarding the actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. This firm submitted misleading BCI tests, falsely claiming that 15,590 successful test calls had been directed to my local exchange, which services my business. These tests occurred at an entirely different telephone exchange, resulting in a substantial misrepresentation of the facts.

Threats were made and carried out because I ignored the tactics being used by Telstra's defence.  

I encountered grave threats from Telstra arbitration officials Steve Black and Paul Rumble. These threats were not merely spoken; they were acted upon in a manner that deeply unsettled me. The intimidation began after I decided to assist the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the unauthorised interception of my phone conversations and the faxes associated with my arbitration proceedings. My involvement in this matter was crucial, as I sought to reveal and combat significant breaches of my privacy committed against me.

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” 

What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

One aspect of this more-than-twenty-eight-years-old case is still very relevant today, and that is the fact that at least two of the public servants and/or bureaucrats who were heavily involved in concealing the truth about what the Communications Regulator had uncovered concerning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards their customers, were still senior bureaucrats within the current Communications Regulator, in 2015.  Although their behaviour, all those years ago, was a breach of their statutory obligations, both to me and the other COT claimants too, still, no one has ever transparently investigated any of the claims now exposed on absentjustice.com, which suggests that nothing has changed within the Regulator’s Department. 

As detailed below, I encountered a troubling situation when I received threats from Telstra. They warned that if they discovered I was using my arbitration-related documents to aid the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interception of my phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, severe limitations would be imposed on the documents that Telstra was legally required to provide me under our arbitration agreement. 

Just imagine what would have happened if the Regulator and their public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were being recorded in 1994!  The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network was, and that would have resulted in most of the millions upon millions of dollars (in fact it is probably more like a billion dollars or more), of what it has cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved, because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, twenty-eight years ago. In other words, when the Regulator decided not to include the truth in their AUSTEL COT Cases Report of 13 April 1994, those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blow-out related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia.

Falsification Reports File No/4 dated 22 September 1994 is a transcript taken during an oral interview with AUSTEL’s representatives, Bruce Matthews and John McMahon, at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.  On page 7 of this transcript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer John Wynack asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And AUSTEL’s representative replied:

“The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994 and Telecom received their copy of that at the time.”

While it is clear from the statement made by one of AUSTEL’s two representatives at the hearing (see above), that Telstra received a copy of AUSTEL’s draft findings, ‘NONE’ of the information in this draft report, which enabled the Government Communications Regulator (AUSTEL), to arrive at their adverse findings against the Telstra Corporation, was ever made available to the COT claimants during their arbitrations.

The exhibit Falsification Report File No/8 and in our Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C contains two letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s group general manager to AUSTEL’s chair (see also Arbitrator Part One). These letters suggest that AUSTEL was far from truly independent but could instead be convinced to alter its official findings in its COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this letter.

For example, at point 4, on page 3 of the 8 April letter, Telstra’s Steve Black writes to AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey stating:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.”

And, in the second letter, on 9 April, from Mr Black to Mr Davey, he writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of ‘some hundreds’ of COT-type customers…”

And further, on page 3, Mr Black adds:

“Telecom is still concerned that … the proposed reference to ‘some hundreds’ of customers has the potential to be misleading.”

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

That Telstra (the defendant) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings for the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.

Because acknowledgement of the 120,000 COT-type problems, experienced by other Australian citizens, was removed from the AUSTEL formal report, which the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report referenced to determine the validity of COT claims of ongoing telephone problems destroying our businesses, the vastness of Telstra’s network issues does not appear in the DCITA report, either. How many other government-owned businesses have had reports cleansed to prevent the truth from being exposed? 

 

All events mentioned on this website, absentjustice.com, and in my publication "Ansent Justice" are thoroughly supported by original documents that provide essential context and validation. You can instantly access a PDF of the corresponding exhibit by clicking on the provided links to review the evidence firsthand. This approach not only enhances the reliability of our narrative but also enables you to follow the intricate details through the file numbers included.

The creation of this publication and my website, absentjustice.com, depended heavily on these exhibits, which serve as the backbone of our story. Recognising the complexity and breadth of the issues at hand, I divided the narrative into multiple parts—first into two sections, then three, and eventually into concise mini reports, as indicated in the menu bar above, and our Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. This was essential because the corruption and injustices endured by the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) from various administrators, disguised as legally administered arbitrations, are shockingly extensive. Attempting to condense everything into a single manuscript would have detracted from the clarity and impact of the information.

As you engage with this publication, I encourage you to delve into the evidence on the website and refer to the numbered exhibits. Doing so will give you a deeper understanding of the profound issues at play and the scale of your reading.

As you embark on this investigation, you'll uncover the far-reaching corruption that has insidiously seeped into government bureaucracy, undermining the bedrock principles of the Court of Arbitration. This grave issue exposes the names and faces behind these egregious acts, revealing how self-serving motivations have systematically eroded the rule of law. Your exploration will lead you to encounter unscrupulous lawyers and compromised arbitrators who conspire to manipulate facts and obscure the truth. Their unholy alliance perpetuates a relentless cycle of deception and injustice, impacting countless lives and fostering a deep-seated disillusionment that undermines public trust in the legal system.

Delve deeper to uncover a troubling and chilling trend where individuals exploit legal frameworks not as shields but as swords, using legal threats to manipulate and intimidate. This alarming practice, known as legal abuse or legal bullying, is especially rampant among public officials in Australia. Numerous alarming instances related to the Telstra arbitrations—both before and during the contentious proceedings and in their aftershocks—highlight the misuse of power by these officials. They have coerced individuals and organisations into submission, applying unbearable pressure while shrouding their actions in a facade of legal authority.

Such unethical behaviour isn’t merely a breach of conduct; it dramatically erodes public trust in the very institutions that are supposed to uphold justice. This deterioration fundamentally undermines the integrity of the legal system, creating an environment where citizens feel unsafe and fearful about asserting their legal rights. 

The ramifications of this misconduct reach far beyond those directly involved. It fosters a pervasive fear and uncertainty, making many wary of engaging in legal proceedings. This issue is particularly glaring in the context of government-sanctioned arbitrations and mediation efforts, which, since the 1990s, have been systematically skewed to favour only the defendant, Telstra. The COT Cases arbitrations serve as a striking and poignant illustration of this manipulation, where the weaponisation of legal tactics not only thwarted the pursuit of justice but also inflicted profound, lasting harm on the victims.

Whistleblowers don't just die.

 

"Whistleblowers don't just die", May Lin Scot, Skip News, 5 March 2025

When a CEO DIES, thousands of news articles flood the media like monsoon rains over an arid field. But when a whistleblower dies, not even the most independent news outlets dare break silence. 

Why is that?  One after another, countless whistleblowers have died from mysterious circumstances or suicide. Days before his death, former Boeing employee John Barnett testified against the aerospace giant for implementing sub-standard parts and defective oxygen systems on its planes, according to "The Independent"

Then on March 9, 2024, Barnett was found dead with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head, even though he had shown no previous indication of taking his own life.

Clicking on the following briefcase image, the reader will learn that in my attempt to prioritise the welfare of the sixteen or so COT Cases, I opted to pursue arbitration, hoping it would provide them with a means to sustain their businesses while allowing the government to address the faltering Telstra network. Regrettably, that decision has come back to haunt me.

What is particularly alarming is the silence from corporate leaders, government regulators, and ministers—none have dared to investigate this matter, despite its implications for justice and accountability. 

To illustrate the severity of this issue, I present just one of many instances that reveal how Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith behaved unethically, failing to uphold the integrity expected of their roles as arbitrator and administrator. We are sharing this chapter of our COT story first, hoping it will capture the reader's attention and encourage them to delve deeper into the subsequent parts of our narrative.

This is the gripping saga of ordinary small-business owners standing up against one of Australia’s largest corporations: Telstra, previously known as Telecom. For years, Telstra dismissed the COT Four's pleas for help regarding a host of frustrating phone problems that severely hampered their ability to operate their businesses, repeatedly insisting that there was "no fault found."

 

When the COT Four turned to the government for support, they encountered a wall of manipulation and pressure, leading them into an arbitration process that was not only unfair but also financially draining. Telstra and its formidable legal team undermined the integrity of the arbitration with a series of unethical tactics. They intercepted faxes and conversations, engaging in bugging that would make anyone uneasy. They routinely failed to deliver crucial Freedom of Information (FOI) documents on time—sometimes waiting months or even years. When the documents did arrive, they were often heavily censored and rendered nearly unintelligible. In the most shocking instances, they destroyed critical evidence and fabricated documents to bolster their case.

 

The arbitrator willfully ignored key points in my claim, leaving us feeling like our voices were silenced in the process designed to deliver justice. The regulatory bodies meant to keep Telstra in check—Austel, representing the government, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)—stood by idly, leading us to wonder if they were conspiring with Telstra instead of holding it accountable.

 

The culmination of these injustices points to a pervasive breakdown of justice, which dwarfs the original issue: the simple request for reliable phone service that would enable us to conduct our businesses without constant interruption.

 

What kind of faults were we dealing with? Customers and potential clients often reached out only to find a dead line. Others could hear their phones ringing, yet no one picked up, or they were met with the frustrating reality of a recorded message stating that the number was not connected. Even when calls did connect, they frequently dropped unexpectedly, making it impossible to maintain a steady line of communication. And the problems extended to the realm of faxes, where essential documents would vanish into the network or arrive as blank sheets, void of any information.

 

Each member of the COT believed, as any reasonable phone user might, that the skilled technicians at Telstra would swiftly identify and resolve these issues. However, the persistent echo of "No fault found" rang hollow, and the problems endured, wreaking havoc on our businesses. The situation was utterly perplexing: with phones being a staple of modern life, why was the system failing so dramatically? 

 

Why did it seem like everyone around us was turning a blind eye to Telstra's illicit behaviour? Withholding essential discovery documents during arbitration is not just unethical—it’s illegal. Tampering with evidence is a blatant violation of the law. Relying on defence documents known to be flawed undermines the entire arbitration process. And phone tapping without a warrant is a serious offence. It became increasingly clear that someone within Telstra was orchestrating this criminal conduct, while the TIO and Austel remained conspicuously inactive. Politicians were eager to champion the COT cause when they were in opposition, but once they seized power, that support vanished without a trace. The reluctance to hold Telstra accountable created an unsettling atmosphere that made even the most rational observers suspect a conspiracy was at play.

 

The lengths to which Telstra went to undermine the COT claimants conveyed a profound lack of confidence in their own case. But what were they so afraid of? What truths were they desperately trying to hide?

 

Perhaps they harboured trepidations about a Senate Inquiry that might expose the deteriorating state of their infrastructure, particularly in the underserved rural areas of Australia. Or maybe they feared the repercussions of losing their operating license, which hinged on meeting a 98% success rate for phone connectivity. They could have also been trying to avoid the financial burden of upgrading their infrastructure.

 

In documents that Telstra eventually released—years after the fact—an unsettling question surfaced: did they truly believe we would lose our resolve? Were they genuinely convinced of their invulnerability? It seemed likely that Telstra was aware of its systemic failures and understood the solutions but preferred to keep them hidden, aiming to dodge the financial implications of overhauling aging infrastructure—especially in rural areas where many COT claims originated.

 

What might have prompted their desire to sidestep necessary improvements? Perhaps the spectre of impending privatisation loomed large. While the answer remains elusive, one truth stands clear: Telstra leveraged its status as one of Australia’s largest companies to suppress our stories. However, the unwavering unity and determination of the COT Four made the situation particularly challenging for them. Together, we refused to back down and continued our relentless fight for justice.

This website, absentjustice.com, chronicles my personal experiences and the myriad injustices I've tirelessly pursued resolution for over the years, often to no avail.

My journey began with serious issues related to my telephone service. I have been unjustly charged for calls to my 1800 account that never connected, and I have experienced the frustrating loss of crucial faxes during my arbitration process and beyond. The ongoing failure of my phone service has disrupted my communication and adversely affected my business and livelihood, causing significant stress and financial strain.

The second layer of injustice lies in the conduct of my arbitration. I found myself trapped in a drawn-out and costly legal process, despite having previously agreed to a fast-tracked assessment method that recognised the validity of my case. This unnecessary complexity only added to my emotional and financial burden.

Moreover, Telstra's tactics in defending itself have been troubling. I have faced the withholding of vital Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that are essential to my case, the excessive censorship of key documents, and even the fabrication of evidence. They presented flawed information without disclosing the inherent problems, and I have proof that they illegally monitored my telephone conversations. Throughout this ordeal, I was made to feel as if I were the adversary, rather than a customer seeking justice.

Despite my persistent efforts, a fair resolution for all the COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) cases remains elusive.

Over the years, I have penned hundreds of letters to numerous officials, including the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, and various other government representatives, all in an attempt to garner support. My endeavours, however, have been met with silence or indifference, forcing me to take the drastic step of publishing this book. I am breaking the confidentiality agreement I was compelled to sign during the arbitration process. I passionately believe that Telstra and the arbitrator colluded to deny us our fundamental right to natural justice. I am a staunch advocate for the legal rights of all Australians. While I have always held the law in high regard, my own experiences over these years have shaken my faith in our legal system's ability to deliver justice for everyone. The COT arbitrations have become a tragic farce, and the rules governing them are equally nonsensical.

 

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew, during the designated appeal time of my arbitration, that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible).

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to the Australian Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, as the following example shows, 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.

Who holds the ultimate power and influence over the 'Institute Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia' (IAMA), allowing them to bring an investigation to a standstill and deny the return of crucial evidence initially requested from an individual they agreed to scrutinise? This troubling situation dates back to 1996, with subsequent inquiries in 2001 and 2009.

The following Fax and Telephone Hacking image demonstrates that, despite being alerted in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the arbitrator had no control over the arbitrations he administered. They failed to act on the 23 spiral-bound submission materials they requested in 2009 and have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, the Hon. D. Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate the matter. However, the IAMA has not provided a written finding or returned my submission materials regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes.

In this latest episode, from July to November 2009, the IAMA-Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee asked me to provide further documentation to support claims that the government had been warned about the unethical conduct of the arbitrator involved in my case. The administrator of my arbitration had been criticised for having no control over the process because it was not conducted according to the agreed-upon arbitration procedures. This was the same arbitrator against whom I had complained, now before the IAMA for the third time. For more information, refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued.

I painstakingly compiled 23 bound volumes of evidence, meticulously detailing the actions of the current treasurer of the Melbourne Chapter of the IAMA. This individual, who continues to operate an Arbitration Centre in busy Hong Kong and another in Melbourne, was part of a team of arbitration consultants that minimised Telstra's liability towards me. This same treasurer also crafted misleading statements aimed at the administrator overseeing my previous arbitration, intending to obstruct the 1996 IAMA investigation into my legitimate claims about the integrity of the arbitration process. The IAMA has refused to return the evidence that their internal emails indicate they asked for and accepted, as they went through the process of viewing my claims, even though my allegations raised with the IAMA were that my arbitrator had no control over the COT arbitrations. 

One of the documents I provided to the IAMA in 2001 and again in 2009 is the official statement to the Senate on 26 September 1997, which follows:

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, 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.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the 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 or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business,  Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

During the contentious COT arbitrations, disturbing examples of foreign bribery emerged, casting a dark shadow over the process. This was particularly concerning given the highly structured legal environment under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In a controversial move, Sweden’s Ericsson telecommunications company was permitted to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, the Australian technical consultants appointed by the government to scrutinise whether Telstra's reliance on Ericsson telephone equipment was responsible for numerous issues plaguing Australia's telecommunications network. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

To put this in simpler terms, allowing Ericsson to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was akin to permitting a corrupt police force, responsible for overseeing the arbitration, to be swayed into evaluating only certain aspects of the COT Cases arbitration claim documents. In my specific case, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd conducted a valuation and investigation of only eleven per cent of my claim material related to Ericsson and the defendants in the arbitration (Telstra), effectively sidelining most of the critical submission documents central to the case's integrity. This gross negligence raises serious questions about fairness and transparency in the arbitration process.

I requested copies of the Lane working notes during my pending appeal process. However, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, responded on 10 January 1996, stating that he would not provide me with copies of any documents held by his office (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal). It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.   

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/)

It is essential that we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator, who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases' claims against Telstra, including the Ericsson-manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges that serviced the COT Cases businesses.

The above Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden (link) supports the COT Cases ' right to demand answers as to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.  Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were mistreated when Ericsson could nobble Lane?

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.

“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)

When Dr. Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett—three experienced and qualified lawyers—allowed a crucial letter dated April 18, 1995, to be concealed from the proceedings of the four COT cases during their appeal periods, they unwittingly supported the "forces at work" that aimed to disrupt the arbitrations of all four cases, mine included. This letter contained vital information that could have significantly altered the course of our appeals.

Despite the critical nature of the situation, no one within the government has bothered to investigate the truth regarding the key findings that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and their office later revealed—information that had been deliberately concealed from the COT Cases by Telstra and their legal team. Tragically, the COT Cases that lacked political support found themselves trapped at the bottom of a very deep and dark hole, where their voices went unheard and their struggles overlooked. (Refer to "An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)  

In stark contrast to this reality, the Australian government appears to be under the illusion that the disturbing matters concerning the Casualties of Telstra (COT) have already been completely resolved. These issues are deeply rooted in a complex web of corruption related to government-sanctioned arbitrations during the tumultuous 1990s. This false sense of resolution persists even though the arbitrator and administrator hastily wrapped up their activities, failing to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes of the ongoing telephone and fax problems that disrupt the claimants' businesses.

Clicking on the Confidentiality Agreement image below shows that the $250,000 liability caps from my arbitration agreement and those of Garms and Schorer have been removed. Shortly after we signed our modified agreements, the $250,000 liability caps were reinstated on the remaining twelve COT Cases arbitration agreements. Removing these liability caps prevented us from contesting the arbitrators' professional consultants for negligence.

Compounding the frustration, officials concluded their activities under a tampered-with and altered arbitration confidentiality agreement. This alarming development occurred despite a clear mutual understanding among the government and all involved parties that they intended to uphold the original agreement without alterations. Who had the authority to modify this previously endorsed document clandestinely? The revised agreement was ingeniously crafted to shield Telstra from any form of accountability, leaving ordinary Australians to navigate the tumultuous fallout and the far-reaching effects on their daily lives.

It is crucial to highlight the events of 2021 in my proposed settlement agreement, which I signed, along with three other COT Cases, on November 23, 1993. By April 21, 1994, Telstra (the defendants), the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Warwick Smith, and the appointed assessor, Dr. Gordon Hughes, under pressure from Telstra and their legal team, transformed the commercial assessment process for the four COT Cases into a highly legalistic arbitration process. Telstra and its lawyers secretly drafted this new process, which fundamentally differed from the government-facilitated commercial assessment process. The arbitrator criticised this approach as lacking credibility but still used it when evaluating my claim.

To continue reading about this part of our COT story, go to An Unlocked Briefcase.