Price Waterhouse Coopers 1
Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter
The unchecked injustices in government arbitrations towards numerous citizens in Australia are a clear indication of the involvement of three of the country's leading auditors in the COT arbitrations on behalf of Telstra. Despite the exposure of these auditors in the Australian media and Parliament House for their erroneous advice to the government on various major projects over the years, government bureaucrats still rely on their guidance to make decisions instead of the elected officials. In four COT Case arbitrations, the arbitrator deemed a significant finding from one of the auditor's reports as evidence, even though two prominent politicians and their staff were aware that it had been altered to conceal the truth about Telstra's misleading and deceitful conduct. Of the other three major auditors, one was in charge of Telstra's arbitration financial submissions. This auditor went as far as calling my business to affirm that they found no phone problems.
Meanwhile, AUSTEL, the then-government regulator, discovered that Telstra had charged me for calls that never took place. Furthermore, the third auditor, who still advises the government on several major projects, has a partner who joined them just weeks after assisting the arbitrator in hearing my case to minimize Telstra's liability to me. This partner also wrote untruths about my ongoing telephone problems, which they knew had not been investigated or addressed by the arbitrator because, as the financial advisor to the arbitrator, they never presented that evidence before the arbitrator. Currently, this auditor operates an arbitration centre in Hong Kong and Melbourne, Australia. It is unacceptable that large auditing firms in Australia are still guiding the government without upholding the rule of law during and after the COT arbitrations. An investigation into this matter is long overdue, and anyone implicated should be held accountable for their actions. A visit to absetjustice.com provides a firsthand account of the government's reluctance to act on this matter.
Nothing adds up
It's all a mirage
The fact that Coopers & Lybrand (now PWC) COT found Telstra had mislead and deceived the COT Cases over an extended period but changed that finding in the report proved to the arbitrator is alarming enough. But worse is the arbitrator making strong comments in his findings (the award) that he saw no deliberate deceptive conduct by Telstra. Had the arbitrator deliberating on my arbitration claims been aware the Coopers/PWC report had been altered to protect Telstra in regards to their misleading and deceptive conduct towards the COT Cases, he would not have made those statements in his findings. He might well have further investigated and found Telstra had, indeed, misled and deceived me during my first 11 December 1992 settlements process with Telstra.
This, coincides with what Ann Garms is saying in her YouTube. At points 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 in the arbitrator's award handed down on 11 May 1995 regarding my arbitration claim, he states, respectively, the Bell Canada Report, the Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL Report were used by him and his arbitration unit to determine their findings.
Delloits were Telstra's arbitration financial accountants in Ann's and my arbitration, where our accountants strongly refuted many of Deloitt's' arbitration findings. While I am not saying Deloitt's acted unlawfully during my arbitration, what was most concerning was the statement made by one of their witnesses under another concerning my ongoing telephone problems because that statement, there was nothing wrong with my telephones, did not match the government report from their findings (refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings,) at points 2, 212,
Most importantly, Telstra funded all three auditing companies that participated in our government-endorsed arbitration instead of the government, which endorsed the arbitrations. How can the government endorse a process if it has no input?
The following Kangaroo link, https://shorturl.at/wRT57 has
Ann's Garms was prepared to go live on her YouTube video below about her arbitration and appeal process, which coincides with her letter discussed below.
ANN GARMS (now deceased) VIDEO ONE
This same letter is discussed in more detail on National Television as the YouTube video shows (File 942 to 946 - AS-CAV 923 to 946).
The evidence list below provides the number of exhibits beside the various statements made in the various paragraphs.
I have reported below in a chronological style of events so that the reader can see for themselves how it was from the very beginning, when I purchased the holiday camp, to the present day.
As shown in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, one of the four mentioned arbitration professionals on our Home Page misled and deceived John Pinnock, the newly appointed administrator, concerning my arbitration's conduct. In contrast, this arbitration professional was a partner of KPMG (see Eight damning letters below.
I reiterate, even though the YouTube video below is of poor quality, as discussed elsewhere on this website, it still does not take away the fact that at least three of the Nine business people shown in this video have since died and did not get the justice I am asking the current government to provide by viewing each case on their merit which includes my case. The government should read absentjustice.com and the rest of my statements on absentjustice.com to determine if the remaining COT Cases have valid claims against the Commonwealth.
NINE COT CASES - VIDEO TWO
The fact that Coopers & Lybrand (now PWC) COT audit was used by the arbitrator deliberating on my arbitration claims as evidence, not knowing it had been tampered with, coincides with what Ann Garms is saying in her YouTube. At points 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 in the arbitrator's award handed down o 11 May 1995 regarding my arbitration claim, he states, respectively, the Bell Canada Report, the Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL Report were used by him and his arbitration unit to determine their findings.
