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.
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.
Eight damning letters
Letter One
The first of these eight damning letters was from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, on 18 April 1995, advising the TIO, the arbitrator, and the TIO counsel the four arbitration professionals mentioned on the Home Page). In this letter, John Rundell wrote to Warwick Smith, copied to Dr Gordon Hughes and Peter Bartlett that:
“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)
The four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and (me) were never told about any of these so-called “forces at work” and nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the TIO, the TIO’s legal advisor and the Arbitrator, these un-named “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process wherever and whenever they desired, but always with the aim of helping Telstra to defeat the COT claimants.
When these three legal experts (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts’ directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. If John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once because, with Mr Rundell’s letter as evidence, we would certainly have had a very reasonable chance of being granted the rights to have all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least. And don’t forget, it was the Federal Government who had originally endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.
Also, in this 18 April 1995 letter, the arbitration project manager John Rundell (FHCA) was so openly deceptive he wrote to the first administrator of my arbitration, TIO Warwick Smith, copying the same to arbitrator Dr Hughes, stating, “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)
A click with your mouse/cursor on the ABC KPMG documentary will help you understand that my stories about the casualties of Telstra are true and accurate, as the exhibits on Evidence Files Corruption in Arbitration also show. One of the five main players in the first four arbitrations, John Rundell, who was the Arbitration Project manager for those four arbitrations, was not only prepared to mislead and deceive the four COT Cases claimants and their claim advisers who prepared the technical findings in the first four arbitrations (concealing the truth they were not prepared by the principal technical adviser the government and claimants were told would be) just weeks after leaving the first four arbitration. In contrast, a partner of KPMG knowingly mislead and deceived the Telecommunications Industry Ombudams (the administrator to the first four arbitrations) that my arbitration billing claims had been investigated and addressed during my arbitration.
John Rundell has been operating arbitration centres in both Australia and Hong Kong and still does, regardless of the Australian government being aware of his unethical arbitration conduct during the COT arbitrations as well as during the period he was a partner with KPMG. Mr Rundell still operates those arbitration centres in those two countries.
On 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:
“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.
“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.
“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
On the 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock, noting:
“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.
“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …
“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)
During the COT arbitrations, when the first appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who was also the administrator to the arbitrations himself, and other TIO officials, threatened the last three COT claimants, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me that, if we did not formally agree to exonerate the arbitration financial advisors, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), from any liability in relation to their involvement in the arbitration process, as well as the arbitrator's technical consultants DMR, Australia (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct then there would be no arbitration and we would therefore be left with only one alternative, the enormous costs involved in taking Telstra to court for not providing us with a decent telephone service, even though Telstra (as a government organization) had a legal responsibility to provide us all with a service comparable to our competitors.
As shown on this Price Waterhouse Coopers 1 page, the Australian government, in 2023, questioned Deloitte (Telstra 1994/95 arbitration accountants) and John Rundell, who became a partner of KPMG towards the end of 1995, about their accounting methods during my arbitration, which Derek Ryan, my forensic accountant. Mr Ryyan first raised these dubious accounting methods while we were challenging Deloitte and John Rundell while he was still with Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the alleged independent arbitration financial consultants assisting the arbitrator in minimizing Telstra's losses paid to the COT arbitrations.As can be seen below, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisors minimised all of my accommodation rates when assessing any of my losses to the school rate, i.e., awarding my business the fee of only $30.82 for a two-night stay, which was my school group tariff instead of the $120.00 to $165.00 fee I changed for a two-night stay for social club patrons.There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage (as shown in this scale) is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.
It is important to Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. I Highlight the following statement shown on a Telstra internal memo of 9th November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (AS 942), 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." (File 942 to 946 - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
- Coopers & Lybrand
- Tamper with Evidence - EXICOM TF200 touchphone
Coopers & Lybrand Report
Towards the end of 1993, Telstra commissioned an international audit company, Coopers and Lybrand, to report on Telstra’s fault-handling procedures, particularly in relation to complaints like those raised by the members of COT. In a letter dated 17 September 1993 (AS 1010) to AUSTEL’s Chairman, Mr Robin Davey, the then-Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, wrote:
"Finally I note that Telecom propose to engage one of the "Big Five" accounting firms to audit its handling of the COT cases with Austel merely having unspecified access to the consultants and its output.
If such an audit is to have any legitimacy it is essential that it should be commissioned and paid for by Austel. To allow one party to litigation to select and pay - undoubtedly generously - for the judge would not be tolerated in any judicial proceedings. It should not be tolerated here."
Regardless of the concerns expressed by various government ministers, including Senator Alston, it was Telstra alone who paid Coopers & Lybrand and Bell Canada International Inc. to carry out that work. Then, in the case of the COT arbitrations, Telstra paid for the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s helpers who were then also exonerated from all liability for anything untoward that they might be involved in.
Senator Alston’s objections to Telstra being allowed to pay for both the Coopers & Lybrand audit of Telstra systems and the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) audit of the main COT claims and the telephone exchanges that the COT businesses were connected to, was particularly alarming because, as is now known, both those reports were not only orchestrated by Telstra, but were orchestrated by AUSTEL too, as their April 1994 ‘COT Cases Report’ clearly shows. (Note: these Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) tests are discussed in the next chapter)
This is even more alarming because, although all this auditing was carried out on behalf of the Government Regulator, Telstra was still able to manipulate the results by hiding any findings that went against them, whether Coopers & Lybrand or BCI reported those findings. They accomplished this with even more manipulation, this time by using various exemptions in the FOI Act, such as Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) or adverse findings against Telstra marked as (ADV), as (AS 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and AS 1019) AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019) so clearly show.
A further alarming aspect of Telstra’s interference in the official auditing process is that any adverse findings could also be deliberately omitted from the formal Coopers and BCI reports that AUSTEL and the TIO had already agreed would be provided to the COT arbitrator. This meant that the arbitrator would never know what it was that Coopers and BCI found wrong with Telstra’s processes.
Since Alan has since proved that both the Coopers & Lybrand and BCI reports were fundamentally flawed and exhibits (AS 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018 and AS 1019 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1002 to 1019 ) show that not all the adverse findings against Telstra have been revealed – even now – how then can the present Coalition Government condone the behaviour that led to the arbitrator not only accepting two thoroughly flawed reports as arbitration evidence but then basing his final decisions, in part at least, on those flawed reports?
How can the results of the COT arbitrations still stand, as they have for the last twenty years, when it has been obvious for some time that these were not the only findings against Telstra that Telstra has kept hidden and that some of those hidden findings included technical documents that were falsified so the arbitrator would not uncover the truth about Telstra’s failing telecommunications network? How could Telstra get away with manipulating the law as it stood back then, in 1994, without even being asked to explain what really went on during the COT arbitrations?
It is important to note that when Coopers & Lybrand investigator Robert Nason and his secretary, Sue Hurley, met with me at his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on 13 October 1993, I supplied them with evidence supporting his claims that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my 11 December 1992 settlement. I explained that two technicians visited my business on 3 June 1993 to investigate his continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. When Robert Nason and Sue Hurley saw this evidence they were shocked and likewise convinced that Telstra had clearly disadvantaged my previous settlement claim.
A letter dated 3 November 1993 to Mr Robert Nason (Coopers & Lybrand) from the Hon Senator Richard Alston, Shadow Minister for Communications (AS 938) notes:
"I have at last received a copy of your terms of reference and these make it clear that the review requires Coopers & Lybrand to "conduct an independent audit of (the) adequacy, reasonableness and fairness (of) Telecom's approach to Difficult Network Faults reported by customers over the last 5 years".
The review also explicitly requires Coopers & Lybrand recommendations to take "into account Telecom's legal obligations".
Despite the clear nature of these terms of reference I am disturbed to learn from several COT members that your review will not deal with questions of misleading and deceptive conduct".
While the final public Coopers & Lybrand report is almost identical in regards to Telstra's previous settlements with the COT Cases at point 2.20 to that as shown in their draft at point 2.20, it is important we highlight one particular variation
Draft
"We have found evidence that an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process." (File 939 - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
Final
"We believe that in some cases an inappropriate use of legal representation and aggressive tactics were used in negotiating settlements and attempting to develop a resolution process’s" (File 940) - AS-CAV 923 to 946)
I have always been convinced that the segment referred to in the Coopers & Lybrand draft "have found evidence" was the same evidence I provided Robert Nason and Sue Hurley during their visit to my business on 13 October 1993, which shocked them and left them both speechless. At points 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, Nason clearly articulates that he placed the Bell Canada International Inc. Report, Coopers & Lybrand Report, and the AUSTEL COT Cases Report into evidence.
Had Dr Hughes (the arbitrator hearing the COT arbitrations) been provided the true findings in this case, those of Coopers & Lybrand, as well as AUSTEL's secret findings on this settlement issue, as arbitrator, he would have had to find against Telstra regarding these settlement issues instead of finding in favour of Telstra.
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 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 the COT Cases belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the evidence 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 9th November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (File 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 really uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft, it is noted (File 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."
In the same section of the final version (File 944 - AS-CAV 923 to 946 ) however, there is no mention of ensuring they that
“…the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act.”
The draft report, at point 23 under ‘Other Recommendations’, notes (File 945 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:
"Fitness for Purpose: Telecom needs to issue, inter alia, instructions to sales, installation, maintenance, fault investigation and repair involved with PSTS and/or CPE work that checks must be made to ensure the PSTS will meet or continue to meet the "fitness for purpose" requirements of the 1974 Trade Practices Act for the circumstances they are dealing with."
In the final version Coopers & Lybrand have again left out the major issue of the service provided being ‘fit for purpose’ according to the 1974 Trade Practices Act (File- 946), the very issues that AUSTEL advised the Government would be addressed by Telstra in a commercial settlement process, with no need for an arbitration if it was proved that Telstra had acted outside of the 1974 Trade Practice Act. But once again, here we have the arbitrator accepting the Coopers & Lybrand report, even though it did not include any reference to what Telstra should be doing according to the Trade Practice Act.
Robert Nason has been a senior executive in the Telstra Corporation for some time, including holding the position of Group Managing Director, Business Support and Improvement in 2014. In 2013, he was also appointed as Chairman of Foxtel. Still, back in June 2010, I provided Mr Nason with a condensed draft version of this story and most of the Exhibits it refers to in the hope that he could facilitate a resolution to my matters. Mr Nason has never responded.
Channel Nine Small Business - National Television show
Exposes Telstra's corporate thuggery, threats and shear evil business tactics against the COT Cases.
On 20 September 1995, four months after the conclusion of my arbitration in May 1995, a copy of this Telstra internal letter (File 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) was provided by me in the company of my Federal Member of Parliament David Hawker MP to Senator Richard Alston which notes
"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.".
The Coopers & Lybrand report and the Bell Canada International tests were not removed from the COT Cases arbitrations.
When Senator Richard Alston did not follow up and ensure the Cooper & Lybrand report and BCI tests were removed from the COT arbitrations, this inaction prevented the COT Cases from using these flawed reports as evidence to assist with their arbitration appeals.
These two fundamentally flawed reports, dated October 1993 and November 1993, have never been removed from the COT Cases arbitrations of 1994 - 1998. In June 1995, it was also uncovered that the government knew the AUSTEL COT Cases report (produced by the government communications regulator) was fundamentally flawed when it submitted it to the COT arbitrations in April 1994. Twelve years later, all three fundamentally flawed words were used to thwart a proper investigation into the COT Case claims.
This time, they were spuriously used again by the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) to help the government win their COT Case review process of March/April 2006. This conduct by the DCITA assessors to win against us COT Cases at all costs will go down in political history as the worse of, the worse abuse of power against ordinary citizens of Australia who have been crying out for justice for more than thirty years.
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, along with the rest of my statements on absentjustice.com, to determine if the remaining COT Cases have valid claims against the Commonwealth
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.
A click with your mouse/cursor on the ABC KPMG documentary https://shorturl.at/qyLV9 will help you understand that my stories about the casualties of Telstra are true and accurate. One of the five leading players in the first four arbitrations, John Rundell, who was the Arbitration Project Manager for those four arbitrations, was not only prepared to mislead and deceive the four COT case claimants and their claim advisers who prepared the technical findings in the first four arbitrations (concealing the truth they were not prepared by the principal technical adviser the government and claimants were told in writing would be) just weeks after leaving his position as Arbitration Project Manager became a partner in KPMG.
Mr Rundell then went on a campaign of misleading and deceiving the administrator of my arbitration concerning my 008/1800, stating they had all been investigated and addressed during my arbitration when he was fully aware they had not been addressed in my arbitration at all, as confirmed by the government regulator Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?
As shown in our Price Waterhouse Coopers 1 page, the Australian government, in 2023, questioned Deloitte (Telstra 1994/95 arbitration accountants) and John Rundell, who became a partner of KPMG towards the end of 1995, about their accounting methods during my arbitration, which Derek Ryan, my forensic accountant. Mr Ryyan first raised these dubious accounting methods while we were challenging Deloitte and John Rundell while he was still with Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), the alleged independent arbitration financial consultants assisting the arbitrator in minimizing Telstra's losses paid to the COT arbitrations.
Minimizing Telstra's financial liability to the COT Cases
As shown in Part 2, Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct, we COT Cases were forced to exonerate Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the financial arbitration consultants), which included John Rundell and DMR (Australia), the arbitration technical consultants, from all liability once the $250,000 liability caps had been removed from clauses 25 and 26 from our arbitration agreements which Senator Richard Alston and Senators Boswell had endorsed along with AUSTEL (now ACMA) before the changes were made. We COT Cases never had a level playing field during the COT arbitrations to have our claims assessed on their validity.
As can be seen from Chapter 2—Inaccurate and Incomplete and Price Waterhouse Coopers 1, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisors (the arbitrator's consultants) minimised all of my accommodation rates when assessing any of my losses to the school rate, i.e., awarding my business the fee of only $30.82 for a two-night stay, which was my school group tariff, instead of the $120.00 to $165.00 fee I changed for a two-night stay for social club patrons.
There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage (as shown in this scale) is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct, which has gone unaddressed for more than 28 years.
John Rundell has been operating arbitration centres in both Australia and Hong Kong. Still, he does, regardless of the Australian government being aware of his unethical conduct during the COT arbitrations and when he was a partner with KPMG. Mr Rundell still operates those arbitration centres in those two countries.
Mr Rundell's 18 April 1995 letter, written one month before the conclusion of my arbitration, was openly deceptive. It advised the first administrator of my arbitration, Warwick Smith, copying the same to the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, and Peter Bartlett, legal counsel to all of the COT arbitrations, that "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." Prologue Evidence File No 22-A.
