Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

 

Welcome to Absent Justice! This website is a work in progress; it was last edited in March 2024. If you're interested in reading Absent Justice Book 2, you can get it for free with a simple click. However, if you appreciate the time and effort spent writing the book and gathering the evidence to support our story, we would be grateful if you could donate to Transparency International Australia

The website that initiated my in-depth exploration of political corruption is comparable to some of the most compelling true crime exposés. Its revelations are of the utmost significance and warrant attention from anyone concerned with upholding the integrity of our democratic institutions.

Read about our dealings with:

  1. Australia knowingly sold wheat to communist China, aware China was redeploying it to North Vietnam while North Vietnam soldiers were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops fighting in North Vietnam. I ask every single visitor to this website to read footnote pages 82 to 85 of the paper FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu. ​​
  2. Espionage and spying, including the use of electronic surveillance equipment, to gain an illegal advantage over litigants during court proceedings and private negotiations Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.
  3. Terrorist activities in ISIS-held Iraq by Telstra’s major telecommunications supplier Ericsson.  Ericsson, instead of admitting to the COT arbitrator that their Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment had many deficiencies, purchased the arbitration technical expert. This effectively meant that the evidence collected by this Australian technical consultant became the property of Ericsson.  Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden ... and ... https://www.icij.org 
  4. Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure: Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?
  5. Tampering with evidence (changing the outcome) in the arbitration: Tampering With Evidence.
  6. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed: Telstra's Falsified SVT Report  and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report
  7. AUSTEL (for the government) concealed vital evidence from the arbitration process that would have won my case: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points to 212.
  8. The arbitrator ordered the removal of vital evidence from two reports: Chapter 1 - The collusion continues  and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete
  9. Organized crime via the Telstra network, i.e. telephone calls and faxed documents intended for one business being redirected to another with the proceeds of that directed information earning the criminals involved millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains Chapter 2 - Illicit screening  and Chapter 4 Government spying
  10. Barrister Sue Owens registered fraud allegations against Telstra during the COT arbitrations with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, only to be squashed under pressure by the Australian government (see the following transcripts: Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

Justice delayed is justice denied. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

 

Corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy.

Instances of corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy during government-endorsed arbitrations are unacceptable. Such offences are a grave concern that affects the community at large. It is essential to ensure that justice is served correctly and that the community's faith in the judicial system is not shaken.

It is unacceptable that the Australian government-endorsed arbitration process was vulnerable to such corruption. It is time for the government to take a stand against those who interfered with the course of justice and subject them to severe penalties. The community and individuals (namely the Casualties of Telstra) affected by the corruption demand nothing less.

Collusion between arbitrators, appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and defendants is unacceptable. The defendants, in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), used network-connected equipment to screen faxed material leaving the claimants' office, stored it without their knowledge or consent and only redirected some of these faxed documents to their intended destination. Where are the faxed arbitration claim documents that never reached the arbitrator's office? 

The fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms 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)

On 25 February 1994:  When this letter to Telstra’s Corporate Secretary from Fay Holthuyzen, Assistant to the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, (AS 772-a) is compared to the letter dated 3rd February 1994 Exhibit (AS 772-b) that I sent to the Minister’s office it is clear that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

On the same day of 25 February 1994,  an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AS 773)

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

This felony aided the defendants' arbitration defence to the claimants' detriment. Such actions are unacceptable, and those responsible must face the full extent of the law.

Investigating how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to such hacking is essential. Electronic eavesdropping, i.e., hacking into in-confidence documentation, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated during legitimate Australian arbitrations.

The Australian government must release the report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 to the Australian public, confirming that confidential, COT arbitration-related documents were also illegally screened before leaving and arriving at Parliament House Canberra. It is unacceptable that the government refuses to do so.

It is unacceptable that the Australian government agreed to endorse a legally binding arbitration agreement that the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators did not independently draft. The fact that the agreement was drafted by lawyers for the defendants in the arbitration is unacceptable, especially when the carrier was the defendant in the arbitration. The government's refusal to investigate why the agreement included a clause designed by the defendant's lawyers that severely limited the time claimants could access discovery documents they needed to support their claim directly from the defendants is unacceptable.

In summary, the Australian government must act to protect our justice system from any attempts to undermine it. We demand severe penalties for those who interfere with the course of justice, and transparency in all government-endorsed arbitrations to prevent further corruption.

It is essential to publish an accurate report of events during Australian government-endorsed arbitrations. The pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy is unacceptable, and transparency is critical to preventing further corruption. It is imperative to demonstrate that government public servants who provided privileged information to the then-Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while concealing the same documentation from the claimants must face the full extent of the law.

It was unacceptable for the arbitrator to agree to secret terms of reference favouring Telstra to the detriment of the COT claimants so that Telstra could conceal the poor state of its telecommunications network, which would have opened the floodgates to a massive class action, was a criminal act entered into by the arbitrator. 

 

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

 

On 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

It is clear from this Senate Hansard that Mr White named me (Smith) as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped" from proving my claim. 

Threats made by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer Paul Rumble. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

The threats were carried out. 

Throughout my arbitration against Telstra, I was shocked to discover that they had been intercepting my private phone conversations and screening my faxes without my knowledge or consent. When I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigation, Telstra arbitration officials threatened me. It became clear that Telstra had been documenting my private life over several years, and I had to know to what advantage they had done so. This unauthorized interception of my private conversations and faxes continued until at least December 24, 2001, six years after my arbitration concluded.

Despite knowing about Telstra's unlawful conduct, Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the administrator) hesitated to investigate the matter by convening a meeting with Telstra. Their reluctance stemmed from the fact that Telstra had funded the arbitration process and paid for their arbitration fees. This allowed Telstra to continue its illegal behaviour unchecked.

It is clear that Telstra was determined to defend itself at any cost during the arbitration process and even continued to break the law after the conclusion of the arbitration. Furthermore, the officials involved in the arbitration were too intimidated by Telstra's power and control to confront them. This is a worrying indication of the power that Telstra holds and the lengths it will go to protect itself. The fact that even the officials involved in the arbitration were afraid to confront Telstra shows how imperative it is for us to hold powerful corporations accountable for their actions.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate these same types of questions:

“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?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

As I have reiterated throughout this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings came to fruition, and the withholding of pertinent documents is deeply concerning. Regrettably, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact of this malpractice on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Despite my assistance to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the illicit interception of phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, I was at a severe disadvantage during the civil arbitration.

It has come to light that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, exchanged documents on January 10, 1994, showing that they were in cahoots with the arbitration administrator, Warwick Smith. After this document was faxed to Warwick Smith, it was being discussed with Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) by 18 January 1994.

By this time in January 1994, the first four COT Cases, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and I, and our named businesses had already been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollongdale & Page on September 1994, that any technical documents we might request under FOI would be concealed from us under legal professional privilege even though they were not privileged.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that the lawyer with whom you were being forced to register your phone complaints devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-CP. instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

And here was Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the administrator of this circus) holding hands with those hell bent on destryoing us COT Cases because we dared to challenge Telstra.

It was also grossly unethical (if not unlawful) for the arbitrator to have used Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement on my arbitration and that of the other three claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, telling us, along with several government ministers, plus the Canberra Parliament House Press Gallery that it had been drafted independently of Telstra and when the arbitrator realised on the eve of bringing down my award on 11 May 1995, write to the administrator Warwick Smith on 12 May 1995 Open Letter File No 55-A telling him it had to be amended for the remaining COT claimants who all three signed the same not credible agreements with me in April 1994. It was amended, allowing those three claimants more than thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence but disallowing me any further time. 

I reiterate: Why were these three claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, given these extra thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence that Dr Hughes allowed me? Why was this 12 May 1995 letter not provided to me by either Dr Gordon Hughes or Warwick Smith so I could use it in my designated appeal period?     The actions of the arbitrator in my arbitration and that of three other claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, were highly unethical and potentially illegal. The arbitrator claimed that Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement was independent, but on May 12, 1995, he realized it needed an amendment. He requested this amendment for the remaining three COT claimants, who had all signed the same non-credible agreements with me in April 1994. As a result, these claimants were given more than thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence. However, I was not given any extra time, which has been the hardest thing for me to accept over the past twenty-eight years.

Perhaps even worse, Graham Schorer, an ex-business and legal client of Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest, received a letter on 10 November 1994 telling him that: "...I now direct that your claim documentation be submitted on or before 12 December 1994". However, at that time, it appears as though Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) had not yet discovered the many inaccuracies in the arbitration agreement, which he later identified in his 12 May 1995 letter to Warwick Smith stating:

“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” (Open Letter File No 55-A)

It is unacceptable that criminal offences occurred during the COT arbitrations, and those who interfered with the course of justice must face severe penalties. It is unacceptable that those who committed these crimes still occupy high offices in Australia and Hong Kong. It is essential to safeguard our justice system from any attempts to undermine it.

Who We Are

During the arbitration (see Home), the COT Cases were unaware that the entire Telstra board, which included prominent Australian figures, was aware of the systemic phone problems and that the billing issues were generating illegal revenue for Telstra by at least eleven per cent (11%). It is not surprising that they did not fix an issue that was generating millions of dollars in revenue for them. It is worth noting that Telstra CEO Frank Blount co-authored a book that acknowledged the billing issues and the poor state of Telstra's network shortly after the final COT arbitration. You can refer to pages 116, 132, 133, 136, and 137 at https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran.

This book contains some truly alarming revelations. It exposes Telstra's COT arbitration defence for what it is - a string of false statements that were made under oath by multiple witnesses. What's more, these statements were countersigned by Telstra's own arbitration lawyers. This is a clear indication that Telstra knowingly and intentionally misled the court, thereby perverting the course of justice. The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.

Learn More ⟶

Who We Are
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan's book

I highly recommend  "Absent Justice"  if you're looking for an eye-opening read. It's a fascinating account of how the Australian government can manipulate the arbitration system to its advantage. 

During my arbitration, Telstra's lawyers convinced several members of Australia's Establishment that I was psychotic and delusional when this was not the case at all. In my story, the clinical psychologist appointed by Telstra's arbitration lawyers was provided with a fraudulently manufactured report. When I provided evidence to the arbitrator, the report was fundamentally flawed; I was made to look as if I was delusional.  

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock, (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page (one of Australia's principal legal firms), signed the witness statement attesting to it having been signed by Ian Joblin (the psychologist) without the psychologist's signature on the witness statement shows how much power Telstra and their lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia. 

Read About Our Dealings With

Learn More ⟶

Quote Icon

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

The Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations are marred with corruption, and reporting the events without supporting exhibits is difficult. We need to prove that the government provided privileged information to the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier and concealed it from fellow Australian citizens, the claimants.

The story is unbelievable, but the evidence is irrefutable. We must expose the collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs, and the defendants. The defendants used equipment connected to their network to screen faxed material, stored it without consent, and used it to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

It's a breach of trust, and we need to know how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking. Is electronic eavesdropping - hacking into confidential documentation - still happening during legitimate Australian arbitrations? A report confirmed that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they arrived or left Parliament House Canberra, but it has not been released to the public.

We urge the Australian Government to disclose the report. You can find the report on absentjustice.com, and it can also be downloaded from my new book, ABSENT JUSTICE → Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

Read More ⟶

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

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