This website absentjustice.com is a work in progress last edited May 2022.
All events quoted in this website are supported by copies of the original documents: clicking on the following links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit. By using this method and following the various file nos discussed in our various pages – see menu bar above, i.e., Manipulating the Regulator, Bribery and Corruption - Part 1, Bribery and Corruption - Part 2, Taking on the Establishment - Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter. will take you directly to the evidence
As the website grew, I also discovered that some of the issues related to more than one event and, in fact, were sometimes linked to multiple events and that meant that the one event needed to be repeated in a number of different sections of the website, so that the depth of the corruption and the illegal activities that were committed during the arbitration could be fully and properly understood i.e.; see Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 1 - Hacked documents and Chapter 2 - Illicit screening.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed, as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power, today. Our story is still actively being covered up
For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural businesses were not using the internet, email or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobile phones at the start of each working day on a regular basis was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations and mobile black-spots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business. Concealed government records that are now exposed in this publication and on our webpage Manipulating the Regulator show that, in 1994, the government communications regulator AUSTEL estimated there were some 120,000 businesses affected by COT-type faults. In the public April 1994 AUSTEL COT Cases report, this figure was downgraded to read that some 50 or more businesses had similar phone complaints (see Taking on the Establishment / Chapter 2 - Bell Canada International).
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. The story of how for years Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed as our story shows.
How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant faxes, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.
How the central points of our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.
Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.
Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?
And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report). The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.
Although my arbitration was terminated on 11 May 1995 by the arbitrator, even though his two arbitration technical advisers, Paul Howell from Canada and David Read from Australia, jointly advised him their combined evaluation of my claims was not complete (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) he still brought down findings under pressure applied by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman. The letter was also the administrator of the COT arbitrations.
The letter to Warwick Smith (the administrator) dated 12 May 1995 (see Open Letter File No 55-A alerting him to the three major defects in the agreement when faxed to my office to use during my designated appeal period was intercepted and withheld by persons unknown to me.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter Open Letter File No 55-A. is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the Federal Attorney-General has still not answered is:
If the arbitrator and administrator state this letter Open Letter File No 55-A was not faxed to my office, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period? I did not receive until 2002, outside the statute of limitations for it to be used to appeal my award.
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 fax 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 fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered.
The next part of my journey was to do everything in my power to obtain the proof that my claims are valid.
Transcripts from my two Administrative Appeal Tribunal AAT hearings where the government were respondents i.e. Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) and 26 May 2011 (No 2010/4634) show I maintained both my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, including all of the requested information both Telstra and AUSTEL withheld during my government-endorsed arbitration process.
Senior AAT Judge Mr G D Friedman considered both these AAT hearings and it is now apparent that Mr Friedman was unaware that the Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and ACMA based their defence of my claims on the inaccurate sanitised public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994. That document does not include the true (and very adverse) findings that AUSTEL had originally reached in relation to Telstra’s dealings with me (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212).
However, one very important document (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which I provided Mr G.D Freidman which Telstra had concealed from the arbitrator is headed TELECOM SECRET - FOI folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, which states:
“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.
“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
It is also important to note, that after reading this document and several like it which are now available on this website absentjustice.com transcripts from AAT hearing (No V2008/1836) shows Mr G D Friedman stated to the AAT gallery which included witnesses attending thise hearing including two government lawyers stated:
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
It will be apparent to whoever views Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy followed that I have tried every conceivable legal process in Australia to prove my phone problems were still ongoing nine years after the arbitrator made no findings on these continuous problems that Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) disallowed Paull Howell (Canada) and David Read (Australia) the extra weeks they needed to investigate my ongoing telephone faults.
UNITED STATES STRATEGY ON COUNTERING CORRUPTION - https://www.whitehouse.gov › uploads › 2021/12.
It is clear from the above link that the USA beat Australia to the punch where corruption in Australia’s arbitration system has never been transparently investigated. In the Case of the COT arbitration, those conducting the arbitration’s allowed Sweden’s Telecommunications giant Ericsson to purchase the leading technical arbitration consultant even though that consultant had been assigned to investigate the claims raised by the COT Cases that Telstra was knowingly using faulty Ericsson telecommunication equipment in their telephone exchanges.
Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd made no findings on these claim issues. Ericsson purchased Lane halfway through the twelve arbitrations. Likewise, the arbitrator made no finding on the ongoing phone problems that this faulty Ericsson equipment was causing to the COT Cases business.
It is essential to introduce here the Australian media article see below, which discusses the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:
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/)
I have addressed the above Ericsson arbitration issues in Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.
I will let the reader decide for themselves as to whether they think Sweden's Ericsson should have been allowed to Infiltrate an Australian government endorsed arbitration process.
Reading Unprecedented Deception - My Story Warts & All and Chapter 3 - Julian Assange Hacking will convince you there is more to the COT story than just telephone problems. It will leave you in no doubt that something is rotten in Australia's arbitration system of justice.
On the Weekly-Blog, I will be regularly adding examples (see the three now attached) showing where ministers, government agencies, including the arbitrator and his arbitration resource unit, have knowingly lied about the validity of the COT Case claims to thwart any transparent investigations into the truth surrounding what the COT Cases have been trying to expose the last two decades.
We also periodically publish articles on the Weekly-Blog from interested parties who have exposed cover-ups and fraud, If you want to disclose any government corruption or absent justice issues you think should be recorded on this website, please let us know through our Contact.
