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:
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. 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. 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 › Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure: Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? Tampering with evidence (changing the outcome) in the arbitration: Tampering With Evidence. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed: Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report AUSTEL (for the government) concealed vital evidence from the arbitration process that would have won my case: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212. The arbitrator ordered the removal of vital evidence from two reports: Chapter 1 - The collusion continues and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete 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 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)).
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.
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.
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.
Collusion between arbitrators, appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and defendants is unacceptable. The defendants, in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), allegedly used network-connected equipment to screen faxed material leaving the claimants' office, stored it without their knowledge or consent, and redirected it to its intended destination. This felony may have 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 to the Australian public, confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were 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 was not independently drafted by the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators. 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.