Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Telstra's Falsified BCI Report

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

Question

Why hasn’t the Telstra board and senior management officially advised the Australian government that the Bell Canada International (BCI) tests, supposedly performed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone exchange that my business was trunked through, could not have possibly facilitated the equipment BCI alleged it used to capture the incoming test calls? This must have been secretly revealed to the arbitrator by his technical consultants, as I discussed this in my claims; why did the arbitrator not disclose this in his official findings? The BCI report gave the exchange I was connected to a 99.8 per cent approval rate.

If the arbitrator’s two technical consultants, one from Canada and the other from Australia, did not investigate my official arbitration claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests could not have been performed at Cape Bridgewater in the manner the BCI report stated, then these consultants did not perform their professional duties as they were commissioned to. Regardless of the government owning Telstra, the government communications regulator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the process) both assured the COT cases that independent TIO-appointed consultants would vigorously investigate our technical claims against Telstra.

It is clear, certainly in my case, that the arbitrator and his technical consultants did not investigate my claims that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed, because there is no mention in the arbitrator’s technical findings (in his award) that I officially challenged the BCI tests. Does this mean he believed his technical consultants disproved my claims? Prologue Chapter One shows the two technical consultants, DMR (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications (Australia), officially advised the arbitrator in their draft technical report that they had still not investigated my billing faults and needed extra weeks to do so. This wording, concerning unaddressed billing claims, was removed from the draft report dated 30 April 1995, then submitted into the formal arbitration as the final DMR technical report, still dated 30 April 1995.

We have proved this happened and this lends weight to our claim that it appears DMR and Lane also advised the arbitrator the BCI tests were flawed and should be removed from the arbitration process.

On 23 May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration concluded, Telstra, under FOI, released its own BCI documents, originally dated August and September 1994. These documents showed Telstra admitting, internally, that my June 1994 arbitration claims were correct. This admission happened EIGHT MONTHS before the arbitrator brought down his award on 11 May 1995.

The TIO and arbitrator refused to reopen my case to allow me to have this issue assessed on the grounds it was withheld from the arbitration process.

Telstra in contempt of the Senate

On 23 March 1999, almost five years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to fully support their claims i.e.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

I doubt there are many countries in the Western world governed by the rule of law, as Australia purports to be, that would allow a group of small-business operators to be forced to proceed with a government-endorsed arbitration while allowing the defence (the government which owned the corporation) to conceal the necessary documents these civilians needed to support their claims. Three of those previously withheld documents confirm Telstra was fully aware that the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada Internations Inc (BCI) tests could not possibly have taken place according to the official BCI report Telstra used as arbitration defence documents.

On my behalf, Mr Schorer (COT. Spokesperson) raised the Cape Bridgewater BCI deficient tests with Senators Ron Boswell and Chris Schacht. Pages 108-9 of Senate Hansard records (refer to Scrooge - exhibit 35) confirm Telstra deflected the issue of impracticable tests by stating my claim – that the report was fabricated – was incorrect. The only problem with the report was an incorrect date for one of the tests. The Senate then put Telstra on notice to provide evidence of that error.

On 12 January 1998, during the Senate estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer provided Sue Laver (now in 2021) Telstra’s corporate secretary with several documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:

“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International The report is fabricated or falsified.”

If the 12 January 1998 letter to Sue Laver, with the false BCI information attached is not enough evidence to convince the Australian Government that Telstra cannot continue pretending. They know nothing about the falsified Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, Telstra, and the Senate estimates committee chair was again notified, on 14 April 1998, that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were impracticable. When is Telstra going to come forward and advise the Telstra board that my claims are right and that indeed it was unlawful to use the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests as arbitration defence documents as well as grossly unethical to have provided the Senate with this known false information when answering questions on notice?

On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the chair of the Senate legislation committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in September and October 1997, was false (see Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One and exhibit 62-Part-Two). Telstra was in contempt of the Senate. No one yet within Telstra has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters I now raise on absentjustice.com in 2021.

Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report’  is all the evidence necessary to show that arbitration lawyers provided false information to Telstra’s arbitration witness, namely the clinical psychologist, during my government-endorsed arbitration, and two years later, Telstra supplied that same BCI false information on notice to the Senate.

It is ironic that two Telstra technicians, in two separate witness statements dated 8 and 12 December 1994, discuss the testing equipment used by Telstra in overall maintenance and state that the nearest telephone exchange, to Portland and Cape Bridgewater, that could facilitate the TEKELEC CCS7 equipment was in Warrnambool 110 kilometres from Portland/Cape Bridgewater, where BCI alleged they carried out their Cape Bridgewater tests using Ericsson TEKELEC CCS7

I have shown throughout this webpage absentjustice.com, including in the Brief Ericsson Introduction⟶  that in several cases such as Cape Bridgewater (where I tried to run my telephone dependent business), Ericsson telephone equipment was known to affect the telephone equipment that serviced my business. And yet Telstra was still prepared the lie and cheat in the arbitration defence of my claim as well as during a Senate Estimates investigation into my Ericsson AXE BCI claims.    

On our Introduction page, under the heading Telstra wants a license, we discuss Telstra Energy applying for a licence to sell electricity and gas to homes in Victoria. Consumer advocates have advised the state's energy regulator, the Essential Services Commission, Telstra had a poor customer record. Katherine Temple, policy director at the Consumer Action Law Centre, has publically stated: "there are some serious issues to be considered before Telstra enters into the energy space."

The fact I have written to Sue Laver over many years since she received this BCI evidence in January 1998 and has continued to refuse to address Telstra's unlawful conduct of submitting this false BCI report first to my arbitrator of 1994 and again during January 1998 to the Senate [on notice] how can they convince the Essential Services Commissiongain they should be given a license to sell electricity and gas when Sue Laver the current Telstra Corporate Secretary continues to sit evidence knowing that evidence could have assisted me in appealing my arbitration award.

Had the Senate been advised by Sue Laver there was merit in my complaints concerning the flawed BCI testing, my matters raised on absentjustice.com could have been resolve two decades ago. The fact I have written to Sue Laver over many years since she received this BCI evidence in January 1998 and has continued to refuse to address Telstra's unlawful conduct of submitting known false BCI testing results to my arbitrator in May 1994 and in January 1998 to the Senate [on notice] how can Sue Laver as Telstra's Corporate Secretary along with the rest of Telstra's current board convince the Essential Services Commissiongain they should be given a license to sell electricity and gas. Even today, if Sue Laver was to put up her hand and tell the government Telstra was wrong to submit false BCI testing information to the arbitrator and Senate, this admission would assist me in securing an appeal my arbitration award, 

Please click on the following link Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and form your own opinion as to the authenticity of the BCI report which was used by Telstra as an arbitration defence document?

The evidence which supports the report is attached as BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46

LinkedIn

As a result of the interest shown by several LinkedIn Canadian contacts, late last month, I Finally published a true account of my story of the Casualties of Telstra (COT), a group of small Australian business owners who blindly put their faith and trust in a minority group of bureaucrats who, we later discovered, were secretly working with the then government-owned telecommunications carrier (the Telstra Corporation) to conceal deliberately, from its customers, just how bad the telephone system really was in Australia, back in the 1990s. The current 2021 Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver (mentioned above), in January 1998 and again in April 1998, was provided advice during an official Senate COT FOI investigation that in my case, Telstra had knowingly used false Bell Canada International Inc Cape Bridgewater (Portland Victoria) testing results as evidence in their arbitration defence of my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration. That known false evidence had further false information added to it. It was provided to the Senate in October 1997, successfully convincing the Senate my claims were ill-founded against Telstra and Bell Canada International. During my arbitration in April 1995, another Canadian telecommunications expert was flown out from Montreal, Canada, to investigate those same false BCI tests and the rest of my Telstra arbitration claim material.

Even though DMR Group Pty Ltd was the principal investigator of my claims, my claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were impracticable that report was never assessed or discussed in the DMR report provided to the arbitrator. Even though the arbitrator's written findings show, he allowed the BCI report to be submitted into arbitration.

Just imagine what would have happened if the then government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) and their public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were being recorded in 1994!  The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network really was, and that would have resulted in most of the millions upon millions of dollars of what it has cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved, because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, twenty-three years ago. In other words, when AUSTEL/ACMA) decided not to tell the truth in 1994, when the government set up an arbitration process to investigate the COT claims those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blow-out related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia see Manipulating the Regulator/Chapter 4 Collusion on this website.

It was during these same arbitrations that three young computer hackers later confirmed as Julian Assange contacted the COT spokesperson to advise him they had hacked into Telstra’s telecommunications network and uncovered how we arbitration claimants were being crucified by those conducting the arbitrations, and did we want copies of this evidence (see https://www.absentjustice.com/hacking-julian-assange/chapter-8-hacking-unresolved-privacy-issues/. We declined the offer, unaware that the hackers were telling us the truth. 

For an arbitrator to ignore professional advice from a world-acclaimed Canadian Telecommunications company like DMR Inc, who flew out from Canada to investigate my BCI arbitration claims, something does not add up.

When the Australian government allowed Telstra to hide behind these falsified BCI tests during my arbitration they, the government became an accomplice to this unlawful conduct.

Why hasn’t the Telstra board and senior management officially advised the Australian government that the Bell Canada International (BCI) tests, supposedly performed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned telephone exchange that my business was trunked through, could not have possibly facilitated the equipment BCI alleged it used to capture the incoming test calls? This must have been secretly revealed to the arbitrator by his technical consultants, as I discussed this in my claims; why did the arbitrator not disclose this in his official findings? The BCI report gave the exchange I was connected to a 99.8 per cent approval rate.

If the arbitrator’s two technical consultants, one from Canada and the other from Australia, did not investigate my official arbitration claims that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests could not have been performed at Cape Bridgewater in the manner the BCI report stated, then these consultants did not perform their professional duties as they were commissioned to. Regardless of the government owning Telstra, the government communications regulator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the process) both assured the COT cases that independent TIO-appointed consultants would vigorously investigate our technical claims against Telstra.

It is clear, certainly in my case, that the arbitrator and his technical consultants did not investigate my claims that the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were fundamentally flawed, because there is no mention in the arbitrator’s technical findings (in his award) that I officially challenged the BCI tests. Does this mean he believed his technical consultants disproved of my claims? Prologue Chapter One shows the two technical consultants, DMR (Canada) and Lane Telecommunications (Australia), officially advised the arbitrator in their draft technical report that they had still not investigated my billing faults and needed extra weeks to do so. This wording, concerning unaddressed billing claims, was removed from the draft report dated 30 April 1995, then submitted into the formal arbitration as the final DMR technical report, still dated 30 April 1995.

We have proved this happened and this lends weight to our claim that it appears DMR and Lane also advised the arbitrator the BCI tests were flawed and should be removed from the arbitration process.

On 23 May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration concluded, Telstra, under FOI, released its own BCI documents, originally dated August and September 1994. These documents showed Telstra admitting, internally, that my June 1994 arbitration claims were correct. This admission happened EIGHT MONTHS before the arbitrator brought down his award on 11 May 1995.

The TIO and arbitrator refused to reopen my case to allow me to have this issue assessed on the grounds it was withheld from the arbitration process.

The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the  Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

 

© 2021Absent Justice

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

Buy Now

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents linked in the text.

Clicking on these links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit/evidence that a crime was committed. Using this method and following the various file numbers discussed in our various pages, you will verify our story. Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence the way we have is possibly a world first.

ABSENT JUSTICE HAS IT ALL.

Quote Icon

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

– Edmund Burke