My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


This website is a work in progress last edited August 2022

A click on my ABSENT JUSTICE book below, and you will see nine different publishers who have published by book from all parts of the globe. Absent Justice is free., but if you feel you would like to make a donation, then please send directly to Transparency International.

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. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable. Why is Telstra above the law?

It wasn’t until much later that I discovered that the business was connected to an antiquated phone exchange which had been installed more than 30 years before and which was designed specifically for what the Australian telecommunications carrier (Telstra) designated as ‘low-call-rate areas’.  This ancient telephone exchange was certainly never intended to handle the amount of calls that were already being made by residents and holidaymakers in late 1987 when I arrived to take over the business, nor was it ever intended to handle the increased number of calls that occurred in this holiday village at holiday time.

Back when I started to operate my business in February 1988, when I commenced my arbitration in April 1994, and beyond to the late 1990s, doing business via the internet and email was not an option. The way of doing business was starting to come into its own. Had we COT Cases been operating our companies during the period where emails and online advice was so readily available, then the phone and faxing problems we suffered would not have affected our business losses as they did. We did not get an efficient mobile phone system into Cape Bridgewater until 2004. 

All events quoted on this website are supported by copies of the original documents: for example, Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993  to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued - Prologue - Criminal Conduct - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct - Chapter 2 - Illicit screening - Chapter 1 - Hacked documents - An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens and Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct etc. Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit.

Chapter 1 - The collusion continues,-Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete,-Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter,-Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter would convince the devil himself that Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator), John Rundell (the Arbitration Project Manager) and John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration) collectively and most deliberately misled and deceived those interested in investigating the truth surrounding the conduct of my arbitration. 

By using this highlighted exhibit method and following the file numbers when they are disclosed, you can verify our story. We could not have successfully composed this publication or my website without these exhibits to prove our story. The corruption and injustices perpetrated against the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) by those in various administrative roles, under the umbrella of legally administered arbitrations. 

Absent Justice - Order of Australia

The arbitrator DR Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith (the administrator of those processes) have both been awarded an "Order of Australia" even though the Establishemnt who gave out these awards are aware that after most of the arbitrations had been concluded the second-appointed administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia) that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment is attached to any agreement signed by the COT members allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can Dr Gordon Hughes AO, and Warwick Smith AO, continue to hide under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the complainants would not get their promised discovery under the agreed FOI Act and that the arbitrator would have no control over that process because he was not going to conduct it entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedure. 

Had the COT Cases been advised of this bizarre process, we would never have signed our arbitration agreements. Just as important is that seven senators have since advised the COT Cases that had they been aware that Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith would conduct our arbitrations in the manner they did, they would not have sanctioned such a process. 

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993, from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before Warwick Smith was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, he appears to have also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice Warwick Smith gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence, (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry) later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a major threat of a Senate enquiry.

If Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A is not disturbing enough, then this Telstra internal memo FOI document folio D01248, from Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member writes to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive Office. Subject: TIO AND COT (see File 48- B and 48-C AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91. This memo was written seven days after I had signed the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman/Warwick Smith administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal.

This was the same Ted Benjamin (discussed below) who waited until 24 May 1995 (two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration) before he provided my May 1994 FOI request (See File 183 - Absent Justice - Where was the Justice

I ask that you try to imagine yourself as a Senator involved in an 'In-Camera Senate' - Legislation Committee Investigation into Telstra's unethical conduct of withholding and destroying relevant requested Freedom of Information (FOI) documents in all twenty-one COT Cases who individually needed those documents to win our cases against Telstra. What would you have done if one Senator apologised to the Chair of the Committee for his uncontrolled outburst against a Telstra executive who, in my case, waited until 24 May 1995 (two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration) before he provided my May 1994 FOI request (See File 183 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233? Twelve months too late to do anything unless I spend another $300.000.00 in legal fees to appeal my award. I had been starved out of financial resources.

On 9 July 1998, during this senate committee investigation Senator Schacht actually made two startling statements one was: - " One of the 16 (COT Cases) complained they were starved into submission, but that is another point" It was when Senator Ron Boswell damned this paricular Telstra executive fully aware of what this disgusting man had done during and after my arbitration.  

After Senator Ron Boswell verbally attacked this Telstra officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

The statement aimed at Telstra's Ted Benjamin (the same Ted Benjamin who waited 12 months before he supplied me my requested arbitration documents) by Senator Tierney that: "Can you see that the whole thing is unfair and "the heartbreak for these people you have created", should have been enough to insure the other 16 COT Cases also receive some justice out of this terrible denial of natural justice.

It was then that Senator Schacht made it clear to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra was to award compensation only to the five 'litmus COT cases', whose FOI claims were the subject of this senate committee investigation then this act “would be an injustice to the remaining 16 or watever you have settled".

In fact after Senator Schacht made that statement he also stated:

"In my 11 years in the Senate I have never been at a public or private committee hearing where the commitee has asked witnesses to swear. That is an indication of how serious we see the resolution of this matter."

I have since been informed by a staff member of Senator Schacht's office (I will give the name of this person in confidence to an appropriate investigator if I am ever challenged) that Senator Schacht was always under the impression that the remaining 16 COT Cases whose names were on the Senate schedule B list of unresolved FOI claims would be awarded similar punitive damages (compensation) that the five litmus test cases received after the senate found in their favour (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

Reading An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens will explain how I was seconded as a witness during Victoria police Major Fraud Group investigation into fraud allegations raised by four of those five litmust COT test cases. I make no comment on why those four litmust test cases beleived they were unjustly treated.  

After the Federal Government put the Major Fraud Group under political pressure to abandon those four litmus COT claims of fraud against Telstra, I met two senior Victorian police officers who apologised for what they realised was truly an ordeal for me having been brought in as a witness and then discarded by the government. On leaving the Major Fraud Group investigation I was provided with a small A4 storage box, taped shut. The Two police officers who provided this A4 storage box advised me my four larger boxes of evidence would be couriered to my designated location.

I asked if this A4 box small could be included amongst that delivery as I was going home on a five hour journey by train. The look in the eyes of the police officer in charge was stern and direct, and when he stated, “NO, you take this box with you now,” I didn’t argue!

It turned out that this box contained two-in-Camara Hansard records [highly clasified] dated 6 and 9 July 1998, and was not be provided to anyone outside of the Major Fraud Group.  I am convinced that when the Major Fraud Group provided me with copies of these Hansard records, they believed that those records would be instrumental in eventually creating justice for the remaining sixteen COT Cases. 

It might be hard to believe but, back in August 2001, and again in December 2004, the Senate Chair combined with the John Howard government threatened, in writing (see Senate Evidence File No 12 ), to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though at that time those documents could well have won an appeal for all 16 cases. 

What I did uncover during the time with the Major Fraud Group is their belief that when the government allowed Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to be purchased by Ericsson, whose AXE telecommunications equipment was being used by Telstra in their telephone exchanges, this was the equipment that had been under investigation by the COT arbitrator and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration technical witness) was a matter the government should not have tolerated at any cost because the both the Senate and government communications regulator AUSTEL was also investigating during the same COT arbitrations. The same ongoing failure of the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment which Telstra was using in their telephone exchanges around Australia.  

In other words, four separate investigations have been conducted into the same Ericsson AXE equipment, two by the government and two by the arbitration process. Still, the government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane. 

By this time in 1996, Lane had been purchased by Ericsson in 1996, all the acquired evidence against the failed AXE equipment was now held by Lane.

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and what the Australian media reported see.

"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."(

Ericsson who the US Department of Justice has accused of bribery and corruption is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard dated 27 February 1998 shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra including the Ericsson manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses (see Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

Ericsson shares fall on worries of bigger fine as U.S. SEC 

STOCKHOLM, June 10 (Reuters) - Shares of Ericsson (ERICb.ST) fell 2.5% on Friday as the chance of it suffering a higher fine increased with the  U.S.  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) starting a separate investigation into the company's handling of misconduct in Iraq 10-June 2022 > 

It is well recoded on Google, as well as in the above link that Ericsson has been investigated by the US Securities for misconduct in Iraq. Surely purchasing an Australia telecomminication witness namely Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during a highly legalistic government endorsed arbitration with Lane making no finding on my Ericsson AXE claim material is unethical conduct.  

Absent Justice - Lost Claim Documents

In January 1999 after most of the arbitrations had been concluded COT Case Graham Schorer and Ann Garms provided the Australian government and the Major Fraud Group with a report confirming confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they arrived at their intended destinati (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates 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)

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, when these illegal acts were first discovered. 

NONE of the COT cases was ever on a terrorist list in 1994 (or since, for that matter) and none of us was ever listed as suspects regarding any crimes committed against any Australian citizens. Why after the government found out that our in-confidence arbitration Telstra-related documents were being hacked by Telstra [who the defendants in our arbitrations] was ever transpartly investigated? In my case, this hacking continued until at least December 2001, the week the new owners took over my business?

In my case, 42 separate sets of correspondence faxed to the arbitrator’s office (some with attachments) are not listed on the Arbitration Schedules of Material as received by the arbitration process. It is quiet clear Front Page Part One File No/1 shows the arbitrator’s secretary advised Tony Watson (of Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) that on 23 May 1994 six of my claim documents did not reach arbitrator’s fax machine. Yet, I was charged on my Telstra account for those six faxes. When this matter was exposed, no one from the arbitrator’s office nor the TIO’s office allowed me to amend my claim so that these proven “not received” claim documents were valued by the arbitrator.

After Carolyn Friend (the arbitrators secretary) had returned this evidence, amongst these documents were other COT Cases claim material [that had nothing to do with my arbitration matters]. When I pointed out to the Deputy administrator of my arbitration Wally Rothwell, that arbitration faxed claim documents belonging to COT Cases Ann Garm's from Brisbane Queensland was stapled to some of my faxes as it they belonged to my claim, he advised he would contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations.

No response has ever been received regarding these none received faxed claim documents. HOW can an arbitration be a process of natural justice if 42 faxed claim documents never arrived at the arbitrators office?  

None of the COT Cases knew of this possible conflict of interest or the fact that faxes arriving at the arbitrator's Melbourne office after the close of business each day were automatically redirected to the Sydney office where Telstra related legal documents were also being received assessed by the Sydney lawyers.   

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see ”Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with Dr Hughes early in 1994 regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail that:

“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.”Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

These lost faxes, which were initially faxed to the arbitrator's office, played a significant role in the COT arbitrations, as shown throughout this website.

Had I been provided with this advice concerning the deficiencies in the faxing process between Dr Hughes Sydney office and his Melbourne office, I would undoubtedly have had reasonable grounds to appeal my award during the designated appeal process. 

Was the real reason Dr Hughes did not make a finding regarding my lost faxes or carry out an investigation as to why so many of my claim documents did not arrive at his office for assessment is that his office in Sydney was assisting Telstra employees at the same time that Telstra employees were being questioned by the NSW State police and Australian Federal Police for rorting milions upon millions of dollars from the public purse (see SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia). 

Who within the Sydney arm of Dr Hughes's office had the authority to decide if the Melbourne Telstra arbitration legal documents that arrived in the Sydney fax tray was possibly important to the Sydney Telstra legal issues being viewed at the Sydney office when the faxes arived? Who decided the relevance of what Telstra document stayed in Sydney and what was returned to Melbourne?

During my arbitration I provided the arbitrator with the following document dated 29 October 1993 Telstra FOI document folio K01489 concerning my lost faxes which Dr Hughes failed to investigate even though the document notes

"During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception. Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules."

“Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules. … Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t [sic].” (File 44 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 )

On 3 st 31 July (six years after my arbitration concluded, I received several startling FOI documents from ACMA. One f these eight-page documents was originally faxed to the arbitrator’s office fax line 03 6148730 at 05:56 on 15 February. The information contained in this combined document shows that during the period in which Telstra and AUSTEL investigated a Telstra briefcase that Melbourne Telstra executives left at my business, Telstra’s local Portland technician Gordon Stokes, monitored my fax line to see who I was faxing information to after the briefcase was inadvertently left at my premises. FOI document K03273 says:-

 “Micky, This is a note from Gordon Stokes, if you want me to type up some info please advise ASAP. The information regarding the telephone numbers called by this customer following this incident are available from Network Investigation and my information was verbal from Gordon Stokes.”

When collated with Mr Stokes’ other diary notes in the briefcase, which I provided to the Australian Federal Police (see leaves very little doubt: the faxing side of my business was not private, and someone within Telstra was now monitoring my single club female clients. They visited my business on horse riding and canoeing weekends away. This troubled the AFP, but worse is that once it became public, my business was not safe I lost further business. Four large Melbourne Single Clubs ceased visiting my business. 

During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations and hacked faxes.

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats Carried Out

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

“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)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Is this why my arbitration related faxes were being intercepted so as Telstra could determine what evidence I was providing the Australian Federal Police.

During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating the phone and fax hacking issues they asked me 93 questions (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) It is clear from some of the 93 questions asked that I should not have been in an arbitration process while the AFP were investigating Telstra [who were also the defendants in my arbitration]. 

Absent Justice - Renowned Australian Author


Legal abuse, or legal bullying, happens when someone uses the law or legal threats to control and scare you. There may be a pattern to the behaviour that happens again and again. Sometimes other types of abuse are going on at the same time

Some of the dot points highlighted in the above › legal-abuse are mirrored examples that festered the COT arbitration process, including the threats I received from Telstra (Senate Evidence File No 31) that the administrator and arbitrator ignored. Even though these threats were then carried out, destroying every chance I had of proving my phone problems were still ongoing on the day the arbitrator brought down his award.

The arbitrator failed to ensure Telstra rectified these ongoing faults and, by not doing so, allowed them to continue for a further eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration (see Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story)

It is clear from the following SENATE official Hansard that three months before the settlement/arbitration processes began Telstra and their lawyers had devised the "COT Case Strategy" so that we had no chance of receiving the necessary documents to enable us to fully prove our claims. In my case, I could only advise the arbitrator my phone faults were still ongoing. Telstra and their "COT Case Strategy" legally abused the process [and me as a claiamnt] when they would not supply me the technical data I needed to prove to the arbitrator my phone and faxing problems were still affecting the viability of my business.

Absent Justice - Australian Senate 

It was essential to highlight page 5163 to 5169 as well as points 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in official government SENATE official Hansard because it shows that even though a senate investigation into the unethical conduct of Telstra employees, including several police officers as well as the unlawful way in which the COT arbitrations were conducted those responsible for that criminal conduct were never brought to account for that conduct.

Pages 5163 to 5169 also mentioned Senator Collins whose ministerial roll as Minister for Communications linked him into those investigations. It has never been mentioned he had any involvement in these crimes. Still, his position in government was terminated because of allegations against him for committing the unthinkable crimes imaginable in his Canberra parliament house office. 

So as not to confuse the principal "COT Case Strategy" issue discussed at points 29, 30 and 31 I have addresed the rape against aboriginal children in Senator Bob Collins Canberra parliament house office in the Unprecedented Deception page.

27. Apparently the NSW police had a similar problem. According to Mr Saul, he was never interviewed by police, and only token efforts were made to access and seize motel records as evidence. Invariably it was found that moteliers (often former police officers) had been warned to expect a visit. Mr Saul states that a senior police officer within the Professional Responsibility Group of the NSW Police Force (then under the command of former NSW Assistant Commissioner Geoff Schuberg), told him there had been no serious investigation of travel allowance irregularities in NSW—information consistent with a report in the Telegraph Mirror on 19 April 1995, under the headline "Police criminals ‘staying on duty’."

28. In the course of evidence given to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force, Assistant Commissioner Schuberg admitted that three detectives from Tamworth who admitted to rorting their travel expenses were dealt with internally and fined rather than charged with fraud. Commissioner Wood asked: "This is a fraud, is it not, of the kind we have seen politicians and others go to jail for? You have people who are proven liars with criminal records who are still carrying out policing and giving evidence?" Assistant Commissioner Schuberg replied: "Yes, I do think it raises a problem “Legal Professional Privilege”.

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.  

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie. The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with "COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride [sic]. Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Absent Justice - My Story Back in June 1997, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers that Australia had ever known. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General so, who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such important friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich, and the whole aim of that ‘COT Strategy’ was stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims.  Do you think that my claim would have even the tiniest chance of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members and, indeed, I don’t believe that either of them could have possibly condoned such a strategy, what I am asking is how any ordinary person could ever get past Telstra's powerful Board?  After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service. 

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated 3 March 1994 at points 10 to 212, were compiled after the government communications regulator investigated my ongoing telephone problems. Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show AUSTEL’s adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants in my arbitration) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration. When summing up their investigation into my complaints AUSTEL notes at point 209 that:

“Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

As I have shown below on 3 June 1993, Telstra inadvertently left at my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp a briefcase that exposed I and the Australia government had been for years lied to and deceived by Telstra concerning the viability of their telecommunications network. Copies of the information I had copied of relevance from this briefcase was provided by me to AUSTEL in full. Discussions between AUSTEL, Telstra and me regarding the content of this briefcase concluded that Telstra had mislead and deceived me during a commercial settlement process on 11 December 1992.

Under the Australian TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading … (1) it notes: A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive. When Telstra mislead and deceived me during my 11 December 1992 settlement, they beached Section 52 under the Trade Practice Act. This unlawful conduct has still not been addressed. 

What did happen when this left briefcase exposed what it did is that Telstra refused to investigate any further telephone problems unless my complaints were registered in writing and presented to Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page.  

Denise McBurnie's statements to me over many months while I was registering my phone complaints to Ms. McBurnie in writing and verbly that Telstra had advised Freehill's they had not found any faults affecting my business do not coincide with the statements in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. In simple terms, either Telstra profoundly mislead and deceived Denise McBurnie  concerning my ongoing telephone faults or Denise McBurnie  profoundly mislead and deceived me concerning these same problems. 

Absent Justice - The Firm

The Firm - John Grisham 

It was while all this skulduggery and deception was taking place and Denise McBurnie along with Freehill Hollingdale & Page had drained me of all my reserved energies to keep going,  that I remembered the ruthless legal firm portrayed in the 1991 novel The Firm by John Grisham.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because it was provided by Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - "COT Case Strategy" during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

What I did not know, when I first had to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I was providing it to Telstra believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). 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.

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me being of sound mind?

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 (see 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?" 

It is July 2022, I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

Protecting Telstra the way AUSTEL's public servants did (see File 46-L (see [document|559] does not exist) allowing Telstra [the defendants in my arbitration] to secretly address arbitration claims, without the arbitrator and claimant [me] being present, constitutes a radical attack on the fundamental principles of open justice.  In its flagrant disregard of constitutional and legal principle, the government regulator has abandoned its proper role as a model litigant and damaged the rule of law, i.e., my legal right to have been able to respond to File 46-L Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l under the agreed arbitration process. 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's.signed the witness statement without the psychologist signing it shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

Absent Justice

Fax Identification Footprint Is Visible 

In my case, another Alan Smith (no relative) who was living on Cape Bridgewater Road, was also battling Telstra and receiving letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing letters of demand for non-paid Telstra billing accounts. It is clear from two of those letters of demand the Freehill Hollingdale & Page fax identification footprint is visible on these documents. This other Alan Smith later informed me after my arbitration concluded that he often received my arbitration-related documents from Telstra during my arbitration. What needs to be considered is, how much arbitration information which I never received from Telstra or Freehill's was mistakenly sent to this other Alan Smith?  

Had the arbitrator investigated my claims that I was not receiving my arbitration-related documents, and that very sensitive documentation had been removed by an unknown source from three different COT Cases premises which they had also needed to support their arbitration claims, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra’s arbitration defence lawyers Freehills Hollindgale & Page was mistakenly (or deliberately) sending some of my relevant arbitration material to this other Alan Smith, who Freehill was aware was complaining of the same ongoing disputed billing accounts. These were the same ongoing billing problems that the arbitrator refused to allow his arbitration technical consultants the extra weeks they stated was needed to fully investigate (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues).

Julian Assange?

Absent Justice - Justice for All 


If the hackers mentioned on this webpage and throughout was Julian Assange were Julian Assange and his friends, and it is very likely it was them, then why hasn't the Australian Government understood what the hackers wanted to share with us COT cases? He did not ask for payment in sharing what he and his friends had uncovered concerning Telstra’s ailing copper wire network, as would have been the case if he had been a common criminal. He wanted us to have a fair arbitration hearing, and that was all. Had we used the information on offer, then the arbitrator would have been compelled to demand that Telstra fix its degraded Ericsson exchange equipment, instead of bringing down his findings which did not disclose  the true extent of the corroded  network that was destroying the COT cases' businesses and numerous other telephone dependent businesses throughout Australia. 

Was the altering of the $250,000.00 liability caps from our arbitration agreement after it had been faxed to our lawyers as the final agreement what the hackers was trying to reveal to us that it was not only Telstra who were acting unlawfully towards us COT Cases (see Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct)?

Before COT Cases were forced into arbitration without the necessary documents, we needed to support our claims the arbitration agreement was altered after the final copy had been signed by the first claimant Maureen Gillan, and after it had been faxed to our lawyers as the final agreement.  For more on this Legal abuse | 1800RESPECT story, check out Chapter 5. Fraudulent conduct the whole of the arbitration consultants, even the TIO Legal Counsel, were all covertly exonerated from all liability for misconduct to the detriment of the three prominent COT cases Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me.

Page 5163, in this following link SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. This looks may well be the rorting [stealing of millions of dollars by Telstra from the government] that Julian Assange was trying to disclose to COT Case Spokesperson Graham Schorer. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gain fully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of  SENATE official Hansard) were being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted. 

Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of  SENATE official Hansard) shows that, even before COT members and a number of senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants and our lives have been ruined, simply because we dared to challeng the issue of the possibibility that corrupt government officials were behind the selling off ot Lanes to Ericsson. 


Absent Justice - Unresolved Privacy Issues 

Hacked Faxes 

Between June 2011 and June 2012, I sent a number of letters to the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, regarding the prolonged, unauthorised interception of Graham Schorer’s and my faxes during and after our arbitrations. Three replies (dated 12 October 2011, 23 March 2012 and 2 July 2012) are in Main Evidence File No 10. Each response, all headed Interception of facsimiles, stipulated that the Department of Justice cannot investigate interception of faxes, even though I provided documented proof of: 

The interception of faxes exchanged between lawyers and their clients while they were involved in Supreme Court proceedings; 

The interception of faxes to and from the arbitrator while the other COT claimants and I were involved in a federal government-endorsed arbitration; 

Telstra’s admission to the Australian Federal Police that Telstra intercepted my telephone conversations. 

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note: 

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations. 

Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers? 

The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 

“In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct under taken [sic] by Telstra against the COT Cases.”  (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/2

I also wrote to the Hon Robert Clark on 20 June 2012, to remind him that his office was already in receipt of a 7 July 2011 statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer. This statutory declaration discusses the three young computer hackers who phoned Graham during the COT arbitrations of 1994 to warn him. They had discovered that Telstra and others associated with the arbitrations were ‘acting unlawfully’ towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes many alarming statements: (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3), as does his own story provided to me to add here in our next Julian Assange chapter which is currently being edited. 

Although the following Senate Hansard - 20 September 1995 has been raised on the Summary of Events page it was most important to raise it again below.

Absent Justice - Senator Ron Boswell

Senate Hansard - 20 September 1995

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the above type of injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions], in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding.

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” 

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston 

Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information  

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases: 

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused 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.” 

The following Senate Hansard records, show that the COT Cases should have listened to Julian Assange and not the arbitrator and administrator. Neither arbitrator nor the administrator of our arbitration were prepared to force Telstra to comply with the law. Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process. 

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

In a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript , Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” (Arbitrator Evidence File No 66)

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Has been abused 

Senator Kim Carr also criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999 as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, noting:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And addressing Telstra’s conduct, by saying:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long". (See

Clicking on Kangaroo - Court  will take you to the latest updates Kangaroo Court of Australia - Why rent a lawyer when you can buy a judge.  A Fugitive Australian journalist Shane Dowling talks about being on the run and Australia dropping to #39 on the world press freedom index

We periodically publish articles on the Kangaroo - Court of Australia, because that website exposes cover-ups and fraud, allowing you the reader here on to see it is an ongoing problem in Australia. The COT Case's lives were ruined because the truth surrounding our Telstra claims was covered up by crooked lawyers, arbitrators and government bureaucrats to suit their agenda.

Clicking on > LEARN MORE to the right of the bottom of this page will take you to Unprecedented Deception. that is exactly what is recoded there is sheer unprecedented decption.

Who Are We

Absent Justice was set up in an attempt to publish a true account of what really happened during the various Australian Government endorsed arbitrations with Telstra.

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 on this website show they were found to have existed as the following government records show see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212

Learn More ⟶

Who We Are
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s 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...


All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents on Alan's website

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 that can be downloaded from is possibly a world first.


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

My Story - Absent Justice

My Story

My name is Alan Smith.

This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government, a battle that has twisted and turned, since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 20 or so years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond.

Of all the places in the world I had visited, I chose to make Australia my home.

Read More ⟶

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

– Edmund Burke