My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.





Michael Rumsewicz PhD

22 December 2021

Please note the below segment was published by Lyn Fattorini on Facebook on 22 December 2021

Published by Lyn Fattorini tfc2l21Su3ol0mhsore727d 









Telstra Energy must provide special protections for consumers ...

It is also important I include here the following link dated 16 December 2021 > Telstra Energy must provide special protections for consumers ... which states in part:

The Essential Services Commission has granted Telstra Energy (Retail) Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Telstra Corporation Limited, licences to sell gas and electricity to Victorian consumers.  

As a special condition of its licences, Telstra Energy will establish a specialist team to handle all enquiries and complaints for its Victorian energy customers. This will ensure that Telstra Energy customers in Victoria get dedicated support.

Commission chair Kate Symons said the commission will be keeping a close eye on Telstra Energy’s compliance in the energy sector. Telstra Group has an extensive history of non-compliance in the telecommunications sector and stakeholders expressed significant concerns about this during the consultation on the licence applications. 

The fact that on 16 December 2021, the Essential Services Commission Chair noted: "...Telstra Group has an extensive history of non-compliance in the telecommunications sector", supports my claims in my story that Telstra and their government minders have a poor track record when dealing with legitimate complaints. My complaints were first raised collectively with Telstra's government minders and Telstra in 1988, and officially in 1992 and still those Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems have not been investigated transparently in either my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration or my 2006 settlement process.  

All events quoted in this publication are supported by copies of the original documents: for example, C A V Part 1, 2 and 3Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continuesBad Bureaucrats - Manipulating the Regulator, etc. Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. By using this method and following the file numbers, 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, are so overwhelming that we would have lost clarity had we placed all in one manuscript. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.

Starting on page 5163, this 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. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. 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 full functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the 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 – Parliament of Australia 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. 

I  wonder if the Essential Services Commission chair Kate Symons is aware of the millions upon millions of dollars that Telstra siphoned [stole] from the Australian public who then owned Telstra? I doubt whether chair Kate Symonds is aware that Telstra had the power to demand the government communications regulator AUSTEL remove their true findings from the COT Cases April 1994 report (see below) to state there were 50 or more COT Cases type complaints when AUSTEL had found their wee 120,000 COT type complaints affecting the Australian Telstra consumer.

Absent Justice - TIO

Although the following > Mr Paul Howell, Director of DMR Canada arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995 < issue has been addressed elsewhere on this website it was again important to refer to it here again. 

One of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman officials who himself was prepared to mislead and deceive me into believing the technical findings were done by the Canadian technical consultant flown in from Canada to assess my claim material when it had already been assessed by an ex-Telstra employee who was NOT the officially appointed technical principal consultant at all (refer to page two i.e.; which states

" I also advise that Mr Paul Howell, Director of DMR Canada arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995 and worked over the Easter Holiday period, particularly on the Smith claim. Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes [ex-Telstra employee] will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (refer to Prologue Evidence File No 22-A 

In other words, Paul Howell was flown from Canada to Melbourne, Australia, to sign off an official report that had already been completed in the draft by Lane, who was then sold off to Ericsson Telecommunications. 

I wonder if the Canadian government is aware that one of its countries most respected telecommunications company DMR Inc Group was used by the Australian Seat of Arbitration to cover reporting by a company that was later purchased by Ericcson's whose technical equipment was the very equipment under the microscope during the COT arbitrations as this part of our story shows further down the page.

In 2002 after the statute of limitations had expired for me to appeal the arbitration process, I finally received a copy of this letter Prologue Evidence File No 22-A. It had a one-word, handwritten note in the margin, beside the instruction to imply the Canadian company had been involved in the investigation into my claims. Apparently, whoever wrote the notation was startled at the skullduggery – the single word was “What?” The annotator recognised the technical resource unit should not have performed the investigation… but still allowed this cover-up to stand.

Worse if that is at all possible, in the 9 March 1995 letter to me from Warwick Smith (the first administrator to my arbitration) he noted:

“Messrs, Read and Souter will assist Mr, Paul; Howell of DMR Group In (Canada) in technical assessment under the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. Mr Howell the principal technical advisor to the Resource unit will be in Australia within two weeks. The technical enquiries will commence on Thursday 16th March, 1995.

As is shown in Prologue Evidence File No 22-A Paul Howell did not arrive two weeks later after the 9 March 1995 letter he did not arrive until 13 April 1995, after all of my technical claim material had been assessed. 

However, the author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A also advised the TIO that the director of the Canadian technical consultancy firm, appointed by the TIO as the Principal technical consultant and who was supposed to take charge of the technical side of the arbitration, arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995, not in March 1995 as promised by Warwick Smith in his 9 March 1995 letter. I reiterate true colours of the author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A were exposed when he stated any reports prepared by Lane (who we didn’t trust, would be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Group Inc (the Canadian technical consultancy that we were sure we could trust).

In simple terms, all of the technical assessments of my claim had already been assessed by the time Paul Howell had arrived in Australia.

Chapter 1 to Chapter 3 - The collusion continues clearly showing that the same author of Prologue Evidence File No 22-A continued to mislead other various authorities (after the completion of my arbitration) concerning the conduct of my arbitration. The author of this letter refer again to document|61) in 2021 still operates an arbitration (Chambers) in Collins Street Melbourne. 

[had] the ability or power to get the government to investigate Telstra's corporate thuggery clearly shows how corrupt Australia's legal and political system is.  Peta Credlin and Bernard Collaery have since highlighted this flaw in their most recent public media releases.

It is also important to link Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2), because Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce AkehurstTelstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra. The Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group’s own investigations into claims the five litmus test cases registered concerning Telstra committing fraud. Page 11 of Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Sue Owens stating I am “extremely intelligent” and that police also thought the same concerning my ability to detect wrongdoing. This Major Fraud Group investigation is also discussed on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens, who, like me, were discriminated against by the government – because to have properly investigated our matters would have impeded the sale of Telstra.

If the Telstra network condition was as, as the privatisation sale prospectus states it was, then why did Telstra use three known fraudulently manufactured reports as arbitration defence documents during my arbitration?

The following two links Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) on page 4 of Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) and later Senator Barry O'Sullivan discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my matters would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra.

A fair resolution of those sixteen COT cases has never been resolved, as can be seen by clicking onto An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The Australian government did not want to have to answer questions by the US Securities Exchange regarding the prospectus and the 'pink herring'  document that had been filed.

On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me, in Melbourne, in an attempt to ensure our claims of discrimination against the Commonwealth were fully investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so badly discriminated against in such a deplorable fashion by the then-Coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

Between September and October 2002, after having been briefed by George Close, my previous arbitration technical advisor I provided Senator Len Haris further evidence supporting: the pair gain system which formed much of Telstra's existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers' phones had not been replaced regardless of the COT Cases exposing these deficiencies to the arbitrator in 1994 (see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two).

Similar Corroded Telstra owned telephone equipment was uncovered at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp between November and December 2002, seven years after the arbitrator disallowed DMR Group Inc (Canada) to fully investigate my claims of ongoing telephone problems on the eve of his bringing down his findings which did not mention my phone faults were still ongoing. I was promised in writing on 9 May 1995, by the administrator that DMR Group Inc (Canada) would be the principal technical consultant. DMR Group Inc (Canada) did not inspect my business phones service or the very deficient Ericsson AXE equipment or the logbook at the Portland AXE telephone exchange. 

Only Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd visited the Portland AXE exchange and along with Telstra's Peter Gamble pushed aside my request to second Absent Justice - Corroded Copper Wire Network

Corroded Equipment 

At a press conference, on 14 November 2002 Senator Len Harris advised the media that all was not right with the selling off of the remaining Telstra network noting:

“The urgency of the Government to unload Telstra is the realisation that it needs a huge injection of capital expenditure just to remain operational.

“In other words, sell the whole shooting bag before it rains and let someone else worry about fixing it. …

Faulty materials such as Hi Gel 3M 442 that has corroded copper joints;
Contractors cutting corners with cable installation; …
Failure by senior personnel to recognise the magnitude of the impending networks implosion …

“The pair gain system forms much of Telstra’s existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers’ phones that ordinarily ought to be replaced.”

By this time, the Senate had already been informed on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

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

Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate learned we COT Cases “had to stop to be stopped at cost” from proving our claims they also uncovered see page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, that Telstra employees were rorting millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra.  NSW was not the only state where this rorting had taken place. Threats were now being made against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully receive functional phone systems, was about to expose how dilapidated the Telstra network was. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (see page 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted. Telstra's lawyers were brought in to stop the COT Cases from exposing the truth surrounding the unethical conduct of those within this government-owned

A covert arrangement entered into by the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and the name of my business the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases that had been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) that had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents.

These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but had also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was later used during the first four government-endorsed arbitrations (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)

Even worse, before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by the Australian government. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, 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 on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged

Even worse, another Alan Smith who used to live in Discovery Bay, on the other of Cape Bridgewater like me before and leading up to my arbitration, had been battling Telstra over many months receiving legal letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnamboollaw firm) acting for a financial debt collector issuing summons (two I still have) for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehills Hollingdale & Page fax identification stamp is visible on these documents. This is the same Alan Smith who later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and road mail deliveries, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra's arbitration defence unit Freehills mistakenly sent some of my arbitration material to this Alan Smith. I use the word mistakenly because I have no proof it was a deliberate part of Telstra's COT Cases strategy to 'stop me at all costs' from proving my claim.

Absent Justice - Telstras Doctored Technical Report

Published by Lyn Fattorini OccStohbe0rm 61g8 3at 125:h083r 46P9M

So, it is established that Telstra intercepted arbitration-connected faxes and documents, bugged complainants’ phones and interfered with evidence. One might expect that when going into arbitration against a telecommunications company. I’m amazed the government, who endorsed the arbitrations, didn’t expect this behaviour and put plans in place to prevent it! Oh, wait – the Australian government-owned Telstra back then...

Telstra took advantage of its network and Hacking - Julian Assange - Chapter 8 – Hacking / Unresolved Privacy Issues shows plans were underway to do this early on.

But, Telstra’s shady – criminal – behaviour went much further than that. There were burglaries (see exhibit 522-A in and stalking Hacking - Julian Assange - Chapter 2 – I am not alone; Hacking Julian Assange - Chapter 4 – What Privacy?; and Hacking - Julian Assange - Chapter 5 – Defacing Requested Documents. 

In 1994, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and other COTs suffered break-ins and lost computers and business-related documents. I lost diaries covering 1987 to 1989, official booking records, bank statements and bank pay-in books for 1992/93. Without these records, it was difficult to produce full and correct financial statements for my forensic accountant. I had to remove all business records off my premises after that. (See Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 4 - Government spying)

One particularly alarming event was the intimidation of Detective Sergeant Rod Keuris, who was part of the Australian Major Fraud Group. Sadly, this man left the force – his career – shortly after. File 517 in AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 shows two statutory declarations: one by an ex-Telstra senior protective officer; the other from Bob Hynninen, another COT case. Both statements describe the anguish experienced by this senior detective sergeant who was investigating alleged fraud within Telstra during the COT arbitrations and the fears he had after being subjected to intimidation.

Consider: if this feeling of being got at by the Telstra Corporation can reduce a fully trained senior police officer to this condition, just think how this continual and unaddressed harassment by Telstra officials left the COT cases during and after our government-endorsed arbitrations (for example, exhibit 501 in AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541). No COTs were ever offered counseling or apologised to by the government, which, remember, still owned Telstra when this harassment commenced in 1992 and continued well past the Major Fraud Group investigations of 1998 and 2001 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1).


Absent Justice - My Story

Published by Lyn Fattorini 4 October 2021

The story of Alan’s arbitration and the cover-up of the extent of Telstra’s dilapidated network does not only rest on Telstra. So many people – from the government to bureaucrats and the justice system – were necessary for Telstra to successfully minimise the damage to its reputation and the compensation it had to pay while preventing exposure of its woefully inadequate telecommunication systems.

One such assistant, or pawn, was Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator. Everything about his role as arbitrator was dodgy, from the start.

Firstly, Dr Hughes was not a graded arbitrator when the COT arbitrations began. ( and During the later Institute of Arbitrators’ (IAMA) ethics committee investigation into the legitimacy of Alan’s arbitration, Alan asked about the rumours of Dr Hughes failing his exams to become a graded arbitrator during Alan’s arbitration. The IAMA would not comment on this.

Secondly, Dr Hughes was COT spokesperson Graham Schorer’s lawyer during Mr Schorer’s failed Federal court case against Telstra PRIOR to the arbitrations. Dr Hughes assisted Mr Schorer professionally in his business AND was his lawyer during Graham’s 1990-93 Federal Court action against Telstra. These were the very same issues Dr Hughes was appointed to assess as arbitrator in 1994! Alan didn’t uncover this serious conflict of interest until 2008. Alan asked Mr Schorer to explain why he concealed this. Mr Schorer provided exhibit GS 565:

Why did Dr Hughes – the supposed arbitrator – not disclose this massive conflict of interest? Thirdly, Dr Hughes, a non-arbitrator, handled at least six COT arbitrations at the SAME time! The Senate and the government’s communications regulator (AUSTEL) were told that similar arbitrations, conducted in the UK against British Telecom, each had an independent arbitrator appointed, due to the complexity of the technical issues involved.

Telstra’s transcript of a meeting held in February 1994 confirms the COT complainants wished to retain their commercial settlement process. However, Dr Hughes stated arbitration would be more effective and that, as the arbitrator, he could give “appropriate directions for the production of documents” and “would not make a determination on incomplete information” – see file 165) Dr Hughes said he wouldn’t bring down a judgement without the communication problems being resolved. Keep that statement in mind…

TIO-appointed arbitration special counsel Peter Bartlett wrote to Alan on 6 May 1994 to “emphasise that Dr Hughes can only make a decision on the material before him”.  How could Dr Hughes make a determination based on reasonable grounds when most evidence disappeared en route to Alan's arbitration? I covered some of this in a previous post:

Why did Dr Hughes, as arbitrator, allow the defendant Telstra to carry out the arbitration testing of claimants’ telephone services without that testing process being scrutinised by Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman-appointed technical consultants? This was the most important technical issue in the whole arbitration: the evidence of whether the faults were resolved, or not. The arbitrator accepted Telstra’s testing report as factual, yet Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report ( shows Telstra fabricated the Cape Bridgewater (where Alan resided) arbitration testing. (See also, Summary of Events / Chapter 4)

The arbitrator should have appointed an independent umpire to ensure Telstra – the defendant – conducted the testing process properly and according to AUSTEL’s mandatory requirements. As many exhibits show, beyond all doubt, Telstra executives chose to lie under oath and claim the testing process met all of the regulatory requirements, when, at Alan’s premises, incoming tests to three service lines were grossly deficient (see
Was covering up Telstra’s ailing copper-wire network more important than the businesses and lives of those who originally dared challenge the system on behalf of all Australians? Summary of Events /Chapter-5.

Dr Hughes’ technical consultants advised him, in their 30 April 1995 report, that their findings were incomplete and they required extra weeks to investigate Alan’s ongoing telephone complaints; however, that wording was removed from the draft and the draft, still dated 30 April 1995, was submitted to the arbitration as the complete formal report. (See Manipulating the Regulator /Chapter 1. Remember, Dr Hughes said, in the beginning, that if the COT claimants agreed to enter arbitration that he “would not make a determination on incomplete information”.

With ongoing telephone problems covered up by the arbitration process, Dr Hughes only awarded for damage caused BEFORE claimants entered arbitration and ignored the problems that continued to haunt those businesses. The arbitration process was nothing but a ruse.



Absent Justice - TF200 EXICOM telephone

Published by Lyn Fattorini, 5 September 2021


The main aim of Telstra’s T200-telephone report, submitted as evidence into arbitration, was to prove Telstra’s service was not at fault. WHY? Firstly, Alan’s issues were not isolated, but he was one of only a few standing up and taking on Telstra publicly.

Telstra had a number of faults in the network that it needed to hide, in order to remain an attractive proposition for privatisation, but, also, to save costs. Some faults resulted in customers being overcharged: that amount added up over time and there were more than just a few customers affected. It was cheaper and easier for government-owned Telstra to divert attention from its neglected network and instead blame customers for faults. I discuss the extent of these problems shortly.*

Let’s return to Alan’s ‘drunk’ phone and Telstra’s deception. In late 1995, well after his arbitration finished, Alan received new evidence conclusively proving a wet, sticky substance did not cause his lock-up issue. At least two issues contributed to this lock-up problem.

Mr Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer, believed the problem was caused by heat in the unmanned RCM exchange at Cape Bridgewater ( folio R37911/B). Telstra was aware this telephone fault often occurred in moisture-prone areas, like Cape Bridgewater, and also knew the local exchange suffered from heat problems.

Telstra FOI folio D01026/27 ( also confirms Telstra knew EXICOM’s T200 phones suffered from lock-up problems in moisture-prone areas. This document confirms this problem caused lines to remain open, so one party could hear the room noise of the locked-up party after the call was supposedly terminated. This document also confirms that instead of destroying these faulty phones, Telstra re-deployed some 45,000 phones to areas where local technicians supposed moisture was not a problem.

Telstra’s CCAS data shows that between December 1993 and February 1994 (three months), Alan’s services (008/1800, phone and fax) locked up for a total of 859.5 hours. ( 4-D) How many others were similarly affected?

In mid-March 1994, before Telstra collected Alan’s T200 phone, a special network unit visited Cape Bridgewater’s unmanned RCM switching station (a large hut). They noticed the building was not sealed to the concrete slab and there was no fan on the top of the unit to allow airflow to circulate. This meant moisture could creep in and affect lines disconnecting when a call was terminated. Ninety Cape Bridgewater residents were connected to this RCM. A technician noted that when they left the RCM station door open, incoming test calls terminated promptly, as they should. ( /AS eight)

Alan contacted Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock with the new evidence proving Telstra submitted false documentation into arbitration and asked what the TIO would do with this proof of Telstra fabricating the beer in the phone story. The TIO responded that Alan’s arbitration was finished and he would not involve his office in any investigation.

No action has ever been taken against Telstra for its tampering with evidence and perversion of justice.

Telstra eventually sold two shipping containers of T200s as scrap to Liberty USA, who moisture proofed the phones with silicon and resold them to Poland.

*The lock-up issues were only one fault in the Telstra network. A survey carried out on behalf of AUSTEL shows calls not received at customers’ businesses, although apparently connected at the exchange. Calls would also drop out upon answering. Customers were charged for these defective calls. Many of those affected were small businesses using Telstra’s 008/1800 (free-call service; business pays) plan. AUSTEL estimated there were as many as 120,000 (!!) customers affected by COT-type phone issues. However, Telstra demanded AUSTEL modify its draft report to show only “50 or more” complaints in AUSTEL’s formal report, before Telstra provided this final report to the arbitrator. (This report, Exhibit 30-U, is a 258-page official public document.) The government regulator allowed Telstra to attempt to fix this problem from 1993 to 1996 while, at the same time, ignoring Telstra’s promotions of a product that both knew was grossly deficient.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings report (March 1994) proves Alan’s various line issues existed from 1988 onwards and severely affected his business operations and caused losses. ( This report was concealed from Alan and the arbitrator. It was finally released in November 2007 – 13 years after Telstra submitted the T200 beer in the phone report. shows how government bureaucrats and regulators colluded to assist Telstra to defuse the real problems raised in the COT arbitrations. Telstra was operating outside of its licensing conditions and, in doing so, was destroying hundreds, possibly thousands, of small Australia business.

This February 1993 Telstra memo, and, provides interesting reading about the state of Telstra networks, technicians’ lack of knowledge and the slack remedies employed to ‘fix’ issues. CAN is Customer Access Network – the point of connection in the street where telecommunication wires connect to a box, hut or pit near customers’ premises. Telstra preferred to blame the CAN for problems, to distract from its ailing network. Yet, AUSTEL allowed arbitration testing to NOT test the CAN: this is well documented in AUSTEL’s public report.

Absent Justice - Privacy

Published by Lyn Fattorini, 29 August 2021


Tampering with evidence is a crime; tampering with evidence after it has been provided to a legal arbitration process for assessment is a very serious crime. In Alan’s case, illegal tampering with evidence included the introduction of a foreign substance into his telephone after then-government-owned Telstra collected it from his premises. Telstra then produced a deliberately falsified report about that phone and submitted it to the arbitrator.

After his arbitration began, Alan discussed a hang-up fault with AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson. (AUSTEL was then the government’s telecommunications regulatory authority. It is now called ACMA.) Mr Mathieson and Alan carried out a series of tests on Alan’s phone line. When Alan hung up his TF200 phone and counted aloud, Mr Mathieson could still hear him. They repeated the test and got the same results. Alan replaced the phone with another, repeated the test – and they got the same results, suggesting the fault was not in the phone itself, but somewhere in the Telstra network. Mr Mathieson suggested Alan discuss this fault with Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer. Of course, neither man knew then that Peter Gamble was one of the men Lindsay White named as saying Telstra must stop the COT claimants “at all costs” from proving their claims (Senate Hansard:

Mr Gamble performed the same phone line tests with Alan and arranged for collection of the phone for testing purposes. Ross Anderson, a Telstra technician collected the phone on 27 April 1994, then tested the fax phone at least 18 times in Portland without it once displaying the lock-up fault (Telstra document FOI folio R37911: After Mr Anderson’s testing, the phone took a further nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory, arriving 6 May. Laboratory testing did not commence for another four days.

At point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, Ray Bell, author of Telstra’s TF 200 report, states: “The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance ...” (Tampering With Evidence:

Photographs in Telstra’s report show the outside of the phone was very dirty. According to the laboratory technicians, when they opened the phone, the inside was wet and sticky. Analysis showed the substance was beer and the conclusion was that this caused the hookswitch to lock up. (Don’t forget: AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson and Alan had already tested two different phones on the line and still found the same fault.)

Alan was perplexed, as the phone was clean when it left his premises. He put in a request to the arbitrator, asking to see a copy of all the laboratory technicians’ handwritten notes so he could see how Telstra arrived at their conclusion. Alan appointed a forensic document researcher to look over the documents but, upon submitting the report, the only response he received from the arbitrator and Telstra was a duplicate copy of the report he had already received as part of Telstra’s defence.

In December 1994, Alan received 24,000 FOI documents in a document dump ( from Telstra, cleverly timed for Christmas (when lawyers and arbitrators are on holiday). In the new year, with instructions to begin finalising Alan’s arbitration, the arbitrator refused to accept any submissions based on new evidence from this document dump. Among these submissions was evidence that Telstra’s TF200 report was deliberately and falsely concocted in order to stop the arbitration resource unit from investigating the line that Alan’s phone had been connected to. Six years later, the same lock-up problems were still present on the same line.

On 28 November 1995, six months after Alan’s arbitration ended, he received Telstra’s full report, which confirms Telstra carried out two separate investigations of the phone, two weeks apart, and the second test, between 24 and 26 May 1994, proved that the first report (10 to 12 May 1994) – the report provided to the arbitrator – was a total fabrication. Telstra laboratory staff found wet beer introduced into the phone dried out completely in 48 hours, with air vents allowing beer to escape. (FOI folio A64535-6 in Telstra collected Alan’s phone on 27 April 1994, but it was not tested until 10 May – a gap of 14 days. Even though government-owned Telstra knew its second investigation proved the first arbitration report was fundamentally flawed, it still submitted the fabricated report to the arbitrator as Telstra’s true findings on 12 December 1994.


For further information, visit

Absent Justice - Listening In

Published by Lyn Fattorini, 25 August 2021


When entering arbitration – or any legal arena – it is important that parties have access to support, e.g., for legal advice. In Alan’s case, he needed access to technical advisors, accountants and others, to help him formulate his claims and to understand the evidence he was looking at. Such advice is confidential.

The Telstra/COT (Casualty of Telstra) arbitrations took place in the 1990s. In those days, communication was by letter, phone or fax, as it was prior to the widespread use of the internet.

So, what happens when you take on a large government-owned telecommunications company and have the potential to expose how dilapidated the whole network is?

Alan began to realise some faxes weren’t getting through to recipients – they just disappeared. Other faxes had double date/time stamps on them, proving they’d been intercepted, then sent on from an untraceable intermediary fax machine. (See

Obviously, it was to Telstra’s great advantage to know what information Alan was receiving or sending to his technical and legal advisors or faxing to the arbitrator. How was this a level playing field? Consider, too: if Telstra knew what evidence was going to be requested, it could ensure that evidence ‘disappeared’.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) was very concerned at what its investigation into Telstra’s interceptions showed. (

What IS surprising is that Telstra was so sloppy about its interceptions. Telstra evidence shows notes detailing when Alan was going to be out of town and who would be looking after his business while he was away (and their employment hours).

Customers’ names, bookings and contact details were recorded, as were potential contracts Alan was investigating and more. (I’m only touching lightly on this interception topic. Check for more in-depth coverage.)

On 15 February 1994 (before Alan’s arbitration began), Senator Richard Alston asked the government-owned Telstra, on notice:

This illegal interception of fax and phone communications happened before, during and after the COT arbitrations.

Interception of mail also occurred – in particular a huge amount of collated evidence that was sent by Alan’s arbitration consultants to the arbitrator’s office. The evidence never arrived and this had a terribly detrimental effect on Alan’s case. (See “A comprehensive log of Mr Smith’s complaints does not appear to exist.”

Did Telstra’s lawyers know about this? Don’t forget: Telstra employees were told the COT complainants must be stopped “at all costs”.*

Absent Justice - Constant Complaints

Published by Lyn Fattorini 21, August 2021

My name is Lyn Fattorini. I have been working with Alan Smith for over six years, initially as an editor for his original website. Alan has asked me to write a series of posts about his experiences in taking on the Australian government and a large corporation.

Part of an editor’s role is checking dates, statements, etc., are correct and that quotes are verbatim. In the course of my work with Alan, I have combed through ALL of his evidential exhibits – of which there’s an impressive amount! Alan, himself, is very careful to be sure his claims are backed by evidence. To do otherwise would be foolish, considering who he is up against.

Alan’s life for the past 20-plus years may seem unbelievable to some. But I can assure you there’s no exaggeration. There are multiple instances of deception, threats, evidence tampering and withholding and even criminal activity, involving one of Australia’s largest corporations, successive Australian governments and ministers, ombudsmen, the Federal police as well as the justice system. Why? There are many reasons, but, ultimately, to cover up the massive negligence of a nationwide, government-owned, telecommunications network, in order to privatise it in the 1990s. IF the government had admitted how degraded the system was, the sales prospectus would not have been very attractive to potential buyers.

Australia, today, is still suffering from this cover up, with poor connectivity and significant budget blowouts in upgrading the network. The government and corporation now claim they didn’t realise how neglected and dilapidated the lines were. Except, they DID know. From the late 1980 through the 1990s, Alan, and other affected business people, were seeking compensation for damages to their businesses by telecommunications services that were not fit for purpose. The government’s own communications regulator found the network WAS terribly degraded and found in favour of the claimants. This was hidden from the claimants, however, and they were forced into mediations and arbitrations. These claimants were a massive threat to the government-owned enterprise – and its sale. The government had to shut these complainants up, “at all costs”.* As we know, lies usually require more lies to keep the truth hidden. The now privatised corporation readily assisted the government in the cover up and added further layers of deception and lies.

Alan is the only original business owner still fighting and he is still considered a threat today, because to successfully publicise this massive collusion will be disastrous for many politicians and highly regarded prominent figures, leaving them in immense disgrace.

Today, the government persists in deflecting Alan’s attempts at seeking acknowledgement and restitution, for himself and other remaining business owners. Certain ministers have tried to stand up on Alan’s behalf over the years, but, overall, they get nowhere. And the privatised corporation just ignores him. Unfortunately, these complainants/whistleblowers are aging and a number are now deceased. One gets the feeling the government and the corporation are just biding time until Alan passes: whereupon they will give a collective sigh of relief and finally bury this shocking story of misuse of power and abuse of Australian citizens.

There are many facets to what Alan has uncovered over the years concerning this sordid situation and the unscrupulous behaviour involved in suppressing public knowledge of it. I will report separately on some of the layers involved over the next few weeks.

Absent Justice Ebook

Published by Alan Smith, 10 August 2021.

Firstly, please read my website and secondly please read the Prologue and Introduction to my latest publication, “Absent Justice".

As a result of the interest shown by so many LinkedIn contacts, late last month I published the true story of the Casualties of Telstra (COT), a band of small Australian business owners who blindly put their faith and trust in a small group of bureaucrats who, we later discovered, were secretly working with a government-owned telecommunications carrier (the Telstra Corporation) to deliberately conceal, from its customers, just how bad the telephone system really was in Australia, back in 1994.

Without the support of those LinkedIn contacts and an editor in Ringwood, a Melbourne suburb, which I plucked at random from a telephone business guide in August 1994, and who is still pushing out pages of edited work so that my two books (one not yet published), and my website,, can reveal the whole truth about what this small group of government bureaucrats and Melbourne lawyers and accountants were prepared to do for-profit and professional gain.

The exhibits supporting the website, and the books, can be downloaded as you troll through this amazing story. In fact, there are over 1,600 exhibits that reveal the truth of how sixteen Australian citizens were deliberately subjected to long-term abuse because these bureaucrats have been willing to do almost anything to keep the truth concealed for as long as they can.

Recently another editor, this time from the South Island of New Zealand, and chosen from my LinkedIn contacts have also become a part of this driving force of people who are so incensed at the horrors created by that lying group of bureaucrats that, like my Ringwood editor, they are simply dedicated to making sure that this story finally sees the light of day.

On 13 April 1994, eight days before the COT Cases signed their arbitration agreements AUSTEL the then government communications regulator (now ACMA advised the Minister of Communications The Hon Michael Lee MP, that Telstra had agreed to fix all of the COT Cases telephone problems before the arbitrator brought down their findings.

ALL of the telephone problems still being experienced by the COT Cases were not fixed before the arbitrator brought down his findings.

In my case, and that of most of the other COT Cases, their phone problems continued after their arbitrations, those who still had businesses to run. My own arbitration professional fees, including the resultant costs in my attempt to have my ongoing telephone problems fixed as part of the arbitration cost, went past the $260.000.00 (two-hundred and sixty thousand dollars and nothing had changed on the 11 May 1995 when the arbitrator failed to have the problems fixed. Australia must be the only country in the western world that endorses an arbitration process that never delivered what the government promised.

Please go to my website,, and purchase my eBook. So far, six different publishers have joined this venture and the eBook, called “Absent Justice", will only cost you $13.00. And please remember two things: everything in the eBook is the truth, and it includes the 1,600-plus exhibits that you can also, download.

Below is a copy of the Prologue and Introduction to my manuscript

Absent Justice - The Log Book

Published by Alan Smith, 2 August 2021

I have set up my website and this Facebook page to share my attempts, over twenty years, to take on the Telstra Corporation; to hold them accountable for the faulty service they provided to my business property, and to make them accept liability for the business losses I incurred as a result. I have also collected similar stories from other Australians who have had similar experiences with Telstra and who, so far, have also not yet received the justice they deserve. It seems that our telecommunications giant is above the law.

My story begins in the 1990s when lawyers, entrusted with discovering the truth, allowed themselves to be compromised before, during and after a government-endorsed arbitration process between Telstra and me. This process was established to review my complaints about the faulty telephone service supplied by the Telstra Corporation and to take the necessary remedial action to ensure that the lines were fixed and compensate me for business losses incurred due to faulty phone lines.

I am not alone in this story. At least two other manuscripts will eventually be added to the one now advertised on my website; they will describe the experiences of other Australians who also put their faith in the Australian legal and judicial system, only to find that none of those involved (lawyers, arbitrators, mediators and ex-government-ministers-turned-public-officials) could be trusted to ensure that Telstra would ever be held accountable to their customers or made subject to Australian law.

It is widely accepted that most people would like to write a book sometime in their life. I was one of those people. However, the tale I am telling here is not exactly the story I had wanted to write.

I now find myself collecting and collating twenty years worth of evidence, so I can put together the story of how the Telstra Corporation actively embarked on a campaign of concealing and destroying evidence that should have been made available under the Freedom of Information Act (refer to Senate Hansard, and of exerting undue influence over expert witnesses, lawyers, mediators and the arbitration process itself, to ensure that they were not held accountable for their actions. At the same time, they appeared to make no effort to solve the technical issues that had resulted in legal proceedings in the first place, issues that, in some cases, continue to this day.

I have collected this evidence about my own case and several other Australians who have also suffered severe damage to their businesses. These people were, like me, denied justice through the very legal processes that were supposed to protect all Australians from the negligent business practices and potentially illegal actions of those corporate giants that frequently will not take their civic and legal responsibilities seriously.

The organisation that was supposed to protect us was the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, referred to simply as the Ombudsman on this site), and the legal vehicle that we were encouraged to use to get that protection was a government-endorsed arbitration process that was to be administered by that Ombudsman. Not only did Telecom/Telstra fail in their role as our telecommunications provider, but individuals employed by the Ombudsman were also subject to undue influence from Telecom/Telstra, to the point that justice was not served at any level. It is very possible that significant illegal acts were committed to ensuring that Telstra was not held accountable for its actions.

In telling this unbelievable story, it became apparent we would need evidence to support my proposed book, Facebook and my LinkedIn profile. Hence, the use of the Freedom of Information Act (the FOI Act 1987)

All the main events quoted on my website and my book on this subject, which can be download from the website, are supported by copies of the original documents obtained under the (FOI Act): for example, AS - CAV 1 to 47-AS-CAV 48-A to 91, Absentjustice - Preface, Manipulating the Regulator, etc. Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. By using this method and following the file numbers, 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, are so overwhelming that we would have lost clarity had we placed all in one manuscript. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.

While reading this story, it will become clear that I have not included all the exhibits that are referred to but, over the years, I have, however, provided all the appropriate exhibits, in full, to various government officials, including, but not limited to the Australian Federal Police and the Prime Minister’s office. So far, however, over those many years, no one from those government departments that have received those documents has even attempted to refute the authenticity of the documents provided. It is also important to be aware that I have never intended to discredit or cause harm to any of those who might be mentioned in those withheld exhibits.

I strongly believe that the decision to withhold the more sensitive documents connected to this story will not reduce the value of the story in any way, partly because I seriously doubt that there is any publication in existence, like this, anywhere in Australia, that has revealed the depth of information and official skulduggery that is included in this book, or that exposes and discloses what this story reveals, particularly through those exhibits that we have included.

There are two aspects to telling these stories. The first is to tell the stories themselves. To read my story, you can download the first edition of my book from

Misleading and deceiving, the chair of the Australian Securities Commission during an official government investigation in Australia is considered a criminal offence.



  1. Corruption in Australia's seat of arbitration;
  2. Evidence being deliberately tampered with during a government-endorsed arbitration;
  3. Suborning of a witness to hide the true facts from the arbitrator;
  4. The deliberate provision of falsified reports to the arbitrator by Telstra [the defendants in the arbitration] even after Telstra had been warned by the government that the reports were grossly deficient;  
  5. Threats made and carried out against the claimants in the same arbitration;
  6. Clandestine meetings held by the arbitrator, without the claimants, to benefit Telstra [the defendants] to the detriment of the claimants: 
  7. Covert changes made to a previously agreed set of clauses included in an official arbitration agreement, so that the arbitration officials could not be sued by the claimants for deliberate negligence;  
  8. The refusal of the Australian government to intervene on behalf of the claimants, even when it was proved that the arbitrator had covertly submitted a draft version of the technical report, claiming that it was the final version, a decision that, again, provided a definite benefit to Telstra [the defendants in arbitration].

These eight points are true examples (as our website shows) of what the Casualties of Telstra had to deal with during their government-endorsed arbitrations.

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 by using known faulty Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment that other countries around the world were removing it or had removed it from service because of the effect it had on the consumer. When a group of small business operators calling themselves Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) uncovered what Telstra was doing, they went into arbitration with this still owned government monopoly. The arbitrations were a sham, the government regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) allowed Telstra to continue to use this Ericsson AXE equipment regardless of Ericsson and Telstra advising AUSTEL the call loss surrounding this defective equipment was between 15 to 50%, (see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E) and Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f




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...

IT'S FREE!! Order 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 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.


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

“…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

“…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

“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

“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

“…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

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

– Edmund Burke