Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process, which became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

All the main statements presented on this website, including those that are merely comments, are supported by at least one, and often three to five, pieces of evidence. However, I want to highlight a specific statement regarding what Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, said to me in the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Victoria. We were both called to provide evidence on behalf of Barrister Sue Owens, but I cannot support this statement with documents. Since my next statement relies solely on my word regarding what Mr. Jepson said, I ask that everyone who has read the comments on absentjustice.com keep this in mind when considering his remarks; he has since passed away.

Mr Jepson’s remarks expose a deeply sinister reality: the evidence presented to the Major Fraud Group regarding the duplicitous statements made by Dr Gordon Hughes to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, is nothing short of shocking. Dr Hughes claimed that he and his technical advisors had meticulously reviewed all 24,000 documents; however, these documents were never submitted for appropriate arbitration assessment.

The Major Fraud Group, along with Tony Morgon, the Chief Loss Assessor from GAB Robins—international assessors appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman—unearthed a disturbing truth: I did not submit these 24,000 FOI-released documents for arbitration due to Telstra's deliberate delays, which left me with inadequate time for a thorough review. In a further act of malice, Dr Hughes categorically denied me the opportunity to present a mini-report that I had painstakingly compiled from these documents.

Dr Hughes's actions amounted to a calculated misrepresentation of Laurie James during an official investigation, and his refusal to confront the lies—whether he or his advisors were responsible—constitutes a grave betrayal of trust that weighs heavily on all involved.

Mr Jepson also pointed out that the Major Fraud Group continues to investigate the dubious claims made by Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell regarding the Brighton Criminal Investigation Branch. Rundell pretended that they were preparing to interrogate me about alleged criminal damage to his property; however, no such inquiry ever materialised. If there had been any legitimate suspicion against me, the Major Fraud Group and Victoria Police would not have sought my expertise on the fraud allegations involving Sue Owens’ clients. This entire scenario reeks of complicity and corruption at multiple levels.

It is both tragic and infuriating that Mr Pinnock, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, continues to operate with alarming impunity. He made outrageous accusations against Laurie James, alleging that I had written to him claiming I had called Dr Hughes’ wife at 2:00 AM. Yet no such letter exists in any official records. This assertion is not only patently false, but our thorough investigation has also confirmed that I neither penned such a letter nor made that fateful call.

It is utterly heartbreaking that I must navigate through life bearing the scars inflicted by these insidious lies. For over two decades, I have endured the consequences of this treacherous betrayal—living under the oppressive shadow cast by unscrupulous individuals: Dr Gordon Hughes, John Rundell, and John Pinnock. Their devious actions have not only concealed the truth but have also devastated the lives of my partner and me as we seek justice in a landscape rife with deception

The arbitrators and advisors involved in the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitration operated in an environment rife with corruption and malevolence. Three of the four principal figures were lawyers who participated in a shocking array of illegal, scandalous, and unethical actions, undermining the very foundations of natural justice. What was promised as government-endorsed arbitration for justice turned out to be a facade, hiding the arbitrators' and their advisors' blatant misconduct.

Unbeknownst to the initial three COT claimants—and to the fifteen other Australian citizens —a sinister connection existed between the COT spokesperson and the chief arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes. This spokesperson was a former business associate of Hughes, creating a web of favouritism that tainted the integrity of the entire process. Over the course of sixteen arbitrations, this corrupt relationship enabled the spokesperson to receive special treatment, exposing the dark underbelly of a supposed quest for justice → Chapter 3 - Conflict of

Continuation: Institutional Failures in Rural Communications

Venture into the shadowy world of the Establishment in Australia through the unsettling pages of absentjustice.com. This deep dive reveals that a similar nefarious Establishment may be lurking in your own country, exerting ruthless control over who is deemed worthy of membership. If you are lucky—or perhaps unlucky—enough to be accepted into this so-called elite circle, prepare to navigate a treacherous landscape of sinister expectations and obligations to keep your place among them.

Absent Justice - Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

Call for Justice

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. Since 1992, this battle has unfolded through various institutions, including elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the telecommunications behemoth Telstra—or Telecom, as it was known at the time this story began. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story began in 1987, when I decided that my life at sea—where I had spent the previous 20 years—was over. I needed a new, land-based occupation to carry me through to retirement and beyond. Of all the places I had visited around the world, I chose to make Australia my home.

Hospitality was my calling, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. So imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age. Nestled in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland, it seemed perfect. I conducted what I believed was thorough due diligence to ensure the business was sound—or at least, all the due diligence I was aware of at the time. Who would have thought I needed to check whether the phones worked?

Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. Customers and suppliers were telling me they had tried to call but couldn’t get through. That’s right—I had a business to run, but the phone service was, at best, unreliable, and at worst, completely absent. Naturally, we lost business as a result.

The Camp was profoundly reliant on phone communication. It was our vital link to city dwellers eager to connect with our services. One of our most significant oversights—blinded by the charm of this coastal haven—was failing to investigate the existing telephone system. At the time, mobile coverage was virtually nonexistent, and business was conducted through traditional means—not online, and certainly not by email.

We soon discovered we were tethered to an antiquated telephone exchange, installed more than 30 years earlier and designed specifically for 'low-call-rate' areas. This outdated, unstaffed exchange had a pitiful capacity of just eight lines.

The Casualties of Telecom (COT Cases)

• My fight began simply: to secure a working phone service.

• Despite compensation promises, the faults persisted. I sold my business in 2002, but the new owners suffered the same fate.

• Other small business owners joined me—we became known as the Casualties of Telecom.

• All we ever asked: acknowledgement, repair, and fair compensation. A working phone—was that too much?

During a typical week, the picturesque Cape Bridgewater was home to 66 residential families—not including those who used their coastal retreats to escape the bustle of city life. This created a significant challenge, especially considering many of these families had children.

The eight service lines struggled to support a growing census of 130 adults and children. By the time a modern Remote Control Module (RCM) was finally installed in August 1991, twelve children had been added to the mix, bringing the total population to 144. However, various weekend visitors often brought that figure to 150 or more.

The Hidden Cost of Cape Bridgewater’s Failing Lines

The systemic billing problems plaguing thousands of Australian citizens have been nothing short of a criminal conspiracy, leading to devastating financial ruin and extreme distress. Countless individuals and businesses have been victimised, suffering not only from the destruction of their homes and enterprises due to fraudulent charges, but also from the draconian licensing conditions imposed by Telstra. In a staggering betrayal of trust, these erroneous bills were systematically issued by Telstra, supported by their legal enforcers and unscrupulous debt collection agencies, creating a duplicitous web of deceit.

At the heart of this treachery is the notorious Ericsson AXE, a phone exchange system that has not only faltered in Australia but across the globe, casting a shadow of dysfunction over communications. This systemic failure has prevented calls from reaching customers, resulting in catastrophic consequences for business owners who relied on incoming calls for survival. Imagine a business that offered a freecall service, only to be robbed of vital calls due to this malfunction, resulting in monumental financial losses while simultaneously being charged for calls that never connected. This situation is not merely unfortunate; it is a blatant act of corruption.

The gravity of these problems extends far beyond mere technical failures and billing issues. It exposes the role of arbitrators, who were disturbingly compensated by Telstra to enforce silence and conceal these systemic billing faults from public scrutiny. This alarming collusion raises profound ethical concerns about accountability and transparency, revealing a dark underbelly of corporate misconduct. The actions of those involved in this cover-up reflect a sinister disregard for customer rights, demonstrating that the forces at play are not only unlawful but treacherous, putting profit over the well-being of ordinary citizens.

Learn about the corrupt and treacherous nature of the Australian government’s communications regulator, AUSTEL (now called ACMA). This institution, once tasked with oversight and protection of public interests, has descended into a sinister web of deceit and manipulation. The very fabric of justice has been torn apart as AUSTEL/ACMA chose to cover up the arbitrator’s failure to address critical billing faults, revealing a disturbing pattern of complicity and negligence.

For over three decades, AUSTEL/ACMA has been embroiled in government corruption, enabling unscrupulous practices that undermine the lives of countless Australians. They turned a blind eye to the systemic billing problems plaguing 120,000 customers—problems created by defective Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment. Instead of acting in the public interest, the agency opted to suppress this information, prioritising the interests of powerful corporations like Telstra.

During the arbitration process, AUSTEL's representatives, including Chairman Robin Davey and General Manager John Machon, solicited my assistance to expose the systemic issues. However, when it came time to address the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, his failure to confront the ongoing billing faults was intentionally overlooked. AUSTEL's Darren Kearney, who uncovered this blatant disregard for justice, discovered that Hughes had instructed his arbitration consultants not to investigate these critical faults—a move that reeks of cover-up and betrayal.

Kearney undertook a demanding five-hour journey from Melbourne, driven by the need to gather critical evidence regarding the alarming situation facing numerous Australian citizens. Upon his arrival, he confronted the stark reality of Dr Hughes’s deceptive practices. Dr Hughes had systematically denied his arbitration consultants access to the essential time and resources required to conduct a thorough investigation into the persistent billing issues plaguing the telecommunications industry. These systemic faults were not mere inconveniences; they affected thousands of families and businesses across the nation and overseas. File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f.

In February 1996, Kearney’s findings were officially validated, shedding light on a troubling pattern of misconduct. It became increasingly evident that AUSTEL, the regulatory body responsible for overseeing telecommunications in Australia, had engaged in corrupt practices by withholding a comprehensive report on 120,000 complaints related to COT (Casualties of Telstra, or COT for short) types of faults. Instead of addressing the full scope of these issues, AUSTEL manipulated its findings, choosing to publicise only those cases that could be minimised—reporting on just 50 or more COT-type phone faults. This alarming action not only misled the public but also stifled any advocacy efforts aimed at protecting the consumer’s rights and interests.

The official report detailing Kearney's findings was submitted to the arbitrator presiding over the COT cases tied to these ongoing telephone problems. However, instead of igniting a fight for accountability and transparency, the revelations silenced any further advocacy for the public good, leaving many affected individuals without recourse for their grievances. This situation highlighted a systemic failure in the regulatory framework intended to protect citizens, raising questions about ethical governance and corporate accountability in the telecommunications sector.

What I failed to grasp when I permitted Darren Kearney from AUSTEL to whisk my unaddressed arbitration billing claims back to Melbourne on December 19, 1995, was that a sinister plot was already in motion. AUSTEL had covertly allowed Telstra to tamper with my unaddressed arbitration billing claim documents back on October 16, 1995—a full five months after Dr Hughes dismissed the additional time Paul Howell from Canada desperately claimed was necessary to investigate my mounting billing issues.

The reality is startling: my technical and claim advisors drained over $300,000.00 from me in arbitration fees merely to submit my claim, which was ruthlessly withheld from a fair assessment. This reeks of criminal malfeasance by AUSTEL (now ACMA).

Telstra’s clandestine addressing of my arbitration claims documents on October 16, 1995—well past the arbitration's conclusion and outside any legitimate process—was not just a breach; it was a blatant act of illegitimacy, as these matters were at the heart of my comprehensive submission before the arbitrator. To add insult to injury, AUSTEL allowed Telstra’s original arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, to handle the most alarming of my 1800 Ericsson AXE billing claim documents without the arbitrator present (Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l) and Open letter File No/45-H). This is a clear violation of my basic legal rights, depriving me of the opportunity to challenge Telstra’s dubious submissions.

AUSTEL's insidious actions have fundamentally corrupted the arbitration system it was meant to uphold, revealing a chilling reality where consumer protection has been sacrificed at the altar of collusion and self-interest. The agency’s sinister transformation into a facilitator of injustice highlights the depths of treachery that characterise this regulatory body.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."

In the following sections, I will delve into the Canadian Government's involvement in my arbitration process, providing a detailed account of their role and actions. However, it is crucial to first highlight their concerns regarding my situation at the outset of this introduction to my COT story. Addressing these issues from the beginning sets the stage for a deeper understanding of the complexities and implications surrounding my case.

The Canadian government has demonstrated commendable integrity by actively addressing misleading practices, particularly in relation to Bell Canada's falsified test results. Their prompt response and concern demonstrate a commitment to honesty and accountability, prioritising the well-being of Canadian citizens. This proactive approach signifies a strong belief in the principles of transparency and fairness, which are vital for maintaining public trust.

In stark contrast, the Australian government's endorsement of arbitration based on these deceptive results reflects a troubling disregard for ethical standards. By accepting these misleading test results as valid, Australia has not only jeopardised the integrity of the arbitration process but also failed to protect its own citizens from the repercussions of such deceit. This illustrates a significant gap in accountability and transparency compared to Canada's stance.

My experiences over the past thirty years in bringing these issues to light further emphasise the challenges encountered when addressing systemic discrepancies in Australia. The Canadian government's willingness to confront these challenges underscores its dedication to safeguarding its citizens' rights, while the Australian government's inaction highlights a concerning apathy toward the seriousness of the situation. This contrast serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of integrity in governance and its profound impact on citizens' trust and the overall health of democratic institutions.

As you hover over the Canadian flag image, the grave truth about the Australian communications authority’s actions comes to light. Despite being fully aware of a staggering 120,000 COT (Casualties of Telstra) faults plaguing the nation, the government regulator callously informed the COT arbitration of just 50 or so telephone faults. This blatant manipulation of information was echoed in the Australian media, creating a false narrative while the true scale of the crisis remained hidden.

This gross betrayal demonstrates a shocking collusion within the government, downplaying the severity of the situation by feigning that only 50 or more phone faults exist, when the reality far exceeds that number. To compound the treachery, the current Albanese government aims to grant the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) even greater authority, allowing this compromised regulator to obscure communication failures in Australia even further. Such actions cast a dark shadow over the integrity of our institutions and the trust we place in them.

The evidence that Telstra withheld 120,000 COT-type complaints from its shareholders, while disclosing only 50 or more in the AUSTEL (now ACMA) official "COT Cases April 1994 report" to the arbitrator, reveals a shocking reality. The fact that there were 120,000 complaints from Telstra customers Australia-wide, similar to the COT-type fault complaints, and this information was not included in the sale prospectus, constitutes gross negligence.

The situation takes an even more concerning turn. On April 8 and 9, 1994, just two days after I, along with seven other COT cases, collaborated with AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) to uncover these 120,000 troubling complaints, AUSTEL Chairman Robin Davey received two alarming letters from Telstra's liaison officer, Steve Black. These letters pressured the government regulator to alter its findings. AUSTEL/ACMA complied without informing those involved in arbitration that the report intended for use as evidence had been compromised or tampered with. The absence of a note indicating this fact in the official COT Cases April 1994 Report is a clear act of corruption.

The letters attached to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN, dated April 8 and 9, 1994, from Telstra’s group general manager to AUSTEL’s chair, demonstrate that AUSTEL (now ACMA) was not truly independent. Instead, it shows that AUSTEL could be influenced to modify their official findings in the COT report, as Telstra requested in several points in this initial letter to AUSTEL/ACMA. For example, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. … (See Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held a monopoly on communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process, which became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

For more than thirty years, I’ve found myself ensnared in a web of bureaucratic machinations that relentlessly assert their own integrity while artfully bending rules, withholding crucial evidence, and shielding those whose reputations hinge on maintaining a façade of respectability. What started as a seemingly simple quest to rectify a faulty telephone service morphed into a harrowing confrontation with a network of corruption and institutional treachery. Our journey is not simply a personal narrative of frustration or loss; it is a chilling account of how truth becomes perilous when it threatens the powerful, how ordinary citizens are left to fight treacherous battles they never asked for, all because they refuse to succumb to the injustice around them.

The Weight of Treachery

Two weeks prior to testing the fax lines of COT Cases Spokesperson, Graham Schorer, operating out of his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, from my business at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, encountered problems sending faxes between our offices, since we formed the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) in August 1992. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, dated 23 October 1993, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine, using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base, it was noted that:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 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’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP about the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thereby avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims.

By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interception (Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process). The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine alongside one installed at Graham Schorer's office.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row avoided disclosing to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s.

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

the header strip of various faxes is being altered

the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.

In all cases the replacement header type is the same.

The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.

Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 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)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that, every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the exchange was turned off? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2026.

Before I begin revealing some startling, still-unaddressed arbitration issues, I must take the reader fourteen years into the future to a letter dated 30 July 2009. This letter, written by Graham Schorer (a spokesperson for COT and a former client of the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes) to Paul Crowley, the CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), includes a statutory declaration (refer to Burying The Evidence File 13-H) and a copy of an earlier letter dated 4 August 1998. In that earlier letter, Mr Schorer recounted a phone conversation he had with Dr Hughes during the arbitration process in 1994. The conversation centred around lost documents related to Telstra COT that I had sent to Dr Hughes' office. My Telstra-billed fax account and fax journal confirm that the documents were sent; however, Dr Hughes' secretary claimed they had not been received just minutes after I sent them. I promptly called to confirm receipt, especially since COT Cases Ann Garms and I had encountered issues both before and during our arbitrations.

During that conversation, the arbitrator explained to Graham Scorer, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office 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,  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.

Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

Exposing domestic and international fraud against the government poses significant challenges, as the following narrative shows.

Don't forget to hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage. → →

I urge all visitors to absentjustice.com to read "The first remedy pursued" and confront a chilling truth encapsulated in Simon Wiesenthal's haunting words:

"For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing."

One can't help but question whether Wiesenthal foresaw the treachery of Dr Gordon Hughes and the dubious role of his complicit wife, who may have actively participated in concealing his unethical actions.

John Pinnock, the second Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), wielded his position like a weapon, tasked with upholding the supposed integrity of TIO-administered Telstra-related arbitrations. In an audacious bid to shield Dr Hughes—who oversaw at least six arbitrations—from facing the consequences of his egregious misconduct, Pinnock resorted to blatant lies. He deceitfully claimed on 17 February 1996 that I had confessed in writing to contacting Dr Hughes’s wife at the unholy hour of 2:00 AM when Dr Hughes was conveniently absent. The truth is, I made no such admission and did not reach out to either Dr Hughes or his wife at that ungodly hour.

This sordid web of deceit not only obscures the truth but also silences Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. James was on the brink of investigating my verified claims of Dr Hughes’s significant wrongdoing in an arbitration he presided over in 1994 and 1995. His inquiry posed a grave threat to the corrupt powers that sought to protect Dr Hughes and maintain their twisted status quo.

Using falsehoods as armour against accountability is despicable. The fact that Dr Hughes allowed John Pinnock to launch such unfounded attacks against me illustrates a grotesque betrayal of justice. His actions lay bare his true nature—a coward willing to sacrifice the truth and integrity for self-preservation.

As you navigate this treacherous narrative, you will uncover a disturbing pattern of corruption and systemic deceit. This single lie is merely one of the many despicable untruths the Australian government has shrouded in secrecy to protect Dr Gordon Hughes. Ultimately, such deception serves only to uphold a deeply flawed system that denies justice to countless citizens wronged by his actions throughout the 1990s. Each revelation draws us closer to understanding the extensive damage inflicted by this corruption, highlighting the urgent need for accountability and transparency in these dire matters.

On 26 September 1997, nineteen months after John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, deceived Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators of Australia, on 17 February 1996, I found myself ensnared in a corrupt web of manipulation and betrayal. I had raised serious concerns that Dr Hughes had lost all control over the arbitration process. During this time, Telstra unleashed a series of malicious threats against me, which they acted upon, all while Dr Hughes turned a blind eye, refusing to intervene.

These treacherous threats ultimately dismantled my entire claim, proving that the faults with my phone were still very much present. Instead, the arbitrator accepted nine separate witness statements from Telstra that falsely declared my business as fault-free, pushing their narrative despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Dr Hughes, complicit in this charade, did nothing to investigate these threats—even as they were validated by the Australian Federal Police and Senator Ron Boswell.

When the oppressive reality of these threats came to light, Mr Pinnock had the audacity to address a Senate estimates committee, further showcasing the depths of this treachery, refer to page 99 of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – 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 attached to any agreement signed by the first four COT members that allows the arbitrator to conduct arbitrations entirely outside the established arbitration procedure. Additionally, it was not stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. This was the main issue I discussed with Laurie James and then with John Pinnock after completing my arbitration in May 1995. How can the arbitrator and the TIO continue to rely on a confidentiality clause in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not specify that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration was conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures?

MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE

My story cannot be told in a neat, chronological line because the forces working against me and some of the other Casulties of Telstra were never neat, never isolated, and never confined to one moment in time. The corruption we encountered in the COT arbitrations of the 1990s was not a standalone event—it was part of a much larger pattern stretching back more than thirty years.

This website presents that story as it happened—not in tidy date order, but in the only structure that reflects the reality I and other COT Cases were forced to live through. The badly bent lawyers in Australia who are part of the corrupt system in Australia people like Dr Gordon Hughes now principal partner of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp untouchable even and the as our absentjustice.com link shows.

Evidence revealed in the "Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest" points to a Telstra engineer, Peter, who, alongside complicit government solicitors, conspired to withhold vital evidence from Dr Hughes. This sinister plot dictated that if such evidence were handed over, Dr Hughes would have to assure the government that it would remain hidden from Schorer throughout the court proceedings.

As if this betrayal weren't enough, on June 24, 1997, the same Peter ---- was called out by Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White during a Senate committee hearing probing Telstra's gross misconduct in numerous arbitrations. Mr White's explosive testimony revealed a chilling directive he received from Peter ----: all five COT cases—naming both Mr Schorer and me as part of this conspiracy—had to be "stopped at all costs" from proving our claims against Telstra (see pages 36 to 39 of the Senate - Parliament of Australia). This orchestrated malfeasance paints a horrifying picture of a corrupt system that defies democracy and undermines the very principles of justice.

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the statements of six senators in the Senate in March 1999 → →

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston Sen Richard.

On 23 March 1999, 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, noting:

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

Unfortunately, because my case was settled three years prior, several other COT cases and I were unable to benefit from the valuable insights and recommendations of this investigation or from the Senate. Out of the twenty-one final arbitration and mediation cases, only five received punitive damages, along with their originally withheld FOI documents.

In the mid‑1960s, I alerted the Australian Government that Australian wheat shipped to Communist China was being re‑routed to North Vietnam, feeding the very forces Australian, New Zealand, and American soldiers were fighting. The government did nothing. Canada, by contrast, stepped in to help its own merchant seamen caught in the same geopolitical mess. That contrast—Canada standing tall while Australia hid the truth—would repeat itself decades later when the Canadian Government again offered assistance during my COT arbitration battle after Australia refused.

The same pattern of concealment resurfaced during the COT arbitrations, where promised FOI documents were withheld, evidence was tampered with, and officials avoided scrutiny. At the very same time, deeply disturbing allegations of child abuse within Parliament House, Canberra, were emerging—allegations involving the very office responsible for handling our arbitration‑related complaints. The climate of secrecy surrounding those allegations cast a long shadow over our attempts to obtain the documents we were entitled to.

These events—spanning corruption, political fear, international betrayal, and institutional cover‑ups—are not separate chapters. They are interconnected threads of the same fabric. To tell the truth, I must weave them together, because that is how they unfolded: overlapping, reinforcing, and shaping each other across three decades.

The entire process we were forced to endure was nothing short of corrupt, evil, treacherous, and sinister. From the outset, it was clear that this was not just a battle for justice but a dark labyrinth of deceit designed to silence and manipulate. The interconnected events of this saga played out like a meticulous web of betrayal, where every attempt to reveal the truth was met with an insidious response from those in power.

The government's actions were not merely negligent; they were calculated, a deliberate effort to obscure uncomfortable truths that would threaten their own interests. The wheat scandal from the 1960s exemplified a systemic refusal to act against wrongdoing, paving the way for similar abuses during the COT arbitrations. It was as though an invisible hand was guiding this treachery, ensuring that the darkest corners of dishonesty remained shrouded in secrecy.

As the Telstra privatisation unfolded, the collusion became even more evident. With falsified testing results heralded as credible proof of Telstra’s integrity, it was clear that trust was not just broken; it was weaponised against those seeking redress. The same governmental indifference that allowed the wheat shipments to corrupt ends echoed throughout the telecommunications scandal, illustrating a twisted pattern of conduct where truth was sacrificed for profit.

The very institutions meant to uphold justice were complicit in this treachery. The sale of Lane Telecommunications to Ericsson amid ongoing investigations was not just a conflict of interest; it was a heinous betrayal of the trust placed in them. The integrity of the arbitration was irreparably tarnished by this insidious manoeuvring, leaving us in a precarious position where our voices were muffled and our plight ignored.

To this day, the critical reports meticulously assembled by my trusted technical consultant, George Close, on Ericsson’s exchange equipment remain missing, swallowed whole by the shadows of a corrupt arbitration process. These documents were not merely evidence; they were the linchpin of my case, and their vanishing act signals a brazen betrayal of the very rules that should uphold justice. According to the arbitration guidelines, all submitted materials must be restitutioned to the claimant within six weeks of the arbitrator's decision—yet here I am in 2026, still grasping at thin air.

None of the COT Cases were granted leave to appeal their arbitration awards—even though it is now clear that the purchase of Lane by Ericsson must have been in motion months before the arbitrations concluded.It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden, as reported in the Australian media on 19 December 2019.

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Back in 1996, when my arbitration legal team began to untangle the web of deceit surrounding the arbitration agreement, we unearthed alarming irregularities—text covertly altered to shield the culpable technical consultants, specifically Lane. It is a staggering revelation that this treachery was facilitated with the blessing of both government and COT lawyers, who had sanctioned the original version, perhaps in exchange for their own vested interests. In the face of such conspiracy, I demanded the foundational documents from the arbitration administrator John Pinnock, desperate for insight into how this treachery could transpire beneath our noses. And what was his chilling response? Silence, laced with complicity.

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” — John Pinnock, 10 January 1996 ()

Even on the brink of signing the arbitration agreement, it had been insidiously tampered with behind our backs—manipulated to safeguard the interests of the arbitration consultants, Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct," vividly reveals. The three of us—Ann Grams, Graham Schorer, and I—were cornered into a grim choice: either exonerate the arbitration consultants by scrapping the $250,000,000 liability caps from the agreement and fully exonerate the legal arbitration counsel involved, or face the dire consequence of pursuing Telstra in court without any arbitration. Faced with this treacherous ultimatum, we reluctantly caved in.

What unfolded was not arbitration—it was a coordinated campaign of collusion and concealment. From the laundering of evidence to the secret sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, every move was calculated to undermine justice and protect the guilty.

Every step of this convoluted path was fraught with malevolence, where every thread of our narrative was intertwined with the forces of corruption and treachery. It became painfully evident that the truth we fought so hard to uncover was not just unwelcome; it was dangerous to those who thrived in the shadows of deceit. The whole process was a grim testament to the lengths institutions will go to protect their own interests at the expense of justice and integrity.

Don't forget to click on the kangaroo image and learn more about this terrible story → → →

It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Like Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge of the legitimacy of the COT Cases' claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)

It is undeniably crucial to bring to light the treacherous AFP transcripts from 10 February 1994, where the ominous figures of Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose and Detective Sergeant Cochrane conspired with Grahm Schorer, a mouthpiece for the corrupt COT, and Amanda Davis, a former government official. Together, they spoke in hushed tones about a briefcase—left behind by Telstra at my business—that contained the names of individuals, including Mr. Schorer and myself, whose private conversations were ruthlessly monitored and tapped. It is shocking that pages 37, 38, and 39 of these sordid transcripts reveal how Schorer disclosed to the AFP that former Telstra employee Mr. Marr had provided damning evidence of this phone interception to Senator Bob Collins.

We must draw a line here: I am not comparing the devastation faced by the COT Cases—who were robbed of their businesses, livelihoods, and dignity—with the unfathomable trauma inflicted upon vulnerable children. Those heinous crimes stand in a dark league of their own. In those days, we were blissfully unaware of the insidious machinations playing out within Parliament House. We were merely seeking the documents we were blatantly denied—documents locked away in the very ministerial office where these horrifying allegations later erupted.

Yet, an undeniable truth hangs heavy in the air: in their malevolent quest for control, the government ultimately concealed not only the documents related to the crimes against innocent children but also the vital information that should have been delivered to the COT Cases. The same office that fumbled with our telephone-fault complaints was shrouded in dark allegations of abuse. Bureaucrats, seemingly paralyzed by fear, hesitated to release any information that could potentially unveil their own complicity in these disgraceful acts—whether pertaining to the children, to the corrupt machinery of Telstra, or to the politically explosive wheat-to-North-Vietnam scandal that I had brazenly exposed years prior.

The overarching narrative is chillingly clear: the government opted to shield a minister, safeguard its own interests, and protect a once-government-owned telecommunications behemoth at all costs. This sinister alliance came at a grave price—the sacrifice of truth, the abandonment of victims, and the trampling of citizens ensnared in the ruthless machinery of arbitration.

Blowing the whistle

If revealing actions that harm others is viewed as morally unacceptable, why do governments encourage their citizens to report such crimes and injustices? This contradiction highlights an essential aspect of civic duty in a democratic society. When individuals bravely expose wrongdoing, they often earn the title of "whistleblower." This term encompasses a complex reality: it represents the honour and integrity that come with standing up for truth and justice while also carrying the burden of stigma and potential personal consequences, such as workplace retaliation or social ostracism.

In this challenging context, a crucial question arises: Should we celebrate and support those who risk their security and reputation to expose misconduct, thereby fostering a culture of accountability and transparency? Or should we condemn their actions, viewing them as threats to stability and order? The answer to this question can significantly influence the ethics of openness within our communities and shape how society values integrity versus conformity. Ultimately, creating an environment that supports whistleblowers may be essential for nurturing a just and equitable society

On 28 June 1967, only days after completing a voyage to Nauru on an Australian vessel, I signed British articles, permitting me to work on British and Australian ships, including the Hopepeak → British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.  This ship was being loaded with wheat destined for communist China under the guise of humanitarian relief—a justification that masked a far more sinister reality. Unions across Australia, including the Marine Cooks and Butchers Association, reluctantly allowed the ship to leave on the grounds of so-called humanitarian concerns, frantically seeking to avert widespread starvation.

Amidst the chaos of the Vietnam War, with Australian, New Zealand, and US soldiers being slaughtered by North Vietnamese forces—who were being supported with military and logistical aid from communist China—our government chose to prioritise political expediency over ethical responsibility. The weight of this decision was nearly unbearable, as humanitarian relief was granted to a nation that was actively fueling the conflict, all for the sake of appearances and misguided sentimentality.

This tragic irony allowed us to feed thousands of Chinese, many of whom were unwittingly complicit in the very atrocities being inflicted on our troops. What’s more, we didn’t even realise that a significant portion of this humanitarian wheat might find its way into the hands of the enemy, directly supporting a regime hell-bent on killing our servicemen.

The continuation of this tale reveals deeper corruption and complicity. After I refused to partake in this morally reprehensible trade, I blew the whistle, only to find myself arrested in China for espionage. I was nearly shot for attempting to collect crucial information to report to the Commonwealth Police on 18 September 1997. It was then that I understood the chilling silence that followed; the Commonwealth Police were the only authority that acknowledged the treacherous betrayal committed against our soldiers by our own government. After my stand, the crew of the Hopepeak was swiftly replaced by another, and the compromise continued.

Trading with the enemy is among the most despicable crimes a nation can commit against its own citizens—desperately profiting from the suffering of our troops while aiding those who wish to destroy them is nothing short of evil. The reprehensible choice to continue this trade, all while knowing some of the wheat would end up in the mouths of those preparing to slaughter our soldiers, represents a profound moral failing that can only be described as sinister and corrupt, as the second part of this story below exposes.

The final straw came on the morning Faye told me she was leaving, even though we both knew, deep down, that this moment had been approaching for some time. I was already on prescribed medication for stress, and in a misguided attempt to help the tablets work more effectively — or perhaps simply to numb everything I could no longer carry — I locked myself in one of the cabins with a bottle of Johnny Walker, which I eventually emptied before drifting into a heavy, exhausted sleep.

My solitude did not last. It was abruptly shattered when search and rescue crews, accompanied by police officers, burst through the cabin door with the force of an emergency response team. They had come to search the coastal area surrounding the holiday camp, as well as the camp itself, after Faye, worried sick when six hours passed without any contact from me, called the police out of fear for my safety.

The moment the door was forced open by uniformed officers, I was transported instantly and violently back to August 1967, to my time in communist China, when the Chinese Red Guards came for me aboard the Hopepeak. In that split second, I was no longer in a cabin on the Victorian coast — I was nineteen again, convinced I was about to be shot as a supposed U.S. sympathiser and supporter of Chiang Kai‑shek, the Nationalist leader. Panic took over. I lashed out instinctively, believing I was fighting for my life, and in the chaos, I felt myself engulfed, smothered, overwhelmed by what my mind insisted were angry Red Guards closing in on me.

Don't forget to hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage. → →

British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.

Then, just as suddenly, I was wrenched back into the present, bound tightly in a straitjacket in the back of an ambulance speeding toward Briery Psychiatric Hospital in Warrnambool. When the doctors heard my account of China — the way I recounted it while still under sedation, the detail, the fear, the clarity — they recognised immediately that what I was describing was not delusion but memory.

After spending the night under observation, I was allowed to be discharged into the care of Margaret Beare, the wife of my old shipmate Pommie Jack, who was at sea at the time but had given the all‑clear via radio message. After all, what are true shipmates for, if not to step in when the seas of life turn rough?

The relentless stress of phones failing, coupled with the agonising eighteen months of watching my life savings vanish due to a business with a treacherous, unreliable phone service, was nothing short of suffocating. With mobile phones and computers still a decade away from becoming common in Australia, I felt powerless—a mere pawn in a game controlled by unseen forces. This profound lack of control over my own destiny ignited a big, unsettling change during my time in China.

To truly convey the harrowing truth of my COT cases, I must confront the chilling trauma of witnessing a starving China—a grim reality that haunted me each year as Anzac Day approaches. It serves as a grim reminder of the countless Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. troops who perished in the treacherous jungles of North Vietnam. What is perhaps most infuriating is knowing that our own government continued to line the pockets of our enemy by sending wheat to China—an act of betrayal that feels both wicked and sinister. I repeatedly warned officials about the catastrophic consequences of this horrific trade with an adversary, yet I was left powerless, grappling with the harrowing realisation that I could do nothing to stop it, leaving my partner and me to bear the weight of this profound injustice.

This website, absentjustice.com, was born out of necessity to ensure that the truth remains unfiltered and undeniable, safeguarding it from being erased, rewritten, or sanitised by those desperate to maintain their grip on power. It exists so that you can confront the sinister reality for yourself.

Before I plunge into this story, it's essential to transport you back to September 18, 1967—a date forever etched in my memory. That day, the Commonwealth Police (now the AFP) and several media outlets descended upon the ship Hopepeak, where I was a crew member, having just delivered 13,600 tons of Australian wheat to communist China, a nation teetering on the brink of starvation. But instead of gratitude, I was met with betrayal.

I found myself arrested on trumped-up spying charges, threatened with violence, and frog-marched along the wharf where Hopepeak was tethered. Under the looming threat of a gun to my head, I was coerced into making statements I would never have uttered willingly. This grotesque charade unfolded as I was painfully aware that my account pointed toward a heinous truth: the wheat we delivered, intended as humanitarian aid, was being redirected by sinister forces to feed North Vietnamese soldiers—a fate I knew could mean the difference between life and death for my fellow Australians, New Zealanders, and Americans fighting in those perilous jungle

1965 — The Political Warning

On 4 September 1965, Kim Beazley Sr., MP, published remarks in The Bulletin (Vol. 87, No. 4462). He cited a Department of External Affairs handbook, Studies on Vietnam, which confirmed that the Viet Cong were armed with Chinese weapons. Beazley wrote:

Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia https://nla.gov.au › nla.obj-702601569

"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam". It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"

If it is right to ask Australian youth to risk everything in Vietnam it is wrong to supply their enemies. The Communists in Asia will kill anyone who stands in their path, but at least they have a path."

Australian trade commssioners do not so readily see that our Chinese trade in war materials finances our own distruction. NDr do they see so clearly that the wheat trade does the same thing."

Beazley’s words were clear: Australia’s wheat trade with China was morally indefensible and strategically reckless. Yet the government pressed ahead, prioritising trade over the lives of its own conscripts.

I returned to Australia on 18 September 1967, having narrowly escaped China and been fundamentally changed from the person I was when I left in June 1967. Yet, over the past thirty years, I have been treated disgracefully, no differently than other brave whistleblowers who dared to stand up for the truth against a backdrop of horror, scandal, and betrayal. The corruption runs deep, and the implications are horrifying.

My anger—and that of my crewmates—was never directed at the idea of sending wheat to a starving China on humanitarian grounds. None of us objected to helping civilians in desperate need. What ignited our fury was something far darker: the knowledge that, despite my formal warnings to the Commonwealth Police (now the AFP) and to The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, then Minister for the Army, on 18 September 1967, that some of this so‑called humanitarian wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam, this terrible trade continued

The mothers, fathers, families, and friends of the soldiers who were slaughtered or maimed in Vietnam will never grasp the full, abhorrent extent of the betrayal they suffered. While we urgently begged the Australian government to cease its disgraceful supply of wheat to the Vietnamese Viet Cong, our desperate pleas fell on deaf ears, drowned out by the greed and corruption that fueled this insidious trade. This foul betrayal stained our collective conscience, pushing us to refuse Hopepeak’s return to China. A journalist from a Sydney newspaper, who shamefully boarded our ship alongside the Commonwealth Police on September 18, 1967, described our story as the most shocking he had ever encountered. It is a narrative tainted by treachery, steeped in moral decay, and a gruesome acknowledgement of our complicity in a merciless war.

When the next day's newspaper published nothing but a paltry article, omitting all my critical revelations, I felt an icy grip of dread. I contacted the journalist to seek answers. His response was chilling: the higher powers had silenced the truth. He warned me I would be a marked man by the Australian government for my audacious claims. Even the journalist had weakened his stance the day before he applauded us for our courage. What had the government said to have stopped the story from being told?

For many agonising years, those words "a marked man" haunted me, an unshakable shadow that lingered long after. I left the Hopepeak. In 1972, while serving as licensee and manager of the Octagon, a hotel-motel in Melbourne, I found myself in conversations with 22 New York City police officers and their wives. Inevitably, the Vietnam War surfaced in our discussions—a raw wound still festering in the public consciousness, with troops still in Vietnam. In those moments, I revealed my unsettling experiences in China, exposing the dark truth that Australia was complicit in supplying North Vietnam by funnelling wheat through China. Some of that grain, I discovered, was rerouted to feed a war machine. My attempts to alert the Australian government about this betrayal went unheard, ignored, even after I laid bare the evidence once our precious wheat touched Chinese soil.

Yet, what cut deeper was the chilling declaration that followed: I was to be a marked man. The weight of that sentence pressed on my chest like a leaden cloak. The injustices I had come to witness felt inescapable, and I realised that I would forever be pursued by the consequences of a truth that few seemed willing to confront.

While serving wine at the various tables, assisting my staff, I overheard disturbing conversations during dinner. Two officers implied that had I been in the United States, I would undoubtedly be a marked man. The uncertainty lingered. Should I have done more to expose what I had witnessed and how it was impacting the Australia, New Zealand and U.S. war effort in Vietnam?

It is these very warnings—"I would be a marked man"—that weigh heavily on my heart as I recount this chilling narrative. Other COT cases have suffered at the hands of those who corruptly manipulate the system, but the shadows of my past loom larger. This treachery has wreaked havoc on my life and the life of my partner, Cathy, and the echoes of the horror still resonate in our lives today.

In the lead-up to my arbitration, I found myself embroiled in a web of deceit and manipulation that extended well beyond that single event, haunting me for years afterwards. The telephone conversations I had with Malcolm Fraser, crucial to understanding the nature of the circumstances I faced, were shrouded in secrecy. Disturbingly, key information from Telstra’s FOI documents was deliberately removed, including references to my discussions with Fraser. It seems that anyone seeking the truth about those conversations—pertaining to China in 1967—would find the disturbing details redacted, a blatant act of censorship.

What I faced was an unjust and treacherous treatment, starkly different from that meted out to the three other COT Cases. My arbitration agreement—crafted by Telstra’s lawyers—was constricted and unyielding, while the other three enjoyed a vastly more flexible agreement that granted them an additional 13 months to prepare their claims and counter Telstra’s defence. This was not an oversight; it was a calculated strategy designed to ostracise me, marking me as a target in a corrupt game.

Is what transpired before, during, and for years following my arbitration linked to the warning from the Sydney journalist in September 1967? And what about the chilling words of some of the 22 New York police officers who arrived at my venue in 1972, I should have done more to expose what I had witnessed and how it was impacting the Australia, New Zealand and U.S. war effort in Vietnam?

I implore you to read my story and contemplate the deeply unjust treatment I endured after my time in China, this time in an arbitration process endorsed by the Australian government.

The People's Republic of China

Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’

The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting

In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.

It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.

As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.

A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange

After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.

Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.

At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.

To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”

And maybe, just maybe, that was enough. British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman.  → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2

And here I was, twenty years later, in my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, gazing out at the Southern Ocean. Just a five-minute walk from where I stood in 1994, I found myself reflecting on the tumultuous journey I had endured—almost facing execution in communist China, battling in another war, this time against Telstra, the Australian government-owned entity that had unearthed my past and buried it in internal memos.

Telstra had linked it to my communications with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. They had documented it, discussed it, and refused to explain why.

I held the memo in my hands and felt a familiar tightness in my chest — the same tightness I had felt in 1967 when the Red Guards shouted accusations I could not disprove. But this time, the fear was different. This time, it wasn’t a foreign regime threatening me.

It was home. It was during my government-endorsed arbitration with Telstra.

Once again, Canada enters the discussion; however, this was twenty-eight years ago, during the same period of wheat deals with communist China. It was the Canadians—rather than Australians- who were losing their own citizens due to the Vietnam War—who expressed concern. Notably, the Canadians were not even involved in the Vietnam War, as shown in footnote 169 by Tianxiao Zhu.

Footnote 83, 84 and 169 → in a paper submitted by Tianxiao Zhu to - The Faculty of the University of Minnesota titled Secret Trails:  FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, etc → Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy - Christopher M Isett June 2021

Tianxiao Zhu's Footnotes 83, 84, 169:

In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said, “I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.”

84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”

169. "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the others were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time, a grain ship usually had crew members of about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship."

The Canadian Government and Its Moral Code of Ethics

Hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down the homepage.

By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image below, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China — especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or maimed — was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have continued.

Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about supporting a nation that opposed Australian, New Zealand, and US forces.

For a deeper dive into the intriguing saga of China versus North Vietnam, be sure to click on the “Flash Backs – China-Vietnam” link below. In addition to this, you will find eleven mini evidence files listed below, ranging in topics from “Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page" to "The Promised Documents Never Arrived. These files have been meticulously curated from the main homepage and are currently undergoing thorough proofreading and editing to ensure clarity and accuracy for integration into other sections of this website. Exploring these concise reports will provide insight into the considerable effort invested in preparing my books and the two accompanying websites.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults

Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

The following twelve chapters are being edited before turning them into another ebook similar to those shown, “Around the World in 80 Dishes… and a Few Disasters,” and "The Arbitraitor" You can check those two books by checking out https://www.promoteyourstory.com.a

Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.

Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.

Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.

Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.