Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Absentjustice.com exposes alarming cases of foreign bribery, corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and foreign corruption programs. This platform has ignited a profound exploration into the dark underbelly of political corruption, drawing comparisons to authentic crime narratives and the pervasive fraud that threatens government integrity.

As you delve deeper, you'll discover the pervasive corruption that has infiltrated government bureaucracy, tainting the very foundations of the Court of Arbitration. This insidious issue illuminates the individuals behind these egregious acts, revealing how their self-serving actions have eroded the rule of law. As you traverse this grim landscape, you will encounter the unscrupulous lawyers and compromised arbitrators who conspire to manipulate and obscure the truth. Their collaboration perpetuates a cycle of deception and injustice that impacts countless lives, ultimately undermining public trust in the legal system and leaving a trail of disillusionment.

Absentjustice.com brings alarming instances of foreign bribery, corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and various foreign corruption programs. This platform has ignited a critical examination into the shadowy realms of political corruption, drawing striking comparisons to true crime stories and the pervasive fraud that undermines the integrity of governments. Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition?

As I approach my 81st birthday in May 2025, I feel an unwavering determination to share this critical and deeply personal story, despite the immense challenges it has already brought into my life—most notably, the loss of my cherished holiday camp and my partner's beautiful venue, Seal Cove Guest House, nestled by the stunning coastline of Cape Bridgewater, Victoria. I am convinced that with sufficient funding and support, this story can be transformed into a captivating documentary that respectfully honours the truth of the events that transpired. I welcome all suggestions and opportunities for collaboration to ensure this narrative is told with accuracy and impact. Together, let’s bring this powerful story to life.

 

Clicking on the TF200 EXICOM telephone below will reveal a second photo I received under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This photo was taken from the front of the same TF200 phone and confirms that the note I placed on it was pretty clean when it was received at Telstra. Please see Open Letter File No/37, which includes exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, who applied grease to the front of the telephone after it left my business, and who within Telstra poured sticky beer residue into the now dirty phone, suggesting that I am a hopeless drunk?

 

Who holds the ultimate power and influence over the 'Institute Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia' (IAMA), allowing them to bring an investigation to a standstill and deny the return of crucial evidence initially requested from an individual they agreed to scrutinise? This troubling situation dates back to 1996, with subsequent inquiries in 2001 and 2009.

In this latest episode, from July to November 2009, the IAMA-Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee asked me to provide further documentation to support claims that the government had been warned about the unethical conduct of the arbitrator involved in my case. The administrator of my arbitration had been criticised for having no control over the process because it was not conducted according to the agreed-upon arbitration procedures. This was the same arbitrator against whom I had complained, now before the IAMA for the third time. For more information, refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued.

I painstakingly compiled 23 bound volumes of evidence, meticulously detailing the actions of the current treasurer of the Melbourne Chapter of the IAMA. This individual, who continues to operate an Arbitration Centre in busy Hong Kong and another in Melbourne, was part of a team of arbitration consultants that minimised Telstra's liability towards me. This same treasurer also crafted misleading statements aimed at the administrator overseeing my previous arbitration, intending to obstruct the 1996 IAMA investigation into my legitimate claims about the integrity of the arbitration process. The IAMA has refused to return the evidence that their internal emails indicate they asked for and accepted, as they went through the process of viewing my claims, even though my allegations raised with the IAMA were that my arbitrator had no control over the COT arbitrations. 

One of the documents I provided to the IAMA in 2001 and again in 2009 is the official statement to the Senate on 26 September 1997, which follows:

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee, refer to page 99 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.”

I alerted to IAMA in 2001 and again in 2009, that no amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

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

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office 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, and 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 important arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

During the contentious COT arbitrations, disturbing examples of foreign bribery emerged, casting a dark shadow over the process. This was particularly concerning given the highly structured legal environment under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In a controversial move, Sweden’s Ericsson telecommunications company was permitted to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, the Australian technical consultants appointed by the government to scrutinise whether Telstra's reliance on Ericsson telephone equipment was responsible for numerous issues plaguing Australia's telecommunications network. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

To put this in simpler terms, allowing Ericsson to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was akin to permitting a corrupt police force, responsible for overseeing the arbitration, to be swayed into evaluating only certain aspects of the COT Cases arbitration claim documents. In my specific case, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd conducted a valuation and investigation of only eleven per cent of my claim material related to Ericsson and the defendants in the arbitration (Telstra), effectively sidelining most of the critical submission documents central to the case's integrity. This gross negligence raises serious questions about fairness and transparency in the arbitration process.

I requested copies of the Lane working notes during my pending appeal process. However, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, responded on 10 January 1996, stating that he would not provide me with copies of any documents held by his office (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal). It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.   

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/)

It is essential that we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator, who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases' claims against Telstra, including the Ericsson-manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges that serviced the COT Cases businesses.

The above Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden (link) supports the COT Cases ' right to demand answers as to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.  Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were mistreated when Ericsson could nobble Lane?

As shown below at point 7 at **Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues** the first of eight damning letters was from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, on 18 April 1995, advised Wawick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), who was also the administrator to the arbitrations Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and the TIO counsel Peter Bartlett that:  

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

When Dr. Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett—three experienced and qualified lawyers—allowed a crucial letter dated April 18, 1995, to be concealed from the proceedings of the four COT cases during their appeal periods, they unwittingly supported the "forces at work" that aimed to disrupt the arbitrations of all four cases, mine included. This letter contained vital information that could have significantly altered the course of our appeals.

Despite the critical nature of the situation, no one within the government has bothered to investigate the truth regarding the key findings that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and their office later revealed—information that had been deliberately concealed from the COT Cases by Telstra and their legal team. Tragically, the COT Cases that lacked political support found themselves trapped at the bottom of a very deep and dark hole, where their voices went unheard and their struggles overlooked. (Refer to "An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)  

This website absentjustice.com serves as a crucial platform that sheds light on the pervasive corruption affecting many Western nations, particularly in dispute resolution. It examines how mediation and arbitration processes are often inadequately utilised, resulting in severe repercussions for citizens. Once individuals sign agreements for arbitration, the binding confidentiality clauses prevent any further discussions about unresolved issues, even if those issues cannot be rectified through the arbitration process itself.

For example, consider a persistent telephone problem that remains unresolved throughout the arbitration. Such issues can drag on for years, creating frustration and hardship for those affected. In the specific case of the Telstra arbitrations, claimants found that any attempts to discuss the timeline for fixing these longstanding problems were stifled by confidentiality agreements, effectively silencing any debate.

In stark contrast to this reality, the Australian government appears to be under the illusion that the disturbing matters concerning the Casualties of Telstra (COT) have already been completely resolved. These issues are deeply rooted in a complex web of corruption related to government-sanctioned arbitrations during the tumultuous 1990s. This false sense of resolution persists even though the arbitrator and administrator hastily wrapped up their activities, failing to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes of the ongoing telephone and fax problems that disrupt the claimants' businesses.

Clicking on the Confidentiality Agreement image below shows that the $250,000 liability caps from my arbitration agreement and those of Garms and Schorer have been removed. Shortly after we signed our modified agreements, the $250,000 liability caps were reinstated on the remaining twelve COT Cases arbitration agreements. Removing these liability caps prevented us from contesting the arbitrators' professional consultants for negligence.

Compounding the frustration, officials concluded their activities under a tampered-with and altered arbitration confidentiality agreement. This alarming development occurred despite a clear mutual understanding among the government and all involved parties that they intended to uphold the original agreement without alterations. Who had the authority to modify this previously endorsed document clandestinely? The revised agreement was ingeniously crafted to shield Telstra from any form of accountability, leaving ordinary Australians to navigate the tumultuous fallout and the far-reaching effects on their daily lives.

It is crucial to highlight the events of 2021 in my proposed settlement agreement, which I signed, along with three other COT Cases, on November 23, 1993. By April 21, 1994, Telstra (the defendants), the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Warwick Smith, and the appointed assessor, Dr. Gordon Hughes, under pressure from Telstra and their legal team, transformed the commercial assessment process for the four COT Cases into a highly legalistic arbitration process. Telstra and its lawyers secretly drafted this new process and fundamentally differed from the government-facilitated commercial assessment process. The arbitrator criticised this approach as lacking credibility but still used it when evaluating my claim.

It is essential to address 2021 because Bernard Collaery, a former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, was a highly qualified legal expert who clashed with the government despite fulfilling his duties under international law. Like the COT Cases, Mr. Collaery faced challenges related to electronic surveillance equipment used by the Australian government, compromising his clients' rights to a fair hearing.

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:

"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.  

Here is further proof that the Australian government bureaucrats use electronic equipment to gain an upper hand when they deem it appropriate, as discussed above and in the COT arbitrations. We COT Cases never stood a chance against these secret government officials with no qualms about whom they harm.

 

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.

Telstra’s FOI document (M34363) dated 4 February 1994 was not made available to the arbitrator or me during my arbitration, even though Telstra’s FOI numbering system (M followed by a number) indicates to Telstra and the TIO’s office that I was still reporting problems with my fax transmissions during my FTSP process (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 24).

“I am writing to inform you that members of the group known as the Casualties of Telecom (COT) have contacted my Office regarding the Australian Federal Police enquiries into voice monitoring by Telstra of their telephones. Both Mr Graham Schorer and Mr Alan Smith of COT have informed my Office that they have information on Telstra’s activities in relation to these matters.” 

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

The government communications authority, AUSTEL, writes 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)

 

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

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 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates fax interception 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 7 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 up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? 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 2025.

 

I began to keep a log.

In question 81 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 (AFP) transcripts, the AFP presented a wealth of compelling evidence. This evidence disclosed that John McMahon, a key representative from AUSTEL—the Australian government agency overseeing telecommunications regulation—had provided the AFP with crucial insights. These insights strongly supported my assertions regarding the unauthorised surveillance of my telephone communications, a violation that raised serious concerns about privacy and legality. 

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organisations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording my single club members' names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

After this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, a primary entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra could determine when my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. At the same time, I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.

As the image shows below I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost en route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 en route to the arbitrator hearing my case either via Australian Post of Telstra's fascsimile process.

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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 up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? 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 2024.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop exercise book into neatly organised hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

What happened next can be viewed by clicking on the Logbook image above.

A shocking tale unfolds throughout this narrative after Telstra acquires this pivotal evidence. It may astonish readers to learn that a government-owned corporation could engage in such unethical practices against the COT Cases, yet, remarkably, no individuals have been held accountable for these unlawful actions.

Despite significant concerns around this issue, neither the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, nor the arbitration administrator, Warwick Smith, took proactive steps to clarify the situation. Both knew that the Australian Federal Police was investigating troubling phone and fax interception issues that Des Direen was examining on behalf of Telstra at the Portland Telephone Exchange. These issues raised serious questions about the integrity of my advance group booking inquiries.

During my arbitration, I demonstrated to Dr. Gordon Hughes that 81 incoming calls over two months—recorded by Telstra—were routed to the Portland Telephone Exchange but were not registered as being received by my nominated number. The arbitrator did not allow an investigation into this matter, even though these lost calls significantly impacted my business. 

On 19 December 1995, seven months after my arbitration, I presented the same example of 81 lost incoming calls to Darren Kearney, a technical consultant from AUSTEL on behalf of the government. Mr. Kearney wrote that he would follow up with me, but as of 2025, I have still not received any information about where these 81 calls were directed.

 

None of the 24,000 documents that Dr. Hughes mentioned to Laure James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, were ever submitted for arbitration by me. These documents were sent to Queensland, as was covertly acknowledged by the process administrator. If this isn’t enough evidence to convince someone, consider this: Dr. Hughes' written award claims he assessed approximately 6,000 documents; the arbitration resource unit echoed the same in their findings. I believe that most who read this website will understand why I have found it so difficult to live with these falsehoods.

5 May 1995: The arbitrator wrote to me, noting:

“I refer to your telephone message of 4 May and your facsimiles of 4 and 5 May 1995 and advise I do not consider grounds exist for the introduction of new evidence or the convening of a hearing at this stage.”

And he reiterated his previous instructions:

“...any comments regarding the factual content of the Resource Unit reports must be received … by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9 May 1995″. (see Arbitrator File No/48)

It remains unclear whether my inquiries were illicitly redirected to another holiday camp operator, a booking agent, or Micky, who might have received a commission for passing on to these booking agents. This situation could mean that customers were unknowingly directed towards businesses profiting illegitimately from my intercepted communications. They acknowledged these serious concerns in their AUSTEL's covert report detailing my business losses.

On page seven of its final, 3 May 1995, financial-evaluation report, which both Telstra and I received, Ferrier Hodgeson, the arbitration consultant valuers on behalf of the arbitrator, states:

“An analysis of the clientele of CBHC  shows that only 53% were in fact schools.” (See Open Letter File No 57-A to 57-D)

There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. 

, dated March 1994, confirms that the investigation conducted by government public servants regarding my ongoing telephone issues validated my claims against Telstra for the period between Points 2 to 212. Additionally, AUSTEL highlights the potential loss for patrons of the Over Forties Single Club/Social Club on page 33, point 85, of dated March 1994. This includes the type of lost revenue represented by the value of a single call to my business, as demonstrated in the following statement:

“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” 

Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen → File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541, delves into the complexities surrounding Julian Assange and hacking, and significant unheeded warnings. File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 presents a vital witness statement dated August 10, 2006. This statement was sworn by Des Direen, who held the position of Senior Protective Officer at Telstra and later rose to the rank of Principal Investigator. In a courageous act of transparency, Mr. Direen revealed that during the tumultuous years of 1999 and 2000, after departing from Telstra, he lent his expertise to the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, with special emphasis on aiding investigator Rod Kueris in their deep dives into the complex allegations of fraud associated with COT.

Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.

It is also clear from Des Direen's witness statement below that if Telstra can spook a trained police officer during an official police investigation, then I guess the COT Cases have good reason for being traumatised during the relentless harassment they received during their government-endorsed arbitrations.  

"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”  (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.

What has not been proven, even though both the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes and the administrator to my arbitration, Warwick Smith, were aware that the Australian Federal Police was investigating the same phone/fax interception issues that Des Direen on behalf of Telstra was investigating at the Portland Telephone exchange during that same period. Des Direen would not have been sent to the Portland telephone exchange during my arbitration to investigate  “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” had the Telstra not believed the possibility that my claims to Grant Campbell (Deputy Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, The Hon Michael Lee Minister Lee Minister for Communications and the government communications authority AUSTEL that some of my lost Social Club/Over Forties Single Club claims of redirected business calls were going to an uso far unknown location.

No one came forward to deny or agree that it was possible my advance group booking enquiries were being redirected to another holiday camp operator or a booking agent on commission from holiday camp operators to bring business their way, unaware that the business they were now being advised of was poached from my intercepted telephone and faxes?

I selected the image titled "TELECOM SPYING ON ITS EMPLOYEES" because it exposes the unsettling reality that Telecom (now rebranded as Telstra) was surveilling its employees and intruding into its customers' private lives. This invasive behaviour came to light in the case involving the Casualties of Telstra, where the company was embroiled in arbitration after it was revealed that customers' voices had been monitored for extended periods.

In my own experience, a series of documents were unintentionally released—though I find it difficult to believe this was an accidental oversight—because an insider at Telstra recorded nearly an entire A4 page of my conversations with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser that had been redacted.

During two significant phone calls with Mr. Fraser, we delved into his time as Minister for the Army during the tumultuous Vietnam War era. I shared with him my troubling recollections of being interrogated in Communist China on espionage charges back in 1967. I also inquired if he remembered receiving a letter from me dated September 18, 1967, in which I recounted my harrowing experiences in Communist China and the alarming events witnessed by several seamen, including myself.

Even before my arbitration began, among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under the Freedom of Information (FOI Act), I found one particularly alarming file that I later shared with the Australian Federal Police. This document contains a record of my phone conversation with Malcolm Fraser, the former Prime Minister of Australia. To my dismay, this Telstra file had undergone redaction.

I am deeply concerned about the confidential information related to my conversations with the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser. We discussed my experiences with Communist China, which I detailed in "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam." How much of this sensitive information is currently retained by officials at Telstra? Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, the document and hundreds of requested FOI documents remain withheld from me in 2025.

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unauthorised interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

It is noteworthy that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator operated in collaboration. Dr. Gordon Hughes supplied Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials months before Telstra should have received these documents, according to the terms of my arbitration agreement.

 

 

I am breaching that confidentiality clause by sharing this information because the arbitrator and/or his legal advisors altered clauses 10.2.2, 24, 25 and 26 after the COT Cases lawyers had viewed a differe

The intricate complexities surrounding this issue expose deep-seated systemic failures in accountability and illuminate the profound implications for individuals. These individuals are left to silently endure their struggles, bearing the heavy weight of decisions made in shadowy corners, while grappling with the ramifications of a system that seems indifferent to their plight.

Presented below are seven compelling and intricately detailed examples that emerge from a thorough examination of 151 comparable cases. These examples delve into the complex and often troubling landscape of corruption within government-sanctioned arbitrations. This analysis specifically highlights the role of Telstra, the challenges of the COT Cases, the actions of a particular arbitrator, and the involvement of several dishonest public servants, unraveling a narrative that exposes the depth of corruption within these proceedings 

 

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, Federal Attorney-General and The Hon Robert Clark, Victorian Attorney-General, I note:

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

• Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
• The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 
• In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken  by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)

I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases. 

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

My name is Alan Smith, and this is the story of my enduring battle against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This struggle has twisted and turned, weaving through the corridors of power since 1992. I have faced elected officials, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and Telstra, formerly Telecom. My quest for justice continues unabated to this day. 

How can the compelling evidence supporting my claims—meticulously documented and displayed on this website—be so casually dismissed by the government as frivolous for nearly three decades? 

When I decided to leave behind my life at sea, a life I had embraced for the previous 20 years, I craved a new land-based occupation to usher me into retirement. I have always yearned to work with children. In my mind, I envisioned adventure courses that included activities like canoeing, caving, and outdoor education. This inspired my search for a holiday camp similar to Cape Bridgewater, which would help fulfil my dreams. However, my pursuit of these dreams led to the dissolution of my twenty-year marriage and an additional eleven years of struggles with arbitration and corruption. At 81, I am reflecting on this journey and writing this story.

Hovering your cursor or mouse over the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp image below will lead you to a March 1994 document referenced as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. This document confirms that government public servants investigating my ongoing telephone issues supported my claims against Telstra, particularly between Points 2 and 212. Evidently, if the arbitrator had been presented with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, he would have awarded me a significantly higher amount for my financial losses than he ultimately did.

As a devoted hospitality professional, I had always dreamt of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my excitement when I stumbled upon the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre, a hidden gem advertised for sale in *The Age newspaper*. Nestled in the picturesque rural landscape of Victoria, near the quaint maritime port of Portland, it seemed to promise everything I had ever wanted. After conducting what I believed to be thorough due diligence to ensure the business was sound, I never thought to check one critical factor: whether the phone service worked.

Within a week of taking over, it became clear that I had stepped into a quagmire. Customers and suppliers began contacting me, only to express frustration at their failed attempts to connect over the phone. I grappled with the harsh reality of running a business plagued by an unreliable phone service—at best, glitchy, at worst, completely non-existent. Therefore, my dreams began to slip away, strained by unforeseen losses.

Thus began my saga—a relentless quest to secure a functioning phone line for my business. Along this tumultuous journey, I received overdue compensation for my business losses and many broken promises that my issues would be resolved. Yet, here I am, all these years later, still grappling with the same unresolved problems. I sold the business in 2002, but later owners faced similar misfortunes, trapped in a cycle of despair.

Fortunately, I found companionship in other independent businesspeople devastated by poor telecommunications services. We became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we have ever wanted is for Telecom/Telstra to officially recognise our struggles, rectify the myriad issues, and compensate us for our losses. Surely that is not too much to ask for a reliable phone service?

At the outset, we called for a full Senate investigation into the telecom giant and the specific grievances we faced. Yet, instead of accountability, we were offered an arbitration process as an alternative solution. It seemed like a fair opportunity to resolve our issues, so we accepted. Back then, we held onto hope that the technical malfunctions hindering our phones would finally be addressed.

Alas, that hope was dashed almost immediately as suspicions arose about the integrity of the arbitration process. We were promised access to essential Telecom documents for constructing our case, yet these documents were never made available. Adding to our frustrations, we later learned that our fax lines were being illegally tapped during the arbitration process. With the full weight of the Government against us, we found ourselves defeated.

To compound our challenges, we were deceived into signing a confidentiality clause that has since stymied all our efforts to speak out. While I may be risking penalties by divulging this information, I feel I have no other choice.

The next chapter of our struggle involved exhausting every avenue to obtain the promised but withheld documents through Freedom of Information (FOI). We are convinced that substantial evidence exists to support our assertion that the lines were malfunctioning and had not undergone proper testing according to established protocols. However, for that evidence to be useful, we must first receive those documents.

What do you think? Are we imagining this, or have we truly stumbled upon a web of massive corruption and collusion among public servants, politicians, regulatory bodies, and Telstra, all designed to shield Telstra at the expense of Australian rural businesses?

After surviving a harrowing heart attack followed by a double bypass surgery, I found myself in a consultation with my doctor, who, recognizing the gravity of my situation and familiar with my experiences as a COT claimant, expressed his sympathy. Yet, amid our conversation, he posed a question that lingered ominously in the air: "Why am I not surprised?"

As I pen these thoughts in 2025, the weight of revisiting our story's intricate and tumultuous details on absentjustice.com fills me with unsettling anxiety. Each time I delve into the narratives we’ve crafted—a mosaic of anguish and resilience—I grapple with an overwhelming inability to articulate a fitting conclusion to this dreadful saga. It is disheartening that, despite my fervent efforts, I remain at a loss for the words to encapsulate the disaster that has ensnared us for years.

At the core of our struggle lies the grim reality that none of the COT cases should have placed honest Australian citizens in a position where we faced unaddressed crimes that inflicted deep harm. These offences were perpetrated against us while we were engaged in a governmental-sanctioned legal arbitration process that promised justice. The complexities of our situation can be divided into two primary issues: on one side are those individuals who colluded with Telstra to execute these unaddressed wrongs, and on the other, Telstra itself—an institution wielding immense power, capable of thwarting any investigations by authorities, including governmental bodies. This disturbing dynamic is thoroughly discussed on this website.

It is imperative to stress that every detail chronicled on this website is meticulously correct and adamantly supported by irrefutable evidence, readily available for public examination. Recently, during heartfelt discussions with fellow members of the COT group—despite two individuals facing serious health challenges—we reached a consensus. Given our immense stress, we believed it would be more prudent to present our stories to the public as they currently stand on the website, even if it diverges from the polished presentation we had initially envisioned.

Judicial impartiality is a cornerstone of true justice. Judges and arbitrators must be able to resolve legal disputes without personal bias or prejudice. A conflict of interest can severely undermine this impartiality, making disqualification necessary. However, during the COT arbitrations, our arbitrator, who presided over the first four cases, had previously served as a legal and business advisor to one of those claimants, a crucial fact that was withheld from the other three.

Clicking on the following FOI image shows that during the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues, refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. As my arbitration process progressed, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) became aware that the defendants had threatened to stop providing me with any more discovery documents if I continued to help the AFP with their investigations into my complaints that those very same defendants were intercepting my phones and faxes and, of course, those documents were vital: I couldn’t support my arbitration claim without them. Most of these received documents were either blanked out, unreadable or undecipherable. 

 

What options remained for us in this seemingly endless struggle? We had lost the arbitration process, primarily due to our inability to access the crucial FOI and the requested discovery documents. Subsequently, we also lost the chance to appeal because we had no access to the same material, which would have allowed us to determine our chances of winning such an appeal. Should we surrender to defeat or muster the strength to continue the fight?

After facing a life-altering heart attack, which felt like a thunderclap echoing through my chest, and enduring the gruelling experience of double bypass surgery, I found myself seated in a doctor's office, my pulse still racing from the surreal events. My doctor, acutely aware of the gravity of my situation and familiar with my challenging experiences as a COT claimant, leaned in with a sympathetic expression that conveyed both concern and understanding. However, amid our conversation, he posed a disquieting question that hung heavily in the air: "Why am I not surprised?"

Now, as I pen these thoughts in the year 2025, the weight of revisiting the intricate and tumultuous saga of our journey on absentjustice.com brings an unsettling wave of anxiety. Each time I dive into the narratives we’ve woven—a vivid tapestry of anguish, perseverance, and resilience—I struggle with an overwhelming inability to find the right words to encapsulate this distressing chapter of our lives. It is profoundly disheartening to realise that, despite my fervent attempts, I remain at a loss for adequate language to summarise the disaster that has ensnared us for so long.

At the core of our struggle lies the harsh reality that no honest Australian citizen should ever have been thrust into a position where we were left to confront unaddressed crimes that inflicted deep scars on our lives. These offences were committed against us while we engaged in a painstakingly protracted governmental-sanctioned legal arbitration process, which held the promise of justice and resolution. The complexities of our ordeal can be distilled into two main issues: first, the shadowy figures who colluded with Telstra to perpetrate these unresolved injustices; and second, Telstra itself—an enormous institution wielding formidable power, capable of obstructing any investigations by authorities, including governmental bodies. This disturbing dynamic is thoroughly examined and documented on our website.

It is vital to stress that every detail outlined on this platform is meticulously accurate and robustly supported by indisputable evidence, readily accessible for public scrutiny. Recently, during heartfelt discussions with fellow members of the COT group—some of whom were grappling with significant health challenges—we reached a collective decision. Given the overwhelming stress plaguing us, we agreed it would be wiser to present our stories in their current unrefined state on the website, rather than waiting for the polished narratives we initially envisioned.

Judicial impartiality stands as a cornerstone in the search for true justice. For judges and arbitrators, the capacity to resolve legal disputes without personal bias or prejudice is essential. A conflict of interest can severely undermine this impartiality, making disqualification unavoidable. However, during the COT arbitrations, our arbitrator—having previously served as a legal and business advisor to one of the claimants—failed to disclose a crucial fact that could have altered the course of the proceedings.

On May 12, 1995, this same arbitrator warned the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) that the arbitration agreement employed in my case—the inaugural arbitration among the four—was "not a credible document." Yet, despite this alarming revelation, he proceeded without hesitation. In the aftermath, the arbitration rules were modified for the remaining three claimants, affording them over thirteen additional months to prepare their cases—a glaring indicator of inequity that left me feeling marginalised.

Moreover, the arbitrator granted that same previous client an extended period to secure Freedom of Information (FOI) documents from Telstra and respond to the defence of his case, permitting him an astonishing thirty months longer than I was given. This stark disparity illustrates a blatant bias that cannot be ignored. When the government became aware that this arbitrator had previously assisted that specific claimant during a Federal Court action in 1990—addressing the very issues now under consideration—one would expect immediate disqualification. Yet, as our narrative unfolds, we discover that the arbitrator remained unchallenged and firmly in place, casting a dark shadow over the quest for justice.

 

 

The process extended from 1994 until 2011. In May that year, my final request for the withheld Freedom of Information (FOI) documents was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in Melbourne. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) was designated as the respondent. The Australian Government Solicitors were appointed to represent the ACMA, bringing their legal expertise to the proceedings. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I lost the appeal. 

Despite receiving official advice from AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) that we would be unable to prove our ongoing phone problems without the promised documents—the very same documents AUSTEL had previously relied upon to make its findings against Telstra—I found myself in a frustrating situation. In 2008 and 2011, AUSTEL/ACMA stubbornly refused to provide me with those essential documents, which I had desperately needed since 1994 to substantiate my arbitration claims. The term "crawl" hardly captures the extent of my frustrations; "unconscionable" and "evil" aptly reflect the callousness and indifference displayed by these government bureaucrats at AUSTEL/ACMA. Their actions felt both obstructive and profoundly unjust, adding to the despair surrounding our unresolved issues.

In the lead-up to my submission for the AAT hearing in October 2008, I unexpectedly interacted with one of the tribunal’s administrators. This individual approached me and shared that they had read many of my letters submitted to the AAT since my initial request in February 2008. They said they recognised my dedication and the clarity I articulated my submissions, noting that my conduct was not frivolous. Although some viewed my claims as vexatious, their encouragement left me hopeful for a positive outcome in the hearing.

Transcripts from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 8 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) reveal significant testimony provided by Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT cases. In an official capacity under oath, Mr. Schorer conveyed to two government attorneys and a senior member of the AAT panel that he and I were actively seeking access to a series of freedom of information documents that Telstra had withheld during the critical arbitration discovery process. Our primary objective was to compile a comprehensive and factual narrative that would illuminate and potentially open doors for other similar cases, fewer than sixteen, that could prompt the Senate to advocate for a thorough government investigation into the validity of our claims.

What Mr. Schorer failed to disclose to the attorneys or the presiding judge, Mr. GD Friedman, was a crucial detail that had bearing on our case: unbeknownst to me, the government had concealed AUSTEL Adverse Findings from both itself and the arbitrator in March 1994. Alarmingly, these findings were provided to Telstra a mere six weeks before I signed my arbitration agreement. This transfer of information was strategically timed to assist Telstra in mounting a defence against my claims regarding the persistent problems I was experiencing with telephone and fax services, continuing even on the day the information was bestowed upon them.

The government appeared to operate under the belief that preventing me from substantiating my claims was imperative. It was not until November 2007—twelve years after the government initially supplied these AUSTEL Adverse Findings to Telstra—that I received access to this critical document. By this point, the utility of the findings had diminished significantly, as they were now five years past the six-year statute of limitations for filing an appeal against my award.

A thorough examination of this report may lead an impartial observer to conclude that the government has patently breached its obligations towards me as an Australian citizen. This breach appears to stem from a discriminatory practice favouring Telstra, a corporation wholly owned by the Australian government, representing the collective interests of the Australian people, during that significant period in March 1994. 

On 3 October 2008, senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

During the above ten-month AAT hearing, I provided the AAT with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the ACMA board, proving beyond all doubt that Telstra had violated my human rights and that their leading arbitration engineer, Peter Gamble, had submitted known false documents to the arbitrator concerning his alleged successful service verification testing of my business telephone service lines. 

How can the arbitrator, who had no control over the arbitration proceedings, continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia.

 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee (refer to page 99 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.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to effectively assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question.