Bribery Corruption Illicit Dealings

Threats made 

Threats Carried Out 

Threats were made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues.  Refer page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false; the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” Senate Evidence File No 31

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

Who within Telstra authorised this electronic surveillance

I have explained over many years as to how, and why, I’d had to copy fault complaint records into my holiday camp diaries from exercise books, and affirmed that nonetheless, my chronology of fault events was true and correct Australian Federal Police Investigations-1. I was advised to do this by Detective Superintendent Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police and an ex-National Crime Investigator Garry Ellicott. On 11 October 1994, during my oral arbitration hearing I had practically begged to be allowed to submit these fault complaints notebooks as evidence of my client call loss (as the transcripts of this meeting show).

The transcripts show Telstra had objected to the submission of these facts and the arbitrator had asserted, without viewing them, that they were irrelevant.

Nevertheless, when it came to his summary in relation to these diaries, the arbitrator stated: 

"I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability".

I contend that if the arbitrator had allowed these notes taken from my exercise books as evidence, and provided them to Telstra’s Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr Holland would have had a clear understanding of what the exercise books really were and would have realised there was no attempt at deception.

In fact, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show the governments own investigation into my claims where they used Telstra's fault data and not my diaries found in my favour as point 209 states: 

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

Is the real reason why the arbitrator made no written finding in his award concerning the ongoing telephone problems being experienced by the COT Cases because telling the truth concerning the many problems still being encountered by the COT Cases would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra?  

Telling the truth would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra. 

Thomas Jefferson said:

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Sadly, what was predicted in 1816, more than 200 years ago, by undoubtedly one of America's finest presidents, happened during the COT arbitrations and is still happening in the USA, Britain, Australia and the once-free world as my statements unfold on absentjustice.com.

Thomas Jefferson also made another significant statement concerning corruption in government and the use of moneyed incorporations when he stated:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

While we cannot say that Ericsson (Sweden) and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia) are the types of 'enemies of the people Thomas Jefferson referred to when he stated 'let us tie the second down with the Constitution'. What we do know is. the Australian government should never have allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane in an arbitration the governemnt had endorsed. This selling off of Lane, disallowed the COT Cases every reasonable chance of fully proving their claims as well appealing them within the six-year statute of limitations allowed.

Corruption in government, abuse-of-power, and political-corruption are embedded in our COT Case story; it is what destroyed all of the COT arbitration and mediation processes in which the Ericsson faulty telephone equipment was the subject matter before the arbitrator and mediator.

When Ericsson purchased Lane, they also purchased all of my Ericsson AXE telephone exchange arbitration claim material which Lane never released back to me after my arbitration. 

In simple words, there were never to be any written findings in either the arbitrator's award or the Lane-drafted technical report that the phone problems that had brought the COT Cases to arbitration were still affecting their business on the eve of the arbitrator's award. This non reporting of the truth was misleading and deceptive conduct of the worse possible kind.

United-States-Strategy-on-Countering-Corruption

US Securities Exchange smelled a 'pink herring'

Australian Senate Hansard, see Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating: 

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

The John Howard government only allowed five 'litmus' tests COT cases out of the twenty-one Cases to have their "Freedom of Information" (FOI) be resolved as part of the Senate Committee investigations had he allowed the other sixteen COT Cases; this would have affected the Telstra sale prospectus. So, the Howard government hung out to dry the other sixteen COT Cases so that any compensation paid to them would not affect the sale prospectus.

Those unaddressed sixteen sets of claim documents show quite clearly, as do the download evidence files on absentjustice.com, that the Telstra Corporation and its copper wire network were not 'fit for purpose' when the John Howard government sold it off.

Not fit for purpose

A pink herring

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

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

ERICSSON

So, as you read Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs. Ericsson of Sweden, regularly check the evidence on this website absentjustice.com and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of the crimes still being committed by Australia's public service officers in 2023. Threats were made and carried out against the COT Cases if they did not succumb to the threats. As shown below in our story because I refused to be intimidated by these threats, which were originally made by Telstra's lawyer Denise McBurnie from Freehill Hollingdale & Page in September 1993 (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) and again in July 1994 by Telstra Paul Rumble (see Senate Evidence File No 31), I was not provided with the documents needed to prove my claim.

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019 as recorded in the Australian media i.e.; 

"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 clear from the following google link "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." that the COT Cases were right to demand answers 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 treated so badly when Ericsson was able to nobble Lane? 

I again ask the governemnt, why was Ericsson allowed to puchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during an Australian government endorsed arbitration process when Lane was the main technical witness?

All of the technical information stored on Lanes computer hard drives now belonged to Ericsson  

What a coup for Ericsson 

Lane acquired all COT Case claim documents under a special confidentiality agreement with a strict clause forbidding Lane to provide that data to any party other than the arbitrator and the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. However, once Ericsson purchased Lane during the COT Cases v Telstra v arbitrations, they bought all of the technical and business material on Lane's computer hard drives, which included government-acquired technical information, which Lane had also accumulated as technical consultants to the Australian government. 

How much Australian government technical data which was initially installed on Lane's computers while working on Australian government projects (information concerning Australian citizens) became the property of Ericsson when Lane sold itself, even though they were the principal witness in the COT Cases arbitrations at the time of this sale?

Even though the following link  https://shorturl.at/wFSY5 shows Ericsson mobile customers were having significant phone problems in 2018, Ericsson denied the problems were widespread when the evidence shows those problems were worldwide, affecting millions of Ericsson customers.  I reiterate that had Ericsson and Telstra not mislead and deceived the COT Cases arbitrator between 1994 and 1998 concerning the ongoing Ericsson AXE equipment used by Telstra, the COT Cases business lives could have been salvaged.

The COT Cases never had a chance 

Criminal Conduct  

COT Case Strategy  

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

Worse, for those Australian citizens who chose arbitration instead of the court system, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

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

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs"..

It is clear from Mr White's statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving my claim against Telstra’. 

Also on page 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr asked Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise i.e. government clearance to be able to impartially filter the raw information collected before that information is catalogued for future use?  How much inconfidence information concerning my telephone conversations and business endevours found their way to Ericsson in Sweden?

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia my bankers had already lost patience and had sent the Sheriff to make sure I stayed on my knees. No punches were thrown by me during this altercation with the Sheriff who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a wrestling  hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious there were two sides to this terrible ordeal that Telstra, the arbitrator and government had put me through.

AN INJUSTICE STILL UNRESOLVED

On 27 October 2023, 84-year-old Sandra Wolfe - one of the 16 COT Cases - had yet to receive her legally requested freedom of information (FOI) documents and none of the awarded million dollars of punitive damages from the authorities.

A punitive damages amount was set aside to be split between the remaining sixteen COT Cases, An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. Sandra Wolfe was to receive a share in 1999.

Sandra Wolfe spoke with me in Brisbane in July 2005, when I and 13 other COT Cases met with Senator Barnaby Joyce regarding an amount of 12 million dollars of compensation that had apparently gone missing.

As a result of this Brisbane meeting I received the following letter dated 15 September 2005, from Senator Barnaby Joyce:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Between July 2005  and March 1996, Senator Barnaby Joyce promised the COT Cases group that he would locate where the 12 million dollars of compensation had disappeared to as part of his proposed government endorsed commercial assessment process Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued. 

Senator Barnaby Joyce had previously became involved with the COT Cases determinations, and had reached an understanding with Commonwealth Government ministers for delivering the crucial vote needed in the Senate for the privatisation of Telstra.

On 17 March 2006, David Lever, Manager, Consumer Section, Telecommunications Division in charge of assessing my 2006 government-endorsed assessment process wrote to me in response to my letter to Ms Forman noting:

"Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". (Refer to exhibt AS 657 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

This letter of 17 March 2006, from David Lever was sent two weeks after a government public servant, Nikki Vajrabukka, emailed David Lever on 3 March 2006, advising him that she had emailed David Quilty at david.quilty@team.telstra.com (Refer to (File 1120 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 asking for Mr Quilty's  assistance in addressing my government 2006 submission. Sending this email is much like asking a criminal if they should be charged with theft after being caught with the stolen goods. 

It is also interesting to note that after the government found in favour of Telstra, Mr Quilty became a senior Telstra executive. 

The information in my story and on this website absentjustice.com indicates that Telstra employees have committed criminal offences during my arbitration, as well as carrying out threats which were made against me Senate Evidence File No 31.

My evidence also shows Telstra knowingly provided three falsified arbitration defence submissions to the arbitrator, i.e., Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Tampering With Evidence. Those employees involved in this perversion of the course of justice have never been made to account for these criminal actions.

Neither have the three government public servants in charge of assessing my 2006 submission, namely Nikki Vajrabukka, David Lever and David Quilty, made to explain why my evidence showing Telstra did commit the crimes discussed here was not valued/assessed as the government said would be the case if I took those claims to the government in 2006.  

On 6 September 2006 14 COT Cases met with Senator Helen Coonan

 The government did not independently address the COT Cases' claims       

It appears that Senator Barnaby Joyce has not yet traced where the missing 500.00 thousand dollars now resides - however the Queensland Charity that somehow mysteriously received payments may help to shed light on this unresolved issue. 

On 3 November 2006, Senator Helen Coonan wrote to David Hawker, Speaker In the House of Representatives, stating:

"Thank you for your representation of 17 August 2006 on behalf of Mr Alan Smith regarding Mr Smith’s allegations that Telstra monitored his phone calls and emails during an arbitration process with Telstra. The interception of emails and monitoring of phone calls is an offence under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Mr Smith should consider his dispute through the dispute resolution bodies, including his State Office of Fair Trading, the Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Communications and Media Authority state, and the courts". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700

On 17 May 2007, The Hon Senator Helen Coonan (the minister in charge of allowing Nikki Vajrabukka and  David Lever not to value/address my claims on their merit wrote to me noting:

"I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer to exhibit AS 616-B  File  AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

Indeed, it was Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to instigate an official enquiry into why Telstra continued to intercept in-confidence documents leaving either my office (or residence), the offices of various Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations?

Why was it left open to a citizen of Australia to take Telstra to court for intercepting documents during and after their government-endorsed arbitration when the Senate Estimates Committee had also been advised that some of these faxes were also intercepted leaving Parliament house (see during a Senate Investigation into the COT Cases claims? (Refer to (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13)

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 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)