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.

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.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned the country's telecommunications network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). This monopoly led to a catastrophic decline in service quality, as the network fell into disrepair. Instead of addressing the unacceptable state of our telephone services as part of the government-endorsed arbitration process—an inherently uneven fight that none of us could win—these issues remained unresolved. It was a battle that cost claimants hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet the crimes committed against us went unacknowledged. Our integrity was viciously attacked, our livelihoods destroyed, and we lost millions, all while our mental health deteriorated. Shockingly, those who orchestrated this corruption continue to wield power today, reinforcing a façade that hides the truth. Our story remains actively suppressed.

What has transpired at the hands of government public servants and their deceptive legal advisors, who have feasted mercilessly on the hard-earned money of taxpayers for decades, is nothing short of a shocking betrayal. Instead of safeguarding the interests of citizens, they allowed Telstra—a colossal government-owned corporation—to control the arbitration process, undermining the very authority of the arbitrator, as the following government records starkly reveal.

Two months into my harrowing arbitration process, which unfolded between June 1994 and April 1995, I found myself ensnared in a twisted web of deceit and treachery. Desperately, I appealed to the arbitrator, urging him to hold Telstra accountable for its despicable and underhanded actions. Instead of reaping the justice I so fervently sought, I was met with an ominous silence and a relentless barrage of obstruction. Fast forward to 2025, and I remain trapped in an agonising limbo, still waiting for crucial discovery documents that Telstra has maliciously and deliberately withheld from me throughout the entire arbitration. My relentless quest for these documents dragged me through two excruciating government Administrative Appeals Tribunals, a nightmare that extended until May 2011—an unconscionable seventeen years after the government duplicitously promised Ann Garms, Maureen Gilland, Graham Schorer, and me that we would receive them if we abandoned our Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), all under the guise of a non-legal resolution.

The motivations of the government were far darker than mere incompetence; they sought to bury the truth surrounding Senator Bob Collins, the minister overseeing our original claims against Telstra. Collins, a predator cloaked in power, was embroiled in serious allegations of pedophilia, accused of violating at least one child within the so-called safety of his Canberra office. The Australian Federal Police became entangled in this sordid affair, investigating not only Collins but also probing Telstra's dubious involvement in our FTSP issues, creating a perfect storm of corruption and malevolence that loomed ominously over our case.

As members of the COT Cases, we were thrust into this corrupt arbitration process, wholly unaware of the treachery lurking behind the scenes. The arbitrator enforced a treacherous system designed to minimise Telstra's liability, ensuring that the systemic issues still plaguing our businesses were concealed under a cloak of confidentiality. This cruel arrangement shackled us, silencing our voices and preventing us from addressing the ongoing injustices that the government had assured us would be resolved through this new arbitration process.

Throughout my turbulent experiences from 1994 to 1995, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, wrapped himself in layers of secrecy with the duplicitous assistance of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. He became a spectre, intentionally unreachable, refusing phone calls—a fact confirmed by his complicit secretary, Caroline Friend, who seemed to take pleasure in reinforcing this veil of evasion. It was only when the Commonwealth Ombudsman intervened—a desperate attempt to wrest control from this deceitful arrangement and compel Telstra to comply with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act—that a flicker of reluctant cooperation emerged from the shadows. Government solicitors acted as puppeteers, manipulating my arbitration documents, which experienced inexplicable delays, finally arriving on May 23, 1995—two maddening weeks after my arbitration had purportedly concluded.

In a brazen display of contempt for the entire process, the arbitrator audaciously included a dismissive statement in Section 2.23 of his draft award, insisting.

“Although the time taken for completion of the arbitration may have been longer than initially anticipated, I hold neither party nor any other person responsible. Indeed, I consider the matter has proceeded expeditiously in all the circumstances. Both parties have cooperated fully.”

However, this statement was conspicuously omitted from the final award, revealing Dr. Hughes's blatant attempt to mask his actual acknowledgement that he had lost control over the arbitration, which was thrown into chaos by the forces of corruption surrounding him.

For those intrepid enough to delve into the murky depths of Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2 or navigate the sinister landscape of absentjustice.com, the true horror of our situation may begin to be unveiled. You may find my stark accusations against deceitful lawyers and conniving government bureaucrats—those I label as "The Brotherhood"—difficult to fathom. Yet by the end of this narrative, the very foundations of Australia’s corrupt legal system will appear as an insidious farce, designed to ensnare the innocent and protect the guilty. Once the claimant and opposing side sign confidentiality clauses in their arbitration agreements, they become ensnared—forgiving the oppressor a shield against justice, stripping us of any real opportunity to contest the unjust awards thrust upon us. The system is a malevolent construct, rigged to protect the powerful, with grotesquely imbalanced odds stacked against anyone audacious enough to confront the dark, treacherous forces lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce on those who dare challenge their sinister status quo.

On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, 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.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure, nor 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 under the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures

It is essential to inform the reader that Wayne Goss, mentioned in Ann Garms' letter attached as document (See File Ann Garms 104 Document) dated 17 August 2017, was the former Premier of Queensland. Therefore, when he advised Ann that gaslighting techniques were used against us, the COT cases, he was well-positioned within the establishment to make such a significant statement.

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.

Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →

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). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra. (rb.gy/dsvidd).

Don't forget to hover your mouse or cursor over the following Confidentiality Agreement. The outcomes of three separate COT arbitrations are evident, raising significant questions about the integrity of the arbitration process. (See Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct).

Altering clause 24 and removing the $250,000 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 after the first of the four COT Cases, Maureen Gillan disadvantaged the remaining three claimants, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me, from using those clauses to appeal the findings made by the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes.

The COT cases revolve around a group of self-motivated small business operators, each grappling with ongoing, debilitating issues that critically affected their telephone-dependent enterprises. The government, after a thorough investigation, acknowledged the legitimacy of at least eight out of the twenty-one cases, recognising the grave circumstances faced by these individuals. An arbitration process was established under government oversight, yet it failed catastrophically to identify and rectify the systemic faults plaguing the COTs.

Had these COT cases been confronted with genuine tragedies—such as catastrophic fires, devastating floods, or the unrelenting forces of nature—most would have exhibited remarkable resilience, driven by an indomitable spirit to rise from the ashes and reconstruct their lives. However, what unfolded during the disheartening arbitrations revealed an insidious reality. A government-owned entity like Telstra, shrouded in a veneer of respectability, callously evaded its mandated responsibilities, knowingly allowing critical telephone issues to fester. They turned a blind eye, as sinister confidentiality clauses buried within the arbitration agreements stifled the voices of the COTs, effectively perpetuating their silence. These clauses were cunningly crafted to ensure that the severe challenges threatening their livelihoods remained unspoken, even as the arbitrator grossly failed to compel Telstra to rectify the very telephone disasters that led to the arbitration.

The betrayal does not conclude there; the arbitrator’s shocking inaction, coupled with Telstra’s systematic evasion, has systematically eroded the foundation on which the COTs sought solace and justice. Instead of receiving the fairness they deserved, they were met with a betrayal so profound it resonates with echoes of criminality and legal intimidation, leaving their lives—and the lives of their families—in shambles.

Within this twisted scheme, corruption thrives like a vile weed, festering within the very institution meant to protect these unsuspecting victims. The arbitrator and the administrators orchestrating this flawed process stand complicit, aiding and abetting Telstra’s unconscionable misconduct. Their appalling refusal to step in only amplifies the suffering of those desperately seeking justice, revealing a haunting tableau of deceit and manipulation that casts a long, foreboding shadow over this sordid affair, leaving many to wonder who will stand for the oppressed.

Delve further into the alarming and often disturbing realms of horrendous crimes, duplicitous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who maintain a tight grip on the legal profession in Australia. Descriptors such as shameful, hideous, and treacherous vividly encapsulate the nature of these evil wrongdoers and the impact of their actions.

Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatisation of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place. → Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.

Let's delve into one of the most treacherous COT cases: Ann Garms. In a chilling display of systemic corruption, a Victoria Supreme Court judge dismissed Dr. Hughes without a second thought, but the Senate, amidst a web of deceit, shockingly acknowledged Ann's claims. The failed appeal, which left Ann with a staggering debt of over $600,000, was just a drop in the ocean of this elaborate scheme of betrayal. When she was begrudgingly awarded nearly $6 million in punitive damages, it was painfully clear that no amount of money could restore the shattered remnants of her life.

In a bold act of defiance against the sinister forces that had targeted her, Ann released a harrowing YouTube video – now hauntingly featured on Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, and KPMG, platforms. This video laid bare the unbearable burden she bore, one meticulously crafted by Telstra and the complicit parties in a sprawling cover-up that has obliterated the lives of over twenty COT claimants. They were lured into a government-sanctioned trap disguised as arbitration and mediation processes, only to be ensnared in a calculated game of deception.

Tragically, Ann's life was cut short soon after the video’s release, leaving her as a martyr in a relentless battle against the insidious corruption woven into the very fabric of government operations. Her fight exposes not only her own suffering but the dark underbelly of a system designed to protect the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

The link titled Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest unveils perhaps the darkest and most treacherous chapter of this tale, revealing the intricate web of deceit and betrayal lurking behind the scenes of the COT arbitrations. The appointed arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and Peter Gamble from Telstra were on opposing sides, yet their shared history was steeped in collusion and manipulation. While Dr. Hughes advocated for Graham Schorer in his Federal Court Action against Telstra between 1990 and 1993, Gamble was secretly working to obstruct justice, actively concealing crucial evidence that could have altered the course of the case.

As destiny would have it, these two figures clashed once more when Graham Schorer, representing a beleaguered group of Telstra complainants—including Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and me—embarked on the Telstra Fast Track Settlement Proposals from November 23, 1993, to 1998. This scheme, backed by a government that held a firm grip on Telstra, was nothing more than a facade—twelve other individuals would join us, coining ourselves the Casualties of Telstra.

What remains chilling is that I was never informed of the entangled connections between Graham Schorer and Dr. Gordon Hughes, nor was I privy to the fact that Peter Gamble had strategically hidden documents from Graham Schorer throughout the Federal Court proceedings, as explicit in the Senate Hansards of June 24 and 25, 1997, where the principal arbitration engineer was implicated in these deceptions.

In my ordeal, Peter Gamble orchestrated a flawed telephone service verification test on my four business lines at my holiday camp on September 29, 1994. He signed a witness statement claiming compliance with government mandates, all while willfully ignoring damning missives from the government communications authority, AUSTEL, on October 11 and November 16, 1994, which denounced those tests as grossly deficient. When I alerted Dr. Hughes to Gamble's treachery, he dismissed my concerns. On April 6, 1995, during a second SVT process at my business, when I dared to question the known faults affecting the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the defective Ericsson testing equipment at the Cape Bridgwater switching exchange, both Gamble and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd hastily evaded my inquiries, brazenly refusing to test my service lines.

The betrayal deepened when Ericsson swept in, acquiring Lane Telecommunications three-quarters of the way through the COT arbitrations, carting off all private and business records related to the COT Cases back to Sweden, thus ensuring that any evidence of wrongdoing vanished into the shadows. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

Ultimately, I was left with no choice but to sell my business in December 2001, as I found myself ensnared in a web of neglect and malpractice, with no authority willing to investigate my ongoing telephone faults. Dr. Hughes had stated in his final arbitration award that the issues had ceased after July 1994—a blatant lie amidst a convoluted narrative of treachery.

Peter Gamble, still lurking in the shadows of Telstra in the 2020s, and Dr. Hughes, now a Principal Partner | Davies Collison Cave Law (AUSTRALIA), symbolise a system corrupted at its core. I am compelled to share this story, hoping that those who read it grasp the gravity of these incredible and sinister events.

Anyone linked to Australia’s Establishment, which comprises many powerful figures who profess a commitment to democratic justice, would do well to reevaluate their decisions regarding the awarding of the "Order of Australia" after delving into the unsettling revelations in "Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct and Salvaging What I Could." This chapter uncovers alarming details that expose the dubious integrity of Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith during the critical period surrounding the COT arbitrations in my case. Their treacherous act of withholding two crucial letters from me not only compromised my position but also denied my appeal lawyers the essential grounds to challenge the arbitration’s verdict. In light of this, it is nearly unfathomable that these individuals could have been deemed worthy of such a prestigious honor. This concern becomes even more pronounced considering that both Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith have previously been awarded this accolade, despite their apparent involvement in deceitful conduct both before and after the contentious COT arbitrations. Their actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the honors they received and suggest a deeply troubling complicity in a system that rewards questionable behavior.

On 24 June 1997, pages 36 to 39, Senate - Parliament of Australia show an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistleblower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, 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".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving my claims against Telstra. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his 'false sworn witness statement' to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Corruption within governmental institutions has resulted in the unlawful manipulation of documents faxed from Owen Dixon Chambers, the legal hub of Melbourne, to the Supreme Court of Victoria. This misconduct has enabled criminal activities to persist in at least two cases associated with Telstra's appeal processes.

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 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)

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. 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. 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.

Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices prior to his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all of which were coordinated within twelve months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

It is now 2025, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life, regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

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.

The government communications authority, AUSTEL, writes to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, 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).

During my arbitration, I provided Dr Gordon Hughes with evidence that, between 1992 and 1995, fax interception issues were concerning me and my partner, as we were now travelling to Portland, 18 kilometres away, to talk to our arbitration officials and her daughter, Amanada.

Delve into the intricate and multifaceted issues surrounding corruption in arbitration, a topic that profoundly affects the quest for justice. AbsentJustice.com catalyzes a thorough investigation into the pervasive criminal conduct plaguing government institutions. The website sheds light on disturbing phenomena such as narcissism, where self-interest undermines collective integrity, unconscionable behaviour that disregards ethical standards, and thuggery that employs intimidation to silence dissent. Additionally, it reveals the insidious nature of kleptocracy, where those in power exploit resources for personal gain. This tumultuous landscape is further complicated by the treacherous manipulation of evidence, rendering it nearly indecipherable and obscuring the truth from those seeking accountability.

What was the implication of Julian Assange's phone conversations with Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT), in April 1994? During two separate communications, Assange indicated to Mr. Schorer that the COT cases were subject to electronic surveillance during the arbitration process. (Refer to WikiLeaks exposing the truth).

In April 1994, shortly after my conversation with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, how did Telstra become aware of my plans to travel to Melbourne weeks before my scheduled trip? This raises several questions, particularly about a person at Telstra called "Micky." Documents on absentjstice.com indicate that at least one local Telstra technician in Portland had been monitoring my phone conversations. Alarmingly, this technician was willing to share sensitive information about my personal and business contacts with this "Micky" individual.

Additionally, it is concerning that the arbitrator did not question this technician regarding the unauthorized disclosure of my private and business information. I had previously informed both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator about a threat made against me by Telstra's Executive Arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble. This threat arose from my cooperation with the AFP. I provided them with evidence that this "Micky" character was acting as an intermediary within Telstra (Refer to pages 12 and 13 → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. He had access to the telephone numbers of customers I frequently contacted and those who regularly called me.

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.

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).

The reluctance to investigate these serious violations raises further concerns about privacy and trust within Telstra, the Australian Federal Police and those who administered the COT arbitrations.

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The ongoing issues regarding Rupert Murdoch's phone interceptions in the United Kingdom https://cutt.cx/PCk1 highlight similarities to the phone and fax hacking concerns that impacted the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1999. By including thorough and compelling information on my Home page by 28 February, I aim to address significant events that deserve attention. During my arbitration, I contributed valuable assistance to the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes tied to my business dealings. I believe that this renewed focus can lead to greater transparency and accountability.

My decision to cooperate with the AFP was motivated by a concerning incident involving Telstra's liaison officers, Paul Rumble and Steve Black. They issued serious threats, indicating that they would cease providing me with Freedom of Information (FOI) documents if Telstra discovered they were being shared with the AFP. Such actions suggested that any subsequent requests for documentation would be systematically denied, potentially obstructing my efforts to challenge Telstra effectively during the arbitration process.

It is essential to underscore that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) made the decision not to support me when I faced a series of alarming threats. This abdication of responsibility allowed Telstra to exert its demands unchecked and without opposition.

Despite investing more than $300,000 in arbitration fees to uncover the unauthorised diversion of my telephone calls and both incoming and outgoing faxes, Dr. Gordon Hughes ultimately failed to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The evidence presented by the Australian Federal Police explicitly confirmed that this diversion was occurring. This information is documented in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), yet it did not lead to any findings—neither supporting nor disputing the claims made.

Consider the actions of Telstra during its time as a government-owned enterprise. Like the British Post Office, Telstra engaged in ruthless practices that targeted small business operators, leveraging their position to crush anyone who dared to oppose them. The parallels are chilling. In the UK, the government has resorted to threatening these contractors, employing tactics reminiscent of Telstra’s intimidation in Australia.

After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for 'Mr Bates vs the Post Office', which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants were aware that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

Click here to watch Mr Bates vs the Post Office.

If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to get it delivered directly to your inbox every time a fresh one is published, please consider making a one-off donation, buying my book The Great Post Office Scandal directly from the publishers or making a donation to the Horizon Scandal Fund.

The "Secret Email" newsletter exposes the dark underbelly of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal in the United Kingdom, a web of deceit that goes far beyond a single incident. This scandal epitomises a pervasive corruption entrenched in Australia’s bureaucratic justice system, revealing a grim reality where those in power operate with impunity.

Don't forget to hover your mouse over the Gaslighting link and/or image, which will help you understand the truth surrounding our story.

Government Corruption - Gaslighting: www.absentjustice.com/tampering-with-evidence/government-corruption--gaslighting. Explore the intricate and troubling intersection of government corruption and the psychological manipulation techniques, commonly known as gaslighting, that are employed against Australian citizens navigating the arduous process of government-endorsed arbitrations.

This narrative reveals a deeply woven tapestry of power dynamics and exploitation that affects not just a few but potentially thousands of individuals desperately seeking redress.

Consider the question: how many citizens in Australia have been subjected to these insidious methods, which aim to derail legitimate investigations into their claims against bureaucrats entrenched in governmental institutions and influential players linked to KPMG?

In my personal experience, I have uncovered compelling and troubling evidence showing that a partner at KPMG deliberately misled the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on the legitimacy of my arbitration claims. This misinformation was not merely a misstep; it was a calculated move to engineer a false narrative, effectively obstructing any chance of a thorough and unbiased investigation by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia → Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte KPMG.

This former KPMG partner now manages two arbitration centres—one situated on the bustling Collins Street in Melbourne, surrounded by the city’s iconic architecture and financial institutions, and the other located in Hong Kong, a global hub of commerce and finance. The existence of these centres raises profound questions about ethical standards and accountability, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reforms. There is a pressing imperative to safeguard citizens from such manipulative practices and to ensure that their legitimate grievances are recognised and addressed in the pursuit of justice.

In the shadowy corridors of power, government corruption festers. Deceptive reporting and a barrage of false information have cloaked the disturbing truths behind the COT cases, allowing them to slip into oblivion. The government-owned Telstra Corporation, a puppet master within this sinister web, has engaged in blatant evidence tampering during arbitration, effectively silencing those who dare to seek justice. Threats hung in the air like a dark cloud, wielded against the vulnerable, as the arbitrator turned a blind eye, complicit in a scheme that denies claimants their rightful day in court. The facade of fairness crumbled, revealing a landscape riddled with betrayal and malice, where truth was sacrificed on the altar of power.

By clicking on the image of the Confidentiality Agreement, you will uncover the hidden truths surrounding my COT story. It is important to note that although the confidentiality clause in this agreement was modified after the COT Cases, both legal advisors and two Senators suggested that it was the definitive arbitration agreement—a claim that is far from true. This flawed agreement continues to be utilised by Wawick Smith, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and other members of the Establishment, who remain committed to protecting an arbitration process that has caused devastating consequences for countless lives.

A deeply sinister pattern unfolds from the outcomes of three distinct COT (Casualties of Telstra) arbitrations, revealing a web of corruption and collusion. Long before these arbitrations even began, Warwick Smith, the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, found himself entrenched in dubious dealings. With his current stature as a prominent banker and recipient of the ‘Order of Australia,’ Smith operates as if he were above the law, his reputation cloaked in shadows. Dr. Goron Hughes, the arbitrator in these troubling cases, was complicit in this scheme, clandestinely aiding Telstra—the defendant—by supplying them with privileged information extracted from covert government discussions about the COT cases.

In a just world, anyone who would betray the trust of twenty-one vulnerable Australian citizens by leaking sensitive party room discussions to a powerful entity like Telstra would face immediate retribution. Yet, in a shocking twist, Warwick Smith managed to dodge accountability, rewardingly ascending to a key front-bench ministerial role in the subsequent John Howard government. Such a trajectory speaks volumes about the murky waters of political alliances and ethical decay.

It becomes chillingly clear that Smith’s insidious advice to Telstra's senior executives regarding discussions within Senator Ron Boswell's National Party Room was a pivot point in this treacherous affair. By informing them that no Senate inquiry would take place until after the release of the AUSTEL (Australian Communications Authority) report on the COT matters—set to go public on April 13, 1994—Smith effectively handed Telstra a shield against scrutiny. This inside knowledge allowed Telstra to transform its initial four COT Case Fast Track Settlement proposals—intended to be a fair, non-legalistic assessment—into a self-serving, legalistic arbitration procedure.

Armed with government secrets and unfettered by the threat of inquiry, Telstra manoeuvred through this labyrinth of deceit with chilling confidence. The walls surrounding their nefarious dealings grew thicker, ensuring that their betrayal of the very citizens they were supposed to serve went unnoticed, buried beneath a veneer of legitimacy crafted by those in power.

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

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

“Advice from Warwick is:

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

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

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Even more troubling, in a stark display of deception and betrayal, the so-called Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) was not crafted in good faith by Frank Shelton, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—who would soon be promoted to County Court Judge—but was instead orchestrated by the unscrupulous defendant's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale and Page. They had the audacity to fax this document to Warwick Smith's office on January 10, 1994. In a brazen act of misrepresentation, Watrwick Smith then informed the government and the lawyers for the COT Cases that Frank Shelton—who was a partner in the very firm that was then exonerated from all liability—for having been party to the drafting the FTAP agreement Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, when he had merely made cosmetic alterations to a document designed to serve the interests of the defendants.

Dr. Hughes condemned this same arbitration agreement after he delivered his first arbitration ruling on May 11, 1995 (my arbitration). Just a day later, on May 12, 1995, he penned a scathing letter to Warwick Smith, denouncing the arbitration agreement as entirely lacking in credibility and requiring urgent revision to salvage the integrity of the other three arbitrations.

While the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorr—were granted a shocking thirteen months to amend their dubious claims, my arbitration findings were deliberately left untouched and unreviewed. On August 20, 1997, Senator Ron Boswell and his visibly shaken son, Steven, were left nearly in tears after my lawyers sent a two-page letter to the Senator's office in Canberra, exposing the disgraceful conduct of the arbitration process. Steven, a lawyer within the same law firm as Frank Shelton, was overwhelmed and lamented, “What have we done to you people?” (Refer to 51-G → Open Letter File No/51-A to 51-G)

Why was the damning letter dated May 12, 1995 → (Open Letter File No 55-A), withheld from me by Warwick Smith and Dr. Gordon Hughes during my designated two-week appeal period? Why was it only revealed to me in 2002, long after the statute of limitations had expired, leaving me powerless to contest my unjust award? The sinister web of deception and treachery surrounding this entire process is chilling and utterly unacceptable.

At the heart of this mystery lies a crucial and lingering question: Who made the fateful decision to authorise the removal of the $250,000 liability caps detailed in clauses 25 and 26 of the arbitration agreement? This agreement, which Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I were prepared to endorse on April 21, 1994, had been tentatively agreed upon just two days earlier. During that discussion, all parties recognised the significance of these liability caps, which were intended as crucial safeguards, compelling the arbitration consultants to conduct themselves with the utmost impartiality and integrity in their evaluations and recommendations.

By clicking on the image below, you will see that someone authorized the removal of the $250,000 liability caps outlined in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement. Initially, my legal team, along with two Senators, reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was equitable because the $250,000 liability caps provided me the ability to pursue legal action against the arbitration consultants for negligence. However, the abrupt removal of these critical clauses significantly impacted my situation. As a result, I lost my chance to appeal the arbitration award against the consultants, who acted with gross misconduct, leaving me without the necessary recourse to seek justice.,

Initially, our legal team, representing the trio of COT Cases—including me, Ann Garms, and Graham Schorer—alongside two committed Senators, had reached a consensus that the arbitration agreement was balanced and fair. The $250,000 liability caps offered me a vital lifeline, equipping me with the legal framework to pursue claims against the arbitration consultants for any negligence or egregious behaviour they might exhibit during the arbitration process. We approached the agreement with a collective expectation that it would pave the way for accountability and ultimately deliver justice.

Removing critical clauses from my case significantly impacted my ability to seek recourse. Without these essential protections, I lost the opportunity to contest the arbitration award issued against the consultants, who exhibited significant misconduct throughout the proceedings. This situation left me with few viable options to address the injustices I was experiencing. As a result of this overwhelming burden, my partner, Cathy, and I ultimately decided to sell our beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, a location filled with many cherished memories and aspirations we had built together.

What options did we have left? We had lost the arbitration due to our inability to secure the vital documents and faced yet another defeat in our appeal to obtain them. Should we abandon the fight, or is there a path forward that we can still pursue?

As a single operator aged 81, editing these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600-plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made, should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.

In a troubling series of letters dated January 20, 1994, March 25, 1994, May 6, 1994, and November 11, 1994, the Commonwealth Ombudsmen confronted Telstra, demanding an explanation for their deceitful evasion in providing the crucial arbitration documents they had promised. These documents were not just administrative paperwork; they held the key to my case and included sensitive discussions with the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, underscoring the intricate web of power and secrecy surrounding my situation.

This demand arose from a troubling agreement forged with Dr. Hughes on February 17, 1994 (Refer to page 3, File 165 → GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215). He had solemnly vowed that he would not render a determination on any claims related to the four COT cases until Telstra had fulfilled its obligation to supply the requested documents. However, in a shocking display of corruption, Dr. Hughes disregarded this agreement altogether. He proceeded to make a determination on my claim despite being fully aware of the sinister threats lurking behind Telstra's facade—intimidations that if I dared to persist in aiding the Australian Federal Police with their investigations, they would retaliate by withholding the essential documents I so desperately needed.

To comprehend the truly sinister nature of the events surrounding Dr. Hughes, we must expose the dark and treacherous details that reveal a web of systemic corruption. Representative Graham Schorer from COT convened with Telstra officials, including the shadowy figure of Dr. Hughes, under the guise of discussing the settlement arbitration process. However, this meeting served as a thin veneer for a betrayal that unfolded in secrecy.

The transcript from this sinister gathering—provided by Telstra themselves—uncovers a chilling truth: the COT claimants made their overwhelming preference for a commercial settlement abundantly clear. Yet, on page three, Dr. Hughes' icy demeanour dismissed their desires without a second thought, insisting that arbitration would somehow be a superior method for resolution. He appointed himself the arbiter of truth, claiming he could provide “appropriate directions for the production of documents,” while darkly asserting that he “would not make a determination on incomplete information.”

Yet, hidden beneath this façade of professionalism lies a treacherous reality. Evidence showcased on absentjustice.com indicates that Dr. Hughes brazenly made a determination, fully cognizant that he was basing his decision on incomplete information. This betrayal became glaringly apparent as I battled overwhelming odds—persistent phone and fax issues wreaked havoc on my business, all while threats loomed large, suffocating my ability to present my case.

This chilling scenario serves as a stark reminder that a system designed to safeguard the vulnerable can easily morph into a weapon wielded by the powerful. In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, Dr. Hughes issued his final findings without mandating Telstra to address the glaring, recurring faults in the services provided. As a result, this segment of my claim should have remained open until Telstra could resolve these ongoing issues, yet it vanished into the shadows.

The arbitrator shamelessly disregarded explicit written advice from the government communication authority, delivered to him and the claimants on April 13, 1994. Such cold treachery cannot go unnoticed; it underscores a corrupt system in which those in power manipulate proceedings for their own gain, leaving the truth buried beneath layers of deception and misconduct —a festering wound at the very heart of justice.

Whistleblowing - Gaslighting

The Narcissus's Chosen Weapon

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.

If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to report incidents that they believe are crimes, as doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats.

I have long believed that the hackers who infiltrated Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne harboured motives that transcended the mere breach of telecommunications infrastructure. This incident, compellingly documented by journalist Andrew Fowler in his piece "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" for ABC, is part of a larger narrative involving ethical misconduct regarding Telstra's treatment of the COT Cases, a group of individuals who claimed significant injustices in their dealings with the telecommunications giant.

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in our society because they act out of conscience and integrity. They are essential for protecting us against government corruption, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and abuses of power. However, they often face persecution for speaking out.

In April 1994, during the early stages of the first four government-endorsed COT arbitrations, Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for the COT Cases, alerted me via phone. He informed me that computer hackers had infiltrated Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchange and uncovered documents indicating that our arbitrations were not being conducted in a lawful manner. He warned that we were at risk of being severely disadvantaged since we would not receive the documents necessary to support our claims.

If I remember correctly, the main message Graham conveyed was grave. You can read Graham's statutory declaration by clicking on the following link → Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3, or you can view it on our website → WikiLeaks exposing the truth

What compelled a group of young hackers—mere teenagers—to reach out to a complete stranger like Graham not just once, but twice, to warn him that we would be in trouble if we did not accept the documents they were willing to provide?

According to Graham's witness statement, I advised against accepting their offer. My reasoning was that the government and Telstra were setting us up, much like in November 1993 when they promised to provide us with documents to support our cases. Now, seven months later, we still had not received any documents.

Additionally, the Senate Hansard officially records that in March 1999, six senators unanimously agreed that Telstra had acted independently and unlawfully during our arbitrations. This acknowledgement came almost five years after the hackers had hoped we would uncover the truth.

The world needs whistleblowers, so let us stand together to protect them.

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 6

It is essential to review the witness statements from August 8 and 10, 2006.

The Major Fraud Group Barrister, Mr Neil Jepson, asked me to supply all evidence, at the request of the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, that assisted me in proving that Telstra used three individual reports to support their arbitrations claims against the COT Cases arbitrations, which I did by adding to further re Telstra's Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over three separate visits to Melbourne, spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group's St. Kilda Road offices on each of those three occasions, assisting the Victoria Police in understanding the relevance of the three fundamentally flawed reports, namely Telstra's Falsified which Telstra used to conceal from the arbitrator and his arbitration advisors how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was. AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) had already done their investigations into the grossly deficient Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchange during the early part of my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (which in April 1994 became the arbitration process. It is clear from AUSTEL's investigations leading up to March 1994, as referred to in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, that at points 2 to 212 in their report, they had uncovered how bad the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network was and, like Telstra's arbitration defence unit, concealed these findings from the arbitration process.

File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is a Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, particularly Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that investigation as an advisor, showing the Major Fraud Group where, in those arbitrations, Telstra used five known fraudulent, flawed reports provided to the arbitrator and other to convince those parties Telstra had fixed all of their telephone and faxing problems before and/or during the arbitrations when telstra and their lawyers knew duiffenet. (Refer also to the Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".

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.

I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced into arbitration with the same monster who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.

"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.

Threats made during my arbitration

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

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

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

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

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

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about 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.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.

In my case, as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows, Telstra’s representative, Peter Gamble, attempted to conduct the essential Service Verification Testing (SVT) process. Unfortunately, he had to halt the testing due to unforeseen equipment malfunctions. When AUSTEL questioned how he planned to rectify this inadequate testing at my business, Mr Gamble refused to proceed with any further testing. Instead, he submitted a statutory declaration under oath to the arbitrator, claiming that his SVT process had fully complied with AUSTEL’s requirements. This assertion was far from the truth.

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that the road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.

Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).

Stop these people at all costs.

This is the same Peter Gamble who, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia was named by an ex-Telstra employee turned - Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested under FOI 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".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"

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

Peter Gamble's unethical behaviour is significant, but it is also crucial to highlight that David Read from Lane Telecommunications chose not to oversee Gamble’s tests on April 6, 1995. As the technical consultant for the independent arbitrator, Read was responsible for evaluating the COT Cases, which alleged that faulty Ericsson telephone equipment was the source of ongoing complaints from various businesses.

Furthermore, Lane Telecommunications was acquired by Ericsson during the COT arbitration proceedings. This acquisition had profound implications, as it transferred all investigative materials collected by Lane against Ericsson of Sweden—gathered over approximately eight COT arbitrations—into Ericsson's possession. This situation raises significant ethical concerns about the investigation's impartiality, considering that the entity under scrutiny now controls the evidence against it.

Such circumstances challenge Australia’s stated commitment to the rule of law and suggest that it may be one of the few Western nations that allows a principal witness to be financially influenced by those being investigated (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

When I phoned AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a public servant at the government communications regulatory department, to talk about this hang-up fault on 26 April 1994, Mr Mathieson suggested he and I conduct a series of tests on the phone line. He planned for me to hang up and count aloud, from one to 10, while he listened. This first test proved he could hear me count right up to 10. He suggested we try it again and count even further this time. It was still the same situation: he could hear me right through the range as I counted. Then he suggested I switch the phone on that line with a phone connected to another. I did this, and we repeated the counting test with the same results. It was apparent to both that the fault was not in the phone but somewhere in the Telstra network. Mr Mathieson suggested that, as I was in arbitration at the time, I should bring this fault to the attention of Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer. Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, named Peter Gamble in a Senate estimates committee hearing as the man who said he and Telstra had to stop the first COT five claimants (including me), at all cost, from proving our claims (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23 dated 24 June 1997).

Unaware of these orders to stop us from five COT cases (at all costs), I switched the phones back to their original lines and phoned Mr Gamble, but did not tell him Mr Mathieson, and I had already tested two phones on the 055 267230 lines. Mr Gamble and I then performed similar tests on the 055 267230 line. Mr Gamble said he would arrange for someone to collect the phone for testing the following day. FOI K00941, dated 26 March 1994, show someone (name redacted) believed this lock-up fault was caused by a problem in the RCM exchange at Cape Bridgewater, see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C. Document K00940, dated the day the tests were performed with Mr Mathieson and Mr Gamble, suggests that Mr Gamble believed the problem was caused by heat in the exchange, see (File No-B), where document folio R37911 states:

“This T200 is an EXICOM and the other T200 is an ALCATEL, we thought that this may be a design ‘fault???’ with the EXICOM so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM and the old phone was marked and tagged…” (see File No 1-C).

Another disturbing aspect of this tapering, as evidenced by Telstra's arbitration, is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration, Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This wicked deed, along with the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration, is a testament to the fact that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, beyond the call of duty by supplying vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both occasions during my arbitration.

The other twist to this part of my story is how I could have spilt beer into my telephone, as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire? I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fire buddies had I been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to endure from Telstra as we battled for a reliable phone service.

When I provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood s forensic documents specialist, who advised he would test the collected TF200 and inspect Telstra's laboratory working notes to see how Telstra came up with their findings regarding my drinking habits had caused my phone faults and not the EXICOM TF200 both the arbitrator and arbitration special counsel refused my request to have Telstra's arbitration defence investigated on the grounds fraud had played a significant part in the preparation of the TF200 report.

My Holiday Camp was surely situated in a pristine location

If only the telephones had been fit for purpose

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”

After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.

Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.

Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.

I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )

Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:

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

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

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

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

“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

“COT Case Strategy”

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note:

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

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

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

"As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

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

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current 2025 Attorney-General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends?

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

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.”

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I, along with several other COT Cases, could not take advantage of the valuable insights or recommendations from this investigation. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford as shown in an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

During the investigation by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group into the alleged fraudulent conduct by Telstra during and after the COT arbitrations, the Scandrett & Associates report was delivered to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999. This report confirmed that faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations (refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13). Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report reached out to me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasising the importance of these findings

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

The actions taken by Telstra during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as well as during investigations by the Australian Federal Police between 1994 and 1995 and the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group from late 1998 to 2001, are undeniably severe. It is both alarming and unacceptable that Telstra employees have not considered legal repercussions for these actions. This highlights a troubling lack of accountability and transparency, casting doubt on the integrity of the systems meant to protect small businesses and uphold the rule of law.

Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term

It may seem unbelievable, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, I received written threats from the Australian Government, warning me that I could be charged with contempt of the Senate if I ever revealed the in-camera Hansard records that were inadvertently shared with me by two high-ranking officers from the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. As I celebrate my 81st birthday this May, I keep their names confidential out of respect for these dedicated officers. They could not have possibly been mistaken in their revelations about the systemic corruption the Senate uncovered regarding Telstra during the COT arbitrations.

The Senate Hansards I received at their imposing St Kilda Road complex were supposedly given to me by the police officers I had previously collaborated with during my secondment. They believed these critical documents would support the remaining sixteen COT cases, which were still struggling to resolve their Freedom of Information claims. Sadly, then Prime Minister John Howard’s discriminatory actions placed substantial obstacles in the path of these sixteen cases.

In my view, these vital Hansards could have turned the tide in our favour had the COT claimants chosen to appeal the arbitration process. However, the chilling threat of contempt of the Senate loomed over me—a threat carrying the weight of a two-year prison sentence. This situation raises a profound question: Where is justice in such an ordeal?

In March and April 2006, I presented several examples of intercepted documents from the COT arbitrations to the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications. One notable example included a document addressed to the Hon. Peter Costello, our former Australian Federal Treasurer. The Senator responded to me on 17 May 2007,

"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". (File 616-B AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700)

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.

The gravity of this situation raises critical questions: Why was it considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents leaving and arriving at Parliament House in Canberra during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, why was Telstra interpreting my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration?

Addendum

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

In Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2, I delve into the unsettling revelations captured in the Senate Hansard from September 7, 1967. During that session, the Honourable Dr. Rex Patterson, a Labour Party member representing Dawson in Queensland, posed an alarmingly pointed inquiry to the Australian government. He sought assurance that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China was not being funnelled to North Vietnam, an implication that carries dark undertones. This raises a chilling question: was the Liberal-Country Party Coalition government blind in their ambition, utterly indifferent to the fact that Australian wheat could be feeding soldiers fighting against our own troops in the oppressive jungles of North Vietnam?

The government’s cold disregard for the returned Vietnam soldiers—shamed, discarded, and silenced by a toxic blend of ignorance and guilt—casts a long shadow over our nation. Even with the passage of time, the memories remain disturbingly vivid as I embark on writing my autobiography as a Ship's Cook and Steward. My sea voyage aboard the Hopepeak, laden with dark memories and bitter truths, plays a crucial role in this narrative. My journey through various catering establishments, coupled with the lessons learned during my 26 years at sea, has propelled me to act, driven by a haunting desire to support children in need, which is why I acquired my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, the very centre of this Telstra government-endorsed arbitration Casulaties of Telstra story.

As I revisit my autobiography, now in the hands of editors and expected to be available online as an ebook by October 2025, I find myself grappling with the convoluted and tragic details that make up this story. Each page stirs a rising tide of anxiety within me. As an octogenarian, I am left to ponder the sinister politics of the Liberal-Country National Government that still leave a sour taste. How could these Australian politicians so callously declare that lives lost in Vietnam were mere collateral damage while prioritising the profits of wheat sales to China? This dispassionate calculation mirrors the actions of the John Howard government, which assisted only five of the litmus test COT Cases while abandoning the remaining sixteen to battle the government-owned Telstra Corporation in court, a betrayal wrapped tightly in a cloak of greed and negligence.

The chilling atrocities committed against their own citizens by the Chinese Red Guards continue to haunt me, lingering in my mind like a dark shadow, even more so than my desperate escape from their gunfire. At the same time, I found myself wrongfully accused of espionage, a label that felt like a noose tightening around my neck. This harrowing chapter in history stands as a haunting stain on humanity, gnawing at my conscience with each passing day. It was not merely the terrifying experience of being forced to march up and down the wharf under the watchful eyes of armed guards, nor the sheer panic of fighting against the guards to avoid a potentially deadly injection with a non-sterile needle that haunted me. Instead, what haunts me is the horrific image of a Chinese nurse, her once beautiful smile marred by blood smeared across her face from a Red Guard baton used to splatter her nose, a mix of fear and defiance in her expression. This chilling vision invaded my dreams for many years after, replaying repeatedly, serving as a stark reminder of the inhumanity I witnessed.

On September 18, 1967, I took the drastic step of penning a heartfelt letter to Malcolm Fraser (then Minister for the Army), pouring my emotions onto two pages in my own handwriting. I also sent copies to the Commonwealth Police, now known as the Australian Federal Police. In that letter, I revealed a troubling truth that had been gnawing at me: some of the wheat being unloaded in China was being secretly redirected to North Vietnam. This wheat, which had once nourished the very people of Australia, was now an essential lifeline for North Vietnamese troops as they advanced fearlessly into the thick, unforgiving jungles of Vietnam. There, they unleashed unimaginable violence, mercilessly slaughtering and maiming our brave soldiers, alongside those from New Zealand and the United States.

Despite the weight of my warning, Australia continued to send wheat to China year after year, choosing to turn a blind eye to the potentially catastrophic consequences of this misguided policy. The indifference was staggering, as if the suffering of others was an echo lost to the winds of political convenience.

Among the documents I retrieved from Telstra under FOI during my government-endorsed arbitration, 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. Despite the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s insistence that I should have received this critical information under the Freedom of Information Act, File 20 → AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47, the document and hundreds of other requested FOI documents remain withheld from me as of 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, a 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 unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.

The twelve new chapters below, titled Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, create a vibrant tapestry of titles and narratives designed to engage and captivate the public's interest. While these compelling stories will eventually be removed, they are crucial in highlighting the complex issues intertwined with the COT narrative.

In their stead, we will highlight often-overlooked accounts of whistleblowers—extraordinary individuals whose profound courage drives them to risk their safety and well-being to unveil the stark realities concealed beneath layers of deception.

Governments worldwide must recognise the invaluable contributions of whistleblowers. History eloquently demonstrates that without these brave souls, the principles of democracy cannot thrive or endure.

These fearless trailblazers navigate a world plagued by corruption and deceit, where the burden of concealing uncomfortable truths can become a heavy cross to bear. For them, living in a state of complicity with the lies they've uncovered is not an option. Driven by a profound moral obligation, they confront these injustices head-on, determined to illuminate transgressions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their unwavering courage and steadfast commitment to truth are potent reminders of the extraordinary sacrifices made in the name of accountability. Their stories urge governments and societies to acknowledge and honour the invaluable role of whistleblowers in the relentless pursuit of justice, inspiring others to do likewise.

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.

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.

Books Written Concurrently - Absent Justice

We are in the process of developing twelve captivating chapters, numbered from 1 to 12, for an upcoming documentary that promises to engage and inform. Each chapter is undergoing meticulous refinement to enhance the speech patterns, ensuring that the narrative flows smoothly and resonates with our audience. The statements presented in these chapters have been rigorously edited and verified for factual accuracy, providing a solid foundation that does not require further revision.

To bring our story to life, we will enrich each chapter with evocative images that capture the essence of the narrative. These visuals will serve to deepen the viewer's understanding and emotional connection to the material. I am committed to completing the image editing process by mid-July 2025, ensuring that every detail is thoughtfully curated. With most chapters already in their final edited form, we are on track to create a cohesive and compelling narrative that will leave a lasting impact.

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.

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Confronting Despair

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

Salvaging What I Could

Lies Deceit And Treachery

An Unlocked Briefcase

A Government-backed Arbitration

Not Fit For Purpose

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Who We Are

Read About Our Dealings With

Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Senate Evidence

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

AFP Investigation -2

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

C A V Part 1, 2 and 3

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Confronting Despair

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

Salvaging What I Could

Lies Deceit And Treachery

An Unlocked Briefcase

A Government-backed Arbitration

Not Fit For Purpose

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

The AFP Failed Their Objective

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Who We Are

Read About Our Dealings With

Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

Senate Evidence

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

AFP Investigation -2

Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman

C A V Part 1, 2 and 3

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us