Discrimination

 

Why hasn't the IAMA returned the 23 volumes of evidence they asked me to provide to assist them in investigating my arbitration claims - (Burying The Evidence File 13-A)?

  

Why haven't the IAMA brought down a finding either for or against my arbitration claims?

The following letter, dated 30 July 2009, was sent to the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA) by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (Refer to Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) In that letter to Paul Crowley, CEO of the IAMA, attaching a statutory declaration 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, (the company) 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.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

It is of utmost concern to me and the other COT cases which went through arbitration to determine how many of our arbitration-related faxed documents were lost because the arbitrator's Sydney office forgot to fax them back to the Dr Hughes Melbourne office Telstra arbitration-related documents. Especially since the Sydney office is assisting with several Telstra-related issues.  Just as important is how many arbitration-related faxes were subjected to the type of fax hacking described in Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13. 

Why did the TIO refuse to value the lost six arbitration faxes? - File No/2-A to 2-E

On 26 September 1994, while undergoing my arbitration process, I had a second meeting with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to discuss the phone and fax hacking issues. During the meeting, I raised my concerns about the disappearance of my arbitration-related faxes. The transcripts of this second interview show that the AFP asked me 93 questions about the interception issues. Additionally, the attached exhibit reveals that Telstra's arbitration technical consultant, Tony Watson, admitted that no faxes could have connected to Dr Hughes' office.

Given this compelling evidence, why did the arbitrator not inform the AFP and my arbitration consultants of the problems his two offices in Sydney and Melbourne experienced?

During the arbitration process, I also provided six claim documents that I believed had not been assessed by the arbitrator. The AFP had previously questioned me about the whereabouts of my faxes, as at least six of them charged to me on Telstra's billing accounts had not been received on 23 May 1994. It is clear from Front Page Part One File No/1 dated 23 May 1994 that Telstra charged me for six faxes, which they state on their B003 arbitration report document my six intended faxes could not have arrived at the arbitrator's office because his fax machine was busy when I tried to send them. File No/2-A to 2-E. Why was I billed for these non-connected faxes if that was the case?

Further, File No/3, File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5 show they also had the fax markings as having been intercepted before arriving at their intended destination. 

Despite all the evidence presented before the arbitrator, he failed to inform the AFP or my arbitration consultants about the faxing issues his two offices faced.

However, he refused my request when I requested TIO John Pinnock to value the six claim documents I believed had not been assessed.

The tampering with evidence continued through the arbitrations → Tampering With Evidence

 

As shown in the Tampering With Evidence link, after Telstra's Ross Anderson completed his testing on 27 April 1994, the phone took a further nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (See Tampering With Evidence File No 3)

A second photo I received under FOI is a photo taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming a note I placed on the phone was quite clean when it was received at Telstra Open Letter File No/37  exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6. Who within Telstra smeared grease or dirt over the front keypad of the TF200 phone as these three photos show was the case (File 636, 637 and 638 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). This report then went on to say that I had possibly spilt beer into the TF200 phone. 

This report raises some concerns that need to be addressed. When the phone was in my office, it was completely clean. However, when it arrived at the laboratory, it was found to be in a dirty state. Furthermore, how did the beer end up inside the phone? Who could have done such a thing, and why? How did the beer get inside the phone if it was not added intentionally? Telstra's report was submitted as evidence to demonstrate that their service was not at fault. However, this report indicates that the material in question (like my lost faxes) was tampered with after it left my premises.

Furthermore, Ann Garms, another Casualty of Telstra (COT for short) claimant who signed her arbitration agreement with the author on 21 April 1994, also lost arbitration-related faxes. She had complained to the arbitrator's office and the COT spokesperson Graham Schorer. This was further evidenced by the fact that when the arbitrator returned the author's claim material three months after the arbitration, several of Ann Garms' claim documents were attached to the author's, even though she transmitted her material from over 1,000 km away. The author presented this compelling evidence to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock and his deputy Wally Rothwell, who promptly initiated an investigation into the matter.

Letters received from Deputy Rothwell suggested that an investigation was being carried out. Still, the pending investigation halted as soon as Ann Garms officially appealed her arbitration award against the same arbitrator who had devalued the author's claim by more than 600 per cent. As soon as Ann Garms officially lodged her appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria, neither John Pinnock nor Wally Rothwell would investigate my arbitration matters. A YouTube video prepared by Ann Garms shortly before her death recounts her own story and is available on the following link Price Waterhouse Coopers 1

This website is a work in progress last edited April 2024.

How do you publish a true account of what really has happened during various Australian Government-endorsed Arbitrations without attaching the exhibits to support those facts, as we have been literally forced to do because the corruption within the government bureaucracy is so rife?  How does the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants, i.e. their fellow Australian citizens?

How do you tell a story that is so unbelievable that even the author doubts the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing with the story being written? How do you expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpire) and the defendants?  How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once Government telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, and stored it without your knowledge or consent before redirecting it onto its intended destination?

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eavesdropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation, still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitrations?  On 7 January 1999, the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they arrived at their intended location including those en route to Parliament House Canberra: will that report ever be released to the Australian public?

Faxes were intercepted en route to the Federal treasurer's office - File 10-C Open Letter File No/12

 

Only the Treasurer's office received the first page of my letter to Mr Peter Costello, Treasurerer Canberra, dated 1/11/98, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.  What happened to the other pages? 

On 3 February 1994, before the arbitration process began, I wrote to the Hon. Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A). A subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, shows that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

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

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

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates fax interception report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

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

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

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024.

 

Next Page ⟶