Bad Bureaucrats

 

The 24 January 1995 letter was faxed to the arbitrators’ office. Is there a connection between the loss of my faxed arbitration documents and the TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter stating that his office has no record of my 24 January 1995 letter to the arbitrator requesting him to seek various documents from Telstra under the discovery process? My 24 January 1995 letter requesting a copy of the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada information to be provided from Telstra through the arbitration process was received (see Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E).

Why did the TIO advise me that records in his office did not record receiving my 24 January 1995 letter? “Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further,”  When my letter was returned to me, the fax footprint indicates it was received at the arbitrator’s fax machine. The TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter is possibly one of our most damning pieces of evidence, showing that “forces at work” were able to conceal essential arbitration material from being addressed during my arbitration process.

If the arbitrator had acted on my requests for the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada test information, which I was legally entitled to have, I could have proved the Bell Canada International could not possibly generate the alleged 13,500 test calls through a Tekelec CCS7 system that they and Telstra stated was installed at the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange. There was no equipment in place at the Bridgewater exchange to facilitate such tests. The nearest Telstra exchange that could facilitate a Tekelec CCS7 monitoring system in November 1993 was the Warrnambool exchange, which is 112 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater. The TIO and Commonwealth Ombudsman records will confirm I requested the BCI information on at least four occasions.

It is serious enough that an Australian corporation knowingly provided false answers to questions on notice during a Senate committee hearing, however, consider: if the TIO is telling the truth that the arbitrator did NOT receive my 24 January 1995 BCI letter, then who did? And why do the markings on this document show that it arrived at its intended destination? My own BCI report shows Telstra even went as far as knowingly providing false  Cape Bridgewater information to the Senate in October 1994. As a result, the Senate estimates committee did not investigate the fundamentally flawed BCI Cape Bridgewater report.

Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E shows this important arbitration documents, faxed by me to the arbitrator on 24 January 1995, did reach the arbitrators’ office. As we have shown on this website other similar documents faxed from my office were never received (assessed) by the arbitrator.

What is essential to add here is by reading Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued and scrolling down to 10 and 17 March 2006, you will learn that government public servants agreed to investigate any proof of unlawful conduct used against me by Telstra during my arbitration. 

the following block image has been taken from Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued which notes:  

"Although you have stated in your letter that “...the assessment process will not extend to an examination of whether the law was broken by Telstra....” I have been advised that it is mandatory, under Commonwealth law, for DCITA and/or the Minister to notify the Attorney General of any unlawful activities they may uncover during official department investigations". (Refer to exhibit AS 614 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647

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

 

Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13 prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations. In my own case I provied futher evidence to the DCITA assesors that Telstra had tampered with evidence released by me to Telstra technicians during my arbitration as the Tampering With Evidence reporting shows.

I also provided the DCITA assessors with the following two reports: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.

These three named reports above show Telstra knowing perverted the course of justice on three separate occasions and having submitted several witness statements signed under oath that derailed my arbitration. Yet, with all that evidence before them, the DCITA assessors did not provide it to the appropriate authorities. 

In simple terms government Bad Bureaucrats for a second time, first in 1994 when they withheld AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that between points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. 

And yet, government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show AUSTEL’s adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

How could the DCITA assessors not use AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings and the Tampering With Evidence reporting, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report evidence to the promises authorities? Who had the power to stop the DCITA assessors from transparently investigating my claims registered to the government in 2006? 

Next Page ⟶