My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


Chapter 2 - Discrimination › asa › article › view -

 Ripples across the pond: global implications of the Heiner Affair


PLEASE NOTE: this Julian Assange page is still being edited and will be revised due to the current crisis in the UK

When Julian Assange and his friends told Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) that Telstra was not the only one that was acting unethically during the arbitrations, was he referring to the arbitrator or the arbitrator's consultants that Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete show acted unethically during and after my arbitration.

Absent Justice - 24000  documents not  viewed

she confirmed it was not in the holding fax tray

During my arbitration, when Dr Hughes' secretary Carolyn Friend could not find my arbitration claim material, which I had just faxed ten minutes previously and was calling to ensure she or Dr Hughes had received it, she confirmed it was not in the holding fax tray, I yelled at her in sheer anger and frustration. That night I arranged for a bunch of flowers costing $50.00 (which I could hardly afford) to be sent to Ms Friend to apologize for my outburst. 

It may well be that Dr Hughes' secretary, Caroline Freind, might have thought she was helping me when she and her assistant provided Dr Hughes' arbitration files back to me, but what Ms Freind did not understand was that discovering just how corrupt and unethical Dr Hughes had been, both before and during my arbitration, had left me haunted by that corrupted evidence forever.  I believe that she had no comprehension of how this has not only completely ruined my life, but has equally ruined my partner’s life too.

Carolyn Friend's arbitration storage box of files used by the arbitrator shows he did not value the 24,000 FOI documents he stated to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. Why ddid this storage box prove that Dr Hughes misled and deceived Laurie James (see Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter and Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter).

If I had never seen those corrupt files (now displayed on,) then perhaps, in time, I could have walked away from the whole ghastly COT situation but, once I had seen this irrefutable evidence against Dr Hughes, against his arbitration consultants, and against Warwick Smith (the administrator of the COT process), that evidence absolutely ended any chance of that ever happening for me.  Instead it left me fighting for justice (so far) for twenty-eight years.

After Carolyn Friend had returned this terrible evidence, amongst these documents were other COT Cases claim material that had nothing to do with my arbitration matters. When I pointed out to the Deputy administrator of my arbitration Wally Rothwell, that arbitration faxed claim documents belonging to COT Cases Ann Garm's from Brisbane Queensland was stapled to some of my faxes, he advised he would contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations. No response has ever been received regarding these faxing problems. 

None of the COT Cases knew of this possible conflict of interest or the fact that faxes arriving at the arbitrator's Melbourne office after the close of business each day were automatically redirected to the Sydney office where Telstra related legal documents were also being received assessed by the Sydney lawyers.   

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 Dr Hughes early 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 of 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’s] 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.

These lost faxes, which were initially faxed to the arbitrator's office, played a significant role in the COT arbitrations, as shown throughout this website.

Had I been provided with this advice concerning the deficiencies in the faxing process between Dr Hughes Sydney office and his Melbourne office, I would undoubtedly have had reasonable grounds to appeal my award during the designated appeal process. 

Was the real reason Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) did not make a finding regarding my lost faxes or carry out an investigation as to why so many of my claim documents did not arrive at his office for assessment is that had he asked his technical resource unit DMR & Lane they may have uncovered some of my lost faxes was due to the known faxing problems between the arbitrator Melbourne and Sydney offices?

Was it the realization of the damage that these lost faxes had casued me during my arbitration that prompted Caroline Freind, to provided so much damging evidence against Dr Hughes? 

Absent Justice - Hon David Hawker MP

A different story to the one told by Dr Hughes 

As my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP had been the driving force behind me in pressuring the government for better phone service for the electorate of Wannon (the electorate my business was in), I sent some of the evidence which had been attached to the arbitration file provided to me by Carolyn Friend, who was the arbitrators secretary during my arbitration.

I derived the following report Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two from the papers from Carolyn Friend because they did not match the significant findings made by Dr Hughes (the arbitrator). Both David Hawker MP and AUSTEL’s previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs, after they had seen Carolyn Friends differing arbitration documents, prompted them to have the Shadow Minister for Communications so much deception. It was after Mr Hawker had shown so much concern for what he had read in this new arbitration matetrial that prompted him to convene a meeting in parliament house with the Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston.

 It was then that I gave him a letter dated 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator prematurely brought down his findings on my claim; AUSTEL’s previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs provided me with an open letter (see File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).

Absent Justice - Hon Paul Fletcher MP

Evidence ignored by Minister and Chief of Staff 

However, it will be apparent from the following information (see  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two), that the tampering with evidence during my arbitration was ignored in 1996, by the newly elected Minister for Communications The Hon Richard Alston and his Chief of Staff Paul Fletcher, less than two years after this crime had been committed. Evidence Bad Bureaucrats - Tampering of Evidence confirms beyond any doubt that a crime was committed against me during my arbitration. Both the Hon David Hawker MP and I provided Senator Richard Alston at his request two other similar falsified arbitration reports submitted by Telstra under oath to the arbitrator namley: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.

A letter I received from Mr Paul Fletcher, dated 4 September 1996 (see  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One), notes:

“In addition, I have examined the material you sent me.

“On the basis of the information I have received, I do not believe that there is any action in relation to your case that would be appropriate for the Minister to take at this time. The Minister has no power to intervene in the conduct of the COT arbitrations, which are being administered by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.”

On 26 May 2019, Paul Fletcher, became The Hon Paul Fletcher Australia’s Minister for Communications and the Arts (see  Media Release: Fletcher 'deeply honoured' to be appointed Minister for Communications, Cybersafety and the Arts  a portfolio he is professionally equipped to handle.

In 2019 and 2020, via my then Federal Member of Parliament the Hon Dan Tehan MP, the Hon Paul Fletcher refused to reinvestigate these criminal matters that had been before the ministers office since June 1996. Exhibit Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report shows these crimes affected the whole outcome of my arbitration and my ability to run my business on a level playing field with fellow competitors. The Hon Dan Tehan is aware of the validity of my claims, as was his predecessor the Hon David Hawker MP. That neither of them has ever had the ability or power to get the government to investigate Telstra’s corporate thuggery clearly shows how corrupt the Telstra corporation is.

I must link the Carolyn Friend differing arbitration material to  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two) because that report was provided to a government bureaucrat when it was fresh evidence in 1996, proof that Paul Fletcher should have revisited in 2019 when he had the power to do so. He again ignored irrefutable evidence even though he could have paved away for a discussion on it because it showed I had been subjected to a crime during a government-endorsed arbitration.

This was the type of skulduggery (now contained in Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two that Julian Assange had warned Dr Hughes's previous client Graham Schorer about. So who was telling the truth? The evidence in [record |1588] and File No/41 Part-Two is there for all to see on The fact that it proves my arbitration was not conducted under the rule of law supports what Julian Assange had told Graham Schorer what would happen during our arbitrations if we did not accept the Arbitration File he was offering to supply. 

The deception does not end with just Paul Fletcher not viewing  Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two; it continues even further. 

These lost faxes which were originally faxed to the arbitrator's office ended up playing a significant role in the COT arbitrations as has been shown throughout this website. I later added reference to these lost faxes as an amendment to the 21 claim documents I provided to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee. It is well documented that government bureaucrats prior to and during my arbitration alerted the Australain Federal Police to the significance of the faxes that were not arriving at their intended destimation during the COT arbitrations (see Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations) I have no record of any correspodence sent from Dr Hughes to the AFP during my arbitration alerting them to the possibibility that some of my lost arbitration related faxes to his office might have occured due to the arrangment discussed in Graham Schorer's affirmation to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee.

It is clear from exhibit 2, that although Telstra charged my fax account for six faxes having arrived at Dr Hughes' office this official Telstra arbitration documents sworn under oath states no faxes had arrived at Dr Hughes; office on this particular day. So where are these six arbitration documents? Are they still in the Sydney office of Hunt & Hunt? 

Dr Gordon Hughes, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Commonewealth Ombudsman, various Senators as well as the administrator of my arbitration are fully aware that during my arbitration at the time the AFP were investiting these lost fax issues I received  threats from Telstra because I had raised the lost fax issues with the AFP as part of my arbitration claim (see Senate Evidence File No 31).

AT the end of July 2009, I personally provided 21 claim documents to the assistant of the IAMA CEO and stated in my letter:

“My letter to you on 16th July advised that the following documents would be hand-delivered to you. These reports are now attached for your information.” (Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

I forwarded many submissions to the IAMA ethics and professional affairs committee, which comprises either ex-judges or qualified lawyers who should have been concerned about the evidence I provided. It appears they were not interested in assessing evidence showing one of their own had breached more than only his duty of care of a claimant in an arbitration process. I showed that the administrator of the arbitration process alerted the government on 26 September 1997 that “most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures” (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia). This initially seemed to worry the CEO and he telephoned me to confirm they would investigate my allegations against the arbitrator. However, the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee have still not brought down a finding with regard to this information or my other 21 submissions, regardless of their advice to me in five different emails that they were investigating my matters. One of those five emails, sent at 12:50 pm on 21 October 2009, states:

“Presently, IAMA does not require this further documentation to be sent. However, the investigating persons will be notified of these documents and may request them at a later date.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C)

On 27 November 2009, I sent a further email to the secretary of the IAMA’s CEO, advising him that I could provide solid evidence of the arbitrator’s previous role as Mr Schorer’s legal advisor during a previous Telstra Federal Court matter. The arbitrator was clearly in error not to have declared this primary conflict of interest before he accepted the position, particularly when the company he was a partner in had also been Mr Schorer’s business advisor.

At 2.00 pm the same day, I received an email from the secretary of the IAMA stating: “Your email has been forwarded to the CEO. Regards – Richard.”

On 29 November 2009, I wrote to the CEO of the IAMA regarding fresh evidence received from the office of the lawyer who represented COT spokesperson Graham Schorer in his earlier Federal court action against Telstra between 1990 and 1992. This now-deceased lawyer replaced Graham’s initial lawyer, who was appointed as the arbitrator for the first four COT arbitrations, including both Mr Schorer’s and my arbitration. The arbitrator, therefore, assessed the same documents and complaints he had previously been privy to when he was acting as Mr Schorer’s legal counsel between 1990 and 1992. This constitutes a clear case of conflict of interest. This is the same arbitrator the IAMA investigated in 2009.

I reiterate, Julian Assange was right on target when he said Telstra was not the only acting unethical towards us COT Cases.

To be completed.

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

IT'S FREE!! Order Now

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents on Alan's website

Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence that can be downloaded from is possibly a world first.


Quote Icon

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

Hon David Hawker

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

– Edmund Burke