Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Chapter 8 - Legally Abused-Part 2

  
Continued from Home page dated June to july 2022.

ABSENT JUSTICE - LEGALLY ABUSED

https://www.1800respect.org.au › legal-abuse

Legal abuse, or legal bullying, happens when someone uses the law or legal threats to control and scare you. There may be a pattern to the behaviour that happens again and again. Sometimes other types of abuse are going on at the same time

 

Some of the dot points highlighted in the above https://www.1800respect.org.au › legal-abuse are some of the types of examples that festered the COT arbitration process, including the threats I received from Telstra (Senate Evidence File No 31) that the administrator and arbitrator ignored. Even though these threats were then carried out, destroying every chance I had of proving my phone problems were still ongoing on the day the arbitrator brought down his award. The arbitrator failed to ensure Telstra rectified these ongoing faults and, by not doing so, allowed them to continue for a further eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration (see Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story)

Reading Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct will allow you to determine whether you believe the arbitration administrator, his legally Counsel and the arbitrator legally abused COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me before we signed our arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994. There are many more chapters and mini-stories displayed in the above menu bar, including the dropdown index of evidence that will assist the reader in determining how unethical the COT arbitrations were conducted and should have all been Some of the dot points highlighted in the above https://www.1800respect.org.au › legal-abuse are some of the types of examples that festered the COT arbitration process, including the threats I received from Telstra (Senate Evidence File No 31) that the administrator and arbitrator ignored. Even though these threats were then carried out, destroying every chance I had of proving my phone problems were still ongoing on the day the arbitrator brought down his award. The arbitrator failed to ensure Telstra rectified these ongoing faults and, by not doing so, allowed them to continue for a further eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration (see Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story)

Reading Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct will allow you to determine whether you believe the arbitration administrator, his legally Coun abandoned and a single appointed arbitrator nominated to assess each individual claim as was the case in Britain when British Telecom (BT) went into arbitration with their citizens in the early 1990s.

As I have stated on the Home, Corruption and deception in government, including non-government self-regulated agencies, undermine the credibility of the government the people have elected. It erodes their trust are leaves them without proper guidance. The corrupt, misleading, and deceptive practices of the previous liberal Coalition government have left the now new Labor government with a damaged compass and rudder. 

The misleading and deceptive conduct by the previous liberal Coalition government has more than left Australia floundering it has left us naked. Our very dirty legal system of arbitration overseen between 1996 to 1999 sent most if not all of the COT Cases into financial ruin. 

Please read on and learn more about the corrupt practices of past governments. 

ACMA Australian Government

AUSTEL (now acma) breached its statutory obligation to the COT Cases

The Contact - Crime and bribery webpage proves beyond all doubt that a type of organised crime syndicate existed within Telstra. A syndicate that rorted [stole] millions upon millions of dollars from the public purse, and no one was ever brought to account.  These were the people the Australian government pitted us COT Cases against aware from their own experience when trying to access documents from the Telstra would not release that information (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 43 on page 20, point 48 on page 22point 71 on pages 28 and 29point 140 on page 49, and point 160 on page 55, show AUSTEL were unable to access the necessary documents they needed to fully investigate our claims. 

Once AUSTEL was fully aware Telstra was refusing AUSTEL relevant information that would allow the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister after the regulator facilitated the arbitration and mediation processes that were to be based on information obtained from Telstra, it is obvious that AUSTEL should never have allowed those processes to proceed. AUSTEL breached its statutory obligation to the COT cases by permitting the arbitrations/mediations to proceed. After all, if the government could not officially order Telstra to supply records to the minister, then what hope did the COT cases ever have of obtaining the same documents?

It is this type of syndicate within Telstra and the Australian Establishment that not only covered up these rorting crimes. They have so far successfully covered up what happened during the COT arbitrations. It is this type of deception and collusion I am exposing on absentjustice.com. It is essential that what the government allowed to happen to sixteen Australian citizens is not hidden in its archives. These sixteen citizens deserve to be heard (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

Who would have thought to check whether the phones worked under the government mandatory specifications?

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government: a battle that has twisted and turned since 1992, through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day.

My story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 20 years, was over. I needed an occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond. Of all the places in the world I had visited, I chose to make Australia my home.

My business is hospitality, and I had always dreamed of running a school holiday camp. Imagine my delight when I saw the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Convention Centre advertised for sale in The Age Newspaper. It was located in rural Victoria, near the small maritime port of Portland. Everything seemed perfect. I performed my ‘due diligence’ to ensure that the business was sound; or at least, all of the due diligence I was aware I needed to perform. Who would have thought to check whether the phones worked? ? Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. Customers and suppliers alike were saying they had tried to call and couldn’t get through to me.

Other independent business people, similarly affected by poor telecommunications, have joined me on my journey. Collectively, we became known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to admit to the issues, fix them and pay compensation for our losses. A working phone: is that too much to ask?

We initially asked for a full Senate investigation into Telecom in general and these issues in particular. We were offered an arbitration process, and accepted this alternative. At this early stage, we honestly expected that the technical problems preventing our phones from working would be resolved.

No such luck. Suspicions that the arbitration process was not quite right started almost immediately. We were promised that, if we entered into arbitration, the Telecom documents we needed as evidence would be made available to us. Despite the promises, they were not made available, and we still do not have those documents to this day. We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines and phones were illegally tapped. Of course, with the weight of the government against us, these matters have still not been transparently investigated regardless of the following Scandrett & Associates report Fax hacking report being provided to the government in January 1999.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 fax 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)

received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted 

Absent Justice - My Story

A secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network

The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered. 

How can the Australian government who endorsed our arbitrations continue to ignor that the central points of our claim at arbitration was not taken into account by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

Absent Justice - Privacy

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence Intimidation and menacing). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report),

Even worse, the arbitration agreement included a confidentiality clause, which has hampered our efforts to have a proper investigation into our valid claims about the failure of the whole arbitration process. Even though the Telstra Corporation has clearly committed criminal offences against the COT Cases during their arbitrations – this confidentiality agreement has so far stopped an investigation into those crimes.

Our Casualties of Telstra story shows exactly how the manipulation of the legal system by unscrupulous lawyers who in at least one case had been part of a legal team who concealed important documentations from their client during a Telstra Federal Court Action, and just three years later signed up as the Casualties of Telstra arbitrator  assessing the same technical documents he assessed as the clients lawyer only this time as the alleged independent lawyer with disclosing his conflict of interest to the Casualties of Telstra claimants (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest). This mater and the fact this same arbitrator after having advising the COT group that he had NEVER seen Telstra’s proposed rules of arbitration used the very same drafted agreement in which to arbitrator in their cases against Telstra.

Even though the arbitrator advised the administrator of the process that this original agreement that Telstra themselves had drafted was grossly deficient both the arbitrator and administrator still used it in assessing my claims but revised it allowing the remaining claimants more that thirteen months longer than I had been allowed in which to obtain documents from Telstra, prepared my claim and for the technical arbitrators technical to prepare their findings.

Worse, when the arbitrator was told in writing by his technical advisers in their stil incomplete report the report was still incomplete (see  “One issue in the Cape Bridgewater case remains open, and we shall attempt to resolve it in the next few weeks, namely Mr Smith’s complaints about billing problems. “Otherwise, the Technician Report on Cape Bridgewater is complete.” See Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) that still unfinished draft was reworded and submitted into arbitration for official comment by my technical adviser.

Possibly even worse, the official arbitration financial report on my losses was also doctored and information removed from it so that any financial expert reading it could understand how the findings had been calculated and (Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete)

I need to 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 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.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not official diclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne office prior to is hinging on criminal negligence. 

In the arbitrator's award, there is no mention that the claimant [me] continually raised faxing problems with his office and the TIO office right through the arbitration process.That award does not refer to the Australian Federal Police AFP investigating these lost arbitration related faxes or that he advised the AFP of the internal faxing problems his Melbourne and Sydney offices were experiencing (see transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 from my interview with the AFP concerning these lost faxes.

We did not know that the arbitrator's Sydney Office was acting for several Telstra employees while the arbitrator was handling the Melbourne COT arbitrations. The arbitrator has never answered whether the lost Telstra COT arbitrations just never returned to Melbourne once they had been faxed. Organised crime has many faces.

We were to later discover the possibility that another reason to why our arbitration faxes to the arbitrator and out arbitration advisers were being screended before they were redirected onto their intended destination. Was this hacking into those documents set up to find out what we COT Cases had uncovered concerning the paedophile activitity by the main investigator to our Telstra issues?

The sentator in charge of investigating our claims had been raping aboriginal children in his parliament house office in Canberra. 

In last month’s Weekly-Blog I have mentioned the names of Mathias Cormann, a once Australian politician and diplomat currently serving as Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and Malcolm Turnbull, Australia's 23rd Prime Minister.

The mention of those two names is not insinuating that either has committed anything untoward in the COT Cases or has acted inappropriately. They were named only to advise the reader that evidence of paedophile activity and the raping of aboriginal children in parliament house Canberra was jointly raised with them as part of a claim against the Commonwealth by Ann Garms, a member of the Casualties of Telstra group who has since passed away.

I doubt whether we will ever know if the previous prime minister, The Hon Malcolm Turnbull and Mathias Cormann, currently serving as Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, would have awarded Ann Garms a settlement regarding her claims.

I ask the reader to consider the above, what would you do in my place when the government has refused to acknowledge my claims because the confidentiality in Telstra draft arbitration legally stops anyone from investing my claims.

Absent Justice - My Story - The Briefcase Affair

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

It is important to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. after two Telstra technical consultants inadvertantly left in my office, a briefcase. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold i.e. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B)

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I was obliged to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled ‘SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER’ - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a major AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had actually lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over an 8 month period receuved ‘service disconnected’ message telling the caller my line was not connected.  The final sentence reads: ‘Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. That information was sent to the AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, the following day after Telstra had returned and picked up the briefcase. 

One-third of documents which I managed to copy was enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults was a problem worldwide affecting 15 to 50 percent of all calles generate through this AXE exchange equipment. It was locking up flaws affected the billing software. 

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia wide had been wrongly billed since the instalation of this Ericsson AXE equipment which in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Tther countries around the world were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Lies told by Telstra so as to minmize their liability to the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)

Absent Justice - My Story

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

In 1993, my local member of parliament, the Hon David Hawker MP, and I were heavily involved in exposing how bad the Telstra network was in his electorate of Wannon. Ann Garms (now deceased), another COT Case from Brisbane, was doing the same with Senator Ron Boswell (Queensland National Party) 's assistance.

Absent Justice - Hon David Hawker MP

Such a high personal cost


On 9 December 1993, The Hon David Hawker wrote to thank me (see Arbitrator File No/82) for:

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

This was very affirming, as was another letter, dated 9 December 1993, from The Hon David Beddall, MP, Minister for Communications in the Labor Government, to Senator Michael Baume, senator for New South Wales,(see Arbitrator File No/82) that says:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress  This [sic] is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.”

Absent Justice - Constant Complaints

Benefit to all subsribers in his area 

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10 to 212 , were compiled in March 1994 after the government communications regulator investigated my ongoing telephone problems. 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.

Point 130 –

 “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area” (my emphasis)

Point 153 –

“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.” (my emphasis)

From 7 to 9 April 1994, one month was prepared Telstra's arbitration officer wrote to the government communications regulator demanding the chairman Robin Davey downgrade AUSTEL's findings regarding the many problems the government investigators how found in Telstra's network during the period they were investigating the ongoing difficulties being experienced by the COT cases. We exposed the Ericsson AXE problems in 1992.

When the COT Cases exposed this Ericsson AXE call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggesting he alter that finding:

For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that on this occasion on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal April 1994 AUSTEL COT Case report is alarming, to say the least. Worse, is that when AUSTEL released it into the public domain the report states AUSTEL only uncovered 50 or more COT-type complaints.

50 COT-type customer AXE complaints in comparison to 120,000 COT-type customer AXE complaints is one hell of a lie told by the government to its citizens who voted them into power.

Absent Justice - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said:                       

 In1816. Thomas Jefferson said:

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

Sadly, what was predicted in 1816, 205 years ago, by undoubtedly America’s finest president, is happening in the USA, Britain, Australia and the once-free world. The Panama papers, and the banking fiasco issues affecting the world globally are just two of Thomas Jefferson’s predictions that have proved him right.

It is also important to note that Thomas Jefferson made another important statement that:

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

While we cannot say that Ericsson and Lane are the types of 'enemies of the people Thomas Jefferson referred to when he stated 'let us tie the second down with the Constitution'. What we do know is. the Australian government should never have allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane in an arbitration the governemnt had endorsed. This selling off of Lane, disallowed the COT Cases every reasonable chance of fully proving their claims as well appealing them within the six-year statute of limitations allowed. When Ericsson purchased Lane, they also purchased all of my Ericsson AXE arbitration claim material which Lane never released back to me after my arbitration. 

When I sort copies of the Lane workling notes during my pending appeal process John Pinnock (the administrator of my arbitration) wrote back to me on 10 January 1996 stating: “I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office,” (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 ( (see Australian media release) which notes

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)"

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation during the COT arbitrations. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard throughout this website shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and Australian government (refer Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lane ignoring my Ericsson AXE telephone exchange claim documents and the purchase of Lanes by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (refer to 12 Alternate remedies pursued - Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued)

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that the same subscribers visit my website absentjustice.com where you can see, yourself, that my claims against Telstra's arbitration consultant Peter Gamble and Ericsson are valid.

This allowed Telstra's principal arbitration engineer Peter Gamble to fabricate his SVT process conducted at my business on 29 September 1994 (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). It is those non-performed SVT Tests that destroyed my business because the arbitrator accepted Peter Gamble's sworn statements the tests had met all of the government requirements when Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows the government communications regulator AUSTEL secretly wrote to Peter Gamble (on 11 October and 16 November) damming the SVT process he conducted during my arbitration  demanding answers to why he had not performed the SVT tests to the government's mandatory requirements.

This is the same Peter Gamble who ex-Telstra employee turned whistleblower Linday White named (See pages 37 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australiaduring a Senate Committee hearing advised Mr White I and four other COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from proving my claim (see also below).

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, without Telstra having fixed the ongoing telephone problems that brought the sixteen COT Cases to arbitration John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations, told a Senate Committee (see pages 96 to 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

"In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures - and I was not a part to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this - 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 the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings".

I reiterate, the Arbitrator and the Arbitration Project Manager only investigated past old historic phone complaints and not those still affecting the COT Cases business (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).  

This story, that goes even darker into the depths of deceit and debauchery where the principal Arbitration Project Manager after conducting several of the failed COT arbitrations (see pages 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) above years later he uses to promote his arbitration business. 

How can John Rundell be proud of the part he played in the COT arbitrations as is shown on his website: https://www.google.com/search?q=Arbitration+Services+-+John+Rundell+%26+Co+-+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnrundell.com+%E2%80%BA+Arbitration&oq=Arbitration+Services+-+John+Rundell+%26+Co+-+

The Deception Continues 

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

The covert altered confidentiality clauses in this agreement protected the Arbitration unit from all liability to the detriment of the claimants 

Suppose you choose to begin by reading all of  Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter? That may well lead you to what I strongly believe is the correct conclusion, i.e. that the Arbitration Project Manager, John Rundell, who is mentioned a number of times in those five chapters, would not now (in 2022) be free to operate any sort of Arbitration Centre, not in Collins Street, Melbourne, Australia and not in Hong Kong either, and that makes it particularly interesting to now be able to find, on Mr Rundell’s own website, at his reference to himself as a:

 

"… a Technical Epert to 6 major Arbitrations known as the "Casualties of Telecom" Cases, one of Australia's most protracted and complex arbitration processes".

On that website however, Mr Rundell has failed to mention a letter that, astonishingly, he actually sent to the arbitrator, the administrator, and the legal counsel Open letter File No/45-A of the COT arbitrations, while they were still underway. This letter discusses how Mr Rundell intended to use the technical findings prepared and submitted by Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd but switch their results so that they appeared on the letterhead of a company called DMR (who sent a representative from Canada to assess my arbitration claim).  Mr Rundell planned that I would then believe that Paul Howell, from Canada, had prepared the report when evidence currently available here, on absentjustice.com, shows that Lanes did the entire assessment before they were then purchased by Ericsson of Sweden (see below).

Likewise, there is nothing on Mr Rundell’s website that would indicate how, on 15 November 1995 (see File 45-A Open letter File No/45-A) he told the second-appointed administrator of my arbitration, Mr Pinnock,  that: "As no further progress was likely to be made on these matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report did not leave the billing issues open”, even though Chapter 1 - The collusion continues shows that the billing issues certainly were left "open".  In fact, when Paul Howell from Canada learned what was taking place here in Australia, he wrote, in the formal DMR and Lane Report, at point 2.23, that:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10 to 212 report was adamant the COT cases’ telephone problems must be fixed before the arbitrator could bring down formal findings; Telstra had to prove claimants’ ongoing telephone problems were fixed. (After all, what was the purpose of an arbitration process if claimants’ businesses were still affected by the ongoing problems that brought them into the process in the first place? How can you value the finacial losses of a business if the phone problems are still affecting the viability of that business? 

It is clear from Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, that the phone problems continued to affect their finances; by December 2008, they were officially declared bankrupt by the Federal Magistrates Court.

On Mr Rundell’s website he also fails to mention that, in my case (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues), after my Financial adviser, Derek Ryan, had written to the Australian Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, and John Pinnock (the administrator of my arbitration, see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) telling them that John Rundell had admitted that the financial report on my losses was not a ‘fully complete report’ when it was formally submitted to arbitration, as well as telling them that; “On 17 May Derek Ryan telephoned John Rundell, and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with him until the appeal period had expired”. 

Even though that statement: “… until the appeal period had expired”reveals the proper calibre of Mr Rundell’s attitude, i.e., he recognised the advantages for Telstra if I was forced to wait for the appeal period to elapse before they even began to expose the truth, nothing was ever done to correct this. No combind testing with Telstra and the arbitration technical counsultants was ever carried out during my arbitration. So how could anyone value my finacial losses if the phone problems were still ongoing. Evidence on this wesite shows the phone problems were still apparant eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

In fact, after my financial adviser’s two letters described what he saw as gross and unethical conduct concerning the submission of an incomplete financial report that had been deliberately disguised to appear as though it was actually a complete formal report being submitted, Mr Rundell wrote to John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) stating:  "I did advise Mr Ryan that the final report did not cover all material and working papers."

If you believe there is more to all of this calculated trickery and deception, please read on to learn about this appalling situation in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter and to learn how grossly unethical the seat of Arbitration is, here in Australia.

Introduction File No 1-E confirm John Rundell advised the TIO, on 13 February 1996, the arbitration financial report, addressing my losses and which he was responsible for ensuring was factual in every detail, was not a complete report when submitted into arbitration for response by both Telstra and my financial adviser. In his same letter, the project manager states, You should be aware that the Brighton CIB to interview Mr Smith in relation to criminal damage to my property…” When I read this comment, six years after it was written, I contacted the Brighton CIB (Victoria Police) who said they never intended to interview me regarding this matter and, in fact, they had no record of me being a suspect in any criminal matter at all.

On 17 February 1996 Dr Hughes wrote to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators attaching a copy of John Rundell’s letter of 13 February 1996 Open letter File No/45-E to the TIO). In this letter, Dr Hughes advised Laurie James that:

“I consent to you disclosing this letter to Mr Smith, save that I do not consent to the disclosure of the attached correspondence from third parties.” (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E)

The third parties referred to by Dr Hughes was John Rundell's letter File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E. It the arbitrator beleived I had damaged Mr Rundell's and that the police were to interview me regarding this damamge then why not provide it to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators who was about to start and investigations into why Dr Hughes "had no control over the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings"? 

Dr Hughes also wrote to the second appointed administrator to my arbitration John Pinnock on 23 January 1996, three weeks before just before File 45-E Open letter File No/45-D)

I have since had this letter from Dr Hughes assessed by law enforcement agents who attest it is a letter written by a man who had he nothing to fear about conducting my arbitration "entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings ", he would not have written such a letter. Was he also worried about that if Laure James did conduct an investigation he would also uncover the pressure applied upon the three COT Cases to sign the arbitration agreement after "clauses 25 and 26 had been removed and clause 24 modified". This secret altering of this document took place after our lawyers had viewed it in the afternoon of 19 April 1994 and had advised us to sign it as is. 

I reiterate, the fax imprint on the arbitration agreement faxed from Dr Hughes office on 19 April 1994 at around 1:30 pm shows clauses 24, 25 and 26 were firmly in place and is a mirrored copy of the same agreement signed by the first COT claimant Maureen Gillan on 8 April 1994. 

Absent Justice - Removal of Liability Clauses

It is important I raise here the statement made in Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman / Ombudsman Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct - section two and three which notes: 

"On the day we signed the arbitration agreement (see Open letter File No 54-B), clause 10.2.2 and the $250,000.00 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 had been removed and clause 24 modified. We were told there would be NO arbitration if we did not accept these late changes. 

I have always maintained our lawyers thought we were signing the arbitration agreement COT Case Maureen Gillan had signed two weeks before. I only agreed to clause 10.2.2. being removed. With our banks declaring they were ready to take over our assets if we could not show settlements were imminent, I buckled to the removal of only that clause.

No one in their right mind, no matter how must pressure was applied to them would have accepted a compromise of such a magnitude. Modifying clause 24 and removing clause 25 and 26 meant we could not sue anyone for acts of negligence. Meaning, the legal counsel to the arbitration and the professional consultants which included John Rundell were now bullet proof. They could freely do whatever they liked, when they liked and there was nothing anyone could do." 

This letter in June 1994 Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42, from Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer to the TIO Special Counsel, who had been exonerated from all liability for his part in the first four COT arbitrations, included the new version of the arbitration agreement that would be used for the next 12 COT claimants. Point 11.2 of this new agreement states that

“The liability of any independent expert resource unit used by the arbitrator, for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration, shall be limited to $250,000.00″.

Thus, two months after the $250,000 liability caps had been removed from my arbitration agreement, they were reinstated into the agreement for the remaining 12 COT claimants (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42. Why was I and the other two claimants NOT advised of the reinstatement of the liability clauses? 

There is nothing on John Rundell's website, Arbitration Services - John Rundell & Co at that states in the most three damaging arbitration claims against Telstra that the $250.000.00 liability caps in those three agreements were removed so he and his arbitration resource unit would be exonerated from all liability for their assessment duties but in the next twelve (not so damaging claims against Telstra) those $250,000.00 liability caps were replaced (see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman / Section One to Section Four - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct). 

On 20 September 1995,  after Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I met with Senator Ron Boswell in his parliament house officer Canberra to discuss these alterations to clauses 24, 25 and 26 in our arbitration agreements along with several other issues concerning leading up to signing our arbitrations including the unethical way in which our arbitrations had been conducted. The Senator was shocked and not ling after he made several damming statements in the Senate concerning the conduct of our three arbitrations (under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, including the statement:

"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. that" (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

Forced To Proceed Without The Necessary Information 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review newspaper reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed 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 [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

Although Senator Alan Eggleston advice to the Australian Finacial Revieiw has been discussed on the Bribery and Corruption - Part it was also relevant to raise it here. By incorperating the above six Senators speaches with Senator Alan Eggleston statement to the media we can show all seven statements were made in the public interest;.i.e.; on public record.

Kangaroo - Court

 The Collusion Continues 

Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? on 16 October 1995: Five months after my arbitration was deemed complete (and hence outside the arena of the arbitration process) AUSTEL allowed Telstra’s original arbitration defence liaison officer to address some of my 1800 billing (see also  Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l) with the arbitrator or me being present. In simple terms, I was denied my legal right to challenge Telstra's submission. These were were the same billing Ericsson AXE faults that the John Rundell's second in command Sue Hodkinson later admitted on (2 August 1996) to the arbitrator and TIO that they had withheld from the arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H).

Firstly we have John Rundell in 2022 on his website praising what a great arbitration process the COT v Telecom/Telstra process was for him to have been a party to. And secondly, here Sue Hodgkinson was on 2 August 1996, admitting 15 months after the conclusion of my arbitration that the 1800 faullts were not investigated in my arbitration.

How many other arbitration processes has John Rundell conducted where the rules of the arbitration agreement was not adeared to. 

For this person to have gotten away with lying about my arbitration 008/1800 matters in his 15 November 1995 letter (see File 45-A Open letter File No/45-A to John Pinnock is alarming. To have written in his other letter to the other administartor to my arbitration Warwick Smith stating that: "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A) shows how corrupt the arbitration process really was.

The fact that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd were purchased by Ericsson (see Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden) during the period Lane and the arbitrator was investigating complaints by the COT Cases that it was the Ericsson faulty AXE telephone equipment installed in Telstra's exchanges that had caused their telephone problems and this SALE still went ahead is beyond contempt.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator and the company which allowed itself to be bought.

It is clear from John Rundell's letter to Paul Howell of Canada on 7 April 1994 (see File 163 - AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180, that a draft of David Read's findings on my matters would be in draft for Mr Howell to view and sign off. When you combine the original 23 assessments in David Read's (Lane) 7 April 1995 draft report with the final 30 April 1995 23 assessments of the DMR & Lane report, they are one of the same. In simple terms, when David Read from Lane failed to make a finding in his draft concerning my complaints of ongoing Ericsson AXE Telephone exchange problems, he denied Paul Howell the opportunity to assess the actual value of my claim. 

Even worse, File 162 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 are the claim documents that were freighted to Canada. All of the listed Telstra/Telecom documents are Telstra's defence of my arbitration claim as listed as SM1, SM8 and SM9. That was all my claim material provided to Paul Howell of DMR Canada. However, it is evident from the formal final report index of documents submitted by Telstra'Telecom and me into arbitration (see File 47-C (see Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) that my submission consisted of 21 more claim documents than what was freighted to Canada, namely SM9.SM44, SM50, SM49, SM48, SM47, SM46, SM2, 1-200 to 2,158, SM53, Brief January 1995, SM16, SM17, SM20 & 21, SM45. In other words, Paul Howell was not provided anywhere near the volumes of documents I legally submitted into arbitration.

When Law Partners of Melbourne, my pending appeal lawyers, saw what appeared to have been a massive fraud, they advised me to seek my arbitration file from Telstra, the arbitrator, and the administrator's office. I also reported to Law Partners of Melbourne that three computer Hackers had contacted the COT Cases spokesperson, staining they had seen evidence in Telstra's arbitration file that the COT Cases should access if we were to win our claims. 

Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, director of investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth OmbudsmanI sought, under FOI, from Telstra a copy of their arbitration file on my matters. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file. I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the TIO office, which, as the administrator of my arbitration – under law – had to retain a copy for at least six years: until 2002.

I was seeking my arbitration file to value my chances for a successful appeal, including valuing all references to the employment of Lane by Mr Pinnock's office, as well as asking why hadn't I received back from the arbitration my Ericsson AXE claim material.  Mr Pinnock’s letter, of 10 January 1997, in response to my request, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

One of Australia's 76 Senators who received a copy of the draft information now produced on absentjustice.com made the following statement before even reading the draft. 

Absent Justice - Senator Ron Boswell

Senate Hansard - 20 September 1995

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...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 [Director of Public Prosecutions], 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. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “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.” 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

Absent Justice - Helen Handbury 

Helen would have Rupert publish it.

In 1999, I provided the draft of this story which discussed the funaamentally flawed Bell Canada International Inc report to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen Handbury. She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that I had received. Helen twice visited my holiday camp and on both occasions stayed in the Old  Presbyterian 1870s church. She like most of my guest loved the rustic surrounds within after reading the draft of abseentjustice,con, stated that she would have Rupert publish it.

She believed Rupert would be shocked, especially upon seeing George Close’s information (see the following two pages titled Australian Federal Police Investigations, - Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring and Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13, which clearly shows a secondary facsimile machine was intercepting arbitration-related faxes before redirecting them to their intended destination. George Close’s office and residence was a primary target – he was the official technical consultant for the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations hell-bent on exposing the faulty BCI tests which could not have been performed as Telstra alleged.

I explained to Helen that the Bell Canada International Inc testing process would have failed because of the faults in the Ericsson AXE exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, and the equipment BCI stated they were using [CCS7 equipment] could not be facilitated at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.

It was the combination of the BCI and CCS7 equipment that concerned Helen. How could Telstra not have known they were using fraud (not my words) to defend their network at Cape Bridgewater? 

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, on 26 September 2012, I sent a draft of the original version of Absent Justice to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him about my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury replied on 17 October 2012 in a handwritten letter (with beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship that we no longer see). However, he was then 87 years old and although highly respected for his philanthropic support of many worthwhile projects in Victoria, too much time had passed and, sadly, he wasn’t able to help. Still, I have the memory of how the sister of the biggest newspaper owner in the world believed my “intriguing story” was certainly one that her brother should publish and I’m grateful for her comments.

Of course this offer and suggestion ny Helen was made years before Rupert Murdoch got caught up in the News of the World scandal and Telstra became a 35% sharholder in FOX News at the time FOX News became embroiled in the Donald Trump saga.

It is important to note that before Robert Nason became Chairman of Fox News he was a partner of Coopers & Lybrand investigators. Robert Nason, and his secretary, Sue Hurley, met with me at his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on 13 October 1993, I supplied them with evidence supporting my claims that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived mr during my 11 December 1992 settlement. I explained that two technicians visited my businesses on 3 June 1993 to investigate my continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. When Robert Nason and Sue Hurley saw this evidence they were shocked and likewise convinced that Telstra had clearly disadvantaged my previous settlement claim under the heading Coopers & Lybrand - Bad Bureaucrats - Criminal Intent

Before Mr Nason joined FOX News, he was seconded to Telstra. 

Ironically, Mr Nason and his secretary Sue Hurley both visited the Old Presbyterian 1870s church at my holiday camp, where Rupert Murdoch's sister Helen Handbury felt so much at home during her two visits to Cape Bridgewater in 1999. And two decades later, Robert Nason is now working for Helen's brother Rupert. Perhaps Robert Nason might follow the footsteps of Helen Handbury and suggest to Rupert Murdoch I might well have a story.  

Infringe upon the civil liberties

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

If you read Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, you will understand why the Arbitration Project Manager mentioned should not be operating an arbitration centre in Collins Street Melbourne and Hong Kong in 2022.

The following link is from John Rundell’s own website – https://www.johnrundell.com › Arbitration – in which he promotes: “As Technical Expert to 6 major Arbitrations known as the ‘Casualties of Telecom’ Cases, one of Australia’s most protracted and complex arbitration processes.”

However, Mr Rundell fails to mention that his letter to the arbitrator, administrator and legal counsel Open letter File No/45-A discusses how he intended to transfer Lane Telecommunications’ technical findings onto the letterhead of DMR (who was flown out from Canada to assess my arbitration claim) to imply that Paul Howell of Canada had prepared the report. Evidence on my website absentjustice.com shows Lane did all the assessment before being purchased by Ericsson of Sweden (see below).

Likewise, there is nothing on his website stating he told Mr Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration) on 15 November 1995 that: “As no further progress was likely to be made on these matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report did not leave the billing issues open.” (See File 45-A Open letter File No/45-AChapter 1 - The collusion continues shows they were left “open” 

In fact, when Paul Howell from Canada learned what was taking place he wrote in the formal DMR and Lane Report, at point 2.23, that:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings report was adamant the COT cases’ telephone problems must be fixed before the arbitrator could bring down formal findings; Telstra had to prove claimants’ ongoing telephone problems were fixed. (After all, what was the purpose of an arbitration process if claimants’ businesses were still affected by the ongoing problems that brought them into the process in the first place?

Mr Rundell also fails to mention that my financial advisor Derek Ryan wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston and John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) telling them John Rundell admitted the financial report on my losses was not a full and complete report when submitted to arbitration:

“On 17 May I telephoned John Rundell, and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired.” That statement, “… until the appeal period had expired”, reveals the calibre of Mr Rundell’s attitude:i.e., he recognised the advantages for Telstra if I was forced to wait for the appeal period to elapse before the truth was exposed. (See Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete)

In fact, after my accountant, Derek Ryan, explained in his letter what he saw as gross unethical conduct concerning the submission of an incomplete financial report being disguised as a complete formal report being submitted, Mr Rundell wrote to John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) stating: “I did advise Mr Ryan that the final report did not cover all material and working papers.”

To find out more about this trickery and deception, please read Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter to learn how grossly unethical the seat of arbitration is in Australia.

This allowed Telstra's principal arbitration engineer Peter Gamble to fabricate his SVT process conducted at my business on 29 September 1994 (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). It is those non-performed SVT Tests that destroyed my business because the arbitrator accepted Peter Gamble's sworn statements the tests had met all of the government requirements when Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows the government communications regulator AUSTEL secretly wrote to Peter Gamble (on 11 October and 16 November) damming the SVT process he conducted during my arbitration  demanding answers to why he had not performed the SVT tests to the government's mandatory requirements.

This is the same Peter Gamble who ex-Telstra employee turned whistleblower Linday White named (See pages 37 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australiaduring a Senate Committee hearing advised Mr White I and four other COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from proving my claim (see also below).

An example of the type of corroded copper wire follows > Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter

Absent Justice - Poor Copper Network

In the world of political and media misinformation that is attached to the NBN, there is one important issue that hasn’t been fully addressed – Does Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements? If this question is answered honestly, it would directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending.

23 June 2015: Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem NOT a past problem as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.

Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN as this following 9 November 2017 news article See https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095 again shows that the COT Cases claims of ailing copperwire network was more than valid. 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, without Telstra having fixed the ongoing telephone problems that brought the sixteen COT Cases to arbitration John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations, told a Senate Committee (see pages 96 to 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

"In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures - and I was not a part to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this - 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 the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings".

I reiterate, the Arbitrator and the Arbitration Project Manager only investigated past old historic phone complaints and not those still affecting the COT Cases business (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).  

This story, that goes even darker into the depths of deceit and debauchery where the principal Arbitration Project Manager after conducting several of the failed COT arbitrations (see pages 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) above years later he uses to promote his arbitration business. 

How can John Rundell be proud of the part he played in the COT arbitrations as is shown on his website: https://www.google.com/search?q=Arbitration+Services+-+John+Rundell+%26+Co+-+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnrundell.com+%E2%80%BA+Arbitration&oq=Arbitration+Services+-+John+Rundell+%26+Co+-+

The Deception Continues 

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

The covert altered confidentiality clauses in this agreement protected the Arbitration unit from all liability to the detriment of the claimants 

Suppose you choose to begin by reading all of  Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter? That may well lead you to what I strongly believe is the correct conclusion, i.e. that the Arbitration Project Manager, John Rundell, who is mentioned a number of times in those five chapters, would not now (in 2022) be free to operate any sort of Arbitration Centre, not in Collins Street, Melbourne, Australia and not in Hong Kong either, and that makes it particularly interesting to now be able to find, on Mr Rundell’s own website, at his reference to himself as a:

 

"… a Technical Epert to 6 major Arbitrations known as the "Casualties of Telecom" Cases, one of Australia's most protracted and complex arbitration processes".

On that website however, Mr Rundell has failed to mention a letter that, astonishingly, he actually sent to the arbitrator, the administrator, and the legal counsel Open letter File No/45-A of the COT arbitrations, while they were still underway. This letter discusses how Mr Rundell intended to use the technical findings prepared and submitted by Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd but switch their results so that they appeared on the letterhead of a company called DMR (who sent a representative from Canada to assess my arbitration claim).  Mr Rundell planned that I would then believe that Paul Howell, from Canada, had prepared the report when evidence currently available here, on absentjustice.com, shows that Lanes did the entire assessment before they were then purchased by Ericsson of Sweden (see below).

Likewise, there is nothing on Mr Rundell’s website that would indicate how, on 15 November 1995 (see File 45-A Open letter File No/45-A) he told the second-appointed administrator of my arbitration, Mr Pinnock,  that: "As no further progress was likely to be made on these matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report did not leave the billing issues open”, even though Chapter 1 - The collusion continues shows that the billing issues certainly were left "open".  In fact, when Paul Howell from Canada learned what was taking place here in Australia, he wrote, in the formal DMR and Lane Report, at point 2.23, that:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10 to 212 report was adamant the COT cases’ telephone problems must be fixed before the arbitrator could bring down formal findings; Telstra had to prove claimants’ ongoing telephone problems were fixed. (After all, what was the purpose of an arbitration process if claimants’ businesses were still affected by the ongoing problems that brought them into the process in the first place? How can you value the finacial losses of a business if the phone problems are still affecting the viability of that business? 

It is clear from Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, that the phone problems continued to affect their finances; by December 2008, they were officially declared bankrupt by the Federal Magistrates Court.

On Mr Rundell’s website he also fails to mention that, in my case (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues), after my Financial adviser, Derek Ryan, had written to the Australian Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, and John Pinnock (the administrator of my arbitration, see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) telling them that John Rundell had admitted that the financial report on my losses was not a ‘fully complete report’ when it was formally submitted to arbitration, as well as telling them that; “On 17 May Derek Ryan telephoned John Rundell, and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with him until the appeal period had expired”. 

Even though that statement: “… until the appeal period had expired”reveals the proper calibre of Mr Rundell’s attitude, i.e., he recognised the advantages for Telstra if I was forced to wait for the appeal period to elapse before they even began to expose the truth, nothing was ever done to correct this. No combind testing with Telstra and the arbitration technical counsultants was ever carried out during my arbitration. So how could anyone value my finacial losses if the phone problems were still ongoing. Evidence on this wesite shows the phone problems were still apparant eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

In fact, after my financial adviser’s two letters described what he saw as gross and unethical conduct concerning the submission of an incomplete financial report that had been deliberately disguised to appear as though it was actually a complete formal report being submitted, Mr Rundell wrote to John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) stating:  "I did advise Mr Ryan that the final report did not cover all material and working papers."

If you believe there is more to all of this calculated trickery and deception, please read on to learn about this appalling situation in Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter and to learn how grossly unethical the seat of Arbitration is, here in Australia.

Introduction File No 1-E confirm John Rundell advised the TIO, on 13 February 1996, the arbitration financial report, addressing my losses and which he was responsible for ensuring was factual in every detail, was not a complete report when submitted into arbitration for response by both Telstra and my financial adviser. In his same letter, the project manager states, You should be aware that the Brighton CIB to interview Mr Smith in relation to criminal damage to my property…” When I read this comment, six years after it was written, I contacted the Brighton CIB (Victoria Police) who said they never intended to interview me regarding this matter and, in fact, they had no record of me being a suspect in any criminal matter at all.

On 17 February 1996 Dr Hughes wrote to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators attaching a copy of John Rundell’s letter of 13 February 1996 Open letter File No/45-E to the TIO). In this letter, Dr Hughes advised Laurie James that:

“I consent to you disclosing this letter to Mr Smith, save that I do not consent to the disclosure of the attached correspondence from third parties.” (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E)

The third parties referred to by Dr Hughes was John Rundell's letter File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E. It the arbitrator beleived I had damaged Mr Rundell's and that the police were to interview me regarding this damamge then why not provide it to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators who was about to start and investigations into why Dr Hughes "had no control over the process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings"? 

Dr Hughes also wrote to the second appointed administrator to my arbitration John Pinnock on 23 January 1996, three weeks before just before File 45-E Open letter File No/45-D)

I have since had this letter from Dr Hughes assessed by law enforcement agents who attest it is a letter written by a man who had he nothing to fear about conducting my arbitration "entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration proceedings ", he would not have written such a letter. Was he also worried about that if Laure James did conduct an investigation he would also uncover the pressure applied upon the three COT Cases to sign the arbitration agreement after "clauses 25 and 26 had been removed and clause 24 modified". This secret altering of this document took place after our lawyers had viewed it in the afternoon of 19 April 1994 and had advised us to sign it as is. 

I reiterate, the fax imprint on the arbitration agreement faxed from Dr Hughes office on 19 April 1994 at around 1:30 pm shows clauses 24, 25 and 26 were firmly in place and is a mirrored copy of the same agreement signed by the first COT claimant Maureen Gillan on 8 April 1994. 

Absent Justice - Removal of Liability Clauses

It is important I raise here the statement made in Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman / Ombudsman Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct - section two and three which notes: 

"On the day we signed the arbitration agreement (see Open letter File No 54-B), clause 10.2.2 and the $250,000.00 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 had been removed and clause 24 modified. We were told there would be NO arbitration if we did not accept these late changes. 

I have always maintained our lawyers thought we were signing the arbitration agreement COT Case Maureen Gillan had signed two weeks before. I only agreed to clause 10.2.2. being removed. With our banks declaring they were ready to take over our assets if we could not show settlements were imminent, I buckled to the removal of only that clause.

No one in their right mind, no matter how must pressure was applied to them would have accepted a compromise of such a magnitude. Modifying clause 24 and removing clause 25 and 26 meant we could not sue anyone for acts of negligence. Meaning, the legal counsel to the arbitration and the professional consultants which included John Rundell were now bullet proof. They could freely do whatever they liked, when they liked and there was nothing anyone could do." 

This letter in June 1994 Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42, from Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer to the TIO Special Counsel, who had been exonerated from all liability for his part in the first four COT arbitrations, included the new version of the arbitration agreement that would be used for the next 12 COT claimants. Point 11.2 of this new agreement states that

“The liability of any independent expert resource unit used by the arbitrator, for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration, shall be limited to $250,000.00″.

Thus, two months after the $250,000 liability caps had been removed from my arbitration agreement, they were reinstated into the agreement for the remaining 12 COT claimants (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42. Why was I and the other two claimants NOT advised of the reinstatement of the liability clauses? 

There is nothing on John Rundell's website, Arbitration Services - John Rundell & Co at that states in the most three damaging arbitration claims against Telstra that the $250.000.00 liability caps in those three agreements were removed so he and his arbitration resource unit would be exonerated from all liability for their assessment duties but in the next twelve (not so damaging claims against Telstra) those $250,000.00 liability caps were replaced (see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman / Section One to Section Four - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct). 

On 20 September 1995,  after Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I met with Senator Ron Boswell in his parliament house officer Canberra to discuss these alterations to clauses 24, 25 and 26 in our arbitration agreements along with several other issues concerning leading up to signing our arbitrations including the unethical way in which our arbitrations had been conducted. The Senator was shocked and not ling after he made several damming statements in the Senate concerning the conduct of our three arbitrations (under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, including the statement:

"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. that" (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

Forced To Proceed Without The Necessary Information 

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review newspaper reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed 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 [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

Although Senator Alan Eggleston advice to the Australian Finacial Revieiw has been discussed on the Bribery and Corruption - Part it was also relevant to raise it here. By incorperating the above six Senators speaches with Senator Alan Eggleston statement to the media we can show all seven statements were made in the public interest;.i.e.; on public record.

Kangaroo - Court

 The Collusion Continues 

Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? on 16 October 1995: Five months after my arbitration was deemed complete (and hence outside the arena of the arbitration process) AUSTEL allowed Telstra’s original arbitration defence liaison officer to address some of my 1800 billing (see also  Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l) with the arbitrator or me being present. In simple terms, I was denied my legal right to challenge Telstra's submission. These were were the same billing Ericsson AXE faults that the John Rundell's second in command Sue Hodkinson later admitted on (2 August 1996) to the arbitrator and TIO that they had withheld from the arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H).

Firstly we have John Rundell in 2022 on his website praising what a great arbitration process the COT v Telecom/Telstra process was for him to have been a party to. And secondly, here Sue Hodgkinson was on 2 August 1996, admitting 15 months after the conclusion of my arbitration that the 1800 faullts were not investigated in my arbitration.

How many other arbitration processes has John Rundell conducted where the rules of the arbitration agreement was not adeared to. 

For this person to have gotten away with lying about my arbitration 008/1800 matters in his 15 November 1995 letter (see File 45-A Open letter File No/45-A to John Pinnock is alarming. To have written in his other letter to the other administartor to my arbitration Warwick Smith stating that: "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A) shows how corrupt the arbitration process really was.

The fact that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd were purchased by Ericsson (see Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden) during the period Lane and the arbitrator was investigating complaints by the COT Cases that it was the Ericsson faulty AXE telephone equipment installed in Telstra's exchanges that had caused their telephone problems and this SALE still went ahead is beyond contempt.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator and the company which allowed itself to be bought.

It is clear from John Rundell's letter to Paul Howell of Canada on 7 April 1994 (see File 163 - AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180, that a draft of David Read's findings on my matters would be in draft for Mr Howell to view and sign off. When you combine the original 23 assessments in David Read's (Lane) 7 April 1995 draft report with the final 30 April 1995 23 assessments of the DMR & Lane report, they are one of the same. In simple terms, when David Read from Lane failed to make a finding in his draft concerning my complaints of ongoing Ericsson AXE Telephone exchange problems, he denied Paul Howell the opportunity to assess the actual value of my claim. 

Even worse, File 162 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 are the claim documents that were freighted to Canada. All of the listed Telstra/Telecom documents are Telstra's defence of my arbitration claim as listed as SM1, SM8 and SM9. That was all my claim material provided to Paul Howell of DMR Canada. However, it is evident from the formal final report index of documents submitted by Telstra'Telecom and me into arbitration (see File 47-C (see Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D) that my submission consisted of 21 more claim documents than what was freighted to Canada, namely SM9.SM44, SM50, SM49, SM48, SM47, SM46, SM2, 1-200 to 2,158, SM53, Brief January 1995, SM16, SM17, SM20 & 21, SM45. In other words, Paul Howell was not provided anywhere near the volumes of documents I legally submitted into arbitration.

When Law Partners of Melbourne, my pending appeal lawyers, saw what appeared to have been a massive fraud, they advised me to seek my arbitration file from Telstra, the arbitrator, and the administrator's office. I also reported to Law Partners of Melbourne that three computer Hackers had contacted the COT Cases spokesperson, staining they had seen evidence in Telstra's arbitration file that the COT Cases should access if we were to win our claims. 

Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, director of investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth OmbudsmanI sought, under FOI, from Telstra a copy of their arbitration file on my matters. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file. I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the TIO office, which, as the administrator of my arbitration – under law – had to retain a copy for at least six years: until 2002.

I was seeking my arbitration file to value my chances for a successful appeal, including valuing all references to the employment of Lane by Mr Pinnock's office, as well as asking why hadn't I received back from the arbitration my Ericsson AXE claim material.  Mr Pinnock’s letter, of 10 January 1997, in response to my request, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

This one statement by the administrator to the arbitrations clearly shows that the COT arbitrations' claimants were treated appallingly.

Telstra took advantage of its network and Hacking - Julian Assange - Chapter 8 – Hacking / Unresolved Privacy Issues shows plans were underway to do this when the Child Abuse in parliament house first surfaced.  

Clicking on my Weekly-Blog will take you to the latest updates Kangaroo Court of Australia Why rent a lawyer when you can buy a judge 06/07/22.  A Fugitive Australian journalist Shane Dowling talks about being on the run and Australia dropping to #39 on the world press freedom index

We periodically publish articles on the Weekly Blog, such as Kangaroo Court of Australia, because that website exposes cover-ups and fraud, allowing the reader to see it is an ongoing problem in Australia. The COT Case's lives were ruined because the truth surrounding our Telstra claims was covered up by crooked lawyers, arbitrators and government bureaucrats to suit their agenda. Our telephone problems continued to destroy our arbitrations after the arbitrator only investigated old-historic phone faults and not those still affecting the viability of our businesses.

If you want to disclose any government corruption or absent justice issues you think should be recorded on this website, please let us know through our Contact.

Please read Unprecedented Deception - My Story Warts & All and Chapter 3 - Julian Assange  Hacking will convince you there is more to the COT story than just telephone problems. It will leave you in no doubt that something is rotten in Australia's arbitration system of justice.   

Absent Justice - Senator Ron Boswell

Senate Hansard - 20 September 1995

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...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 [Director of Public Prosecutions], 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. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “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.” 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

Absent Justice - Helen Handbury 

Helen would have Rupert publish it.

In 1999, I provided the draft of this story which discussed the funaamentally flawed Bell Canada International Inc report to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen Handbury. She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that I had received. Helen twice visited my holiday camp and on both occasions stayed in the Old  Presbyterian 1870s church. She like most of my guest loved the rustic surrounds within after reading the draft of abseentjustice,con, stated that she would have Rupert publish it.

She believed Rupert would be shocked, especially upon seeing George Close’s information (see the following two pages titled Australian Federal Police Investigations, - Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring and Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13, which clearly shows a secondary facsimile machine was intercepting arbitration-related faxes before redirecting them to their intended destination. George Close’s office and residence was a primary target – he was the official technical consultant for the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations hell-bent on exposing the faulty BCI tests which could not have been performed as Telstra alleged.

I explained to Helen that the Bell Canada International Inc testing process would have failed because of the faults in the Ericsson AXE exchange in Portland and Cape Bridgewater, and the equipment BCI stated they were using [CCS7 equipment] could not be facilitated at Portland and Cape Bridgewater.

It was the combination of the BCI and CCS7 equipment that concerned Helen. How could Telstra not have known they were using fraud (not my words) to defend their network at Cape Bridgewater? 

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, on 26 September 2012, I sent a draft of the original version of Absent Justice to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him about my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury replied on 17 October 2012 in a handwritten letter (with beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship that we no longer see). However, he was then 87 years old and although highly respected for his philanthropic support of many worthwhile projects in Victoria, too much time had passed and, sadly, he wasn’t able to help. Still, I have the memory of how the sister of the biggest newspaper owner in the world believed my “intriguing story” was certainly one that her brother should publish and I’m grateful for her comments.

Of course this offer and suggestion ny Helen was made years before Rupert Murdoch got caught up in the News of the World scandal and Telstra became a 35% sharholder in FOX News at the time FOX News became embroiled in the Donald Trump saga.

It is important to note that before Robert Nason became Chairman of Fox News he was a partner of Coopers & Lybrand investigators. Robert Nason, and his secretary, Sue Hurley, met with me at his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp on 13 October 1993, I supplied them with evidence supporting my claims that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived mr during my 11 December 1992 settlement. I explained that two technicians visited my businesses on 3 June 1993 to investigate my continuing complaints regarding his phone service and inadvertently left behind a briefcase. When Robert Nason and Sue Hurley saw this evidence they were shocked and likewise convinced that Telstra had clearly disadvantaged my previous settlement claim under the heading Coopers & Lybrand - Bad Bureaucrats - Criminal Intent

Before Mr Nason joined FOX News, he was seconded to Telstra. 

Ironically, Mr Nason and his secretary Sue Hurley both visited the Old Presbyterian 1870s church at my holiday camp, where Rupert Murdoch's sister Helen Handbury felt so much at home during her two visits to Cape Bridgewater in 1999. And two decades later, Robert Nason is now working for Helen's brother Rupert. Perhaps Robert Nason might follow the footsteps of Helen Handbury and suggest to Rupert Murdoch I might well have a story.  

Infringe upon the civil liberties

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

If you read Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, you will understand why the Arbitration Project Manager mentioned should not be operating an arbitration centre in Collins Street Melbourne and Hong Kong in 2022.

The following link is from John Rundell’s own website – https://www.johnrundell.com › Arbitration – in which he promotes: “As Technical Expert to 6 major Arbitrations known as the ‘Casualties of Telecom’ Cases, one of Australia’s most protracted and complex arbitration processes.”

However, Mr Rundell fails to mention that his letter to the arbitrator, administrator and legal counsel Open letter File No/45-A discusses how he intended to transfer Lane Telecommunications’ technical findings onto the letterhead of DMR (who was flown out from Canada to assess my arbitration claim) to imply that Paul Howell of Canada had prepared the report. Evidence on my website absentjustice.com shows Lane did all the assessment before being purchased by Ericsson of Sweden (see below).

Likewise, there is nothing on his website stating he told Mr Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration) on 15 November 1995 that: “As no further progress was likely to be made on these matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report did not leave the billing issues open.” (See File 45-A Open letter File No/45-AChapter 1 - The collusion continues shows they were left “open” 

In fact, when Paul Howell from Canada learned what was taking place he wrote in the formal DMR and Lane Report, at point 2.23, that:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings report was adamant the COT cases’ telephone problems must be fixed before the arbitrator could bring down formal findings; Telstra had to prove claimants’ ongoing telephone problems were fixed. (After all, what was the purpose of an arbitration process if claimants’ businesses were still affected by the ongoing problems that brought them into the process in the first place?

Mr Rundell also fails to mention that my financial advisor Derek Ryan wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston and John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) telling them John Rundell admitted the financial report on my losses was not a full and complete report when submitted to arbitration:

“On 17 May I telephoned John Rundell, and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired.” That statement, “… until the appeal period had expired”, reveals the calibre of Mr Rundell’s attitude:i.e., he recognised the advantages for Telstra if I was forced to wait for the appeal period to elapse before the truth was exposed. (See Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete)

In fact, after my accountant, Derek Ryan, explained in his letter what he saw as gross unethical conduct concerning the submission of an incomplete financial report being disguised as a complete formal report being submitted, Mr Rundell wrote to John Pinnock (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E) stating: “I did advise Mr Ryan that the final report did not cover all material and working papers.”

To find out more about this trickery and deception, please read Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter to learn how grossly unethical the seat of arbitration is in Australia.

Absent Justice - Bernard Collaery

Timor Spying Scandal

As the website grew, I also discovered that some of the issues related possibly the best domestic news to come out of Australia for some time is the most recent 7 July 2022 announement that Bernard Collaery will not face charges for leaking clasified information about Australia's alledged spying operation in East Timor.  But what about this case which has, runied the lives of Witness K and Bernard Collaery and those affected by it in Timor Leste. 

Let us analyse the case from the point of  the phone intercepts by the Australian government to gain an unfair and illegal advantage over Timor Leste by the Australian government bugging the meetings of the Timor Leste people as they discussed their newfound wealth in the waters around their improverished nation. Indeed, for a country like Australia to do that to a meighbouring county was the lowest act imaginable as reported by me in the Introduction to Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring.

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT and George Close and Helen Handbury (Rupert Murdoch sister) side of our story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information in order to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government have stated they were unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

Using the Australia–East Timor spying scandal as an example which can readily be checked by googling the words Australia–East Timor Spying - Witness K Bernard Collaery we can compare this spying scandal with what Telstra did during several government-endorsed COT arbitrations when the Telstra corporation was then still owned by the Australian government. 

What appears not to have been considered in the most recent Witness K and Bernard Collaery phone-bugging scandal (see abc.net.au court-document-witness is that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) provided conclusive proof to the John Howard government that someone within the Telstra Corporation, who had access to Telstra’s network, authorised the interception (screening) of COT-related arbitration faxes. Between January 1994 and January 1999, Telstra was the defendant in our government-endorsed arbitration process. The following exhibit Front Page Part One File No/14 shows that a secondary fax machine was installed into Telstra's network over an extended period. The Australian government declined to investigate these matters in 1999, which allowed Telstra to continue to intercept my faxing service lines up until at least December 2001 more than six years after the end of my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration.  

Between September and October 2002, after having been briefed by George Close, my previous arbitration technical advisor I provided Senator Len Haris evidence supporting: the pair gain system which formed much of Telstra's existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers' phones had not been replaced regardless of the COT Cases exposing these deficiencies to the arbitrator in 1994 (see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two).

We COT's later learned that this phone and fax hacking of our business and residences could have been related to our faxes being sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman office as well as several politcians. 

After Senator Ron Boswell experienced faxing problems between the COT Cases he requested the COTs employ a fax telecommunications expert to view the faxes we believed had been intercepted either leaving parliament house to their premises or leaving our premises to parliament house Canberra as well as to and from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office. The Scandrett & Associates Fax hacking report was provided to Senator Ron Boswell in January 1999 (see Open Letter File No/12 and [document|768]). This report shows that faxes were intercepted leaving and arriving at parliament house Canberra.  In my own case Exhibits 10-A to Exhibit 10-C in File No/13, dated 2 November 1998 to the then Federal Treasurer, The Hon Peter Costello was intercepted.

The other documents are attached in Exhibits 10-A to 10. C dated 29 December 1998, was part of a manuscript I was writing. These faxes were intercepted more than three years after my arbitration was concluded on 11 May 1995. 

Raping and pedophile activity is a crime (see.Exposing the Truth - Absent Justice. Concealing rape is a crime. COT Case Ann Garms (now deceased) convinced me and several other COT Cases that the known paedophile activity and the raping of aboriginal children in parliament house Canberra by the Senator who had been in charge of our Telstra-related issues could very well have been the reason why our faxes were being intercepted to and from parliament house Canberra. The government has declined to investigate that proof (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) that our faxes were hacked during a highly legalistic arbitration process that the government themselves had endorsed (as a fair process) when it was not a fair process as confirmed by six sentators who investigated our claims ass above and in my June-July Home page Weekly Blog..

What happened during the negotiations with Timor Leste debacle, while different in the outcome, does show the government minders were prepared to steal from their neighbours as they were ready to do to their citizens, as my story shows.

Absent Justice - TF200 EXICOM telephone

This sort of tampering with evidence, after a claimant has provided it to an arbitration process, including (again, in my case) changing that evidence into a different format, must really be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) could have committed against an Australian citizen.  So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – twenty years ago to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (John Pinnock), the Chair of the TIO’s Counsel (The Hon Tony Staley), the Chair of the Telstra Board (David Hoare), and Telstra’s then-CEO (Ziggy Switkowski AO), was that evidence not investigated immediately?

We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines were being illegally tapped. Of course, with the weight of the government against us, no investigation into those complaints were made by the arbitrator.

We were to later discover the possibility that another reason to why our arbitration faxes to the arbitrator and out arbitration advisers were being screended before they were redirected onto their intended destination. Was this hacking into those documents set up to find out what we COT Cases had uncovered concerning the paedophile activitity by the main investigator to our Telstra issues or to learn what we knew concerning how bad Telstra's network really was?

Whatever the case might have been at the time of this fax hacking, we COT Cases should have been told who had been given the authority to access our legal documents. Just because the government had endorsed the arbitrations, that endorsement didn't give the government the legal right to spy on the COT Cases as it later did during the Timor Leste fiasco. 

After all, the COT Cases were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees in their valiant attempt to have the arbitration technical consultants locate the fault causes and fix them as part of the overall process.

What was in this Senator's office that was so damning that ALL correspondence concerning the COT Cases registered faults never made it to the arbiator? 

The next part of our journey was to do everything in our power to obtain the promised but withheld documents through Freedom of Information (FOI). We know the evidence is there to make our case that the lines were not working and that they had not been properly tested according to agreed protocols. But for those documents to be any use to us, we have to obtain them.

This process of trying to obtain the promised documents in which to prove my telephone faults were still ongoing continued from 1994 to 2011.  Transcripts from my two Administrative Appeal Tribunal AAT hearings where the government were respondents i.e. Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) and 26 May 2011 (No 2010/4634) show I maintained both my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, including all of the requested information both Telstra and AUSTEL withheld during my government-endorsed arbitration process. Senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman considered both these AAT hearings and it is now apparent that Mr Friedman was unaware that the Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and ACMA based their defence of my claims on the inaccurate sanitised public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994. That document does not include the true (and very adverse) findings that AUSTEL had originally reached in relation to Telstra’s dealings with me (see Open Letter File Nos/4 to 7).

It is also important to note, that during my first AAT hearing (No V2008/1836) Mr Friedman stated:

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

In May 2011, my last request for the withheld FOI documents the Australian Government Solicitors were appointed to assist ACMA. I lost the appeal. I still do not have the most relevant documents today which I was promised by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) I would receive if I signed the government endorsed TIO administered arbitration process.

What was left to us? We had lost the arbitration because we could not get the necessary documents, and we lost the appeal to get the necessary documents. Do we give up or do we find a way to continue? Professionals such as lawyers and investigative journalist are now saying we should be telling our story the way it was, not the way the government has recorded it in their archives, hence this website.

Manipulating the Regulator shows the AUSTEL the then government communications authority (now ACM) knowingly withheld vital evidence from at least two of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members before they went into arbitration yet provided that same evidence to the defendants (Telstra) in March 1994. This shows the odds were against the COT cases even before they signed their 21 April 1994 arbitration agreements. Why is the Australian government still concealing this disgraceful, unethical conduct from the public? If the government regulator admitted this grave miscarriage of justice occurred, or even now, admits to the concealment of very important reports from the claimants (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), this would go a long way to resolving these long-outstanding Arbitration issues.

Please click on Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 1 - Hacked documents and Chapter 1 - WikiLeak exposing the truth

Absent Justice - Julian Assagne

A Man With A Conscience

I have used below for this Introduction to the various Julian Assange mini-stories part of the content I have used on the Home Page. 

On page 15 in the novel The Most Dangerous Man In The World by Andrew Fowler, he makes the following statement:

"The Lonsdale Telephone Exchange in the centre of Melbourne with its black marble facade, is an eye-catching building. In the last 1980s it was the gatway to other telephone exchanges and organisations linked to super computers around the world".

The information on Bad Bureaucrats Taking on the Establishment and Chapters 1 to Chapters 9 Julian Assange Hacking are all related to the following a discussion Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) had with a group of young hackers who we now beleive was Julian Assange and his friends. These young hackers contacted the group during the early part of COT arbitrations.

That the hackers informed Graham Schorer they had broken into.the Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchanges.  

In June 1993, more than twenty years before Andrew Fowler and Julian Assange had ever heard of the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange, Telstra had left an unlocked briefcase at my premises; it revealed that the Lonsdale Telephone Exchange had poorly been programmed and that the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges equipment being used by Telstra in their telephone exchanges were known to be suffering significant faults.

On 4 and 5 June 1993, I freely provided AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator this evidence without copying much of it because of my limited copying facilities. A facsimile machine and a roll system were OK for faxes arriving, but that was its fundamental limitation. Later AUSTEL's Queens Road Melbourne office discovered from reading further documents that it became apparent other countries around the world were now removing the Ericsson AXE equipment from their exchanges or had removed it from their exchanges. So why was Telstra still using this equipment that destroyed businesses throughout Australia?

I provided the AUSTEL with further damaging information concerning the weaknesses in Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Exchange which showed that 50 per cent of my Melbourne telephone callers from Melbourne calling into my business at Cape Bridgewater 430 kilometres away were trunked through the Lonsdale Exchange. Telstra had somehow forgotten to programme the first six digits 055 267 of the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange into the system for at least eight months. While this was bad enough, those callers received a recorded electronic message telling them my business was no longer trading.

So, when we were offered documents from an unknown source stating the hackers had gained access to Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale Telephone Exchange which we knew was linked to the outside world, alarm bells began to ring. We were being offered emails and faxes proving Telstra and others had us COT Cases under electronic surveillance during our arbitration; we thought this might be set up. Was the Lonsdale Exchange the carrot to trap us into accepting documents outside of the arbitration process? Therefore, we declined to take the documents on offer.  

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General the Hon Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers had discovered Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Telstra took advantage of its network and Hacking - Julian Assange - Chapter 8 – Hacking / Unresolved Privacy Issues shows plans were underway to do this when the Child Abuse in parliament house first surfaced.  

Absent Justice - My Story - Loretto College

Testimonials

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to partly sponsor underprivileged groups to stay at the camp during the weeks that the venue was not fully booked out. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins.  I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of a number of commercial food outlets and these groups then just used the camp facilities — it didn’t actually cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas.  At one point around this time, May 1992, I had organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.  This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have, had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact, Calls were either ringing out or she was getting a deadline, or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two particular occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she decided to drive the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp.   Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.”

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript Absent Justice My Story‘ concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“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”

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these wonderful women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or, alternatively the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line.  Either way, I lost the business through that may well have followed if only the callers could have been successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  read:

“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.” ( See Evidence File 10 B )

During this same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, was a professional associate of mine  Cathy signed a Statutory Declaration, dated 20 May, 1994 explaining a number of sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47  - See AS – CAV 22).  This declaration leaves questions unanswered as to who collected my mail and how did they know there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office.  On both occasions, when this mail was collected by a third person, I had telephoned Cathy, informing her the Ballarat Courier notified me there was mail addressed to me waiting to be picked up.

On pages 12 and 13 transcript, from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP state at Q59 Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” (AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47  - See AS – CAV 23-A)

I also provided the AFP Telstra documents showing Telstra was worried about my telephone complaint evidence because if it ever reached an Australian court, I had a 50% chance of proving Telstra has systemic phone problems in their network, which meant in simple terms, Telstra was operating outside of their license to operate a telephone service where charging their customers for a service not provided.  

21st April, 1993:  Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold, to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious [sic].” (GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88 - See GS CAV 75)

What these Telstra executives were forgetting is that Telstra was a publically owned corporation. Therefore, those executives were responsible for ensuring the integrity of Telstra's working conditions, something which Telstra has never even understood. 

Absent Justice - My Story

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” (Arbitrator File No/90)

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. With my coin-operated Gold Phone also plagued with phone problems, it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

It took this almost tragedy for Telstra, after five years, to send someone of real technical experience to my business. Telstra's visit happened on 3 June 1993, six weeks after the Children's Hospital vowed never to revisit my camp until I could prove my camp was telephone fault free. No hospital where convalescent is a good revenue spinner has ever visited my business, even after I sold it in December 2001.

Therefore, I must start my story from when two Telstra's Melbourne technicians drove the 5-hour trip from Melbourne.

It was another fiasco that lasted until July 2022.

Absent Justice - My Story - The Briefcase Affair

The Ericsson briefcase affair 

It is important to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. after two Telstra technical consultants inadvertantly left in my office, a briefcase. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold i.e.

Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B)

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I was obliged to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled ‘SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER’ - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a major AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had actually lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over an 8 month period receuved ‘service disconnected’ message telling the caller my line was not connected.  The final sentence reads: ‘Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. That information was sent to the AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, the following day after Telstra had returned and picked up the briefcase. 

One-third of documents which I managed to copy was enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults was a problem worldwide affecting 15 to 50 percent of all calles generate through this AXE exchange equipment. It was locking up flaws affected the billing software. 

Absent Justice - My Story

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment 

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone exchnage faults can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

When the COT Cases exposed this Ericsson AXE call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggesting he alter that finding:

I have raised the Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment at the start of the COT story because had Telstra removed this faulty AXE telephone equipment from service like so many other countries were or had removed it; there would never have been a COT Cases story.

On the 12 July 1993, a newspaper article from the Portland Observer Newspaper is headed ‘Network Complaints Taken Up by MPs’, and notes:

“Problems highlighted by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith, with the Telecom network have been picked up on by not only other disgruntled customers but Federal politicians. Having suffered a faulty telephone service for some five years, Mr Smith’s complaints had for some time fallen on deaf ears, but it now seems people are standing up and listening. Federal Member for Wannon, David Hawker, described the number of reports of faulty and inadequate telephone across Australia as alarming. Mr Hawker said that documents recently presented to him showed that the problems people had been experiencing Australia wide had been occurring repeatedly in the Portland region.” (See Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No -17)

Absent Justice - AFP

Therefore, is is equally as important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 as reported in the Australian media.

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business".(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption. Ericsson is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Evidence File No 21 Senate Hansard dated 27 Feb 1998 re kick-backs and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats who were heaviliy involved in not addressing the conduct of Telstra during the period Telstra was the defendants in the COT arbitrations.

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone AXE telephone exchange equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased during a government-endorsed arbitration process (see Senate Evidence File No/61).

Absent Justice - The Peoples Republic of China

Huawei -v- Ericsson 

The following link Huawei Australia uses Ericsson chief's statement to slam 5G ban  suggests the Australian government believes Huawei is not as trustworthy as Ericsson and yet the Google link https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/ is saying the US Department of Justice states Ericsson has been involved in bribery and corruption over a long period of time. 

So who is more corrupt than the other, Huawei or Ericsson? Are the Australian government bureaucrats branding Huawei more corrupt because they are communist and nothing else? If that is the case then surely bribery and corruption by Ericsson is a worse crime than just having political communist views that democratic views.

Therefore, it is important to link here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and the selling off of Lanes to Ericsson in 1996 during the COT arbitrations because it is clearly linked the the delapidated copper wire Telstra infrastructure as well as the poor performance of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equpment which other countries around the world were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ).

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, John Pinnock (the second administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a Senate committee (see page 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

“Lane Telecommunications, which is one part of the technical component of the resource unit, has withdrawn from the process as a result of a conflict or perceived conflict of interest after being purchased from Pacific Star by Ericsson Australia, the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance is central to some of the claims.”

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator who allowed this transaction to take place. Why didn't the arbitrator make an official note to the TIO and government that for Ericsson to purchase Lane during the COT arbitrations when Lane had been investigating Ericsson during the COT arbitrations and was still investigating Ericsson up to the period the sale was due to take place was a conflict of interest of extreme importance and relevance to both past and present COT claimants.

This is the same Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd that did all of the technical findings in my Ericsson AXE claim which John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager (see  Open letter File No/45-A who advised the Arbitrator, the Administrator and the arbitration legal Counsel that: 

 Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.

The fact that Ericsson was being investigated for providing known deficient equipment to Telstra when that same equipment was being removed from telephone exchanges around the world or had been removed at the time of the COT arbitrations was another matter that posed a significant issue where the COT Cases should have been given special consideration to allow them to appeal their awards if it could be proven that Lane did not value their Ericsson claim material in their official reporting to the arbitrator.

A more in depth explanation of this selling of an arbitration technical unit to the company it was officially being paid to investigate is discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 on Bribery and Corruption - Part 2.

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice

Contempt of the Senate

It might be hard to believe but, back in August 2001, and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing, to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process? Where is the justice in that?

This COT story and these in-camera Hansard records show that the COT Cases suffered badly because we chose not to take the documents offered by Julian Assange.

In hindsight, if the documents were released to the COT Cases after the conclusions had been supplied to us during our arbitrations, i.e.: (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, then in my case, I would have been able to fully support all of my claims. Was AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings part of the information that Julian Assange wanted to provide the COT Cases? If it had been and I had accepted it, all of the heartache suffered by my partner Cathy and I since March 1994 when this report was prepared would have ended in 1994.

Why is everyone protecting Telstra the government communications regulator who concealed AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, from me until November 2007. Why are these same organisations hiding the truth concerning these failed COT arbitrations? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence Intimidation and menacing). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed, in arbitration, is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is unlawful. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The TIO, and Austel often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament when in Opposition were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No-one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seems to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal?

What was it trying to conceal?

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Where are my intercepted faxes that never reached the arbitrator 

In January 1999 the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1File No/2-A to 2-EFile No/3File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrators office did not reach their intended destination. The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were surely using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eaves-dropping, (the interception of in-confidence documentation) still happening today, during legitimate Australian arbitration's? The fact that a secondary fax machine was installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process which intercepted faxes is another reason why this illegal interception of in-confidence documents should have been transparently investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered. 

These illegal acts should never have been concealed under the confidentitly agreement in the arbitration agreements. Unlawful conduct cannot be hidden under a gag clause.

Cannot be hidden under a gag clause.

Absent Justice - My Story - Australian Federal Police

A seondary fax machine intercepted arbitration related documents 

Several FOI documents which I provided the AFP at their request, intregued the AFP officers as did Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, which shows Telstra was able to transcribe the name of a bus company on a previously letter I had sent them which does not name the bus company, only that I was seeking a contract for a bus charter to bring groups to my business. Telstra employee's even new the names and phone numbers of at least two single club remale members (see File 34 -B AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47).

I told the AFP that John McMahon, General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) had told me of the documents AUSTEL had uncovered confirmed beyond all doubt that my phone conversations had been bugged over a period of time. Question 81 in these AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the AFP asked me:

AFP  "Did John McMahon ever describe the document that he'd spoken to you where it had been identified to him about live monitoring?

Answer. "No, no never".

AFP: "Okay. That, that document that you, that you might be referring to, or John McMahon may be referring to we do have a copy of it".   

Answer: "Right"

AFP: "However, because it's been provided to us by Telecom, I'm, I won't show it to you".

Answer: "You can't yeah I understand".

AFP: "But it does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. Se we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it"

What appeared to have shocked John MacMahon most of all is the evidence I provided to him confirming three 008/1800 incorrectly charged billing accounts faxed to his office on 22 April 1994 proved AUSTEL’s fax journal (in the main office) registers three faxes from my fax machine number, lasting from 01.40 to 02.22 seconds, but only blank paper appears (see File -70 (AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91).  Where did the information on these faxes end up?  How can a fax transmit through to the receiving end, without the sender’s identification, date and time it was sent not be displayed on the document received?. 

These are the same electronic surveillance-type issues that Julian Assange warned the COT Cases about. The same surveillance type issues that neither the arbitrator nor administrator called a meeting with Telstra to discuss if our claims and the claim from the hackers were valid. 

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

The documents released were undecipherable 

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.

How the central points of our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence).. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Evidence - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

Absent Justice - Telstra Spying on its Employees

Faults In The Network

On 3 June 1990, during the period Telstra was telling me they had not found any problems (faults in their network) that were still affecting the viability of my businesses, The Australian (newspaper) printed an article under the heading: Telecom ‘spying’ on its employees, which supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The newspaper article states:

“She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom’s Protective Services branch.

“Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:

  • He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. …
  • He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
  • Claimants have had a ‘C.CASS run’ on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone.” (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)

Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week Telecom’s activities included bugging workers’ homes. …

In February 1994, the AFP visited my business at Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that recently received FOI documents suggested Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned that Telstra had written the names of various people and businesses I had called, on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). The hand-written notes in the right-hand column of this CCAS data include against dates, the names of people that I telephoned and/or faxed e.g., 31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL and the Ombudsman. In one instance, the name Faye Smith appears when I phoned my ex-wife. This reflects Senator Jenkins statements above regarding Telstra’s secret surveillance of their own employees in 1990, because here is Telstra using similar tactics in January 1994 while they were in a litigation process with me.

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 I was concerned that my settlement/arbitration releated faxes were being illegally intercepted.

Documents Illegal Interception File No/3, Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28, AFP Evidence File No 4) and Files 646 and 647 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) confirm the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had documented evidence that my telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months.  

So chronic and serious were my telephone faults in early 1993, that Telstra threatened me that unless I register my ongoing telephone/faxing problems with Telstra's outside lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page they would refuse to investigate my telephone problems.  

What I did not know, when I was forced to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that a COT Case Strategy was a set up by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page to hide all proof that I truly did have ongoing  telephone problems affecting the viability of my business (see page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I was providing it to Telstra believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. Instead, it was destroying any chance I would have in proving to the arbitrator my phone problems were ongoing and therefore he could not bring down an award until those problems had been fixed. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for my arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints with, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

Absent Justice

Fax Identification Footprint Is Visible 

In my case, another Alan Smith (no relative) who was living on Cape Bridgewater Road, was also battling Telstra and receiving letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing letters of demand for non-paid Telstra billing accounts. It is clear from two of those letters of demand the Freehill Hollingdale & Page fax identification footprint is visible on these documents. This other Alan Smith later informed me after my arbitration concluded that he sometimes received my arbitration-related documents from Telstra during my arbitration.

Had the arbitrator investigated my claims that I was not receiving my arbitration-related documents, and that very sensitive documentation had been removed by an unknown source from three different COT Cases premises which they had also needed to support their arbitration claims, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra’s arbitration defence lawyers Freehills Hollindgale & Page was mistakenly (or deliberately) sending some of my relevant arbitration material to this other Alan Smith, who Freehill was aware was complaining of the same ongoing disputed billing accounts. These were the same ongoing billing problems that the arbitrator refused to allow his arbitration technical consultants the extra weeks they stated was needed to fully investigate (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues).

Strange telephone type conversations I had with Steve Black and Paul Rumble both senior Telstra arbitration consultants suggested both were trying to aquire knowldge as to whether I was aware of this other Alan Smith of Cape Bridgewater who was also registering his phone complaints with Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

On my second request for this detailed data Paul Rumble Telstra's arbitration officer, threatened me that if I continued to provide this type of information to the AFP, Telstra would refrain from supplying that information. It was up to me. Stop giving the AFP FOI documents, and Telstra will assist me by providing the arbitrator with this type of evidence. 

On page 12 of the 26 September 1994 AFP transcripts (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) of their interview with me, the AFP raised these threats by Paul Rumble, followed by acknowledging they had evidence my telephone conversations were monitored.

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats Caried Out 

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

My pleas to the arbitrator, to bring Telstra to account for their actions when I had still not received my requested discovery documents amazingly, he refused to take calls as his secretary Caroline Friend is aware. It was then that raised these threats with the AFP.

I need to jump forward thirteen years to 2008 because, during my Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing, I provided proof to the government lawyers my arbitration had been a sham to protect Telstra. 

Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc relied upon known CCS7 testing equipment they knew could not be facilited at the two exchanges that serviced my busines. This CCS7 equipment failure is discussed below.

Two Telstra employees (see Exhibits 11 and 12 > (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) signed witness statements during my arbitration, attesting that CCS7 equipment could not be facilitated at my local telephone exchange. Both statements made under oath state the nearest exchange that could accommodate the CCS7 equipment was Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away.  (see also (see also Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 13 - Believe it or not).

BCI state the CCS7 equipment was used in their testing at Cape Bridgewater. Both arbitration consultants, David Read (Australia) and Paul Howell (Canada), knew of this fact and appears to be why they wanted to investigate my ongoing telephone claims. The arbitrator refused them the extra weeks they needed to investigate why my phones problems had been ongoing after Bell Canada International Inc stated the CCS7 equipment testing had not found any problems.

After the conclusion of my arbitration I received a telephone call from Paul Howell, of DMR Group Canada who on 13 April 1995 had been flown out from Canada to investigate my claims and the other three COT Cases claims. I had left a message with the arbitration project manager John Rundell (asking for Paul Howell to explain why he had not signed off his technical evaluation report on my matters when given to the arbitrator. He stated as the arbitrator would not allow him the time he needed to assess ALL of my claim, he never signed it off. His findings were not complete.

He left the report "Open." At point 2.23 in the DMR & Lane findings which were never signed of (see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) states: 

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.” (the last word in the above statement "open" is not my emphasis)

After I learned that Paul Howell and David Read had not been allowed to investigate by billing claim documents, and this was because to have done so would have exposed the many discrepancies in the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc tests, I wrote to the Canadian Minister concerning this fraud.

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

The Most Appropriate Course Of Action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995 noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report., should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

It is also clear from Exhibit 8 dated 11 August 1995 (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 a letter from BCI to Telstra;s Steve Black and Exhibit 36 on (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 a further letter from BCI to Telstra's John Armstrong that neither letter is on a BCI letter head, as are Exhibits 1 to 7, from BCI to Telstra (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46

Both Exhibits 8 and 36 were provided by Telstra to the Senate Committee [on notice under oath as being auhentic] in October 1997, to support that BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were genuine when the evidence on absentjustice.com and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report confirms it is not.

When it became clear that I would never be able to submit a final submission to arbitration process because I had no documents to fully support my claims (even though Dr Hughes had allowed Telstra to defend my claim when it was still not complete). It was George Close & Associates who reminded the arbitrator (not me) that he had still not been able to address the BCI November 1993 tests or the more recent arbitration-related Service Verification Tests carried out at my businesses on 21 September 1994.

Telstra was refusing to provide that raw data because I had assisted the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's other corrupt practices. 

Are we to assume the arbitrator ignored George Closes's request for the raw BCI and SVT data that aware I had broken my promises to Telstra not to provide the AFP with further FOI documents (see page 12 of the 26 September 1994 AFP transcripts of my oral hearing which show I made these promises to Telstra's Paul Rumble under duress (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1

Absent Justice - A Breath of Fresh Air

And at worse fabricated, 

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator prematurely brought down his findings on my claim, AUSTEL’s previous General Manager of Consumer Affairs, aware that the arbitration process had not addressed my claims concerning the impracticability of CCS7 being used in the BCI testing at Cape Bridgewater. Ms Amanda Davis provided me with an open letter noting: noting:

“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 about this group is theur 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 )

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, and three months after the Senate had been told that we COT Cases had ‘to be stopped at all cost’ (see pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia) as well as having been shown evidence that Telstra’s lawyers had devised a spurious legal paper directing their client how to conceal technical data under Legal Professional Privilege even though it was NOT privileged  the second-appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—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 -mentioned COT members (which included me), allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither 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 a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?

On page 62 in the same official Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr Barry O’Sullivan, who was the original arbitration claim advisor to COT Case Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me advised a Senate Committee, under oath, that we three claimants:

“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett [TIO Legal Counsel] in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.

Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional manner.”

As has been further confirmed above on page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, before I and the other three COT Cases signed for arbitration, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and Dr Hughes all assured us the documents we required from Telstra would begin to flow through to us once our signatures were on the agreement.  The Arbitration Agreement was secretly altered just 36 hours before we were told if we did not sign this altered agreement, Telstra would walk away. The inference was we could not afford to take Telstra to court, so we had better sign it or suffer the consequences of a lengthy court and expensive legal battle. We signed it under duress after being told if we did not sign the attached media release that stated we were happy little COT Cases then the same scenario applied. Almost crying with frustration and anger at having reached this gate which was half-open, we did what we were told.

Please note, that the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes (the then arbitrator), has since been awarded the Order of Australia and is a practising lawyer at Davies Collison Cave of Melbourne. In December 2001, frustrated and angry because no one from Telstra nor the government would force Telstra to fix the ongoing telephone problems that were still affecting the viability of my business six years after Dr Hughes would not allow his technical consultants on 30 April 1995, the extra weeks they advised him was needed to investigate my ongoing complaints (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues), I sold my beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” (Arbitrator Evidence File No 66)

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

The Rights Of Citzens

Senator Kim Carr also criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999 as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, noting:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And addressing Telstra’s conduct, by saying:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long". (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Absent Justice - Senator Mark Bishop

Senator Mark Bishop’s statement 

Significant issues do arise. I think it is appropriate to refer to the final paragraphs of the committee report. In the second to last paragraph, the report of the committee tabled by Senator Eggleston says:

Estimates of Telstra’s costs in relation to the CoTs issue since the claims were made exceed $20 million ($14.285 million to 1997 and rising). Most of the expenditure has been spent, not on settlement but on administrative and legal costs. It became quite clear early in the process that the claimants had in fact been disadvantaged by malfunctions in their telephone system. It is difficult to understand why Telstra appeared to prefer to deny that there was a problem and then prolonged the difficulties in establishing the extent of that problem.

The final sentence reads:

In the Committee’s view, Telstra should now seek to reach a negotiated agreement with the interested parties.

If fault is to be allocated at this very early stage of the final lap, that fault lies at the door of Telstra. It really is appropriate for Telstra, a $100 billion corporation, to stop using its monopoly power, to stop retaining the services of dozens of highly paid solicitors and to come to the table and to seek to reach a negotiated agreement with these four or five persons. It is simply outrageous that Telstra, which is still a public corporation, can spend something in the order of $20 million – Senator Boswell – Some $24 million.

“I am informed by Senator Boswell it is 24 million – defending a claim when the claim before it is somewhere between $2 million or $4 million. This is simply an outrageous proposition and a waste of public money” (Senate Hansard)

The Senate intervention to stop this unlawful conduct only assisted the five ‘litmus’ COT cases (four) had not yet reached arbitration. The remaining 16 COTs had already been through their government-endorsed processes, but without the bulk of their FOI requests/evidence. By the Senate not assisting the remaining 16 to obtain their FOI requests, those COTs were unable to secure settlements that reflected their true losses. Why were the 16 cases that had gone through a – disputable – arbitration process not even looked at? This is certainly appalling discrimination by the LNP government. And our past and current government bureaucrats have the audacity to downplay what Julian Assange tried to do for the COT cases, i.e, his fellow Australian citizens.

Why didn't the Australian government pressure Telstra to compensate all of the 21 COT Cases and not just the five COT cases Telstra withheld or destroyed their requested arbitration documents?  It is clear from the following Google link (see What are the risks of hiding evidence during legal discovery?

I reiterate why were only 5 of the COT Cases were provided with their previously withheld arbitration documents and not the remaining 16 COT Cases. Those five litmus test cases also received millions upon millions of dollars in punitive damages for having suffered such a terrible arbitration. When those same 16 COT Cases received no compensation

Absent Justice - Senator Len Harris  One Nation

Telstra's Unlawful Witholding Of Documents

Senator Len Harris, who won his senate seat on 2 July 1999 for the One Nation party, then lived in Queensland, 2,977 kilometres from Melbourne. On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me, in Melbourne, in an attempt to ensure our claims of discrimination by the Commonwealth were fully investigated.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

  • Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?
  • Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?
  • Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?
  • Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out? (See Senate Evidence File No 56).

Senator Len Harris was distrurbed that A fair resolution of those sixteen COT cases had never been resolved (see Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), a letter dated 8 April 1994 to AUSTEL’s Chairman from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggests that AUSTEL was far from truly independent, but rather could be convinced to alter their official findings in their COT Case 13 April 1994 public report, just as Telstra has requested in many of the points in this first letter.

For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter of 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that on this occasion, on 9 April 1994, Telstra (the arbitration defendants in the COT arbitrations) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings during a government endorsed-arbitration in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report, which in my case at point 3.7 in the arbitrator's award he placed the AUSTEL Report into arbitration as evidence is alarming. At point 3.5 in the same award, the arbitrator placed the Bell Canada Report into evidence and at point 3.36, placed, the Coopers & Lybrand Report into evidence.

Three official Reports were all placed into arbitration by Telstra as evidence for the arbitrator, his advisors and the COT case advisors to use as reference material, and all three formal reports have since been proven to be grossly deficient and tampered with to protect Telstra to the detriment of the COT claimants.

The fact that 120,000 COT-type problems being experienced by other Australian citizens are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report either see Falsification Report File No/10 DCITA even though the DCITA used it to determine their March and April 2006 assessment of the validity of my claims of ongoing telephone problems that by then had forced me to sell my business.

It is clear from the following two letters dated 3 and 16 October 1995 (see Files 46-K and 46-L - Open letter File No/46-A to 46) that the essential part of my arbitration claim was addressed in secret by AUSTEL and Telstra, thus denying me my legal arbitration right of challenge. 

Likewise, the arbitrator could not make a finding for or against, possibly the most essential part of the arbitration.

How many of the 120,000 previously concealed faults which should have been shown in AUSTEL's COT Cases report were related to the 008/1800 defects which AUSTEL allowed Telstra to address outside of my arbitration arena? The wording at point 2.71 in AUSTEL's formal COT Cases publiv released report of April 1994 Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C,when discussing the COT-type problems reads: "may be higher than Telecom's original estimate 0f 50." 

Quite a difference from the original 120,000 COT-type problems that AUSTEL found Telstra consumers were expiencing (see Manipulating the Regulator Chapter 1 Fraudulent Conduct Falsified Reporting  to  Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct

Absent Justice - Telstras Contempt of the Senate

Startling Documents Not Seen Before

It turned out that this box contained some more startling documents I had not seen before, documents that would shock most Senators today but which clearly indicated that their predecessors had allowed only five of the twenty-one legitimate COT claimants to have access to discovery documents and had also organized compensation for those five, compensation that ran into the millions upon millions of dollars in hush money, and all of that was accomplished so that the Telstra Corporation could be privatized.  Now, if I am wrong, and that is not the case, then why were the remaining sixteen COT claimants all denied access to any of the privileges that the five ‘litmus test cases’ had been granted, and why did a letter from the Senate Estimates Committee Chair advises the police that two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, must not be provided to anyone outside of the Major Fraud Group and, if someone did reveal them then that person risked being sentenced to jail?  Interestingly, the 9 July 1998 Hansard clearly states that to only award compensation to the ‘litmus test cases’ that were being investigated by the Senate Committee Working Party, and not to the other sixteen claimants, would be an injustice?

It might be hard to believe, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing, to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process? Where is the justice in that? Being charged with contempt of the Senate can result in a two-year jail term, and, of course, the Government has always known that, but if I had been in a position to safely go ahead and make these documents public, they would have been an enormous help, probably resulting in me winning my appeal against Telstra for gross misconduct. So how can the Senate continue to hide this conduct and, in the process, destroy so many lives? How is this democratic?

It might be hard to believe but, back in August 2001, and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing, to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process? Where is the justice in that? Being charged with contempt of the Senate can result in a two-year jail term and, of course, the Government has always known that but, if I had been in a position to safely go ahead and make these documents public, they would have been a huge help, probably resulting in me winning my appeal against Telstra for gross misconduct.  So how can the Senate continue to hide this conduct and, in the process, destroy so many lives? How is this democratic?

To understand how and why this occurred, we need to go back to 1997, when the John Howard Coalition Government was in the throes of executing the first of its three steps towards the final privatisation of Telstra. Then, towards the middle of October 1998, the COT ‘litmus test’ cases were, eventually and slowly, beginning to receive some of the previously withheld documents they had legally requested. It then became apparent that the Howard Government was selling the Telstra Corporation, i.e. a government asset, which was in a much worse state than the Government Communications Regulator had claimed it was in (see Manipulating the Regulator). After some 150,000 previously withheld documents were finally delivered to the ‘litmus test’ cases (see An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens) the picture that began to emerge clearly identified exactly how bad the Telstra copper-wire network was, certainly in many rural locations. It then seemed that this was the real reason for the Government’s decision to stop the remaining sixteen COT claimants from receiving the same privileges as those awarded to the ‘litmus test’ cases, which eventually took more than two years to assess. Could the Government afford to have the truth of Telstra’s dilapidated network exposed just as they were about to privatise the corporation? I think not.

I am convinced that when the Major Fraud Group provided me with copies of these Hansard records, they believed that those records would be instrumental in eventually creating justice for the remaining sixteen COT Cases. Our webpage shows however that this was never the case.

After I provided another report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over two separate visits to Melbourne spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group’s St. Kilda Road offices. This is important to the litmus tests cases issue because the Major Fraud Group was stunned at the evidence and how I was able to prove Telstra definitely perverted the course of justice, on two occasions, by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case.

It was sometime later (after the Major Fraud Group abandoned the four COT litmus cases’ claims against Telstra) that I was again seconded to Melbourne by Neil Jepson. Mr Jepson was clearly distressed – not only because the case against Telstra had folded through political pressure by the then Liberal National Party – but also because my evidence against Telstra was ignored by the Senate, despite Telstra knowingly providing this Bell Canada International Cape Bridgewater false testing information to the arbitrator as well as the Senate.

Some twelve months later, Mr Neil Jepson and I were called as witnessed in a Victorian Supreme Court Action while waiting to be called to give evidence that Mr Jepson said words to the effect that the COT story should be recorded in the public interest.

absentjustice.com was born from that statement and the immense respect I had for Mr Jepson, who has since passed away. He was indeed a good Barrister with morals.  

Questions Still Not Answered 

Absent Justice - My Story There are a number of very important and STILL unanswered questions related to Telstra’s involvement in this issue from the very beginning, including: 

Why didn’t anyone from Telstra attend the meeting on the 21st April 1994, when COT members Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and I were required to sign the COT arbitration agreement? Why did it take eight days before a copy of that signed agreement was provided to any of us? 

How is it that that version of the agreement was apparently signed by Telstra's Steve Black, also on 21st April 1994, even though no-one, particularly not Mr Black, attended the actual, official signing? These questions become even more interesting when you factor in how Telstra's main complex, in Melbourne’s Exhibition Street, was only a ten-minute walk away from where we met to sign the agreement – without anyone from Telstra?

Is it possible that the agreement we three members of COT signed was tampered with in some secret way, after we had signed it? 

Perhaps I should now remind you that no-one of sound mind, even if they were suffering from stress at the time, would actually sign away the only insurance they could get (because it was the only insurance that was made available to them at the time) that would ensure that the legal process they were about to enter into would be run properly and ethically. Part of our problem back then, as we now know, was that the now-exonerated financial company of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory had been appointed as the arbitration ‘resource unit’ and, as part of that role, was then provided with a secret charter that was deliberately hidden from all the COTs. 

This secret charter provided Ferrier Hodgson with the power to secretly assess every one of the documents that were submitted to the arbitrator and that were connected, in any way, to any of the COT arbitrations, along with the power to then decide which of those documents the arbitrator would see and which were to be completely removed from the process without the official arbitrator ever seeing them and without the sender of those documents being notified about that removal either (see File 590 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647).  This alone certainly indicates that the process was never intended to be run according to the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures that had been shown to the COTs, or according to the legal rules of arbitration here in Australia.

Chapter 5 - Who benefited from exonerating FHCA, DMR and Special Counsel? shows on 2 August 1996 (fifteen months after the conclusion of my arbitration) Ferier Hodgson Corporate wrote to the Dr Gordon Hughes, previous arbitrator to my arbitrationnoting "...due to a number of factors including confidentiality, it was felt not appropriate to answer Austel’s comments in detail, in particular the issue was under consideration in the Arbitration. As agreed the Resource Unit did not responde to the AUSTEL letter.” (see File 220 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)

One of the documents, dated 16th December 1994 referred to in this memorandum to Dr Hughes and had three AUSTEL and Telstra billing documents attached (see File -129 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180. I did not see this letter or the attachments until years after the conclusion of my arbitration.  

I reiterate, File 220 AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 shows as a result of those powers that had been so surreptitiously provided to Ferrier Hodgson, they then decided that none of my billing claim documents would be addressed during my arbitration or even seen by the arbitrator: yet another indication that, during my arbitration at least, there were secret, behind-closed-doors meetings that were held behind my back and secret agreements entered into, all with one aim:  to ensure that my claims would never be viewed on their actual merit.

The statement made by Sue Hodgkinson of FHCA at dot point 6 in her report to Warwick Smith i.e.; 'The magnitude of fault complaints reported is unsubstantiated and appears overstated ' does not coincide with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212.  Here is a further testament that FHCA should not have been appointed by Warwick Smith as the secret installed arbitrator. 

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

The COT cases and their four businesses were targetted.

Telstra's lawyers had set up a COT Case Strategy naming the four COT Cases and their businesses in there so far successfull attempt to stop us four from fully proving our claims Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C - Golden Messengers Graham Schorer, Tivoli Restaurant / Ann Garms, Japanese Spare Parts / Maureen Gillan, Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp / Alan Smith from gaining any further relevant technical documentation under the Freedom of Information Act. Our lives were about to be ruined even further, not just from the faulty phone service our businesses had been subjected to for years and years; we were now about to experience the wrath from within. Even the government, the politicians elected by the people, knew nothing of the power the Establishment had over government public assets. The tits of the milling cow were in jeopardy. We four COT Cases had to be stopped at all costs from proving our claims.

Starting on page 5163, this link > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from the public purse: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure applied by several Australian Senators including Senators Richard Alston and Ron Boswell, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) claims that Telstra was knowingly incorrect charging their customers for service not proved, was one of the reasons the government communications regulator AUSTEL facilitated  an arbitration  process with a confidentiality clause attached to it that forbade anyone assocated with the arbitrations could reveal how serious these billing issues were.

As shown in Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 13 - Believe it or not and Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? the government allowed Telstra to secretly address my arbitration billing fault claim material on 16 October 1995, five months after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

Faults continued to occur. In January 2003 – seven years after the arbitration process – the new owners of my business wrote to David Hawker MP, seeking help (see Arbitrator File No/118). Ex-Telstra technical guru Brian Hodge, after viewing Telstra’s own fault material, confirms the problems were still affecting the business in November 2006. When the project manager admitted that NONE of the billing issues was addressed during my arbitration (see below), he also admitted to not investigating the faults that caused these billing issues. In fact, in both the draft and final 30 April 1995 technical arbitration evaluation Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp reports, the consultants state:

“2.23  Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHA (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain “open” (SeeIntroduction File No/1-B)

What was the point of my arbitration if the two technical consultants did not diagnose the fault causes of my ongoing billing faults. It is clear the exonerated arbitration consultants did not worry about liability for not investigating my ongoing phone problems? 

Kangaroo - Court

No legal right of reply

16 October 1995: Five months after my arbitration was deemed complete (and hence outside the arena of the arbitration process) AUSTEL allowed Telstra’s original arbitration defence liaison officer to address the 008/1800 billing faults my (see Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l). These were some of the billing RVA Ericsson AXE faults that the resource unit later admitted (2 August 1996) to the arbitrator and TIO that they had withheld from the arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H).

Unbeknown to the COT Cases the legal firm assisting NSW Telstra employees in their Telstra superannuation and other legal issues was by a legal firm to who the arbitrator  was a partner before he became to arbitrator to the COT arbitrations. This legal firm were still assisting NSW Telstra employees at the time Dr Hughes agreed to become the COT arbitrator. None of the COT Cases knew of this possible conflict of interest or the fact that faxes arriving at Dr Hughes office after the close of business each day were authmatically redirected to the Sydney office where Telstra related legal documents were also being received.  

Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE Official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and a number of senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants and our lives have been ruined, simply because we believed that what we were doing would eventually benefit all Australians.

COT members pleaded with the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) not to force us into arbitration with Telstra whilst Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations – this was undemocratic. The TIO ignored our concerns. What we did not know, was that the TIO and arbitrator had secretly agreed with Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement and NOT the independent agreement the government was assured would be used to assess our matters. Even worse, although the arbitrator wrote to the TIO, advising him the arbitration agreement was not credible to use in the arbitrations, it was still used. This letter from the arbitrator was then concealed from the claimants during their designated appeal processes, regardless of its value.

Even before the arbitrator brought down his first deliberation, both he and the TIO were warned, on 18 April 1995, that there were “forces at work” derailing the arbitrations. They both ignored this written advice. This letter to the TIO, from the arbitration project manager, was also concealed from the claimants during the same designated appeal process.

Absent Justice - The Firm

The Firm - John Grisham 

It was while all this skulduggery and deception was taking place and Denise McBurnie along with Freehill Hollingdale & Page had drained me of all my reserved energies to keep going,  that I remembered the ruthless legal firm portrayed in the 1991 novel The Firm by John Grisham.

Both Telstra’s 14 April 1994 letter, to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), that admits at least one Telstra employee was intercepting my telephone conversations, and my 9 September 1994 response, concerning this unauthorised interception over an extended period, are now stamped “Protected AFP” material. The SENATE official Hansard clearly refers to Telstra’s conduct, stand-over tactics and threats towards the COT cases. The Senate Hansard, AFP transcripts (of conversations with me concerning these threats) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s records, all confirm Telstra carried out those threats against; yet neither the arbitrator nor the TIO addressed this during my arbitration. Why has no one ever addressed this unethical conduct publicly? Why is there no record, in the arbitrator’s award, exposing these threats? Why was Telstra allowed to make these threats and commit similar unlawful acts against the COT cases during their arbitrations? Neither the TIO nor arbitrator came to my aid or demanded answers to why a corporation can take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process.

Although I have already raised the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy above, it was again important to raise it right through my story because having to register phone complaints to a lawyer in writing brought on not just PSD, it stopped me focussing on what telephone calls that did make it through the minefield of a very congested telephone network. 

During this turbulent period where it felt like I was in a dream telephoning a lawyer to explain the previous four incoming calls had just dropped out I felt as though Denise McBurnie was playing a cat and mouse type game with my mind. 

he long term effect it had on the well being of the four COT Cases, i.e., two have died, the third has dementia, and in November 2017, I suffered a heart attack and double bye-pass (living with a pacemaker) finally took its toll. 

In January 2018 my partner, Cathy, was with me for my first appointment with our local doctor after I had survived this heart attack and double by-pass surgery.  Although the doctor was very sympathetic to my situation (and he knows my COT story) he couldn’t help but ask:  “Why am I not surprised?”

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because it was provided by Telstra's lawyers to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (Telstra's lawyers) to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

What I did not know, when I first had to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that this COT Case Strategy was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I was providing it to Telstra believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

These were four of the same names targeted by Denise McBurnie and Freehill Hollingdale & Page in their COT Cases strategy, which had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents under FOI (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

The fact that the Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy was exposed during a combined Senate investigation and the government still denied me compensation or did not order Telstra to supply me my previously withheld documents as they did for the other five litmus tests cases shows how corrupt the Australian government is.

In my case, Telstra had previously refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of my businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents on this website show they were found to have existed as the following government communications regularors own AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows. Page 5169 in this SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows Telstra adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

Absent Justice - Further Insult to Injustice

Unsigned Witness Statement 

When I first received a copy of this legal advice (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) years after the completion of my arbitration it took me back to my arbitration and the 12 September 1994, when I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims (see the above Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy).

I found the process of being interviewed by a forensic psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process. Was this his idea to unstabilize me during my arbitration or the company that had hired him? However, when this legal firm, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by this legal firm's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon, It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written?

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock, (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

I have never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

The reason I was asking the TIO to why Ian Joblin's signature was not on the first of Mr Joblin's supplied witness statement is because the first witness statement had paragraphs that did not correspond with the previous statement above it. It appeard as those in two area's of the witness statement Mr Joblin had left out a paragraph of one or two paragraps.

The ending in those to paragraphs which appeared to have stopped half way through the sentence (the folowing words did not flow) back into the previous statement made.

Absent Justice - A disturbing twist

An Out Of Control Fire 

Another disturbing side to this tapering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that for many years before this tampering took place, I was a volunteer for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA). 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. Telstra then alleged, in its arbitration defence report, that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This one wicked deed, along with the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration, is a testament that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond by supplying vital evidence to the AFP, as well as fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both those occasions during my arbitration.

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

And then, as if all this un-addressed skulduggery and secret plotting has not been difficult enough to live with for these past twenty-four years, let us take a look at the senior Telstra engineer who organised the removal of my tampered-with TF200 phone and then arranged things so that it would be held in his office from that day, 27 April 1994, until 6 May 1994 when, finally, it actually reached Telstra’s laboratories.

It is important to look at this engineer because it turns out, this was the same Telstra Chief Arbitration Engineer who swore under oath, in his Witness Statement of 12 December 1994, that the Service Verification Testing process that he conducted during my arbitration had met all of the mandatory Government requirements but, somehow, the CCAS data for the day in question does not show that any SVT processes as being conducted at all, neither in connection to my phone lines nor according to Government specifications nor, for that matter, according to ANY specifications at all.

The plot thickens. As it turns out that this is also the same Telstra engineer who, during a Senate Committee hearing on 24 June 1997, (see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia was named by an ex-Telstra employee (Lindsey White) as the person who told Mr White that I was one of the Five COT Cases, who had to be stopped at all cost from proving our arbitration claims and, astonishingly, this is, again, the same Telstra engineer who visited my business on 6 April 1995 with the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit, but then refused to conduct any of the suggested tests on the service line, at my business, that this tampered-with TF200 had been connected to.

Pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. proves beyond all doubt that systemic criminal conduct did exist within the Telstra Corporation prior to and during our arbitrations.

Absent Justice - Crimes Against the COT claimants

Eighty-Six Thousand Documents Received

Some eight-six thousand documents have been received after the COT Cases arbitrations were over and mostly received after the statute of limitations had expired for them documents to be used in any appeal against the arbitrator's handling of the arbitration process.

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant faxes, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.

How the central points of our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed, as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us and our integrity was attacked and undermined (see Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Bribery and Corruption - Part 2). Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up by those who helped these injustices to continue well past the government endorsed arbitrations set up to investigate these injustices by the Telstra Corporation (see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and Manipulating the Regulator).

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence).. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Evidence - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seems to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal?

Absent Justice - Fax + Telephone Hacking

Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd Report 

January 1994: A Telstra arbitration liaison officer faxed this document to the TIO in relation to the appointment of an assessor for the Fast Track Settlement Proposal. The words across the top of this document, in the space that should record the sender’s business identification are absent, and it records only the wording “Fax from” then followed by the fax number. The Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report discusses this “Fax from” issue (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13). The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26) is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered. Who were the faceless people who were soon termed the “forces at work”?

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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 also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1File No/2-A to 2-EFile No/3File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrators office did not reach their intended destination.

Many within the Establishment said that it was actually unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases’ businesses and, furthermore, it was acknowledged that it was clearly an unworkable process. This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, although it does raise a number of important questions:

  1. How could two separate investigations into Telstra, for allegedly unlawful conduct, be undertaken by two different organisations at the same time, i.e., an arbitrator as well as the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
  2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their individual small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could we be expected to submit complex submissions to an arbitrator and, at the same time, assist the AFP with their investigations?
  3. Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV 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 2021

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54 which was Mr Close’s residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock showing that they both agree that, if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination. 

Absent Justice - Ongoing Faxing Problems

Was my essential letter to the arbitrator via the Deputy TIO Grant Campbell concerning George Closes assertion the BCI tests were flawed intercepted via this second installed fax machine on George Closes service line, or was it discarded by the TIO-appointed arbitration unit who had been given authority by the TIO and Telstra to which documents reached the arbitrator and which did not? (see Chapter 3 - Julian Assange - Hacking -1 (File - 590 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). 

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, which then raises a number of very important questions. Since we constantly hear about politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra’s Fax Streaming centre? Even if the Fax Streaming arrangement has been officially organised by those Government offices, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system, without the Government’s knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material ‘leaks’ out of Parliament house through Telstra in this same way? Could it be that Telstra’s Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private at all?

PLEASE NOTE: although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied a number of times) the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits when viewed together still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra’s network were able to use ‘keywords’ so only certain faxes leaving Mr Close’s residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were both sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation is being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it on to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other sides weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe up to the day George Close passed away; he never got over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his COT Case clients. 

When Four COT Cases presented our dispute to the government, George Close & Associates joined us as the official technical consultants. George, along with me and the other three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, were all manipulated, pressured and squeezed into an unfair and costly arbitration. The arbitrator relied on the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) tests as key evidence on whether our ongoing phone faults were still present or had been fixed. Commonwealth Ombudsman records, along with my own absentjustice.com download evidence files, show George Close tried in vain to have the arbitrator access under official discovery the raw data all of the BCI successful tests results, which would have proved whether the BCI test carried out at the four telephone exchanges our businesses was connected had met the mandatory government requirements.

The arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, refused to access this data to enable George Close to provide an accurate, detailed technical report on our four businesses.

BCI and Telstra claimed the BCI tests conducted at my local Portland and Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange gave these exchanges an excellent report. Telstra even proclaimed this and praised the BCI tests (see pages 106 to 108 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia) publicly on nationwide TV.

However, in late-May 1995, two weeks after my arbitration concluded, previously requested discovery documents arrived that proved the BCI tests could not have been performed as BCI had alleged in its official report. Among the papers in this late FOI release, I found two particularly relevant documents, (see File - AS-CAV 135 and AS-CAV 136 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 numbered N00005/6 and N00037).  Document N00005/6 is a letter dated 6th September 1994 from Telstra to Gerald Kealey of Bell Canada International in Ottawa, which confirms that the BCI tests conducted at Cape Bridgewater on 5th November 1993 were impracticable.

The arbitrator refused to convene a meeting regarding these documents and the arbitration administrator stated he also would not investigate. I wrote to BCI and also to the Canadian Minister for Communications exposing this fraud. My own report on this matter is attached as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report.

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 4

I also tried to access a copy of the same arbitration file held by the TIO office, which, as the administrator of my arbitration – under law – had to retain a copy for at least six years: until 2002. Mr Pinnock’s letter, of 10 January 1997, in response to my request, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

What was so important in this arbitration file that both the defence [Telstra] and the administrator [Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman] would not release to me even though the law required them to do so? Was there more to the falsified (BCI), SVT Cape Bridgewater failed tests? What was in this arbitration file that prompted Julian Assange to tell the COT Cases we needed to see it to beleive what he had uncovered in Telstra's Londsdale Telephone Exchanges?

 

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s 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!! 

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 absentjustice.com

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 absentjustice.com is possibly a world first.

ABSENT JUSTICE HAS IT ALL.

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

“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

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

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

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

– Edmund Burke