Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the claimant's claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable.
Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia, as the following link suggests → Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Corruption, misleading, and deceptive conduct must not be practised in any shape or form. The criminal exploitation, fraud, and crookedness of Telstra and those who administered the COT arbitrations demoralised the claimants. Telstra's misrepresentation, coupled with jobbery, was clear extortion payola. The conduct of the arbitrations was a fraudulent exercise, subterfuge and an attack against the democratic process that Australia is supposed to be governed by.
While not everyone visiting this website may choose not to watch the 3.5-minute YouTube video I've included, I encourage you to consider it, as it offers profound insights into my journey. This video, created two years ago, has been highlighted on the homepage since May 3, 2025, due to enthusiastic recommendations from several engaged readers who found it impactful.
“COT Case Strategy”
This was the same Freehill Hollingdale & Page that provided Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with falsified Cape Bridgwater Bell Canada International Inc. tests before he visited Portland during my arbitration in October 1994. The purpose of the visit was to assess my mental state and determine whether I should be considered paranoid (or somewhat insane) after Bell Canada International claimed that 15,590 test calls demonstrated the efficiency of Telstra's service, despite my ongoing complaints.
When I presented Ian Joblin with evidence against Bell Canada, he mentioned that he would address this falsehood with Freehill Hollingdale & Page upon his return to Melbourne. However, only Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill signed his own report, and the attached witness statement was submitted to the arbitrator; the psychologist did not sign anything.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any references to what Ian Joblin had initially documented regarding my mental state, specifically that I was of sound mind?
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 (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 .
2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"
As of May 2025, I am still awaiting a copy of Telstra's Ted Benjamin's response to John Pinnock's letter dated March 21, 1997. Given the circumstances, I am entitled to this response, particularly since it is within the statutory limitation period that permits me to appeal the arbitrator's award. This situation raises an essential question: Why was I denied access to this critical information?
The situation surrounding Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon, who represents the firm Freehills, is concerning. He signed the witness statement without obtaining the necessary signature from the psychologist, which calls into question the document's authenticity. Ian Joblin had made it clear that he intended to express serious concerns about the fundamentally flawed BCI Cape Bridgewater tests, indicating that this witness statement likely did not originate from the information he provided to Condon.
There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,
In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.
Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy plaguing COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes, which equally corrupted lawyers and crooked arbitrators who covered up these crimes—government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has, over more than two decades, perverted the course of justice. The ongoing threatening conduct towards the COT cases constituted bullying, treachery, abuse, and malicious harassment, which compromised their ability to operate effectively and submit their arbitration claims.
All of the main events quoted in this publication and on my website, absentjustice.com, are supported by copies of the original documents (confirmation data) linked in the text: Clicking on these links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit. You can verify our story using this method and following the various file numbers. Without those documents, most people would struggle to believe that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) claimants have lived through these appalling events.
Who would ever have believed (without the proof on this website) that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with advice from the government that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded. We have no alternative but to include the exhibits the way we have. This is truly an unbelievable story.
The situation surrounding the involvement of the Canadian government and DMR Group Inc., a Canadian consulting firm, raises significant questions about the integrity of the proceedings related to the COT Cases. Specifically, they contested the use of the 1993 Bell Canada International (BCI) testing of Telstra's copper wire network, asserting that these tests were grossly inaccurate and should not have been relied upon as part of Telstra's defence in the arbitration process that commenced in 1994.
This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the COT Four's capacity to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found’ when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed, as our story shows.
Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using dubious strategies, such 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), destroying documentary evidence, and fabricating evidence.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
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 2025
How centrally the arbitrator ignored our claim at arbitration, and how no amount of effort to address these points bore any fruit.
During 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 that is 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.
As most telephone users would think, each COT member assumed 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 our arbitrations and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone, and the system was 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 prohibited. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is illegal (see Tampering with Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is illegal. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. 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 seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its 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?
Documents Telstra released to us years later made it incontrovertibly clear that Telstra knew its systemic problems and how to solve them in rural areas, where many of the COT cases businesses were located.
So, today’s younger generations might find it hard to understand that, only 20 years ago, a corporation like Telstra and its government minders were able to cheat so many Australians into believing it was trying to fix its ailing network. However, in reality, it was band-aiding the many known problems in Australia’s network to defer capital expenditure, as privatisation was on the agenda. Let the shareholders foot the bill was Telstra and its minders' answer to the ongoing problems.
For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural companies were not using the Internet, email, or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobile telephones regularly at the start of each working day was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations, and mobile blackspots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business.
Before I delve into my "Casualties of Telstra" story, I feel it is essential to provide some context. As a seafarer with 28 years of experience navigating the oceans with diverse nationalities, I have forged strong bonds with many sailors from around the globe. Throughout my journeys, I have been fortunate to work alongside individuals from Asia, Africa, the West Indies, and South America. I can proudly say that they have never engaged in derogatory remarks about other nationalities. This camaraderie extends to seafarers from all the continents I've mentioned, including those from the Americas and Canada.
Regarding the Canadians I’ve sailed with, their sense of integrity stands out remarkably. Around 99 per cent of my closest friends are Australians, but I deeply respect Canadians, who consistently uphold the ideals of fairness and lawfulness. My time aboard Canadian tugs, particularly the Ingram, during significant events like the Bass Strait fires of the mid-1960s, highlighted their dedication and professionalism. In Australia and Canada, these dedicated seafarers have firmly refused to engage in trade with Communist China, which is a testament to their principles, as I will elaborate on later.
Now, turning to a troubling situation involving Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), which was commissioned by the Australian government to investigate widespread telephone issues across the country. BCI set out to conduct tests based on information provided about various telephone exchanges, believing that they were testing the correct infrastructures. Unfortunately, it was later revealed that the exchanges they were led to believe they were testing were not the actual locations where the tests took place.
In more precise terms, I have detailed on absentjustice.com how the testing at Cape Bridgewater, which Telstra used to assert during my arbitration that my phone problems had been resolved, was misrepresented. The Cape Bridgewater exchange mentioned in BCI's report was not the exchange involved in the tests, and the equipment specified in their findings could not capture the BCI tests. Specifically, the CCS7 equipment noted in BCI's documentation (the formal report) cannot be operated at the Portland telephone exchange or the Cape Bridgewater switching device routed from the Portland exchange.
My efforts to bring this significant discrepancy to the government's attention came two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, but I was met with indifference. The government's lack of interest in contacting BCI in Canada was disheartening. Instead, the Canadian Government recommended that I write directly to Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) from Australia for guidance and support, leaving me feeling heartened that someone cared.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
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."
On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of test results provided by Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills in Melbourne). These contentious test results from Bell Canada International Inc. were submitted for review to Mr. Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, who was set to travel to Portland for an assessment of my mental health amid ongoing arbitration proceedings.
DMR Group Inc. Canada was brought into the arbitration process in March 1995 by the arbitration administrators, ten months after it was learned the original arbitration consultants had admitted they had a gigantic conflict of interest, regardless of their having signed the arbitration confidentiality papers in April 1994. At the time, Telstra had 47 of the most prestigious legal firms in Australia and just about all of the recognised telecommunications in Victoria on retainer. I had to source a technical consultant, George Close & Associates, who lived in Buderim in Queensland, 1000 kilometres away.
In the 1980s and 1990s, taking a stand against Telstra was an unthinkable move for any reputable professional. The sheer power that Telstra wielded in the telecommunications sector meant that defying them could lead to immediate and devastating consequences, such as the abrupt termination of contracts that businesses had relied on for years. As you immerse yourself in the following story, you will discover that Telstra's approach was not just about issuing threats; they were unflinching in their resolve and acted on those threats with alarming certainty.
After conducting an exhaustive review of the compelling evidence surrounding DMR Group Inc. (Canada), I have arrived at a deeply troubling realisation. Paul Howell, a highly regarded Principal Technical Arbitration Consultant, was dispatched from Canada with a specific mandate: to investigate the serious technical grievances I raised against Telstra between 1994 and 1995. My complaints stemmed from alarming and deceptive practices that Telstra engaged in, particularly their troubling reliance on falsified testing results provided by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Cape Bridgewater Telstra facility. These misleading results led the arbitrator down a misguided path, resulting in a conclusion contradicting my lived experiences, leading him to dismiss my claims of ongoing telephone faults.
What amplifies the distressing nature of this situation is the unsettling realisation that the government communications authority was aware of Telstra's flawed testing methodologies. These methods were manifestly inadequate for identifying the recurring systemic issues I had consistently reported. This troubling information is painstakingly documented in their report dated March 1994, where specific points—particularly AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at 210, 211, and 212—stand out for their glaring exposure of a profound disregard for the validity of the tests.
Deepening this narrative of frustration is the painful understanding that neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications possesses any obligation to take action in investigating or resolving the persistent telephone faults that have plagued my service for years. Point 2.23 of their report starkly highlights the unsettling reality that the failure to investigate these ongoing issues has left them unresolved and exposed. The arbitration report, dated April 30, paints a grim and unflattering portrait of the process, suggesting that Howell's journey from Canada was merely a procedural formality that endorsed a deeply flawed report. This report not only contributed to the downfall of my business but also wreaked havoc on my personal and professional life. This disturbing scenario raises profound and unsettling questions about the ethical integrity and accountability within the Canadian telecommunications industry.
In the wake of my first heart attack, I returned home after several days in the hospital to recuperate. Upon my return, I received a phone call from Paul Howell, who expressed his sincere wishes for my speedy recovery. He candidly remarked that it was the worst arbitration process he had ever been involved in, noting that no arbitration would have permitted such an appalling approach had it occurred in North America. Disturbed by his account, I sent a statutory declaration to the then Minister of Communications, Michael Lee MP, detailing what Mr. Howell had disclosed. Once again, a Canadian national had courageously shone a light on the troubling events that had transpired.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.Delve into the alarming and often disturbing realms of horrendous crimes, duplicitous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who maintain a tight grip on the legal profession in Australia. Descriptors such as shameful, hideous, and treacherous vividly encapsulate these evil wrongdoers' nature and the impact of their actions.
Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatisation of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place.
In January 2018, my partner, Cathy, stood beside me in the doctor's office. This was my first appointment with our local doctor after the traumatic experience of surviving a heart attack and undergoing double-bypass surgery. The doctor, a compassionate man familiar with my Certificate of Title (COT) story, looked at me with sympathy and concern. With a hint of resignation, he remarked, "Why am I not surprised?"
Fast forward to May 2025. Each time I return to finalise various sections of our website, absentjustice.com, I find myself grappling with overwhelming anxiety. Revisiting the intricate details of our collective ordeal triggers a whirlwind of emotions within me. I often feel stuck, struggling to articulate the profound complexities of this tragic narrative. Despite my best efforts, the right words elude me, leaving me frustrated as I confront the enormity of what we have all endured over the years.
An overwhelming wave of frustration often envelops me as the right words continuously slip from my grasp. It is an arduous task to convey the weight of the trials I and the other COT cases have faced—challenges that began in the chaotic lead-up to our arbitrations and persisted throughout the following disheartening years.
The spectre of losing our businesses due to a relentless barrage of natural disasters—catastrophic fires that left charred landscapes, torrential floods that swept away our hard-earned livelihoods, and a series of other calamities—would have been a heavy cross to bear. Like many others who have suffered such losses, we would have been compelled to confront that reality and find a way to rebuild from the rubble. Yet, the situation we find ourselves in is far more complex and painful.
Attempting to piece our lives back together while knowing that the arbitrator, and in certain instances, the mediator, have significantly contributed to our suffering has been almost unbearable. Their failure to maintain an impartial stance while assessing our claims has compounded our anguish and allowed Telstra Corporation to evade accountability for the harm it has caused.
This awareness—that the individuals we were led to believe would provide a fair evaluation instead deepened our despair—haunts us daily. It leaves us grappling with a profound sense of injustice and vulnerability. Each day serves as a reminder of the relentless battles we are fighting, not only against devastating circumstances but also against a system that has faltered significantly in its duty to protect those it is meant to serve. The journey is fraught with emotional turmoil as we seek closure and a pathway toward a more secure and hopeful future.
In various instances, the arbitration consultants colluded with Telstra, the defendants in our case, to determine which documents would be presented to the arbitrator. This clandestine manoeuvring meant that crucial evidence and information potentially damaging to Telstra were systematically kept from the arbitration process. Coming to terms with this blatant disregard for fairness, as vividly outlined on absentjustice.com, has been a harrowing experience.
At the heart of this issue is the stark reality that none of the COT cases—comprising honest, hardworking Australian citizens—should ever have been thrust into a situation as dire as the one we now face. We have been left to navigate a labyrinth of unresolved crimes, all committed against us while we were participants in a government-sanctioned legal arbitration process. There are two critical facets to this problem concerning the COT participants. The first involves individuals, listed below, who colluded with Telstra to perpetrate these heinous acts. The second is Telstra itself, a powerful corporation so influential that it has successfully obstructed investigations by any authorities, including government entities, into these crimes—a situation outlined in detail throughout this website.
It is crucial to emphasise that every detail captured on this website is meticulously accurate and bolstered by irrefutable evidence, readily accessible for anyone to examine. Furthermore, after an intense discussion with fellow members of the COT group—despite the heartbreaking reality that two of them are currently battling severe illness—we have jointly decided, in light of the persistent stress we all endure, to release our stories to the public in their current form on the website. This decision comes even though it may not align with our original vision for how we wished to present our narratives.
Regrettably, since I penned the above in January 2025, two more tragic chapters have unfolded in the ongoing saga of the COT cases: Brian Purton Smith and Sandra Wolf have both passed away without ever receiving the justice that was long promised to them. In 2005, the John Howard Government assured Senator Barnaby Joyce that if he cast his crucial vote, which was essential for privatising the remaining ownership of the Telstra Corporation, these individuals would receive an independent assessment process for their unresolved claims.
However, as soon as Senator Joyce fulfilled that pivotal role, the government promptly reneged on its commitment to Brian, Sandra, and the other twelve COT Cases, including me. This disappointing backtrack by the Liberal Coalition Government only deepens the already incredible and heartbreaking story of the COT Cases. The government, marked by its deceitful politicians and empty promises, was ultimately humiliated during the May 3, 2025, election. The façade of trust they had carefully constructed crumbled, and the people of Australia could no longer believe in the assurances made to them.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
