Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Unprecedented Deception

Continued from the Home page

Criminal Conduct Example 1

Stop these COT Cases at all cost - part one

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me and my named business and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer and their three businesses which are named by Freehill Hollingdale & Page in this document who must not get their requested documents. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

I reiterate the legal document prepared by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) can also be seen by viewing the introduction to the YouTube video above was the same legal firm the Australian government commissioned to sell off Telstra during all three privatization deals. It is clear from the following page 5169 Senate Hansard the government was aware of how badly Freehill Hollingdale & Page had treated us COT Cases, yet Freehills was still allowed to sell off Telstra who was a public owned company at the time they and Freehill committed these crimes against the COT Cases. 

It is paramount you understand the significance of page 5169 at point 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride [sic]. Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers that Australia had ever known. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General so, who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such important friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich, and the whole aim of that ‘COT Strategy’ was stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims.  Do you think that my claim would have even the tiniest chance of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members and, indeed, I don’t believe that either of them could have possibly condoned such a strategywhat I am asking is how any ordinary person could ever get past Telstra's powerful Board?  After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

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 arbitration defence lawyers to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page 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.

It was not of Ian Joblin's hand 

Absent Justice - Forensic Psychologist Meeting

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me being of sound mind? Was my flash backs about my Red China ordeal wrongly transcribed to the arbitrator? How will we ever know? How can a defendant's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon be allowed to sign of a clinical psychologists report and not the psychologist who aledgedly prepared the report during an official investigation by an arbitrator? 

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?" 

It is February 2023, I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

The fact that Telstra's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's.signed the witness statement without the psychologist signing it shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. for Maurice Wayne Condon to have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation is further proof the COT story must be investigated.  

What has since shocked a number of Senators including Senator Joyce was the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page who signature was on the undigned witness statement was from the same lawfirm whose "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses

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?" 

Senator Bill O’Chee (was most concerned that John Pinnock had not provided me any response to his letter 21 March 1997, to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin). It was this no response that prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Telstra's Graeme Ward, regulatory and external affairs (see File GS-CAV 293-B -GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323  on 26 June 1998 from , stating

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee 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 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 as Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

It is 2023, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

Perhaps even worse, is that Ian Joblin was given known fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International testing results before he viewed my mental state. The submission of this known false BCI evidence to Mr Joblin was corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct.

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Stop these COT Cases at all cost - part two

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

"In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

It is clear from Mr White's statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’.It is clear from Mr White's statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications, when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997: (refer to page 76 and 77 Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise i.e. government clearance to be able to impartially filter the raw information collected before that information is catalogued for future use?  How much inconfidence information concerning my telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this very sensitive material which Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia my bankers had already lost patience and had sent the Sheriff to make sure I stayed on my knees. No punches were thrown by me during this altercation with the Sheriff who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a judo hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious there were two sides to this story.

Similar injustices were experienced by COT case Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties had not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“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.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

On 30 Setember 2022, Sandra Wolfe emailed to inform me that her Telstra FOI / Mental Health Act issues have still not been resolved.

Is this warrant issued under the Queensland Mental Health Act, against Sandra Wolfe, akin to the false information provided by Telstra to the clinical psychologist before he assessed my mental health? In my case, the consultation by this psychologist was not conducted in a private surrounding, but in the Richmond Henty Hotel’s saloon bar!.

  1. Why were Telstra's arbitration technical consultants from April 1993 to April 1994 discussing my time in the People's Republic of China?
  2. What was their interest in this matter?
  3. Were they going to have me committed to a hospital for the insane?

These three above questions sound fanciful, but they are relevant to the statements recorded in Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 page 76 and 77 Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator(s) Kim Carr and Schacht asking Telstra "Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

Anyone reading the questions raised by the AFP in their 26 September 1994 transcripts (see Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 1) they would have learned from those transcripts that Telstra had been monitoring my movements for quiet some time.

Absent Justice - Hon Malcolm Fraser

As shown on the Home page during my 1994/95 arbitration, I supplied the Australian Federal Police (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 and Chapter 1 - Hacked documents aseveral Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations I had with The Hon Malcolm Fraser. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was important concerning Telstra's phone bugging issues and nothing else. 

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” (See Senate Evidence File No/53)

Who in Telstra Corporation thought it important to note that I had telephoned Malcolm Fraser?  Is my conversation with the former prime minister on one of the nine audio tapes AUSTEL provided to the Australian Federal Police but refused to supply copies to the COT cases even though the unauthorised interception of the COT Cases telecommunications service was part of their arbitration claims? I was never suspected of committing a crime or being a possible risk to Australia’s national security, so why conceal the tapes from an arbitration process conducted under strict confidentiality as the various clause in the arbitration agreement state?

My partner of twenty-eight years, Cathy and very close friends know often or not, I become saddened when news flashes about Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war are discussed. When I telephoned Malcolm Fraser, I wanted to discuss a letter I had written to him on the 17 and 18 September, 1967 concerning the Vietnam War (See Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong)

Mr Smith - you are to assist the AFP with their investigations

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

During the second Australian Federal Police (AFP} interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues, they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations. I told the AFP that John McMahon (General Manager, Australian Communications Regulator) had told me of the documents AUSTEL had uncovered which clearly confirmed that my phone conversations had been bugged over a long period.

AUSTEL had already written to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Before the four COT Cases signed their government endorsed arbitration agreement between 8 and 21 April 1994, they were informed by AUSTEL that as the interception of their telephone phone and faxes were to form part of my arbitration submission to the arbitrator copies of the NINE AUDIO TAPES of their conversations would be provided to them or the arbitrator under special conditions.

Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued  and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued show I was still seeking my arbitration withheld documents including copies of the NINE AUDIO TAPES up and until 23 May 2011. In 2022, I have still not received my Freedom of Information documents promised to me by the government in early 1994, if I signed for the government endorsed arbitration process.

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 show the AFP officially informed me that Telstra had been intercepting my telephone conversations over an extended period when they noted: 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".

Arbitration

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant faxes as the following shows:

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the Federal Attorney-General has still not answered is:

Was this letter actually faxed to my office by the TIO. to assist me in any pending appeal process and, if not, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period? 

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 of those within the Establishment said that it was 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 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), and it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process.  This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise many important questions:

  1. How could two different organisations undertake two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct at the same time i.e an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we know, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
  2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission 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?

Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation but, while these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being run concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act, 1984), for NOT supplying the COT cases with our promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. That investigation started before the COTs signed their arbitrations and continued for the whole five-year period

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?

It was relevant to introduce the threats in the introduction to our COT story because these threats were never transparently investigated for reasons never explained by the arbitrator and government. In my case, I visited the Telstra employee's unions rooms in Collingwood, Melbourne asking them to back off. This dispute was not with the rank-and-file union members. It was a dispute with management.

Threats made

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats carried out 

Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues, as 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 withholding 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 wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated 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 yet to receive my requested discovery documents amazingly, he refused to take calls as his secretary Caroline Friend is aware. Even though the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be brought into arbitration for Telstra to obey the Freedom of Information (FOI Act) and the government solicitors took control of the delivery of my arbitration documents, the delivery of my requested May 1994 FOI Ericsson AXE-telephone exchange related documents never arrived until 23 May 1995 twelve months after my original request. Worse, those newly released documents came two weeks after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995. 

Not even the Australian Federal Police came to my aid, demanding to know why I had been maltreated after having helped the AFP with their investigations.

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

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 was never investigated or stopped by the arbitrator. No findings on these corrupt practices by Telstra were broadcast in the arbitrator's award. Comparing the draft findings in the arbitrator's award and those in his final award, it becomes obvious he had been barred from exposing these corrupt practices.

Both these two conflicting awards by the arbitrator were provided on request from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee in July 2009 (see Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued - legal abused part 3). The IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee, even though they called twice between July and November 2009 for further supporting evidence (See Burying The Evidence File 13-B to 13-C), it is thirteen years since the IAMA agreed to investigate Dr Gordon Hughes and the corruption in my arbitration. It is January 2023, and findings need to be released. 

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 With Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. 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 following government records (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings), at points 2 to 212 show the government communications regulator had already validated my arbitration claim on 4 March 1994, six-weeks before I signed my 21 April 1994 arbitration agreement. Why did the government validate my claims and then withhold the very documents I needed to support my claim? 

The concealment of this irifutable evidence AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) was an abuse of process. For the government to have allowed me to commence an arbitration against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was gross misconduct of the worst possible kind. To have allowed me to enter an arbitration process that lasted for thirteen months, costing me more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already proved against Telstra not only  breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of the commonwealth, they discriminated against me by protecting Telstra's interests above mine. 

A Telstra Fault document, dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange which serviced my business states:

“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)

This one Telstra fault reportining document, dated 2 July 1992, (on its own) shows what Telstra employee's were concealing from me during my 11 December 1992 Settlement Process.

Absent Justice - My Story

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew my phone complaints were valid can best be viewed by reading Folios C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) 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.”

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston 

"Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information"  

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized 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 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 focused 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.”  

Further comments made about this type of unlawful conduct during arbitrations conducted in Australia which are linked to the COT Cases being forced into arbitration without the necessary information can be viewed by clicking on --- LEARN MORE  →

This website absentjustice.com is essential for all lawyers who believe arbitration is the best way forward. This has been further confirmed from the comment by Robert Palmer on my YourTube video above where he states: I commend Alan Smith, a little man with a big heart, for his Absent Justice website – the contents should be considered as essential reading for all involved in government and big business, as well as stating: "...I commend Alan Smith, a little man with a big heart, for his Absent Justice website – the contents should be considered as essential reading for all involved in government and big business, as well as being made compulsory reading for all secondary school students...".

If an arbitrator decides for themselves only to value and asses part of a claimant's claim, as was the case in the COT arbitrations, then there is no real recourse left for a claimant to challenge such a decision regardless of the government promising in writing to the claimants that no finding by the arbitrator would be made until all of the phone problems raised by the COT Case in their arbitration were fixed.

In the COT Cases arbitration, the arbitrator and his technical consultants ignored the ongoing telephone and faxing problems they raised in their claims thus allowing those unaddressed faults to continue for years after the conclusion of the arbitrations (see  Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).

Check out Absent Justice, corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct by arbitrators and government bureaucrats. Fraudulent behaviour and thuggery, and criminal legal abuse should never have been tolerated in the COT arbitrations. Unscrupulous and treacherous behaviour at its worst destroyed the lives of the COT Cases (See Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

Comment made by Sandra Jane Wolfe and Brian Purton-Smith concerning my YouTube are discussed below 

sjw Ladybird 

My name is Sandra Jane Wolfe, I am 83 years of age and my own CoT matters since the 1990's are still unresolved in 2023, despite Senators Helen Coonan and Barnaby Joyce (later Deputy Prime Minister) promising me that my claim would be independently addressed in 2006 - but my claim was not addressed in 2006. I have supported Alan Smith's efforts in trying to bring the remaining CoT claims to resolvement.

Part of Sandra Wolfe's story is reported on in the following Unprecedented Deception page under the heading - Criminal Conduct Part 2 

These injustices suffered by Sandra included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties had not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“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.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by they government when they became aware Telstra was providing false information to their clinical forensic psychologist during Telstra's arbitration defence of the COT Cases claims.

The impracticable 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 to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page [Telstra's defence lawyers] to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made on page 5169 in official SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which discusses "The COT Strategy" which was 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. 

When it was provided to the arbitrator it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's it bore no signature of the psychologist Ian Joblin.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me being 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 (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?" 

It is 2023, I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

A further comment on my YouTube was written by a family member of COT Case Brian Purton Smith states:

" On behalf of Brian Purton-Smith: My unresolved CoT cases have been outstanding since 1993. Senator Barnaby Joyce agreed to vote to privatize Telecom when Senator Helen Coonan (the minister) said that the matters should be finalised - to date nothing has happened. I am now 83 years old and have suffered horrific financial and family problems as a result of this lack of action".

In July 2005, Brian Purton Smith, Sandra Wolfe, Ann Garms (see her video below) I and ten other COT Cases met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia), and each provided him with their storiesThe senator visibly became very emotional during this meeting and afterwards made a historic agreement with the Australian government: if the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.

On 15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce wrote to all of the 14 COT Cases stating:-

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

However, as the Hon Barnaby Joyce (who has also been the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia on two occasions) will attest, as soon as he cast his crucial Telstra privatization vote in the Senate, the government reneged on its official commitment to appoint an independent assessor to value the status of each unresolved 14 claims.

We are asking the government to honour that commitment given to The Hon Barnaby Joyce. After all, if an independent, transparent investigation was conducted on the claims here on absentjustice.com and found Telstra and the government has no case to answer, then the government has won, and the 14 COT Cases have no reason to pursue this matter further.

Absent Justice - My Story

The offender(s) would be jailed.

As shown throughout this website, George Close had been the technical consultant for several COT cases during their arbitrations and mine. When George visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after I showed him Open Letter File No/12File No/13Front Page Part One File No/1,Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-EFront Page Part One File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Mr Close later sent me an email on 5 August 2011 to assist me with breaking open this terrible denial of justice to the COT cases (see Front Page Part One File No/26).

Senator Ron Boswell gave valuable support during my arbitration, and he attempted to find out why Telstra was allowed to threaten me and why, when those threats became a reality, no one from the arbitration process, including Warwick Smith (the administrator of my arbitration) and Dr Hughes (the so-called arbitrator) did anything. It was because of Senator Ron Boswell’s decent nature that George Close emailed the following statement:

“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late ’90s.

“He had been shown fax’s [sic] which clearly indicated change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.

“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.

“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred, the offender(s) would be jailed.

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives.

In January 1999, the COT Cases provided the Australian Government with a report prepared by Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. On 17 December 2014, while I was preparing absentjustice.com and my manuscrpt writing my book one of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception report emailed me 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.

Leaving Sir Owen Dixon Chambers

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 10

On route to the Melbourne Supreme Court

As Chapter 10 - The tenth remedy pursued shows, I contacted Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) through an advisor, who also assisted me in preparing a claim to be provided to a barrister for the CAV. From October 2007 through to late 2008, this un-named advisor, a once very high-ranking Victorian police officer, had several discussions with this barrister, Peter Hiland. The latter then proceeded to assess our various claims.

Peter Hiland was overjoyed that I could provide conclusive evidence of Supreme Court-related faxes between client and lawyer leaving the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers (the legal hub of Melbourne) had been intercepted [screened my a secondary fax machine] before they finally reached their intended destination.

Peter Hiland was also disturbed that neither the TIO nor Telstra ever returned to me the evidence I provided confirming faxes left the Crown casino complex arrived at my Cape Bridgewater business, even though they were not intended for me. This happened when Ann Garms's COT Case appealed her COT arbitration process in the Supreme Court of Victoria. I was assisting Ann in her Crown Casino room during her appeal process. 

Five years after the CAV came into possession of this evidence, it was returned to me in disarray, which seemed to indicate it had been investigated. However, the CAV declined to continue their investigations.

You can view some of the types of exhibits provided to the CAV during their two-year-plus investigation by clicking on CAV Part 1, 2 and 3, now collated on the absentjustice.com website, and form your own opinion as to whether the State of Victoria Department of Justice should have made a finding in 2007 regarding these serious issues. While some of these numbered CAV exhibits are dated well past the period of that investigation and bear the CAV inscription, they were collated in 2011, when I introduced further evidence to the Department of Justice.

Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the youtube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the Senate as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case.The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses in the YouTube below that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation costing more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.  

Click on the following caption below and learn the truth surrounding my story:

Absent Justice - My Story

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment 

It’s essential to digress in the introduction of Unprecedented Deception and go back to 3 June 1993, when two Telstra technical consultants inadvertently left a briefcase in my office. 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 a Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER' - AXE - problems ongoing – this has been a significant Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problem. After five gruelling years fighting the Telstra monolith and being told various lies along the way, here was the truth from an inside perspective.

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, was installed in August 1991, with the problems still remaining in 2002. Other countries worldwide were complaining of the same ongoing exchange faults (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f), and Telstra was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Telstra was telling lies to minimise its liability to the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)

The Ericsson AXE telephone equipment being used by Telstra before and during the COT arbitrations had a major fault call loss rate from 15 to 50 per centas Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f shows.

On 14 December 2022, in a taped interview, I was asked why I thought it essential to pursue the COT Cases arbitration matters. In several emails on my LinkedIn profile, I have been asked the same thing by lawyers and arbitrators, stating there is a constant need to expose crimes and bias by arbitrators so as the seat of arbitration does not become an avenue for criminals to hide behind because to appeal an arbitrators award or finding is almost impossible certainly for any party that does not have the revenue to chase a crooked arbitrator who uses the confidentiality agreement in the arbitration to stop any reasonable challenge.

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (respondents ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Ericsson AXE Freedom of Information applications to ACMA (the government communications regulator) should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Ericsson AXE installed telephone equipment right across Australia (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued). 

Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008, [Judge] Mr G D Friedman considered this AAT hearing and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in an open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“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.”

 

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, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable. 

My story started in 1987 when I decided my life at sea, where I had spent the previous 26 years, was over. I needed a new land-based occupation to see me through to my retirement years and beyond.

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 the business was sound.

Who would have guessed that I had to check whether the phones worked? Within a week of taking over the business, I knew I had a problem. Instead of getting phone calls, we were receiving letters from customers and suppliers telling us they had tried to call and couldn’t get through.

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

When I started to operate my business in February 1988, and beyond the late 1990s, doing business via the internet and email was not an option. That way of doing business was starting to come into its own. Had we COT Cases been operating our businesses during the period when emails and online advice were so readily available the phone and faxing problems we suffered would not have affected our business losses as they did. We did not get an efficient mobile phone system in Cape Bridgewater until 2004. 

And so, my saga begins. It has been a quest to get a working phone at the property. On the way, I have received some compensation for business losses and many promises that the problem is now resolved. It has not been resolved to this day. I sold the business in 2002, and subsequent owners have suffered a similar fate to me (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).

Other independent business people similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we ever wanted was for Telecom/Telstra to admit to our various problems, fix them all, and then 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, as an alternative, an arbitration process. It seemed like a good way to resolve the problem so we accepted this alternative. At this early stage, we honestly expected that the technical problems that prevented our phones from working would be resolved.

No such luck. Suspicions that something about the arbitration process was not quite right started almost immediately. We had been promised that the Telecom documents we needed to make our case would be made available to us if we entered into arbitration. Despite the promise by the government, they have only been made available to five of the twenty-one COT Cases, as my story shows. We were further troubled when we discovered that, during the arbitration process, our fax lines were being illegally hacked [screened], and no investigation into how many arbitration claim documents never reached the arbitrator had ever been undertaken.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212, (see Who Are We - Home page) were compiled 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 defendant) in March 1994, 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.

As AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, only provided Telstra with a copy of their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, this not only assisted Telstra during its defence of my arbitration claims, but also restricted me from knowing what documents I needed to support my claim. Point 209 in AUSTEL’s withheld report notes: 

“Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

Imagine if I had received Point 209. I would have been legally entitled to ask the arbitrator (under the arbitration discovery process) to access the information that allowed AUSTEL to make those official findings. AUSTEL discriminated against me by withholding AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

AUSTEL’s actions were an abuse of process: AUSTEL allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim. To allow me to spend more than $300,000 in arbitration fees – trying to prove something that the government had already proved against Telstra – was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached its statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia. 

It is well documented throughout my story how Telstra became a law unto itself. With the protection of AUSTEL (now the Australian Communications Media Authority/ACMA), Telstra has been able to continue treating customers who complain about its services with utter contempt. 

There are many examples of Telstra treating its small business customers differently than those with power and political influence. Point 5.57 in AUSTEL’s COT Cases Report, which is available from the government library, shows Telstra considered AUSTEL’s suggestion for a “boosted mobile service for Mr Smith at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp”. 

Point 5.59 notes:

“Telecom did investigate the suggestions and concluded that, given his location, Mr Smith could not be provided with a mobile service at a reasonable cost.”

Telstra would not agree to such a request because it would set a precedent.

AUSTEL did not consider that, around the same period, one of Australia’s wealthiest billionaires wanted to watch his cricket team play in a one-day series. Telstra came to his aid by setting up an electronic system to achieve this.

It was ok for Telstra to allow a billionaire to set a so-called precedent to achieve his goal, but such assistance was not forthcoming for a struggling small business owner trying to operate a telephone depedndent business without a reliable phone service.  

Arbitration 

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

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 knew the evidence was there to make our case that the phone lines were not working and had not been adequately tested according to agreed protocols. But, for those documents to be of any use to us, we had to obtain them. We still do not have those documents today. Clicking on the above FOI caption will show you Telstra’s lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had already devised “The COT Strategy”, advising Telstra how to conceal these relevant requested documents from the COT Cases.

Most (maybe even all) of the COT Cases would indeed have been able to walk away from their businesses with sadness if they had lost that business through fire, flood or any other of life’s tragedies.

But, to lose a business because the government allowed Telstra to use the grossly inadequate Ericsson telephone exchnage equipment that other countries around the globe were also experiencing the same type of locking-up faults with, was soul destroying.

At least eight Telstra technicians swore under oath that no such ongoing problems ever existed at the COT Cases’ businesses (and the arbitrator accepted this), despite AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings showing these witness statements were false and misleading. For the government to close its eyes to this has been the hardest injustice to live with these past two decades. (AUSTEL was the government communications regulator.)

Simply put, the COT Cases’ businesses were lost through lies and deception. 

Why was the main arbitration technical witness Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd allowed to be purchased during those COT arbitrations by Ericsson,whose faulty telecommunications equipment was the very same equipment under investigation by Lane and the arbitrator during the COT arbitrations?  

Why did government public servants feed legally sensitive, privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but conceal the same documentation from the claimants, severely disadvantaging claimants’ claims? (See Australian Federal Police Investigations)

Why did the defendants in an arbitration process (the then government-owned telecommunications carrier) use equipment connected to their network to screen faxed material leaving claimants’ offices, before redirecting it onto to its intended destination?

The defendants (who owned the telecommunication equipment under investigation) could have only been using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants. What happened to the 42 individual claim documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator’s fax machine that never arrived? Why was I never allowed to re-submit these 42 lost arbitration claim documents for assessment?

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this hacking? Is this electronic eavesdropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation, still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration? In January 1999, the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a report confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened during the COT as links Australian Federal Police Investigations and Chapter 4 - Government spying

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 above type of 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.” 

Who within the Telstra Corporation tampered with the TF 200 telephone after it left my office on route to Telstra's laboratories? 

Clicking on the caption of Ziggy Switkowski AO will have you asking, why him? Why would such a great Australian icon cover up this TF200 crime? Who had the power to pursuade Ziggy to ignore this evidence?

Absent Justice - Concealing A Crime

Tampering with evidence 

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?

After all, it was Telstra’s own internal investigations that uncovered this unlawful conduct during my arbitration, but that didn’t stop Ziggy Switkowski from accepting an "Order of Australia" award in 2014) even though he has sat on this crime for more than two decades. 

Why didn’t the Telstra board act on the evidence as soon as they discovered my claims were true?  Why didn’t they immediately remove that evidence from their arbitration defence of my claims as soon as their internal investigation unit had clarified that Telstra had indeed acted outside of the law as exhibits Open Letter File Nos/3637 and File No/38 show? This clearly raised a most important question:  why has the Telstra Board not advised the current Australian government that Telstra has both a legal and a moral obligation to rectify these wrongs as soon as possible? 

Perhaps the most important aspect of the exposure of this fraud is that the findings from Telstra’s internal investigation into this matter also show that, although the phone was collected from my premises on 27 April 1994, it was not tested until 10 May 1994, a sixteen-day time-lapse that appears to have been the reason for this internal review of their arbitration defence on this matter. The findings of that arbitration review describe how the second series of tests were actually carried out between 24 and 26 May 1994, and those tests proved that wet beer (and wet coca-cola) that had been deliberately poured into my telephone, had all dried out within forty-eight hours, a fact that totally contradicts the so-called ‘evidence’ first provided by Telstra)?

 

The corruption and fraudulent conduct during the COT arbitrations did not stop with the tampered with TF 200 touchphone. Click on the TF200 below and learn more about the two-faces of Telstra.

Absent Justice - TF200 EXICOM telephone

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. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network.

 

I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

Absent Justice - A disturbing twist

The day Telstra collected my TF200, I had been fighting an out of control scrub fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am that morning.

Another disturbing side to Telstra's tampering with arbitration evidence is that I was a volunteer firefighter for many years before this tampering occurred 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.

It is clear from the 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 was not the only wicked deed that Telstra and their thugs committed against me before, during and after my arbitration as my story shows. 

The other twist to this TF200 telephone issue in my story is, how could I have spilt beer into my telephone as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting this fire? I cerainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting by fire buddies had I been drinking beer.

No one has been prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies between Telstra, the arbitrator, and the two regulators who knows my story is true.

The Real State Offices in Portland and the three leading legal firms knew of my phone problems that had been regularly recorded since 1993 and were still reporting in 2004 the phone problems Cape Bridgewater businesses were suffering (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).

Corrupt and devious 

Open letter File No/45-G,  which did not take into account Telstra's defence on those 24,000 documents (see Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter). Golden Courier services in Melbourne sent one consignement of 24,000 documents to Brisbane from Portland all Telstra related. 

Seven times 24,000 documents in each COT arbitration equates to 168,000 claim documents, and does not take into consideration that Dr Hughes and his team had to read Telstra's defence of those 168,000 documents. And all this reading and collating and discussing the value of these 168,000 documents happened during the period Dr Hughes sat for his grading exams, failing those exams. Is it any wonder he failed the COT Cases and his exams?.

On 19 September 1996, when it was revealed to Mr J.I. Muirhead, the then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, that Telstra and the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman had appointed an upgrade arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he wrote to me noting:

"...I am advised by our Chief Administrative Officer that no reference was made to use in the appoitment of the arbitrator in the matter in which you are involved and there is always a risk in these circumstances.

I much regret that it appears that we are powerless to assist you.  

As a point of interest: since then I have had two letters from to different Presidents of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) one dated 10 April 2002, from Ian Nosworthy, Senior Vice President of the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) wrote to me in regards to the arbitrator stating that:

"...he was not at the time a graded arbitrator within the Institute, and was not included on the Register of Practising Arbitrators until well after he delivered the award in you matter on 11 May 1995"

The other letter from The Hon Michael D Kirby AC CMA dated 9 July 2009 in which he wrote: 

Click the caption below and view the type of evidence provided to the IAMA  

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 11

"In accordance with the established procedures, I have referred the complaint to the Ethics and Professional Affairs Commitee of the Institute. In due course. you will be informed following this refenece.

As can be seen from the following link Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued - legal abused part 3, the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee began an investigation calling on four occasions up until November 2009, seeking assurances that they had all the fresh evidence they had agreed to accept as part of that investigation. As of this month in 2022, I have not received the IAMA findings on that investigation. However, the IAMA refused to provide me with my 28 submissions of evidence which the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee asked me to supply.

Writing this story in all its awful detail has helped, but only in a small way, because no matter how hard we try to ignore this calamity, nothing will adequately heal the wounds and scars left by those events that the government is still declining to investigate appropriately

All the main events quoted on this website are supported by documents that should have been supplied to the COT Cases twenty-five years ago when they agreed to enter an arbitration process facilitated by the government. The government promised every single one of those twenty-one cases they would receive their arbitration and mediation discovery documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Only five of those claimants received their copies. That five had to go through a twenty-month battle where twenty-three Senators and an officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman worked with those claimants to ensure they got their discovery.

More than [one hundred and fifty thousand] FOI documents were finally received. That five also received [eighteen million dollars] between them in punitive damages. The remaining sixteen COT Case have still not received their promised FOI documents nor any punitive damages.

A deal was reached with COT Case spokesperson Graham Schorer with Senators Richard Alston, Minister for Communications and Senator Ron Boswell, National Party

That five of the twenty one COT cases known as the 'litmus'tests cases' were to blaze the trail.. If those five via the Senate proved Telstra had withheld their promised documents, the other sixteen cases would be awarded the same as the five tests case. However, in 1997, the John Howard government had other ideas. They wanted to privatise the government-owned Telstra Corporation immediately before it became common knowledge from the COT arbitrations that Telstra’s network was fault-ridden, needing major upgrades throughout Australia. The COT Cases had been right from day one. The government believed it could not afford further delays with another Senate investigation. So they abandoned these other sixteen COT cases as collateral damage (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

My story has been written on this website absentjustice.com and elsewhere in my attempt to have those 16 cases reopened.  

 

the arbitrator had no control over that process

Absent Justice - TIO

it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures 

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’ from proving their claims (see pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia) 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 arbitration agreement I signed that stated the arbitrator would have no control on the arbitration process because the process would be conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the procedures?

ABSENT JUSTICE 

My Absentjustice.com COT story is about exposing corruption in arbitration and how that corruption and deception was perpetrated by the arbitrator, his 'so-called' independent arbitration consultants, and the administrator of that process forever affected the lives of those who went into that arbitration 

Learn about the horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated upon innocent Australian citizens during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by corrupt arbitration officials with one aim: win at all costs. Learn how unscrupulous and highly paid legal professionals administered them while Telstra officials pulled the strings. 

These lawyers unlawfully preyed upon the COT claimants, denying them their fundamental right to discovery using tactics not seen in arbitration before. 

As shown on page 5169 in SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.Telstra's lawyers devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

The above two links clearly shows Telstra and their lawyers were lying to the government months before the government endorsed the COT arbitrations, unaware they were to be show trials kangaroo courts that Telstra had orchestrated.

The arbitrator used for the first four arbitrations had already assisted Telstra in a previous Federal Court Action taken out by one of the four COT cases Graham Schorer where the arbitrator and his legal firm had concealed vital documents from his then-client Mr Schorer. The very same client he was now to arbitrate on (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest). The statutory declaration sworn by Graham Schoer (see (refer to File 567 - GS-CAV 522 to 580). shows quiet clearly had Mr Schorer knew that important Telstra Federal Court documents had been concealed by Dr Hughes and/or his legal firm during Mr Schorer's Federal Court Action against Telstra he would not have accepted Dr Hughes as the arbitrator hearing his claims for a second time.  

to Infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable 

A click on Senator Kim Carr will have you reading 'The collusion continues'

Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Most disturbing an unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript that is now attached on the website as Chapter 9 - Spurious claims 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.” 

The only relevant documents received by the claimants came months after the conclusions of their arbitrations.

It was a duck shoot slaughter with the arbitrator pulling the trigger. 

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston 

Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information  

On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalized 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 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 focused 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.”  

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard

These six senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process

Being threatened to be held in contempt of the senate for exposing the crimes what several senators had already exposed in secret In-Camera Hansard statements is not democracy.

 

A click on the jail bars below is a must

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice

Jail time

To add yet another alarming set of circumstances to this unbelievable story, I need to take the reader back to 1999, when the Victoria police Major Fraud Group seconded me as a witness in their attempt to prove Telstra had committed fraud against four of the twenty-one COT Cases during their arbitrations (namely Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowman. The Major Fraud Group learned I had prepared three separate technical reports (Tampering With Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). 

I agreed to provide those three reports which are now on this website with minor cosmetic changes. 

After the Federal Government put the Major Fraud Group under political pressure to abandon the four fraud claims against Telstra, I met two senior Victorian police officers who apologised for what they realised was indeed an ordeal for me: not only my failed arbitration but also the failed Victoria Police investigation. I was provided with a small A4 storage box, taped shut. They advised me my four larger boxes of evidence would be couriered to a designated location. I asked if this small package could be included, as I preferred not to carry it away. The look in the eyes of the police officer in charge was stern and direct, and when he stated, “NO, you take this box with you now,” I didn’t argue!

In this box were two Senate Hansard records dated 6 and 9 July 1998, plus proof that Telstra had committed fraud during the COT arbitrations, intercepted COT-related faxes during arbitration, and signed and/or altered legal documents as well as having misled and deceived the senate concerning. 

Possibly the worse of all the documents in this A4 storage box were the two In-Camera Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998. For Telstra to have gotten away with what they have against 16 fellow Australian's is bad enough. But for Telstra to have been protected by the government for more than 24-years is what has ruined the lives of the 16 COT's who were promised discovery and never got it. 

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

The following list identifies some areas (in the AUSTEL draft report) where AUSTEL had problems with access to Telstra records on the service provided to me:

Point 43 on page 20 “As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residents prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area.”

Point 48 on page 22 “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”

Point 71 on pages 28 and 29 “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”

Point 140 on page 49 “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

Point 160 on page 55 “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”

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 duty of care 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?

Criminal Conduct Continues

Ex parte  “Ex parte” is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party”. An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about issues in the case without the other parties’ knowledge. Under the Judicial Code of Conduct, judges may not permit or consider “ex parte communications” in deciding a case unless expressly allowed by law. This ban helps judges decide cases fairly since their decisions are based only on the evidence and arguments presented to the court and the applicable law. It also preserves trust in the legal and court system.

The 22 March 1994 transcripts of a clandestine gathering, where the COT cases were not represented (see Open letter File No 54-A), shows Telstra’s Mr Chalmers, the author of the minutes, has left out points 4 and 5. Point 6 follows point 3. Where are points 4 and 5?

This is further proof that Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitratorshould have never allowed this secret meeting to take place without the COT cases being represented. Most, if not all, Western democracies would expect the defendants and their lawyers to be present in the judge’s chambers. In this case in secret with the arbitrator, the defendants and the TIO and his special counsel. The missing discussion material or questions raised at points 4 and 5 may well be why the parties present agreed to Telstra lawyers drafting the agreement, instead of the independent arbitration agreement the government and claimants were assured would be used. It could also be where Telstra and the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, agreed Telstra would allow the arbitration resource unit first access to all arbitration procedural material (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590, Chapter Seven). This allowed the arbitration resource unit to decide which documents Dr Hughes and the claimants would be allowed to see, and which would be discarded.

We will never know what was concealed from the COT cases during this clandestine gathering. Although the arbitration resource unit admitted, in writing 18 months after the first arbitration was finalised (see Open letter File No/45-H), to Dr Hughes that they concealed at least four relevant billing claim documents from the arbitration process.

The missing questions raised at points 4 and 5 in the minutes of this clandestine meeting may be linked to the arbitrator and his arbitration resource unit allowing for the more adverse findings against Telstra to be covertly addressed outside the legal arena of the COT arbitration process.(see Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?).

If the addressing of non-addressed arbitration issues had nothing to do with points 4 and 5, then what could have been so detrimental to the arbitration process that these points were excluded from these minutes?

Open letter File No 54-A shows those who attended this clandestine meeting were Telstra’s arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, Telstra’s general counsel, David Krasnostein, Telstra’s lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Simon Chalmers, TIO special counsel, Peter Bartlett, arbitrator, Gordon Hughes, TIO Warwick Smith and his secretary Jenny Henright. Except Jenny Henright, all were lawyers and therefore all knew this was an illegal gathering. What was so important about this meeting that only the arbitrator and defence attended it?

Why weren’t the COT Cases and or their lawyers advised of this meeting?

Upon reading this segment Open letter File No 54-A), and the following Prologue page, you will come to the same conclusion many others have: arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes should not have secretly met with Telstra (the defendants) prior to arbitration to discuss what rules in the arbitration agreement would be removed and which would remain. This clandestine meeting (without the claimants being represented) also covered how to protect – to exonerate – the arbitrator’s consultants from incurring any liability for negligence and to exempt the unit from being sued. Of course, this was to the detriment of the COT cases and our legal right to a have recourse over the arbitration consultants if the resource unit was negligent in their duties. It will be clear, after reading Open letter File No 54-A), the arbitration resource unit was negligent during my own arbitration process and I was unable to hold them to account for those actions, due to those negligent clauses being removed in my arbitration agreement.

Before COT Cases were forced into arbitration without the necessary documents, we needed to support our claims the arbitration agreement was altered after the final copy had been signed by the first claimant Maureen Gillan, and after it had been faxed to our lawyers as the final agreement.  

Absent Justice - Violated Rights

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 the comple 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 were now bullet proof. They could freely do what ever they liked, when they liked and there was nothing anyone could do. This website absentjustice.com shows this is exactly what happened. 

The Secret meeting tells it all the way it was:

Telstra's minutes [transcripts] from this clandstine meeting show no COT claimant or their representative were present at this important meeting show at point six that:

“Mr Bartlett [TIO Special Counsel] stated that he was unhappy that Telecom did not appear prepared to allow his firm an exclusion from liability. …

“Mr Smith [TIO Warwick Smith] stated that he thought it was reasonable for the advisers to incur some liability, and that the only matter left to be negotiated on this issue was the quantum of the liability caps.

“Mr Black [Telstra] said that he thought the liability caps proposed by Telecom in the amended rules were already reasonable.” (See Open letter File No 54-A)

Points 4 and 5

I reiterate, the fact that Open letter File No 54-A shows the author of these minutes has left out points 4 and 5 i,e; point 6 follows point 3 is of great concern. Why would points 4 and 5 be removed if they were not damning evidence against the conduct of the arbitration process? 

What information was originally exposed in those two points that prompted Telstra’s lawyers to remove them from the minutes that the arbitrator would have surely received or composed his own? (see Open letter File No 54-A

This is further proof that for Dr Gordon Hughes should have never allowed this secret meeting to take place without the COT cases being represented. Most, if not all, Western democracies would condone allowing the defendants and their lawyers to be present in the judge’s chambers (arbitrator’s office). The missing discussion material or questions raised at points 4 and 5 may well be why the parties present agreed to Telstra lawyers drafting the agreement, instead of the independent arbitration agreement the government and claimants were assured would be used. It could also be where Telstra and the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, agreed and accepted that Telstra would allow the arbitration resource unit first access to all arbitration procedural material (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590, Chapter Nine). This allowed them to decide which documents Dr Hughes would see and which would be discarded (see also page 4 here which shows Telstra’s Steve Black wrote to Warwick Smith on 24 July acknowledging the resource unit would be allowed to vet which documents Dr Hughes would see and which he would not.

The TIO has, to date, declined to explain what circumstances occurred to change this. Who pressured the TIO to allow the advisors to be exonerated from all liability in relation to our arbitrations? Why would the TIO special counsel be:

“unhappy that Telecom did not appear prepared to allow his firm and exclusion from liability”?

Why it did not occur to either the TIO or the arbitrator that, once the directions regarding liability were removed, this would allow complacency to creep /the arbitration process? This is exactly what our  absentjustice.com pages show happened.

Had COT cases been represented at this hearing (as we were legally supposed to be), we would have been fully aware prior to 21 April 1994, the day we signed this document, that our rights to fair arbitrations were going to be violated.

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

Hiding behind a tainted confidentiality agreement - Section three

Although the 19th April, 1994 Arbitration Agreement issue has been addressed elswhere on absentjustice.com, it is important to link it here to the issue when the arbitrators secretary, faxed a copy of the FTAP Agreement to lawyers, Mr Goldberg and William Hunt. Mr Hunt was seeking a legal opinion on the agreement before Graham Schorer and I were to sign it on 21st April 1994.  The following three clauses are included on page 12 of the version of the agreement faxed by the arbitrators secretary:-

Clause 24: Neither the Administrator nor the Arbitrator shall be liable to any party for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these Rules save that the Arbitrator (but not the Administrator) shall be liable for any conscious or deliberate wrongdoing on the Arbitrator’s own part.

Clause 25: The liability of Ferrier Hodgson and the partners and employees of Ferrier Hodgson for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these rules (other than in relation to a breach of their confidentiality obligations) shall be limited to $250,000 jointly.

Clause 26: The liability of DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd and the directors and employees of DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration conducted under these rules, other than in relation to a breach of their confidentiality obligations) shall be limited to $250,000 jointly.

In the agreement presented to the COT claimants for signing two days later, on 21st April 1994, clauses 25 and 26 were removed and only some of the wording was added to clause 24

The final version of Clause 24 reads: 

“Neither the Administrator, the Arbitrator, the Special Counsel, a partner or employee of the legal firm of which the Special Counsel is a partner, a member of the Resources Unit, Ferrier Hodgson or a partner or employee of Ferrier Hodgson, DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd shall be liable to any party…”

Clause 24 now had a different meaning to that presented by the original three separate clauses and it freed Peter Bartlett and Minter Ellison from any risk of being sued for misconduct in their role as Legal Advisors to the process and thereby provided no incentive for them to ensure the COT claimants were involved in a fair and just process.

The altered clause 24 also has the original $250,000 liability cap against FHCA and DMR removed from the Arbitration Agreement faxed to Mr Goldberg and William Hunt on 19th April 1994.

This letter in June 1994, 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. Why were the claimants NOT advised of the reinstatement of the liability clauses? Why were we not offered the opportunity to go back to the original agreement that the arbitrator’s secretary had faxed to Alan Goldberg QC and William Hunt (COT lawyer) as the approved final agreement? Why were the three claimants (including me) forced to continue with an arbitration agreement that allowed the Resource Unit to be safely exonerated from all liability, YET in the agreement used by 12 other COT claimants; they were mandated to conduct those arbitrations within the law? Three COT claimants, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms and I, were discriminated against, without question. Exhibit Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42 is from the TIO’s Standard Arbitration Rules used for other COT-type claims against the Telstra Corporation. Liability is covered in Rule 31, which states:

“The liability of any independent expert used by the Arbitrator is limited to $250,000 for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration”.

This means that any Australian citizen who enters into a TIO-administered arbitration could sue any independent expert used by the arbitrator, to the limit of $250,000 “for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration”. Graham Schorer and I were not afforded these same entitlements. This was, in fact, illegal as well as discriminatory. That the defendants (Telstra) in an arbitration were able to discuss with the official administrator of the process (in this case the TIO) whether certain discovery documents or pieces of evidence should be released to the arbitrator, and even whether they should be released at all, shows just how much control the defendants (Telstra) had over the administrator.

If this forced removal of the $250.000.00 liability caps for one section of the COT group and not all of the COT cases was not grossly discriminative by Australia's Establishment of the worse possible kind, then what is?

The exonerated arbitration project manager see Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) who in 2022 operates an arbitration centre in Melbourne and Hong Kong, went on to deceive the COT Cases as to who assessed their technical claim material was brought about because there was no safety net against such unethical practices as occurred during my arbitration.

The following Corruption in Arbitration link, is relevant to my https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl-TxwIoRxU link which talks about the selling off of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to Ericsson.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded most appallingly, John Pinnock (the second administrator of the COT arbitrations) advised a Senate committee (see pages 96 to 97 [sic] be determined.” (See GS File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

The remaining five arbtration claimants were now under investigation by the Senate for not having received their requested Ericsson discovery ocuments under ate agreed process of FOI were awarded $18 million dollars between them in punative damages.

The other sixteen COT Cases who had already been through arbitration without having received their requested Ericsson disovery documents under the same agreed process of FOI are still waiting to be treated equally as the other COT Cases. (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)

 

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

The unlawful purchase of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period representatives of the Australian government officially assigned them to investigate Telstra's continued use of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges in Australia is being concealed under a confidentiality agreement the COT Cases signed, unaware at the time they signed this agreement that the leading technical arbitration consultant would be purchased by the company it was investigating. 

 

Ericsson (Sweden) Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia) and Telstra (owned by Australia)

Continued from the draft  Home page Ericsson and Telstra link discusses the purchase of Lane (Australia) by Ericsson at the same time, Lane was the official arbitration technical consultant assigned to transparently investigate serious claims concerning the deficiency of the telecommunications equipment provided by Ericsson to; Telstra.

It is therefore most important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as discussed 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/)

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. Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness to be purchased during a highly legalist arbitration process.

The following 2022 link ... https://www.icij.org , "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq", suggests the COT Cases were right to demand answers to why Ericsson, Telstra and those conducting the COT arbitrations did not abort all of the COT Cases arbitrations. Ericsson's business tactics should have also been question by the Australian government in 1996 when Ericsson purchased the main arbitration technical witness investigating to the COT arbitrations. 

It is not too late for the Australian government to view existing evidence that proves the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange faults the COT Cases raised in their arbitration continued after the conclusion of their arbitrations. What has the government got to lose but learn whether the COT claims are true or false?

It is clear from Exhibit 46-C (Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 31-A to 46-E attached to Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report) that Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) raised my Ericsson AXE evidence showing my claims were validated two months before my arbitration even commenced.

It is also clear from Exhibit 46-C that AUSTEL chair Robin Davey stated in the Senate that my Ericsson AXE evidence was most compelling and suggested the Ericsson AXE fault could be a major national problem as more and more Australian telephone exchanges were connecting to the Ericsson AXE equipment.

In AUSTEL’s own April 1994 report, provided to both the arbitrator and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, shows on pages 167 and 168 how damaging and severe the Ericsson AXE problems were at my local Portland telephone exchange (see Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 46-F to 62).

Unprecedented Corruption is continued on Corruption in Arbitration 1

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book
‘Absent Justice’

Alan Smith’s book shows us corruption, fraud and deception perpetrated against fellow Australian citizens by the then government owned Telstra Corporation and the use of an 'arbitration confidentiality gag clause,' which is still being used in 2022 to cover up the many crimes committed by Telstra during their arbitration defence of the COT Cases in 1994 to 1998.

This book is asking the government why are these crimes committed by Telstra being concealed under a gag clause?

THIS BOOK IS 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 (see Absent Justice Book 2)

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

“…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

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

Sister Burke

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

“…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

“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

“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

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

– Edmund Burke