Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Corruption In Arbitration 1

 

learn about the criminal corruption and misleading and deceptive conduct that was rife throughout all of the COT arbitrations.

Corruption in Arbitration 1

Criminal Conduct Example 1

“COT Case Strategy” 

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

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 named businesses. 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. 

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 Mr 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?

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 July 2022, 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 October 2022, 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. 

Criminal Conduct Example 2

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

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. 

 

ooOoo

Criminal Conduct Example 3

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993, from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP) he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, he appears to have also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence, (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry) later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a major threat of a Senate enquiry.

Was this secret government party-room information passed on to Telstra by the administrator to our arbitrations have anything to do with the Child Sexual Abuse and the cover-up of the paedophile activities by a former Senator who had been dealing with the four COT Cases? The fact that Warwick Smith, the soon-be administrator of the COT settlement/arbitrations, provided confidential government in-house information to the defendants (Telstra) was a very serious matter. 

IMPORTANT AUTHORS NOTE

When three witnesses and I provided Senator Richard Alston conclusive proof that Warwick Smith had proved privileged COT Case government discussed party room information to Telstra, as the following TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms, he was shocked. Still, he did say he would follow up this issue with Warwick Smith as a matter of great concern. NONE of the four COT Cases receievd advise from either Senator Alston or Wawrick Smith why Warwick Smith had been allowed to get away with this matter when it was so important to all four commercial assessment processes, 

Absent Justice - Conflict of Interest

On 30 November 1993, this Telstra internal memo FOI document folio D01248, from Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s Group Manager – Customer Affairs and TIO Council Member writes to Ian Campbell, Customer Projects Executive Office. Subject: TIO AND COT. This was written seven days after Alan had signed the TIO-administered Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this memo, Mr Benjamin states:

“At today’s Council Meeting the TIO reported on his involvement with the COT settlement processes. It was agreed that any financial contributions made by Telecom to the Cot arbitration process was not a matter for Council but was a private matter between Telecom, AUSTEL and the TIO.

I hope you agree with this.”

This shows that Telstra was partly or wholly funding the arbitration process.

If the process had been truly transparent then the claimants would have been provided with information regarding the funds – specifically, the amounts provided to the arbitrator, arbitrators resource unit, TIO and TIO special counsel for their individual professional advice throughout four COT arbitrations.

It is still not known how the arbitrator billed Telstra for his professional fees or how the TIO billed Telstra for his fees, and those of the TIO-appointed resource unit and special counsel. This raises the questions:

Was the arbitrator and resource unit paid on a monthly basis?
Did the resource unit receive any extra bonus for being secretly appointed as the second arbitrator in determining what arbitration documents the arbitrator was allowed to receive and what was withheld (see letter dated 11th July 1994, from Telstra to Warwick Smith)?

Without knowing how these payments were distributed by the defendants to the parties involved in the first four arbitrations, it would be impossible for the TIO and AUSTEL (now the ACMA) to continue to state that the COT arbitrations were independently administered.

To summarise the issue: during these four arbitrations, the defence was allowed to pay the arbitrator and those involved in the process. How is this different to the defendant in a criminal matter being allowed to pay the judge? It is a clear and concerning conflict of interest.

The COTs never had a chance

Absent Justice - Senate

“There are regular reports from the TIO on the progress of the CoT claims.”

Senate Hansard information dated 26th September, 1997 (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 124-B) confirms that:-

Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s main arbitration defence liaison officer in Graham and Alan’s arbitrations, was also a member of the TIO Council; and
During a Senate hearing into COT issues, the then-new TIO, John Pinnock, agreed that Mr Benjamin had not removed himself from council discussions of COT matters:-

Senator SCHACHT – “Mr Benjamin, you may think that you have drawn the short straw in Telstra, because you have been designated to handle the CoT cases and so on. Are you also a member of the TIO Board?”

Mr Benjamin – “I am a member of the TIO council.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Were any CoT complaints or issues discussed at the council while you were present?”

Mr Benjamin – “There are regular reports from the TIO on the progress of the CoT claims.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Did the council make any decision about CoT cases or express any opinion?”

Mr Benjamin – “I might be assisted by Mr Pinnock.”

Mr Pinnock – “Yes.”

Senator SCHACHT – “Did it? Mr Benjamin, did you declare your potential conflict of interest at the council meeting, given that as a Telstra employee you were dealing with CoT cases?”

Mr Benjamin – “My involvement in CoT cases, I believe, was known to the TIO council.”

Senator SCHACHT – “No, did you declare your interest?”

Mr Benjamin – “There was no formal declaration, but my involvement was known to the other members of the council.”

Senator SCHACHT – You did not put it on the record at the council meeting that you were dealing specifically with CoT cases and trying to beat them down in their complaints, or reduce their position; is that correct?”

Mr Benjamin – “I did not make a formal declaration to the TIO.”

The fact that Ted Benjamin, as a TIO Council officer, would have a good idea from the TIO meetings on how far advanced each of the COT arbitrations was and what the arbitrator was discussing with the TIO (who was also the administrator to the arbitrations) on when each claimant my further advance his claim knowing this inside information assisted Mr Benjamin when to release requested FOI documents to each of the claimants and when to hold back any relevant document that could jeopardise Telstra's defence. 

It was grossly unethical for Warwick Smith to have allowed this to have happened and it was just one more nail in each of the COT Case's coffins.

Criminal Conduct Example 4

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 arbitrator) should 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 - Deception Continues

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 and William Hunt (our lawyers) 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 is not criminal discrimination by Australia's Establishment of the worse possible kind, then what is 

Download Attachments

Arbitration Legal Opinion AS 701 to 756
CAV Exhibits 701 to 756
AS-CAV-996 to 1001
AS 701 to 576
DMR & Lane draft and final almost identical reports

Criminal Conduct Example 5

This example 5 is still being edited - thank you

 

 

Criminal Conduct Example 6

Absent Justice - TIO

Telstra had first access to my claim documents 

For the TIO to have allowed Telstra to view my arbitration material before it went to the arbitrator, if it went to the arbitrator, was collusion between Telstra and the administrator. For the TIO to have allowed Telstra’s Grant Campbell access to my arbitration claim material before it reached the arbitrator was collusion between Telstra and the administrator of my arbitration. As this website shows, 41 sets of claim documents do not appear in Telstra's arbitration schedule of documents I sent to the arbitrator's office. Likewise, 41 claim documents I sent to the arbitrator do not appear on his scheduled list of documents received. 

Where are these 41 sets of claim documents?

Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D shows Telstra’s Grant Campbell was associated with my settlement/arbitration in the very early days. This facsimile cover sheet (File No/56-A) from Mr Campbell to Warwick Smith, who was the administrator to my arbitration headed Allan [sic] Smith – Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, and Expression of interest by Ferrier Hodgson. 

It is clear from Grant Campbell's letter to Telstra's Fiona Hill (File 56-B File No/56-A dated 9 February 1994, that he signs off his letter on behalf of Warwick Smith. Grant Campbell's letter discusses my loss of fax capacity, in which he states to Fiona Hill:

“I spoke with Alan Smith on 9th instant following on the 8th instant [sic].

“He has agreed that this is a new matter and whilst it may be indicating some ongoing problems, it is not a matter that relates directly to the preparation of his material to be presented to the Assessor.” (See Open Letter File No/56-B)

This comment, however, does not correlate with the many problems I continued to experience and record throughout my FTSP, nor the 31 January 1994 account for my dedicated fax line that I provided to Grant Campbell. And, as far as Mr Campbell stating that I “agreed that this is a new matter” and that “it is not a matter that relates directly to the preparation of [my] material to be presented to the Assessor”, this was a blatant lie as False Witness Statement No 7-A) confirms.

I asked Mr Campbell to ensure Warwick Smith was supplied with my evidence confirming numerous people, including my accountant and lawyer (see Open Letter File No/56-D to E), we're still unable to send faxes to assist me with preparing my claim before the assessor Dr Gordon Hughes. I have grave doubts whether that faxing evidence was provided to Warwick Smith, who had he received it, would have been duty-bound to provide it to Dr Hughes. The fact that my records of these Ericsson AXE faxing problems, as well as 008/1800 evidence material, were not supplied back to me after my arbitration was finalised when the arbitrator was duty-bound to return ALL evidence under clause 6 of the arbitration agreement suggests Grant Campbell never forwarded my Ericsson AXE material to Warwick Smith.

One of four documents I provided personally to Grant Campbell on this day in question is the following example  False Witness Statement No 7-A) which shows a Portland Telstra technical consultan experienced significant problems during his official fax-testing process of my service on 29 October 1993.

Why would I tell Grant Campbell in February 1994 “…that this is a new matter when the following document shows the problem was in existence before October 1993, i.e.;

Absent Justice - My Story - Joker Seven

“During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception. Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules. … Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t. During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3). (See False Witness Statement No 7-A)

Open Letter File No/56-F is a letter, dated 25 February 1994, from the minister for communications’ office, detailing the ongoing telephone and faxing problems I was experiencing. My interim letter of claim, dated 27 January 1994, addressed to Dr Hughes, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and John Rundell (see Open letter File No/46-A) had a 37-page report attached to it showing massive ongoing faxing problems beginning in January 1993, at the latest.

I gave two pages of data from Telstra’s Call Charge Analysis System (CCAS) Grant Campbell and Warwick Smith. These printouts (see Open Letter File No/56-H) are particularly interesting because a handwritten list indicates Telstra secretly monitored and recorded people I spoke to on the phone or faxed in connection to my FTSP.

Not so impressive is the fact that none of the information I document above concerning the loss of faxing capacity is mentioned anywhere in Dr Hughes’ award or the DMR and Lane reporting, which suggests that Telstra’s Grant Campbell thought it essential to misinform all interested parties concerning my settlement/arbitration faults to minimise Telstra’s liability.

Open Letter File No/56-C shows my faxing problems continued in October 1993. This also contradicts Mr Campbell’s statement, on 9 February 1994 (see Open Letter File No/56-B), that I advised him these faxing faults were new problems.

Open Letter File No/56-G is a Telstra two-page internal memo, dated 3 March 1995, for the attention of D Campbell, T Benjamin, S Black and G CampbellTed Benjamin and Steve Black were, in March 1995, Telstra’s arbitration liaison officers to my arbitration and Grant Campbell was well situated in Telstra’s arbitration unit. Doug Campbell was Telstra’s group general manager of operations, possibly the worst of Telstra’s “dirty tricks departments” (so named in the Senate Hansard of 26 September 1997). All four employees were firmly involved in my arbitration. How could Warwick Smith possibly allow Grant Campbell anywhere near my claim documents? My FTSP claim documents originally addressed to Dr Hughes, Peter Bartlett, Warwick Smith and John Rundell (see Open letter File No/46-A) have never been returned to me.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, from points 2 to 212 confirm the government states my phone problems were of plague preporation and at point 209 in their report they note

“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.”

How many documents assessed by Grant Campbell were concealed from the assessor as well as Warwick Smith? Of course no one cares and never did care, as my story shows.

Telstra FOI documents show that, after Mr Campbell returned to Telstra, he began addressing the same type of problems he had previously assessed in connection to my case while wearing his TIO hat, only now he was making those assessments while wearing his Telstra hat concerning another COT claimant from Brisbane, Queensland.

Not only did Warwick Smith allow Grant Campbell access to my claim material, but he then allowed his resource unit also to have first access to Telstra arbitration procedural information in a secret deal concocted with the defendants, which allowed the resource unit to decide what documents THEY believed the arbitrator should see and which should be discarded (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590 Chapter Six to Chapter Nine). This is why the other COT cases and I are still fighting for our right to a fair, properly conducted, transparent arbitration process.

Was there a more sinister motive behind the decision to ignore my billing claims, the same 008/1800 billing faults that Telstra’s Grant Campbell was investigating while working with the TIO (on secondment from Telstra) and then working on again, later, after he went back to Telstra to work alongside TIO Council Member Ted Benjamin?

Did Ted Benjamin's relationship with Telstra and the TIO Council have anything to do with his later relationship with Grant Campbell? There appears to be NO doubt that this particular issue – of Grant Campbell addressing 008/1800 problems on behalf of the TIO and then on behalf of Telstra, all during my arbitration – created a massive conflict of interest. 

Could it be that, when I told Mr Campbell that he needed all the documents related to his earlier settlement, from before December 1992, so he could show how undemocratic this 1992 settlement process was, Mr Campbell then passed that information straight on to Telstra, thereby effectively alerting Telstra to which documents they could ‘lose’ because it was relevant to my case?  It is also interesting to connect this issue to the letter written on 11 November 1994 to Telstra from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, asking why the earlier settlement material that I had requested under FOI had still not been supplied to him.

Telstra FOI documents H00027 H36279, and H36280 File-542-C AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588) confirm that, in January and February 1995, Grant Campbell and Ted Benjamin were addressing the same types of 008/1800 billing issues on behalf of Telstra’s Customer Response Unit. This is the same Unit that Ted Benjamin headed when he wrote to Dr Hughes on 16 December 1994 to confirm that Telstra had advised AUSTEL, in writing, that they would address my 008/1800 billing issues as part of their defence of his claim, as per the arbitration agreement. I have always been concerned about Grant Campbell’s handling of my 008/1800 arbitration materials that went through the TIO’s office in 1994.

Twelve months after Alan originally asked for these documents, Telstra finally considers it important that he gets them – too late!  And the arbitrator had gone to Greece.

The TIO’s June 1994 annual report has no record of Mr Campbell working in the TIO office during the period he was signing off letters for Warwick SmithThis suggests he was on the defendant’s payroll when he gave out this false information concerning my phone and fax services.

 

Criminal Conduct Example 7

Although we are starting Criminal Conduct Exhibit 7, the dated period of 26 September 1997, which was after most of the arbitrations had been concluded. The discussion by Barry O'Sullivan in the Senate on 26 September 1997 refers to very early in 1994 before the COT cases reluctantly signed their arbitrations in April 1994, regardless of being promised on 23 November 1993 by Telstra and the government they would get all of the documents they requested under FOI. Here we COT Cases were in April 1994, six months into the process and still waiting for documents to support our claims. 

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) as well as having been shown evidence that Telstra’s lawyers had devised a spurious legal paper directing their client how to conceal technical data under Legal Professional Privilege even though it was NOT privileged  the second-appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the FIRST four -mentioned COT members (which included me), allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?

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

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

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

On 17 February 1994, when Telstra (the defendants in the commercial assessment process) Warwick Smith (the administrator of the commercial process) and Dr Hughes (who later became the arbitrator to the arbitration procedure) began to force the four COT Cases out of their commercial losses assessment process, which AUSTEL had facilitated in October 1993  Robin Davey, AUSTEL Chair, (who had drafted that commercial assessment process) wrote to Telstra’s Steve Black, stating:-

“The thrust of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal was review and assessment. This may be seen by contrasting the words in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal with their emphasis on “…a review…”and on “…an assessor…”  (see File GS 164 - GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215 

Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, Telstra, Peter Bartlett (Arbitration legal counsel) and Dr Hughes met to discuss the settlement arbitration process.  Telstra’s transcript of this meeting confirms the COT claimants still wanted a commercial settlement process – not an arbitration procedure

On page three of the transcript, Dr Hughes states arbitration would be more effective and that, as arbitrator, he could give “appropriate directions for the production of documents” and he “would not make a determination on incomplete information”. (GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215 - See GS-CAV 165)

Comment:

In my case, Dr Hughes DID make his determination on incomplete information when he handed down his award, even though Dr Hughes’ own Technical Consultants, DMR and Lane, asked for extra weeks to complete their findings – a request Dr Hughes denied.  Dr Hughes also did not access documents for me, under the discovery process, despite being aware Telstra did not provide this information under FOI.  This is a complete about-face from the statement he made to the COT claimants in this meeting.

As has been further confirmed above on page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, before I and the other three COT Cases signed for arbitration, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and Dr Hughes all assured us the documents we required from Telstra would begin to flow through to us once our signatures were on the agreement.  However, as I have shown in  Criminal Conduct Exhibit 5 The Arbitration Agreement was secretly altered just 36 hours before we were told if we did not sign this altered agreement, Telstra would walk away. The inference was we could not afford to take Telstra to court so we had better sign it, or suffer the consequences of a long court and expensive legal battle. 

Barry O'Sullivan, who advised the senate (see Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia) how worn out we COT Cases were and why we eventually signed the arbitration agreement traumatised beyond all belief, later became The Hon Senator Barry O'Sullivan (National Party}.  

Criminal Conduct Exhibit 8

 

Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police

As shown in the An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens - Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police page, the |Major Fraud Group Victoria police was during the late 1990s and the begining of 2000 and 2001, concerned about the conduct of Telstra during several COT Cases arbitrations.

What we later found out concerning the type of in-house emails that these hackers wanted to share appears to have been associated with correspondence, between Telstra, its lawyers, and AUSTEL, discussing vital information that Telstra and its lawyers wanted the government to remove from their COT cases report. The only thing we COT cases have at present that resembles the type of evidence the hackers wanted to provide to us is two letters between Telstra and AUSTEL, dated 8 and 9 April 1994 (see Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C). These letters demand AUSTEL remove its true finding from its public report – stating that some 120,000 COT-type complaints had been located – and replace that figure with hundreds or more COT type complaints, which AUSTEL did by stating in the formal report:

…the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”  (Manipulating the Regulator - Chapter 3 Devious and distant).

The fact that Telstra had so much power over a government communications regulator that it was able to force it to drastically reduce the numbers included in AUSTEL’s COT Case April 1994 fings, from some 120,000 COT-type customers who were having similar problems, right around Australia, to just 50-plus, is mind-blowing, to say the least.

Were these the same letters from Telstra to AUSTEL (see (see Falsification Report File No/8) that prompted the hackers to advise COT case spokesperson Graham Schorer that the government was assisting Telstra in their defence of the COT cases claims i.e. our arbitrations were not being conducted under the rule of law? What did the hackers find amongst Telstra arbitration documents in order for them to form the opinion that the rule of law was not being abided too?

Graham Schorer, (COT Case spokesperson) COT Case Ann Garms, Sue Owens (COT Case lawyer) and I discussed with the Major Fraud Group Victoria police, our belief that the Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy email (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). This email also attached to Hacking Julian Assange - Chapter 5 - Criminal conduct appears to be one of the sample document the hackers wanted to provide Graham to show him even Telstra's lawyers (who also worked for the Australian Government) were involved in ilegally stopping the COT Cases from proving their claims. There would have to be a discussion paper showing the importance of this discussed sample Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C email on file in the Major Fraud Group - Victotia police archives.

In his witness statement, ex-Telstra principal protective service officer Des Direen acknowledges that when he tried to access the Portland exchange logbook, local Telstra Portland technicians advised him the logbook was probably missing due to the investigation of the Cape Bridgewater COT case (me). See Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File 517 File AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Point 22 in Des Direen’s witness statement notes:

“… when I made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne I was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra. I later found out the Cape Bridgewater complaintant [sic] was a part of the COT cases.”

What was so alarming about the content of this logbook that Telstra felt the need to conceal it from both the arbitrator and me during the discovery process of my government-endorsed arbitration, as well as concealing it from John Wynack, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s director of investigations? This logbook has never been seen by me or my advisors.

A 12 February 1997 letter from Telstra to John Wynack (director of investigations in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office) concerns my original 1994 request for arbitration FOI documents (which I have still not received to this day). This letter states:

“You comment that you believe Telstra ‘should have taken steps to protect documents covered by [Mr Smith’s] request whilst it consulted with Mr Smith in an attempt to scope down the FOI request’.

“It is the case that Telstra did indeed take such steps, as Telstra wished to retain all of the files created by Mr Black relating to the CoT claims. ... As a result a large number of files (86 in all) were forwarded to the FOI Unit. Unfortunately, at the time the files in question were apparently not recognised as files relating to CoT matters, rather they were thought to be simply files of miscellaneous material.

“As you will see from the above these files were inadvertently disposed of.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

Mr Wynack wrote to Telstra, concerning my FOI issues, on 11 March 1997:

“On 7 March 1997 I sought information from three Telstra officers about one aspect of your response to that complaint viz the disposal of some of Mr Black’s papers after Mr Black left the employ of Telstra.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7 letters from the Commonwealth Ombudsmans office in support of my claims)

A further letter from Mr Wynack on 13 March 1997 to Telstra, concerning my FOI issues, states:

“During the course of her interview, Ms Gill informed me that the papers dealing with Mr Black’s role in establishing the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure were on an ‘arbitration file’ and that that file is one that is missing. Ms Gill said that ‘.. I don’t recall having sent it to anybody and I don’t recall having put it in the bin..’. Ms Gill said that the ‘arbitration file’ was a manila folder ‘..but a fairly thick one.’ ...

“On the basis of the information given to me by [Telstra] and Ms Gill, it is extremely improbable that Ms Gill disposed of the documents in the ‘arbitration file’, or indeed any other documents from Mr Black’s office which would have been included in Mr Smith’s FOI application of 18 October 1995.″ (See Senate Evidence File No/59)

Telstra has still not provided me with a copy of their ‘arbitration file’ despite Mr Wynack’s letters referring to it.

The fourth 14 March 1997 letter from Mr Wynack to Telstra states:

“I refer to my letter of 13 March 1997 concerning the complaint by Mr Alan Smith alleging that Telstra unreasonably has delayed providing documents requested under the FOI application of 18 October 1995.

“I should be grateful if you would notify [Telstra employee], Mr Kearny and Ms Gill of my opinion that ‘On the basis of the information given to me by [Telstra employee] and Ms Gill, it is extremely improbable that Ms Gill disposed of the documents in the ‘arbitration file’ or indeed any other documents from Mr Black’s office which would have been included in Mr Smith’s FOI application...’ ” (See Senate Evidence File No/59)

Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997, pages 76-77, show Senators Kim Carr and Schacht discussing my still outstanding arbitration matters, including:

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 this is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him.” ... . . . .

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, 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?” (See Senate Evidence File No 2A & 2B)

Chapter 4

Absent Justice - Tampering of Evidence

No punches were thrown

PLEASE NOTE. Re the newspaper clipping and charges against me: No punches were thrown by me during this altercation with the sheriff who was about to remove catering equipment that I needed, to keep trading, from my property. I actually placed this man in a ‘full nelson’ and walked him out of my office. The Magistrates’ Court dropped all charges on appeal, when it became obvious there were two sides to this story.

Melbourne lawyers, Michael Brereton & Co, sent this 20 August 1997 letter to Senator Ron Boswell, detailing how the process had failed me:

“The conduct of the arbitration which followed was highly dubious and open to attack as inviting questions of bias since the arbitrator ruled out many relevant documents to the detriment of Mr Smith’s claim... All of these circumstances and the fact that the entire arbitration was conducted in a highly legalistic manner much in favour of Telstra on rules it forced into place suggest that Mr Smith was less than fairly dealt with by Telstra and the arbitrator.” (See Senate Evidence File No/58)

Senator Ron Boswell’s son Steven immediately suggested that this letter clearly supported COT cases’ claims against the conduct of the arbitration process. I was, by then, included as one of the group that the Senate estimates committee working party was going to investigate. At this stage, however, in August/September 1997, the Senate working party had not yet divided the 21 COT claimants into two groups, the A (or ‘litmus’) group and the B group.

Again, on 4 October 1997, My Wynack writes to Telstra stating:

“I refer to my letter to Telstra dated 13 March 1997 (copy attached for your convenience) in which I asked you to inform me of the specific file which Ms Gill described as the ‘arbitration file’, and whether Telstraasked [sic] Mr Black whether he has any knowledge of the whereabouts of the file.

“I have no record of receiving a response to my inquiries. Please inform me when I might expect a reply.” (See Senate Evidence File No 7)

I’m still waiting for a copy of this ‘arbitration file’, despite discussing it with Senator Ron Boswell on 20 August 1997 and despite Graham Schorer and I being told it would be provided to us once the Senate estimates committee started their FOI investigations.

Questions on Notice (1)

This 24 October 1997 letter from John Pinnock, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrationsto) to Ms Pauline Moore, (secretary to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts legislation committee) is important to add here in this Ericsson and Lane segment. This letter, stamped CONFIDENTIAL, includes the following statement:

“The COT Arbitration Procedures contain provisions relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings, which bind the parties. Those provisions also bind the Arbitrators, the Resource Unit, the Special Council and the TIO in my role as Administrator. ...

“Accordingly, I ask that the answers given below to the questions on notice be treated as confidential by the Committee and not be published. ...

“9.      Yes, from time to time I have received complaints from foundation COT members, concerning a range of matters, including alleged non-compliance with the rules of the Fast Track Arbitration Procedures by Telstra and/or the Arbitrator and/or the Technical and Accounting Resource Unit. ...

“10.    Yes, I have refused to provide COT members with a copy of Telstra’s Preferred Rules of Arbitration. A copy of this document was not provided because it was of historical interest only, and the COT members did not advance any argument as to why it was relevant to their arbitration.” (See Senate Evidence File No 14 letter from TIO to secretary of Senate admitting to withholing copies of Telstra's rules of arbitration from the claimants)

John Pinnock's insistence that the agreement was not provided to the COT claimants because: “it was of historical interest only, and the COT members did not advance any argument as to why it was relevant to their arbitration”, is a misrepresentation of the truth – to hide the fact that there were several reasons as to why this arbitration agreement was so imporatnt to the COT Cases during their pending appeal processes. 

Graham Schorer, as COT spokesperson, first asked for a copy of the Fast Track Proposed Rules of Arbitration some time before 17 February 1994, so the decision that it would be kept from the claimants was made at least a full two months before we signed the final version of the arbitration agreement. It was therefore entirely “relevant to their arbitration”. The COT claimants were legally entitled to know whether the arbitration agreement was drafted independently or if the defence crafted it, in their favour. 

The COT Cases also wanted to know when and why DMR Group Inc (Australia), the official appointed arbitration consultants who signed the same confidentality arbitration agreement, was no longer the technical consultants. Warwick Smith (the first administrator of our arbitrations) refused to tell the four COT Cases the date DMR Group (Australia) had pulled out of the process. Why did it take to March 1995 for Warwick Smith to inform us four COT Cases that Lane was now taking over when rumours had it in government circles that DMR Group (Australia) had resigned their commission in September 1994. 

Telstra’s Arbitration File, which the TIO was still refusing to supply us in October 1997, was the same arbitration file that John Wynack, director of investigations in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, was trying to access from Telstra on my behalf in October 1995 through to October 1997. It is clear from the letters dated between October 1995 to October 1997 (two years) that John Wynack, director of investigations in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office did not beleive Telstra had destroyed the arbitration file I had been seeking for so long

Would this arbitration file (had it been provided) according to the FOI Act [according to law] that FOI Act to which John Wynack on behalf of the Commonwealth was trying to access on my behalf exposed when Lane and Ericsson had entered into the arrangements they did when this purchase took place?

How can the government who originally endorsed the first four arbitrations continue to ignore that we were entitled to receive Telstra’s arbitration file during our designated arbitration appeal process? Do not forget John Pinnock's letter to me, dated 10 January 1996, (when I advised him I was appealing my arbitration) he wrote: “I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office,” (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal 

Questions on Notice (2)

There are further issues surrounding the TIO’s answers to similar Questions on Notice asked by the Senate committee. The TIO’s official response confirms that Ericsson purchased the arbitration main technical consultancy firm, Lane Telecommunications, during the COT arbitrations. All the technical information that I supplied to Lane Telecommunications during my arbitration, confirming the AXE Portland and Cape Bridgewater lockup problems were not just a local problem but a national and international problem, affecting hundreds of exchanges all over the world, was acquired by Ericsson.

At least three other COT claimants also had businesses connected to Ericsson AXE exchanges and their claim material, too, was on Lane’s computer data files when the company was sold.

Chapter 5

ACMA Australian Government

My Administrative Appeals Tribunal v ACMA 

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) hearings (respondents ACMA on behalf of the Australian government) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) and 26 May 2011 (No 2010/4634) show I maintained my Freedom of Information (FOI)  applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge, in the public interest. 

Telstra and the government had previously withheld that information from me during my April 1994 to May 1995 government-endorsed arbitration process, thus not allowing me my legal right to prove to the arbitrator that my phone problems were still apparent.

Sadly, without that information, the arbitrator did conclude my arbitration, and thus the phone problems continued to affect the viability of my business for a further twelve years. Some of that withheld information can be viewed in the attached following three exhibits Tampering of Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report  and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report)

These three reports were also provided to Senior AAT member Mr G D Friedman who after viewing this material attatched to my 157-page AAT submission stated: 

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

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

Mr Friedman also stated to ACMA that as a show of good faith, the government should now release to me all of my previously withheld FOI documents which I should have received during my 1994/95 arbitration. I reiterate, I have never seen my requested Ericsson AXE arbitration data.

It is now 2021, and the government has still not been provided these FOI documents (see 12 Alternate remedies pursued - Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued).

During my second AAT hearing (No 2010/4634), Mr Friedman stated:

“Mr Smith still believes that there are many unanswered questions by the regulatory authorities or by Telstra that he wishes to pursue and he believes these documents will show that his unhappiness with the way he has been treated personally also will flow to other areas such as it will expose the practices by Telstra and regulatory bodies which affects not only him but other people throughout Australia.

“Mr Smith said today that he had concerns about the equipment used in cabling done at Cape Bridgewater back in the 1990s. He said that it should – the equipment or some of the equipment should have a life of up to 40 years but, in fact, because of the terrain and the wet surfaces and other things down there the wrong equipment was used.”

During this second AAT hearing in May 2011, I again raised the telephone problems that had affected my business from before my arbitration to 1995, stressing that the arbitrator had failed to investigate or address most of those problems, and therefore allowed them to continue for a further 11 years after the end of the arbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-2011 and is still continuing today, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my arbitration and both AAT hearings, have been found to have continued unabated; this can be confirmed by a simple internet search for “Australia NBN”.

One of the documents I provided both the arbitrator in 1994 and the AAT in 2008 and again in 2011 is a Telstra FOI (folio A00253) dated 16 September 1993 and titled Fibre Degradation. It states:

“Problems were experienced in the Mackay to Rockhampton leg of the optical fibre network in December ’93. Similar problems were found in the Katherine to Tenant Creek part of the network in April this year. The probable cause of the problem was only identified in late July, early August. In Telecom’s opinion the problem is due to an aculeate coating (CPC3) used on optical fibre supplied by Corning Inc (US). Optical fibre cable is supposed to have a 40 year workable life. If the MacKay & Katherine experience are [sic] repeated elsewhere in the network, in the northern part of Australia, the network is likely to develop attenuation problems within 2 or 3 years of installation. The network will have major QOS problems whilst the CPC3 delaminates from the optical fibre. There are no firm estimates on how long this may take. …

“Existing stocks of Corning cable will be used in low risk / low volume areas.” (See Bad Bureaucrats File No/16)

Were the citizens of Australia entitled to be advised by the Australian government, before it sold off the Telstra network, that, e.g., the aforementioned optical fibre with CPC3 coating, supplied to Telecom/Telstra by Corning Inc (USA), was installed in their area? How many people in Australia have been forced to live with a subpar phone system, i.e., a known poor optical fibre that Telstra should NEVER have installed? How many businesses have gone up against the wall due to Telstra’s negligent conduct of knowingly laying their existing stocks of Corning cable in locations that Telstra believed were low risk/low volume areas?

Chapters one to three in our Tampering With Evidence page show Telstra was also prepared to re-deplore some 450,000 faulty TF200 telephones to locations where Telstra thought moisture was non-existent. The decision-makers regarding where Telstra installed these moisture-prone phones were certainly not trained in meteorology. I doubt that Telstra or the government advised these TF200 customers when Telstra was sold off, that if they were experiencing phone problems that this was no longer Telstra’s problem or the government’s.

The Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 4 - Government spying shows that in February 1994 Detective In February 1994, Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose and Constable Melanie Cochrane of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) visited my business to discuss my concerns regarding the possibility my telephone conversations were being intercepted as well as my faxes. During this visit, I spoke to Constable Cochrane regarding my concerns about the privacy issues connected to my singles club records, explaining I had provided club members with a written assurance that I would not circulate their private information to anyone without first seeking their permission. Hence, I was particularly concerned about submitting club members’ private information into my Fast Track Settlement Proposal. Constable Cochrane commented that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO: the administrator of our arbitrations) should contemplate suspending our settlement process until after the AFP finished its investigations into Telstra’s unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations and in-confidence faxes. The TIO refused that request, even though much of my single club material was sensitive.

The sensitive material referred to was so alarming it led to the AFP requesting I continue to provide all relevant material I received to the AFP, as part of my their investigation as well as my own arbitration process, that confirmed Telstra was intercepting my telephone conversations and faxes. Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 1 - Hacked documents confirms both my private and businesses faxes were intercepted over many years, and my phone conversations for a considerable period. This invasion of my privacy occurred more than 26 years ago, before terrorism was a concern for our great nation. I have never been even suspected of being a criminal. On 25 March 1994, one month before I signed the arbitration agreement, The Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms Philippa Smith, wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, advising him Telstra had informed Mr Wynack, director of investigations, the delay in releasing documents to me

“was due to the need for Telecom to check all documents prior to release so that Telecom is alert to the possible use/misuse of sensitive information. Your officers also informed Mr Wynack that they expected the vetting of the documents would take only a couple of days.” (Home Page – Part One File No/2-B)

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

During this visit, Constable Cochrane and I discussed my concerns about privacy issues regarding my singles club records. I explained I provided club members with a written assurance that I would not share their private information with anyone without first seeking their permission. I was particularly concerned about submitting any of club members’ private information into my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (the settlement process that later became the arbitration process and this is discussed in Call For Justice Part One and throughout absentjustice.com). Constable Cochrane remarked that the TIO should contemplate suspending our settlement process until after the AFP finished their investigations into Telstra’s unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations and in-confidence faxes. (see also Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 7- George Close)

Starting on page 5163, this link SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard) were being unlawfully siphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

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

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

Even before the arbitrator brought down his first deliberation, both he and the TIO were warned, on 18 April 1995, that there were “forces at work” derailing the arbitrations (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues.- Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). They both ignored this written advice. This letter to the TIO, from the arbitration project manager, was also concealed from the claimants during the same designated appeal process.

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

The AFP failed to protect the COT Cases and are still not facing up to what they did was not acceptable conduct. .

Please read our Australian Federal Police Investigations page and decide if it was ethical, or moral, for Dr Hughes to expect me to disclose further personal and private information about the female members of my singles club (see Criminal Conduct Prologue - Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, for all to see, while the AFP were investigating Telstra regarding its recording of names and phone numbers of female singles club members when that information was only ever sent by fax or discussed over the telephone.

I wrote to both Telstra and Dr Hughes, on 20 September 1994, regarding the seriousness of these privacy issues. I noted:

“This matter is currently under investigation by the Federal Police. In the interest of fair justice I believe that I should not further comment apart from what I have already stated that it is true that I was told this by Detective Superintendent Penrose. If the Australian Federal Police are prepared to disclose the details of their investigations and of their dates of conversations with myself, then Telecom will be able to obtain the same.”

Why didn't the arbitrator Dr Hughes mention in his written findings that numerous arbitration-related documents which had clearly left my office were hacked before reaching their intended destination?

Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations.

It is also clear from FrontPage Part One File No/1File No/2-A to 2-EFile No/3File No/4 and FrontPage Part One File No/5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator's office did not reach their intended destination.

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. Why didn't the arbitrator and administrator investigate why so many arbitration documents were just not reaching their intended destination? 

Absent Justice - My Story

On 21 March 1995 during the arbitration process, four members of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) group, i.e. Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, myself, and very distraught gentlemen from Ballarat, were all invited to present information to a Senate debate that had been set up to discuss proposed amendments to the Telecommunication Interception Bill 1994.  We all spoke at this hearing, and some of us also introduced documents to support our claims that Telstra had been intercepting our telephone services without our knowledge, and therefore without our authorization.

We have not named who this Ballarat distraught COT case member is because to do so might link back to some of the people he was counselling in the 1990s.

On the 20 May 1994, Cathy Lindsey, A coordinator from the Haddon Community House who had previously organized groups from Ballarat to venture to my holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater, signed a statutory declaration, at my request, which I then provided to Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff explaining several sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (see exhibit 22 file AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47. This declaration leaves questions unanswered as to who collected my mail and how did they know there was mail to be collected at the Ballarat Courier mail office. 

On both occasions when this mail was collected by the person posing as me, I had previously telephoned Cathy from Cape |Bridgewater informed her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me there was mail addressed to me waiting to be picked up. 

On pages 12 and 13 on the Australian Federal Police transcript ( see exhibit 765-D file AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789   dated 26 September 1994 show that the AFP stated to my Question 59

"And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?"

On 12 December 1994, an ex-Portland Telstra technician admitted to intercepting my telephone conversations over an extended period. A letter dated 14 April 1994, from Telstra's Arbitration Unit to Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose acknowledged that a bell used to ring at the Portland telephone exchange whenever a telephone call came into my business. 

The attached AFP transcripts (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) dated 26 September 1994, taken during their second interview with me concerning Telstra’s unauthorised interception of my telephone conversations and my further claims to both the government and AFP that it appeared as though my faxes were also being hacked  I agreed to hand over to the AFP all fresh evidence received under FOI from Telstra that suggested I had been subjected to this unauthorised attack on my then civil liberties

Why didn’t the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, mention in his written findings that numerous arbitration-related documents which had clearly left my office were hacked before reaching their intended destination?

Open Letter File No/12 and Open Letter File No/13 prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations.

It is also clear from Front Page Part One of File No/1, File No/2A to 2EFile No/3File No/4 and Front Page Part One of File No/5 that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator’s office did not reach their intended destination.

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. Why didn’t the arbitrator and administrator investigate why so many arbitration documents were just not reaching their intended destination? 

Chapter 6

Absent Justice - My Story

Pending Appeal Process 

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates 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.” (File No/14)

It is also clear from  Tony Watson Part One File No/1 File No/2A to 2EFile No/3File No/4 and File No/5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator’s office did not reach their intended destination. 

Was this letter 12 May 1995 Open Letter File 55-A actually faxed to my office by the ombudsman 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)? 

A further matter of importance concerning this major point that must be noted here concerning this 12 May 1995 letter to Warwick Smith is that I did I not receive a copy from the TIO’s office until 2002, and I have so far only touched briefly on its significance here. A more in-depth study of this letter raises the following questions:

Dr Hughes states: “… as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration.”

  • How could he make such a statement when he had received written notification that the Government Solicitors had to be brought in to force Telstra to comply with FOI requests by the four COT members (which included me)? and
  • How could he make such a statement after seeing a copy of John Rundell’s letter of 18th April 1995 to the TIO (see also Introduction Page) which states: “It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.”

Was the man totally blind, or was he just afraid to expose the truth?  Please note that this letter (attached) was also copied to Peter Bartlett of Minter Ellison, the TIO’s Legal Counsel in Arbitration.

Also, in this same letter, Dr Hughes makes the following comments, which all need to be explained by the TIO’s office: 

  • The time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;
  • In particular, we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports;
  • In summary, it is my view that, if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.

It is patently obvious that, immediately on receipt of this letter, as the administrator of the Arbitration Agreement, Warwick Smith should have abandoned the process and intervened on my behalf to allow a review and allow me more time to obtain further particulars, produce documents and prepare his technical report.  John Rundell’s letter to Mr Pinnock on 15th November 1995 (refer Prologue/Chapter One), regarding the inadequate time frame and how it affected the completion of the DMR & Lane technical report, adds further weight to the allegation that the process was severely flawed.

12 May 1995: Dr Hughes writes to Graham Schorer, copied to Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett, and others stating: “…I am departing today for two weeks leave. When I return, I intend convening a directions hearing in order to determine whether the parties wish this arbitration to proceed. I would be interested to receive any comments from you (or Telecom) in the meantime. (Exhibt GS 218 file GS-CAV 216 to 257)

Please note: There is no reference in this letter stating: It is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.

Another alarming document included in those received from the TIO in 2002 was a fax cover sheet to Peter Bartlett of Minter Ellison from the TIO, regarding some of my letters to Dr Hughes (concerning my late received FOI document) and my consequent letter to Mr Pinnock on 21 June 1995, concerning the non-supply of requested FOI documents.  This fax cover sheet notes, in reference to my arbitration“…what the approach should be re parties seeking to revisit post Arbitration.  This position is not to open the can of worms” (Exhibit AS 184 file AS-CAV 181 to 233). This document certainly suggests that my arbitration process was certainly not administered as transparently or as lawfully as it should have been.

Why wasn’t the Senate Estimate Committee who were investigating these arbitration documents issues provided a copy of Dr Hughes’ 12 May 1995 letter to Warwick Smith as well as copies of my letters to the TIO office concerning late received FOI documents which had been concealed from me by a member of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Council in his role as Telstra’s FOI officer? How could the TIO office (as the administrators of the COT arbitrations) allow one of their members to be in charge of distributing FOI documents to the COT Cases? The whole TIO administration of the COT arbitrations by the TIO was a total facade in order to protect Telstra. 

Starting on page 5163, this link > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) were unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants and our lives have been ruined, simply because we believed that what we were doing would eventually benefit all Australians.

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

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

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

On 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate committee were told we five COT cases had to be stopped at all cost from proving our claims, a number of senators discussed Telstra’s legal firm and its COT strategy, dated 20 September 1993. This strategy advises how Telstra can conceal technical information from the four main COTs (which included me) under Legal Professional Privilege, even though the documents were not privileged (see  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, page 5169). The COT strategy is available at Prologue Evidence File No/1-A

The author of this COT strategy is the same lawyer with whom I was forced to register each of my phone complaints in writing before Telstra would address these problems. NONE of the fault information I provided to this lawyer, concerning ongoing telephone problems and Telstra’s response to those problems, were ever released to me during my arbitration.

To further support my claims that I was forced to proceed with the arbitration before the telephone problems were fixed as part of the process, one only has to read the newspaper article in the Portland Observer dated 8 November 2002 (seven years after my arbitration was concluded) which notes under the heading ‘Holiday Camp still plagued by phone and fax problem.’

“The telecommunications problems which plagued former Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith have continued to beset current owner Darren Lewis.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-D)

Chapter 7

Absent Justice - My Story

On 28 January 2003, False Witness Statement File No 3-C confirms a letter from the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman office was sent to Telstra concerning these same ongoing unaddressed phone faults:

“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:

That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.

That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.”

Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate as part of the agreed to arbitration process (see  Tony Watson Part One File No/1)? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was now refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?

Amazingly, one section of the manuscript I am currently working on, in relation to this never-ending Telstra saga, explains how I finally ended up counselling Darren Lewis, the person who eventually bought my telephone-plagued business in December 2001, seven years after the arbitrator brought everything to a screaming halt.  The new owner had asked me for help because he was becoming suicidal with worry about what Telstra might still be doing, even though I had told him that I believed it was more of a vendetta against me by Telstra rather than a known ongoing phone problem within Telstra’s network.

I thought Telstra would have no more reason to keep causing so many problems in this vendetta campaign against me.  Sadly, for Darren, that turned out to be wrong; the problems were entrenched within the network.  And remember, the sale of the property was forced on me in the first place because the arbitrator refused to allow his arbitration technical consultants the extra weeks they officially requested, in writing, so they could properly investigate my complaints of ongoing telephone problems that were still affecting my business, even as the arbitration itself was in progress (see Prologue/Chapter One).

Absent Justice - My Story - Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp

Was Now Under Surveillance

Of course, before Darren formally purchased the business, I had told him about the problems I had had with Telstra, but, as I have noted above, I also told him that I believed all the problems would go away once Darren took over.  What appeared to be the most worrying for him was a concern about whether or not Telstra was then secretly intercepting his telephone calls as it had been proven to have happened to me (see Australian Federal Police Investigations/Chapter One to Five). Since Darren was, of course, using the same telephone number that Telstra had been intercepting my telephone conversations from, he convinced himself this was now happening to him. The question he kept asking again and again: is how did Telstra’s Tony Watson (see False Witness Statement File No 3-C ) know that Darren had been in contact with me unless Darren himself was now under surveillance?

NONE of the COT cases was ever on a terrorist list in 1994 (or since, for that matter) and none of us was ever listed as suspects regarding any crimes committed against any Australian citizens. Why were our in-confidence arbitration / Telstra-related documents hacked by Telstra?

In my case, 42 separate sets of correspondence faxed to the arbitrator’s office (some with attachments) are not listed on the Arbitration Schedules of Material as received by the arbitration process. Front Page Part One File No/1 shows the arbitrator’s secretary advised Tony Watson (of Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) that on 23 May 1994 six of my claim documents did not reach arbitrator’s fax machine. Yet, I was charged on my Telstra account for those six faxes. When this matter was exposed, no one from the arbitrator’s office nor the TIO’s office allowed me to amend my claim so that proven “not received” claim documents were valued by the arbitrator in support of my claim.

Some of these 42 not received arbitration faxed claim documents had multiple attachments, evidence that would have won my case of ongoing telephone problems. The arbitrator only found against Telstra for old historic phone problems. 
None of my ongoing phone problems that continued to affect my business during my arbitration was ever investigated by the arbitrator 
(see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues).

On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis provided the Hon Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration noting:

“Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.

“After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.

“Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

“Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems. …

Most, if not all, of the COT Cases, suffered from sleep disorders and stress for years as a result of their battles, with Telstra’s senior management who continued to deny there was ever a phone problem affecting their businesses.  It was these types of denials by Telstra employees like Tony Watson after the COT Cases had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees after the government had promised would be fixed as part of the government endorsed processes that caused so much damage. to that were causing so much stress for the COT Cases such there were no such complaints. On 23 February 2007, after Darren Lewis become suicidal following a confrontation with Telstra over ongoing telephone problems at the camp, Ms Howard, a Portland psychologist, visited my Cape Bridgewater residence. She was struggling to understand what Darren was talking about and why he felt suicidal. I provided Ms Howard with documents supporting Darren’s valid claims about Telstra’s deficient services, adding that I was sorry that Darren had ended up this way.

I also provided Ms Howard with a letter dated 8 November 2002, from a man in South Australia (See  Home Evidence File No/15), who also lost his building business in Cape Bridgewater due to ongoing telephone problems. This letter also notes mentions the possibility of his telephone conversations were being intercepted.

George Close, the technical consultant for the COT cases, visited Darren’s residence in Cape Bridgewater in April 2007, after I showed him Open Letter File No/12 and Open Letter File No/13.  We discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on my overall submission to the arbitrator in 1994 as well as the still unaddressed faxing problems Darren and Jenny Lewis had been experiencing up to at least November 2006. After Mr Close had visited my residence in 2011, he sent me an email, on 5 August 2011, to assist me with breaking open this terrible denial of justice which the COT cases had to endure during and after their failed arbitrations noting

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

“He had been shown fax’s [sic] which had clear indication of 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.” (See Front Page Part One File No/26).

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.

I believe that Darren first became concerned about the possibility that his phone conversations also may have been illegally listened to when he discovered my accreditation file in the camp office, where I had inadvertently left it when handing the Camp over to Darren. This file included Australian Federal Police/Telstra intercept documents, including one dated 14 April 1994 from Telstra to the AFP, notifying them that Telstra had installed equipment in the Portland exchange so that a bell would ring whenever I received an incoming telephone call so that the person on duty could then listen in on those conversations. I provided this Risk Management Plan to the Australian Government as well as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal during my 3 October 2008 Freedom of Information hearing – No V2008/1836.

In my letter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 24 April 2008 I note:

” I also hope that you understand why I used a friends name and address on the envelope when I first sent my submission, and my paranoia won’t affect your assessment of my case. As further support for my concern, please also read the last paragraph on page ten of my submission, which discusses Telstra’s Tony Watson and how he was reluctant to talk to the new owner of my business, Darren Lewis, because Darren was in contact with me. My submission’s Exhibt 4 is a letter from the TIO to Telstra, which also relates to this same issue” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-D)

As I have reported throughout this webpage numerous Telstra COT related arbitration documents (like those lost on route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 on route to the arbitrator hearing my case.

As Darren’s December 2008 letter below shows, I helped him prepare his bankruptcy appeal against the Australian Taxation Office (for back taxes) using my own evidence that the Telstra Corporation, knowingly submitted two false and fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater reports to the arbitrator during my arbitration, to deliberately mislead the arbitrator into believing that there were no more ongoing phone problems affecting my business.

Absent Justice - My Story

SVT & BCI reports missing 

In December 2008, Darren Lewis wrote to the Federal Magistrates Court stating:

“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:

  1. Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp
  2. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34
  3. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);
  4. Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.

“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” (See My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B)

Australia Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all of the information originally enclosed, those documents must, therefore, have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Magistrates Court.

These two reports namely the BCI and SVT information were both related to the Ericsson faulty equipment which was used as evidence by Telstra during my arbitration falsely advising those involved in my arbitration that Telstra’s testing of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telecommunication network including my business customer access network had been tested in November 1993 just before I signed my arbitration agreement and again in September 1994 during my arbitration and on both occasions, no faults had been located i.e.my service was now up to the government regulator specifications when AUSTEL’s the government regulator new this was clearly not the case as their own documents (see exhibits  AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report show.

It is important to note that My FOI application to the ACMA, although directly related to my Telstra-related arbitration documents, was also clearly in the Public Interest because they should have been supplied by AUSTEL (now the ACMA) when they were investigating my telephone complaints both before and during my arbitration, both because the process had been endorsed by the Government and because it was apparent that AUSTEL had used information concerning my business phone faults which they could have only obtained from Telstra when they were preparing their draft report on my matters (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

Absent Justice - My Story

A flawed process

I have still not received the FOI documents that Mr G D  Freidman, believed the government should provide me as part of this official AAT (government) FOI investigation.

To have been literally forced into 12 separate investigations over two decades, because I sought a reliable phone service in order to operate my telephone-dependent business, has been soul searching, to say the least.  Telstra used outside lawyers as well as in-house lawyers during the arbitration process to convince the arbitrator that the very problems he was investigating were only historic complaints, rather than the ongoing complaints first registered with Telstra six-plus years previously. This is unconscionable conduct. Telstra was still unable to fix these problems eight years later when the arbitration drew to a close – and yet the arbitration agreement states that findings could not be brought down until these problems were fixed.

Worse, Telstra and its lawyers only achieved this result, because, as our story shows, the government communications regulator (then AUSTEL, now ACMA) allowed Telstra to address some of the most relevant arbitration claim documents in secret, without my or the arbitrator’s knowledge. This despicable act not only prevented the arbitrator from realising how bad these ongoing telephone problems were, but also disallowed me my legal right of reply under the arbitration agreement (rules). The government regulator also allowed Telstra’s submission of arbitration witness statements prepared by at least one Portland Telstra technician, despite my claim advisor (an ex-detective sergeant of police) proving to the arbitrator, during arbitration, that this particular witness statement was more than just fundamentally flawed: the author had perjured himself on at least two accounts. And, yet, the government allowed this same witness statement to be used secretly in a process that should never have been allowed to proceed without the arbitrator and me present. This is clearly maleficent of the worse possible kind.

If, like me, you were one of the few surviving COT small business owners, would you not want the government, who endorsed your arbitration, to explain exactly why they have continued to cover up these injustices for more than two decades?  Losing a business through fire, or flood, or something else that cannot be controlled on any level, is definitely a tragic situation; losing a business as the direct result of deliberate government bureaucratic maleficent is somehow much worse.

Clicking onto Absentjustice Part 1, 2 and 3. will lead you further into this incredible unbelievable story. 

Telstra’s Acronyms & Jargon

The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the   Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

 

Next Page ⟶
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

“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

“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

“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

“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

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

The Hon David Hawker MP

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

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

– Edmund Burke