Corruption In Arbitration 1
The injustices perpetrated against several Australian citizens in conjunction with corrupt government bureaucrats under the umbrella of legally administered arbitrations must be investigated in the public interest The volume and frequency are so overwhelming that we felt it important to present them here on absentjustice.com.
Criminal Conduct Example 6
Intelligence networks that Telstra has established
Eves dropping is evil to gain a commercial advantage over your neighbour
It was imperitive I use the following Bernard Collaery covert electronic evesdropping by Australia while negotciating a deal with Timor-Leste which had legal rights to the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap because it concides with the statements made by Senator Kim Carr Senate - Parliament of Australia to Telstra Graham Ward concerning the intelligence networks that Telstra has established as well as the statements made by two qualified technical consultants in Scandrett & Associates facsimile interception report Refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.
On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers at point 7 of his 12-page paper noted:
"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition".
Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government have stated they were unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.
Using the Australia–East Timor spying scandal as an example which can readily be checked by googling the words Australia–East Timor Spying - Witness K Bernard Collaery, we can compare this spying scandal with what Telstra did during several government-endorsed COT arbitrations when the Telstra corporation was then still owned by the Australian government (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13).
This appears not to have been considered in the most recent Witness K and Bernard Collaery phone-bugging scandal (see abc.net.au court-document-witness.
I found the Bernard Collaery - The Police State article most relevant to the matters raised by the COT Cases and their dealings with Telstra. Bernard Collaery has hit the nail squarely on the head.
Just as important is, how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking? Is this electronic eaves-dropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today, during legitimate Australian arbitration's?
Criminal Conduct Example 7
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,
Criminal Conduct Example 8
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.
Criminal Conduct Example 9
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.
Criminal Conduct Example 10
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.
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?
