Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Unprecedented Deception

 

PART ONE - Unprecedented Deception

A brief introduction to the COT story and a corrupted arbitration procedure.

The whole COT Case arbitration issue is extraordinarily complex.  The COT claimants were constantly confronted by unscrupulous people who were prepared to do almost anything in order to conceal the truth from the claimants, and in doing so, caused serious damage to those claimants on a number of different levels.  This means that, as we set up this website, we found that the only option we had was to separate the various stories under different headings see menu bar above. 

As the website grew, we also discovered that some of the issues related to more than one event and, in fact, were sometimes linked to multiple events and that meant that the one event needed to be repeated in a number of different sections of the website, so that the depth of the corruption and the illegal activities that were committed during the arbitration could be fully and properly understood. 

Example 1 

Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 under the heading: Carolyn Friends files tell a different story to the one told by Dr Highes this segment shows in September 1995, my Federal Member of parliament the Hon David Hawker MP provided a copy of report to the Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston which discusses the unethical way in which my arbitration was conducted (see Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and  File No/41 Part-Two.

Absent Justice - Hon David Hawker MP

The arbitrators' secretary files tell a different story to the one told by the arbitrator??  

It is also essential for anyone who reads Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two to understand that a copy of that report dated June 1996 was initially been sent to Paul Fletcher at his request, during the period he was an adviser to Senator Richard Alston (the then-newly appointed Minister for Communications and the Arts). Paul Fletcher, current Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, in the 2022 Scott Morrison government has still not acted on that report or the attachments accompanying it.

Attached to that report were two additional arbitration submissions titled Alan Smith - Addendum Cape Bridgewater (BCI) report and the other Alan Smith - Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT report; both reports vanished during my arbitration.

DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia) state in their final evaluation Cape Bridgewater Report of 30 April 1995 on my calls losses that A comprehensive log of Mr Smith’s complaints does not appear to exist.”  When it did exist, attached to my comprehensive log of the complaints that DMR & Lane did not find included both my BCI and SVT reports.

Why would a claimant, after spending fifteen months in a settlement/arbitration process that started on 23 November 1993 and when the arbitration consultants started valuing his claim in April 1995, forget to provide them with a comprehensive log of his phone complaints going back to February 1988?

Why would someone of sound mind, after spending over $200.000.00 [Two Hundred Thousand Dollars] in arbitration fees in their attempt to gain a reliable phone service, forget to submit that elusive comprehensive log of Mr Smith’s complaints

Someone highjacked the BCI, SVT reports, and the complete log of my phone complaints as they did again sixteen years later, as Example 2 shows.

Example 2: 

Absent Justice - My Story

the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report

In 2008, Darren Lewis (the new owners of my business) 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)

PLEASE NOTE:

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.

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.

File 12-B attached to  My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B is a copy of my letter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 21 April 2008 (dated seven months before my evidence enclosed in Darren and Jenny's Magistrates Court documents was highjacked). In my letter to the AAT, I state: "...I also hope you understand why I used a friend's name and address on the envelope when I first sent my submission, and my apparent paranoia won't affect your assessment of my claims".

I enclosed my friend's address on my main submission 168-page document. After all, at that time, I could not personally drive the 430 kilometres to Melbourne to hand-deliver that submission because I wanted to be sure it arrived.  I did not think of advising Darren and Jenny Lewis to do the same when they sent my Telstra related evidence to assist in their ATO - tax defence.  

Darren Lewis's Letter to the Magistrate 

As Darren’s letter shows, I helped him prepare these reports two in 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 BCI and Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp Service Verification Testings (SVT) results to the arbitrator during my arbitration, to deliberately mislead the arbitrator into believing that there were no more ongoing phone problems affecting my business, when the faulty telephone equipment used in that testing had not proved those findings at all.

But more importantly for Darren and Jenny Lewis (my BCI and SVT evidence needed on that crucial day to assist Darren and Jenny Lewis) win their case againts being declared bankrupt went missing, as did the same BCI and SVT evidence during my 1994/95 arbitration Sixteen Years Previous.

Who in government had the power to highjack 'steal'  the same two reports in two different investigations over a sixteen year period? 

A further question that has still not been answered by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) or the government bureaucrats who are aware of the validity of my storu is: 

The following Taking on the Establishment / Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story  shows on 28 January 2003, a letter from TIO officer Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:  

“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.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

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 transparently? 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?

Darren Lewis was so angry with this Telstra employee that he took a number of photos of the actual wiring that ran from Telstra’s pit to his residence and his office (the same office that was mine from 1988).

As part of his plans to renovate the house, Mr Lewis had begun to prepare for a heating system to be installed under the house but, in the process, as he sunk his shovel into a water-soaked area, he accidentally cut into a Telstra cable that was only buried half a shovel deep. Water from an overflow downpipe from the main accommodation block had been running off and collecting over the Telstra cabling that had obviously not been buried deep enough (see the following photos taken by Mr Lewis at the time).

According to the AUSTEL’s records, the Telstra cable was installed in 1991 and, as this photo below shows, it was this faulty installation that led to the cable itself becoming waterlogged. Yet, on 6 April 1995, during my arbitration, when I begged Telstra and the arbitration’s so-called independent technical consultants to run a series of tests to all three of my service lines and inspect the Telstra pit outside the office to ensure that the Customer Access Network (CAN) was up to the proper network standard, my request was refused outright.

Mr Lewis took 22 photos that day, showing just how poor Telstra’s workmanship was when the cable was installed. The open pipe was full of water and water had run down the pipe to the u-bend. After Telstra installed new cabling, Darren advised the TIO, the number of incoming calls increased by more than 100 per cent: this is confirmed by CCAS data.

So what was my arbitration about? Shouldn’t the TIO and the technical consultants he appointed have investigated why I was still registering ongoing telephone problems? It certainly appears the real reason for the way the arbitration was run was to ensure that the Telstra Corporation could continue to conceal all the problems created by their ailing copper wire network, and really, all the arbitrator had to do was grant us an award to compensate us and cover up the rest, exactly as it has been ever since, for the past 20-plus years.

There must be a reason a once owned government corporation like Telstra can treat the new owners the way they did and know no one would investigate. 

Both my prepared BCI and SVT report was stolen twice in two government processes my arbitration in 1884 and the Lewies Federal Magistrates court hearing with the Australian Tax Office.

My bet is the government wished I had died in China or shut my mouth about their very tainted wheat deals.

Clicking on the Australian Federal Police Investigations documents, you will also be able to verify my story by firstly checking the exhibit number and then scrolling down the page until you arrive at the exhibit you want to view. This process allows you to view other documents which the reader might find interesting.  

Who would ever have believed that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with advice from the government that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded. We have no alternative but to include the exhibits the way we have. This is truly an unbelievable story.  

PART TWO - Unprecedented Deception

A brief introduction to the COT story and a corrupted arbitration procedure.

Absent Justice was set up to publish an accurate account of what happened during the various Australian government endorsed arbitrations with the then owned telecommunications carrier Telecom, now privatised, and called Telstra. WE are a group of Australians who call themselves Casualties of Telstra (COT)

When our story began, most rural businesses were not using the internet, email, or mobile phones. 

Regular checking emails and mobile phones at the start of each working day was not an option.

Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations and mobile blackspots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this modern technology became a typical way to run a business.

Concealed government records that are now exposed on this website show that, in 1994, the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) estimated there were 120,000 businesses affected by COT-type faults. To conceal this from those businesses and the arbitrator appointed to assess these telephone faults, AUSTEL released a public report in April 1994 that downgraded this 120,000 COT Type complaint to read those fifty or more businesses had similar phone complaints.

This collusion and corrupt practices by the government, its minders, Telstra, and the arbitration officials brought the seat of arbitration in Australia into disrepute

In 2007, when the Victorian State Government asked the author of this website Alan Smith to provide evidence of what is revealed on absentjustice.com including proof that arbitration and supreme court documents were being intercepted [screened] before they arrived at their destination and this evidence was suppled. Instead of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA and the Supreme Court of Victoria being advised of this hacking evidence it was concealed from both the IAMA and the Supreme Court of Victoria.

After the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) asked me to provide them with this same evidence, they also covered up these crimes instead of the IAMA demanding answers from the government and the arbitrator.

Before reading this report, we suggest you click on the following legal research paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817646 where you will find there are others, not just the COT cases, who see loopholes in the justice given out by some of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman staff. In many cases, these ombudsmen have not even been lawyers and yet the Australian Establishment gives them the right to decide legal issues, which have – in many cases, as our story shows – ruined the lives of so many Australians.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, the second appointed administrator of the COT arbitrations, John Pinnock, (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia told a Senate Committee 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.”

Why were the arbitrations not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures? How can arbitration be a just process when the arbitrator has no control over how it is conducted? When did Dr Hughes lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, or two months or even nine months into the process? And, just as importantly, who authorised him to conduct the process entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures? Where are these hidden arbitration related Telstra documents that we COT Cases were told we would receive if we entered our government endorsed arbitrations?

Enter the hackers

Absent Justice - Julian Assagne

A Man with a Conscience: Hackers for Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who were these hackers that had told us so much? Why had we not listened to them? We were in a government-endorsed arbitration. How could this happen in a democratic country like Australia? But it was, and these hackers had warned us what to expect.

The hackers warned us in April 1994, 44 months before 23 Australian Senators finally uncovered the same information, which was no use to the COT Cases who had already gone through the process without the documents to support their claims. Unless the government stepped in and abandoned the arbitration, they had initially been endorsed. ALL of the 21 COT Cases could have amended their arbitration claims instead of only the five litmus COT tests Cases that the government hand-picked would be allowed to amend their claims (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens). 

The Story Line 

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. The story of how for years Telstra refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them ‘No fault found,’ when documents in this publication and on our website show they were found to have existed as our story shows.

In the case of AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) they concealing their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings from both the arbitrator and me during my government-endorsed arbitration process, yet provided it to the defendant Telstra (where it surely assisted Telstra in their defence of our claims). This action by a government regulator was wrong and grossly discriminative. In fact, this act breached the governments statutory obligation to me as a citizen of Australia.

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant faxes (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence. 

How central points our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit.

How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra's continued threats over the COT Cases to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

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

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

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Tampering with evidence after it left my business (see Tampering of Evidence) was unlawful.  Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed, in arbitration, is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.

Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is unlawful (see Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 1 - Hacked documentsS , Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The TIO, and Austel often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament when in Opposition were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No-one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

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

Why does Australian Federal Police documentation when read in conjunction with Chapter 2 - Illicit screening - Chapter 3 - Julian Assange's ignored messageChapter 4 - Government spying - Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of SwedenChapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring - Chapter 7- Viet Cong - Australian Wheat suggest Telstra was involved in organised crime prior to and during the COT arbitrations? 

What became incontrovertibly clear from documents Telstra released to us years later — was that Telstra well knew its systemic problems, and it knew how to solve them in rural areas, where many of the COT cases businesses were located.  

So, today’s younger generations might find it hard to understand that, only 20 years ago, a corporation like Telstra and its government minders were able to cheat so many Australians into believing it was trying to fix its ailing network. However, in reality, it was band-aiding the many known problems in Australia’s network to defer capital expenditure, as privatisation was on the agenda. Let the shareholders foot the bill was Telstra and its minders answer to the ongoing problems.

For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural businesses were not using internet, email or mobile phones. Checking emails and mobile phones at the start of each working day on a regular basis was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations and mobile black-spots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business.

How do you publish a true account of what really has happened during various Australian Government endorsed Arbitration's without attaching the exhibits to support those facts as we have been literally forced to do because the corruption within the government bureaucracy is so rife?  How does the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then, Australian Government owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants i.e. their fellow Australian citizens?

How do you tell a story that is so unbelievable that even the author has doubts to the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing on with the story being written? How do you expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watch dogs (umpire) and the defendants?  How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once Government owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, stored it, without your knowledge or consent?

The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were surely using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eaves-dropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today, during legitimate Australian arbitration's?  

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

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 gain fully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at 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 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 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. They both ignored this written advice. This letter to the TIO, from the arbitration project manager, was also concealed from the claimants during the same designated appeal process.

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

Stand-over tactics and threats used against the COT cases

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 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.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Strategy , they also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee and then-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:

Mr White "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" .(See Front Page Part One File No/6)

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 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  that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatory required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267055 267230 and 055 267260 were generated into my business and held open for the required period of 120-seconds for each completed call. In simple words, the SVT process at my business was not carried out according to the government communications regulatory mandatory specifications. Telstra is fully aware Peter (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, regarding the Service Verification Tests (SVT) being grossly deficient. AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended doing about this deficiency see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). No second SVT tests ever took place at my business during my arbitration. However, in November 2002 (eight months after I sold the business) Telstra tested the business for the new owners, concluded the wiring, cabling and the Telstra-installed infrastructure was corroded and the whole holiday camp was rewired.

This is the same Peter who somehow had the power to direct a Government Regulator regarding who they could release this known faulty SVT information to and who they could not release it to even though the Government Regulator (AUSTEL) knew that the inaccurate SVT results were being used to support Telstra’s arbitration defence of at least four COT Cases claims (which included me)

This same Peter refused to conduct any sort of testing at my premises. Both Peter and David Reid (an ex-Telstra technician, and now with Lane Telecommunications) were present to investigate on-site telecommunication arbitration information. Lindsay White, whistleblower, admitted, under oath to senators, that Peter said I was to be stopped – at all cost – from proving my claim. Peter was able to pressure David Reid, part of the allegedly independent arbitration resource unit, not to test my three service lines that were experiencing ONGOING problems when they visited my business on 6 April 1995. From what happened on this day, it is apparent the government-endorsed arbitration process was designed – NOT to assist the COT cases in proving their claims – but to destroy the credibility of the COT cases’ claims in order to sell off the Telstra network, no matter how degraded the arbitration process found it was.

After viewing the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (SVT) CCAS data dated 29 September 1994 (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report) Brian Hodge, B Tech, MBA (B.C. Telecommunications), on 27 July 2007, prepared a report and on page 23, (see File - 486 AS-CAV Exhibit 470 to 486 concludes:

"It is my opinion that the reports submitted to Austel on this testing programme was flawed, erroneous, fictitious, fraudulent & fabricated, as it is clear that no such testing has taken place as Telstra’s own call charge system DOES NOT record any such activities. Therefore the results are flawed or did not occur"   

Didn't the statements made under oath by Lindsay White to the Senate Estimates Committee on 24 June 1997, mean anything at all regarding the advice he received from this Peter that we FIVE COT cases had to be stopped at all cost from proving issues such as the falsified arbitration SVT witness statements to the arbitrator (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report)?

As we have shown above on pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia/, shows misconduct by Telstra employees.

Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gain fully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted is testament my story is heading in the right direction.

Small bands of public servants, all with their tears, who controlled who the company purchased the Telecom Vans are running around Australia. Who owned the purchase of Telecom's stationery, another division that organised the best deals on where to buy the massive rolls of copper wire needed to keep the telecommunications operating, and which clothing company gave the best deal on clothing for the technician? All the operations of the company, the size of Telecom, had its purchasing officers and how employees were needed for each section that looked after the telephone exchanges. Hundreds, if not thousands, of minor too big units had the power to make money. Of course, this stopped when Telstra was privatised. But did it stop or are there still pockets of criminal conduct alive in Telstra in 2022. 

Example: Telstra's current Corporate Secretary Sue Laver was involved on behalf of Telstra in ensuring that a Senate working party (23 senators) were provided with the truth concerning Bell Canada International Inc, who alleged that it had conducted with the assistance of Telstra between different times of the day on 4 to 9 November 1993 13,590 tests calls into Cape Bridgewater via the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange using the advanced CCS7 CCS7 TEKELEC monitoring equipment. Ms Laver is aware the Senate was provided untruths concerning that testing and aware that Telstra further manufactured documents provided to the senate in 1997, which stopped them from further investigating my valid claims. Even though I have provided Sue Laver with two separate Telstra technicians' signed witness statements that neither the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone and Cape Bridgewater switching equipment could facilitate the CCS7 TEKELEC monitoring device BCI alleged in their official report, which was used as evidence by Telstra in my arbitration Sue Laver has still not come forward to advise the government they were misled by Telstra in 1997, which has caused much distress to me and my onced own Cape Bridgewater holiday camp (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).

Is it a crime for Sue Laver to conceal the truth concerning the falsified BCI Cape Bridgewater tests? Is it a crime for Sue Laver to continue covering the fact concerning the falsified BCI Cape Bridgewater tests?

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

The phone system in Cape Bridgewater was corrupted 

I February 1988, when I started to operate the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp and convention centre, doing business via the internet and email was not an option, the landline phone system was the only way to stay in operation. In my case, I employed phone booking agents in both country Victoria and Melbourne and South Australia. AUSTEL, the then government communications regulator and my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP, were aware that even those added lifelines did little to help me survive at Cape Bridgewater. Those three booking agents themselves often wrote of the problems they had with relaying phone calls back to me of people which me to confirm their bookings. That is how bad the phone system was in Cape Bridgewater.

There were approximately 120 residents living in Cape Bridgewater when I took over the holiday camp, which equated to sixty families plus their teenage children who spent more time on the phone than their mums and dads. The RAX unmanned roadside switching station had eight final selectors, so if four lines were being used at any one time between those 120-plus residences that left only four vacant lines available to ring in or out for the remaining 116 residences in holiday time then no calls over several days was a regular occurrence.

The process of doing business on the internet or via email had not started to come into its own until the late 1990s. The old landline and sending mail via Australia Post were all that was available to me which from 1980s to 1995 was the only accomodation centre in Cape Bridgewater.  Had we COT Cases been operating our companies during the period where emails and online advice was so readily available, then the phone and faxing problems we suffered would not have affected our business losses as they did. We did not get an efficient mobile phone system into Cape Bridgewater until 2004 and even then drop-outs were a common occurance.  

If you have ever experienced ongoing telephone problems, either on your landline or mobile phone, then you will understand why I sometimes feel I have lived through a nightmare — I experienced several different types of problems, recorded messages telling incoming callers the business was not connected, or when it did connect withing ten to fifteen seconds, the line would go dead.

My life did seem as if it was dead until Aladdin arrived on the 3 June 1993.  

Absent Justice - My Story - The Briefcase Affair

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

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

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

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

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. That information was sent to the AUSTEL.

The information I provided to AUSTEL (via this briefcase) confirmed Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults were a problem worldwide, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment.(see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E). File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f  shows other countries around the globe were removing the AXE equipment from their exchanges or had removed it from their network and yet Telstra was still promoting it as effective.. This fault was locking up the line after the last call had terminated. This fault was causing massive billing problems and stopping any in-coming call to that service line from connecting until the line released itself..   

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

Absent Justice - My Story

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This indeed has to be the worse type of systemic government corruption that has been used against Australian citizens who were trying to improve Australia's telecommunications network. Was this the type of corruption Julian Assange warned the COT Cases about?

These are the same Ericsson AXE exchange complaints I raised with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Telstra's lawyer to whom I had to register my ongoing telephone complaints (in writing) or Telstra would not investigate. As can be seen from below, the Senate found Telstra had indeed adopted the COT Cases Stratagy so as the conceal the more relevant technical documents from the COT Cases. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats and bullying ignored by government  

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats and bullying tactics used by Telstra, and later the government became a reality. What is so appalling about these threats including the withholding of relevant documents so that you could not prove your claims of ongoing telephone faults and harrasment is that no one in Telstra, the government who still owned Telstra then would transparently investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the Australian Federal Police in their investigations into unauthorised interception of my telephone conversations and arbitration related faxes, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration

Not only was Telstra using the Freehills Hollingdale & Page COT Cases Strategy to withhold vital arbitration documents from me they were now using threats that when ignored by me were carried out against me without the arbitrator and TIO demanding answers from Telstra as to why these threats had eventuated. 

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Cases Strategy, they also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee and then-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:

Although I have addressed the issue (see above) regarding ex-Telstra employee Lindsay Mr White (now a whistleblower) and his statement in the Senate that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled me out to be ‘stopped at all costs" from proving my claim against Telstra’, it is relevant I use this official statement again because it was in the office of Freehill's (Telstra's arbitration lawyers) where he and received that advice we COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost.

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

Had to stop the COT Cases at all cost

Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after Lindsay White informed the above aforementioned Senate committee that he was told by Telstra he “had to stop the COT Cases at all cost” from proving our claims page 5163, 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 being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

A covert arrangement entered into by Warwick Smith the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and my business Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases singled out for this special unlawful treatment as TIO Evidence File No 3-A) so clearly shows.

These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was used during the first four arbitrations  (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)

Before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra and copying the same to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by AUSTEL. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, 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 on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

Absent Justice.

Non-paid Telstra accounts

Unfortunately another Alan Smith lived on the other side of Cape Bridgewater Road and had also been battling Telstra over many months and receiving legal letters from a Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing summons for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehill Hollingdale & Page’s fax identification stamp is visible on these documents.

Two of those documents were from Madden & Co Solicitors Warrnambool and are addressed to Alan Smith RSD Discovery Bay Road, Cape Bridgewater Vic 3306. 

This same Alan Smith later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and mail deliveries, then Freehills (Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) sending some of my arbitration material to the wrong Alan Smith might have been uncovered. I have no proof that this was part of Telstra’s COT Case strategy to stop us at all costs from proving our claims.

These were the same billing faults that I had to register with Denise McBurnie of Freehills’s in 1993 before Telstra would investigate them.

The Fax marking of the two Madden Lawyer debt collecting letters sent out to the other Alan Smith are dated in October 1993, for the other Alan Smith are dated October 1993.

Freehills Hollingdale & Page were involved with my billing issues during the same period

This is the same Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page who is named in Senate Hansard as the author of the COT Case Strategy, which has my name and the name of my business on the COT Case Strategy who was to be targeted so that I could not prove my claim against Telstra

Absent Justice - Renowned Australian Author

Telecom has not found any evidence of network faults 

And here, Freehill Hollingdale & Page are involved, condoning sending out billing summons against the other Alan Smith with similar claims against Telstra. In the following letter sent to me during my Fast Track Settlment Proposal from Denise McBurnie (refer to Scrooge - exhibit 35) she notes a number of untruths and when concluding this letter she notes:

(iii) "...As noted above, in Telecom's response to the questions raised in your paragraph 2, Telecom has not found any evidence of network faults applicable to and which could affect your service during the period to which you refer".   

This statement made by Denise McBurnie in regards to my paragraph 2 does not coincide with the secret findings of the government communications regulator AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 46, 76, 86, 109. 115, 130, 153. 158. 209, which notes:

Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. 

Point 76 – “One disturbing matter in relation to Mr Smith’s complaints of NRR [not receiving ring] is that information on other people in the Cape Bridgewater area experiencing the problem has been misrepresented from local Telecom regional manager to more senior manager.” 

Point 86 – “From examination of Telecom’s documention concerning RVA [a recorded voice announcement – not in service] messages on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp there are a wide range of possible causes of this message.” 

Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau: "Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. [AXE – Portland telephone exchange]”

Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”

Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”

Point 209 – “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.”

It is clear from Denise McBurnie's letter Scrooge - exhibit 35 that she either knowingly misled me during my settlement/arbitration process concerning the extent of my ongoing telephone problems or Telstra knowingly misled Freehill Hollingdale & Page concerning the validity of my phone service. 

Freehill Holligdale and Page, and Denise McBurnie must be proud lawyers for their combined achievement in fighting Telstra's legal battle against such a powerful opponent trying to operate a telephone dependent business without a depedendant reliable phone service.

This COT Cases Strategy that Senate Hansards states was used by Telstra in their attempt to destroy the four COT Cases Ann Garms (Tivoli Restaurant), Maureen Gillan (Japanese Spare Parts), Graham Schorr (Golden Messenger) and Alan Smith (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) concealed a very important FOI document Folios C04006C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which states:

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

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

 Three cheers for Freehill Hollingdale & Page and their COT Case Strategy that destroyed so many lives in an arbitration process the government advised us we would receive once we went into arbitration. And here, Freehill Hollingdale & Page was working behind the scenes to stop that from happening. 

But Freehills way of winning at all costs on behalf of Telstra did not stop there. It was during this period that I had just finished reading the John Grisham novel The Firm, and it took me back to my fight with Freehills and Denise McBurnie having by then, in late 1994, I had (visited three different psychologists) one in Melbourne, Mr Burnard, the other in Geelong. Mr McKay and the other in Portland, Ms Francolm. All three, I was living with PSD brought on by a very uneven battle with Telstra. 

The never-ending threats and having to write to their aggressive lawyers when attempting to have my ongoing telephone faults fixed, was the most un democratic situation they had ever heard of.

When Mr Burnard and Ms Francolm learned that even though I had taken the threats made by Telstra's by one of their most senior arbitration officers, Paul Rumble, both became emotional something I had never seen from people such as doctors when I told them the Senate, the arbitrator, and the administrator of my arbitration, including the Australian Federal Police refused to assist me in stopping these threats. Steven Boswell, Senator Ron Boswell's son in Parliament House in Canberra, in his father's office on 20 August 1997, said OH my god, what have they done to you. They mean the government-backed arbitration process.

The current Minister for Communications, The Hon Paul Fletcher, was provided with this same evidence (see Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two) by my Federal Member of Parliament The Hon David Hawker MP in 1996, during the period he was a Staff members to the then-Senator Richard Alston Minister for Communications and the Arts.(see Bribery and Corruption - Part 1).

After reading Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and  File No/41 Part-Two, it will become clear that the exhibits and evidence that were attached to the report (which are also assessable on our absentjustice.com download files) show that if Paul Fletcher, current Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, in the 2022 Morrison government had properly investigated that evidence in June 1996 to then most (if not all) of the issues that I have been trying to have investigated since then, would have been settled in 1996.

Absent Justice - The Firm

The Firm - John Grisham -  

The infamous covert arrangement entered into by the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation who were using the Denise McBurnie - Freehill Hollingdale & Page legal advice named the 'COT Case Strategy' (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. Just like one of John Grisham's novels-movies. I and others who had read the book likened what was happening to us was what had happened during - The Firm. 

My name Alan Smith and the name of my business Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases that had been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) that had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents.

As discussed above, even worse, before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with this same legal firm.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by the Australian government. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, 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 on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

Absent Justice - Forensic Psychologist Meeting

 Unsigned witness statement

However, when this legal firm, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by a lawyer from this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist and didn’t contain his concerns regarding me having to first contact this legal firm, in writing, before Telstra would address my telephone problems. 

The most alarming points about this unsigned witness statement are:

  1. Before the psychologist met with me, Telstra’s lawyers provided him with a copy of the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International (BCI) addendum report stating 13,590 test calls were carried out, over a five-day period, routed through to the Cape Bridgewater RCM unmanned switching exchange, using the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring equipment. This report stated the test calls had a 99.8 per cent success rate.
  2. Neither the psychologist nor the arbitrator was told tests through the Cape Bridgewater RCM switching exchange was impracticable: the nearest exchange that could accommodate the TELELEC CCS7 equipment was the Warrnambool exchange, 120 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater (see Evidence / Telstra's Falsified BCI Report)

Had the psychologist known the 13,590 test calls, allegedly carried out by BCI, could not terminate through the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring system at Cape Bridgewater, his assessment of my mental state would have been somewhat different. He, too, might have been distressed if he had been aware Telstra misled and deceived him prior to him assessing my mental state.

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

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

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

I have never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement signed off on behalf of Freehill Hollingdale & Page 

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

The lawyer who attested to the signature of Ian Joblin [cliniclal psychologist] being on the witness statement, although it was not on the witness statement at all, is still practising law in Melbourne. I wonder how many other legal matters this lawyer has attested to as being factual when he knows otherwise has been used in legal processes to discredit other Australian citizens who have legitimate claims?. 

I wonder how many other legal matters this lawyer attests to as factual when he knows otherwise has been used in legal processes to discredit other Australian citizens who have legitimate claims?.

Is there something more sinister regarding the issue of the Australian government not investigating why Telstra's lawyer was allowed to attest to the signature of Ian Joblin [clinincal psychologist] being on the witness statement when there was no signature on the statement at all?

I believe there is a link between using the Queensland Mental Health Act against COT Case Sandra Wolfe when she was not mentally disturbed at all (see Bribery and Corruption - Part 2). Telstra likewise provided known false Bell Canada Internation Inc information (see Telstra's Falsified BCI ReportI to Ian Joblin clinical [clinincal psychologist], beforeMr Joblin had viewed my mental health. 

Senate Hansard, dated 24 June 1997, in which Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White says he was told to “stop these people at all costs” naming me as one of the five who had to be stopped at all costs from proving my claim (see pages 36 and 38 Senate -Senate - Parliament of Australia) 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), has still not been resolved. 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 matters, 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 by the government?:

Why hasn't the Ian Joblin clinical psychologist’s witness statement fiasco (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) been investigated?

It is well known within the Liberal National Party Coalition government that Telstra had been using the Queensland Mental Health to incarcerate another Queensland COT Case Ken Ivory - Solar Mesh who, like me, had been able to prove Telstra had a systemic 1800 billing problem. And here Telstra was trying to legally have members of the COT Group interviewed under the mental health act and committed as nutters crazy people [insane] so that our evidence of massive overbilling by Telstra was nothing more than sheer nonsense from disturbed people who had gone through a rough litigation process. 

After receiving evidence confirming Telstra's CEO Frank Blount and the Telstra board had concealed these ongoing billing issues from the broader Australian community, I approached Ian Joblin in his Queens Street Melbourne Chambers. 

I provided conclusive evidence that Telstra had used his good name as a clinical psychologist to cover up the actual state of Telstra's billing software. After this meeting, his words to me were that I would find it hard to live with these unaddressed injustices. 

The Victoria Police Major Fraud Group are aware of that visit and what Ian Joblin conveyed to me. 

These are the same type of systemic billing faults which are linked to the summons Maddon Lawyers sent out on behalf of Telstra when Telstra was against the other Cape Bridgewater Alan Smith. Indeed, Telstra must have considered when they were hounding the other Alan Smith that his billing problems could have been partly due to Telstra's known network problem, which Telstra addressed secretly with the government on 16 October 1995 without the arbitrator and me being present. 

How many people working with Dr Hughes’ arbitration unit knew that two Alan Smiths lived in Cape Bridgewater with billing issues and received billing-related documents from Freehills Hollingdale & Page?

Telstra was named in the Senate for using Freehill Hollingdale & Page’s COT Case Strategy to withhold FOI documents from the COT Cases. he 24,000 late-dumped FOI documents were addressed to Ann Garms C/- Kingston Brisbane and were not related to my claim, yet they were still sent to Cape Bridgewater Victoria instead of Brisbane, 1,200 kilometers away.

Even though I had still not received my own FOI documents, my claim was finalized

The Commonwealth Ombudsman appointed international loss assessors G B Robins to investigate the unnecessary cost to me for trying to decipher documents supplied during my arbitration from February 1994 to May 1995 with no official schedule listings attached. G B Robins found heavily against Telstra.

Upon receiving those 24,000 documents, Dr Hughes granted Ann Garms 13 months to assess this material, aware that he had denied me the extra time needed to ascertain which documentation belonged to Ann’s claim and which belonged to mine.

After Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO throughout my arbitration released his book admitting Telstra did have a billing problem, one would have thought the Telstra board would have allowed for this part of my claim to be reassessed. This did not happen.

Also in this same Senate - Parliament of Australia Hansard record on pages 76 to 78 Senators Kim Carr and Chris Schach asks Telstra:

“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] 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?”

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Hansard 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 wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office, where he tripped and ripped his shirt.

All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious there were two sides to this story..

Absent Justice - Privacy

The phone bugging scandal that had raised its ugly head during the Australian Federal Police investigations was now being broadcast nationally and in-country Victoria. No single club or social club wanted to come to my venue.. During this media ,AFP phone hacking frenzy which was happening all through my arbitration, I lost seven group bookings.

When the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, alerted the media The Herald Sun that his phone calls to my business had also been monitored the straw broke the camel's back. Did Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) stall my arbitration so that these privacy issues could be investigated as a separate issue to my arbitration? The answer was, no? 

I then understood Dr Hughes had been got at by Telstra and their powerful intelligence network - the Brotherhood appeared to be alive and well. 

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

In February 1994, Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose and Constable Melanie Cochrane of the AFP visited my business to discuss my concerns regarding the possibility my telephone conversations were intercepted and my faxes were not being received at the intended destination. 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 the club members with a written assurance that I would not circulate their private information to anyone without first seeking their permission. For this reason, I was particularly concerned that it would not be fair to submit any of their private information into my Fast Track Settlement Proposal. Constable Cochrane commented 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 (Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations).

The TIO and AUSTEL often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

Anyone reading this website will see for themselves that have I taken my complaints and evidence to all of the relevant government agencies that are avaialable to investigate crimes committed by government agencies against fellow Australian citizens (see 12 Alternate remedies pursued - Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued) only one of the twelve agencies reported anthing favourable in suport of my claims.

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

The documents released were undecipherable 

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

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

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

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

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

As I have stated on the Home page as the website grew, I discovered that some of the issues related to more than one event and, in fact, were sometimes linked to multiple events and that meant that the one event needed to be repeated in a number of different sections of the website, so that the depth of the corruption and the illegal activities that were committed during the arbitration could be fully and properly understood. The Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information discussed below is one of those ocasions  

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information 

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

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

The following Senate Hansard records, prove we should have listened to Juilan Assange Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process.

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

How do you publish a true account of what really has happened during various Australian Government endorsed Arbitration's without attaching the exhibits to support those facts as we have been literally forced to do because the corruption within the government bureaucracy is so rife?  How does the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then, Australian Government owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants i.e. their fellow Australian citizens?

How do you tell a story that is so unbelievable that even the author has doubts to the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing on with the story being written? How do you expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watch dogs (umpire) and the defendants Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct  How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once Government owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, stored it, without your knowledge or consent, before redirecting it onto to its intended destination? Refer to the Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd fax interception report Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13).

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

The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were surely using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eaves-dropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today, during legitimate Australian arbitration's?  In January 1999 the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a report confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they left and/or arrived at Parliament House Canberra: will that report ever be released to the Australian public by the government? I doubt that this well ever happen.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 fax report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

Absent Justice - Fax + Telephone Hacking

Interception of legal in-confidence documents

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

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

Who were the faceless people who were soon termed the “forces at work” by none other than John Rundell the arbitration project mamager in his 18 April 1995 letter to Warwick Smith )the administrator of the arbuitration) copied to Dr |Goron Hughes (the arbitrator) and Peter Bartlett (the legal counsel assiting the administrator), Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues? This letter dated 18 April 1995 states 

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

When these three legal experts, (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts’ directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. These were the same Forces at Work that Julian Assange warned Graham Schorer, COT spokesperson about (see Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3).

Reading Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete,  Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter,  Prologue - Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter and Prologue - Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter will convince the reader never to go into and arbitration process if it is conducted in Australia by those appointed to conduct the COT arbitrations.

Although the following 24 and 25 June 1997 Senate Hansard discussed immediately below is also discussed elsewhere on this website we ask that you also read this version again because it further confirms we were COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from receiving out legally requested arbitration FOI documents. As stated in the introduction above, without discovery documents there is no justice for those denied access to them as was in the case during the COT arbitrations.

The following link Evidence - C A V Part 1, 2 and 3 -Chapter 4 - Fast Track Arbitration Procedure confirms Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO, after leaving Telstra in he co-published a manuscript in 1999. entitled, Managing in Australia. On pages 132 and 133, the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can still be purchased online. 

It was these types of unaddressed arbitration issues that prompted The Hon Barnaby Joyce to demand resolution by the government as part of his commitment to vote for the Telstra privatization legislation.

For reasons known only to the Hon Barnaby Joyce, his support to have the government explain why the COT Cases were treated so undemocratically prior to and during their arbitrations faded not long after he first became Australia’s, Deputy Prime Minister

After the release of Frank Blount's Managing in Australia in 2000, the government regulator AUSTEL should have demanded the Telstra board explain why Telstra misled AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, when they secretly addressed my arbitration billing documents without either the arbitrator or I present shows just what it is like being a particpant in a Kangaroo court style action (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? 

Protecting Telstra the way AUSTEL's public servants did (see File 46-L (see Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l) allowing Telstra [the defendants in my arbitration] to secretly address arbitration claims, without the arbitrator and claimant [me] being present, constitutes a radical attack on the fundamental principles of open justice.  In its flagrant disregard of constitutional and legal principle, the government regulator has abandoned its proper role as a model litigant and damaged the rule of law, i.e., my legal right to have been able to respond to File 46-L Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l under the agreed arbitration process. 

Absent Justice - Senator Mark Bishop

Why was Denise McBurnie writing to to telling me there was no phone faults affecting my business when government records AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show there were phone problems afecting my business?

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

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

What I did not know, when I was forced to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that 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.

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

In fact that Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) shows, the formal arbitration technical evaluation report provided by DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia) who were the two arbitration technical consultants to the arbitrator advise him at point 2.23, in their final report that never diagnoed the fault causes of my long running billing arbitration complaints shows the process failed me as point 2.23 in that report notes:

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

Were the COT Cases faxes lost or hidden by Dr Hughes Sydney office?  

After Carolyn Friend had returned this terrible evidence, amongst these documents were other COT Cases claim material that had nothing to do with my arbitration matters. When I pointed out to the Deputy administrator of my arbitration Wally Rothwell, that arbitration faxed claim documents belonging to COT Cases Ann Garm's from Brisbane Queensland was stapled to some of my faxes, he advised he would contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations. No response has ever been received regarding these faxing problems. 

A further injustice against the COT Cases was exposed several years after the completion of these arbitrations. Unbeknown to the COT Cases the legal firm assisting Telstra's employees in their Telstra superannuation legal issues which in some cases were linked to the rorting of millions upon millions of dollars ifrom the government coffers (see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) in (Sydney) NSW was the same legal firm to which the COT arbitrator was a senior partner before and during the COT arbitrations. This legal firm was still assisting NSW Telstra employees at the time the arbitrator agreed to become the COT arbitrator. 

Absent Justice - A Can of Worms

Was there more to the claim documents being lost than the TIO & Arbitrator wanted to admit?

None of the COT Cases knew of this possible conflict of interest or the fact that faxes arriving at the arbitrator's Melbourne office after the close of business each day were automatically redirected to the Sydney office where Telstra related legal documents were also being received assessed by the Sydney lawyers.   

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator early in 1994 regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail that:

“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.”Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

These lost faxes which were originally faxed to the arbitrator's office ended up playing a significant role in the COT arbitrations as has been shown throughout this website. I later added reference to these lost faxes as an amendment to the 21 claim documents I provided to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee.

Was the real reason Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) did not make a finding regarding my lost faxes or carry out an investigation as to why so many of my claim documents did not arrive at his office for assessment is that had he asked his technical resource unit DMR & Lane they may have uncovered some of my lost faxes was due to the known faxing problems between the arbitrator Melbourne and Sydney offices?

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.

Were Dr Hughes and his Sydney office (their faxing system of some documents arriving at their intended destination and others just disappearing) all part of a joint operation to gain as much information about Telstra's illegal operations? And to hell with those caught in the middle, i.e., the COT Cases. 

I reiterate, why didn't Dr Hughes openly discuss the Sydney lost fax issues with the administrator of our arbitrations so that: the not received [hacked documents] could be viewed? The COT arbitrations were nothing but a total debacle, a facade to protect Telstra, who was still owned by government.  

Although the arbitrator agreed to investigate our claims of phone and fax interception, his official findings contained no reference to either matter.

Confidential faxes, intercepted during the arbitration, included faxes to our lawyers and advisors and various senators who were trying to help us. Some critical faxes, both incoming and outgoing, which could have changed the outcome of the arbitration went missing, in transit. I used Telstra’s own data to show that at least six of the arbitration claim documents that I faxed to the arbitrator’s office, never arrived for his assessment. My Telstra bill itemised them, but the arbitrator’s secretary stated that these six faxed documents never arrived. The arbitrator ignored the evidence I placed before him. Something was very amiss with the whole process.

Absent Justice - Prologue

I draw the reader’s attention to the 12 May 1995 letter from the arbitrator to the TIO stating:

“…as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration…”

 “…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  Open Letter File No 55-A). 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the above Example 1 - Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman and the Federal Attorney-General has still not answered is:

Was this letter 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? 

If I had received a copy of this letter declaring the agreement used in my arbitration process was not credible, then of course I would have appealed the arbitrator’s award. After all, how could an appeal judge argue against the arbitrator’s own findings that the agreement was not credible, even though he used it anyway?

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

  1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
  2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
  3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted. 

As a point of interest, Dr Goron Hughes (the arbitrator) who dammed the arbitration agreement as not allowing the claimants enough time to access their arbitration and therefore, the agreement extended the time frame in the agreement granting each claimant a further 13 months longer to prepare their claims than he had allowed me.

So this 12 May 1995 letter Open Letter File No 55-A was gold to me. If only I had been provided it during the statute of limitations for me to have used it in an appeal against the arbitrator's conduct. 

Why would Dr Hughes fax his findings to Warwick Smith (the administrator of my arbitration), warning him of the gross deficiencies in the arbitration agreement and not to the claimant [me] who those deficiencies affected me the most?

Absent Justice - My Story - Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp

The Holiday Camp was certainly in the right location 

It becomes obvious when reading Taking on the Establishment Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story that Darren and Jenny Lewis lives were also soon to be destroyed as their letter joint statutory declaration dated 4 September 2006, to the Hon Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications shows when they wrote: 

On 28 January 2003, a letter from TIO officer Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:

“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.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

Was there a more sinister motive involved in Tony Watson refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Tony Watson and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? 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?

Darren Lewis was so angry with this Telstra employee that he took a number of photos of the actual wiring that ran from Telstra’s pit to his residence and his office (the same office that was mine from 1988).

As part of his plans to renovate the house, Mr Lewis had begun to prepare for a heating system to be installed under the house but, in the process, as he sunk his shovel into a water-soaked area, he accidentally cut into a Telstra cable that was only buried half a shovel deep. Water from an overflow downpipe from the main accommodation block had been running off and collecting over the Telstra cabling that had obviously not been buried deep enough (see the following photos taken by Mr Lewis at the time).

According to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at Point 8 and 13 the Telstra installed new cablining inside and outside of main office and kitchen in May 1991. it was this faulty installation that led to the cable itself becoming waterlogged. Yet, on 6 April 1995, during my arbitration, when I begged Telstra and Land Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration’s so-called independent technical consultants) to run a series of tests to all three of my service lines and inspect the Telstra pit outside the office to ensure that the Customer Access Network (CAN) was up to the proper network standard, my request was refused outright.

While the COT story might, at first glance, seem to be a story about telephones it is actually about human suffering, wrought by a large corporation with too much power. What became incontrovertibly clear from documents inadvertently released to me by the arbitrator's secretary three months after the completion of my arbitration  — was that Telstra well knew its systemic problems, and it knew how to solve them. But it did not want to admit publicly that there were systemic problems, because it wanted to avoid a major overhaul of degraded infrastructure (at great capital expenditure), especially in rural areas, where many of the COT cases originated.

Is Australia ready to follow the - UNITED STATES STRATEGY ON COUNTERING CORRUPTION ? 

As the following brief overview of my story shows, bullying by government members, their bureaucrats and government-owned agencies like Telstra has crucified several decent law-abiding Australian citizens, during and after their government endorsed arbitration and mediation processes. 

This type of political corruption is also happening in Australia as my website absentjustice.com shows.

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

IT'S FREE!! Order Now

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents on Alan's website absentjustice.com

Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence that can be downloaded from absentjustice.com is possibly a world first.

ABSENT JUSTICE HAS IT ALL.

Quote Icon

“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

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

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

The Hon David Hawker MP

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

Sister Burke

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

Hon David Hawker

“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