Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Unprecedented Deception

This website absentjustice.com is a work in progress

This website absentjustice.com is a work in progress last edited September 2022 

A click on my ABSENT JUSTICE book below, and you will see nine different publishers who have publihed my book from all different parts of the globe. ABSENT JUSTICE is free, but if you feel you would like to make a donation, then please send it directly to Transparency International Australia

All events quoted on this website are supported by copies of the original documents: for example, Prologue - Criminal Conduct - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct - Chapter 2 - Illicit screening - Chapter 1 - Hacked documents - An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens and Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct etc. Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. By using this method and following the file numbers, you can verify our story. We could not have successfully composed this website without these exhibits to prove our story.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable.

This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. But unbeknown to the COT Cases and most if not all of the government bureaucrats behind the COT Cases stand for a better phone system for all Australians, the COT Cases were also fighting Sweden's telecommunications giant Ericsson. The story of how, for years, Telstra refused to address the many faults affecting the Ericsson manufactured telecommunications equipment installed in several of Telecom/Telstra telephone exchanges that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents on this website show they were found to have existed.

The full chronology of events as they happened from the day I purchased the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp can be viewed by clicking on My Story Warts & All.

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

While the following Senate Hansard is dated in June 1997, which is well past after conclusion of most of the COT arbitrations, it refers to how Telstra and their lawyers singled out the first four COT Cases, which includes me to destroy any chance we COT four might have had at proving our claims of ongoing phone problems never surfaced during our arbitrations. Therefore, I needed to start Unprecedented Deception when we COT Cases received the threats from Telstra in mid-1993; if we did not register our ongoing phone faults in writing with Telstra’s lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, then Telstra would not attempt to investigate our complaints.

It is also essential I raise here the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration that if I continued to supply similar evidence to the Australian Federal Police, including proof of phone and fax interception of my service, then Telstra would cease to provide me with any evidence to support my arbitration claim. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Threats caried out 

Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues as page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

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

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

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

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time fully owned Telstra) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

He was a stalwart within the Labor Party

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

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

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

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because it was provided by Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist. He was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is linked to statements made on page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

What I did not know when I first had to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that this COT Case Strategy was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely 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, 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 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.

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

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being of sound mind?

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

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

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

It is 2022, I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

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 36 and 38 -Senate - Parliament of Australia. This is precisely what Denise McBurnie of Freehill ensured would be the case. 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), which has still not been resolved. Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

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

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

Was I to be groomed as the next COT Case to be issued with a warrant under the mental health Act? 

Worse, much, much worse is that all this happened while the same Telstra board and the same legal firm Freehill's, were denying during their arbitration defence that there were no systemic billing problems within Telstra's 008/1800 free call service; one of my central arbitration claims which I had been forced to register in writing with none other than Denise McBurnie also of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

If this was not bad enough; not only did Telstra not address these billing claims even though they advised the arbitrator twice in writing they would be addressed as part of Telstra's arbitration defence of my claims somehow, with the help of the arbitrator, but they also did not these 008/1800 billing problems until 16 October 1995, Five Months After the conclusion of my arbitration in secret with the government regulator AUSTEL (see Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?) 

And to even delve further into Telstra's rotten barrel of apples, their CEO Frank Blount part of Telstra's arbitration defence team who had denied Telstra had an 1800 systemic billing problem, released a manuscript not long after Mr Blount's departure admitting there was a major 1800 billing problem. 

On pages 132 and 133, the author of Frank Blount's Managing Australia exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

  • “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
  • The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

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

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 principles, 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. 

The fact that Telstra's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's, signed the witness statement attesting to the signature of Ian Joblin, having signed it when the psychologist had not done so, shows how much power Telstra and its lawyers have over the legal system in Australia.

This is what the hackers were trying to tell COT spokesperson Graham Schorer; we COTs never had a chance to fully prove our claims without the documents he offered free of charge. This refusal cost the COT Cases dearly when we declined the hacker's offer.

How were we to know the offer was genuine and not another ploy by Telstra? This time to catch us red-handed accepting evidence outside the agreed process of the Freedom of Information (Act 1987)?

Was it Julian Assange who contacted the COT Cases

Chapter 1 - WikiLeak exposing the truth

Absent Justice - Julian Assagne

A Man with a Conscience

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

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?

When the COT Cases alerted the arbitration administrator Warwick Smith that what the hackers had advised us at the beginning of our arbitrations would happen to us (which did happen) because we were never meant to get our requested FOI documents and the evidence of this was in Telstra's arbitration files, no files were made available to us no matter how many FOI applications we filed with Telstra. Between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office wrote many letters to Telstra on my behalf, including flying from Canberra to Telstra's FOI viewing premises in Melbourne to seek this Arbitration File. Letters disclosed on this website show the Commonwealth Ombudsman did not believe Telstra had destroyed this Arbitration File as they had written on two occasions.

The "COT Case strategy" discussed in 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows we COT Cases were never meant to win our claims, precisely what the hackers were trying to convey to Graham Schorer.

No one in government or the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman office has advised us who these hackers were after they were apprehended. It is now apparent from two publications – one titled The Most Dangerous Man In The World by renowned investigative journalist Andrew Fowler and the other by Dr Suelette Dreyfus and Julian Assange, titled Underground – that it was Julian Assange and his companions who contacted Graham.

Please read our story; It appears as though Julian Assange is not the rogue the government is trying to imply (see Chapter 1 - WikiLeak exposing the truth).

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration

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

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

“Advice from Warwick is:

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

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

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Absent Justice - Conflict of Interest

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

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

I hope you agree with this.”

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

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

It is still unknown how the arbitrator billed Telstra for his professional fees or how the TIO billed him for his expenses and those of the TIO-appointed resource unit and special counsel. This raises the questions:

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - TIO

The TIO sanctioned a clandestine pre-arbitration meeting 

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

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

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

The missing questions raised at points 4 and 5 in the minutes of this clandestine meeting may be linked to the arbitrator and his arbitration resource unit allowing for the more adverse findings against Telstra to be covertly addressed outside the legal arena of the COT arbitration process. If addressing non-addressed arbitration issues had nothing to do with points 4 and 5, what could have been so detrimental to the arbitration process that these points were excluded from these minutes?

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

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

Upon reading this segment Open letter File No 54-A). In the following Prologue page, you will come to the same conclusion many others have: arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes should not have secretly met with Telstra (the defendants) before arbitration to discuss what rules in the arbitration agreement would be removed and which would remain. This clandestine meeting (without the claimants being represented) also covered how to protect – to exonerate – the arbitrator’s consultants from incurring any liability for negligence and to exempt the unit from being sued. Of course, this was to the detriment of the COT cases and our legal right to have recourse over the arbitration consultants if the resource unit was negligent in their duties. It will be clear, after reading Open letter File No 54-A), and the Prologue page, that the arbitration resource unit was negligent during my arbitration process. I could not hold them to account for those actions due to those negligent clauses being removed in my arbitration agreement. This is a serious issue and should have been addressed in 1995 when this was discovered. An investigation 20 years ago, would have uncovered that Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith (TIO) used Telstra’s proposed arbitration agreement as the base document for the COT arbitration agreement, rather than using an agreement drafted independently of Telstra, as the government (who endorsed the first four arbitrations) and the COT cases’ lawyers were promised. An investigation in 1995 (see Prologue Chapter Four) would have also uncovered Dr Hughes’ 12 May 1995 letter to Warwick Smith, which condemned the Telstra-based agreement as not a credible document to use in the arbitrations. However, he used it in my arbitration.

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

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

Hiding behind a tainted confidentiality agreement - One 

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

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

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

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

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

The final version of Clause 24 reads: “Neither the Administrator, the Arbitrator, the Special Counsel, a partner or employee of the legal firm of which the Special Counsel is a partner, a member of the Resources Unit, Ferrier Hodgson or a partner or employee of Ferrier Hodgson, DMR Group Australia Pty Ltd shall be liable to any party…”

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

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

This letter in June 1994, from Telstra’s Arbitration Liaison Officer to the TIO Special Counsel, who had been exonerated from all liability for his part in the first four COT arbitrations, included the new version of the arbitration agreement that would be used for the next 12 COT claimants. Point 11.2 of this new agreement states that

“The liability of any independent expert resource unit used by the arbitrator, for any act or omission on their part in connection with the Arbitration, shall be limited to $250,000.00″.

Thus, a few months after the $250,000 liability caps had been removed from my arbitration agreement, they were reinstated into the Arbitration Agreement for the remaining 12 COT claimants. Why were the claimants NOT advised of the reinstatement of the liability clauses? Why were we not offered the opportunity to return to the original agreement that the arbitrator’s secretary had faxed to Alan Goldberg and William Hunt (our lawyers) as the final approved agreement? Why were the three claimants (including me) forced to continue with an arbitration agreement that allowed the Resource Unit to be safely exonerated from all liability, YET in the Arbitration Agreement used by 12 other COT claimants; they were mandated to conduct those arbitrations within the law? Three COT claimants, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms and I, were discriminated against. Exhibit Hacking-Julian Assange File No/42 is from the TIO’s Standard Arbitration Rules used for other COT-type claims against the Telstra Corporation. Liability is covered in Rule 31, which states:

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

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

If this forced removal of the $250.000.00 liability caps for one section of the COT group and not all COT cases is not illegal discrimination by Australia's Establishment of the worst possible kind, then what is.  

Maureen Gillan was the first of the four COT Cases to sign her arbitration agreement with 10.2.2, 24, 25 and 26 firmly in place. COT Cases Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I advised our legal advisers that Maureen Gillan had signed her agreement. Our lawyers asked the arbitrator's office to fax a copy of that agreement that Maureen had signed. Our lawyers compared the faxed arbitration agreement with Maureen's signed agreement advising us to do the same.

After considering it was not worth fighting over, I accepted the removal of 10.2.2 as a compromise. 

The minutes of a secret meeting (see Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct) with Steve Black (Telstra's arbitration officer), Telstra's Mr Krasnostine (legal directorate), Dr Hughes (the arbitrator), Peter Bartlett (TIO Counsel) in Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct show this meeting discussed alterations to the arbitration without the claimants being represented. Telstra's transcript of this meeting notes at point six that:

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

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

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

The fact that Warwick Smith stated: "he thought it was reasonable for the advisers to incur some liability, and that the only matter left to be negotiated on this issue was the quantum of the liability caps" shows the liability caps were always supposed to have been in our arbitration agreement the same agreement that Maureen Gillan signed. 

Since the conclusion of my arbitration, all parties, including Telstra, the arbitrator, Peter Bartlett and TIO Warwick Smith, are using the confidentiality agreement (attached was attached to the altered agreement) as the reason they will not discuss the secret alteration to clauses, 24 and the removal of clause 25 and 26 and the other unlawful conduct that festered all the arbitrations. no longer applies.  

In Open letter File No 54-B is a letter dated 12 April 1994 from Dr Hughes to a member of the TIO counsel. This letter discusses how to overcome that one of the four COT cases (Maureen Gillan) had already signed the arbitration agreement on 8 April 1994. This version was the agreement Senators Richard Alston and Boswell, all four COT cases and their lawyers agreed to. But now, John Rundell’s arbitration resource unit wanted to be exonerated from all liability for any act or omission in connection with the remaining three arbitrations. Removing the $250,000 liability caps from the original agreed-to agreement removed any incentive for the resource unit to act responsibly towards the three remaining claimants. And as our Open letter File No/45-A to 45-I and File No/46-F to 46-J show, this is what happened: i.e., the arbitration resource unit withheld some of the most essential relevant documents from my arbitration process – aware they could NOT be sued for that unacceptable conduct.

Absent Justice - The Godfather

During my pending appeal against my TIO-administered arbitration process, my lawyer's Law Partners of Melbourne, uncovered two issues they believed would blow my arbitration wide apart. I discussed this with my forensic accountant Derek Ryan DMR Corporate, who I was unaware at the time often assisted the Victoria police Major Fraud Group with accountancy issues. Mr Ryan, when he and I were trying to officially respond to the Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA) arbitration financial findings, a stipulation of the agreed-to arbitration agreement uncovered false accounting, which was not permitted in legal cases such as the one we were involved in.  

When my lawyers (Law Partners) suggested that I use the $250,000.00 liability clauses in my arbitration agreement to challenge FHCA for misconduct, it was only then that I realised that the TIO office had removed more than clause 10.2.2 from the agreement. The TIO officials had altered clause 24 and removed clauses 25 and 26. 

On the 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:

“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.

“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.

“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)

On the 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock, noting:

“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.

“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …

“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E)

Mr Rundell has never refuted Derek Ryan’s statement in a letter he wrote to John Pinnock (the TIO), in relation to my arbitration financial losses, which noted that:  “On 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired”, even though that statement: “… until the appeal period had expired”, reveals the true calibre of Mr Rundell’s attitude, i.e. he recognised the advantages for Telstra if the COTs were forced to wait for the appeal period to elapse before they even began to expose the truth.

Mr Neil Jepson, in his position as Barrister to the Major Fraud Group in Victoria police 2001, after discussing Mr Rundell's letter of 13 February 1996 to Laurie James President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia almost accusing me of damage to his property and that the Brighton CIB police (see Open letter File No/45-E), was almost ready to charge me Mr Jepson suggested I should challenge this letter with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). 

I informed Mr Jepson I had been requesting TIO-related arbitration documents from the TIO since October 1995, to no avail.

On one of those occasions during my pending appeal process, the TIO John Pinnock (See Prologue Evidence File No/8-E) wrote back to me saying:

"I'd like to point out your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you would like to access [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

"I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office." (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

The TIO's letter to me Prologue Evidence File No/8-E) was written ten months after Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) had provided Mr Rundell's letter of 13 February 1996 to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, in his letter of 17 February 1996, in his successful attempt to stop an official investigation by Laurie James concerning the $250,000 00 liability caps be removed from my arbitration agreement and the many more unethical conduct issues that had plagued my arbitration. 

I wonder how many other dissatisfied people who have used John Rundell's services as an arbitrator have been treated similarly to how he treated me during and after my arbitration. If the COT Cases were the only people to have been treated by John Rundell offensively as we were, then why was this the case? Surely there must be other arbitrations in Melbourne and Hong Kong where Mr Rundell is still operating arbitrations

This sort of gutless and unethical behaviour ruined the lives of the COT Cases.

The follow on from this particular Unpesedent Deception (this part of my story) can be viewed by clicking on Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter.

After having read about our dealings with the fraudulent conduct which had exposed itself when I prepared pages Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Bribery and Corruption - Part 2, you will see just how corrupt the Australian system of arbitration can be if you are not connected politically or move in the correct legal circles.

Intimidation and other criminal activity from Telstra was something the COT Cases were told to live with, or get out of the kitchen.

So, it is established that Telstra intercepted arbitration-connected faxes and documents, bugged complainants’ phones and interfered with evidence. One might expect that when going into arbitration against a telecommunications company. I’m amazed the government, who endorsed the arbitrations, didn’t predict this behaviour and put plans in place to prevent it! Oh, wait – the Australian government-owned Telstra back then...

Telstra took advantage of its network, and Chapter 2 - Illicit screening and Chapter 4 - Government spying shows plans were underway to do this early on.

But, Telstra’s shady – criminal – behaviour went much further than that. There were burglaries (see exhibit 522-A.

Absent Justice - Break-Ins

In 1994, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and other COTs suffered break-ins and lost computers and business-related documents. I lost diaries covering 1987 to 1989, official booking records, bank statements and bank pay-in books for 1992/93. Without these records, producing complete and correct financial statements for my forensic accountant was difficult. I had to move all business records off of my premises after that.

Government records show that further threats were made against me apart from those discussed above in Senate Evidence File No 31a Early in 1993, after I was exposed to AYSTEL, Telstra had a systemic billing problem in their software from then, Telstra refused to investigate my phone problems unless I first registered them in writing with their lawyer Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page then Telstra would not investigate my complaints of ongoing telephone problems.   

One particularly alarming event was the intimidation of Detective Sergeant Rod Keuris, who was part of the Victoria police Major Fraud Group. Sadly, this man left the force – his career – shortly after. (see Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police shows two statutory declarations: one by an ex-Telstra senior protective officer; the other from Bob Hynninen, another COT case. Both statements describe the anguish experienced by this senior detective sergeant investigating alleged fraud within Telstra during the COT arbitrations and his fears after being subjected to intimidation.

Consider: if this feeling of being got at by the Telstra Corporation can reduce a fully trained senior police officer to this condition, just think how this continual and unaddressed harassment by Telstra officials left the COT cases during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations/

8 and 10 August 2006: Exhibit AS 517 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541  is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the DCITA) by Ann Garms, and sworn out by Des Direen ex- Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status.  Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, in particular Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations.  I was called into that investigation as a witness (see  An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens ).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that: 

From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with". 

Within a few weeks of Mr Direen having assisted the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.

Exhibit AS 517 is also a witness statement dated 8 August 2006, prepared by Bob Hynninen, Public Servant (Australian Taxation Office) formerly Detective Sergeant of the Victoria police. At point 3 in this statement Mr Hynninen notes:

"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that ... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements were provided to the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) on 6 September 2006 by Ann Garms, Grrham Schorer and me along with COT Case member after discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce (twice Deputy Prime Minister in 2015 and 2018 of Australia)   

No COTs were ever offered to counselling or apologised to by the Telstra Corporation, which still owned Telstra when this harassment commenced in 1992 and continued well past the Major Fraud Group investigations of 1998 and 2001 and the government second investigation of March to September 2006.

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s 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!! 

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

“…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

“…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

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

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

Sister Burke

“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