Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Bribery and Corruption - Part 2

 

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.

So when I set up Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Part 2 I had no real option than to repeat our stories in both Part 1 and Part 2 i.e.; because one set of illegal acts in Part 1 was only minor but significant to Part 2 in the COT story. I decided to mention both subjects in both sections which allows the reader to judge both acts of decption. 

In 1992, when the four COT cases were able to show the government something was radically wrong within Telstra’s ailing copper-wire network, Telstra management paid compensation to the four COT cases for not supplying them with a reliable phone system. Although the money provided to the COT cases helped them to continue trading, Telstra did not fix the phone problems. And so, the then Labor Party commissioned the government communications regulator, AUSTEL, to ensure a settlement arbitration process was set up, for the four cases and other small businesses with similar problems, in order to fix any ongoing problems before the assessor brought down a finding. Points 1.18 to 3.38 in the official AUSTEL COT Cases Report of 13 April 1994 notes:

"When the initial settlements were reached with the original COT Cases the standard of service then applicable was not objectively established and there is reason to believe that difficult network faults may have continued to affect their services."

"An agreed standard of service against which Telecom's performance may be effectively measured is being developed by Telecom in consultation with AUSTEL. Such a standard together with a service verification test which can be applied to any case subject to settlement are essential." 

"As part of the general approach to settlement, Telecom sought AUSTEL's agreement to, and assistance in, the development of a defined status for a telephone service. The intention is to obtain an agreement on the operational performance of the service against which the parties might sign off once a financial settlement has been finalised."

AUSTEL did not want a repeat of what happened in 1992, after the first four COT cases received compensation, i.e., to find the telephone problems were still affecting COT businesses.

Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT cases’ arbitrator, and Warwick Smith, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations), both received a copy of the 257-page AUSTEL COT Cases Report. AUSTEL’s report stipulated Telstra had to prove to the assessor/arbitrator, beyond any doubt, that its arbitration-designed Service Verification Testing (SVT) process gave the COT cases’ services a clean bill of health, before Dr Hughes could bring down his findings. Why did Dr Hughes ignore this official government report?

As shown in the following Prologue link Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, not only did Dr Hughes ignore AUSTEL's official report, he also ignored his own arbitration technical consultants’ advice that they had still not diagnosed the fault causes of my ongoing telephone problems and therefore, they stated, there was a reasonable expectation these undiagnosed faults would remain “open”.  Despite this very serious statement by his consultants, Dr Hughes still brought down his findings without allowing his consultants the extra weeks they requested to investigate these ongoing telephone problems.

Possibly the worst thing Warwick Smith and Dr Hughes allowed, during our various arbitrations, was to let Telstra, unsupervised, to perform the arbitration SVT processes at COT businesses. The arbitration technical consultants were not present, regardless of the COT cases being advised, prior to arbitration, that the arbitration technical resource unit would be on site to view and assess Telstra’s technical reporting. Warwick Smith was fully aware –even before the arbitration agreements were signed – that one Telstra senior executive (who was also a member of the TIO board) was under investigation for having misled and deceived a Senate estimates committee concerning the telephone testing process of two COT cases’ exchanges (see Open Letter File 14).

Even though Paul Howell, from DMR Group Inc, was brought in from Canada to investigate my technical claim material, neither he, David Reid (of Lane Telecommunications (the appointed Australian arbitration consultant) nor Dr Hughes commented on my claims that Telstra had not performed the required mandatory arbitration SVT process (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra’s technician advised Dr Hughes, under oath on 12 December 1994, that his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT tests had met all AUSTEL’s mandatory specifications, despite AUSTEL advising him the SVT was grossly deficient (Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). This is the same technician Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White named, before a Senate estimates committee, as telling him I was one of five COT cases who had to be stopped, at all costs, from proving our arbitration claims. (See pages 36 and 38, Senate – Parliament of Australia)

If the question is: “Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes that was committed by public officials, more than twenty-four years ago?”, then surely the answer must be “Yes”, particularly if those crimes affected the lives of other Australian citizens (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens - Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police and Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 Tampering of Evidence)

As stated on both the Home and Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 page, When I started to tell our COT vs Telstra arbitration stories and placing each collusive and deceitful act into some sequence, we found many further acts of collusion and deceit committed by others outside of our arbitrations. As the website grows, we have discovered some issues relate to more than one event and, in fact, are often linked to multiple events and therefore one event may need repeating in different sections of the website, to enable the depth of the corruption and illegal activities committed during the arbitration to be fully understood. Hence a number of previously detailed situations in other parts of absentjustice.com are used here, on Bribery and Corruption - Part 2 and we make no apology for that

Please note: the Thomas Jefferson segment discussed below is also displayed on the Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden page. We have again used it below because it is clear from what has been exposed by the US Department of Justice concerning Bribery and Corruption is relevant to our COT story because of the involvement of the Ericsson equipment used by Telstra falsely defended during the COT arbitrations.

Telstra's arbitration defence unit stated to the COT arbitrator in several COT arbitrations, including mine, that Telstra had found no significant faults with the Ericsson telephone equipment they used in their telephone exchanges was a lie of immense proportion. This lie denied all COT Cases a proper assessment of their arbitration claims where Telstra had used Ericsson equipment.

This lie perverted the course of justice

As stated on the Home page, Whe I started to tell our COT vs Telstra arbitration stories and placing each collusive and deceitful act into some sequence, we found many further acts of collusion and deceit committed by others outside of our arbitrations. As the website grows, we have discovered some issues relate to more than one event and, in fact, are often linked to multiple events and therefore one event may need repeating in different sections of the website, to enable the depth of the corruption and illegal activities committed during the arbitration to be fully understood. Hence a number of previously detailed situations in other parts of absentjustice.com are used here, and on Bribery and Corruption - Part 1, and Bribery and Corruption - Part 2 we make no apology for that. 

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

"the warrant was accordingly endorsed for non-execution"

The statement and continuations made by Senator Schacht in the Senate Hansard, dated 24 June 1994,(see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). regarding Sandra Wolfe being almost incarcerated into a Queensland Mental Institution under a bogus Mental Health warrant is serious, but for Telstra, the TIO and the government to never have resolved this issue is even worse.

Struggling to walk due to pain and suffering, Sandra has had to live with these injustices, as have most of the COT Cases.

A very brave Queensland police officer wrote a 25-page report after interviewing Sandra. I have not named this warrior for all the right reasons, although I have recorded the report reference identification as follows:

Our Ref SR99/16766

Your ESC00/713

Ref CJC 505/00/03/062

24 May 2001

To Assistant Commissioner – Ethical Standards Command

From [name redacted]

Subject: Complaint of Sandra Jane Wolfe

Most reading this report, other than those who have tried to cover up Sandra Wolfe’s complaint, would likely shed a tear or two, but, with so much corruption in the Australian political and legal system, most Australian citizens seem to be hardening to the injustices in this country.

This brave Queensland warrior’s words, written in a manner I have not seen from a public official in years, are heartening. He ended his report by noting:

“Ms Wolfe considers the issuing of the Mental Health Act warrant and her litigation against Telecom were related. On the 20 February 1991 Ms Wolfe was assessed by the Government Medical Officer as not being mentally ill and the warrant was accordingly endorsed for non-execution

“I recommend that staff attached to the [redacted] Police Station be instructed of the importance of properly recording requests for assistance and the supply of information on criminal conduct when received from members of the community.

“I recommend that staff attached to the [redacted] Police Station be instructed of the importance of treating members of the community with due respect and dignity.

“I recommend that a Senior Officer from the Queensland Police Station take up with Ms Sandra Jane Wolfe and attempt to finally resolve her concerns.”

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 (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 and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

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

The following Senate Hansard records expose criminal conduct or the worse possible kind that happened more than two decades ago during a government-endorsed legalistic arbitration process. Criminal conduct which is exposed in these official Hansard records has still not been investigated. This part of our COT story is a continuation of what I have exposed on this website..

Pages 36 and 38 from these same 24 June 1994 Hansard records Senate – Parliament of Australia that discussed Sandra's Wolfe's Queensland Mental Health warrant also shows an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

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

A covert arrangement entered into by 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 the name of my business the 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.

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

Even worse as shown on the Home page, 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.

Even worse, another Alan Smith who used to live in Discovery Bay, on the other of Cape Bridgewater like me before and leading up to my arbitration, had been battling Telstra over many months receiving legal letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnamboollaw firm) acting for a financial debt collector issuing summons (two I still have) for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehills Hollingdale & Page fax identification stamp is visible on these documents. This is the same Alan Smith who later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and road mail deliveries, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra's arbitration defence unit Freehills mistakenly sent some of my arbitration material to this Alan Smith. I use the word mistakenly because I have no proof it was a deliberate part of Telstra's COT Cases strategy to 'stop me at all costs' from proving my claim.

To add further insult to these injustices, on 12 September 1994, as part of the arbitration process, I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims. I found the process of being interviewed by a psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process.

I reiterate as I have already explained on   one of the most important issues I raised with this psychologist was the trauma I suffered at the hands of this legal firm that ohired him. He appeared to listen carefully to what I described and he said being directed to register phone complaints, in writing, with Telstra’s lawyer, before they would be investigated, was most disturbing. I provided confirmation that losing six incoming calls in a single day was common. Writing to a lawyer, explaining lost six telephone calls, was more than just soul-destroying, it just about broke my willpower to carry on. He said he was shocked Telstra and its legal firm forced this on me and agreed this would certainly affect my mental state over the many months I had to do this.

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.

I found the process of being interviewed by a forensic psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process. Was this his idea to unstabilize me during my arbitration or the company that had hired him? 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 this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

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.

Senator Barnaby Joyce was well aware of the COT Cases’ plight and like his predecessor of his electorate Senator Len Harris (One Nation) he disagreed with the privatisation of Telstra. However, after he met 14 of the COT Cases in July 2005, he decided to broker a deal with the John Howard government to have the COT Cases’ claims independently assessed in exchange for his crucial vote for the Telstra privatisation legislation. However, as soon as Senator Joyce (now Deputy Prime Minister of Australia) cast his vote, the government reneged on its promise (see 12 Alternate remedies pursued - Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued).

Sandra and I were two of the unresolved 14 COT Cases in that meeting of July 2005. No independent investigation into these still-unresolved cases has yet been initiated.

This is just one more broken promise the 14 COT Cases have had to live with since their government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes of the 1990s.

I beleive the providing of false evidence to Ian Joblin Telstr'a arbitration [clinical psychologist] in Telstra's attempt to prove I was mentally unstable and the use of the Queensland Mental Health Act against Sanadra Wolfe, when she was not insane (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), is what finally prompted The Hon Barnaby Joyce, to do what he did in 2005, although he has not followed up on these matters even though he is now Australia's Deputy Prime Minister.  

As has been shown in Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal non of my 008/1800 billing claim documents including the known Ericsson lock-up problems which also affected Telstra's billing system was even investigated during my arbitration. 

Important note:

When Ericsson purchased Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (see below), once the sale took place, all the arbitration technical claim documents which Lane had accumerlated during the arbitrations which was now stored in their computer files became the property of Ericsson. 

In other words, Lane, Telstra and Ericsson together breached the non-disclosure [confidentiality agreement] when Ericsson was handed Lane's computer files regarding all of the COT arbitration evidence against Ericsson. 

When the Telstra board allowed Telstra previous arbitration defence unit to address my 1994 arbitration 008/1800 billing claims in secret with AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, five months after my arbitration did not address the 008/1800 billing faults meant, I was disallowed my legal right to challenge that information provided to AUSTEL. 

That was not how the COT arbitrations were supposed to have been condiucted.

Absent Justice - My Story

AUSTEL did not want it to happen again 

It is clear from AUSTEL's COT Cases report released on 13 April 1994 (eight days before the arbitration agreement was signed), AUSTEL makes it known that all of the COT Cases phone problems were to be fixed before the arbitrator brought down any award. The reason for this is that in my case, and that of the other three COT Cases Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer no sooner had we four accepted our previous settlement from Telstra the problems continued unabated. AUSTEL did not want that to happen again. 

Well my COT story shows it did happen again, no sooner did Dr Hughes (arbitrator) bring down his findings without addressing my Ericsson faults which included the 008/1800 billing issues those same faults continued. 

 AUSTEL, who facilitated the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who administered the arbitrations breached their statutory obligation to me as a claimant by allowing Telstra to address these Ericsson locking up problems and the 008/1800 billing problems aware by now after reading my claim documents, these two scenarios were linked. The Ericsson AXE lock-up problem was two-fold because this fault affected the service lines for up to 90 seconds after each successful call had terminated.

The lines stayed open for that 90 second period when Telstra's billing system assumed the customers were still talking in that 90 second period when that was not the case.

Telstra's previous CEO Frank Blount manuscript which was released in early 2000 which acknowledges Telstra did have a 008/1800 billing problem Australia wide. However, there is no comment in this book regarding the known Ercsson AXE problem which caused the line locking up faults.

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 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:

“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. 

The fact that DMR & Lane stated in their formal report concerning these same unadressed 008/1800 faults at point 2.23 (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues that: "... As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed"... confirms beyond all doubt that none of my billing claim documents were ever investigated. 

Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head 200 years ago when he stated: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

The following admission by Ericsson to the US Department of Justice of a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business" looks like the USA Is paving the global trend to wipe out corruption which is destroying the worlds economay. Is Australia ready to follow the - UNITED STATES STRATEGY ON COUNTERING CORRUPTION?  Is the Australian government going to investigate why the government communications regulator AUSTEL allowed Telstra to continue operating the Ericsson AXE telephone equipment when other countries had removed it or were removing it from their exchanges?

Will the current government communications regulator ACMA demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the technical advisor to the COT arbitrator) during the COT arbitrations when Ericsson had been and was still the primary supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance was central to the COT Cases arbitration claims, including my arbitration claims?

That investigation by ACMA should also include ACMA asking questions as to why in my case was, my AXE equipment which I had supplied AUSTEL, to assist them before they prepared their report. This same information was attached t my arbitration submission along with my technical advisor George Close & Associates submission was not provided back to me after my arbitration. The government endorsed arbitration agreement states clearly all of my arbitration claim material would be supplied back to me after my arbitration. 

When I asked the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) for copies of that information during my pending arbitration appeal he wrote back on 10 January 1997, stating:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [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)

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

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

Since then (see Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 both Warwiick Smith and Dr Gordon Hughes (the COT arbitrator) are recipents of the 'Order of Australia'.

Absent Justice - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said:

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Sadly, what was predicted in 1816, more than 200 years ago, by undoubtedly America's finest president, happened during the COT arbitrations and is still happening in the USA, BritainAustralia and the once-free world as my statements unfold on absentjustice.com.

It is also important to note that Thomas Jefferson made another important statement that:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

While we cannot say that Ericsson and Lane are the types of 'enemies of the people Thomas Jefferson referred to when he stated 'let us tie the second down with the Constitution'. What we do know is. the Australian government should never have allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane in an arbitration the governemnt had endorsed. This selling off of Lane, disallowed the COT Cases every reasonable chance of fully proving their claims as well appealing them within the six-year statute of limitations allowed. When Ericsson purchased Lane, they also purchased all of my Ericsson AXE arbitration claim material which Lane never released back to me after my arbitration. 

When I saw copies of the Lane workling notes during my pending appeal process John Pinnock (the administrator of my arbitration) wrote back to me on 10 January 1996 stating: “I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office,” (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Ericsson who the US Department of Justice has accused of bribery and corruption is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. And, as for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard dated 27 February 1998 shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to a number of Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.

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 including the Ericsson manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses.

Absent Justice - The Peoples Republic of China

Huawei -v- Ericsson 

The following link Huawei Australia uses Ericsson chief's statement to slam 5G ban  suggests the Australian government believes Huawei is not as trustworthy as Ericsson and yet the Google link https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/ is saying the US Department of Justice states Ericsson has been involved in bribery and corruption over a long period of time. 

So who is more corrupt than the other, Huawei or Ericsson? Are the Australian government bureaucrats branding Huawei more corrupt because they are communist and nothing else? If that is the case then surely bribery and corruption by Ericsson is a worse crime than just having political communist views that democratic views.

Therefore, it is important to link here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and the selling off of Lanes to Ericsson in 1996 during the COT arbitrations because it is clearly linked the the delapidated copper wire Telstra infrastructure as well as the poor performance of the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equpment which 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 ).

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, John Pinnock (the second administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a Senate committee (see page 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

“Lane Telecommunications, which is one part of the technical component of the resource unit, has withdrawn from the process as a result of a conflict or perceived conflict of interest after being purchased from Pacific Star by Ericsson Australia, the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance is central to some of the claims.”

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company which was officially under investigation by the arbitrator who allowed this transaction to take place. Why didn't the arbitrator make an official note to the TIO and government that for Ericsson to purchase Lane during the COT arbitrations when Lane had been investigating Ericsson during the COT arbitrations and was still investigating Ericsson up to the period the sale was due to take place was a conflict of interest of extreme importance and relevance to both past and present COT claimants.

The fact that Ericsson was being investigated for providing known deficient equipment to Telstra when that same equipment was being removed from telephone exchanges around the world or had been removed at the time of the COT arbitrations was another matter that posed a significant issue where the COT Cases should have been given special consideration to allow them to appeal their awards if it could be proven that Lane did not value their Ericsson claim material in their official reporting to the arbitrator.

In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson which official arbitration records numbered A56132 were investigated including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignor this evidence aginst Ericsson? Perhaps even worse was when my arbitration claim submission was provided back to me after the completion of the arbitration process a clause embedded in the arbitration agreement NONE of my Ercsson documents provided to Lane and the arbitrator for assessment was returned to me.  

I wonder if the government would have allowed Huawei to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (instead of Ericsson)? Would the Australian government have allowed this transaction to take place if Huawei had wanted to purchase Lane?  However, on the other side of this one-sided arbitration process when the COT Cases damanded the arbitrator access under discover the one vital Ericsson AXE telephone logbook that request was not granted either under the official discovery process or under FOI.

On 11 November 1994 (six months into my arbitration) John Wynack, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s director of investigations, wrote to Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO. The letter was copied to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the administrator) and indicated how desperate I was becoming. Mr Wynack was clear that he would be very concerned if my allegations of Telstra redacting information on FOI documents and withholding relevant documents, including the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Ericsson AXE telephone exchange logbook, were proved correct. Mr Wynack’s concerns were justified. ((See File 114 AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

This one document – the AXE logbook – was all I needed to prove my claims of ongoing telephone problems. Had the arbitrator been aware of the importance of this document, he could not have brought down his findings without making a provision in his award for further compensation until Telstra could prove there were no more problems with its Ericsson-manufactured AXE telephone exchange in Portland. The ambit of the Arbitration Act allowed for this provision for additional payment.

Why didn’t Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd advise the arbitrator of the importance of this Ericsson AXE logbook? Did Lane not inform the arbitrator that such a logbook existed because it was working with Ericsson from the very beginning when it was appointed to the arbitration?

Absent Justice - My Story - The Briefcase Affair

The Briefcase Affair

My constant complaints to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) and my local member of parliament the Hon David Hawker MP, finally bore fruit when, for the first time in this story, Telstra investigators came to Cape Bridgewater. Two Telstra representative from the National Network Investigation Division arrived at my office on 3 June 1993. At last, I thought, I would be able to speak directly to people who knew what they were talking about.

I should have known better. It was just another case of ‘No fault found.’ We spent some considerable time ‘dancing around’ a summary of my ongoing phone problems. Their best advice for me was to keep doing exactly what I had been doing since 1989, keeping a record of all my phone faults. I could have wept. Finally, they left.

A little while later, in my office I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Briefcase Saga was about to unfold i.e. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B)

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to 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 was a major network problems which noted:. 

“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)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were can best be viewed by reading 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.”

Not only was Telstra’s area general manager fully aware at the time of my settlement on 11 December 1992 that she was providing me with incorrect information which influenced my judgement of the situation, placing me at a commercial disadvantage, but the General Manager, Commercial Victoria/Tasmania was also aware just how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange system they had lied about during my 11 December 1992 commercial settlement process. 

The use of misleading and deceptive conduct such as this in a commercial settlement such as mine contravenes Section 52 of the Australian Trade Practices Act. Yet this deception has never been officially addressed by any regulatory body. To get ahead of my story here, even the arbitrator who handed down his award on my case in May 1995 failed to address any of my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems or question Telstra’s unethical behaviour when they provided this false Ericsson AXE information during my 11 December 1992 settlement process. 

I took this Ericsson AXE information to the government regulator AUSTEL, and on 9 June 1993, AUSTEL's John MacMahon wrote to Telstra regarding my continuing phone faults after the settlement, and the content of the briefcase documents: this letter states:

“Further, he claims that Telecom documents (found in the briefcase) contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customer concerned.

In summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that, in the context of the settlement, Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information

I ask for your urgent comments on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith’s premises for his inspection. In light of Mr Smith’s claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism which will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made”.(See Arbitrator File No 61)

When I exposed just how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone system was and that Telstra was also using faulty Ericsson AXE testing equipment, AUSTEL asked for further better particulars I provided. From this date onward, as shown throughout this website, I continued to help AUSTEL even to the extent one representative even drove six hours from Melbourne on 19 December 1995 to my business premises. This Ericsson fault was also causing billing faults due to lockup problems in that equipment. But Telstra also had another issue that AUSTEL and I worked on, and this was another billing problem in Telstra's 008/1800 software. The problem with these two faults was which was causing the incorrect billing to the customer account?.   

This two-fold Ericsson v Telstra software billing problem is discussed throughout our story.

call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these Ericsson 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.

When the COT Cases exposed the Ericsson AXE call loss rate from 15% to 50% as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), then 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 (who was also Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding. As can be seen from the below segment those findings were altered to the detriment of those COT Cases in arbitration

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 AUSTEL the Government Regulator (now called ACMA) to change their original findings in the formal April 1994 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.

ACMA Australian Government

False Reporting  

For a the government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. Were the governments downplaying of the Ericsson AXE fault complaints part of the overall collusion which involved the purchasing of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd who often worked on government contracts? 

Because the faulty Ericsson AXE telephone equipment played such an important part in the COT Cases 1994 to 1999 arbitration procedure I have introduced it here along with the selling off of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration technical unit) to Ericsson the very corporation it had been commissioned to investigate. during the COT arbitrations.

How can an Australian company like Lane be sold off during an Australian government-endorsed arbitration to a Swedish International telecommunications company it is investigating? If this is not collusion and corruption of the worse possibly kind, then what is? 

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications Ptd Ltd) was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson to be purchased by the very same company who were officially under investigation. This purchase bought the silence of Lane once the money was in the bank. The career politician again had closed their eyes to this collusion, regardless of how unethical all this had become with one aim in mind to ensure the COT Cases were "stopped at all costs" from proving their arbitration claims (See pages 36 and 38 Senate -Senate - Parliament of Australia). 

I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lane ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Lane by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process? Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued?)

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that the same subscribers visit my website absentjustice.com where you can see, yourself, that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.

Purchasing all of Lane Telecommunications' COT related arbitration files (during the COT arbitrations) was a most significant coup for both Telstra and Ericsson because all of the arbitration technical information Lane had acquired as a witness during the COT arbitrations which were stored in Lane's computer system as well as in hard copy records belonged to Ericsson once they owned Lane.

What the Australian government appears not to have considered when they allowed Lane to be sold off during our government endorsed arbitrations is that Lane had signed a Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement in which each of the COT claimants also signed agreeing under no circumstances, they would disclose to a third party any information they obtained during the COT arbitrations. And here Lane is the main arbitration witness allowed to sell that confidential acquired information to Ericsson, who Lane had been assigned to investigate.

it is on record, that when Lane together with Telstra and me visited the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange on 6 April 1995 both Lane and Telstra would not allow me to view the Portland Ericsson AXE log book. It is most important I attach here the following link although dated 1996 all Ericsson exchanges had their own logbooks (see page 20 > http://www.wedophones.com/Manuals/EricssonNotInService/AXE%20Operation%20And%20Maint%. It is also on record that the arbitrator would not access this logbook under the arbitration discovery process. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman (during my arbitration) tried to acquire this same logbook using my FOI applications but was unsuccessful. 

Absent Justice - Book of Shadows

Two Indentical Reports?

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. It is well documented that government bureaucrats prior to and during my arbitration alerted the Australain Federal Police (AFP) to the significance of the faxes that were not arriving at their intended destimation during the COT arbitrations (see Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations).

I have no record of any correspodence sent from Dr Hughes to the AFP during my arbitration alerting them to the possibibility that some of my lost arbitration related faxes to his office might have occured due to the arrangment discussed in Graham Schorer's affirmation to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee.

Dr Gordon Hughes, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Commonewealth Ombudsman, various Senators as well as the administrator of my arbitration are fully aware that during my arbitration at the time the AFP were investiting these lost fax issues I received  threats from Telstra because I had raised the lost fax issues with the AFP as part of my arbitration claim (see Senate Evidence File No 31)

Even worse, if that is at all possible, is the fact that while Dr Hughes Melbourne office was sending Melbourne Telstra related arbitration faxes to their Sydney office, the Sydney office was involved assisting several Telstra employees at the same time Telstra employees were under investigation by both the NSW police and the AFP (see page 5163, in this following link SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) which shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra.

Were some of the Melbourne Telstra related arbitration faxes that were not assessed during the COT arbitrations mixed up with the Sydney related Telstra faxes that just disappeared i.e. were not redirected back from Sydney to Dr Hughes Melbourne office for arbitration assessment??

It is also relevant I raise the 18 April 1995 letter, which was sent out to protect any damaging questions that might be asked as to why Lane had not investigated any of my Ericsson AXE exchange billing claim documents. The same 008/1800 billing claims documents that the Australian government communications regulator secretly allowed Telstra to address AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180

It is blatantly obvious from this letter that the administrator, arbitrator and the arbitration legal counsel all knew about this deception before it took place, and did nothing to rectify this deception. As a result of closing their eyes to this deception, further deception took as letters One to Eight) attached to the Prologue page shows

I reiterate, here is clear proof, that even before these eight damning letters were written, John Rundell was prepared to mislead me into believing DMR Group Inc (in Canada) had prepared all of the technical findings on my claims when Lane had secretly assessed them without making a finding against the AXE Ericsson faulty telephone equipment which Telstra was still using when other countries around the world were removing it or had removed it from their exchanges as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. 

Prologue File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E also confirms Derek Ryan (see File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E wrote to John Pinnock (the second administrator to my arbitration) on 20 December 1995 telling him John Rundell had advised him the reason the arbitration reporting on my financial losses was incomplete because the arbitration financial consultants  "...had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator" 

Prologue File 45-E Open letter File No/45-E also confirms on 13 February 1996 nine months after the completion of my arbitration John Rundell wrote to John Pinnock telling him that he did advise Derek Ryan the formal arbitration financial report on my financial business losses "did not cover all material and working papers."

The removal of my true financial business losses from this financial report is serious, but when it is combined with John Rundell misleading me concerning who prepared the technical findings in the arbitration report AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180, these two actions of deceit verge on criminal conduct.

It is important we link the purchase of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd by Ericsson to the 24 June 1997 Senate Hansard pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia because the Peter Gamble mentioned in the following Senate Hansard is the same Peter Gamble who acknowledges the Ericsson AXE equipment was being removed or had been removed from telephone exchanges across the world. He was the same Peter Gamble who caused such pain and suffering to me and my partner when he submitted his Telstra's Falsified SVT Report to the arbitrator. This statement in Senate – Parliament of Australia must be emphasised because it clearly shows the Senate was told I and the other four named COT Cases were never meant to prove our arbitration claims. No investigation as to why us five Australian citizens were so badly victimised during an official government endorsed arbitration process has still not been investigated: I again reiterate: an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, stated to a Senate Estimates Committee that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

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

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White – “Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said ‘stopped at all costs”

Mr White – “Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the introduction process. (See Front Page Part One File No/6)

I reiterate 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 cost’ from proving their my against Telstra’. The named Peter Gamble, in this Senate Hansard, is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his arbitration witness statement to the arbitrator that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Arbitrator File No/110 that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatorily required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267, 055 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 (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra is fully aware that this named Peter Gamble (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, regarding the Ericsson AXE / RCM Service Verification Tests (SVT) being grossly deficient. AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended doing about this deficiency see Front Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B

In response to AUSTEL’s 11 October and 16 November 1994 letter, this Peter Gamble replied in his own letter dated 28 November 1994 letter stating:

“As agreed at one of our recent meetings and as confirmed in your letter of 16th November 1994, attached please find the detailed Call Delivery Test information for the following customers. …

“This information is supplied to Austel on a strict Telecom-in-Confidence basis for use in their Service Verification Test Review only and not for any other purpose. The information is not to be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Telecom.” (Arbitrator File No/98)

By what legal authority could Peter Gamble insist what the government regulator could or could not disclose to a third party, in this case, a claimant whose business was about to be destroyed because Peter Gamble had not conducted the agreed to Service Verification Tests process at my premises using only the Ericsson faulty testing equipment instead of the agreed-to more updated SVT testing device (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report)?

It is most important we link the above wrongdoings by various government bureaucrats to the following episode where, on 2 February 1995, AUSTEL (the Government Communications Regulator) public servants decided to withhold their true findings from the then-Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, regarding the deficient arbitration Service Verification Tests (SVT) conducted at my Cape Bridgewater business on 29 September 1994 (see Open Letter File No/23 and Absent Justice Part (2)/Chapter Eight. Altering the facts of their findings is appalling enough but, according to the Telecommunications Act 1991, AUSTEL was duty-bound, under Section 342 of the Act, to provide the Communications Minister (the Hon Michael Lee MP) with all of their findings regarding the deficiencies in their Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT process.  On page 23 of AUSTEL’s 2 February 1995 COT Cases Third Quarterly Report regarding the SVT testing (see Open Letter File No/23) AUSTEL notes:

“Service Verification Tests have been compiled for seven customers. Reports have been completed and forwarded to six of the customers, and the seventh report is in preparation. All six of the telephone services subjected to the Service Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements established”.

This statement on page 23 of this AUSTEL COT Cases report does not coincide with the advice AUSTEL gave Telstra on 11 October and 16 November 1994 concerning the deficient SVT testing by this elusive ‘Peter Gamble’.  (see Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B).

We will never know what action the Hon Michael Lee MP might have taken in 1994, had the government bureaucrats advised the Minister that the SVT testing at my Cape Bridgewater business had not occurred according to mandatory government communications regulatory specifications. On 12 December 1994, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence, it was stated under oath to the arbitrator in my case, that all three of the service lines tested at my holiday camp on 29 September 1994, had exceeded all of AUSTEL’s specifications. However, the person who made this statement (Peter Gamble) could not get the SVT monitoring device to work in conjunction with its sister device installed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned roadside exchange.

It is clear from the arbitrators’ technical findings in his award that he believed Peter Gamble's version as well as he did AUSTEL’s regarding the SVT events and NOT my arbitration response. Bad Bureaucrats /Chapter One through to Chapter Four clearly show that by Telstra not conducting the government regulatory mandatory SVT process at my business it allowed my ongoing telephone problems to continue for years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Absent Justice - Of Public Concern

In simple terms, when AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) acted in concert with ‘Peter Gamble’ in order to cover up his deficient SVT arbitration testing they too perverted the course of justice and in doing severely disadvantaged me as a claimant in my arbitration process.

Please note, this is the same Peter Gamble that Absent Justice Part (1)  shows was aware that the Ericsson AXE equipment being used during my arbitration at the Portland telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater switching facilitator suffered from line lock-up problems with a (call loss) as discussed in our Home page was between 15% and 50% (see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E) and yet he still lied under oath concerning his SVT testing process conducted at my business (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

This was the same ‘Peter Gamble’ who received an apology from one of Australia’s richest billionaire families and who, back in 2001/02, owned an Australian television station that actually broadcast a documentary about some of the COT case allegations against this same ‘Peter Gamble’.

As part of the process of making that documentary, and after spending two days filming at my premises in Cape Bridgewater, the producer of the show commented, in front of a number of witnesses, that he believed that they ‘had the story of the century and, also at the end of the shoot, even the cameraman, who had told us that he had spent sixteen years looking down a lens’, explained that he believed that this account of how a falsified report had been deliberately used to change the course of a legal arbitration process, was ‘absolute dynamite’.  And remember, this was an apparently ‘official’ report, that had been produced by the same ‘Peter Gamble’.

Eventually, however, the record of my story was replaced by a documentary about another member of COT.  This story, however, did not contain the detailed, documented evidence that my story had provided, and it did not have any of the exhibits that are now freely available on our website, at Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report, Tampering With Evidence – TF200/Chapter One.  All of these sections of the website include numerous documents, none of which can be refuted in any way.

Worst of all is when Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, visited my business on 6 April 1995, instead of DMR Group Canada Inc who was the official designated arbitration (Principal Technical Consultant) together with Peter Gamble representing Telstra, refused to conduct any testing of my three service lines which were trunked (routed) through Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange

Who had the power over the arbitrator and administrator to switch which arbitration technical consultant would visit the Portland AXE exchange and my Cape Bridgewater business? Who had the authority to disallow any testing of my three service lines after AUSTEL warned Telstra their arbitration SVT Testing at my premises had failed to meet the mandatory government requirements?

All Lane had to do was a test on just one of my three service lines, and they would have uncovered the Ericsson AXE exchange was still suffering from ongoing faults. Or had Ericsson and Telstra already advised Lane of the magic golden carrot they were about to be awarded if they ignored the several problems within Telstra's Ericsson exchange equipment? 

Telstra continued to believe they were above the law by continuing to use known faulty Ericsson manufactured AXE telephone exchanges that other countries around the world were removing or had removed from their telephone exchanges as Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E)  and Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f show. The government regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) became aware of this serious matter after a Telstra owned briefcase had been inadvertently left at my business premises. I was still trying to access the Ericsson AXE  report through ACMA and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as late October 2008 (Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued) and May 2011 Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued, fifteen to seventeen years after the arbitrator declined to access the Ericsson AXE information under the arbitration discovery process.  

Although the FOI Game and the unsigned witness statement has been mentioned on the Home page it has been included here as it also needs to be linked at the concluding part oh Mr story.

Absent Justice - Telstras FOI Game

The FOI game is exposed

Although I have already rasied the following Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy throughout this website it was only in a condenced format while here I explain in more detail how unethical the whole Denise McBurnie  COT Case Strategy saga was, and the long term affect it had on the well being of the COT Cases.

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 lawyers to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (Telstra's lawyers) to assess my mental state during my arbitration. it is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

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

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I was providing it to Telstra believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

These were four of the same names targeted by Denise McBurnie and Freehill Hollingdale & Page in their COT Cases strategy, which had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents under FOI ( see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

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.

In my case, another Alan Smith (no relative) who was living on Cape Bridgewater Road, was also battling Telstra and receiving letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing letters of demand for non-paid Telstra billing accounts. It is clear from two of those letters of demand the Freehill Hollingdale & Page fax identification footprint is visible on these documents. This other Alan Smith later informed me after my arbitration concluded that he sometimes received my arbitration-related documents from Telstra during my arbitration.

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 (see also discussed below). 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 (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues)

In fact, the formal arbitration technical evaluation report provided by DMR and Lane (the arbitration technical consultants) to the arbitrator at point 2.23, 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)  

These were the same Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges "Recorded Voice Announcement" that was still registering in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill's before Telstra would investigate the devastation these recorded voice Announcements had on my business. The issue of these unaddressed 008/1800 billing problems was a central and major factor of my arbitration claim and so these problems are raised throughout this website. This 008/1800 free-call service fault, which so seriously affected the viability of my business, was actually threefold. Firstly, Telstra routed the 008/1800 service through my 005 267267 main, incoming service line, despite Telstra knowing that line was prone to serious problems going back for many years. In fact, AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) draft findings, which resulted from their investigations into my complaints (see Open Letter File No/4 File No/5 File No/6 File No/7), show AUSTEL condemned the entire phone system that Telstra supplied to my premises. Secondly, both my 055 267267 service and the 008/1800 free-call service were affected by incoming calls failing to connect: with this electronic message telling the caller, “The number you are calling is not connected.”

Both AUSTEL’s records, and Telstra’s, show that this RVA  electronic message suggests to the caller that the business they are calling is no longer operating, a terrible situation for any telephone-dependent business-owner to have to endure. I experienced these multiple 008/1800 RVA telephone faults throughout my arbitration, and for years after, because as shown above, the arbitrator handed down his findings prematurely, despite his own technical consultants warning him that because of the: “… fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain “open” (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues).

For callers to still be advised that my business was no longer operating (over a four year period) when it definitely was operating and for that electronic message to haunt my telephone line for those years is bad enough but for that electronic message to coniue to tell callers to my business for years after my arbitration was supposed to have fixed it, was a deplorable situation for anyone to have been left in and obviously raises the question of what the arbitrations were meant to do if it was not to investigate and diagnose the fault causes that brought [me] the claimant into the arbitration process in the first place? 

Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - Further Insult to Injustice

Unsigned Witness Statement 

When I first received a copy of this legal advice (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) years after the completion of my arbitration it took me back to my arbitration and the 12 September 1994, when I was obliged to meet with Telstra’s consulting forensic psychologist in Portland’s Richmond Hotel so he could analyse my mental health as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims (see the above Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy).

I found the process of being interviewed by a forensic psychologist, in the saloon bar of the local hotel, shockingly uncomfortable and embarrassing, especially when he kept spreading out different cards on the table as part of this clinical, forensic testing process. Was this his idea to unstabilize me during my arbitration or the company that had hired him? 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 this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

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.

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 (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 by Telstra employees under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties had not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing 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 and a finding made by the government communications regulator?

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

To further add to this breakdown of natrual justice for the COT Cases is, that in my case, another Alan Smith (no relative) who was living on Cape Bridgewater Road, was also battling Telstra and receiving letters from a leading Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing letters of demand for non-paid Telstra billing accounts. It is clear from two of those letters of demand the Freehill Hollingdale & Page fax identification footprint is visible on these documents. This other Alan Smith later informed me after my arbitration concluded that he sometimes received my arbitration-related documents from Telstra during my arbitration.

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 (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues)

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we COT began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses. Intimidation and threats. The arbitrator was missing in-action when these threats were carried out which is testament that he was a spineless arbitrator and therefore should never have been in control over so many arbitrations at the one time. 

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

Point 22 in Des Direen’s witness statement notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?” (See Senate Evidence File No 2A & 2B)

Absent Justice - Tampering of Evidence

No punches were thrown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions on Notice (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions on Notice (2)

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

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

ACMA Australian Government

My Administrative Appeals Tribunal v ACMA 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives. Why didn't the arbitrator and administrator investigate why so many arbitration documents were just not reaching their intended destination? 

Absent Justice - My Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives. Why didn’t the arbitrator and administrator investigate why so many arbitration documents were just not reaching their intended destination? 

Absent Justice - My Story

Pending Appeal Process 

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

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

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

Was this letter 12 May 1995 Open Letter File 55-A actually faxed to my office by the ombudsman to assist me in any pending appeal process, and if not, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period)? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story

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

“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story - Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp

Was Now Under Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.” (See Front Page Part One File No/26).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story

SVT & BCI reports missing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is also interesting to note that senior AAT member (lawyer) Mr G D Freidman hearing my FOI application registered with ACMA that ACMA should provide all the FOI documents I had requested from them, free of charge. At the conclusion of the AAT hearing, Senior AAT Member, Mr G D  Freidman, made a strong point to the government lawyers who were acting on half of ACMA by applauding me for my stand noting:

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

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

Absent Justice - My Story

A flawed process

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE NOTE: 

Bribery and Corruption - Part 2 is still being completed with more segments be added as it is being edited:- Thank you

Download Attachments

Telstra’s Acronyms & Jargon

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

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s 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

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

Hon David Hawker

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

Sister Burke

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

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

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

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

Cathy Lindsey

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

– Edmund Burke