Welcome to Absent Justice! This website is a work in progress; it was last edited in March 2024. If you're interested in reading Absent Justice Book 2, you can get it for free with a simple click. However, if you appreciate the time and effort spent writing the book and gathering the evidence to support our story, we would be grateful if you could donate to Transparency International Australia.
The website that initiated my in-depth exploration of political corruption is comparable to some of the most compelling true crime exposés. Its revelations are of the utmost significance and warrant attention from anyone concerned with upholding the integrity of our democratic institutions.
Read about our dealings with:
Australia knowingly sold wheat to communist China, aware China was redeploying it to North Vietnam while North Vietnam soldiers were killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand and USA troops fighting in North Vietnam. I ask every single visitor to this website to read footnote pages 82 to 85 of the paper FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu. Espionage and spying, including the use of electronic surveillance equipment, to gain an illegal advantage over litigants during court proceedings and private negotiations Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. Terrorist activities in ISIS-held Iraq by Telstra’s major telecommunications supplier Ericsson. Ericsson, instead of admitting to the COT arbitrator that their Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment had many deficiencies, purchased the arbitration technical expert. This effectively meant that the evidence collected by this Australian technical consultant became the property of Ericsson. Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden ... and ... https://www.icij.org › Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure: Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? Tampering with evidence (changing the outcome) in the arbitration: Tampering With Evidence. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed: Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report AUSTEL (for the government) concealed vital evidence from the arbitration process that would have won my case: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212. The arbitrator ordered the removal of vital evidence from two reports: Chapter 1 - The collusion continues and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete Organized crime via the Telstra network, i.e. telephone calls and faxed documents intended for one business being redirected to another with the proceeds of that directed information earning the criminals involved millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains Chapter 2 - Illicit screening and Chapter 4 Government spying Barrister Sue Owens registered fraud allegations against Telstra during the COT arbitrations with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, only to be squashed under pressure by the Australian government (see the following transcripts: Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy.
Instances of corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy during government-endorsed arbitrations are unacceptable. Such offences are a grave concern that affects the community at large. It is essential to ensure that justice is served correctly and that the community's faith in the judicial system is not shaken.
It is unacceptable that the Australian government-endorsed arbitration process was vulnerable to such corruption. It is time for the government to take a stand against those who interfered with the course of justice and subject them to severe penalties. The community and individuals (namely the Casualties of Telstra) affected by the corruption demand nothing less.
Collusion between arbitrators, appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and defendants is unacceptable. The defendants, in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), used network-connected equipment to screen faxed material leaving the claimants' office, stored it without their knowledge or consent and only redirected some of these faxed documents to their intended destination. Where are the faxed arbitration claim documents that never reached the arbitrator's office?
The fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 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.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
On 25 February 1994: When this letter to Telstra’s Corporate Secretary from Fay Holthuyzen, Assistant to the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, (AS 772-a) is compared to the letter dated 3rd February 1994 Exhibit (AS 772-b) that I sent to the Minister’s office it is clear that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
On the same day of 25 February 1994, an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AS 773)
On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:
“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.
Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”
This felony aided the defendants' arbitration defence to the claimants' detriment. Such actions are unacceptable, and those responsible must face the full extent of the law.
Investigating how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to such hacking is essential. Electronic eavesdropping, i.e., hacking into in-confidence documentation, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated during legitimate Australian arbitrations.
The Australian government must release the report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 to the Australian public, confirming that confidential, COT arbitration-related documents were also illegally screened before leaving and arriving at Parliament House Canberra. It is unacceptable that the government refuses to do so.
It is unacceptable that the Australian government agreed to endorse a legally binding arbitration agreement that the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators did not independently draft. The fact that the agreement was drafted by lawyers for the defendants in the arbitration is unacceptable, especially when the carrier was the defendant in the arbitration. The government's refusal to investigate why the agreement included a clause designed by the defendant's lawyers that severely limited the time claimants could access discovery documents they needed to support their claim directly from the defendants is unacceptable.
In summary, the Australian government must act to protect our justice system from any attempts to undermine it. We demand severe penalties for those who interfere with the course of justice, and transparency in all government-endorsed arbitrations to prevent further corruption.
It is essential to publish an accurate report of events during Australian government-endorsed arbitrations. The pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy is unacceptable, and transparency is critical to preventing further corruption. It is imperative to demonstrate that government public servants who provided privileged information to the then-Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while concealing the same documentation from the claimants must face the full extent of the law.
It was unacceptable for the arbitrator to agree to secret terms of reference favouring Telstra to the detriment of the COT claimants so that Telstra could conceal the poor state of its telecommunications network, which would have opened the floodgates to a massive class action, was a criminal act entered into by the arbitrator.
On 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
It is clear from this Senate Hansard that Mr White named me (Smith) as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped" from proving my claim.
It was also grossly unethical (if not unlawful) for the arbitrator to have used Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement on my arbitration and that of the other three claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, telling us, along with several government ministers, plus the Canberra Parliament House Press Gallery that it had been drafted independently of Telstra and when the arbitrator realised on the eve of bringing down my award on 11 May 1995, write to the administrator Warwick Smith on 12 May 1995 Open Letter File No 55-A telling him it had to be amended for the remaining COT claimants who all three signed the same not credible agreements with me in April 1994. It was amended, allowing those three claimants more than thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence but disallowing me any further time.
I reiterate: Why were these three claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, given these extra thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence that Dr Hughes allowed me? Why was this 12 May 1995 letter not provided to me by either Dr Gordon Hughes or Warwick Smith so I could use it in my designated appeal period? The actions of the arbitrator in my arbitration and that of three other claimants, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, were highly unethical and potentially illegal. The arbitrator claimed that Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement was independent, but on May 12, 1995, he realized it needed an amendment. He requested this amendment for the remaining three COT claimants, who had all signed the same non-credible agreements with me in April 1994. As a result, these claimants were given more than thirteen months to submit their claims and answer Telstra's defence. However, I was not given any extra time, which has been the hardest thing for me to accept over the past twenty-eight years.
Perhaps even worse, Graham Schorer, an ex-business and legal client of Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest, received a letter on 10 November 1994 telling him that: "...I now direct that your claim documentation be submitted on or before 12 December 1994". However, at that time, it appears as though Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) had not yet discovered the many inaccuracies in the arbitration agreement, which he later identified in his 12 May 1995 letter to Warwick Smith stating:
“the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;
“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports; …
“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” (Open Letter File No 55-A)
It is unacceptable that criminal offences occurred during the COT arbitrations, and those who interfered with the course of justice must face severe penalties. It is unacceptable that those who committed these crimes still occupy high offices in Australia and Hong Kong. It is essential to safeguard our justice system from any attempts to undermine it.