My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

My story

As I have stated on the Home many of the statements made on this website 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 COT arbitrations to be fully understood. Hence a number of previously detailed Ericsson AXE situations in other parts of are used here, again.  

Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

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 > It is also on record that as the arbitrator would not access this logbook under discovery the Commonwealth Ombudsman (during my arbitration) tried to acquire this same logbook using my FOI applications but was unsuccessful.

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 AGAIN STATE, 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.  

Absent Justice - My Story - The Briefcase Affair

The seriousness of these ongoing Ericsson AXE problems were can be viewed by clicking on AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) at points 10 to 212.

When Jim Holmes (Telstra's Corporate Secretary) wrote to me on 27 August 1993 misleading me and the government of the severity of my ongoing telephone problems (see Open Letter File No/2) he was also a member of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Board see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 2 Devious Savage who was soon to be the administrator of my arbitration when this briefcase matter was raised. Neither Warwick Smith nor Jim Homes advised me of this conflict of interest. Amazingly, the arbitrator did not investigate this briefcase evidence in his findings regardless of it being highlighted as the main part of my claim.

Am I supposed to believe this was non addressed briefcase Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problems was just an oversight by Lane (the arbitration consultant) and the arbitrator? Or did the advice not to address my Ericsson AXE briefcase claim documents come from the TIO Board?

Absent Justice - Deception Continues

What is being discussed here and throughout this website didn't happen in communist China or Russia, these illegal acts perpetrated against Australian citizens between 1994 and 1999, during a government-endorsed arbitration and have still not been resolved in 2021, regardless of John Pinnock (the second-appointed administrator of the COT arbitrations), advising a senate committee on 26 September 1997 (see pages 109 to 110, Senate – Parliament of Australia). that:

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that Dr Hughes would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can Dr Gordon Hughes (the previous arbitrator to my arbitration) now an attorney at law at Davies Collison Cave of Melbourne continue to hide under a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?

It might be of interest to the reader the government allowed Telstra to secretly address some of these Ericsson unaddressed arbitration documents outside of the arbitration process Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

Absent Justice - The Hon Richard Alston

On 15 February 1994, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) raised a number of questions on notice in the senate (two months before the commencement of the arbitrations) for Telstra to answer. The questions most pertinent to the COT claimants are numbers 5, 9, 10, 11(a), 15 and 20:

Telstra’s answers to most of the interception questions state:

“These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom itself.

“It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom.”

These statements made by Telstra, that it is inappropriate for Telstra to comment on these phone interception issues whilst the AFP are still investigating these matters, was a ruse. 

Absent Justice - Privacy

Transcripts from my 11 October 1994 oral arbitration hearing confirm I answered Question 24, which had originally been asked by Telstra in the 20 September 1994 arbitration interrogatories (arbitration questions). I answered the following question 24 by stating to both Telstra and the arbitrator:

“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. It the Australian Federal Police are prepared to disclose the details of their investigations and of their conversations with myself, then Telecom will be able to obtain the same” 

In our Front Page for the date of 11 October 1994, during my five-hour, nonstop, oral-arbitration hearing, Telstra’s Mr Benjamin and Telstra’s other arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, discussed along with the arbitrator and me my claims regarding Telstra’s unauthorized interception of my telephone services noting:

Mr Benjamin: “In respect of Detective Superintendent Penrose.”

Mr Black:“There has been an allegation that Detective Superintendent Penrose says that the Plummers’ telephone was allegedly unlawfully tapped” —

Me: “I believe Telecom is playing on words – the word “illegally tapped” – it’s like asking me – I’m not a —

Dr Hughes: “Sorry, if I can interrupt both of you, the issue here is that your answers – your answer to question 24, you indicate that you were told something by Detective Superintendent Penrose.”

Me: “Yes:”

Dr Hughes: “Is there any documentation to support that statement or is there any other light that you can shed upon that statement you have made in relation to Detective Penrose?”…

Me: “I have spoken to Detective Penrose on two occasions and he has stated that my phones had been listened to.”

How could it possibly be ethical, or moral, for Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) to expect me to disclose what I had told the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during their investigations which were impacting upon the integrity of the process? 

During the second AFP interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunication services (which included my fax line) they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations. I told the AFP that John McMahon had told me of the documents AUSTEL had uncovered confirmed beyond all doubt that my phone conversations had been bugged over a period of time.

Question 81 in these AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the AFP asked me:

AFP  "Did John McMahon ever describe the document that he'd spoken to you where it had been identified to him about live monitoring?

Answer. "No, no never".

AFP: "Okay. That, that document that you, that you might be referring to, or John McMahon may be referring to we do have a copy of it".  

Answer: "Right"

AFP: "However, because it's been provided to us by Telecom, I'm, I won't show it to you".

Answer: "You can't yeah I understand".

AFP: "But it does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. Se we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994, that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

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

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

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

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

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

NONE of the COT Cases was ever on a terrorist list in 1994 (or since, for that matter) and nor was any of us ever listed as suspects in relation to any crimes committed against any Australian citizens. 

Absent Justice - Further Insult to Injustice

Try to imagine 

I should never have been put in a position where I was forced to explain, to a forensic psychologist, that I believed that the company who had employed him to assess my mental health was, at the very same time, secretly intercepting [otherwise known as ‘screening’] my arbitration-related faxes before they arrived at their intended destination. In fact, as I later discovered, such an interview, under those specific circumstances, should never have taken place without an Australian Federal Police officer present, because the AFP were investigating these same matters at that same time. 

Transcripts of my second interview with the AFP, on 26 September 1994 (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), record how the government communications regulator admitted to having evidence, which they refused to supply to me, which showed that Telstra had indeed intercepted my telephone conversations over an extended period.

Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) prove COT cases’ faxes were intercepted during their arbitrations. So, with that firmly in mind, first try to imagine the people assigned to intercept the many COT arbitration documents, as they left each of our individual premises, heading to the arbitrator, our financial advisors or our technical advisers. Try to imagine what it might have been like for those people, studiously chasing up and illegally intercepting our legal documents as they travelled around the fax circuit. Try to imagine doing this every single day because, particularly at the peak of our arbitrations, most of the COTs were constantly using the fax system to send documents all over the place! Then, change tack a bit, and try to imagine you are one of us, a member of the COT group, just an ordinary Australian citizen, running an ordinary Australian small business: an ordinary person who trusts the government to do the right thing by ALL Australian citizens. And, so, while you work at keeping your small business afloat, you also write up submissions, prepare legal documents (something you have never done before) and work hard to learn your way around complex technical documents, sometimes with an advisor at your side, but mostly alone.

Try to imagine what it would be like if, after all that effort, even before your documents reached their intended destinations, the defendant hijacks them as part of its reprehensible plot, so it could assess your documents, before they reach their intended destinations. This enabled the defendant extra time and the critical advantage of knowing, in advance, what was to come in the next part of the arbitration process. This gave a huge advantage to the defendant because, of course, that gave them time to decide which aspect of the claim would be easy to defend and which would be best to completely avoided. Try to imagine what that would have felt like for the claimants. You also need to remember, as we record elsewhere on that some of those documents, which we sent off, through what should have been a secure fax system, never arrived at their intended destination at all.

I know this seems too fanciful to be true but I am not Robert Ludlum or John Grisham spinning a story here, not even vaguely, because all this really did happen here in Australia, a supposedly democratic country, not all that long ago – in the years between 1994 and 2001, as exhibits show. In fact, our evidence shows that this fax hacking started at the very beginning of 1994, in January, during the first process, the Fast Track Settlement Proposal so, as you read on, imagine you are sitting at your desk in your office, just like the COT members often did. You’ve been up most of the night, working on your claim, and your privacy and fax system (which everyone used back then) are both about to be violated, yet again, by the defendant, without your knowledge or consent, and the government you pay your taxes to is NOT willing to investigate or assist you, as your business vanishes before your eyes. Wouldn’t you want to know why this was allowed to happen when all you asked for was a decent, properly working telephone system so you could operate your business like your competitors?​

Absent Justice - My Story

The fax imprint across the top of several letters sent and received by the COT Cases had the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which was provided to the government in January 1999, in the hope the government would abandon the arbitrations and reopen those arbitrations that had been subjected to this unlawful hacking process by Telstra [the defendants]. The government refused to intervene.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception Scandrett & Associates 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)

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

Absent Justice - Senator Ron Boswell

This second Senate Hansard, link dated 20 September 1995, shows Senator Ron Boswell officially discussing the injustices the four original COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations noting:

“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. As a direct result, a telecommunications industry ombudsman has been set up and a complaints resolution process established. But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra.

"Then followed the Federal Police Investigation in to Telecom's monitoring of the
COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DP, in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding"

“Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. . . . .

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all.
. . . .

“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”

Senator Boswell’s statement that the claimants “were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all”, is related to the fact the arbitrator had no control over the process even before it began. Why weren't the COT arbitration's abandoned when it became obvious Telstra (the defendants) was controlling the arbitration process, and NOT the arbitrator?

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 Australian Federal Police Investigations.

Two years after these crimes were committed the Senate was informed on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia by 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.”

Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after the Senate learned we COT Cases “had to stop to be stopped at cost” from proving our claims they also uncovered see page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, that Telstra employees were rorting millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra.  NSW was not the only state where this rorting had taken place. Threats were now being made against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully receive functional phone systems, was about to expose how dilapidated the Telstra network was. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (see page 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted. Telstra's lawyers were brought in to stop the COT Cases from exposing the truth surrounding the unethical conduct of those within this government-owned

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 throughout this website, 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.

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston

I doubt there are many countries in the Western world governed by the rule of law, as Australia purports to be, that would allow a group of small-business operators to be forced to proceed with a government-endorsed arbitration while the defence (the government which owned Telstra corporation) was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police of highjacking (intercepting the very arbitration documents the claimants needed to fully support their arbitration claims. 

George Close, the technical consultant for the COT cases, on 5 August 2011 (sixteen years after the conclusions of our arbitrations) wrote the following email:

“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.

During the independent Senate Committee investigations of 1997 to 1999, twenty-three Senators were either directly involved or provided with regular updates about those investigations into the COT arbitrations.  Out of those twenty-three, the following six individual Senators all made official statements dated 6 March 1999 (See > Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – BoswellSen Ronald – CarrSen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris and Alston, Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations.

During the independent Senate Committee investigations of 1997 to 1999 into the conduct of Telstra after the conclusions of our arbitrations, twenty-three Senators were either directly involved or provided with regular updates about those investigations into the COT arbitrations.  Out of those twenty-three, the following six individual Senators all made official statements dated 6 March 1999 (See > Eggleston, Sen Alan – BishopSen Mark – BoswellSen Ronald – CarrSen Kim – SchachtSen Chris and AlstonSen Richard) all formally recorded how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations.

It is most important I address part of The Hon Senator Richard Alston Minister for Communications and the Arts statement in the above official Hansard record which notes:

"All I am saying is that it may well be that you will never get any satisfied customers out of this process. I know it occurs in personal injuries cases, that by the time you have awarded mammoth amounts people are so overwhelmed by the process they have been through they can barely think straight. All I am saying is that we should not think that somehow there is an easy way of cutting through this that will satisfy the CoT cases because we may have passed the point where they were going to be capable of satisfaction in this life. Having said all that, I do think we have an obligation to do our best collectively. I think there is a will on all sides of the chamber to make sure that at least we have done what we can do. I will be pursuing the matter further."

I believe it was is important to raise the six various statements made by the aforementioned six Senators statements on11 March 1999 after the conclusions of the arbitrations because there was no mention of any COT Cases have been debriefed or counselled after the trauma of what the government allowed Telstra to do during some twenty-one or more arbitrations.

If Senator Richard Alston was really concerned when he finished his statement by noting  "I do think we have an obligation to do our best collectively. I think there is a will on all sides of the chamber to make sure that at least we have done what we can do. I will be pursuing the matter further," then he would have ensured all of the twenty-one COT Cases received the same treatment not just the five litmus cases. 

Anyone reading An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens will find that those five litmus test COT cases received between them over 150,000 previously withheld from them during their respective arbitrations, so they could decide whether to take Telstra to court using that fresh evidence or take the $16 million compensation dollars on offer to split between them.

Those five took the $16 million dollars and the 150,000 newly released documents, while the 16 remaining COT cases missed out on both. Senator Richard Alston did not do all he could for those remaining 16. They didn’t even get their previously withheld documents as to at least assess whether to appeal their individual arbitrations. 

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice

It might be hard to believe but, back in August 2001, and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing (see Senate Evidence File No 13A & 13B prove the 5 litmus COT Cases were assisted with preparing their arbitration claims by Telstra and the Senate, to have me charged with contempt of the Senate if I was to ever disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process? Where is the justice in that? Being charged with contempt of the Senate can result in a two-year jail term and, of course, the Government has always known that but, if I had been in a position to safely go ahead and make these documents public, they would have been a huge help, probably resulting in me winning my appeal against Telstra for gross misconduct.  So how can the Senate continue to hide this conduct and, in the process, destroy so many lives? How is this democratic?

In fact, after one National Party senator verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” who was in charge of the COT arbitrations on behalf of Telstra, he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee as the following link An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens - Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking: shows 

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party senator also made it clear to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra was to award compensation only to the litmus COT cases, then this act “would be an injustice to the 16”.

Ho can the Australian government continue to ignore the truth surrounding these still unresolved 16 COT Cases

Absent Justice - Bernard Collaery

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information in order to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government have stated they were unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

Using the Australia–East Timor spying scandal as an example which can readily be checked by googling the words Australia–East Timor Spying - Witness K Bernard Collaery we can compare this spying scandal with what Telstra did during several government-endorsed COT arbitrations when the Telstra corporation was then still owned by the Australian government. 

What appears not to have been considered in the most recent Witness K and Bernard Collaery phone-bugging scandal (see court-document-witness is that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) provided conclusive proof to the John Howard government that someone within the Telstra Corporation, who had access to Telstra’s network, authorised the interception (screening) of COT-related arbitration faxes. Between January 1994 and January 1999, Telstra was the defendant in our government-endorsed arbitration process. The following exhibit Front Page Part One File No/14 shows that a secondary fax machine was installed into Telstra's network over an extended period. The Australian government declined to investigate these matters in 1999, which allowed Telstra to continue to intercept my faxing service lines up until at least December 2001 more than six years after the end of my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration.  

For the Australian government to have sanctioned the listening into Australia and East Timor oil reserve negotiations is a crime all of its own according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is still being played out in the courts today but for the same government to continue to ignore that this same type of hacking into the COT Cases private and business lives which destroyed those lives and the lives of the COT's families is in inconceivable.

Bernard Collaery was in the Supreme Court on 18 November 2021 in relation to subpoenas and Judge Mossop's decision regarding the Appeal court's remitting of matters back to him. The interminable to and fro continues. But the Attorney General's recent decision to try and bring new secret evidence, not even to be shown to Bernard Collaery, is a new low in the government's behaviour.

The Attorney General is also trying to keep the Appeal Court's reasoning for its recent decision secret. This is outrageous and reflects the state of the law in Australia now! It's no wonder that retired judge Stephen Charles, a Director at the Centre for Public Integrity, describes this prosecution as 'one of mendacity, duplicity, fraud, criminal behaviour, invasions of legal professional privilege, contempt of court, denial of a fair trial and failure to act as a model litigant'. Harsh words indeed.

Click on My story and learn how one of Australia’s most prominent legal firms, on behalf of their client Telstra had already spuriously concocted a strategy to deny the COT Cases their legal right to discovery during the forthcoming arbitrations—even going beyond to the great lengths to hoodwink the arbitrator into allowing them to draft the arbitration rules so as the time frame in the agreement did not allow the claimants time to access the documents they needed to support their claims.

Absent Justice - Prologue

When the arbitrator realized the possibility that Telstra's lawyers had drafted my arbitration agreement with the limited time frames in the rules to allow for the production of documents, he wrote to Warwick Smith (the first administrator of the arbitrations( on 12 May stating:

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

 “…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports…

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement” 

“There are some other procedural difficulties which revealed themselves during the Smith arbitration and which I would like to discuss with you when I return” (see Open Letter File No 55-A). 

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

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

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine is discussed in more depth in our Australian Federal Police Investigations page.

The arbitrator and Telstra were aware I had to "be stopped at all cost" from proving my claim. Bringing down a finding by the arbitrator on the Arbitration Agreement, he branded it as not a credible document to have used unthinkable.
Using that deficient arbitration agreement was just another hurdle I had to jump during my arbitration, as the following Senate Hansard Senate – Parliament of Australia.shows.

Absent Justice - The Firm

At this time, I remembered the ruthless legal firm portrayed in the 1991 novel The Firm by John Grisham.  The similarities of what that legal firm was able to get away under the nose of the US authorities was no different to what Telstra's legal firm got away with under the nose of the Australian authorities (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C.

In 1993, I first had to register my telephone problems in writing with Telstra's lawyers before Telstra would investigate those faults. This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers, 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 (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212). 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.

As noted on the Home page [forensic psychologist] segment 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. 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. It was on this day, that I knew Telstra controlled the arbitrator and the government communications regulator as our story shows this was clearly the case. 

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. Even though I provided the arbitrator with unmistakable evidence (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) that this legal firm provided their arbitration clinical psychologists with a known false Bell Canada International (BCI) report before he assessed my mental state concerning the faults my business was experiencing with Ericsson AXE telephone exchange to which my business was connected to the arbitrator did not remove this proven false report from the arbitration process. 

This non-action to this proof by the arbitrator paved the way for Telstra to later use this same known false BCI report to a Senate Committee (see BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) stating I was wrong, and Telstra was right. 

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.

On 24 June 1997 a Senate Committee was informed (see pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia by 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 was advised by Telstra in the offices of this same legal firm that: the COT Cases (naming me as one of the five cases) had to be 'stopped at all cost' from proving our claims.

It has since been proven that the arbitration agreement the first four COT Cases signed in April 1994 which included me had been drafted by these same lawyers and not independently of the parties as the government and claimants were advised by the administrator of the process.  When the arbitrator uncovered the many deficiencies in that agreement, he still used it to my detriment as Chapters 4 and 5 on the Prologue page shows. 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations John Pinnock, informed a Senate Committee (see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) that: “Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

To fully explain just how the Lane and Ericsson collusion stopped the COT Cases from successfully appealing their arbitration claim, we must go back to February 1995, ten months into the arbitrations, when Warwick Smith, the government-appointed administrator of the arbitrations, wrote to the first four claimants explaining that the official technical arbitration consultants, DMR Group Australia, had been compromised by Telstra and could therefore not continue in their role as technical arbitration consultants. Warwick Smith then proposed an alternative specialised consultancy firm, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia), to take over from DMR Australia but, at the same time, refused to explain exactly why, all of a sudden, DMR Australia had a conflict of interest when they did not have one on 21 April 1994, when they provided these four COT Cases with their written acceptance, acknowledging that DMR would investigate each of the four COT Cases’ claims, completely impartially.  

The COT Cases, however, notified Warwick Smith at once that they did not trust Lane because the company was run by ex-Telstra officials who had, on several occasions in the past, worked for the government in connection to Telstra-related issues.  We strongly believed that this posed a clear conflict of interest. 

On 9 March 1995 (see File 161 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180, in an attempt to allay our concerns, the administrator advised us that DMR Group Inc (Canada) would now be the principal technical consultants, and Lanes would only assist them. File 155 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180 is a letter dated 13 April 1995, from Telstra to the arbitrator, that included the details of a planned visit by Lane to Telstra’s Ericsson AXE exchange at Portland, and also to my business. There is NO mention of DMR Group Inc (Canada) being in attendance. Neither Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) nor Warwick Smith (the administrator) responded to my questions in relation to why DMR Group Inc did not do the investigations at the Portland AXE exchange, at the Cape Bridgewater switching RCM exchange, or at my businesses premises, even though that was what I had been promised, in writing, by Warwick Smith, on 9 March 1995. 

File 156 is a letter dated 31 March 1995 AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180, from Telstra to Lane, advising of a visit by Lanes to the Portland Ericsson AXE exchange, and to my business, on 5 April 1995. This means that Telstra (the defendant) oversaw exactly who did what during the arbitrations. Again, there is no mention of DMR Group Inc (Canada) being present. 

On 5 April 1995, Lanes arrived at my business, with Telstra, which therefore means that Lanes Telecommunications Pty Ltd carried out ALL the technical investigations, not DMR Group Canada.  This then prompted my appeal lawyers (Law Partners Melbourne) to suggest that I appoint Quests Private Detective Agency to do some preliminary investigations into John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, and Lane Telecommunications. Quests Investigations then visited John Rundell at his private residence and received a very different story to the truth of what had really happened, before and during my arbitration. 

Warwick Smith then refused to officially record what sort of compromise had been put in place between DMR Inc (Australia) and Telstra, which had forced Smith to change to DMR Group Canada. Law Partners noted that since I had paid over $200,000.00 in professional fees, in an attempt to have my ongoing telephone problems investigated by an arbitrator and independent technical unit, I was therefore also entitled to hear Warwick Smith’s reasons for why he was now appointing a Canadian company that the COT Cases knew nothing about. 

When those same arbitration appeal lawyers (Law Partners Melbourne) learned that there were actually three members of the COT Cases group, i.e. Graham Schorer, Ann Garms and I, who had all signed the SAME version of the arbitration agreement, on the same day, i.e. 21 April 1994, and that the administrator, and the arbitrator, had threatened all three of us, saying that we HAD to accept the covert alterations to the arbitration agreement, which now also exonerated the administrator's legal counsel and the arbitration financial and technical consultants from any fines that they might otherwise suffer, as a result of their negligence.  Law Partners then told me that this actually meant that I had a good chance of winning an appeal.

The three COT Cases, together, were then represented by lawyer William Hunt who had agreed that on 19 April 1994, the unchanged version of the agreement was to be faxed from the arbitrator’s office to Mr Hunt.  This version did not exonerate those aforementioned parties from any fines for negligence but, however, the version of the agreement that Graham, Ann and I were told we must sign, definitely DID include those clauses, which had been altered to protect the arbitration legal counsel, the arbitrator and the arbitration consultants. 

When Law Partners then learned that none of my Ericsson AXE technical claim documents or my Over Forties Singles Club financial claim had been valued, and it was clear that all the parties involved in this collusion were hiding behind the altered arbitration agreements that exonerated them from any problems related to those acts of deception that had clearly taken place, Law Partners were very clear:  they said that I had a case against both Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the arbitration financial advisors) and DMR Group and Lane (the arbitration technical consultants) because my evidence against them proved their involvement in deliberate maleficence.    

Law Partners also believed that Warwick Smith's refusal to place on record the details of the compromise that had taken place to allow the appointment of Lanes and DMR Group Canada was more evidence on which to build our claim for a successful appeal.

So, taken together, Warwick Smith’s refusal to record the actual truth; the fact that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd had done ALL the technical investigations and not simply ‘assisted’ DMR Group Canada; and the way that Ferrier Hodgson had, deliberately and dramatically, downplayed my actual financial losses, is what prompted Law Partners to suggest that I appoint Quests Private Detective Agency, (as noted above, in the paragraph that begins with “On 5 April 1995”) to carry out some preliminary investigations into John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, and Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. Quests Investigations then visited John Rundell at his private residence: his statement regarding Quests’ interview is mentioned in his 13 February 1996 letter see Open letter File No/45-E) to John Pinnock (the second administrator appointed to my arbitration).

Quests Investigations and Law Partner advised I should seek from John Pinnock (the second administrator to my arbitration) all of the arbitration documentation surrounding this conflict of interest issue, who authorised only Lane to investigate the Portland Ericsson AXE exchange and why no promised testing to my service lines were done by DMR Group (Canada) before they signed off the Lane prepared technical report. I wrote to John Pinnock surrounding these issues and received the following response:

“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.

“The arbitration of your claim was completed when an award was made in your favour more than eighteen months ago and my role as Administrator is over.

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” 

As I have stated on the Home page when Ericsson purchased lane, it ended any reasonable chance the COT Cases had of proving their claims. In my case, my claims also included the ongoing phone problems in the Portland Ericsson AXE exchange was still affecting the viability of my business.

Once Lane was purchased by Ericsson, all their technical information about how they prepared their technical findings, their reference of documents they had sourced from Telstra to compare with the COT Cases submitted claim material and those they acquired from the government communications regulator. While an appeal judge had legal right to demand Lane provide all of their information once an appeal had been entered into by a COT Case an Australian appeal judge did not have legal right over Ericsson Open Letter File No/51-C, that Dr Gordon Hughes (the previous arbitrator to my case) was concerned that if he was truthful to Laurie James the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia who was about to investigate my claims against Lane and the other parties include the arbitrator that cost of being truthful (frank) to Mr James might embarrass the TIO office and possibly jeopardise the current arbitrations which were being conducted in appalling circumstances. It will be further obvious to the reader if they click on Chapters One to Five Prologue page they will learn my claims against those involved in the administration of my arbitration including Dr Gordon Hughes and John Rundell are justified.

In the concluding last three paragraphs of 12 Alternate remedies pursued -The fifth remedy pursued I discuss my submission to the Australian Securities Commission concerning the conduct of the COT arbitrations including my own case where 81% of my claim documents were clearly not investigated i.e.; 

While the following "the end of democracy"  has been discussed on our updated 11 November 2021 Home page I have included it here because of the serious nature of its content.

Thomas Jefferson's referral to 'the end of democracy' .....' will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations' is exactly what happened when the Australian Government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd while Lane was still the expert witness assigned to value each of the COT Cases arbitration claims.

It is, therefore, important I jump forward here to the current day and introduce the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, 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’.” ". (see

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.”

Purchasing all of Lane Telecommunications' COT related arbitration files was a most significant coup for both Telstra and Ericsson (whose faulty telephone equipment was the subject under investigation). This meant all the acquired arbitration technical information related to each COT claimant in Lane Telecommunications' system (which Lane agreed when signing a confidentiality agreement they would not disclose to a third party) was revealed to a third party once Ericsson owned Lane.

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a professional witness (Lane was a professional technical witness) to be purchased by the company it was investigating.

On 18 April 1995, to protect any damaging questions that might be asked as to why Lane had not investigated the majority of my Ericsson AXE exchange claim material John Rundell (the arbitration project manager) wrote to the administrator, arbitrator and the arbitration legal counsel informing them that “Any technical report prepared by draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Group Inc AS-CAV Exhibit 128 to 180

It is clear 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

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. 

This sort of deceit is not tolerated in countries where arbitrations are transparently performed. John Rundell currently (2021) operates arbitration offices in both Melbourne and Sydney. He is an Australian passport holder, a permanent resident of Hong Kong and is on the HK International Centre mediation panel, who I doubt would tolerate the above deceitful conduct. 

I also hoped ASIC, with its legislative powers, would order a quick assessment of the arbitrator’s written technical findings in his award, as well as compare Telstra’s arbitration defence. ASIC would have proved beyond all doubt that NONE of my Ericsson AXE and NEAT faulty testing equipment procedure was defended by Telstra, or commented on by the arbitrator. Lane Telecommunications (the TIO-appointed arbitration technical advisors investigated NONE of my Ericsson fault data. I can only presume Lane did not assess my Ericsson claims because Lane was already in the process of being purchased by Ericsson. ASIC was misled and deceived by Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory as I had been during my arbitration.

Why then did Anthony Hodgson, the chair of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the arbitration financial resource unit), write to Alan Cameron, chair of the Australian Securities Commission (see Open letter File No/45-I), on 17 March 1998, advising that I was wrong: ALL of my claim documents were addressed during my arbitration when the above-aforementioned points and exhibits show they were not addressed at all. This statement by Mr Hodgson to ASIC was clearly misleading and deceptive conduct. If he wrote on advice he received within his own corporation, then his own company members and partners within profoundly misled and deceived him and when this possibility was brought to his attention and the attention of John Pinnock (the second TIO) the truth of the matter was not relayed back to ASIC.

Had the Australian Securities Commission not been misled and deceived in March 1998, less than three years after my arbitration concluded, and instead made a finding that my claims were justified, as the attached exhibits on show, then I could have challenged at least one of the sections in the arbitrator’s award, as 1998 was well within the statute of limitations time-frame allow

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 - double click on the front cover of the book.

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents linked in the text.

Clicking on these links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit/evidence that a crime was committed. Using this method and following the various file numbers discussed in our various pages, you will verify our story. 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 the way we have is possibly a world first.


Quote Icon

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

Hon David Hawker

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

The Hon David Hawker MP

“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

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

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

Hon David Hawker MP

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

Senator Carr

“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

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

– Edmund Burke