Chapter Four - The Seventh Damning Letter
Important evidence from my accountant, Derek Ryan of DMR Corporate, surfaced in late November 1995—just five months after Dr. Hughes hastily issued my award on May 11, 1995. This evidence revealed the depths of manipulation at play, as Derek recommended I reach out to Dr. Hughes to discuss the newly uncovered data from Telstra. Dr. Hughes had requested this crucial information on my behalf during the arbitration process in March 1995, yet shockingly, Telstra withheld it throughout the discovery phase, burying the truth under layers of deceit. Even my own Freedom of Information (FOI) request returned nothing.
John Rundell's letter, dated February 17, 1996, addressed to John Pinnock, corroborated the sinister atmosphere. It acknowledged that a private investigator had intervened to probe further, hinting at a web of hidden agendas. On November 28, 1995, I finally received FOI documents highlighting raw data, photographs, and laboratory graphs that had mysteriously evaded my notice during the arbitration. This material was pivotal, specifically concerning a TF200 EXICOM—a device I owned two of—leading to a tangled confusion that masked the real issues.
The technical evidence painted a chilling picture: someone at Telstra had deliberately tampered with the phone, blackening the attached pad and smearing a dark substance over it. This was a blatant act of sabotage, especially when a photograph from the time of collection showed the device free of grime.
Furthermore, I uncovered two test documents revealing Telstra’s corrupt conduct regarding the phone. They indicated that when beer and Coca-Cola were introduced into the device, it malfunctioned wildly. Alarmingly, Telstra's own documentation stated that after applying either Coke or beer, laboratory tests showed the phone dry again within 48 hours. This timeline implies that when Telstra seized my phone on April 27, 1994, and waited until May 10 to conduct tests, any foreign substances found must have been placed there after it left my possession. Such evidence raises grave doubts about Telstra's protocols and practices, suggesting a cover-up designed to evade accountability.
The original laboratory tests, concealed from both Dr. Hughes and me, eventually surfaced due to my relentless FOI pursuit—but it was too late to validate my ongoing claims about the phone issues. As this truth began to unravel, I called Dr. Hughes at 8:00 a.m., sensing critical shifts in my case, only to find he was conveniently overseas.
The very next day, I updated Mr. Pinnock about our conversation and presented him with damning evidence of Telstra's fraudulent actions. My website meticulously details my claims, which I firmly believe hold substantial weight.
Subsequent correspondence from Mr. Pinnock to Mr. James on February 27, 1996, implicated Dr. Hughes in potentially misrepresenting my character to Mr. James. Had Mr. James been properly informed, my past twenty-eight years might have unfolded in a far more favorable light. The COT Cases suffered not just from Dr. Hughes’s inconsistencies in arbitration methods but from a collective reluctance to confront the truth.
Before I bring to light the fabricated allegation concerning a phone call to the arbitrator's wife at 2 a.m.—used to deflect scrutiny away from my legitimate grievances—I must emphasize the possibility that neither Dr. Hughes nor John Pinnock wanted the two damning letters from my accountant, Derek Ryan, to come to light. These letters, dated December 6 and December 20, 1995, might have revealed the truth behind Dr. Hughes’s partial valuation of my financial findings, casting a long shadow over their actions and the decisions made against my claims. The entire situation reeks of a calculated cover-up, one that has seriously impeded my quest for justice.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James (see point 4 above), attacking my credibility. The TIO deliberately misinformed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am one morning:
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
PLEASE NOTE:
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests in his letter to Laurie James, why did he not produce my letter?
Who notified the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) that I had made a phone call at approximately 2 a.m.? According to the telephone account for that particular evening, documented in Arbitrator File No /49, I made my call at 8:02 p.m. It is profoundly disheartening to witness the propagation of false narratives about the timing of my call. Even more troubling, however, is the realisation that the reason for my urgent call was deliberately concealed from Mr. James. With a sense of urgency and determination, I reached out to the arbitrator to inform him that I had finally received the crucial arbitration documents that were supposed to have been provided to me during the arbitration process on November 28, 1995. These documents strikingly demonstrated that Telstra's TF200 EXICOM arbitration defence report was fabricated, a deliberate act intended to obstruct justice.
As I delved into these newly discovered pieces of evidence, it was exhilarating and validating to learn that Telstra's laboratory staff had conclusively proven that beer could not have remained wet and sticky for an extended period of 14 days in my collected phone. This time frame represented the duration between the TF200 EXICOM leaving my premises and its arrival at their laboratory, a fact that should have absolved me of any accusations against my character. It was already evening when I called the arbitrator's home number, my heart racing with excitement; here was the opportunity to finally refute Telstra's damaging claims that I was intoxicated. They had suggested that it was my drinking habits that impaired my ability to manage my telephone-dependent business, rather than any deficiencies in Telstra's services. When Dr. Hughes’ wife answered the phone, she informed me that he was currently overseas, adding another layer of urgency to my situation.
Reflecting on that moment now, I am struck by how blindsided I was. I had incorrectly assumed that the arbitrator, Gordon Hughes, was aware of the rumors circulating within the influential corridors of Parliament House regarding his use of a dubious arbitration agreement—one that Telstra's legal team had secretly drafted to serve its own interests. This agreement severely undermined the COT Cases' ability to secure crucial documents necessary for their claims. My intuition led me to believe it was essential to inform Gordon Hughes, and that if he was at home, he would want to hear that I could substantiate claims of fraud with this newly acquired evidence from Telstra's laboratory. However, since he was not available, I decided it was wise to mention a name that would be familiar to his wife, thus avoiding any alarm. I told Mrs. Hughes, "Please let Gordon know that John Rundell called, and I will speak with him later about this matter." After our brief conversation, I wished her a good night and hung up, as the billing account later confirmed my call only lasted 28 seconds.
The following day dawned with a renewed sense of purpose. I reached out to John Pinnock, eager to share the groundbreaking evidence I had uncovered and discuss the events of the previous night. I assumed that Dr. Hughes had already addressed the significant issues surrounding the highly unfavourable arbitration agreement he had been compelled to use. On May 12, 1995, he had even written to Warwick Smith, voicing his concerns and condemning the agreement as lacking in credibility. Yet, despite his reservations about its legitimacy, he had chosen to employ this very document, ultimately undermining my arbitration award. To my astonishment, Dr. Hughes further altered the terms of the agreement later, granting the other COT Cases more than thirteen additional months of access to their documents from Telstra—an extension far beyond what he had afforded me.
This revelation led me to suspect that if Dr. Hughes’ wife had known who was calling, she might have felt uneasy, fearing that I was about to accuse her husband of dishonesty. In a momentary lapse of judgment, I used the name of the FHCA project manager, John Rundell, fully aware that Dr. Hughes was acquainted with him. This seemed like a safer choice that would not raise concerns. Later that day, I updated the TIO about my significant discovery and attempted to reconnect with the arbitrator to share my findings. I explained to the TIO that I had provided Mrs. Hughes with the name of another individual to avoid causing her undue alarm. I inquired about the TIO’s intentions regarding the evidence I had unearthed, specifically regarding Telstra's deliberate misrepresentation of the cause of the phone fault. The TIO's response was disheartening: he clearly stated that my arbitration had concluded and that he had no intention of involving his office in any further investigations. He advised me that if I wished to pursue the matter, I should take it to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
It is bad enough to have to live with the knowledge that the Arbitration Resource Unit and the Arbitrator failed to investigate my complaints of the multiple, ongoing telephone problems that continued to haunt my struggling business throughout my arbitration process. Still, the situation becomes even worse when you consider what was to come when John Pinnock (the new administrator of the process), who also held the role of TIO, advised Australian politicians that all of the problems I was still complaining about had been fixed during the arbitration, even though Mr Pinnock (the new TIO) were still receiving correspondence from Telstra, thirty-three months after my arbitration had ended, claiming that it ‘appeared’ as though the problems had continued to occur after the so-called ‘end’ of my arbitration. What this does highlight, however, is a clear indication of how corrupt the whole COT arbitration process was: it had been designed, from the very beginning, to cover up Telstra’s bad workmanship, regardless of the cost, and the cost of that cover-up was the destruction of anyone who was prepared to stand up and raise legitimate complaints, with the Government, concerning Telstra, on any level.
Let us re-examine the 27 February 1996 letter from Mr Pinnock and the issue of tampering with evidence, specifically the TF200.
The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the telephone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?
It has been brought to the attention of the undersigned that Telstra, a telecommunications company, tampered with evidence during an arbitration process. The undersigned had previously volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this incident came to light. During the arbitration process, Telstra deliberately misled the arbitrator by providing an incorrect reason for why the undersigned was unable to test their TF200 telephone at their premises during a scheduled meeting on 27 April 1994. Telstra had recorded in their file notes, which were later submitted to the arbitrator, that the undersigned had refused to allow them to test the phones due to feelings of fatigue. However, Telstra failed to mention that the undersigned had informed the fault response unit that they had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours and that their sore eyes made it impossible to observe the testing.
It is evident from the Tampering With Evidence page that Telstra set out to discredit the undersigned by implying that they were too tired to have their TF200 phone tested and, after the phone was removed, someone from Telstra poured beer into it before it arrived at the Melbourne laboratories. Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone's ongoing lock-up problems rather than an issue with the Cape Bridgewater network. These actions, along with the threats the undersigned received from Telstra during the arbitration process, demonstrate that their claims should have been investigated years ago. Despite the undersigned carrying out their civic duties as an Australian citizen, providing vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, they were still penalised during the arbitration process.
It is worth noting that the undersigned could not have spilt beer into their telephone, as Telstra had claimed, given that they had been fighting a fire. They would not have been drinking beer while driving the CFA truck or assisting their colleagues. This part of the undersigned's story highlights the unprofessional conduct that COT Cases endured from Telstra as they fought for a reliable phone service. When the undersigned provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood's forensic documents specialist, both refused the undersigned's request to investigate Telstra's report on the grounds of fraud.
A second look at Telstra’s doctored technical report, i.e.,
After a claimant has initiated an arbitration process, tampering with evidence in this manner must be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) can commit against an Australian citizen. So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – more than two decades ago (see Open Letter File Nos/36, 37 and File No/38) to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, the chair of the TIO counsel, The Hon Tony Staley, the chair of the Telstra board, David Hoare and Telstra’s then-CEO Ziggy Switkowski AO – was it not investigated immediately? After all, it was Telstra’s internal investigations after the initial report that uncovered this unlawful conduct during my arbitration. However, that didn’t stop Ziggy Switkowski from accepting an Order of Australia award in 2014, despite sitting on this crime for more than two decades. Ziggy Switkowski, the new Telstra CEO and chair, have a moral and legal obligation to investigate the criminal misconduct committed by previous employees during my litigation with Telstra.
The conclusion of Telstra’s original arbitration TF200 defence report, prepared and signed off by Telstra, states:
“The cause of the fault condition has been confirmed by Telecom Research to be due to the presence of a foreign substance possibly beer inside the telephone case which directly caused the incorrect operation of the telephone membrane hookswitch. When the hookswitch was removed from the foreign substance, the telephone operated correctly.
“The state of the telephone when received suggested that the telephone was not well cared for by the customer.
“If the customer had reported the liquid spillage when it occurred the telephone would have been replaced under standard maintenance procedures with no resultant loss of business.”
A drop of silicon
Telstra eventually sold two containers of T200s as scrap to Liberty USA Pty Ltd, who in turn moisture proofed the phones with silicon and resold them to Poland. The person who secured the lucrative deal to sell these faulty TF200s was John Tuczynski, managing director of Liberty Australia Pty Ltd, who was also a former Polish national, like Mr Switkowski.
Mr Tuczynski’s method, using silicon on TF200 hookswitches to moisture-proof the phones, was a technique Telstra was not aware of. This could have saved the corporation a significant amount of money and EXICOM customers years of frustration. Remember, the Australian government and its citizens owned the Telstra Corporation at this time, but instead of looking for a solution to fix the EXICOM problem, Telstra decided it was easier and cheaper to tamper with the TF200s and blame the customer for any faults.
Had John Pinnock not written this letter to Laurie James on 27 February 1996, and had Dr Hughes stopped this letter, which he knew was false, from being supplied to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators, all my arbitration unresolved issues would have been seen in a different light, as they have been these past two decades.
Could there have been another reason Dr Hughes did not want the Institute of Arbitrators investigating my matters Dr Hughes was aware at early as 23 May 1994, that my arbitration-related faxes were not arriving at his office, but he did not allow me to have these lost claim documents re-submitted when I was able to prove this had happened:
"I spoke with Alan Smith on the 9th, following our discussion on the 8th. He has agreed that this is a new matter and may indicate some ongoing problems, but it is not directly related to the preparation of his materials to be presented to the Assessor."
