Privacy Policy
This website was last edited in May 2024, and is a work in progress.
A click on Absent Justice Book 2 is free, but if you would like to donate an appreciation to my story, please send it directly to Transparency International
As per the feedback of numerous visitors to this website, I have confidently re-introduced my three-minute YouTube video after having moth-balled it for the last twelve months. This will enable the newcomers to Absent Justice to witness the man behind this incredible and true story with utmost clarity and conviction.
Don't miss a single detail of this 30-year journey! As you scroll down the page, confidently hover your cursor/mouse over the images to learn more. Each image holds a vital puzzle piece, so don't skip a beat. Your understanding of this journey depends on it!
It is crucial to highlight that the Australian Liberal National Party government was willing to go to war in Iraq based on a lie, regardless of the consequences. The government ignored the fact that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and initiated a war that led to the loss of many lives. If you continue reading my story, you will see that back in the 1960s, the same Liberal-Country Party government was willing to sell wheat to communist China, knowing that China was redeploying some of this wheat to North Vietnam. At the same time, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA soldiers were being killed and maimed by the North Vietnamese in the jungles of Vietnam. The government's priority was not the welfare of its citizens but rather its interests.
The Liberal-Country Party government's actions have demonstrated their dishonesty towards the remaining sixteen COT cases. These sixteen cases were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner. Our tireless efforts to expose the government's actions have revealed that they broke their commitment to the sixteen COT Cases at different levels. Eleven years after our arbitrations from 1994 to 1996 concluded, we were promised in 2006 (Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued) that the government would resolve any unresolved issues that the arbitrator had failed to investigate as part of the government-endorsed arbitrations. That 2006 investigation also assessed any unlawful actions perpetrated by Telstra during their arbitrations, such as fraud and perverting the course of justice.
In my case, I received confirmation from the government on March 17, 2006, that they would refer any proof of such actions against me to the appropriate authority if I chose to have my matters assessed by the 2006 assessment process. However, my evidence of any unlawful acts was discarded during this government review. It is clear from the evidence provided to the government in 2006 that my claims against the arbitrator and Telstra were validated during that 2006 assessment. Hence, the question arises as to why the three 2006 prepared reports, namely Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, and Tampering With Evidence, were not investigated as promised in the March 17, 2006 letter that notes this issue.
"Dear Mr Smith -- etc-- "Thank you for your letter of 10 March 2006 to Ms Forman concerning the independent assessment process. If the material you have provided to the Department as part of the independent assessment process indicates that Telstra or its employees have committed criminal offences in connection with your arbitration, we will refer the matter to the relevant authority". File 657 → AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700
Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)
I think it's essential to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. after two Telstra technical consultants inadvertently left in my office a briefcase. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold, i.e. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 Front Page Part Two 2-B).
The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER' - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a significant AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth from an inside perspective.
The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over 8 months received a 'service disconnected' message telling the caller my line was 'not connected'. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.
I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. That information was sent to AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, the day after Telstra returned and picked up the briefcase.
I found that one-third of the documents I copied contained enough information to prove that Ericsson and Telstra knew about the lock-up faults in the AXE Ericsson telephone exchange. These faults affected 15 to 50 per cent of all calls made through the equipment worldwide. The faults caused the system to lock up, which prevented incoming and outgoing calls and also affected billing software. This meant that Telstra customers were charged for calls that never connected or for businesses with 008/1800 numbers that rang but failed to connect. Telstra kept this a secret to continue making extra revenue. Fortunately, leaving the briefcase at my premises stopped this illegal practice. Telstra's senior management loathed me for exposing their unethical practices. This may explain why many government public servants, who have been hiding Telstra's wrongdoings for years, still dismiss my complaints as frivolous and vexatious.My arbitration claim showed thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries worldwide were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Lies were told by Telstra to minimise their liability for the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)
Was the leaving of this Telstra open briefcase on my premises a mistake or done intentionally? Were some Telstra technicians hoping for me to uncover the true extent of the appalling Telstra telecommunications network? The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), known as AUSTEL, saw the briefcase's contents and confirmed that my claims were valid. Ten months after this briefcase affair, AUSTEL praised my persistence in achieving a reliable telephone service for the whole region of my holiday camp in Portland, South West Victoria.
I have irrefutable evidence that points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitration process, confirming that the government validated my claims. It baffles me why the government allowed me to spend over $300,000 in arbitration fees for thirteen months to prove something they had already validated in March 1994, just six weeks before my arbitration commenced.
The government and media lauded me and the other three COT Cases (two of whom have since passed away, and one of whom has dementia) for our dedication and hard work. We agreed to cease our campaign for the Senate to investigate the matter in exchange for the government's promise to ensure that Telstra would address ongoing telephone problems as part of a government-endorsed arbitration process. The government must uphold its end of the bargain and address the issues the remaining sixteen COT cases face.
The Australian government's endorsement of an arbitration process should have solved the ongoing telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases. Sadly, the government's written assurance that the specialized service verification testing during the arbitration would solve the problem was not fulfilled. Despite their best efforts, the COT cases were left with no resolution, and it is a tragedy that the government-endorsed process failed to address their ongoing telephone issues.
The COT Cases' struggle is not just a story; it's a reality that resulted in the bankruptcy of many businesses, including mine. It's an injustice that the new owners, Jenny and Daren Lewis, had to face after investing all their life savings in the company I sold them for land value. The federal court ordered them off the property, and their bankruptcy was the final blow Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story.
My story is not unique. It's one of twenty-one stories on absentjustice.com that show how government officials failed to help the COT Cases. The Senate reviewed five cases to determine if the government's actions were justified, with the remaining sixteen COT Cases left without a resolution. It's not too late for the government to make things right for all twenty-one COT Cases and show that they care about justice for all Australians.
Tampering with evidence
What is Tampering With Evidence? Tampering with evidence can be any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any sort of evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad and includes any object, a document, or any sort of record useful to an investigation or inquiry. During my arbitration, if you decided to click on the page Tampering With Evidence and the following TF200 telephone image immediately below, you will see someone in Telstra's arbitration defence unit tampered with my collected TF200 telephone so that the arbitrator would not uncover the major problems being experienced around Australia where this phone had been installed in moisture-prone regions, like Cape Bridgewater where my business was located.
Who poured a sticky beer substance into the TF200 telephone after it left my business?
I was being made to look like a drunk unable to take care of Telstra's equipment
By placing your mouse/cursor over the following images you can learn even more about this terrible COT saga
The AFP warned the administrator of the process the COT phone/fax lines were not secure - how were they supposed to submit their claims?
The arbitrator should have abandoned the arbitrations when he was advised what the COT Cases were being subjected to. He failed to do so.
I reiterate, once the arbitrator was advised Telstra were under investigation during the COT arbitrations for hacking into their faxes and telephone conversations, he should have abandoned the arbitrations until after the Australian Federal Police completed their investigations. Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) continued as if nothing was happening out of the ordinary.
Question 81 in the following transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirm the AFP told me that the communications regulator John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence my phone conversations "...were live monitored for a period of time". Question 81 then goes on to say "...we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".
The fax imprint across the top of this letter (see (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).
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 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)
Clicking on one of Bruce Dowling's most recent Kangaroo Court https://shorturl.at/wzHPX, topics have been used here on absentjustice.com because the Kagaroo Court website shows judges, lawyers, and government officials do commit injustices against fellow Australian citizens as was in the Case of the COT government endorsed arbitrations. Clicking on Garth Eaton's Beneath the Bench https://shorturl.at/oqHQW gives another good account of where judges, lawyers and government agencies did not carry out their duty of care. I needed to add both Bruce Dowling and Garth Eaton's accounts to support my claims of the injustices experienced by the COT Cases.
Who was behind this misleading and deceptive conduct?
Clauses 25 and 26 were covertly removed
Alterations were covertly administered to the arbitration agreement after the COT Cases’ lawyers endorsed it.
To have exposed the removing and altering clauses 25 and 26 before the arbitrations commenced would have implicated these four individuals in what they had allowed. The fact that the three legal personnel had sanctioned using Telstra’s drafted arbitration agreement, as well as removing the $250,000.00 liability clauses in the arbitration agreement Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct and in making so disadvantaged the COT Cases’ claims and any chance they had of successfully appealing the process should have been investigated in 1995 when this conduct was exposed.
These three people knowingly participated in a tainted arbitration process before it got off the ground.
All the evidence of what took place, and more, as well as the names of the people involved in this terrible, unjust process, can be downloaded from this website, absentjustice.com, as my story unfolds from the chapters in the menu bar above.
Even worse, when the arbitrator became aware that the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement used in my arbitration was not a credible document to have been used, it was used anyway, to my detriment, as the exhibits on this website show.
How do you publish a true account of what really has happened during various Australian Government endorsed Arbitration's without attaching the exhibits to support those facts as we have been literally forced to do because the corruption within the government bureaucracy is so rife? How does the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then, Australian Government owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants i.e. their fellow Australian citizens?
How do you tell a story that is so unbelievable that even the author has doubts to the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing on with the story being written? How do you expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watch dogs (umpire) and the defendants? How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once Government owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, stored it, without your knowledge or consent, before redirecting it onto to its intended destination?
The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were surely using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.
A secondary fax machine
illegal phone/fax interception
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B) to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to me to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
The fax imprint across each of the documents and letters provided to two well recognised technical telecommunication specialists both made sworn statements that the fax imprint described in their Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) were all captured by a secondary fax machine (intercepted) during their arbitrations.
This gave a considerable benefit 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 avoid completely. Try to imagine what that would have felt like for the claimants. It would be best if you also remembered, as we record elsewhere on absentjustice.com, that some of those documents, which we sent off through what should have been a secure fax and postal system, never arrived at their intended destination.
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries.
Leading up to this Senate hearing 0n 20 August 1997, in parliament house Canberra, Steven Boswell (sadly now deceased) provided his father, Senator Ron Boswell, a fax he had just received from my lawyers, MICHAEL BRERETON & CO (File 51-G Open Letter File No/51-A to 51-G), confirming how the arbitration process had been unlawfully conducted. Steven also reminded his father in the company of several other COT Cases that it was he, his father, who had first raised these unlawful issues on my behalf on 29 November 1994 concerning the threats I had received from Telstra because I had assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services.
Threats made
Threats Carried Out
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. Refer page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which 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?” Senate Evidence File No 31
What is so appalling about this 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.
It is blatantly obvious The Establishment, which controlled my arbitration process, also denied my rights as an ordinary citizen – an equal before the law – and ultimately deprived me the right of having justice run its due course. The arbitrator and the government (who, remember, 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 disadvantaged during a civil arbitration process.
Furthermore, when Telstra carried out those threats, Dr Hughes covered up the withholding of these discovery documents by writing to Laurie James, president of the then Institute of Arbitrators Australia, on 16 February 1996, and stating my not-received 24,000 FOI documents were received and read by either him or the arbitration resource unit. TIO official arbitration records, dated 30 March 1995, show those documents never reached the arbitration process..
Eighteen months after Dr Hughes misled Mr James about these 24,000 late-received documents, a Senate estimates committee investigation was set up to investigate five COT cases’ complaints concerning their documents also being withheld from them. Had Dr Gordon Hughes come forward and admitted to the Senate committee that he deceived the Institute of Arbitrator Australia concerning my withheld FOI documents, I would have been brought into that investigation.
They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom's complaint reforms
they have been beaten emontionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra.
Four months after Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations. He stated:
“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions], in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. 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.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)
Thus, the government was officially informed of the above concerning an arbitration process it endorsed and should have immediately appointed a review of the whole sordid affair. It only investigated five of the twenty-one COT Cases
documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act
Where are these promised FOI documents?
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock formally addressed a Senate estimates committee stating:
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“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.”
Why weren’t the arbitrations put on hold until the claimants received their promised documents? Why were the arbitrations not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures? How can an arbitration be a just process when the arbitrator has no control over how it is conducted? When did Dr Hughes lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, or two months or even nine months into the process? And, just as importantly, who authorised him to conduct the process entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures?
There is no amendment, attached to any agreement signed by the four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process once we signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement, when that agreement did not mention the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?
Had we COT cases been told Dr Hughes would not have any control over our arbitrations, because they would be conducted entirely outside the ambit of agreed arbitration procedures, NONE of us would have signed the agreement.
In simple words, the government and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who administered the COT arbitration tricked the COT Cases in the worst possible way, and to daydate have not remedied their ill conceived advice.
Constable Melanie Cochrane stated I should not release the singles club members’ private information to Telstra and Superintendent Detective Penrose suggested I provide the private singles club information to the assessor under confidentiality and advise him the AFP was also investigating this same material that appears to have been hacked by Telstra.
Constable Cochrane also stated that as I had assured my singles club members their private information would not be disclosed without their consent, I also needed to discuss this with the assessor, Dr Hughes. I believe Superintendent Detective Penrose stated the assessor would be aware I could not divulge this private information via mainstream documents with Telstra, while the AFP was investigating.
It was due to these types of facts, and Superintendent Detective Penrose’s advice, that I sought a clearance, from the arbitrator, to allow me to have this information accepted under confidentiality
Transcripts from my 11 October 1994 oral arbitration hearing confirm Telstra advised the arbitrator they thought my singles club information was irrelevant and therefore should not be accepted into the arbitration process. This evidence supported that I had lost two businesses due to my ongoing telephone problems, i.e., the school camp bookings as well as the more-lucrative singles club bookings. The transcripts, which I can supply the AFP if requested, show Dr Hughes was badgered into accepting Telstra’s insistence that my singles club material be not assessed during the arbitration process. Why did Dr Hughes allow Telstra to decide not to view my singles club evidence as a business loss, even though he had previously understood the advice given to me by Superintendent Detective Penrose and had agreed the singles club material could be submitted under confidentiality during the oral hearing? That he went back on his word.
Question 24, in the 20 September 1994 interrogatories shows I answered the following question 24 by stating to 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 issues 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.”
I raise the interrogatories and the oral arbitration hearing because of the main question they raise: how could it possibly be ethical, or moral, for Dr Hughes to expect me to disclose further personal and private information about the female members of my Singles Club, for all to see, when the AFP were still investigating Telstra in relation to how they were able to separately record the names and phone numbers of various other female Singles Club members when that information had only ever been sent by fax or discussed over the telephone. NONE of my singles club lost revenue due to my ongoing proven telephone faults were ever recorded by Dr Hughes (arbitrator) or Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (arbitration resource unit) in their final Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp findings.
Corruption in Arbitration
To be clear so that the reader understands, a dated chronology of my 008/1800 billing issues were submitted to the arbitrator as a chronology of events. Why didn't the arbitrator look for it or call for a second copy when I provided evidence that my claim advisers had sent it. Were these 008/800 claim documents lost in Telstra's fax screening process on route to Dr Hughes office or did they arive at that office and were diverted to the Sydney office where that office failed to send the infromation back?
I need to take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see ”Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator early in 1994 regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail that:
“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.”Burying The Evidence File 13-H.
The fact that Dr Hughes did not official diclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne office prior to is hinging on criminal negligence. Dr Hughes also did not acknowledge what happened to the comprehensive log of my phone complaints.
I reiterate, a comprehensive log of my phone complaints did exist.
It is important to note before AUSTEL commenced their investigation into my phone/fax complaints, I provided them with a comprehensive log of my phone complaints which I later supplied an updated copy to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) to my claim on 15 June 1994 as my interim to my arbitration submission (see File - 7 to 9-A - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 and File 108 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127). The nominated documents in those two files AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 and AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 show a comprehensive log of my phone complaints did exist.
Why would I submit an arbitration claim without a comprehensive supporting log of my phone complaints? It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 1, 212, that the government prepared report testimonials supplied by me. Why would I provide the government File - 7 to 9-A - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 and File 108 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127 and not the arbitration process?
In the arbitrator's award, there is no mention that the claimant [me] continually raised faxing problems with his office and the TIO office right through the arbitration process.
That award does not refer to the AFP investigating these lost arbitration related faxes or that he advised the AFP of the internal faxing problems his Melbourne and Sydney offices were experiencing.
I can only assume Dr Hughes ' reluctance to inform the Australian Federal Police and me what he had told his previous client, Graham Schorer, the possibility that my arbitration documents might not be reaching his Melbourne office after being redirected there after his Melbourne office closed for business at night because to have done so would have meant other arbitrations as well as mine would be in jeopardised.
So, concealing this possibility was Dr Hughes' way of hiding from the truth. After all, it was not Dr Hughes' arbitration claim at risk. My letters to the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Laurie James, in January and February 1996 (seven months after the completion of my arbitration) and various government ministers and regulatory agencies alerted them that my arbitration had not been conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures.
On 23 January 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to the TIO John John Pinnock (also the second administrator to my arbitration) concerning my correspondence to Lauire James noting:
"INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS - COMPLAINT BY ALAN SMITH
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
(a) the cost of responding to the allegations;
(b) the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”. (See Open letter File No/45-D)
When comparing yet another letter from Dr Hughes to John Pinnock, this time on 15 February 1996, concerning my correspondence to Lauire James (the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, these two letters suggest Dr Hughes was worried concerning my claims surrounding the unethical way in which my arbitration was conducted, i.e., this second letter quotes:
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” (See Arbitrator File No/43)
I feel sure that many people reading Chapter 1 - The collusion continues to Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter will see there is more to Dr Hughes' reluctance to fully inform Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, concerning my claims regarding the unethical way in which my arbitration was conducted.
