You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy.
Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia, as the following link suggests Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.
Until the early 1990s, before the rise of emails and the internet upended traditional communication, the Australian government maintained a treacherous grip on the nation’s telephone network through its monopolistic carrier, Telecom, now infamously known as Telstra. In this shadowy era, the government exhibited a chilling apathy toward the rapidly crumbling telecommunications infrastructure, allowing it to deteriorate into a state of alarming neglect.
But was this neglect merely an oversight, or was there something far more sinister lurking beneath the surface? Were the government’s actions part of an insidious scheme to keep ordinary citizens in the dark while their hard-earned tax dollars fed a shadowy, mafia-like network, profiting from the chaos? Throughout this time of decay, it came to light that Telstra union members were engaging in a web of corruption, scheming to siphon millions through bribery and extortion during the 1980s and 1990s—a reality starkly documented in official government Senate Hansard records.
By allowing Telstra’s crumbling copper wire system—the very lifeblood of Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure—to fall into disrepair, the government created an environment ripe for exploitation. During the days when maintenance was willfully ignored, Telstra’s technicians seized the chance to cash in, working weekends for triple pay, effectively profiting from their own negligence. This corrupt orchestration served only the interests of Telstra employees while ordinary Australians and small business owners were left to suffer the dire consequences, struggling to operate their telephone-dependent enterprises in a landscape fraught with instability.
The fallout was nothing short of catastrophic. Service quality plummeted, plunging countless Australians into a relentless nightmare of dropped calls, distorted voices, and unreliable connections. Isolation and frustration became the grim reality for many as their vital links to the outside world frayed under the weight of systemic negligence. In this web of corruption, the everyday citizen found themselves ensnared in a treacherous game, manipulated by those in power while their very livelihoods hung in the balance.
In desperation, four small business owners—each battling the severe fallout of Telstra's callousness—sought arbitration to voice their urgent grievances. What they encountered was a treacherous miscarriage of justice. The arbitration process was shrouded in a thick fog of corruption, marked by an abhorrent disregard for fairness and the rule of law. The arbitrator, seemingly colluding with Telstra, coldly dismissed their legitimate claims, which threatened the very survival of their businesses.
Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury
Every Australian citizen must confront a grotesque reality: if Telstra indeed paid a staggering $400 million to Rupert Murdoch and Fox, as Senate Hansard suggests, then we are not merely talking about a transactional agreement—it is a flagrant cover-up of their failure to deliver on the promised National Broadband Network (NBN) cable fibre rollout. This shady arrangement raises grave questions about whose interests were truly protected in this corrupt alliance. Who among Telstra’s leadership condoned such duplicitous agreements, fully aware of the profound harm being inflicted upon the citizens they were meant to serve?
I must emphasise the murky implications of the situation outlined in points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, records. This document, published by the Parliament of Australia, reveals a troubling truth: Telstra and its board were fully aware that the company would not meet the imposed deadline for the rollout given to Rupert Murdoch and Fox. Yet, in what seems like a treacherous manoeuvre, the powerful board of Telstra proceeded to issue a lucrative contract to one of Australia’s most influential business conglomerates. This blatant disregard for Telstra’s immense wealth—a resource that rightfully belongs to every Australian citizen, especially since the company was entirely government-owned at the time the staggering $400 million deal was struck—raises profound and unsettling questions. If Telstra’s infrastructure was woefully inadequate to support the ambitious Murdoch/Fox cable rollout, why was $400 million funnelled to this consortium?
In a disturbing twist, consider the COT Cases, where countless business owners were left to suffer for years due to egregious and systemic failures in telecommunications brought about by Telstra. These individuals were coerced into paying exorbitant arbitration fees—often amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars—merely to ensure that an arbitrator would pressure Telstra to correct its own dismal failures in service. If this scandalous treatment does not scream severe discrimination and favouritism, then what does? The dark undercurrents of this scenario paint a picture of a system rigged against the very citizens it is supposed to serve.
The Guardians Who Betrayed Their Oaths
Lawyers as Architects of Telstra's thuggery
Telstra's legal team, drawn from elite firms with deep ties to regulatory bodies, crafted a fortress of deception. They exploited loopholes, buried damning documents in endless discovery motions, and weaponised arbitration clauses to shield the company from public trials. Victims were forced into private hearings where outcomes were predetermined, and settlements came with gag orders. These lawyers weren’t defenders of justice—they were architects of silence, paid handsomely to ensure the truth never saw daylight, as the following information shows → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct.
Government ministers, entrusted with oversight and public welfare, became passive enablers. Some were former lawyers for Telstra; others received campaign donations or post-retirement consulting offers. Despite mounting evidence of misconduct, they refused to intervene, citing “respect for the arbitration process.” Their inaction wasn’t ignorance—it was calculated indifference. By choosing not to act, they allowed a private system to override public accountability, turning democracy into a commodity. This covert report on my business telephone losses, prepared by AUSTEL (now ACMA), was concealed from the 1994 to 1995 arbitrator and only released by ACMA in November 2007, twelve years later → (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).
What unfolded wasn’t just a corporate scandal—it was a systemic collapse of democratic arbitration. The process, meant to be fair and transparent, became a closed circuit of power and privilege. Arbitrators were rewarded for loyalty, lawyers were incentivised to obstruct, and ministers were shielded by plausible deniability. The very institutions designed to protect citizens were repurposed to protect corporations. Arbitration, in this context, became a theatre of legitimacy masking a betrayal of justice → The eleventh remedy pursued.
Behind every corrupted ruling was a human story—patients disabled by faulty treatments, scientists silenced for speaking out, families bankrupted by legal fees. These people were denied not just compensation, but recognition. Their suffering was sanitised by legal language and buried in confidential settlements. The treachery of the system wasn’t just procedural—it was deeply personal. It told victims that truth was negotiable, and justice was reserved for those who could afford it. → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action
The Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:
"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."
On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra's legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne). They were accused of providing falsified test results from Bell Canada International Inc., which were misleading and untruthful. These deceptive results claimed that 13,590 test calls had successfully navigated the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchanges over a five-day testing period. This system was crucial for the operation of my business, and astonishingly, it reported a success rate beyond all expectations (Refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2).
The main issue is that the equipment mentioned in the formal report by the BCI, specifically the CCS7 monitoring device, could not be set up at either the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The closest exchange capable of facilitating this device is in Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away. Therefore, where were the 13,590 BCI test calls sent? They were not generated into either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges.
When it was revealed that arbitration witness statements allegedly prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist appointed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page/Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne on behalf of Telstra to assess my mental health, may have been altered, concerns arose. These statements were based on the Bell Canada Tests provided by Freehill's, which were known to be fundamentally flawed. Despite the assertion that Ian Joblin's signature was on the witness statement, no signature was present. Wayne Maurice Condon from Freehill Hollingdale & Page claimed that it was included. As a result, the administrator of the arbitration process initiated an investigation and wrote to Telstra seeking confirmation of these discrepancies, as illustrated in his 21 March 19967 letter below.
On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman in his role as administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking:
- ...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .
- ...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes compared to the signed statement?"
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature highlights the significant influence Telstra lawyers have over the arbitration legal system in Australia.
The Canadian government was left reeling in shock as it unearthed a disturbing revelation involving the law firm once known as Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. It became apparent that one of their attorneys, Wayne Maurice Condon, had the audacity to take the stand and testify under oath about witnessing the signature of clinical psychologist Ian Joblin on a crucial witness statement. Yet, in a twisted turn of fate, it was discovered that this signature was nothing more than a phantom—absent from the document entirely.
Despite the egregious actions taken during these arbitrations—actions that would set off alarm bells in any ethical framework—the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police stood by, powerless or unwilling to confront the corruption at play. In the shadows of this sinister arrangement, Telstra and its accomplices continued to operate with impunity, leaving affected individuals without justice or recourse.
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of the Senate Committee hearing that prompted the Senate to start their investigation, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:
“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.”
There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first 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 he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted, altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James (see 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?
Dr Gordon Hughes is now the Principal at Davies Collison Cave (Lawyers) → https://shorturl.at/OAtAa
Why has Dr. Hughes remained silent and failed to provide a letter from his wife to clarify the dubious claims made by John Pinnock? Pinnock's allegations were sent to Laurie James in February 1996, with Dr. Hughes included in the correspondence. The fabrications against me seem orchestrated to undermine and sabotage any investigation Laurie James might conduct into my legitimate claim, revealing a troubling web of deceit and treachery that seeks to protect the guilty and silence the truth.
On May 12, 1995, thirteen months into my arbitration process and just one day after delivering my award, Dr. Hughes openly criticised the Telstra-drafted arbitration agreement he had used in my case, calling it an unworthy document for the proceedings. Despite this harsh critique, he still went ahead and used it, as demonstrated in the letter addressed to the first Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Warwick Smith.
Dr. Hughes not only permitted the inappropriate invocation of his wife's name but also adopted an unconventional approach by incorporating a letter from John Rundell, dated February 13, 1996, within his correspondence. This letter, which was addressed to John Pinnock, disclosed that the Brighton Police Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) was preparing an investigation into alleged criminal damage purportedly connected to my actions regarding Mr. Rundell's property in Brighton. By attaching this particular letter to his own communication, dated February 17, 1996, Dr. Hughes aimed to present a compelling narrative to Laurie James, one that painted me as nothing more than a dubious character seeking to evade accountability (Refer to Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter).
The contents of document File 20-D, Refer to → TIO Evidence File No 2-A to 2-G). , found in Warwick Smith's communication to Telstra's arbitration liaison office, Steve Black on 24 May 1995, clearly indicates that Dr. Gordon Hughes did not provide Telstra with his legal opinion on the company's liability regarding my arbitration until three weeks after my designated appeal period had elapsed. This situation underscores a troubling reality: Warwick Smith, the administrator of my arbitration, has been engaged in discussions with Telstra’s arbitration liaison office about matters that Dr. Hughes has withheld until his return from Greece, which has occurred well beyond my critical three-week window for appeal.
Infringe upon the civil liberties
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch (Refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury), Senator Kim Carr wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
Children's lives could be at risk
Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business, with statements like:
“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.
The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”
Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.
Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90
As I approach my 82nd year, I find it necessary to unveil the shadowy dealings surrounding the Telstra arbitration issues. My experiences reveal a web of treachery involving unscrupulous lawyers, at least one compromised arbitrator, and their conniving forensic accountants who have preyed upon the vulnerabilities of the COT arbitrations for their own nefarious gain. The complicity of the six senators mentioned below serves as a stark reminder of the depths of betrayal that have marred this process.
Regrettably, the Australian government permitted the Swedish telecommunications powerhouse, Ericsson, to penetrate the Australian Government-endorsed COT arbitrations. This disturbing involvement seems to be a deliberate effort to obscure the alarming truth about the numerous critical deficiencies in the Ericsson telephone exchange equipment, which was under investigation during these proceedings. As we delve deeper into this complex issue regarding Ericsson, we will uncover more unsettling details that highlight the extent of the cover-up (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).
In stark contrast, one notable international player took a stand against the injustices faced by the COT cases: the Canadian government. Their acknowledgement of the situation underscores the significance of these issues on a global scale and highlights the need for accountability in the telecommunications sector.
During her second visit to my establishment, Ms. Helen Handbury expressed her astonishment regarding a somewhat perplexing matter. She noted that, in 1999, during her visit to the historic 1870 Presbyterian Church, which I had diligently converted into a self-sufficient, eight-bed group accommodation facility, there had been a conspicuous lack of response from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman concerning correspondence sent in March 1997 to Mr. Ted Benjamin at Telstra. This aspect of my manuscript prompted inquiries from four Senators: Ron Boswell, Kim Carr, Len Harris, and Barnaby Joyce. They sought clarification on how these arbitrations were permitted to proceed when Dr. Gorodon Hughes, the arbitrator at that time, lacked authority over them as they occurred outside the established procedures.
Had these questions been addressed when initially raised, they would have illuminated a significant issue that could have provided me with legitimate grounds to contest a portion of my arbitration award. Additionally, the submission of known incomplete and/or altered witness statements to the arbitration by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, further compounded the situation. Furthermore, the failure of Mr. John Pinnock to furnish me with the results he presented to Telstra on my behalf was deemed by Senators Kim Carr, Len Harris, and Barnaby Joyce as constituting an inadequate response from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.
As of August 2025, I am still waiting to receive the advisory that John Pinnock was entitled to obtain from Telstra. This advisory is related to the above-mentioned unsigned arbitration witness statement provided by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist. The statement is significant because it involves Maurice Wayne Condon’s assertion that he witnessed a signature on the witness statement that, contrary to his claim, had no other signature on the statement other than Maurice Wayne Condon..
It was particularly distressing for Helen Handury and the other COT claimants to discover that, despite the government’s unwavering assurance that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would be barred from participating in our arbitrations due to their egregious misconduct toward us, the government’s own Telstra corporation continued to engage this controversial firm. This revelation was not only disheartening but also added a troubling layer of betrayal to an already dire situation.
The six Senators discussed below courageously took a stand against this injustice, voicing their concern over the blatant ethical breaches that were glaringly evident in the COT Cases arbitration. It was baffling to witness that, while five of the twenty-one cases garnered punitive damages exceeding eighteen million dollars, the remaining sixteen claimants were left without any semblance of compensation. This stark disparity highlighted the hypocrisy embedded within the process and only intensified my frustration with a system that seemed fundamentally flawed, leaving vulnerable individuals to navigate an uneven and often unjust landscape.
This situation raises grave concerns regarding the integrity of these statements. They may have been crafted with the intent to bolster Telstra's legal standing, raising an even more troubling possibility: that the firm misled and deceived regulatory authorities. Such actions obstruct the pursuit of truth about the insights and observations of witnesses, especially in light of my own evidence against Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who manipulated key facts to persuade a witness that I was mentally unstable.
As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues. Yet, they defended Telstra in all four COT Cases arbitrations named in Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C.
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), instructing their client, Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
Senate Hansard confirms this COT Case Strategy was to be used against my named business and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer, and their named businesses. Simply put, we, the four of us and our four businesses, were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced, as the following Senate Hansard shows.
This strategy was in place before the five of us signed our arbitration agreements.
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 to 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
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, Peter Riddle".
Senator Schacht - "Who".
Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-"
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving my claims against Telstra.
On 23 March 1999, after most of the COT arbitrations had been finalised and business lives ruined due to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight Telstra and a very crooked arbitrator, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”
Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)
The fact that these six above-named senators all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus-test cases receive their requested documents, but so should the other 16 Australian citizens → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process
Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:
“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”
And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:
“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)
Senator Schacht was even more vocal:
“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.
The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”
On 25 July 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland (a trip that took more than seven hours) to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne to ensure our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.
He was stunned at how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s 9 August 2001 letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records (supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner), then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught, to say the least.
At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris asked questions of the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:
“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.
Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?
Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?
Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?
Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)
Also, during this same press conference, Senator Len Harris asked many other questions, including why should an owner of a business such as the holiday camp at Cape Bridgewater be forced to sell that business because Telstra had still been unable to fix the ongoing telephone problems that Senator Richard Alston himself had investigated in 1992, ten years previous and concluded were affecting Mr Smith's holiday camp. The telephone problems Mr Smith raised in his 1993/94 arbitration were still being raised with Telstra in 2002, seven years after the arbitration process had failed to rectify those problems.
I reiterate that, to gain public trust in my story on absentjustice.com, I had no choice but to gather my evidence and present it while disclosing what I share in the public's interest.
This is the compelling story of a diverse group of ordinary small business owners who unexpectedly found themselves in a fierce David-and-Goliath struggle against one of the largest telecommunications corporations in the country. This corporation not only wields significant economic power but also has troubling ties to various telecommunications companies that are connected to international terrorism. The small business owners, driven by a sense of justice and the desire to protect their livelihoods and communities, banded together to confront this formidable opponent. Their journey highlights the challenges they faced, the resilience they demonstrated, and the critical importance of standing up against powerful entities that threaten their way of life.
One of the original members of our group, Ann Garms OAM, who collaborated closely with me to create a poignant YouTube video detailing her harrowing experience with Telstra Corporation and the intricacies of Australia’s arbitration system, tragically passed away shortly after the video was completed. In a heart-wrenching phone call, she expressed her emotional turmoil, revealing that our relentless battle for justice had taken a significant toll on her life. Just days before, she had taken the courageous step of writing to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra and the Hon Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance, Parliament, to share the deep personal impact our fight had on her.
On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similar to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases' claims.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
It is essential to highlight the importance of the four letters dated August 17, 2017, October 6, 2017, October 9, 2017, and October 10, 2017, written by COT Case Ann Garms OAM shortly before her passing. She expressed her profound disgust at the sexual abuse of children occurring in Parliament House, Canberra. This disturbing activity, involving Senator Bob Collins—who was responsible for our Telstra issues—had a significant negative impact on the supply of documents during our arbitration period, as they were routed from Senator Collins' government office to the COT Cases businesses.
The lives of young children were shattered in an unimaginably horrific manner when these crimes were committed against them, leaving scars that extended into their adult lives. This insidious trauma became painfully apparent to me during my fourteen years as the proprietor of a holiday camp at the picturesque Cape Bridgewater. The sound of waves crashing against the shore was often interspersed with whispers of heartache, as I listened in on various counselling sessions. These experiences deepened my understanding of the vital importance of sponsoring these holiday retreats, which offered a brief respite from their troubled pasts
It is vital to underscore the significance of four letters, dated August 17, 2017, October 6, 2017, October 9, 2017, and October 10, 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms OAM shortly before her untimely passing. In these poignant letters, she articulately expressed her profound outrage at the abhorrent sexual abuse of children that was occurring within the walls of Parliament House, Canberra. This grave misconduct, which involved Senator Bob Collins—who bore responsibility for our ongoing issues with Telstra—had a dramatic and detrimental impact on the flow of crucial documents during our arbitration period, as they were improperly routed from Senator Collins' government office directly to the businesses involved with the COT Cases.
The devastating effects of these crimes were particularly harrowing, as they irreparably shattered the lives of innocent children, leaving them with deep emotional scars that would extend far into their adult lives. This insidious trauma became strikingly clear to me during my fourteen years as the proprietor of a holiday camp at the idyllic Cape Bridgewater. The soothing sounds of waves crashing against the shore were often juxtaposed with the whispers of heartache that permeated the air, as I listened in on various counselling sessions, each revealing the depth of pain and suffering endured by the participants. These experiences profoundly deepened my appreciation for the essential role these holiday retreats played, offering a much-needed sanctuary and a brief escape from their troubled pasts.
One memory that stands out vividly is of Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat. She played an instrumental role in organising and managing two of these camps between 1992 and 1994, offering guidance and support to those in need.
Another remarkable person of similar values to Sister Maureen Burke. IBVM was a rough and no-nonsense social worker, Les Twentyman, a prominent figure known for his unwavering dedication to the challenging populations in Melbourne’s tough western suburbs. His personal journey was marked by sacrifice, having suffered a knife wound while passionately advocating for those who had experienced profound hardship. Sadly, two years ago, we lost this compassionate beacon of hope in the western suburbs—a figure who, much like Jesus Christ, devoted his life to listening to and caring for the marginalised. His absence is still acutely felt today, creating a void in the community that is difficult to fill.
“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” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:
“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.
Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon dedicated themselves to the challenging task of securing a dependable telephone connection for the holiday camp. Their motivation extended beyond the goal of providing me valuable assistance as an affordable retreat for low-income families; it was also fueled by their deep empathy for the struggles of my business, which was hanging on by a thread. The dire circumstances were underscored by the frustrating responses from Telstra's automated voice messages, which routinely informed potential customers that my business had ceased to exist. Many callers were met not with guidance but with an eerie silence, signalling that the number they dialled was likely disconnected and leading to a growing sense of futility.
After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience involving me rushing a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital, which is 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, the new owners of my business faced declining sales. This decline continued until at least 2006, thirteen years after the tragic event at the Children's Hospital, as the following two links show: → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.
Telstra's unsettling admission that they intercepted my telephone conversations raises profound questions—questions further complicated by the local technician's dubious decision to pass that information to a figure named Micky. It leaves me wondering if my lines were being monitored for pedophilic grooming or my questions raised with Australia's former minister of the Army, Malcolm Fraser on 18 September 1967, regarding the continuation of selling wheat to Communist China even though it had been proven by the crew of the British Ship Hoppeak to which I had sailed on that same wheat was being redeployed to the North Vietnamse who were fighting Australian, New Zealand and USA troops in the jungls of North Vietnam. Mr Fraser later became Australia's 22nd Prime Minister from 1975 to 1983Micky's involvement was not peripheral. It was central, corrosive, and meticulously engineered to distort legal proceedings and neutralise accountability. Forged documents were legitimised, legal records were doctored, and sworn testimony was used to prop up fiction over fact. And those who were meant to uphold justice not only looked away—they actively participated.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (refer to AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) unveil a chilling truth. On 14 April 1994, Telstra covertly admitted to the Australian Federal Police that my most private and business telephone conversations were not just monitored but meticulously recorded for several months. Disturbingly, this invasive surveillance occurred only when a specific officer was on duty—the very same individual who once operated as a Telstra technician in Portland.
This technician, it seems, acted as a puppet master, feeding this unknown figure named 'Micky' with my phone and fax numbers, thus opening a gateway for unscrupulous intrusions into my life (see Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 -AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541). The betrayal runs deep, shrouded in secrecy and complicity.
"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office 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, 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.
Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.
It is also essential that the reader understand that Dr Hughes has never written back to the COT case apologising that we COT were not told what his Sydney office was investigating on behalf of several Telstra employees even though it should have been paramount when it became known amongst the COT Cases some of these Sydney Telstra employees were under investigation for stealing millions upon millions of dollars from the public as well as some within Telstra being assosated with pedophile activities.
On page seven of its final, 3 May 1995, financial-evaluation report, which both Telstra and I received, FHCA states:
“An analysis of the clientele of CBHC shows that only 53% were in fact schools.” (See Open Letter File No 57-A to 57-D)
There is an enormous difference between $30.82 for a two-night stay for school groups and $120.00 to $165.00 for a two-night stay for social club patrons. Knowingly downgrading my losses by a large percentage is verging on fraudulent, criminal conduct.
The potential Over Forties Single Club patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL report of 3 March 1994:
“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from $1500 to $6000 per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.” (See p33, point 85, Open Letter File No/6)
I also demonstrated to the government communications regulator, AUSTEL (now called ACMA), when their representatives visited my venue, that most of my singles club customers regularly bought souvenirs before they left: printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves, and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA ignored all the income I lost from lost singles club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs, as well as the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.
The representatives emphasised once again that, regardless of the information provided to the arbitrator, he could not decide on my losses until Telstra proved that my ongoing telephone problems had been resolved. They reminded me that in my initial settlement with Telstra on December 11, 1992, despite receiving an award, my phone issues persisted. This is why we were now in arbitration eighteen months later. AUSTEL did not intend to make the same mistake again.
The Arbitration Project Manager, John Rundell’s statement to my arbitration forensic accountant Derek Ryan Open letter File No/45-E) that: “FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator” ties in with the excluded single club material, and my Echo tourism venture losses, which I provided, under confidentiality, to FHCA in February 1995 which the Superintendent Detective Sargeant of the Australain Fedral Police had told me to ensure they just not under any circumstances proved to Telstra before the AFP had concluded their investigations, when FHCA visited my business in Februay 1995, was not adhered to by FHCA. The strange look I had from Sue Hodgkinson about the possibility that pedophilic grooming and or the mischievous electronic monitoring of my social club patrons had been raised during my arbitration with all parties after AUSTEL, provided the Commissioner of the AFP with the following letter, which states:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Australian Observer newspaper in the coastal town of Portland, Victoria (AS 773-b), noting:
“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.
Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”
Despite the COT Cases highlighting privacy concerns regarding the arbitration process, with the Australian Federal Police, the Minister for Government Communications, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, who assumed office shortly after his predecessor, the Hon. Bob Collins (who was involved in serious allegations of child abuse in his office at the Canberra government house), communicated with me during my arbitration concermimg the hacking into my telephone conversations and faxes, as shown in the following two documents.
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 that 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)
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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.
I again emphasise this particular Telstra officer was also the same individual who supplied the still unnamed 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers of my business associates. (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541).
Our phone and fax interception issues were headline news over many months in our local newspapers and all the major national newspapers. On 15 April 1994, ex-prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, discussed my phone interception issues in the Sun-Herald newspaper and how FOI documents discuss his and my telephone conversations being transcribed onto Telstra file notes. The Herald Sun, the newspaper, reported:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” (See Our Saga File No 2)
Who within Telstra Corporation felt it was necessary to record the fact that I had placed a call to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser? I am particularly concerned about whether my conversation is included among the nine audio tapes that AUSTEL provided to the Australian Federal Police but were subsequently withheld from the COT cases. It is essential to clarify that throughout this process, I was never a suspect in any criminal activity, nor was I regarded as a potential threat to Australia’s national security. This is further underscored in my letter dated September 18, 1967, which I also forwarded to the Commonwealth Police (now known as the Australian Federal Police). My intent in documenting these details is to ensure transparency and accountability regarding the handling of communications and the implications of such recordings. (Refer to Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong).
Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra, Ericsson and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:
"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business." (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling and sinister truth about Ericsson's telecommunications operations and their insidious ties to international terrorism. The COT Cases expose a disturbing web of corruption, raising urgent questions about why Ericsson was permitted to act with impunity, acquiring the key technical witness in the arbitration proceedings that examined their dubious claims against the very telephone equipment under critical scrutiny. It is baffling—and deeply troubling—that the Australian government has remained eerily silent about the horrifying mistreatment of the COT Cases, especially when Ericsson seemed to orchestrate the manipulation of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd for their own nefarious purposes.
I urgently implore the Australian government to reveal the dark machinations that allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane Telecommunications during a delicate, government-sanctioned arbitration process. This took place amid serious allegations that Telstra and Ericsson were knowingly exploiting discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment—flawed technology that many nations have hastily discarded due to its severe deficiencies (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f).
The evidence paints a damning picture: the arbitrator and their advisors crafted a treacherous landscape of deceit and betrayal, resulting in a grotesque miscarriage of justice for the COT Cases. Their actions were not simply unethical; they represented a calculated betrayal of the trust placed in them, steeped in scandal and lawlessness. This sinister manipulation of justice reveals a shocking disregard for accountability, leaving victims in a labyrinth of treachery where the true architects of this corruption evade scrutiny.
It is glaringly apparent from the provided Google link that the COT Cases were not just justified but compelled to demand answers about the alarming situation in which Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main technical witness involved in the arbitration concerning their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment. This crux of the investigation was central to the COT arbitrations (refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden), yet it reeks of corruption.
.
The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock, who was Australia's second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) as well as the official administrator of the COT arbitrations, to William Hunt and the lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). In this letter, Mr Pinnock notes that.
“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.
“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…
“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.
“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …
“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)
In fact, John Pinnock wrote to the other remaining four COT cases making five in all, for whom the arbitrator had not yet handed down his findings, to warn them that this breach of ethics and promise by the previous TIO Warwick Smith had not been kept i.e.; the TIO had allowed Lane to be the principal technical consultant to their claims and not the promised DMR brought in from Canada.
None of the other COT Cases that the arbitrator handed down his findings on before it was exposed, Lane had been purchased during the COT arbitrations, even though they had been contracted to do all of the COT arbitration processes. Why were the previous COT arbitrations, where the arbitrator had not been aware that Ericsson and Lane had to have been in negotiations during the arbitrations he had completed, unaware of the massive conflict of interest, granted the same leave to appeal their previous arbitration awards, which the remaining five COT Cass arbitrators were not being granted? The purchasing of the Australian government-appointed technical unit Lane had to have been in motion months before the purchase. The government should investigate each COT Case to determine the losses incurred due to Lane's failure to address the ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone problems, which destroyed the COT Case businesses after the conclusion of their arbitrations.
The trauma continues
Why was this official advice not acted upon for the good of all the COT Cases?
On 26 September 1997, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock (the second-appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations 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 (abandoned) 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 just when the arbitrator has no control over its conduct? When did Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, 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?
When it became glaringly apparent that the arbitrator had lost all control over the proceedings—conducting them recklessly outside the agreed parameters—shouldn’t he have urgently contacted the Supreme Court of Victoria? The arbitrator’s failure to do so raises troubling questions about his motives, primarily since this entire process was supposedly conducted under the court’s watchful eye, which was intended to safeguard integrity and accountability.
Adding to the gravity of the situation, after being presented with damning evidence from the Senate Committee and reviewing the unsettling revelations in the Hansard reports, how could the arbitrator ignore the need for intervention? Telstra's Principal Arbitration Liaison Officer, Paul Rumble, not only issued chilling threats against me but acted on them with alarming boldness → Senate Evidence File No 31, systematically cutting off my access to crucial Ericsson telephone fault data and essential phone and fax information. The Australian Federal Police transcripts unmask Paul Rumble as the perpetrator behind these treacherous threats, which linger unchallenged, creating an atmosphere of dread and intimidation that stifles any possibility of fair play.
It is apparent from pages 12 and 13, questions 54 to 58, in these transcripts that I named Paul Rumble as the culprit who made these threats → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
Moreover, where was the intervention from Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, supposed to maintain the integrity of the proceedings? His negligence raises serious concerns about whether he was complicit in allowing Ericsson to manipulate the arbitration for their advantage. The very essence of this arbitration—supposedly overseen by the Supreme Court—now seems to be nothing more than a façade, hiding a deeply corrupt process that invites unethical practices and betrayal.
Lastly, my genuine concerns, voiced to several Senators, about the alarming scenario where a foreign-owned telecommunications behemoth like Ericsson could buy off a critical technical witness are not only legitimate but deeply troubling. This sinister arrangement is particularly worrisome, given that the five COT Cases currently under Senate investigation are intricately entangled with Ericsson's dubious efforts to modify their arbitration claims following their acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. The blatant bias, treachery, and manipulative tactics evident in this situation suggest an arbitration process that is not just compromised but actively corrupted—subverting the very principles of justice and fairness it ostensibly seeks to uphold.
Is there another reason behind the Chair of the Senate Committee threatening me with contempt of the Senate? If proven against me, this could result in a two-year jail term. Additionally, could this be linked to the five COT Ericsson Cases, where their claims were allowed to be amended? Is the Senate concerned that further investigation into my FOI claims might reveal just how unconscionable it was for the government to allow Ericsson to purchase Lane?
Moreover, dark and unsettling is the Senate Evidence File No 12 two letters to me from the Senate threatening to hold me in contempt of the Senate, which reveals the sinister reality I've faced—direct threats on two separate occasions, first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. In those chilling moments, I was explicitly warned that if I dared to disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face severe charges of contempt against the Senate. This ominous warning is particularly infuriating, as those records hold critical information that could empower the sixteen citizens who have been unjustly denied legal recourse to finally seek justice.
In a dramatic Senate committee meeting, a confrontation erupted when National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashed a blistering critique aimed at a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable anger, he exclaimed, "You’re really a disgrace; the whole lot of you," his voice cutting through the tension like a knife. This outburst sent shockwaves through the chamber, drawing the immediate attention of the committee chair. Yet, under scrutiny, Senator Boswell was forced to retract his words, stating, "Madam, I withdraw that remark." This moment, though seemingly one of accountability, merely masked the deeply entrenched corruption and lack of integrity surrounding Telstra's dealings with the COT Cases.
"Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: there is a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament—something no one else has ever managed to do—and Telstra has orchestrated it all magnificently. They have managed to unite the Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party, the Democrats, and the Greens—all standing together in a singular and profound distrust of Telstra. You have woven a web of deception that few could have imagined."
Labour Party Senator Chris Schacht further emphasised the corruption when he warned the same Telstra arbitration officer that if they only compensated the five 'litmus test' COT cases while neglecting the other lingering sixteen COT cases, it "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". Yet, the John Howard National Liberal Party (NLP) government sanctioned these punitive damages in only five select litmus cases, simultaneously releasing over 150,000 Freedom of Information documents that had been ruthlessly concealed during the government-endorsed arbitration from 1994 to 1998.
documents.
Threats made during my arbitration
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
On 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 this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information.
In my case, as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report shows, Telstra’s representative, Peter Gamble, attempted to conduct the essential Service Verification Testing (SVT) process. Unfortunately, he had to halt the testing due to unforeseen equipment malfunctions. When AUSTEL questioned how he planned to rectify this inadequate testing at my business, Mr Gamble refused to proceed with any further testing. Instead, he submitted a statutory declaration under oath to the arbitrator, claiming that his SVT process had fully complied with AUSTEL’s requirements. This assertion was far from the truth.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.
Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).
In the case of the COT Cases during their arbitration processes, the strategic withholding of crucial information proved devastating. Aware of the implications, I urged the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook formally. But the sinister forces at play rendered this request futile. This logbook held damning evidence against Telstra, documenting every fault complaint from hapless customers. Yet, I found it suspiciously absent—conveniently hidden from me, the arbitrator, and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman (refer to File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127). Why? What were they afraid of revealing? The shadows of deceit loomed large, suggesting that Telstra was determined to shield its incompetence from prying eyes.
The logbook for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange is not just a crucial document; it is a testament to the betrayal that AUSTEL and Telstra inflicted upon the COT Cases. In a duplicitous gesture, they assured us that this logbook would be made available before the arbitration agreement was signed on April 21, 1994. Had they honoured this promise, it might have shed light on the myriad telephone problems that continued to plague my business, altering the arbitrator’s perception of our plight significantly. The betrayal we suffered culminated in an irrevocable decision that devastated the lives of the COT Cases.
Throughout my unsettling years as a delegate on several ships, I bore witness to grave discrepancies—an unsettling pattern of deceit—between the incident records in the ship's logbook, meticulously crafted by one party, and the damning truths buried within the final findings.
In 2006, during the highly questionable government-endorsed review of the (COT) claims led by the elusive Senator Helen Coonan, her bureaucratic minions relied on carefully curated records from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). These records, conveniently extracted from their COT archives, culminated in a report that included Exhibit AS 639, ominously titled “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for the Minister's Office.”
Yet, what this document blatantly ignored were the critical findings from AUSTEL (now operating under the inscrutable guise of ACMA). AUSTEL's Adverse Finding, dated back to March 1994, unveiled a web of serious misconduct surrounding Telstra that should have been front and centre in the review. Anyone daring enough to delve into AUSTEL’s March 1994 (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) reveals a troubling reality: government officials tasked with investigating my ongoing telephone issues found my claims against Telstra to be valid. This was not merely an oversight; it indicates a deliberate pattern of misconduct that played out between Points 2 and 212.
Had Senator Coonan’s bureaucratic entourage ventured to confront the truths laid out in AUSTEL’s Adverse Finding in 2006, they would have been faced with irrefutable evidence demanding the recognition of my claims. Instead, they chose the treacherous route of dismissal—a calculated manoeuvre that left my legitimate grievances shrouded in darkness.
As the representatives of the COT cases, we found ourselves entangled in a web of deceit spun by Telstra. Our request for access to the telephone exchange logbooks was met with stonewalling, despite the clear need for scrutiny. The file notes provided by Telstra—offered to both the government and the arbitrator during the arbitration process—seemed little more than a façade, concealing the truth behind their ongoing failures.
absentjustice.com is not a work of fiction. It is a chronicle of events supported by over 1,200 documented exhibits attached to this website, each one a fragment of a profoundly unsettling truth. What follows is the story of a relentless pursuit for justice, repeatedly undermined by a network of individuals entrusted with the law. Government bureaucrats, elite law firms, sworn arbitrators, and public institutions—bound by duty to uphold integrity—were instead entangled in acts of bribery, extortion, robbery, judicial tampering, and Gaslighting.
Evidence was manipulated after its submission. Legal documents were deliberately altered. Testimonies were given in support of records known to be forged. Falsehoods, fraud, and manufactured misinformation were not just used—they were institutionalised.
This story is not merely an exposé. It is a reckoning. And every exhibit speaks for itself.
Unveil a disturbing and intricate pattern of corruption that developed before, during, and after the COT arbitrations. They document how government representatives became deeply entangled in a morally questionable framework that betrayed their public duty. In the shadows, powerful officials formed a clandestine alliance, prioritising their own personal interests and agendas over the well-being of the very citizens they were sworn to serve independently.
This breach of trust not only undermined the citizens’ faith in their government but also severely compromised the transparency and integrity of the investigation into the arbitration claims against Telstra. As a result, the process became tainted, leaving COT claimants marginalised and unheard. The telecommunications infrastructure that Telstra relied upon in these dealings was shrouded in controversy, further raising concerns about accountability and ethical conduct among those in positions of power. The ramifications of this corrupt alliance extend far beyond the immediate arbitration claims, impacting the broader landscape of public trust in government institutions and regulatory agencies.
One particularly shocking incident underscores the depths of this corruption: crucial evidence, which could have illuminated the secret dealings of a government-owned corporation, was willfully and systematically destroyed. This reckless act raises profound concerns about the accountability and transparency that should underpin public governance. Furthermore, during the review of the highly contentious COT Cases, vital information was purposefully redacted from official records, creating a deceptive façade of compliance while obstructing the pursuit of truth. This deliberate manipulation of information allowed the corporation to evade the scrutiny it so richly deserved, escaping the severe consequences of its actions.
Those tasked with examining archived documents found themselves ensnared in a tangled web of suppressed disclosures, navigating a labyrinth specifically designed to thwart the pursuit of justice. This oppressive environment effectively subverts the foundational principles of fairness and public trust, leaving citizens to grapple with a system that betrays their essential rights. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond mere bureaucratic incompetence; they present a significant threat to the very integrity of democratic institutions.
The relentless tide of corruption and manipulation erodes public confidence. It undermines the societal framework, creating a grim atmosphere where accountability and justice are mere illusions, obscured by layers of deceit. The dark undercurrents of this governmental decay call for urgent and decisive action to dismantle the corrupt machinery and restore the fundamental principles of democracy, ensuring that the rights and voices of citizens are no longer silenced in the shadows of greed and malfeasance.
Among the most alarming violations was the clandestine interception of telephone calls and the unauthorised hacking of fax transmissions by Telstra—a trusted national provider. These breaches of privacy were not just invasive; they were weaponised. Sensitive communications were siphoned off and delivered into the hands of an individual known only as Micky—a figure whose activities have caused significant unease within the ranks of the Australian Federal Police → Australian Federal Police Investigation File
Micky's involvement was not peripheral. It was central, corrosive, and meticulously engineered to distort legal proceedings and neutralise accountability. Forged documents were legitimised, legal records were doctored, and sworn testimony was used to prop up fiction over fact. And those who were meant to uphold justice not only looked away—they actively participated.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (refer to AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) unveil a chilling truth. On 14 April 1994, Telstra covertly admitted to the Australian Federal Police that my most private and business telephone conversations were not just monitored but meticulously recorded for several months. Disturbingly, this invasive surveillance occurred only when a specific officer was on duty—the very same individual who once operated as a Telstra technician in Portland.
This technician, it seems, acted as a puppet master, feeding this unknown figure named 'Micky' with my phone and fax numbers, thus opening a gateway for unscrupulous intrusions into my life (see Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 -AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541). The betrayal runs deep, shrouded in secrecy and complicity.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
This is not merely a catalogue of criminal behaviour. It is a reckoning with a system that allowed deception to flourish under the guise of law. And every exhibit tells a story the institutions hoped would remain buried.
(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
Copper Wire was not compatible
As unveiled in "Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN," the government communications regulator AUSTEL, which has since rebranded as ACMA, became aware of the shocking plight of these 120,000 small businesses and countless residential Telstra customers suffering from relentless phone service issues. Rather than coming forward and exposing the full extent of this scandal, AUSTEL chose to downplay the crisis, issuing a publicly released COT Cases report that manipulated the truth, claiming there were only about 50 Type COT problems plaguing the nation. This falsehood was not merely misguided—it was a calculated effort to silence the voices of those wronged.
This deceitful narrative extended beyond public reports; it infiltrated the very halls of justice. The misleading figures were carefully withheld from judges, arbitrators, and mediators tasked with evaluating the COT cases, transforming a quest for justice into a farcical charade. As a result, many vulnerable Australians, motivated by desperation and hope, were driven to squander thousands of dollars—often through borrowed funds—on futile legal battles against Telstra. They fought against an entity that was morally and legally obligated to provide basic telecommunications services, only to find themselves caught in a labyrinth of corruption and betrayal. This story serves as a chilling reminder of the lengths powerful corporations will go to protect their interests at the expense of ordinary citizens, illuminating the sinister reality behind their façade of compliance and responsibility.
This troubling revision of the arbitration agreement uncovers a complex web of corruption and deceit, revealing the insidious nature of the arbitration process itself. Originally crafted to protect the rights and interests of all parties involved, this arbitration agreement received the endorsement of two senators and the claimants' legal representatives before secret alterations were made. In effect, all parties—including the legal representatives—were misled, leaving them unaware of the impending manipulation that would impact the claimants' cases.
“Telecom will also make available to the arbitrator a summarised list of information which is available, some of which may be relevant to the arbitration. This information will be available for the resource unit to peruse. If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator, then Telecom would accede to this request.”
The statement in Mr Black’s letter:-
“If the resource unit forms the view that this information should be provided to the arbitrator”,
confirms both Warwick Smith and Mr Black were fully aware that the TIO-appointed Resource Unit, Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory, were secretly assigned to vet most, if not all, the arbitration procedural documents en route to Dr Hughes. If FHCA decided a particular document was not relevant to the arbitration process, it would not be passed to Dr Gordon Hughes or the other parties. (Refer to File 590 → AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)
Page 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, under Part 11 – Appointment of Arbitrators and Umpires states:-
(6) Presumption of single arbitrator
“An arbitration agreement shall be taken to provide for the appointment of a single arbitrator unless –
(a) the agreement otherwise provides; or
(b) the parties otherwise agree in writing.” ( Refer to File 193-B GS-CAV Exhibit 155 to 215)
The FTAP agreement, signed by Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me, was signed between 8 and 21 April 1994 and mentions only one arbitrator. We have never seen any written agreement that allows a second arbitrator to determine what information the first arbitrator will see.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.
Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am
A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<
The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorised interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am
The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
Blowing the Whistle
In democratic societies, a paradox often emerges: if uncovering harmful actions is perceived as morally ambiguous, why do governments actively incentivise citizens to report crimes and injustices? This intriguing contradiction reveals a deeper reality about civic duty, which forms the foundation of justice and public accountability. At the heart of this dynamic lies the figure of the whistleblower: an individual who bravely opts for truth over silence, integrity over convenience, and justice over blind conformity.
Whistleblowers embody both the honour of standing valiantly for what is right and the heavy burden of facing retaliation, social ostracism, and profound personal risk. Their remarkable courage compels us to confront an ethical crossroads: should we celebrate and support those who expose misconduct, thereby fostering a culture of transparency and accountability? Or do we silence these vital voices to maintain societal stability, potentially risking the erosion of ethical principles that underpin our communities?
Our upcoming twelve-chapter documentary will embark on an in-depth exploration of this compelling question. Each chapter, meticulously curated for both clarity and emotional resonance, will investigate the multifaceted reality of whistleblowing. Through evocative storytelling and rigorously verified insights, we will illustrate how acts of dissent—though often uncomfortable—can shine a light on pathways toward equity and justice.
To enrich the viewer’s experience, each chapter will be complemented by striking visuals that capture the profound tension, humanity, and hope woven into these narratives. These images will act as more than mere embellishments; they will serve as emotional anchors that enhance understanding and provoke thoughtful reflection. With the image editing process projected for completion by mid-September 2025, we are on the verge of delivering a powerful and cohesive narrative that transcends superficial storytelling.
Ultimately, this documentary aspires not only to inform but to provoke a deeper contemplation among audiences: what kind of society do we wish to nurture—one that uplifts and values courageous truth-tellers, or one that fears the disruption their revelations may bring?
A man with a Conscience.
Julian Assange provided a vital link for the COT cases, but we were unaware of this during our arbitrations.
A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General, Hon. Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers discovered that Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations acted unlawfully towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:
“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.
“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his Melbourne and Sydney offices …
“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.
“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …
“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)
On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:
“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.
- Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
- The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally.
- In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)
I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases.
If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to disclose incidents which they believe are crimes because doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats.
I have long believed that the hackers who infiltrated Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne harboured motives that transcended the mere breach of telecommunications infrastructure. This incident, compellingly documented by journalist Andrew Fowler in his piece "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" for ABC, is part of a larger narrative involving ethical misconduct regarding Telstra's treatment of the COT Cases, a group of individuals who claimed significant injustices in their dealings with the telecommunications giant.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
