Menu
My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Menu

Tampering With Evidence Part 1

When I set up absentjustice.com Tampering with Evidence Part 1 and  Bribery and Corruption Part 2 I had no real option than to repeat many of my mini stories because one set of illegal acts in one story was often significant to another part of the COT story. 

In 1992, when the four COT cases were able to show the government something was radically wrong within Telstra’s ailing copper-wire network, Telstra management paid compensation to the four COT cases for not supplying them with a reliable phone system. Although the money provided to the COT cases helped them to continue trading, Telstra did not fix the phone problems. And so, the then Labor Party commissioned the government communications regulator, AUSTEL, to ensure a settlement arbitration process was set up, for the four cases and other small businesses with similar problems, in order to fix any ongoing problems before the assessor brought down a finding. Points 1.18 to 3.38 in the official AUSTEL COT Cases Report of 13 April 1994 notes:

"When the initial settlements were reached with the original COT Cases the standard of service then applicable was not objectively established and there is reason to believe that difficult network faults may have continued to affect their services."

"An agreed standard of service against which Telecom's performance may be effectively measured is being developed by Telecom in consultation with AUSTEL. Such a standard together with a service verification test which can be applied to any case subject to settlement are essential." 

"As part of the general approach to settlement, Telecom sought AUSTEL's agreement to, and assistance in, the development of a defined status for a telephone service. The intention is to obtain an agreement on the operational performance of the service against which the parties might sign off once a financial settlement has been finalised."

AUSTEL did not want a repeat of what happened in 1992, after the first four COT cases received compensation, i.e., to find the telephone problems were still affecting COT businesses.

Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT cases’ arbitrator, and Warwick Smith, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations), both received a copy of the 257-page AUSTEL COT Cases Report. AUSTEL’s report stipulated Telstra had to prove to the assessor/arbitrator, beyond any doubt, that its arbitration-designed Service Verification Testing (SVT) process gave the COT cases’ services a clean bill of health, before Dr Hughes could bring down his findings. Why did Dr Hughes ignore this official government report?

As shown in the following Prologue link Chapter 1 - The collusion continues, not only did Dr Hughes ignore AUSTEL's official report, he also ignored his own arbitration technical consultants’ advice that they had still not diagnosed the fault causes of my ongoing telephone problems and therefore, they stated, there was a reasonable expectation these undiagnosed faults would remain “open”.  Despite this very serious statement by his consultants, Dr Hughes still brought down his findings without allowing his consultants the extra weeks they requested to investigate these ongoing telephone problems.

Possibly the worst thing Warwick Smith and Dr Hughes allowed, during our various arbitrations, was to let Telstra, unsupervised, to perform the arbitration SVT processes at COT businesses. The arbitration technical consultants were not present, regardless of the COT cases being advised, prior to arbitration, that the arbitration technical resource unit would be on site to view and assess Telstra’s technical reporting. Warwick Smith was fully aware –even before the arbitration agreements were signed – that one Telstra senior executive (who was also a member of the TIO board) was under investigation for having misled and deceived a Senate estimates committee concerning the telephone testing process of two COT cases’ exchanges (see Open Letter File 14).

Even though Paul Howell, from DMR Group Inc, was brought in from Canada to investigate my technical claim material, neither he, David Reid (of Lane Telecommunications (the appointed Australian arbitration consultant) nor Dr Hughes commented on my claims that Telstra had not performed the required mandatory arbitration SVT process (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra’s technician advised Dr Hughes, under oath on 12 December 1994, that his Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp SVT tests had met all AUSTEL’s mandatory specifications, despite AUSTEL advising him the SVT was grossly deficient (Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). This is the same technician Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White named, before a Senate estimates committee, as telling him I was one of five COT cases who had to be stopped, at all costs, from proving our arbitration claims. (See pages 36 and 38, Senate – Parliament of Australia)

If the question is: “Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes that was committed by public officials, more than twenty-four years ago?”, then surely the answer must be “Yes”, particularly if those crimes affected the lives of other Australian citizens (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens - Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police and Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 Tampering of Evidence)

As stated on both the Home and Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 page, When I started to tell our COT vs Telstra arbitration stories and placing each collusive and deceitful act into some sequence, we found many further acts of collusion and deceit committed by others outside of our arbitrations. As the website grows, we have discovered some issues relate to more than one event and, in fact, are often linked to multiple events and therefore one event may need repeating in different sections of the website, to enable the depth of the corruption and illegal activities committed during the arbitration to be fully understood. Hence a number of previously detailed situations in other parts of absentjustice.com are used here, on Bribery and Corruption - Part 2 and we make no apology for that

Please note: the Thomas Jefferson segment discussed below is also displayed on the Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden page. We have again used it below because it is clear from what has been exposed by the US Department of Justice concerning Bribery and Corruption is relevant to our COT story because of the involvement of the Ericsson equipment used by Telstra falsely defended during the COT arbitrations.

Telstra's arbitration defence unit stated to the COT arbitrator in several COT arbitrations, including mine, that Telstra had found no significant faults with the Ericsson telephone equipment they used in their telephone exchanges was a lie of immense proportion. This lie denied all COT Cases a proper assessment of their arbitration claims where Telstra had used Ericsson equipment.

This lie perverted the course of justice

As stated on the Home page, Whe I started to tell our COT vs Telstra arbitration stories and placing each collusive and deceitful act into some sequence, we found many further acts of collusion and deceit committed by others outside of our arbitrations. As the website grows, we have discovered some issues relate to more than one event and, in fact, are often linked to multiple events and therefore one event may need repeating in different sections of the website, to enable the depth of the corruption and illegal activities committed during the arbitration to be fully understood. Hence a number of previously detailed situations in other parts of absentjustice.com are used here, and on Bribery and Corruption - Part 1, and Bribery and Corruption - Part 2 we make no apology for that. 

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

This internal Government Memo dated On 25 February 1994 confirms that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to me to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

It was the following See AFP Evidence File No 9 that the Australian Federal Police found of interest as well as my claims that Freedom of Information documents provded to me under the FOI Act by Telstra as well as other COT Cases suggested my private life was not so private at all. What we did not know is Telstra has a fax screening secondary machine intercepting our faxes. This was later supported by two communications experts (see Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 fax 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)

The fact that a secondary fax machine installed in Telstra’s network during the arbitration process intercepted this document (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 26 is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts were first discovered. However, with that said, it does suggest that by comparing Open Letter File No/12File No/13 with the malfunction between faxes installed by Telstra in Golden Messenger Courier Service in Melbourne and my office in Cape Bridgewater (See See AFP Evidence File No 9) that a fax copying machine was causing the lines to lock up and that this side of Telstra was unaware my service lines were being hacked by their own company. 

This is why the following [  ] shows how surprised these fax testing techncians were with the results of their testing as highlighted in red below.

This Telstra document dated 29 October 1993 shows that faxes being tested between COT spokesperson Graham Schorer Golden Messenger Courier Service and I were still having problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document K01489 confirms that Portland technician, along another Telstra technician experienced major problems while testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the office of Golden Messenger in Melbourne as the testing base, which notes:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A copy of a letter dated 2 March 1994, from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police AFP (see Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C). This letter makes it quite clear that Mr Penrose was profoundly misled and deceived about the faxing problems I was having to deal with, as discussed in this letter. Over the years, many people have compared the four exhibits numbered (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13 and promptly concluded that, if Ian Row had not misled the AFP in relation to my faxing issues then the AFP would have been able to stop Telstra from intercepting the various relevant AFP arbitration documents in March 1994, before any damage had been done.

It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham's. So not only did this local Portland Telstra technician pervert the course of justice in his witness statement dated 12 December 1994 to the arbitrator. It is also evident that Ian Row Telstra's Corporate Solicitor misled and deceived Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police AFP. Had he and this local Portland technician told the truth concerning my ongoing faxing problems, I would have been able to prove to the arbitrator that my faxing problems were endless and were not old historic phone problems as the arbitrator's award shows. 

I could have also shown the arbitrator that the TF200 touchphone installed into my fax machine was having major lock-up problems, as the following EXICOM reporting shows. In simple terms, I not only had fax hacking problems that were locking up my 055 267230 fax line as See AFP Evidence File No 9 shows, but I also had the known EXICOM TF200 locking up fault. No wonder I had central incoming fax and outgoing telephone calls for years after my arbitration, unaware that all of the EXICOM TF200 phones had locking up faults.  

Absent Justice - TF200 EXICOM telephone

So when this TF200 tampering of my telephone took place when the EXICOM TF200 was taken from my office by Telstra and tampered with, causing further problems as this Tampering With Evidence Part 1 shows. 

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

IT'S FREE!! 

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents on Alan's website absentjustice.com

Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence that can be downloaded from absentjustice.com is possibly a world first.

ABSENT JUSTICE HAS IT ALL.

Quote Icon

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

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

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

Hon David Hawker MP

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

The Hon David Hawker MP

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

Senator Carr

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

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

– Edmund Burke