My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


Visitors to this website have pointed out the striking similarity between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities such as fraud, bribery, and corruption, accompanied by manifestations of immorality, depravity, sinfulness, and wickedness. Additionally, there are legitimate concerns about the declining efficacy of the arbitration system and the pervasive distortion of truth, ultimately leading to a perversion of justice. The Slippery Slope of Law and Disorder, Deadly Deception, and heinous criminality accurately describe the experiences of those in Australia who opt for arbitration over the court system

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra.  Other independent business people similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telstra or the COT cases. We only wanted the government-owned telecommunications carrier Telstra to admit systemic billing problems within their software and fix them.

The government offered us an arbitration process if we refrained from demanding a Senate investigation into why our research showed that more than 120,000 similar citizens were also having phone problems, resulting in lost business opportunities, see Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN).

We were assured that the Telecom documents essential for our case would be available if we participated in the government-endorsed arbitration. Unfortunately, despite this guarantee, these documents have not been made accessible to us, and we still lack the most pertinent ones as of 2024. The Telstra telephone exchange logbooks are crucial as they contain records of daily complaints addressed by Telstra technicians, along with details of the complaints and whether they were ongoing. Surprisingly, the arbitrator failed to access these logbooks and has not provided a written explanation or reason for this oversight. This omission has significantly impacted our ability to present our case effectively.

In my situation, the Director of Investigations from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, Mr. John Wynack, made a determined effort to obtain my local Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. John Wynack directed this request to Telstra's CEO, Frank Blount, questioning the reason for Telstra withholding this logbook and several other documents I had requested under the Freedom of Information (Act).

I had explicitly informed Mr Wynack that the General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL, the former Government Communications Authority, had indicated that AUSTEL had reviewed numerous fault reports extracted from the Portland and Cape Bridgewater exchange. This review allowed AUSTEL to confirm that my claims against Telstra were validated. Therefore, Mr. Wynack was fully cognizant of the significance of my obtaining this logbook. Unfortunately, we have not received a response to this query (see File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47)

The illusive logbook (example 1)

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 6


Telstra's Principal Investigator could not access the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook.

As previously discussed in Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen → File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status.  Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations.  I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that same investigation as a witness (see page 11 → Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).


Sworn Witness Statement dated 10/08/2006  

In Mr Direen's sworn witness statement, he notes

Point 20: - "Finally, I would like to say this while I was working at Telstra and it would have been the early nineties I had cause to travel ro Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange." 

Point 21: “As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.”

Point 22: - “When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater are south of Portland was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation. I was not told about this complaint prior to travelling to Portland and when I made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne I was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra. I later found out that the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

The COT Case members provided two witness statements (see File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) of the Australian government following discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce on 6 September 2006 at the Parliament House in Canberra.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who used extracts from the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbooks when investigating my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided Telstra's logbook, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded. Living with these types of injustices has taken its toll on all COT Cases and their immediate family.

Dr Hughes's refusal to fulfil the claimant's request for the most relevant documents during the discovery process raises suspicions about his motives. It's puzzling why an arbitrator would deny such a reasonable request that could help prove or disprove the claim.


The illusive logbook (example 2)

Absent Justice - Bell Canada International

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

Telstra's Falsified BCI Report

I have never received a written response from BCI, but 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."   

During the Major Fraud Group investigation, I presented irrefutable evidence to Mr. Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, proving beyond any doubt that Telstra had provided a false report to their arbitration witness, Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist. The report, provided by Bell Canada International (BCI), claimed that 13,590 test calls were successfully terminated at the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange, which I demonstrated to the Major Fraud Group as an impossibility. Access to the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook would have allowed me to conclusively prove this to the arbitrator. This evidence would have compelled the arbitrator to remove the BCI report from the arbitration process, which he and his technical consultants had used to determine that my business could not be experiencing ongoing telephone problems. Telstra's current 2024 Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, has been involved, along with other executives, in concealing my BCI evidence since January and April 1998.


We COT Cases never had a chance to prove our claims fully.

Absent Justice - Prior to Arbitration


Protecting a government asset at any costs  

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. This document reveals Warwick Smith providing Telstra with in-house parliamentary privileged party-room information, which ultimately influenced the outcome of the COT arbitrations in favour of Telstra, to the detriment of the first four claimants.

Warwick Smith, the first appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), and Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, failed to disclose to elected members of parliament, the media, and the four COT claimants that the defendant's lawyers had drafted the arbitration agreement instead of an independent arbitration specialist as endorsed by the government.

On 12 May 1995, Dr Gordon Hughes acknowledged that the arbitration agreement was not credible, yet it was still used in the arbitration process. This raises concerns about whether Dr Hughes overlooked the deliberate deficiencies in the agreement, potentially planned by a legal firm to benefit their client. Dr Hughes should not have used an agreement that he himself branded as 'not credible' when deliberating on my claims Open Letter File No 55-A).

Not only did Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers draft this 'not credible' arbitration agreement to benefit their client, but they also drafted Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C, which demonstrates how Telstra could unjustly withhold freedom of information documents that we, the four COT Cases, had requested. Denise McBurnie, the lawyer behind this advice, was the individual with whom I was required to officially register my phone complaint in writing before Telstra would address my concerns.

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults to these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back from Telstra under Freedom of Information the same documentation I had previously provided this legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.


'The COT Case Strategy' 

This terrible legal advice is titled “The COT Case Strategy.”

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” (see 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. 


Absent Justice - The Firm

Corruption within the Australian government bureaucracy.

The arbitrations were a sham: the government not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualty of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses, but the government also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet, to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra or the other entities involved in this deceit accountable.

As we started to tell our COT vs Telstra arbitration stories and place 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 related to more than one event and are often linked to multiple events. Therefore, one event may have needed to be repeated in different sections of the website to enable the depth of the corruption and illegal activities committed during the arbitration to be fully understood. 

Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were not fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars; it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and underminedDespite our livelihoods being ruined, with millions of dollars lost and our mental health declining, the perpetrators of these crimes still hold positions of power today.

The COT Cases faxes were not always received by the intended party (See AFP Evidence File No 9)

It is evident from the bottom half of Front Page Part One File No/1 that Telstra charged me for six documents that were dispatched from my office on 23 May 1994 during my arbitration. The top half of (Front Page Part One File No/1contains a segment from Telstra's arbitration defence B004 report, wherein Telstra's Tony Watson informed the arbitrator that there was no issue with the arbitrator's fax line and that my six faxes did not reach his office due to his busy fax machines. If this were true, why does the bottom half of (Front Page Part One File No/1show that Telstra billed me for these six undelivered faxes? Where did these undelivered faxes end up? 

On 12 July 1998, as part of my ongoing arbitration appeal process, I presented a detailed list of 41 similar relevant arbitration faxes to the arbitrator not received by his office to Mr Wally Rothwell, the second appointed administrator to my arbitration. Mr. Rothwell was also the Deputy Chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Office. This was to prove that these arbitration claim documents were not investigated during my arbitration (see Front Page Part One File No/5). The list showed that from 21 September 1994 to 3 May 1995, the arbitrator's office allegedly did not receive 41 faxed documents from my office, as they do not appear on his listed documents as having been received.

I want to highlight that these documents did not appear on the scheduled list of documents obtained by the arbitrator despite Telstra charging me for faxing them. They were not even returned to me after the arbitration process. John Pinnock, the superior to Mr. Wally Rothwell, has refused to acknowledge this evidence and declined to have these missing arbitration faxes valued by an independent assessor. Furthermore, Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator, did not assess these faxes. This raises questions about the basis of his findings and the accuracy of the evidence considered during my arbitration.


Absent Justice - Lost Faxes


Why was my fax logo to be removed from my faxes after they left my facsimile machine? 

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, → See AFP Evidence File No 9 confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base) on 29 October 1993, they observed the following:

‘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 AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose Australian Federal Police (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems, including those discussed in (See AFP Evidence File No 9). Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims Chapter 1 - Hacked documents.

On April 22, 1994, the day following the signing of our arbitration agreements, George Close of George Close & Associates conducted similar testing at my business in Cape Bridgewater (Victoria) using Graham Schorer's COT spokesperson's office, leading to comparable issues. That day, three faxes from my office were dispatched to the government communications regulator AUSTEL in Melbourne. Despite their fax journal showing transaction times of up to two minutes, all three faxes received in the fax tray were blank, as evidenced by the attached exhibits (File 70 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91). It's disheartening that the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, and the administrator, Warwick Smith, seemed indifferent to the fact that the COT case documents failed to reach their intended destination, highlighting the challenges faced by the COT members.

On 11 May 1995, it became evident that the arbitration award was not sent to my office via fax due to persistent issues with fax communication between the offices of the arbitrator and the administrator. As a result, the award had to be transported by taxi from Melbourne, resulting in a round trip of eleven hours. AUSTEL (The government communications authority, now called ACMA) is aware of my history of reporting lost faxes since June 1989, with continued reports even on 22 April 1994, the day after I signed my arbitration agreement (File 70 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91) in my effort to have these ongoing faxing problems resolved as part of my arbitration process. Dr. Gordon Hughes was supposed to have addressed the persistent faxing issues in his award findings. He failed to do so.


The confidentiality agreement was used to conceal crimes committed during the COT arbitrations. 


Absent Justice - Deception Continues


Will the Australian government ever transparently investigate these crimes?

Our story is currently being hidden due to a confidentiality agreement attached to the arbitration agreement, which was modified to the detriment of the first four COT Cases. Essentially, this confidentiality clause is concealing illegal activities committed by Telstra, such as using electronic surveillance against the COT Cases. This ensured that the relevant faxed material did not reach its intended destination in the format it was faxed via Telstra's facsimile system. The evidence supporting these claims can be freely downloaded from this website as our story unfolds. Our downloadable evidence files unequivocally demonstrate that Telstra utilized this surveillance during litigation or mediation between January 1994 and December 2001.

I strongly support the use of electronic surveillance equipment for detecting and preventing crimes and terrorism, extortion, racketeering, organised crime, and underworld activities. However, I firmly believe that corporations like Telstra should not control such equipment. They should not be allowed to interfere with legal documents while in transit from Owen Dixon Chambers (the legal centre in Melbourne, Australia) to the Supreme Court of Victoria or to and from Parliament House in Canberra during the COT arbitrations period. The arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, should have promptly halted the arbitrations when the Australian Federal Police notified the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the arbitrations) that Telstra had been conducting surveillance on the COT cases for a significant period.

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1994.

On March 21, 1995, two months before the conclusion of my arbitration on May 11, 1995, the COT Cases, including myself, were requested to deliver concise 10-15 minute statements supported by evidence of the interruption of our telephone conversations before and during our arbitrations. This was directed to Senators Cooney (Chair), Spindler (Deputy Chair), Ellison, Evans, Vanstone, McKieran, and O’Chee, to facilitate the amendment of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1994.

Senate documents dated March 21, 1995, will attest to my testimony at this hearing. Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police, who had attended two prior meetings at my Cape Bridgewater business, authorised me to utilize the interception evidence, which the AFP had concluded substantiated my assertions.


Public service exploitation, maleficent, fraud, and nepotism continue unabated.  


Absent Justice - My Story - Parliament House Canberra

Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered) 


The current Australian administration, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of bureaucratic fraud, corruption, cronyism, illicit government conduct, and the mismanagement of public finances, surpassing that of its predecessor. Despite this, I have not received a response from Prime Minister Albanese to my letter dated 3 July 2023, in which I raised concerns regarding these substantial issues. The letter emphasizes the urgent need for a transparent investigation and subsequent resolution of these critical matters highlighted on the website, and it has been attached above and below as an Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered) 

Paedophile Activity in Parliament House Canberra 

Absent Justice - My Story - Australian Federal Police


Unsolved crimes committed against the Casualties of Telstra   

On 10 February 1994, during the initial phase of the first four arbitrations, AUSTEL, the government communications authority at the time (now ACMA), corresponded with Telstra's Steve Black, who also served as Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, stating:

“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.” Illegal Interception File No/3.

On February 25 1994:  When this letter to Telstra's Corporate Secretary from Fay Holthuyzen, Assistant to the Minister for Communications, Michael Lee, (AS 772-a - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789 is compared to the letter dated February 3 1994 Exhibit (AS 772-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) that I sent to the Minister's office it is clear that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

On the same day of February 25 1994,  an internal Government Memo confirmed that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AS 773 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789)

On March 3 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), 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).”

It is therefore essential I raise the AFP transcripts of 10 February 1994, where it is shown Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose and Detective Sergeant Cochrane, Grahm Schorer (COT spokesperson) and Amanda Davis, Ex-government official, discussed a briefcase that Telstra had inadvertently left at my business which had the names of several people in it who like the COT Cases had their telephone conversations listened to and tapped. Pages 37, 38 and 39 in the transcripts of that AFP interview File 490 - AFP evidence file GS 18 show that Mr Schorer advised the AFP that ex-Telstra employee Mr Marr provided this telephone interception (phone monitoring evidence) to Senator Bob Collins.

When the COT Cases tried to access these nine audio tapes from Senator Bob Collins during the arbitration process, they were never released under FOI or through the arbitration discovery process, even though they were needed to support our various arbitrations claim against Telstra that our telephone conversations had been intercepted and tapped without our knowledge and consent. Mr Schorer (COT spokesperson) also advises the AFP (see Questions 111, 112 and 113, that Telstra had inadvertently left a briefcase at my premises. This briefcase showed that Telstra had been bugging my business movements for years and had lied about the severity of my phone problems. This information was also kept in Senator Bob Collins's office. 

Had I received this relevant information, the arbitrator's findings in his award would have been substantially higher than they were. In simple terms, when government public servants thought it better to conceal relevant COT Case phone tapping evidence in cases of other evidence being mistakenly provided that shows the Senator was a paedophile during the period he was actively involved in the COT matters, they thought only of protecting the government and to hell with its citizens.


Screening arbitration-related documents  

Absent Justice - My Story


Gaining an illegal advantage during litigation 

Question 81 in the AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 from my meeting with the AFP on 26 September 1994 confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon (government communications regulator) had supplied the AFP evidence my phones had been bugged over an extended period, noting:

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

I must emphasize the significance of the four letters I wish to bring to your attention. These letters are dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017. They were penned by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. The recipients of these letters were The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann.

On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, he is well-informed about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. Nevertheless, our claims have yet to be thoroughly and transparently investigated. These letters are documented under reference See File Ann Garms 104 Documentwhere she exposes the raping of the first nation (aboriginal children) by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office ( 

When carefully reviewing this letter alongside, it becomes clear that the COT Case faced obstacles in obtaining their promised FOI documents because government officials failed to release information held in Senator Collins's office. Senator Collins has been responsible for handling the COT cases since 1993. During the same period, he was involved in criminal activities, further hindering the pursuit of justice for the COT Cases.

It is highly likely that one of the reasons the COT Cases were not given access to important Freedom of Information documents held in Senator Bob Collins' office was due to the fear of exposing evidence of the Senator's paedophile activities

Kangaroo Court - Absent Justice This raping of Australian citizens in Parliament House Canberra during the 1990s is still very much in the public eye in 2024 as the following  Kangaroo Court website, and shows.

Going into arbitration in a government-endorsed arbitration where two separate Australian Federal Police investigations related to the same arbitration was an unworkable situation that destroyed the COT Cases' lives and the lives of their families
Allowing the COT Cases to sign their arbitration and mediation processes while the AFP was investigating one of the major players involved in those arbitrations who had been raping children in Parliament House while he was investigating the COT Cases issues as part of his folio in Parliament House Canberra when the COT Cases had also raised phone and fax interception with this same Senator. It has now been proven in the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 that COT-related arbitration faxes were being intercepted en route to at least one Senator's parliament house office during the COT arbitrations is alarming (see Broken Promise below).
The government public servants who appointed the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, assured us of his qualifications. However, Dr. Hughes' actions during the thirteen months of my arbitration process suggested otherwise. It was discovered that Dr. Hughes was not a qualified arbitrator and that the Institute of Arbitrator Australia had not been consulted for his grading. Quest Investigations suggested I contact the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA) to confirm Dr Hughes had been a graded arbitrator when handling my claims.
On April 10, 2002, Ian Nosworthy, the Senior Vice President of the IAMA, wrote to me confirming that Dr Hughes:

"...was not at the time a graded arbitrator within the institute, and was not included on the Register of Practising Arbitrators until well after he delivered the award in your matter on 11 May 1995".

Not a graded arbitrator 

Absent Justice - Order of Australia

Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT arbitrator.

 Two recent visitors to this website made similar comments, stating that words like bribery, crime, exploitation, extortion, fraud, graft, malfeasance, nepotism, crookedness, and unscrupulousness accurately describe what this website is revealing. These words shed light on how the arbitration process in Australia has harmed many individuals who trusted the appointed arbitrator. Dr. Gordon Hughes allowed his previous client to have their arbitration claims evaluated using the same arbitration agreement as three other claimants. However, only his ex-client, the group's spokesperson, received special privileges from Dr. Gordon Hughes that were not extended to the other claimants. Dr Hughes allowed his client two more years to prepare his claim and respond to Telstra's defence of an interim claim, resulting in his client not submitting a fully completed claim. Despite this, his ex-client was awarded 3.6 million dollars from Telstra without filing a final claim. This information is documented in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest and Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents. 

The one-sided arbitration process was a blatant injustice, particularly in light of the statement made by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) John Pinnock, who was also the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations, on September 26, 1997, two years after most of the arbitrations had concluded. In his address to The Senate Committee (refer to ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D), Mr Pinnock unequivocally declared that the process had failed the COT cases because:

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—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 of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”

That statement by the TIO confirms the arbitration procedure failed the COT Cases.  

Absent Justice - My Story Senator Alan Eggleston


Why were the COT Cases not allowed to amend their claims once it was noted that the arbitrator had no control over the process? 

On 23 March 1999, after all of the COT arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to support their claims wholly.

“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 [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

The following six senators all formally record how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations. 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard


I continue to maintain interest in your case along with those of your fellow 'Casualties of Telstra'.


Absent Justice - Senator Kim Carr

Infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens 

I affirm that Senator Kim Carr has received the draft information on and the manuscript, Absent Justice. The senator actively engaged in three Senate debates regarding the COT arbitrations on September 20, 1995, June 24, 1997, and June 25, 1997. Therefore, it was essential to include the image above as the centrepiece for the following text.

The commitment that never was!

It is crucial to look ahead a decade from the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995 to address two correspondences dated 15 September 2005 and 6 September 2006, as well as two ministerial meetings. These interactions collectively highlight the lack of significant developments over the past decade concerning the behaviour of certain government ministers. Even after its full privatization in 2006, the Telstra Corporation continued to exert substantial influence over the Australian government, causing significant harm to the nation and its citizens, as evidenced by this website.

A broken promise 

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 8                  

Honesty in government - what honesty?

In July 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce received irrefutable evidence (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) demonstrating that the COT Cases arbitration-related documents were being intercepted en route to the arbitrator and Parliament House Canberra. In response, Senator Joyce reached a groundbreaking agreement with the Australian government. He offered to provide the one crucial vote needed to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate if the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate the 14 COT case claims against Telstra and the Commonwealth (see Senate Evidence File No 20).

Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows. 

The statement made in document File 424 GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447 by Simon Bryant, senior advisor to Senator Helen Coonan, clearly demonstrates that the government had no intention of ethically valuing the COT Cases' claims, despite the Senate agreeing to consider their merit. This lack of ethical consideration resulted in significant financial costs for the COT Cases, including thousands of dollars in secretary and technical consultant fees to mount their claims. Mr. Bryant's statements reveal the concerning level of corruption among Australia's public servants.

“I think Jodi maybe getting confused about what the assessment is meant to do (or at least what we are recommending) ie an assessment of process and what further resolution channels may be available to people. We are arguing strongly that the assessment should not be about the merits of each case.” (Refer also to Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued

On the 6 of September 2006, a group of fourteen Australian citizens, self-identifying as Casualties of Telstra (COT), convened in Parliament House, Canberra, and presented substantial evidence signalling the existence of systemic corruption within the government bureaucracy, adversely impacting the COT arbitrations. Notably, The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and Senator Barnaby Joyce, National Party Senator, were present during this disclosure. I have personally presented evidence to this assembly proving that the Hon. Paul Fletcher, the current 2024 Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives, was given evidence in June 1996 (presented here as Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two) indicating that the COT Case arbitrations did not adhere to the rule of law or the promises made to both houses of parliament in April 1994.

On August 31st, 2006, I received a letter from the Hon. David Hawker, Speaker of the House of Representatives, following our discussion about the impact of the Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13and the arbitrator's failure to address several arbitration billing documents that I had faxed to him, as evidenced by the arbitrator's received document schedule list. In his letter, The Hon. David Hawker MP stated:

  • "Thank you for keeping me informed. As requested, issues concerning privacy breaching have been raised with Senator Coonan’s office for your meeting with the Minister set for 6 September 2006".  (File AS 578 - AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588  

The issues regarding the interception of the faxes in the Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) were not addressed during the meeting. Our primary focus was investigating and resolving the non-receipt of arbitration-related documents faxed by the COT claimants to the arbitrator. As a result, the arbitrator did not consider these documents under the arbitration agreement. Moreover, the COT Cases' failure to receive various arbitration-related documents during their respective arbitration procedures also impeded their understanding of the proceedings at different arbitration levels.

On 17 May 2007, The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan wrote to me concerning the interception of the COT Cases arbitration-related documents, noting:

  • "I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (File 616-B AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700       

As the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan had a duty to launch an official investigation into why Telstra intercepted in-confidence documents. It is perplexing that Australian citizens had to resort to legal action against Telstra for intercepting documents during and after a government-endorsed arbitration, especially when a Senate Committee was informed that some of these faxes were intercepted en route or leaving Parliament House.

In my case, Exhibit 10C, attached to the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (File No/13) provided to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999, clearly demonstrates that one of my letters to Mr Peter Costello, Australia's Federal Treasurer in Canberra, dated 02/11/98, was intercepted and screened before arriving at Peter Costello's office. This letter and two attachments dated 25 October 1998 revealed unethical conduct by several parties during my arbitration and criticized Dr Hughes. The interception of this letter on 02/11/98, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995, serves as further confirmation of the ongoing harassment I endured even after my arbitration.

It is evident that Senator Helen Coonan should not have expected me to take legal action against Telstra for intercepting my correspondence, especially considering that I had already provided the Australian Federal Police with similar documentation back in 1994, which highlighted that my private and business correspondence had been intercepted as early as 1992. This fact is well-documented in the transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 of my second interview with the police on 26 September 1994, just six months into my government-endorsed arbitration.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) 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)

I strongly support the use of electronic surveillance equipment for detecting and preventing crimes and terrorism. However, I firmly believe that corporations like Telstra should not control such equipment. They should not be allowed to interfere with legal documents while in transit from Owen Dixon Chambers (the legal centre in Melbourne, Australia) to the Supreme Court of Victoria or to and from Parliament House in Canberra during the COT arbitrations period. The arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, should have promptly halted the arbitrations when the Australian Federal Police notified the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the arbitrations) that Telstra had been conducting surveillance on the COT cases for a significant period.


The COT Arbitrations

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

When interrogating Warwick Smith concerning the hacker's assertions regarding coercion into an arbitration process and non-receipt of requested documents, the veracity of these claims, substantiated by the absence of the aforementioned documents as of 2024, was met with silence from both Warwick Smith and the arbitrator Dr. Hughes. Warwick Smith, the overseer of our arbitration proceedings, deliberately refrained from furnishing us with pertinent COT Case information about the hackers after their capture despite our status as claimants with a legitimate entitlement to clarification.

Between June 1994 and March 1995, I continued to notify the arbitrator between June 1994 and April 1995, Dr. Gordon Hughes, and the administrator of the arbitration process, Warwick Smith, about Telstra's failure to provide the FOI documents promised to me upon signing my arbitration due to my ongoing cooperation with the Australian Federal Police's investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of arbitration-related faxes and hacking into my telephone conversations; their response was to proceed without the FOI documents I was seeking.

I was concerned about how I could prove that my phone problems were ongoing without this vital documentation. I received no response from Dr. Hughes or Warwick Smith on the AFP-threatening issues or the non-supplying FOI documents during my arbitration. In Hughes's final award, he only addressed historical phone complaints rather than those still affecting my business. In simple terms, he was intimidated by Telstra's representatives, whose affiliation with their Sydney office was not disclosed to us. This situation is detailed in the story. As for Warwick Smith, it appeared that he had been providing Telstra's board members with confidential information about the COT case since the time we, the four COT cases, signed our agreements on 23 November 1993 (refer to TIO Evidence File No 3-A).

Criminal Conduct 1

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

Absent Justice - My Story - Senator Ron Boswell

Telstra threats carried out. 

While I was again being threatened by Telstra's 'thugs in suits' Again, for the third or fourth time, I reported to Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations) that I urgently needed to prove that my phone problems were ongoing and the vital documentation was crucial. I made it clear to Warwick Smith that Telstra still needed to provide a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook, a document that even the Commonwealth Ombudsman had been unable to locate (see File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47. This logbook from Portland/Cape Bridgewater served as evidence of all the fault-located work done in the region of my business since I first registered my complaint six years ago.

I effectively raised the issue of Australian Federal Police involvement due to the threats I was receiving from Telstra representatives, specifically Paul Rumble and Steve Black. Their cowardly behaviour in making threats over the phone was unacceptable. Furthermore, the non-supplying FOI documents and the absence of the elusive log book during my arbitration were extremely concerning. Despite this, I have not received a response from Dr. Hughes or Warwick Smith.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate why were my FOI documents being withheld from me during my arbitration:

“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)

As mentioned on this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings have materialized, and the deliberate withholding of crucial documents is deeply troubling. Unfortunately, neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor the government has taken steps to investigate the harmful effects of this misconduct on my overall case presented to the arbitrator. Despite my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their inquiry into the illegal interception of phone conversations and faxes related to the arbitration, I still await their assistance.

Absent Justice -  Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp and Residence

On January 28, 2003, eight years after Dr Hughes neglected to address my persistent telephone issues, the new owners of my business, who acquired it in December 2001, encountered the same phone problems that I initially faced in February 1988 when I first bought the business. This pattern was identified in a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman official Gillian McKenzie to Telstra, stating:

“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:

That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.

That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis withnine years later? → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

This is the same Tony Watson mentioned in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (refer to It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1). He claims that my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I attempted to send my faxes. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines. However, this claim by Tony Watson contradicts Telstra's billing records for those six faxes, as I was charged for all non-connected faxes (refer to It is also clear from  (Front Page Part One File No/1)

During the first Telstra float, the current Telstra Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, knowingly allowed false information about the BCI report to the Senate between September 1997 and October 1998, as Telstra's Falsified BCI Report shows. This act occurred despite the Senate's request for the truth regarding my claims to be provided on Notice. It is important to note that misleading and deceiving the Senate on Notice constitutes a chargeable offence, known as Contempt of the Senate.

Where was/are the AFP

Absent Justice - My Story - Australian Federal Police

Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 


Government Corruption. Corruption in public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has spuriously over more than two decades, has perverted the course of justice during the COT arbitrations. 

I reiterate that this is not a fictional story—it's a firsthand account of influential individuals in Australia using their power to maintain their privileges at the expense of others. It reveals how an Australian politician, on the verge of joining a new government, exploited the judicial system so that a government body involved in a legal arbitration process could set its own rules. The government and the claimants were misled into believing that the arbitration agreement had been independently drafted when it was known to have been drafted by the defendants to the detriment of the claimants who were about to sign it. 

In Australia, exploitation, extortion, and fraud are referred to as graft, malfeasance, and nepotism. This mirrored crookedness involves the misrepresentation of facts and the shadiness of unscrupulous deals, effectively undermining the democratic arbitration process, which the Australian government endorsed, unaware that Freehill Hollingdale & Page (the defendant's lawyers) had drafted it. This concocted arbitration agreement (rules) had many deficiencies, as noted by the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes on 12 May 1995, when he wrote of the many deficiencies in it, advising Warwick Smith (the administrator of the process) that: 

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

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement.” see Open Letter File No 55-A).

On May 11, 1995, the day before Dr. Hughes utilized it to assess my thirteen-month claim, I became acutely aware of the appalling discrimination I was facing. The other two claimants, Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan, were granted an extra thirteen or more months to produce documents, obtain further particulars, and prepare the necessary technical reports. Graham Schorer, a client of Dr Hughes' for many years, received three years to finalize his claim. Graham Schorer only submitted an interim claim, yet Telstra still paid him $3,600 million. 

Additionally, the COT story depicts the plight of another small group of Australian business owners who found themselves pitted against Telstra in a legal arbitration process without the necessary evidence to support their claims (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens) which is addressed further in this terrible story of deception.

It is unacceptable that the Australian government-endorsed arbitration process was vulnerable to such corruption. It is time for the government to take a stand against those who interfered with the course of justice and subject them to severe penalties. The community and individuals (namely the Casualties of Telstra) affected by the corruption demand nothing less. 

However, I am providing an example here showing the type of exhibit [see document|735] as an illustration of the government's unfair practice of withholding crucial documents from me during my arbitration. I reiterate that it is evident that the COT Cases were unfairly denied access to essential documents solely because a Senator was under investigation for paedophile activities in a public parliament-owned office.

Collusion between arbitrators, appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and defendants is unacceptable. In an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier), the defendants used network-connected equipment to screen faxed material leaving the claimants' office. They stored it without their knowledge or consent and only redirected some of these faxed documents to their intended destination.

Investigating how many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to such hacking is essential. Electronic eavesdropping, i.e., hacking into in-confidence documentation, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated during legitimate Australian arbitrations. This matter has still not been investigated.

The Australian government must release the Scandrett & Associates report ([document | 767] and [document | 768]) to the Australian public, confirming that confidential, COT arbitration-related documents were also illegally screened before leaving and arriving at Parliament House Canberra

The government's failure to act is completely unacceptable. The hiding of these terrible crimes against Australian children in parliament might be one reason behind the hacking of the COT Cases arbitration-related faxes as they were sent to and from Parliament House, as revealed in the Scandrett & Associates report.

Even more concerning is the rumour circulating in the corridors of Parliament House Canberra that Senator Bob Collins was in trouble. The Australian Federal Police was ready to charge Senator Collins, who was alleged to be a friend of Telstra. Around the same time, Telstra threatened me that disclosing sensitive information to the AFP during their investigations into Telstra's misconduct would result in me not receiving any more documents under FOI.

Criminal  Conduct 2

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government official secured protected website → SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-Cinstructing 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. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced.

The day before the Senate committee uncovered this "COT Case Strategy", they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see official Senate secured protected website:- 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 - "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, Mr Riddle.

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 their claims against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Criminal  Conduct 3

"Telstra's intelligence networks that Telstra has established" 

Absent Justice - Australian Senate

"Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?"

Australian Senate Hansard dated 24 June 1997 at pages 76 and 77 Senate - Parliament of Australia confirms Senator Kim Carr stated to Telstra’s principal arbitration defence official:

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

Regrettably, when presiding over my arbitration on behalf of Telstra (the defendant), the same Telstra arbitration official chose to withhold the most relevant freedom of information documents I had requested in May 1994. Three F.O.I. documents, 9-A, 9-B and 9-C, are attached to BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. Had I received those documents during my arbitration as AUSTEL, the Australian Government Communications Authority (ACMA) had promised me I would if I went into arbitration, I could have successfully amended my arbitration claim. It was not until two weeks after the arbitrator concluded my arbitration claim on 11 May 1995 that I was finally granted access to said documents on 23 May 1995.

The untimely release of these documents, some twelve months after my request, has had a disadvantageous effect on my unresolved arbitration claims concerning my ongoing telephone faults, which continued for eleven years after the conclusion of my arbitration. 

The Telstra Corporation's intelligence networks in Australia are alarming, as discussed in this Senate Hasnard, and it's crucial to consider who has the necessary expertise and government clearance to filter the raw information collected before cataloguing it for future use. It's essential to know how much confidential information was collected during my telephone conversations with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 regarding my Red Communist China episode and whether Telstra officials had confidence in this information. Furthermore, the privatisation of Telstra in 2005 raises important questions about which organisation in Australia was responsible for archiving the sensitive material Telstra had been gathering about their clients for decades. As concerned citizens, we must demand transparency and accountability from Telstra and the Australian government to protect our privacy and civil liberties.

Regarding the altercation with the Sheriff and his group of henchmen (as discussed in the same Senate - Parliament of Australia), my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to my property to ensure I stayed on my knees. The Sheriff and his men were about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. During the altercation, I placed a wrestling hold 'Full Nelson' on the Sheriff and walked him out of my office. It is important to note that I did not throw any punches during the incident. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that the story had two sides.


The Alan Bates vs British Post Office story - Absent Justice


The narrative echoes the recent British Government Post Office scandal. For more details, refer to the following link. Upon delving deeper into the Casualties of Telstra, one realizes the striking resemblance of the UK Alan Bates vs Post Office story. To watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for "Mr Bates vs the Post Office," which went to air in Australia in February 2024, Click here. The latest update on that terrible story is on YouTube at  

This UK Post Office story sheds light on how sub-post office contractors were misled; some were even jailed and, tragically, led to suicides after encountering the might of the British Post Office, a government-owned organization similar to Telstra. The COTs (Casualties of Telstra) were compelled into arbitration in 1994 with the assurance of receiving essential documents to substantiate their claims. Even thirty years later, in 2024, COT has yet to receive these critical documents.

The Chair of the Senate investigated only five of the twenty-one COT Cases that had not received their documents. This compelled Telstra to furnish over 150,000 Freedom of Information documents and pay upwards of $18 million in punitive damages between those five COT Cases. The remaining sixteen COT Cases are still awaiting their due documents or punitive damages.


Absent Justice - Where was the Justice 


The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12shows I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose the 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansard, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though these Hansards could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens)

In fact, after one National Party senator, Ron Boswell, verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

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

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to those five litmus test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents initially concealed from those five. The eighteen million dollars those five received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases FOI issues. It was not. 

Will I face imprisonment if I fully expose these 6 and 9 July 1998 Senate Hansards? At the age of 80, I am no longer daunted.

Who We Are

How do you expose that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network to screen arbitration-related faxes leaving your office before redirecting them to their intended destination? Will we ever know how many documents never reached their intended destination? 

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of electronic eavesdropping? Is this hacking into confidential documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitrations? Evidence, which can be downloaded from this website, shows Victorian Supreme Court documents were also screened (intercepted) before they reached the appeal judge. 

If I had received the document (Open Letter File No 55-Afrom the arbitrator to the administrator of the arbitrations criticizing the arbitration agreement he had just used in my arbitration, as it was received by the other three claimants, Ms Garms, Ms Gillan, and Mr Schorer, who were all granted an extra thirteen months to amend their claims, I would have won my arbitration appeal. Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter contains information confirming this letter was intercepted at the time it was faxed. This raises the question: was this letter intercepted en route to my business? The attached fax interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13also reveals that this letter went through a secondary faxing process. It's worth noting that since 2016, the author of this letter has been the principal partner of a renowned law firm in Melbourne, which boasts offices throughout Australia, New Zealand, Asia, and the Pacific.

Learn More ⟶  

Absent Justice - Telstra Spying on its Employees

Visitors to this website must review the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, which clearly demonstrates that I effectively addressed 93 questions related to the electronic bugging issues during my arbitration.

Who We Are

Absent Justice Ebook

Blowing the whistle 

Absent Justice - Hon Malcolm Fraser

While in the midst of my arbitration case against the Telstra Corporation, I stumbled upon a freedom of information release by Telstra. The release disclosed that Telstra had documented and redacted my phone conversations with former Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Fraser see page 12 → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. During those phone conversations, I expressed my concerns that Australia was providing wheat to China in 1967 despite being aware that China was redirecting it to North Vietnam. I'm curious to know how the interception of my telephone conversations during the arbitration proceedings in 1993 and 1994 with Malcolm Fraser is related to my exposure to the government on 18 September 1967 that Australia was trading with the enemy. 

What intrigues me is the reason behind documenting a seemingly harmless conversation about Australia's wheat selling to China while being aware that China was supplying wheat to North Vietnam during a conflict with Australia, New Zealand and the United States. I am confident there must be a significant motive behind this, and I am determined to uncover it.

It's difficult to fathom the extent of harm inflicted on the young Australian, New Zealand, and United States service members by North Vietnam soldiers who were fueled by the wheat supplied to them by their communist Chinese supporters. Sadly, many of these brave service people lost their lives or were left with permanent injuries.

1.     In September of 1967, I brought to the attention of the Australian government that a portion of the wheat allocated to the People's Republic of China on humanitarian grounds was being redirected to North Vietnam during the Vietnam War Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong

2.    Who else in the Australian government was aware that Australian wheat intended for a starving communist China was being redirected to North Vietnam to feed the North Vietnamese soldiers before those soldiers marched into the jungles of North Vietnam to kill and maim Australian, New Zealand, and United States of America troops? Refer to Footnote 82 to 85 FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu, who even reports the name of our ship, the Hopepeak and how the seaman feared for our lives if we were forced to return to China with another cargo of Australian wheat. This wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam during the period when Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America fought the Vietnam Cong in the jungles of North Vietnam.   

3.   During the 1960s, the Australian Liberal-Country Party Government engaged in misleading conduct regarding trade with Communist China despite being cognizant that Australian merchant seamen had vehemently refused to transport Australian wheat to China. The grounds for such an objection were their apprehension that the wheat would be redirected to North Vietnam during the North Vietnam War between Australia, New Zealandand the United States of America. The underlying inquiry is to ascertain the government's rationale for deliberately deceiving the general public and jeopardising the country's troops whose lives were being lost in the conflict in North Vietnam.  Murdered for Mao: The killings China 'forgot'

4.    Why didn't Australia's Trade Minister, John McEwen, correctly and honestly advise the people of Australia why the crew of the British ship Hopepeak had refused to take any more Australian wheat to China because they had witnessed its redeployment to North Vietnam during their first visit to China?  

Read About Our Dealings With

Learn More ⟶

Quote Icon

“…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

1.     Telstra (the defendants) spied on the claimants during arbitration, as evidenced by the Scandrett & Associates facsimile interception report, Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

2.    Unaddressed threats carried out by the Telstra Corporation against the COT Cases during their arbitrations. Senate Evidence File No 31

3.    Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure: Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?

4.    Tampering with evidence in the arbitration: Tampering With Evidence.

5.    Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed: Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report); 

6.    AUSTEL (for the government) concealed vital evidence from the arbitration process that would have won my case:  AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at points 2 to 212.

7.    Those administering the arbitrations allowed vital evidence not to be excluded in at least two reports, which minimized Telstra's liability to the claimant: Refer to Chapter 1 - The collusion continues and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete.

8.    Fraud allegations against Telstra during the COT arbitrations were registered with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police by Barrister Sue Owens, only to be squashed under pressure by the Australian government Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen and transcripts Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on
 Contact Us