Tampering With Evidence

 

Tampering with evidence | Criminal Offences defended by ...

What is Tampering With Evidence? Tampering with evidence can be any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any sort of evidence. The definition of evidence is also very broad and includes any object, a document, or any sort of record useful to an investigation or inquiry.

Australian Federal Police Investigations

Click the above link and see for yourself who was bugging who 

The COT Cases, The Hon Senators Richard Alston and Ron Boswell discussed the COT four arbitrations with the Chairman of AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) and it was agreed that both the Bell Canada Internation Inc (BCI) COT Cases testing and the audit by Coopers & Lybrand would be used as evidence in the COT arbitrations Both were submitted by Telstra and excepted in writing by the arbitrator as evidence to assist both Telstra and the four COT Cases. I have proved the Cape Bridgewater BCI tests were false and in Australian Federal Police Investigations the Coopers & Lybrand COT Cases when presented to the arbitrator, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct, but all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham Schoer (COT spokesperson) wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that Alan also provided to Mr Nason supporting Alan and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the evidence that Alan had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.

Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed, because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9th November, from the Group Managing Director of Telstra Mr Doug Campbell to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial Mr Ian Campbell (See File AS 942  - AS-CAV 923 to 946  saying: 

"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

These are strong words from the most senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country; a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.

Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they really uncovered.

The following three Telstra fundamentally flawed arbitration defence documents Tampering of Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, show when read in conjunction with the Coopers & Lybrand report, it is clear the COT Cases never had a chance of proving their phone problems were still ongoing when the arbitrator only found on old historic phone faults and not those still affecting our businesses

Tampering of Evidence. 

The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the phone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?

I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

Another disturbing side to this tapering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that for many years before this tampering took place, I was a volunteer for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA). The following chapters show that during my arbitration Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. Telstra then alleged, in its arbitration defence report, that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This one wicked deed, along with the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration, is a testament that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond by supplying vital evidence to the AFP, as well as fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both those occasions during my arbitration.

The other twist to this part of my story is, how could I have spilt beer into my telephone as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting an out of control fire? I cerainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting by fire buddies had I been drining beer. Reading this part of my story on  Tampering of Evidence will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to put up with from Telstra as we battled for a relaible phone service. 

And then, as if all this un-addressed skulduggery and secret plotting has not been difficult enough to live with for these past twenty-four years, let us take a look at the senior Telstra engineer who organised the removal of my tampered-with TF200 phone and then arranged things so that it would be held in his office from that day, 27 April 1994, until 6 May 1994 when, finally, it actually reached Telstra’s laboratories.

It is important to look at this engineer because it turns out, this was the same Telstra Chief Arbitration Engineer who swore under oath, in his Witness Statement of 12 December 1994, that the Service Verification Testing process that he conducted during my arbitration had met all of the mandatory Government requirements but, somehow, the CCAS data for the day in question does not show that any SVT processes as being conducted at all, neither in connection to my phone lines nor according to Government specifications nor, for that matter, according to ANY specifications at all. Then the plot thickens, because it turns out that this is also the same Telstra engineer who, during a Senate Committee hearing on 24 June 1997, (see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia was named by an ex-Telstra employee (Lindsey White) as the person who told Mr White that I was one of the Five COT Cases, who had to be stopped at all cost from proving our arbitration claims and, astonishingly, this is, again, the same Telstra engineer who visited my business on 6 April 1995 with the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit, but then refused to conduct any of the suggested tests on the service line, at my business, that this tampered-with TF200 had been connected to.

Pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. proves beyond all doubt that systemic criminal conduct did exist within the Telstra Corporation prior to and during our arbitrations.

After we four COT cases had signed our arbitration agreement, neither AUSTEL, as the government communications regulator nor the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of our arbitrations) warned us that our arbitration fax and phone interception issues would be broadcast to the media as well as discussed in parliament, as our Australian Federal Police Investigations link show was the case.

Now let me make the following point quite clear, AUSTEL (now the Australian Communication and Media Authority – ACMA) was back then, and still is, promoted as Australia’s independent communications regulator, so I believed that they would reveal the truth, not just for me but also on behalf of all of Telstra’s customers. That, however, did not happen because not even one of the bureaucrats from AUSTEL/ACMA spoke up back then and, since then? Still, none of them have ever commented on the situation the COTs found themselves in.

Imagine, however, if even just one of the many bureaucrats from AUSTELL/ACMA had come forward and actually told the truth about the cause of my ongoing telephone problems, as they should have, of course, I would still own and be operating my beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. All I needed was just that one brave and honest bureaucrat, and I would have been able to appeal the arbitrator’s appalling findings that claimed that there was then, and had never been, anything wrong with the phone system that my business was connected to.

Concealing A Crime

This sort of tampering with evidence, after a claimant has provided it to an arbitration process, including (again, in my case) changing that evidence into a different format, must really be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) could have committed against an Australian citizen.  So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – twenty years ago to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (John Pinnock), the Chair of the TIO’s Counsel (The Hon Tony Staley), the Chair of the Telstra Board (David Hoare), and Telstra’s then-CEO (Ziggy Switkowski AO), was that evidence not investigated immediately?

After all, it was Telstra’s own internal investigations that uncovered this unlawful conduct during my arbitration, but that didn’t stop Ziggy Switkowski from accepting an Order of Australia award three years ago (i.e., 16 years later, in 2014) even though he has sat on this crime and continues to do so.

So as not to bog down our story further than what has become a mammoth story to document, we suggest the reader clicks on the following two reports, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, if they are inclined to do and read those two reports directly from the menu bar.  

A Man with a Conscience: Hackers for Justice

The information on this Home page below and on Bad Bureaucrats - Taking on the Establishment is related to the discussions of COT Cases Graham Schorer had with Julian Assange during the COT arbitration and will be extended after various sections have been fully edited.

Julian Assange provided a vital link for the COT cases to follow up during our arbitrations, but when he offered to assist us in winning our cases, we did not know this offer was a genuine one.

We thought we were either being set up by the government or Telstra. We had just discovered that on 9 April 1994 (see Taking on the Establishment - Chapter 2), Telstra's arbitration defence unit had been able to persuade AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, to change their factual findings in their COT Cases report, which was to be provided to the arbitrator showing that AUSTEL had discovered there were more than 120,000 other COT Cases type complaints (See Open Letter File No/11) to read just 50 or more COT Cases complaints in their public report. The truth had been doctored to protect Telstra to the detriment of the COT arbitrations and the broader Australian public.

This issue appeared to have been worrying the hackers and the government lying to the Australian public of the true exent of the problems affecting its nework. I did not thik for one minute that what these hackers were trying to tell us was what had been exposed to me on 3 June 1993, more than a year privious (see the briefcase affair below).

So, when this offer from an unknown source stated he had hacked into Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale telephone exchange Australia's link to the outside world, being offered emails, faxes proving Telstra and others had us COT Cases under electronic surveillance during our arbitration. They were concealing relevant documents from us; we could not see them as a gift from heaven. 

It was such a gift because 23 Australian Senators uncovered the same information more than three years later,

Still, that discovery was after the arbitrator and Telstra's arbitration defence unit had bastardised the COT Case's lives.

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General the Hon Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers had discovered Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations were acting 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 [sic] 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)

Who were these hackers that had told us so much? Why had we not listened to them? We were in a government endorsed arbitration this could surely not happen in a democractic counry like Australia. But it was and these hackers had warned us what to expect.

Who were the "forces at work" who the arbitrator was ignoring? (refer to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C -“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A. 

Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete  

Click on the above link as well as Open letter File No/45-E and learn the truth: 

Even though Derek Ryan, my arbitration forensic accountant who often provided professional advice to the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, on the 6 December 1995, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston and John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to my arbitration on 22 December 1995 see Prologue - Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete,which notes

“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell [the administative appointed accountant] and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (See Open letter File No/45-E) 

This serious matter of submitting only part of a report on my losses was never investigated by the powers to be even though fourteen months after this letter was sent, John Rundell admitted to Mr Pinnock that he had submitted only part of his findings. 

Although Senator Alston agreed to address this matter as soon as it was revealed that the independent technical consultants DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia) also admitted to providing an incomplete technical report to the arbitration process all investigations were aborted. 

In simple terms: I now had to contend with four fundamentally flawed arbitration report to contned with. When I advise John Pinnock (the second administrators to my arbitration that I was appealing my award and needed documents held by his office to assist in this appeal he wrote back stating: 

This was a nightmare in the making. This was not an arbitration being conducted by such untrustworth people. What was going on? We were promised documents would be released to us if we agreed to sign our government endorsed-arbitrations. It was now clear the government had abandoned us to protect their jewel in the crown - the Telstra Corporation who was still then fully owned by the government. Who in goverment had betrayed us?

Chapter 6 - No findings on lost claim documents shows at least up to 2004 I had received many letters from the TIO Board and Council suggesting, as John Pinnock did, that I hadn’t availed myself of the option of appealing the arbitrator’s award.  This is quite astonishing because, long before 2004, in fact way back on 26 September 1997, Mr Pinnock also openly told a Senate Estimate Committee see page 96 to 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that the COT arbitrations:

“… were to be governed by the Commercial Arbitration Act of Victoria. Significantly, that provides that an award by the arbitrator is registrable as an order of the Victorian Supreme Court, and the act confers basically what is a limited right of appeal against any award by the arbitrator.” 

After that clear statement explaining the limited right of appeal that was available to the COT claimants, how on earth could the TIO’s office still instruct those very same claimants to appeal their awards?  Remember, these instructions to ‘appeal our awards’ came years AFTER Mr Pinnock’s statement to the Senate Estimates Committee, including his reference to the limited right of appeal under the Arbitration Act.  To make the pressure applied by the TIO’s office to appeal our awards even more astonishing,  if we did want to attempt such an appeal, the basic documents we needed to be able to access, in order to give us even a slim chance of winning those unlikely appeals, were all withheld from us, as per John Pinnock’s following letter (Open Letter File No 57-C) shows.

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to [sic] various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure.

“The arbitration of your claim was completed when an award was made in your favour more than eighteen months ago and my role as Administrator is over.

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” 

Sadly, Warwick Smith (the first administrator of our arbitrations), by September 1994, had already advised COT spokesperson Graham Schorer that the authorities had apprehended the hackers. We were not advised whether by the Victorian Police or the AFP. We were kept in the dark, so to speak, as we were right through our arbitrations. We had dared challenge Telstra, a government-owned identity, and we had to take what was dished out by the likes of those who were still sucking out of Telstra's trough.

What evidence had the hackers provided the AFP (which they had initially offered to provide us) that had prompted the AFP to be asking the questions they were now asking?  

Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 

Click above and view the 93 questions asked by the AFP and my answers to those questions 

During the second Australian Federal Police (AFP) interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while the AFP were investigating these types of phone and fax bugging issues they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations. Obviously Telstra were still listening to my private calls, even though I was then involved in litigation with them and their lawyers.  One of the FOI documents mentioned in this AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, clearly shows that the writer knew where this caller usually rang from even though, on this occasion, the caller was phoning from a different number, “somewhere near Adelaide”. (see File 34-C AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47. How could the writer have this information, if someone hadn’t listened to this call to find out who the caller was?

This FOI document intregued the AFP as did another which they discuss on Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, which shows Telstra was able to transcribe the name of a bus company on a previously letter I had sent them which does not name the bus company, only that I was seeking a contract for a bus charter to bring holiday makers (groups) to my business. Telstra employee's even new the names and phone numbers of at least two single club female members of this group (see File 34 -B AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47).

I can also link all of the above exhibits with a further two exhibits from official Senators Hansard dated 24 June 1997, which confirms Telstra had their own surviellence network which they appeared to have used iduring the COT arbitrations in an attempt to destroy our criedibility.

But exposing it here, would be like telling half a story before the book is completed.  

So by viewing similar numbered and titled exhibts such as: Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report,  Julian Assange Hacking, and Manipulating the Regulator etc, clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. By using this method and following the file numbers, you can verify our story on the website absentjustice.com. The corruption and injustices perpetrated against the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) by those in various administrative roles, under the umbrella of legally administered arbitrations, are so overwhelming that we would have lost clarity had we placed it all in one manuscript without the supporting data. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you genuinely appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.

Reading Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued - Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 and Australian Federal Police Investigations, will leave the reader with no doubt in their minds that corrupt practices by the Telstra Corporation and those who were fed from its coffers controlled the Seat of arbitration in Australia between 1993 and 1999. The fact that lawyers and professionals who acted in concert with Telstra during this period now operate their one legal and arbitration centres around the world is a need for me to tell this story. 

 

Helen Handbury was shock 

In 1999, I provided the draft of my manuscript absentjustice.com to Rupert Murdoch’s sister, Helen. She was aghast at the blatant denial of natural justice that I had received. Helen twice visited my holiday camp and, after reading the draft, stated that she would have Rupert publish it.

She believed Rupert would be shocked, especially upon seeing George Close’s information (Australian Federal Police Investigations - Chapter 7- George Close, and Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13, which clearly shows a secondary facsimile machine was intercepting (scanning) arbitration-related faxes before redirecting them to their intended destination. George Close’s office and residence was a primary target – he was the official technical consultant for the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations hell-bent on exposing the faulty Ericsson equipment which Telstra was still using in their telephone exchanges throughout Australia. 

Of course, 1999 was before the hacking scandal linked to Helen’s brother and the News of the World newspaper. Telstra now has a 35 per cent stake in Rupert Murdoch’s Foxtel. Does Telstra’s stake in Foxtel have anything to do with why Rupert Murdoch is not interested in exposing my story? 

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, on 26 September 2012, I sent a draft of the original version of Absent Justice to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him about my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

Mr Handbury replied on 17 October 2012 in a handwritten letter (with beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship that we no longer see). However, he was then 87 years old and although highly respected for his philanthropic support of many worthwhile projects in Victoria, too much time had passed and, sadly, he wasn’t able to help. Still, I have the memory of how the sister of the biggest newspaper owner in the world believed my “intriguing story” was certainly one that her brother should publish and I’m grateful for her comments.

In a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com , 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.” (Arbitrator Evidence File No 66)

Has been abused 

Senator Kim Carr also criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999 as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, noting:

“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 addressing Telstra’s conduct, by saying:

“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)

STORY LINE:

When The Australian government owned Telecom Australia in the 1960s to the late 1980s, it was infested with various levels of organised crime. 

Even Australia's government communications regulator AUSTEL (now the ACMA) in April 1994 and October 1995, we're allowing the Telco to operate outside of the licensing conditions (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 13 - Believe it or not).. The allowance of senior bureaucrats signing official government documents telling the relevant communications minister, The Hon Michael Lee MP, one thing when the regulator knew different was how it operated for those with their snouts in the government coffers.

On 15 December 1994, due to the many complaints raised by me and various other COT Cases concerning the many deficiencies in Telstra’s SVT process AUSTEL appointed Dr Rumsewicz’s a prominent technical consultant ito investigate these complaints. In this report Dr Rumsewicz notes at point 5 and 12:

 (P5) – It is important to note that these dropout rates refer only to switch related causes and do not take into account the possibility of transmission facility failure (for example, due to high error rates or cable cuts). Such factors would need to be considered in the final specification of call continuity grade of service targets.”

(p12) – We believe that given the stated purpose of the Service Verification Tests supplied in the Telecom Australia Customer Fault Procedures document (000 8410 and that of the AUSTEL Cot Cases Report, the statistical test being applied to the collected data is inappropriate. We believe that the analysis of collected data should be expanded to include an examination of call failures broken down by originating exchange, time of day and type of failure. In the event that correlations in the failures are found, further investigations, as appropriate, should be undertaken”.

So why did AUSTEL inform the Hon Michael Lee MP Minister for Communications that the SVT process for the first six COT Cases (which included my case) had met all of the government's mandatory requirements (refer to Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 - Absent Justice Part 1 - Chapter 8 - An Honest Arbitrator?)

That single SVT lie costs me and at least one other COT Case thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Telstra and Australia's government regulatory executives knew no boundaries when it meant the survival of Telstra to the detriment of fellow Australian citizens.   

Our story cannot be refuted. The government have acted in an unconsionable manner to have covered up this fraud for 27-years.

PLEASE READ ON - by doing so you are helping us win our appeals against the - Australian Communication Media Authority regulator (ACMA).

Page 5163, > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure applied by the government, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place.

Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gain fully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted (see pages 5163 to 5169 of SENATE official Hansard). 

Small bands of public servants, all with their tears, who controlled who the company purchased the Telecom Vans are running around Australia. Who owned the purchase of Telecom's stationery, another division that organised the best deals on where to buy the massive rolls of copper wire needed to keep the telecommunications operating, and which clothing company gave the best deal on clothing for the technician? All the operations of the company, the size of Telecom, had its purchasing officers and how employees were needed for each section that looked after the telephone exchanges. Hundreds, if not thousands, of minor too big units had the power to make money. Of course, this stopped when Telstra was privatised. But did it stop or are there still pockets of criminal conduct alive in Telstra in 2022. 

Example: Telstra's current Corporate Secretary Sue Laver was involved on behalf of Telstra in ensuring that a Senate working party (23 senators) were provided with the truth concerning Bell Canada International Inc, who alleged that it had conducted with the assistance of Telstra between different times of the day on 4 to 9 November 1993 13,590 tests calls into Cape Bridgewater via the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange using the advanced CCS7 CCS7 TEKELEC monitoring equipment. Ms Laver is aware the Senate was provided untruths concerning that testing and aware that Telstra further manufactured documents provided to the senate in 1997, which stopped them from further investigating my valid claims. Even though I have provided Sue Laver with two separate Telstra technicians' signed witness statements that neither the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone and Cape Bridgewater switching equipment could facilitate the CCS7 TEKELEC monitoring device BCI alleged in their official report, which was used as evidence by Telstra in my arbitration Sue Laver has still not come forward to advise the government they were misled by Telstra in 1997, which has caused much distress to me and my onced own Cape Bridgewater holiday camp (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).

Is it a crime for Sue Laver to continue to the truth to my detriment and, in doing so, protect the company she is now their Corporate Secretary? Is one of the conditions of Sue Laver maintaining that elevated position is that she does not blow the whistle regarding Telstra providing a Senate false information which is a crime on its own known as Contempt of the Senate, which carries a two-year jail term if convicted. 

Cape Bridgewater 

I February 1988, when I started to operate the Cape Bridgewater holiday camp and convention centre, doing business via the internet and email was not an option, the landline phone system was the only way to stay in operation. In my case, I employed phone booking agents in both country Victoria and Melbourne and South Australia. AUSTEL, the then government communications regulator and my Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP, were aware that even those added lifelines did little to help me survive at Cape Bridgewater. Those three booking agents themselves often wrote of the problems they had with relaying phone calls back to me of people which me to confirm their bookings. That is how bad the phone system was in Cape Bridgewater.

There were approximately 120 residents living in Cape Bridgewater when I took over the holiday camp, which equated to sixty families plus their teenage children who spent more time on the phone than their mums and dads. The RAX unmanned roadside switching station had eight final selectors, so if four lines were being used at any one time between those 120-plus residences that left only four vacant lines available to ring in or out for the remaining 116 residences in holiday time then no calls over several days was a regular occurrence.

The process of doing business on the internet or via email had not started to come into its own until the late 1990s. The old landline and sending mail via Australia Post were all that was available to me which from 1980s to 1995 was the only accomodation centre in Cape Bridgewater.  Had we COT Cases been operating our companies during the period where emails and online advice was so readily available, then the phone and faxing problems we suffered would not have affected our business losses as they did. We did not get an efficient mobile phone system into Cape Bridgewater until 2004 and even then drop-outs were a common occurance.  

If you have ever experienced ongoing telephone problems, either on your landline or mobile phone, then you will understand why I sometimes feel I have lived through a nightmare — I experienced several different types of problems, recorded messages telling incoming callers the business was not connected, or when it did connect withing ten to fifteen seconds, the line would go dead.

My life did seem as if it was dead until Aladdin arrived on the 3 June 1993.  

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

On 3 June 1993. after two Telstra technical consultants inadvertantly left in my office, a briefcase. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold i.e. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me and tAUSTEL, the then Australian Communications Regulator during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B)

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I was obliged to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled ‘SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER’ - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a major AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth, from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had actually lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over an 8 month period received ‘service disconnected’ message telling the caller my line was not connected.  The final sentence reads: ‘Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. That information was sent to the AUSTEL.

The information I provided to AUSTEL (via this briefcase) confirmed Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults were a problem worldwide, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment.(see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E). File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f  shows other countries around the globe were removing the AXE equipment from their exchanges or had removed it from their network and yet Telstra was still promoting it as effective.. This fault was locking up the line after the last call had terminated. This fault was causing massive billing problems and stopping any in-coming call to that service line from connecting until the line released itself..   

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia wide had been wrongly billed since the instalation of this Ericsson AXE equipment which in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries around the world were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Lies told by Telstra so as to minmize their liability to the COT Cases.

It is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019:

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/)

Ericsson should not have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to value the COT cases claims against Ericsson's AXE equipment in Telstra;s telephone exchanges. . These were the same Ericsson AXE faults complaints I was forced to register with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in my attempt to have Telstra fix the Ericsson AXE problems affecting my business. 

Australia must be the only country in the Western world that allows a witness (Lane Telecommunications was a witness to what the COT claimants and arbitrator had uncovered against Ericsson and their faulty installed telephone equipment during the COT arbitrations) to be purchased by the very same company under investigation by the arbitrator and Australian government refer Bribery and Corruption - Part 2).

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

When the COT Cases exposed this Ericsson AXE call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggesting he alter that finding:

For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that on this occasion on 9 April 1994 Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal April 1994 AUSTEL COT Case report is alarming, to say the least. Worse, is that when AUSTEL released it into the public domain the report states AUSTEL only uncovered 50 or more COT-type complaints.

50 COT-type customer AXE complaints in comparison to 120,000 COT-type customer AXE complaints is one hell of a lie told by the government to its citizens who voted them into power.

This indeed has to be the worse type of systemic government corruption that has been used against Australian citizens who were trying to improve Australia's telecommunications network. Was this the type of corruption Julian Assange warned the COT Cases about?

These are the same Ericsson AXE exchange complaints I raised with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Telstra's lawyer to whom I had to register my ongoing telephone complaints (in writing) or Telstra would not investigate. As can be seen from below, the Senate found Telstra had indeed adopted the COT Cases Stratagy so as the conceal the more relevant technical documents from the COT Cases. 

Threats and bullying ignored by government  

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 and bullying tactics used by Telstra, and later the government became a reality. What is so appalling about these threats including the withholding of relevant documents so that you could not prove your claims of ongoing telephone faults and harrasment is that no one in Telstra, the government who still owned Telstra then would transparently investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who assisted the Australian Federal Police in their investigations into unauthorised interception of my telephone conversations and arbitration related faxes, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration

Not only was Telstra using the Freehills Hollingdale & Page COT Cases Strategy to withhold vital arbitration documents from me they were now using threats that when ignored by me were carried out against me without the arbitrator and TIO demanding answers from Telstra as to why these threats had eventuated. 

It is important we use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra.Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Cases Strategy, they also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee and then-Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

"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". (See Front Page Part One File No/6)

It is clear from Mr White's statement he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’.

Had to stop the COT Cases at all cost

Perhaps even worse, however, on 25 June 1997, the day after Lindsay White informed the above aforementioned Senate committee that he was told by Telstra he “had to stop the COT Cases at all cost” from proving our claims page 5163, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows Telstra employees rorted millions upon millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders: i.e., the government and Australian citizens, who then owned Telstra. The pressure Senators Alston and Boswell applied, for a Senate investigation into the Casualties of Telstra (COT cases) phone fiascos, was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases’ issues in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in the third week of November 1993. Telstra, it seemed, could not afford a further investigation into its operation: NSW was not the only state where this rorting, and others, was taking place. Many people made threats against the COT cases because our persistence, in order to gainfully functional phone systems, was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. The fact that both the Telstra CEO and board knew millions upon millions of dollars (again, see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) were being unlawfully syphoned from the government coffers is unbelievable. In fact, figures running into the billions have also been quoted.

A covert arrangement entered into by Warwick Smith the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation that had already set up with their lawyers (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia the “COT Case Strategy” which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. My name Alan Smith and my business Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases singled out for this special unlawful treatment as TIO Evidence File No 3-A) so clearly shows.

These were the same lawyers who not only drafted the COT Case Strategy (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) but also covertly drafted the arbitration agreement which was used during the first four arbitrations  (see exhibit 48-B in Open Letter File No/48-A to 48-D)

Before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with their lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra and copying the same to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator), believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by AUSTEL. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

.

Non-paid Telstra accounts

Unfortunately another Alan Smith lived on the other side of Cape Bridgewater Road and had also been battling Telstra over many months and receiving legal letters from a Victoria (Warrnambool) law firm acting for a debt collector and issuing summons for non-paid Telstra accounts. Freehill Hollingdale & Page’s fax identification stamp is visible on these documents.

Two of those documents were from Madden & Co Solicitors Warrnambool and are addressed to Alan Smith RSD Discovery Bay Road, Cape Bridgewater Vic 3306. 

This same Alan Smith later informed me of regularly receiving my arbitration-related documents from Telstra. Had Dr Hughes investigated my claims of lost faxes and mail deliveries, then Freehills (Telstra’s arbitration defence unit) sending some of my arbitration material to the wrong Alan Smith might have been uncovered. I have no proof that this was part of Telstra’s COT Case strategy to stop us at all costs from proving our claims.

These were the same billing faults that I had to register with Denise McBurnie of Freehills’s in 1993 before Telstra would investigate them.

The Fax marking of the two Madden Lawyer debt collecting letters sent out to the other Alan Smith are dated in October 1993, for the other Alan Smith are dated October 1993.

Freehills Hollingdale & Page were involved with my billing issues during the same period. 

This is the same Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page who is named in Senate Hansard as the author of the COT Case Strategy, which has my name and the name of my business on the COT Case Strategy who was to be targeted so that I could not prove my claim against Telstra

Telecom has not found any evidence of network faults 

And here, Freehill Hollingdale & Page are involved, condoning sending out billing summons against the other Alan Smith with similar claims against Telstra. In the following letter sent to me during my Fast Track Settlment Proposal from Denise McBurnie (refer to Scrooge - exhibit 35) she notes a number of untruths and when concluding this letter she notes:

(iii) "...As noted above, in Telecom's response to the questions raised in your paragraph 2, Telecom has not found any evidence of network faults applicable to and which could affect your service during the period to which you refer".   

This statement made by Denise McBurnie in regards to my paragraph 2 does not coincide with the secret findings of the government communications regulator AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 46, 76, 86, 109. 115, 130, 153. 158. 209, which notes:

Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. 

Point 76 – “One disturbing matter in relation to Mr Smith’s complaints of NRR [not receiving ring] is that information on other people in the Cape Bridgewater area experiencing the problem has been misrepresented from local Telecom regional manager to more senior manager.” 

Point 86 – “From examination of Telecom’s documention concerning RVA [a recorded voice announcement – not in service] messages on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp there are a wide range of possible causes of this message.” 

Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau: "Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. [AXE – Portland telephone exchange]”

Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”

Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

It is clear from Denise McBurnie's letter Scrooge - exhibit 35 that she either knowingly misled me during my settlement/arbitration process concerning the extent of my ongoing telephone problems or Telstra knowingly misled Freehill Hollingdale & Page concerning the validity of my phone service. 

Freehill Holligdale and Page, and Denise McBurnie must be proud lawyers for their combined achievement in fighting Telstra's legal battle against such a powerful opponent trying to operate a telephone dependent business without a depedendant reliable phone service.

This COT Cases Strategy that Senate Hansards states was used by Telstra in their attempt to destroy the four COT Cases Ann Garms (Tivoli Restaurant), Maureen Gillan (Japanese Spare Parts), Graham Schorr (Golden Messenger) and Alan Smith (Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) concealed a very important FOI document Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B) which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

 Three cheers for Freehill Hollingdale & Page and their COT Case Strategy that destroyed so many lives in an arbitration process the government advised us we would receive once we went into arbitration. And here, Freehill Hollingdale & Page was working behind the scenes to stop that from happening. 

But Freehills way of winning at all costs on behalf of Telstra did not stop there. It was during this period that I had just finished reading the John Grisham novel The Firm, and it took me back to my fight with Freehills and Denise McBurnie having by then, in late 1994, I had (visited three different psychologists) one in Melbourne, Mr Burnard, the other in Geelong. Mr McKay and the other in Portland, Ms Francolm. All three, I was living with PSD brought on by a very uneven battle with Telstra. 

The never-ending threats and having to write to their aggressive lawyers when attempting to have my ongoing telephone faults fixed, was the most un democratic situation they had ever heard of.

When Mr Burnard and Ms Francolm learned that even though I had taken the threats made by Telstra's by one of their most senior arbitration officers, Paul Rumble, both became emotional something I had never seen from people such as doctors when I told them the Senate, the arbitrator, and the administrator of my arbitration, including the Australian Federal Police refused to assist me in stopping these threats. Steven Boswell, Senator Ron Boswell's son in Parliament House in Canberra, in his father's office on 20 August 1997, said OH my god, what have they done to you. They mean the government-backed arbitration process.

The current Minister for Communications, The Hon Paul Fletcher, was provided with this same evidence (see Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two) by my Federal Member of Parliament The Hon David Hawker MP in 1996, during the period he was a Staff members to the then-Senator Richard Alston Minister for Communications and the Arts.(see Bribery and Corruption - Part 1).

After reading Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and  File No/41 Part-Two, it will become clear that the exhibits and evidence that were attached to the report (which are also assessable on our absentjustice.com download files) show that if Paul Fletcher, current Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, in the 2022 Morrison government had properly investigated that evidence in June 1996 to then most (if not all) of the issues that I have been trying to have investigated since then, would have been settled in 1996.

The Firm - John Grisham -  

The infamous covert arrangement entered into by the first administrator of our arbitrations (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) was with the very corporation who were using the Denise McBurnie - Freehill Hollingdale & Page legal advice named the 'COT Case Strategy' (see Senate page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia which spuriously advised Telstra how to conceal relevant technical documents from the first four COT Cases under Legal Professional Privileged even though the documents were not privileged. Just like one of John Grisham's novels-movies. I and others who had read the book likened what was happening to us was what had happened during - The Firm. 

My name Alan Smith and the name of my business Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was one of the four cases that had been singled out by Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (see TIO Evidence File No 3-A) that had to be stopped from receiving their requested documents.

As discussed above, even worse, before this COT Case Strategy came into play Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless I first registered them in writing with this same legal firm.  This continual writing up of individual and ongoing telephone faults, to these lawyers, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this evidence, I was providing it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems I was experiencing. I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process set up by the Australian government. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve back, from Telstra and AUSTEL under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided them. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had provided the evidence supporting your case but it was now being withheld from you. If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer Denise McBurnie, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra on how to conceal this same type of technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

 Unsigned witness statement

However, when this legal firm, which the government assured us would not be used in our arbitrations (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), provided this clinical psychologist’s witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by a lawyer from this legal firm. It bore no signature of the psychologist and didn’t contain his concerns regarding me having to first contact this legal firm, in writing, before Telstra would address my telephone problems. 

The most alarming points about this unsigned witness statement are:

1. Before the psychologist met with me, Telstra’s lawyers provided him with a copy of the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International (BCI) addendum report stating 13,590 test calls were carried out, over a five-day period, routed through to the Cape Bridgewater RCM unmanned switching exchange, using the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring equipment. This report stated the test calls had a 99.8 per cent success rate.
2. Neither the psychologist nor the arbitrator was told tests through the Cape Bridgewater RCM switching exchange was impracticable: the nearest exchange that could accommodate the TELELEC CCS7 equipment was the Warrnambool exchange, 120 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater (see Evidence / Telstra's Falsified BCI Report)

Had the psychologist known the 13,590 test calls, allegedly carried out by BCI, could not terminate through the TEKELEC CCS7 monitoring system at Cape Bridgewater, his assessment of my mental state would have been somewhat different. He, too, might have been distressed if he had been aware Telstra misled and deceived him prior to him assessing my mental state.

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock, (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

I have never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement signed off on behalf of Freehill Hollingdale & Page . 

The reason I was asking the TIO to why Ian Joblin's signature was not on the first of Mr Joblin's supplied witness statement is because the first witness statement had paragraphs that did not correspond with the previous statement above it. It appeard as those in two area's of the witness statement Mr Joblin had left out two segments.

The lawyer who attested to the signature of Ian Joblin [cliniclal psychologist] being on the witness statement, although it was not on the witness statement at all, is still practising law in Melbourne. I wonder how many other legal matters this lawyer has attested to as being factual when he knows otherwise has been used in legal processes to discredit other Australian citizens who have legitimate claims?. 

I wonder how many other legal matters this lawyer attests to as factual when he knows otherwise has been used in legal processes to discredit other Australian citizens who have legitimate claims?.

Is there something more sinister regarding the issue of the Australian government not investigating why Telstra's lawyer was allowed to attest to the signature of Ian Joblin [clinincal psychologist] being on the witness statement when there was no signature on the statement at all?

I believe there is a link between using the Queensland Mental Health Act against COT Case Sandra Wolfe when she was not mentally disturbed at all (see Bribery and Corruption - Part 2). Telstra likewise provided known false Bell Canada Internation Inc information (see Telstra's Falsified BCI ReportI to Ian Joblin clinical [clinincal psychologist], beforeMr Joblin had viewed my mental health. 

Senate Hansard, dated 24 June 1997, in which Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White says he was told to “stop these people at all costs” naming me as one of the five who had to be stopped at all costs from proving my claim (see pages 36 and 38 Senate -Senate - Parliament of Australia) similar injustices were experienced by COT case Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), has still not been resolved. Had interest parties had not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matters, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated by the government?:

Why hasn't the Ian Joblin clinical psychologist’s witness statement fiasco (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) been investigated?

It is well known within the Liberal National Party Coalition government that Telstra had been using the Queensland Mental Health to incarcerate another Queensland COT Case Ken Ivory - Solar Mesh who, like me, had been able to prove Telstra had a systemic 1800 billing problem. And here Telstra was trying to legally have members of the COT Group interviewed under the mental health act and committed as nutters crazy people [insane] so that our evidence of massive overbilling by Telstra was nothing more than sheer nonsense from disturbed people who had gone through a rough litigation process. 

After receiving evidence confirming Telstra's CEO Frank Blount and the Telstra board had concealed these ongoing billing issues from the broader Australian community, I approached Ian Joblin in his Queens Street Melbourne Chambers. 

I provided conclusive evidence that Telstra had used his good name as a clinical psychologist to cover up the actual state of Telstra's billing software. After this meeting, his words to me were that I would find it hard to live with these unaddressed injustices. 

The Victoria Police Major Fraud Group are aware of that visit and what Ian Joblin conveyed to me. 

These are the same type of systemic billing faults which are linked to the summons Maddon Lawyers sent out on behalf of Telstra when Telstra was against the other Cape Bridgewater Alan Smith. Indeed, Telstra must have considered when they were hounding the other Alan Smith that his billing problems could have been partly due to Telstra's known network problem, which Telstra addressed secretly with the government on 16 October 1995 without the arbitrator and me being present. 

How many people working with Dr Hughes’ arbitration unit knew that two Alan Smiths lived in Cape Bridgewater with billing issues and received billing-related documents from Freehills Hollingdale & Page?

Telstra was named in the Senate for using Freehill Hollingdale & Page’s COT Case Strategy to withhold FOI documents from the COT Cases. he 24,000 late-dumped FOI documents were addressed to Ann Garms C/- Kingston Brisbane and were not related to my claim, yet they were still sent to Cape Bridgewater Victoria instead of Brisbane, 1,200 kilometers away.

Even though I had still not received my own FOI documents, my claim was finalized. 

The Commonwealth Ombudsman appointed international loss assessors G B Robins to investigate the unnecessary cost to me for trying to decipher documents supplied during my arbitration from February 1994 to May 1995 with no official schedule listings attached. G B Robins found heavily against Telstra.

Upon receiving those 24,000 documents, Dr Hughes granted Ann Garms 13 months to assess this material, aware that he had denied me the extra time needed to ascertain which documentation belonged to Ann’s claim and which belonged to mine.

After Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO throughout my arbitration released his book admitting Telstra did have a billing problem, one would have thought the Telstra board would have allowed for this part of my claim to be reassessed. This did not happen.

Also in this same Senate - Parliament of Australia Hansard record on pages 76 to 78 Senators Kim Carr and Chris Schach asks Telstra:

“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] 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?”

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Hansard my bankers had already lost patience and had sent the Sheriff to make sure I stayed on my knees. No punches were thrown by me during this altercation with the Sheriff who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually placed a judo wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office, where he tripped and ripped his shirt.

All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became obvious there were two sides to this story..

The phone bugging scandal that had raised its ugly head during the Australian Federal Police investigations was now being broadcast nationally and in-country Victoria. No single club or social club wanted to come to my venue.. During this media ,AFP phone hacking frenzy which was happening all through my arbitration, I lost seven group bookings.

When the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, alerted the media The Herald Sun that his phone calls to my business had also been monitored the straw broke the camel's back. Did Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) stall my arbitration so that these privacy issues could be investigated as a separate issue to my arbitration? The answer was, no? 

I then understood Dr Hughes had been got at by Telstra and their powerful intelligence network - the Brotherhood appeared to be alive and well. 

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Evidence - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report).  Fax hacking and bugging telephone calls during litigation is unlawful to say the least.

In February 1994, Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose and Constable Melanie Cochrane of the AFP visited my business to discuss my concerns regarding the possibility my telephone conversations were intercepted and my faxes were not being received at the intended destination. During this visit, I spoke to Constable Cochrane regarding my concerns about the privacy issues connected to my singles club records, explaining I had provided the club members with a written assurance that I would not circulate their private information to anyone without first seeking their permission. For this reason, I was particularly concerned that it would not be fair to submit any of their private information into my Fast Track Settlement Proposal. Constable Cochrane commented that the TIO should contemplate suspending our settlement process until after the AFP finished their investigations into Telstra’s unauthorised interception of COT cases’ telephone conversations and in-confidence faxes (Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations).

The TIO and AUSTEL often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

Anyone reading this website will see for themselves that have I taken my complaints and evidence to all of the relevant government agencies that are avaialable to investigate crimes committed by government agencies against fellow Australian citizens (see 12 Alternate remedies pursued - Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued) only one of the twelve agencies reported anthing favourable in suport of my claims.

The documents released were undecipherable 

How Telstra and its legal arbitration defence team perverted the course of justice by using such dubious strategies as intercepting relevant, failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or delivering them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.

How the central points of our claim at arbitration was ignored by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice, way out of proportion to the problem we began with — people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

Each of the COT members assumed, as most telephone users would assume, that their phone faults would be quite easily found and fixed by Telstra's skilled technicians. But 'No fault found' was the constant refrain, and the problems continued unabated throughout the course of our arbitrations, and for years afterwards, with disastrous effects on our businesses. This seemed incomprehensible: everyone had a phone the system is supposed to work for everyone. What was going on?

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is unlawful. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is unlawful (see Tampering of Evidence).. Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful (see Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and Evidence - Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. The TIO and Austel often refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information 

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 focussed 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 Senate Hansard records, prove we should have listened to Juilan Assange Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) which 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 who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process.

Although Senator Alan Eggleston advice to the Australian Finacial Revieiw has been discussed on the Bribery and Corruption - Part it was also relevant to raise it here. By incorperating the above six Senators speaches with Senator Alan Eggleston statement to the media we can show all seven statements were made in the public interest;.i.e.; on public record.

How do you publish a true account of what really has happened during various Australian Government endorsed Arbitration's without attaching the exhibits to support those facts as we have been literally forced to do because the corruption within the government bureaucracy is so rife?  How does the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then, Australian Government owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) see Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants i.e. their fellow Australian citizens?

How do you tell a story that is so unbelievable that even the author has doubts to the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing on with the story being written? How do you expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watch dogs (umpire) and the defendants Bribery and Corruption - Part 1 and Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct  How do you expose the fact that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once Government owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network, screened faxed material leaving your office, stored it, without your knowledge or consent, before redirecting it onto to its intended destination? Refer to the Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd fax interception report Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13).

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 during the Australian Federal Police Investigations conducted during the government-endosres arbitrations.

The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were surely using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking?  Is this electronic eaves-dropping, this hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today, during legitimate Australian arbitration's?  In January 1999 the arbitration claimants provided the Australian Government with a report confirming that confidential, arbitration-related documents were secretly and illegally screened before they left and/or arrived at Parliament House Canberra: will that report ever be released to the Australian public by the government? I doubt that this well ever happen.

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)

Interception of legal in-confidence documents

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. 

How can the Australian government who endorsed our arbitrations continue to ignor that the central points of our claim at arbitration was not taken into account by the arbitrator and how no amount of effort to have these points addressed bore any fruit. How, in the course of all these travesties, the regulatory bodies — Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers) — failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Who were the faceless people who were soon termed the “forces at work” by none other than John Rundell the arbitration project mamager in his 18 April 1995 letter to Warwick Smith )the administrator of the arbuitration) copied to Dr |Goron Hughes (the arbitrator) and Peter Bartlett (the legal counsel assiting the administrator), Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues? This letter dated 18 April 1995 states 

“It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

When these three legal experts, (i.e. Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith and Peter Bartlett) allowed this very important letter of 18 April 1995 to be hidden from the four COT cases, those so-called ‘legal experts’ directly assisted those “forces at work” to carry out their intended disruption of all four of the COT cases’ arbitrations. These were the same Forces at Work that Julian Assange warned Graham Schorer, COT spokesperson about (see Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3).

Reading Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete,  Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter,  Prologue - Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter and Prologue - Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter will convince the reader never to go into and arbitration process if it is conducted in Australia by those appointed to conduct the COT arbitrations.

Although the following 24 and 25 June 1997 Senate Hansard discussed immediately below is also discussed elsewhere on this website we ask that you also read this version again because it further confirms we were COT Cases had to be stopped at all cost from receiving out legally requested arbitration FOI documents. As stated in the introduction above, without discovery documents there is no justice for those denied access to them as was in the case during the COT arbitrations.

Entirely outside the ambit of the arbitrations procedures 

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, and three months after the Senate had been told that we COT Cases had ‘to be stopped at all cost’ as well as having been shown evidence that Telstra’s lawyers had devised a spurious legal paper directing their client how to conceal technical data under Legal Professional Privilege even though it was NOT privileged  the second-appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a senate committee (see page 99 Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia that:

“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 the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the above-mentioned 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 a confidentiality clause contained in our arbitration agreement when that agreement did not mention the claimants would be forced to proceed with their arbitrations without the necessary documents needed to support their claims or that the arbitrator would have no control because the arbitration would be conducted entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?

The following link Evidence - C A V Part 1, 2 and 3 -Chapter 4 - Fast Track Arbitration Procedure confirms Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO, after leaving Telstra in he co-published a manuscript in 1999. entitled, Managing in Australia. On pages 132 and 133, the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
• The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can still be purchased online. 

It was these types of unaddressed arbitration issues that prompted The Hon Barnaby Joyce to demand resolution by the government as part of his commitment to vote for the Telstra privatization legislation.

For reasons known only to the Hon Barnaby Joyce, his support to have the government explain why the COT Cases were treated so undemocratically prior to and during their arbitrations faded not long after he first became Australia’s, Deputy Prime Minister. 

After the release of Frank Blount's Managing in Australia in 2000, the government regulator AUSTEL should have demanded the Telstra board explain why Telstra misled AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, when they secretly addressed my arbitration billing documents without either the arbitrator or I present shows just what it is like being a particpant in a Kangaroo court style action (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? 

Protecting Telstra the way AUSTEL's public servants did (see File 46-L (see Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l) allowing Telstra [the defendants in my arbitration] to secretly address arbitration claims, without the arbitrator and claimant [me] being present, constitutes a radical attack on the fundamental principles of open justice.  In its flagrant disregard of constitutional and legal principle, the government regulator has abandoned its proper role as a model litigant and damaged the rule of law, i.e., my legal right to have been able to respond to File 46-L Open letter File No/46-L to 46-l under the agreed arbitration process. 

Why was Denise McBurnie writing to to telling me there was no phone faults affecting my business when government records AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings show there were phone problems afecting my business?

The fact that the Denise McBurnie - COT Case Strategy was exposed during a combined Senate investigation and the government still denied me compensation or did not order Telstra to supply me my previously withheld documents as they did for the other five litmus tests cases shows how corrupt the Australian government is.

In my case, Telstra had previously refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of my businesses, telling them 'No fault found,' when documents on this website show they were found to have existed as the following government communications regularors own AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows. Page 5169 in this SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows Telstra adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

What I did not know, when I was forced to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults is that this COT Case Strategy was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I truly did have ongoing  telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them almost, sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I was providing 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 very 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 it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C. instructing their client Telstra (naming me and my business) on how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

Had the arbitrator investigated my claims that I was not receiving my arbitration-related documents, and that very sensitive documentation had been removed by an unknown source from three different COT Cases premises which they had also needed to support their arbitration claims, that investigation might well have uncovered Telstra’s arbitration defence lawyers Freehills Hollindgale & Page was mistakenly (or deliberately) sending some of my relevant arbitration material to this other Alan Smith, who Freehill was aware was complaining of the same ongoing disputed billing accounts. These were the same ongoing billing problems that the arbitrator refused to allow his arbitration technical consultants the extra weeks they stated was needed to fully investigate my ongoing telephone problems as the Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) shows.

In fact that Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues) shows, the formal arbitration technical evaluation report provided by DMR (Canada) and Lane (Australia) who were the two arbitration technical consultants to the arbitrator advise him at point 2.23, in their final report that never diagnoed the fault causes of my long running billing arbitration complaints shows the process failed me as point 2.23 in that report notes:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”   (See Introduction File No/1-B)  

Were the COT Cases faxes lost or hidden by Dr Hughes Sydney office?  

After Carolyn Friend had returned this terrible evidence, amongst these documents were other COT Cases claim material that had nothing to do with my arbitration matters. When I pointed out to the Deputy administrator of my arbitration Wally Rothwell, that arbitration faxed claim documents belonging to COT Cases Ann Garm's from Brisbane Queensland was stapled to some of my faxes, he advised he would contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations. No response has ever been received regarding these faxing problems. 

A further injustice against the COT Cases was exposed several years after the completion of these arbitrations. Unbeknown to the COT Cases the legal firm assisting Telstra's employees in their Telstra superannuation legal issues which in some cases were linked to the rorting of millions upon millions of dollars ifrom the government coffers (see 5163 of SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) in (Sydney) NSW was the same legal firm to which the COT arbitrator was a senior partner before and during the COT arbitrations. This legal firm was still assisting NSW Telstra employees at the time the arbitrator agreed to become the COT arbitrator. 

Was there more to the claim documents being lost than the TIO & Arbitrator wanted to admit?

None of the COT Cases knew of this possible conflict of interest or the fact that faxes arriving at the arbitrator's Melbourne office after the close of business each day were automatically redirected to the Sydney office where Telstra related legal documents were also being received assessed by the Sydney lawyers.   

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see ”Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator early in 1994 regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail that:

“Hunt & Hunt [The company’s] Australian Head Office of was located in Sydney and [the company] is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company’s] Melbourne’s incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles.”Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

These lost faxes which were originally faxed to the arbitrator's office ended up playing a significant role in the COT arbitrations as has been shown throughout this website. I later added reference to these lost faxes as an amendment to the 21 claim documents I provided to the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee.

Was the real reason Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) did not make a finding regarding my lost faxes or carry out an investigation as to why so many of my claim documents did not arrive at his office for assessment is that had he asked his technical resource unit DMR & Lane they may have uncovered some of my lost faxes was due to the known faxing problems between the arbitrator Melbourne and Sydney offices?

Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and a number of senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers.

Were Dr Hughes and his Sydney office (their faxing system of some documents arriving at their intended destination and others just disappearing) all part of a joint operation to gain as much information about Telstra's illegal operations? And to hell with those caught in the middle, i.e., the COT Cases. 

I reiterate, why didn't Dr Hughes openly discuss the Sydney lost fax issues with the administrator of our arbitrations so that: the not received [hacked documents] could be viewed? The COT arbitrations were nothing but a total debacle, a facade to protect Telstra, who was still owned by government.  

Although the arbitrator agreed to investigate our claims of phone and fax interception, his official findings contained no reference to either matter.

Confidential faxes, intercepted during the arbitration, included faxes to our lawyers and advisors and various senators who were trying to help us. Some critical faxes, both incoming and outgoing, which could have changed the outcome of the arbitration went missing, in transit. I used Telstra’s own data to show that at least six of the arbitration claim documents that I faxed to the arbitrator’s office, never arrived for his assessment. My Telstra bill itemised them, but the arbitrator’s secretary stated that these six faxed documents never arrived. The arbitrator ignored the evidence I placed before him. Something was very amiss with the whole process.

I draw the reader’s attention to the 12 May 1995 letter from the arbitrator to the TIO stating:

“…as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration…”

 “…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“...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  Open Letter File No 55-A). 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the above Example 1 - Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman and the Federal Attorney-General has still not answered is:

Was this letter actually faxed to my office by the ombudsman to assist me in any pending appeal process, and if not, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period? 

If I had received a copy of this letter declaring the agreement used in my arbitration process was not credible, then of course I would have appealed the arbitrator’s award. After all, how could an appeal judge argue against the arbitrator’s own findings that the agreement was not credible, even though he used it anyway?

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted. 

As a point of interest, Dr Goron Hughes (the arbitrator) who dammed the arbitration agreement as not allowing the claimants enough time to access their arbitration and therefore, the agreement extended the time frame in the agreement granting each claimant a further 13 months longer to prepare their claims than he had allowed me.

So this 12 May 1995 letter Open Letter File No 55-A was gold to me. If only I had been provided it during the statute of limitations for me to have used it in an appeal against the arbitrator's conduct. 

Why would Dr Hughes fax his findings to Warwick Smith (the administrator of my arbitration), warning him of the gross deficiencies in the arbitration agreement and not to the claimant [me] who those deficiencies affected me the most?

The Holiday Camp was certainly in the right location 

It becomes obvious when reading Taking on the Establishment - Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story that Darren and Jenny Lewis lives were also soon to be destroyed as their letter joint statutory declaration dated 4 September 2006, to the Hon Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications shows when they wrote: 

On 28 January 2003, a letter from TIO officer Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:

“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 Tony Watson refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Tony Watson 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 now refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?

Darren Lewis was so angry with this Telstra employee that he took a number of photos of the actual wiring that ran from Telstra’s pit to his residence and his office (the same office that was mine from 1988).

As part of his plans to renovate the house, Mr Lewis had begun to prepare for a heating system to be installed under the house but, in the process, as he sunk his shovel into a water-soaked area, he accidentally cut into a Telstra cable that was only buried half a shovel deep. Water from an overflow downpipe from the main accommodation block had been running off and collecting over the Telstra cabling that had obviously not been buried deep enough (see the following photos taken by Mr Lewis at the time).

According to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at Point 8 and 13 the Telstra installed new cablining inside and outside of main office and kitchen in May 1991. it was this faulty installation that led to the cable itself becoming waterlogged. Yet, on 6 April 1995, during my arbitration, when I begged Telstra and Land Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration’s so-called independent technical consultants) to run a series of tests to all three of my service lines and inspect the Telstra pit outside the office to ensure that the Customer Access Network (CAN) was up to the proper network standard, my request was refused outright.

While the COT story might, at first glance, seem to be a story about telephones it is actually about human suffering, wrought by a large corporation with too much power. What became incontrovertibly clear from documents inadvertently released to me by the arbitrator's secretary three months after the completion of my arbitration  — was that Telstra well knew its systemic problems, and it knew how to solve them. But it did not want to admit publicly that there were systemic problems, because it wanted to avoid a major overhaul of degraded infrastructure (at great capital expenditure), especially in rural areas, where many of the COT cases originated.

So why did Dr Hughes refuse to allow his arbitration unit to investigate my complaints of ongoing billing issues? (see Prologue - Chapter 1 - The collusion continues).