WikiLeaks exposing the truth

 

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.

• Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
• The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally. 
• In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken  by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)

I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received a statutory declaration from Graham Schorer dated 7 July 2011. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target regarding Telstra's electronic surveillance of the COT Cases. 

If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to disclose incidents which they believe are crimes because doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats. 

I have long believed that the hackers who infiltrated Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne harboured motives that transcended the mere breach of telecommunications infrastructure. This incident, compellingly documented by journalist Andrew Fowler in his piece "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" for ABC, is part of a larger narrative involving ethical misconduct regarding Telstra's treatment of the COT Cases, a group of individuals who claimed significant injustices in their dealings with the telecommunications giant.

I suspect that Julian Assange was intricately involved in this hacking operation, driven not just by a desire to unveil corporate malfeasance but also propelled by the deafening silence from the government, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and two Australian attorneys who seemed indifferent to the plight of those affected. The hackers reached out to Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for the COT Cases, on two separate occasions. This outreach appears to indicate their intention to share critical information directly related to the injustices encountered by those involved in the COT Cases, highlighting the urgency of their mission.

The Freedom of Information documents bolster the perspective I have obtained, which reveals that Telstra operates a complex and extensive internal surveillance network. Alarmingly, this troubling information was known to Senators Schacht and Carr, refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia when they interrogated Telstra officials on June 24, 1997, about the excessive scrutiny of my private life and the accidental release of newspaper articles concerning me that bore no relevance to my ongoing Telstra arbitration issues.

Furthermore, it is significant to note that Telstra collected detailed information about individuals I contacted and those who contacted me, occasionally recording unusual locations of these interactions in their files. As the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have stated, it seems evident that Telstra could only have obtained this sensitive information if I was under systematic surveillance, raising serious questions about privacy and ethics.

For example, how did Telstra know in April 1994, shortly after I called former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, that I would travel to Melbourne weeks before my scheduled trip? Who was referred to as "Micky," the local Portland Telstra technician, Gordon Stokes, who seemed to have been providing insider information about my contacts? Moreover, why did the arbitrator fail to question Gordon Stokes regarding his disclosure of my private and business contacts to this "Micky" figure?

Could this be the same electronic surveillance Julian Assange alluded to when he informed Graham Schorer (COT Case spokesperson) that we were under constant monitoring? Furthermore, were my concerns about Communist China part of this sophisticated surveillance operation? It raises a pressing question: Will the government take steps to interrogate Julian Assange about the nature of his communication with Mr Schorer and what he meant when he communicated that "we never had a chance to prove our claims" - or words to that effect? Such inquiries not only delve into the specifics of my case but also touch on broader issues of transparency, accountability, and the potential abuse of power within telecommunications and government agencies.

The complexities of war and government deceit are well documented across various platforms, including media articles and at least one internationally released documentary highlighting Julian Assange's profound aversion to warfare. He has consistently condemned the government's efforts to conceal the brutal realities faced by innocent civilians caught in the deadly crossfire. This sentiment resonates deeply with several Canadian and British seamen, including myself, who stood firmly against our governments’ complicity in such matters.

For instance, there was a pivotal moment when we collectively opposed the government's decision to supply grain to Communist China. We understood that this grain was not simply a trade deal; it was a lifeline that ultimately found its way into the bellies of North Vietnamese soldiers, furthering their capacity to wage war. This moral dilemma stirred strong feelings in us, as we recognized the human cost of our government's actions.

In my discussions with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, I pressed him about the rationale behind allowing trade with the enemy. This inquiry led me to wonder whether Julian Assange also sought to unravel these intricate connections, primarily when he intended to provide Graham Schorer with critical documents that might shed light on our arbitration efforts.

Could these documents have fueled Julian Assange’s firm conviction against war, mirroring my own? This deep-seated animosity stems from an awareness of how wars often line the pockets of public officials. Historical examples abound, such as the wheat trades with Communist China in the 1960s and the controversial dealings during the 2000s when Australia maintained business ties with Saddam Hussein amid the Iraq War. This intertwining of profit and conflict drives our disdain for war and its grim consequences.

 

Threats Made 

Threats Carried Out 

 

I faced intimidation from Telstra arbitration officials as a direct consequence of my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding their investigations into significant phone and fax hacking incidents. During a meeting involving Graham Schorer, who serves as the spokesperson for the Customers of Telstra (COT) Cases, and Ann Garms, we delved into the troubling discussions the hackers had previously shared with Graham. These discussions centred on the electronic surveillance allegedly being conducted by Telstra on matters related to the COT Cases.

Following a troubling incident where my faxes did not arrive at their intended recipients, I alerted Senator Ron Boswell. This was particularly concerning because it echoed the hackers' previous discussions with Graham Schorer. When I brought this matter to the attention of Telstra, their response was alarming; they issued threats, cautioning that if I persisted in bringing these issues up with the Australian Federal Police, all future Freedom of Information (FOI) requests I submitted would be disregarded entirely. This blatant intimidation tactic did not go unnoticed and prompted anger from Senator Boswell.

Furthermore, on 29 November 1994, during an official session of the Australian Senate, Senator Ron Boswell posed critical questions to Telstra’s legal directorate regarding these unfolding events and the concerning implications surrounding the hacking and surveillance practices linked to Telstra.

“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)

The threats I encountered ultimately became a troubling reality. A significant concern regarding the withholding of essential documents is that no individual within the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or any government entity has ever conducted a thorough investigation into the damaging effects this withholding had on my overall submission to the arbitrator.

At the time of the arbitration, Telstra was a government-owned corporation, which means that both the arbitrator and the government should have been particularly vigilant about ensuring a fair process. It raises questions as to why an Australian citizen, who had collaborated with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the unlawful interception of my private telephone conversations, faced such severe disadvantages throughout the civil arbitration process.

To illustrate this point, the transcripts from the AFP's second interview with me, conducted on 26 September 1994, explicitly address the threats I experienced. These details can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. The lack of inquiry into these matters not only undermines the integrity of the arbitration process but also highlights a serious failure to protect the rights of an individual who attempted to assist law enforcement in addressing serious misconduct.

From Home Page 28 April 2025

------------------------

In a display of commitment, representatives from the Australian communications regulator even visited our business premises to ensure the government comprehensively understood the extent of the deficiencies we had uncovered. Furthermore, the Labour government of 1993 assured us that if we refrained from pushing for a full Senate investigation into Telstra's gross misconduct, they would ensure that our signed commercial assessment process with Telstra—dated November 23, 1993—would be finalised by April 1994.

The complexity of our individual cases, including my own, warranted the involvement of an independent commercial loss assessor—distinct from an arbitrator—appointed by AUSTEL, the government communications regulator. It was widely anticipated that this specially designated official would evaluate the validity of each case meticulously, ultimately saving claimants significant time, money, and emotional distress. Government documentation unequivocally reflects that our four separate claims were supposed to be commercially assessed.

However, the landscape shifted dramatically once we affixed our signatures to the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) and Telstra subsequently signed the commercial agreement on November 18, 1993. Those entrenched in the establishment, who were intent on concealing the evidence of our ongoing telecommunications challenges, allowed Warwick Smith—the administrator of the November 23, 1994, commercial agreement and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman—to exchange the FTSP for a convoluted and highly legalistic arbitration process known as the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP). This manoeuvre rendered any chance of success for the COT four virtually impossible, sealing our fate in the ever-complicated web of corporate and governmental interests.

The relentless and aggressive behaviour directed at Telstra Casualties unmistakably embodied elements of bullying, treachery, abuse, and malicious harassment. This orchestrated campaign was designed with a sinister intent to disrupt their operational effectiveness and instigate chaos within their organisation. The troubling actions were not merely random acts; they were calculated attempts to undermine the stability and integrity of Telstra's operations.

In response to this alarming situation, Telstra made a strategic decision to engage the services of 47 of Australia’s most prestigious law firms. These legal powerhouses were placed on retainer, fully prepared to employ tactics that included fraud and falsification, if necessary, to manoeuvre through the intricate landscape of the arbitration process. This proactive approach ensured that Telstra's interests were safeguarded and vigorously defended throughout the arbitration proceedings, no matter the cost.

Though it may seem that this is merely a tale about telephones, at its core, this narrative unveils a deeper story of human suffering inflicted by a corporation wielding too much power and influence. 

The Australian government, which held ownership of the national telecommunications network, chose to distance itself from a troubling situation that emerged from my evidence. This evidence revealed that Telstra had knowingly relied on fundamentally flawed test results supervised by Bell Canada International Inc., one of Canada’s most prestigious telecommunications firms. Despite my attempts to seek clarification from Telstra regarding the inaccuracies in the BCI reporting, they remained unresponsive. Similarly, Bell Canada did not bother to address my inquiries concerning the discrepancies found in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests. In contrast, as illustrated in the following letter, the Canadian government took the initiative to respond, demonstrating its commitment to accountability.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

The Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority, now operating under the banner of ACMA), seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

I have promoted the Canadian Government to the introduction to absentjustice.com because had the Australian government provided that same courtesy, I could have used their letter of concern by providing it to the most appropriate government agencies, asking them to transparently investigate Telstra use of known falsfied arbitration reports as defence documents against an Australian citizen who had the legal right to challenge this unlawful act which the arbitrator and his advisor ignored. Had this been the case all that is proven to be true on absentjustice.com would have been settled in 1995.

Threats were made and carried out because I ignored the tactics being used by Telstra's defence.  

I encountered grave threats from Telstra arbitration officials Steve Black and Paul Rumble. These threats were not merely spoken; they were acted upon in a manner that deeply unsettled me. The intimidation began after I decided to assist the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the unauthorised interception of my phone conversations and the faxes associated with my arbitration proceedings. My involvement in this matter was crucial, as I sought to reveal and combat significant breaches of my privacy committed against me.

“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?” 

What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

One aspect of this more-than-twenty-eight-years-old case is still very relevant today, and that is the fact that at least two of the public servants and/or bureaucrats who were heavily involved in concealing the truth about what the Communications Regulator had uncovered concerning Telstra’s unethical conduct towards their customers, were still senior bureaucrats within the current Communications Regulator, in 2055.  Although their behaviour, all those years ago, was a breach of their statutory obligations, both to me and the other COT claimants too, still, no one has ever transparently investigated any of the claims now exposed on absentjustice.com, which suggests that nothing has changed within the Regulator’s Department. 

As detailed below, I encountered a troubling situation when I received threats from Telstra. They warned that if they discovered I was using my arbitration-related documents to aid the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigations into Telstra's unauthorised interception of my phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, severe limitations would be imposed on the documents that Telstra was legally required to provide me under our arbitration agreement. 

Just imagine what would have happened if the Regulator and their public servant employees had not allowed Telstra to operate outside of their licensing guidelines but had, instead, told the Communications Minister that at least 120,000 COT-type complaints were being recorded in 1994!  The government would have been forced to investigate just how deficient the Telstra network was, and that would have resulted in most of the millions upon millions of dollars (in fact it is probably more like a billion dollars or more), of what it has cost the Australian government to fight our legitimate claims would have been saved, because the problems would have been dealt with way back then, twenty-eight years ago. In other words, when the Regulator decided not to include the truth in their AUSTEL COT Cases Report of 13 April 1994, those public servants indirectly caused much of the cost blow-out related to the new National Broadband Network in Australia.

The exhibit Falsification Report File No/8 and in our Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C contains two letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, from Telstra’s group general manager to AUSTEL’s chair (see also Arbitrator Part One). These letters suggest that AUSTEL was far from truly independent but could instead be convinced to alter its official findings in its COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this letter.

For example, at point 4, on page 3 of the 8 April letter, Telstra’s Steve Black writes to AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey stating:

“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.”

And, in the second letter, on 9 April, from Mr Black to Mr Davey, he 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…”

And further, on page 3, Mr Black adds:

“Telecom is still concerned that … the proposed reference to ‘some hundreds’ of customers has the potential to be misleading.”

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

That Telstra (the defendant) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings for the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is alarming, to say the least.

 

(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

Copper Wire was not compatible

 

Because acknowledgement of the 120,000 COT-type problems, experienced by other Australian citizens, was removed from the AUSTEL formal report, which the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report referenced to determine the validity of COT claims of ongoing telephone problems destroying our businesses, the vastness of Telstra’s network issues does not appear in the DCITA report, either. How many other government-owned businesses have had reports cleansed to prevent the truth from being exposed? 

On page three of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms Phillipa Smith's letter to Telstra's Frank Blount dated 25 March 1994, notes that when referring to John Wynack, Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, when advising Mr Blount, states that one of his officers when referring to my release of FOI documents, they Steve Black, informed Mr Wynack:

"...that they expected the vetting of the documents would take only a couple of days"

Ms Phillipa Smith stated:

On 31 January 1994, Mr Black released a number of documents to Mr Smith and stated in a letter of that date that some other documents were being collated, copied and reviewed and would be provided to him shortly."  

When again referring to Steve Black, Ms Smith states:

"...Mr Smith informed my officers recently that Mr Black told him recently that no further documents will be released."

These documents prompted Steve Black to telephone me, warning me not to release any further documents to the AFP.  (Refer to File 68 - document|1434]File No/11 – Part Two)

After Steve Black provided advice to John Wynack, as detailed in the report from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Ms. Phillippa Smith, in her earlier correspondence, I was assured that my Freedom of Information (FOI) documents would be delivered to me by the end of March 1994. However, in the first week of May 1994, I had received less than a third of the relevant documents, leaving me frustrated and concerned.

Determined to resolve the situation, I undertook the five-hour journey to Melbourne on May 14994. My purpose was to deeply examine the missing documents at the Telstra FOI viewing center. I aimed to meticulously compare what I had received with what was still outstanding, alongside previously requested documents that had also not been provided.

Upon entering Telstra's FOI viewing room, I was taken aback to discover that many of the documents I had received two to three weeks earlier were now significantly redacted, obscuring critical information. Additionally, these heavily censored reports were haphazardly stapled together with a mishmash of unrelated materials, making it nearly impossible to follow the content. Each report, requiring twenty minutes to sift through, left me more bewildered than informed. There was a glaring discrepancy between the FOI documents and the accompanying text and fax header sheets, which only heightened my sense of urgency in several instances.

Realising the gravity of the issue, on May 14, 1994, I sought immediate intervention from Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police, hoping he could shed light on the troubling inconsistencies and missing information.  

Sergeant Jeff Penrose encouraged me to provide evidence of this misconduct to the AFP (which I did), the arbitrator (which was hand-delivered by Golden Messenger Couriers of North Melbourne) and the administrator of the arbitration, Warwick Smith (three walking blocks away). I attached a statutory declaration detailing what I had uncovered to all three organisations. Refer to Files 76 and 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91. Despite providing the arbitrator and the administrator with a copy of Statutory Declaration File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), which had been given to the Federal Police, neither investigated the FOI document issue.

Concerning document 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91, Sue Harlow, Deputy (TIO) Ombudsman, was entrusted with evidence regarding 56 reports that had been tampered with to the extent that they were indecipherable. Notably, the issues relating to tampered arbitration documents from 1994 and 1995 remain uninvestigated as of 2024.

It is profoundly concerning that neither Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) nor Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) saw fit to investigate why Telstra was engaging in such questionable practices when supplying FOI documents. In my case (File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), I confirmed I found that '56 reports' fax header introduction pages' were stapled with information irrelevant to the attached content. This blatant disregard for proper document handling was unacceptable and warranted immediate attention. It received no response, even though a copy of my statutory declaration was copied to Steve Black, Warwick Smith, and Dr Hughes, and it has never been received. 

As can be seen from the official stamp on File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91, the AFP received their copy of my statutory declaration.

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case. I was not provided with a single FOI document proving that Telstra was still investigating the systemic issues that the new owners of my business were complaining about in November 2006, five years after they purchased my beloved Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.

 

 

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

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

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

• As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed."

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?

While I do not hold Mr. Redlich or Ms. Holsworthy personally accountable for any wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, I must strongly condemn their endorsement of the COT Cases Strategy. This particular strategy was orchestrated to dismantle any possibility of a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the persistent telephone problems that severely impacted my business and those of the other three COT Cases. The ongoing issues jeopardised our livelihoods and hindered our ability to operate effectively, leaving us uncertain and frustrated.

I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers before they would investigate my complaints. I provided this information with extreme difficulty while trying to run my telephone-dependent business. 

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

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note my repeated reminders to the arbitration project manager regarding soliciting these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.

I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidential, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.

The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

Criminal Conduct 

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realised that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasised that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

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 .

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

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases indeed did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998), stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

It is October 2022, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist, regarding Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

Criminal Conduct  

This strategy was in place before we five signed our arbitration agreements 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

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

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

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

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

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   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?”

The most alarming situation regarding Telstra's intelligence networks established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use?  How much confidential information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser, is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalisation. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“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.” (page - 87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

Clicking on the following briefcase image, the reader will learn that in my attempt to prioritise the welfare of the sixteen or so COT Cases, I opted to pursue arbitration, hoping it would provide them with a means to sustain their businesses while allowing the government to address the faltering Telstra network. Regrettably, that decision has come back to haunt me.

On June 3, 1993, two Telstra executives from Melbourne journeyed to my Cape Bridgwater Holiday Camp, nestled 18 kilometres from the bustling seaport of Portland. They arrived to investigate my persistent complaints about ongoing telephone faults—issues that had plagued the previous owners of my business for three long years before I acquired the camp in 1987.

During this pivotal visit, one of the Telstra executives inadvertently left behind his unlocked briefcase, a moment that spoke volumes given their astonishment at the evidence I presented. This material demonstrated that their previous justifications for my inadequate phone service were completely unfounded. Rather than exposing the contents of this briefcase to the eager media, who were already pursuing the Coalition of COT Cases (COT Cases) and its members, small business owners like me struggling with similar issues, I made a regrettable decision. Using my ageing photocopier, I opted to copy most of the documents inside the briefcase before it died.

I sent what had been copied to AUSTEL, the governmental communications authority of the time, now known as ACMA.

I have often reflected on my choice to say, "I made a regrettable decision," particularly because internal government records reveal the potential fallout had I shared the details with the media. The implications would have been significant; Senate records dated June 24, 1997, available for download from our Evidence files, demonstrate that releasing this information might have unleashed a torrent of public outcry. Such a revelation could have laid the groundwork for a class action lawsuit against Telstra and the government, which still held ownership of the company when the briefcase was not the Alladdin Cave as I first thought it was. 

 

What is particularly alarming is the silence from corporate leaders, government regulators, and ministers—none have dared to investigate this matter, despite its implications for justice and accountability. 

To illustrate the severity of this issue, I present just one of many instances that reveal how Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith behaved unethically, failing to uphold the integrity expected of their roles as arbitrator and administrator. We are sharing this chapter of our COT story first, hoping it will capture the reader's attention and encourage them to delve deeper into the subsequent parts of our narrative.

This is the gripping saga of ordinary small-business owners standing up against one of Australia’s largest corporations: Telstra, previously known as Telecom. For years, Telstra dismissed the COT Four's pleas for help regarding a host of frustrating phone problems that severely hampered their ability to operate their businesses, repeatedly insisting that there was "no fault found."

 

When the COT Four turned to the government for support, they encountered a wall of manipulation and pressure, leading them into an arbitration process that was not only unfair but also financially draining. Telstra and its formidable legal team undermined the integrity of the arbitration with a series of unethical tactics. They intercepted faxes and conversations, engaging in bugging that would make anyone uneasy. They routinely failed to deliver crucial Freedom of Information (FOI) documents on time—sometimes waiting months or even years. When the documents did arrive, they were often heavily censored and rendered nearly unintelligible. In the most shocking instances, they destroyed critical evidence and fabricated documents to bolster their case.

 

The arbitrator willfully ignored key points in my claim, leaving us feeling like our voices were silenced in the process designed to deliver justice. The regulatory bodies meant to keep Telstra in check—Austel, representing the government, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)—stood by idly, leading us to wonder if they were conspiring with Telstra instead of holding it accountable.

 

The culmination of these injustices points to a pervasive breakdown of justice, which dwarfs the original issue: the simple request for reliable phone service that would enable us to conduct our businesses without constant interruption.

 

What kind of faults were we dealing with? Customers and potential clients often reached out only to find a dead line. Others could hear their phones ringing, yet no one picked up, or they were met with the frustrating reality of a recorded message stating that the number was not connected. Even when calls did connect, they frequently dropped unexpectedly, making it impossible to maintain a steady line of communication. And the problems extended to the realm of faxes, where essential documents would vanish into the network or arrive as blank sheets, void of any information.

 

Each member of the COT believed, as any reasonable phone user might, that the skilled technicians at Telstra would swiftly identify and resolve these issues. However, the persistent echo of "No fault found" rang hollow, and the problems endured, wreaking havoc on our businesses. The situation was utterly perplexing: with phones being a staple of modern life, why was the system failing so dramatically? 

 

Why did it seem like everyone around us was turning a blind eye to Telstra's illicit behaviour? Withholding essential discovery documents during arbitration is not just unethical—it’s illegal. Tampering with evidence is a blatant violation of the law. Relying on defence documents known to be flawed undermines the entire arbitration process. And phone tapping without a warrant is a serious offence. It became increasingly clear that someone within Telstra was orchestrating this criminal conduct, while the TIO and Austel remained conspicuously inactive. Politicians were eager to champion the COT cause when they were in opposition, but once they seized power, that support vanished without a trace. The reluctance to hold Telstra accountable created an unsettling atmosphere that made even the most rational observers suspect a conspiracy was at play.

 

The lengths to which Telstra went to undermine the COT claimants conveyed a profound lack of confidence in their own case. But what were they so afraid of? What truths were they desperately trying to hide?

 

Perhaps they harboured trepidations about a Senate Inquiry that might expose the deteriorating state of their infrastructure, particularly in the underserved rural areas of Australia. Or maybe they feared the repercussions of losing their operating license, which hinged on meeting a 98% success rate for phone connectivity. They could have also been trying to avoid the financial burden of upgrading their infrastructure.

 

In documents that Telstra eventually released—years after the fact—an unsettling question surfaced: did they truly believe we would lose our resolve? Were they genuinely convinced of their invulnerability? It seemed likely that Telstra was aware of its systemic failures and understood the solutions but preferred to keep them hidden, aiming to dodge the financial implications of overhauling aging infrastructure—especially in rural areas where many COT claims originated.

 

What might have prompted their desire to sidestep necessary improvements? Perhaps the spectre of impending privatisation loomed large. While the answer remains elusive, one truth stands clear: Telstra leveraged its status as one of Australia’s largest companies to suppress our stories. However, the unwavering unity and determination of the COT Four made the situation particularly challenging for them. Together, we refused to back down and continued our relentless fight for justice.

This website, absentjustice.com, chronicles my personal experiences and the myriad injustices I've tirelessly pursued resolution for over the years, often to no avail.

My journey began with serious issues related to my telephone service. I have been unjustly charged for calls to my 1800 account that never connected, and I have experienced the frustrating loss of crucial faxes during my arbitration process and beyond. The ongoing failure of my phone service has disrupted my communication and adversely affected my business and livelihood, causing significant stress and financial strain.

The second layer of injustice lies in the conduct of my arbitration. I found myself trapped in a drawn-out and costly legal process, despite having previously agreed to a fast-tracked assessment method that recognised the validity of my case. This unnecessary complexity only added to my emotional and financial burden.

Moreover, Telstra's tactics in defending itself have been troubling. I have faced the withholding of vital Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that are essential to my case, the excessive censorship of key documents, and even the fabrication of evidence. They presented flawed information without disclosing the inherent problems, and I have proof that they illegally monitored my telephone conversations. Throughout this ordeal, I was made to feel as if I were the adversary, rather than a customer seeking justice.

Despite my persistent efforts, a fair resolution for all the COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) cases remains elusive.

Over the years, I have penned hundreds of letters to numerous officials, including the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, and various other government representatives, all in an attempt to garner support. My endeavours, however, have been met with silence or indifference, forcing me to take the drastic step of publishing this book. I am breaking the confidentiality agreement I was compelled to sign during the arbitration process. I passionately believe that Telstra and the arbitrator colluded to deny us our fundamental right to natural justice. I am a staunch advocate for the legal rights of all Australians. While I have always held the law in high regard, my own experiences over these years have shaken my faith in our legal system's ability to deliver justice for everyone. The COT arbitrations have become a tragic farce, and the rules governing them are equally nonsensical.

 

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.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 7 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 also indicated that one of my faxes sent to the Australian Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, as the following example shows, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Who holds the ultimate power and influence over the 'Institute Arbitrators and Mediators of Australia' (IAMA), allowing them to bring an investigation to a standstill and deny the return of crucial evidence initially requested from an individual they agreed to scrutinise? This troubling situation dates back to 1996, with subsequent inquiries in 2001 and 2009.

The following Fax and Telephone Hacking image demonstrates that, despite being alerted in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the arbitrator had no control over the arbitrations he administered. They failed to act on the 23 spiral-bound submission materials they requested in 2009 and have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, the Hon. D. Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate the matter. However, the IAMA has not provided a written finding or returned my submission materials regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes.

In this latest episode, from July to November 2009, the IAMA-Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee asked me to provide further documentation to support claims that the government had been warned about the unethical conduct of the arbitrator involved in my case. The administrator of my arbitration had been criticised for having no control over the process because it was not conducted according to the agreed-upon arbitration procedures. This was the same arbitrator against whom I had complained, now before the IAMA for the third time. For more information, refer to Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued.

I painstakingly compiled 23 bound volumes of evidence, meticulously detailing the actions of the current treasurer of the Melbourne Chapter of the IAMA. This individual, who continues to operate an Arbitration Centre in busy Hong Kong and another in Melbourne, was part of a team of arbitration consultants that minimised Telstra's liability towards me. This same treasurer also crafted misleading statements aimed at the administrator overseeing my previous arbitration, intending to obstruct the 1996 IAMA investigation into my legitimate claims about the integrity of the arbitration process. The IAMA has refused to return the evidence that their internal emails indicate they asked for and accepted, as they went through the process of viewing my claims, even though my allegations raised with the IAMA were that my arbitrator had no control over the COT arbitrations. 

One of the documents I provided to the IAMA in 2001 and again in 2009 is the official statement to the Senate on 26 September 1997, which follows:

The document's  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) show this was truly the case.  

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

Dr. Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr. Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process.

During the contentious COT arbitrations, disturbing examples of foreign bribery emerged, casting a dark shadow over the process. This was particularly concerning given the highly structured legal environment under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In a controversial move, Sweden’s Ericsson telecommunications company was permitted to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, the Australian technical consultants appointed by the government to scrutinise whether Telstra's reliance on Ericsson telephone equipment was responsible for numerous issues plaguing Australia's telecommunications network. (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

To put this in simpler terms, allowing Ericsson to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was akin to permitting a corrupt police force, responsible for overseeing the arbitration, to be swayed into evaluating only certain aspects of the COT Cases arbitration claim documents. In my specific case, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd conducted a valuation and investigation of only eleven per cent of my claim material related to Ericsson and the defendants in the arbitration (Telstra), effectively sidelining most of the critical submission documents central to the case's integrity. This gross negligence raises serious questions about fairness and transparency in the arbitration process.

I requested copies of the Lane working notes during my pending appeal process. However, John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, responded on 10 January 1996, stating that he would not provide me with copies of any documents held by his office (see Senate Evidence File No/50 TIO refuses to supply me arbitration documents in which to support my appeal). It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption issues raised by the US Department of Justice against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.   

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/)

It is essential that 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 officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator, who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases' claims against Telstra, including the Ericsson-manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges that serviced the COT Cases businesses.

The above Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden (link) supports the COT Cases ' right to demand answers as to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment, which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.  Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were mistreated when Ericsson could nobble Lane?

The twelve chapters will draw extensively from the compelling information in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. Each chapter will intertwine personal stories, emotional struggles, and the profound implications of standing up for truth and justice in a world that frequently challenges such bravery. Our goal is to complete this section by the end of May 2025, and we look forward to sharing these powerful narratives that highlight the resilience and courage of those who choose to speak out against injustice. This project is not just about storytelling; it is about honouring the sacrifices made by individuals who dared to stand up for their beliefs, despite the personal costs they incurred.

 

Embarking on the journey through these twelve captivating chapters will grant readers the opportunity to pause their exploration and return after experiencing the intensity of chapter twelve. As they immerse themselves in the unfolding narrative, they will witness the harrowing struggles endured by the surviving members of COT, each navigating their own personal nightmares. This story invites them to remain entwined in a gripping saga that explores resilience, courage, and the indomitable spirit of those trapped in a relentless ordeal.

 

Next Page ⟶

Truth About Julian Assange

 If Julian Assange did not contact the COT Cases exposing corruption within their arbitration processes, then who was it?  

Contact Absent Justice