Fraudulent Reporting: My letter to the current prime minister of Australia Anthony Albanese in July 2023, pleads with him not to grant the Australian Communications Media Authority (Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered) with the extra
powers the government wants to provide this government funded organisation. I was able to show in that letter after viewing this website absentjustice.com it would be a grave mistake to award ACMA these extra powers. The government wanted to give these public extra powers with the aim to prevent deceptive news reporting and the spread of false information, as well as misleading journalism practices.
“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 by the then-wholly owned government telecommunications carrier, Telstra, even before our arbitrations commenced.
1. An explanation for the discrepancy in the attestation of Ian Joblin’s witness statement.2. Clarification on whether any changes were made to the original statement sent to arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes compared to the signed version.

Rebranding Doesn’t Erase Responsibility
Freehill Hollingdale & Page may now call themselves Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, but that rebranding doesn’t absolve them of the actions they took during my arbitration. A new name doesn’t rewrite history. It doesn’t erase the fact that one of their lawyers, Maurice Wayne Condon, signed a witness statement supposedly authored by Ian Joblin—a clinical psychologist—without Joblin’s signature appearing anywhere on the document.
What does this rebrand really mean? Does it imply that the “Freehills” designation no longer guarantees the validity of a signature on a legal document when it’s conspicuously absent? Because that’s precisely what happened in my case. They attested to the content and the author’s signature, knowing full well that the signature wasn’t there. That’s not a clerical error. That’s deliberate misrepresentation.
The Signature That Wasn’t There
When I saw that witness statement submitted to the arbitrator, signed only by Maurice Wayne Condon, I was stunned. It wasn’t in Ian Joblin’s handwriting. It bore no signature from the psychologist. Yet Telstra’s legal team proceeded as if it were legitimate. The government had assured us—the COT Cases—that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in our matters. But here they were, submitting unsigned psychological assessments that could have falsely implied I was mentally unstable.
I have to ask: Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to Joblin’s original assessment that I was of sound mind? Because if he did, that’s more than unethical—it’s criminal.
What Are They Trying to Hide?
To this day, Freehill Hollingdale & Page—now Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne—have never come forward to explain their actions. Why haven’t they addressed the fact that they signed a document during my arbitration, claiming to attest to its content and the author’s signature, when no such signature existed?
What are they trying to hide
“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."
Senator Bill O’Chee didn’t accept the excuse that it was up to the arbitrator to deal with the alteration of statutory declarations. He wanted to know why these matters weren’t referred to the police.
There was no transparent outcome. No accountability. And when we investigated why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this conduct to go unchallenged, we discovered he had previously withheld vital Telstra documents from another COT Case member, Graham Schorer, during a Federal Court action—while acting as Telstra’s legal representative → Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest
This isn’t just about me. It’s about a system that allowed legal manipulation to silence the truth. And I won’t let that truth be buried under a new name.