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

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. The Fabricated BCI Report and the COT Case Strategy

The fabricated BCI report (see and ) is central to understanding the manipulation that occurred during my arbitration. This report was provided to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state. It is directly linked to statements made on page 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which expose Telstra’s adoption of the Freehill Hollingdale & Page-devised “COT Case Strategy” during the arbitrations. That strategy, spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehills, was designed to conceal all evidence that I genuinely had ongoing telephone faults affecting the viability of my business.

What I did not know when I was first required to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie—before Telstra would even investigate them—was that Telstra and its lawyers had already established this strategy to suppress evidence of faults. The process of continually documenting individual faults and submitting them to Freehill Hollingdale & Page nearly drove me to the brink of despair. I believed I was helping Telstra locate the problems by providing detailed fault reports. Instead of retaining this evidence, I handed it over, unaware that I would later need it for arbitration.

When the arbitration commenced, I had to retrieve the same documentation from Telstra under the Freedom of Information Act. The frustration of knowing I had already submitted the evidence—only to have Telstra and its lawyers withhold it—was soul-destroying. Worse still, I later discovered that the lawyer I was forced to report faults to had authored a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), which instructed Telstra on how to conceal technical fault data under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege—even though the information was not privileged. This concealment was confirmed in the Senate Hansard on page 5169.

2. The Unsigned Psychological Report and Legal Misrepresentation

The psychological report attributed to Ian Joblin was not in his handwriting and bore no signature from him. Instead, it was signed by Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. As government records show (see point 40, Prologue Evidence File No/2), the government had assured the COT Cases that Freehills would have no further involvement in the arbitration process. Yet this same firm submitted a witness statement to the arbitrator that lacked the psychologist’s signature.

This raises a critical question: Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to Ian Joblin’s original assessment that I was of sound mind?

On 21 March 1997—twenty-two months after my arbitration concluded—John Pinnock, the second administrator of my arbitration, wrote to Telstra’s Ted Benjamin (see File 596 – AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 –) requesting:

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.

The fact that Telstra’s lawyer signed the statement without the psychologist’s signature underscores the disproportionate influence Telstra’s legal team wielded over the arbitration process. Many who have reviewed other Telstra witness statements submitted in various COT arbitrations—including mine—have been shocked by the pattern of altered or falsified signatures. In my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed borders on criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon attested to seeing a signature that did not exist, revealing the corruption and unethical practices of Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Freehill Hollingdale & Page are now trading under the name of Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne. Does that mean the Freehills part of Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne no longer attests to a signature being on a legal document when it is not there? Why has Freehill Hollingdale & Page ever come forward and explain to why they signed a document during my arbitration attesting to its content and the signature of the person authoring the content when the author's signature was nowhere to be found?

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

This lack of response prompted Senator O’Chee to write to Telstra’s Graeme Ward, regulatory and external affairs (see File GS-CAV 293-B – ) 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."

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.

Contact Absent Justice

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us