Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the more profound exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime and international fraud against the government present significant challenges.
Explore the troubling dynamics of Australia's flawed arbitration system, which assisted only one-third of the sixteen Australian claimants navigating the government-sanctioned arbitration process. Investigations uncovered a disturbing reality: the Swedish telecommunications giant, Ericsson, had secretly infiltrated the witnesses selected by the Australian government in 1994/95. These witnesses were tasked with examining significant defects in the Ericsson telephone equipment installed in Telstra Corporation's telephone exchanges throughout the country. Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.
The circumstances surrounding the government-endorsed arbitrations in Australia reveal a deeply troubling narrative. In the months leading up to these events, the Australian government communications authority, AUSTEL—now under the name Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)—made a startling discovery: over 120,000 customers nationwide were grappling with similar COT-type telephone faults. This revelation, which implied a widespread issue affecting countless Australians, should have triggered immediate concern and proactive communication from the authorities.
Clicking on these links automatically opens a PDF of the exhibit. You can verify our story using this method and following the file numbers. Without these exhibits to prove our story, we could not have successfully composed this publication or my 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 all in one manuscript. So, as you read this publication, regularly check the evidence on the website and the numbered exhibits to ensure you truly appreciate the enormity of what you are reading.
Ineffective bureaucrats and convoluted bureaucratic systems often pave the way for unethical behaviour and treacherous conduct. By drawing a direct connection between government corruption and the fight against fraudulent actions, we can enforce legal repercussions for misconduct, which in turn permits illicit dealings to thrive within the heart of Australia’s arbitration sector. My two upcoming books, *Absent Justice*, are supported by Evidence File-1 and *The Briefcase* draws on Evidence-File-2 to shed light on these insidious practices—unveiling the menacing undercurrents of corrupt deals and the relentless struggle against governmental malfeasance.
The Canadian government shows leadership
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 June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra's legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne). They were accused of providing falsified test results from Bell Canada International Inc., which were misleading and untruthful. These deceptive results claimed that 13,590 test calls had successfully navigated the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchanges over a five-day testing period. This system was crucial for the operation of my business, and astonishingly, it reported a success rate beyond all expectations (Refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 → (Exhibit BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).
The main issue is that the equipment mentioned in the formal report by the BCI, specifically the CCS7 monitoring device, could not be set up at either the Cape Bridgewater or Portland exchanges. The closest exchange capable of facilitating this device is in Warrnambool, 112 kilometres away. Therefore, where were the 13,590 BCI test calls sent? They were not generated into either the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges.
DMR Group Inc. Canada was brought into the arbitration process in March 1995 by the arbitration administrators, ten months after it was learned the original arbitration consultants had admitted they had a gigantic conflict of interest, regardless of their having signed the arbitration confidentiality papers in April 1994. At the time, Telstra had 47 of the most prestigious legal firms in Australia and just about all of the recognised telecommunications in Victoria on retainer. I had to source a technical consultant, George Close & Associates, who lived in Buderim in Queensland, 1000 kilometres away.
In the 1980s and 1990s, taking a stand against Telstra was an unthinkable move for any reputable professional. The sheer power that Telstra wielded in the telecommunications sector meant that defying them could lead to immediate and devastating consequences, such as the abrupt termination of contracts that businesses had relied on for years. As you immerse yourself in the following story, you will discover that Telstra's approach was not just about issuing threats; they were unflinching in their resolve and acted on those threats with alarming certainty.
After conducting an exhaustive review of the compelling evidence surrounding DMR Group Inc. (Canada), I have arrived at a deeply troubling realisation. Paul Howell, a highly regarded Principal Technical Arbitration Consultant, was dispatched from Canada with a specific mandate: to investigate the serious technical grievances I raised against Telstra between 1994 and 1995. My complaints stemmed from alarming and deceptive practices that Telstra engaged in, particularly their troubling reliance on falsified testing results provided by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Cape Bridgewater Telstra facility. These misleading results led the arbitrator down a misguided path, resulting in a conclusion contradicting my lived experiences, leading him to dismiss my claims of ongoing telephone faults.
What amplifies the distressing nature of this situation is the unsettling realisation that the government communications authority was aware of Telstra's flawed testing methodologies. These methods were manifestly inadequate for identifying the recurring systemic issues I had consistently reported. This troubling information is painstakingly documented in their report dated March 1994, where specific points—particularly AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings at 210, 211, and 212—stand out for their glaring exposure of a profound disregard for the validity of the tests.
Deepening this narrative of frustration is the painful understanding that neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications possesses any obligation to take action in investigating or resolving the persistent telephone faults that have plagued my service for years. Point 2.23 of their report starkly highlights the unsettling reality that the failure to investigate these ongoing issues has left them unresolved and exposed. The arbitration report, dated April 30, paints a grim and unflattering portrait of the process, suggesting that Howell's journey from Canada was merely a procedural formality that endorsed a deeply flawed report. This report not only contributed to the downfall of my business but also wreaked havoc on my personal and professional life. This disturbing scenario raises profound and unsettling questions about the ethical integrity and accountability within the Canadian telecommunications industry.
In the wake of my first heart attack, I returned home after several days in the hospital to recuperate. Upon my return, I received a phone call from Paul Howell, who expressed his sincere wishes for my speedy recovery. He openly declared that the arbitration process he had endured was the worst of his career, stressing that such a flawed approach would never be tolerated in North America. Paul Howell's unexpected phone call unsettled me; after all, he was a stranger to me. What insights prompted him to regret his involvement in my arbitration? Driven by a sense of urgency, I realised I needed to prepare a statutory declaration for the then Minister of Communications, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, carefully outlining the details of what Mr. Howell had revealed. Once again, a courageous Canadian had stepped forward, highlighting the disturbing events that had unfolded in this process..
The Secret State
On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:
"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."
Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.
This website highlights the compelling stories of whistleblowers, celebrated for their unwavering dedication to justice for all. At the onset of my narrative, it is crucial to introduce Bernard Collaery, the former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory. His story resonates deeply with mine, as it mirrors the experiences shared in the COT Cases, where our telephone lines were subjected to relentless hacking for several years—both prior to and potentially during our arbitration process. The government had endorsed this arbitration as a fair method for resolving our disputes, yet the troubling reality was far more complex.
The gravity of the situation becomes even more pronounced when considering the evidence that Bernard Collaery uncovered while negotiating on behalf of his clients, the Timore-Leste Government. In a similar vein, the arbitration faxes involved in the COT Cases were not only vulnerable but actively intercepted during their transmission. A covertly installed secondary fax machine within Telstra's network would capture sensitive information, duplicating it before relaying it to the intended recipient. This elaborate scheme underscores the lengths to which some entities will go to manipulate information and undermine trust in the pursuit of justice.
This website, absentjustice.com, is a work in progress, last edited May 2025. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices impacting Australia and the world.
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned and operated the nation’s telephone network through the communications carrier Telecom, which has since transitioned to private ownership and is now recognised as Telstra. Telecom maintained a stranglehold over the communications sector during this era, allowing the network to deteriorate significantly, leading to a cascade of service failures. Instead of confronting the pressing issues of our severely deficient telephone services as part of the government-endorsed arbitration process—an uneven and ultimately futile battle for justice—these critical problems were left unaddressed. As a result, countless claimants found themselves compelled to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing their cases against this government-owned entity, only to be met with resistance and neglect.
My earlier comments regarding deception, manipulation, and governmental corruption highlight a concerning reality: the arbitration process endorsed by the government can serve as a mechanism to obscure the truth from its citizens. Once individuals sign an arbitration agreement, its confidentiality clause silences any discussion or critique of the proceedings. This is particularly troubling considering that specific clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the original agreement were altered or removed after a mirrored copy was signed by a claimant, Maureen Gillan. This copy was subsequently disseminated to politicians, legal professionals, and governmental officials.
Unbeknownst to the lawyers representing the claimants, this mirrored agreement was altered two days later, effectively shielding the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman’s arbitration consultants from any potential lawsuits stemming from negligence or misconduct—of which there were numerous instances.
In essence, the government-sanctioned arbitrations concerning COT Cases warrant further investigation, even though many claimants are now deceased or suffering from severe health issues. I live with a pacemaker that was surgically implanted in my chest following my second heart attack in November 2018.
At the initial stage of our exploration into the Casualties of Telstra, commonly referred to as COT, it is vital to delve into the background of Graham Schorer, the dedicated spokesperson for the COT Cases. In 1990, Mr. Schorer was embroiled in a significant legal battle against Telstra, prompted by persistent problems with his telephone service. These issues, which were rooted in complications at the North Melbourne telephone exchange, led him to take the bold step of bringing his case to the Federal Court. After intense deliberations, he ultimately accepted an out-of-court settlement.
Pages 27 to 29 in our GS June 2013 report discuss a 2 November 1990 fax from Trevor Hill of Telstra’s Corporate Solicitors Office to Telstra’s Peter Gamble regarding Telecom v Golden Messenger Federal Court Legal Proceedings, which notes, among other items:
(5) The Australian Government Solicitor, on behalf of Telecom, has written to the solicitors acting for Golden Messenger seeking their undertaking not to disclose to their client or others the contents of the report on the North Melb Exchange. To date, there has been no response. (Exhibit GS 448-A file GS-CAV 448 to 456):
Directly below this entry, the report then discusses an internal Telstra minute dated 7 November 1990 that Telstra’s Peter Gamble, Manager, Business Network Planning, sent to Mr F Jones, Executive General Manager, Telecom Business Services (FOI Folio 001801), noting that:
“it would appear that any concerns over the disclosure of the adverse report on the North Melbourne Exchange can now be set to rest as it will not be released until point (5) has been complied with”. Exhibit GS 43 file GS-CAV 1 to 88
These two documents, together with the Author’s Comment (4) on pages 27 to 28 of our GS June 2013 report, show that, regardless of whether Graham’s solicitors, Landers & Rogers, received a copy of the North Melbourne Telephone Exchange report during Graham Schorer's early Federal Court action, Mr Schorer is adamant that he did NOT see a copy of the letter from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) that is referred to in these faxes.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Dr Hughes and Graham Schorer (refer to document 567 file GS-CAV 522 to 580 ).
On 21 November 2012, Graham produced a letter of understanding that included:
“During the period that I retained Landers & Rogers, at no stage was I informed by Gordon Hughes or any other member of Landers & Rogers staff, that Telecom or the Australian Government Solicitor contacted them with information regarding the North Melbourne exchange.
“Furthermore, had I known that Gordon Hughes had concealed knowledge of such an important document from me, I would not have accepted his appointment as the arbitrator in my arbitration process” (refer to document 567 file GS-CAV 522 to 580 ).
This AGS letter is essential because when Dr Gordon Hughes was appointed as the official arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he did not declare his conflict of interest regarding Graham Schorer's previous Federal Court action against Telstra.
MOST IMPORTANT
My decision to merge Dr. Gordon Hughes' Federal Court Action against Telstra with his former client Graham Schorer in 1990 stemmed from Dr. Hughes' involvement as the arbitrator in most of the COT Cases and during their arbitration with Telstra in 1994. This situation already presented a significant conflict of interest, but it became even more troubling when it was revealed that Peter Gamble from Telstra was implicated in both the Federal Court Action and the deliberate obstruction of critical evidence. He ensured that Telstra's faulty information never reached the Federal Court. Additionally, Gamble played a key role in preventing essential documents needed by the COT Cases from entering the arbitration process, as evidenced by the findings detailed in the following Senate Hansard.
This instance illustrates yet another example of the unethical practices that the Australian government has permitted to continue, ultimately wreaking havoc on the lives of those affected by the COT Cases.
“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.
Despite the considerable guidance offered by the government-appointed Chair of AUSTEL to Telstra—as highlighted in point 40 of the Prologue Evidence File No/2—Freehill Hollingdale & Page must henceforth be excluded from any involvement in COT issues. Telstra's blatant disregard for this advice became evident when they ignored it and employed the Freehill COT Case Strategy against the COT Cases. This reckless decision effectively obliterated any chance we had of accessing crucial documents related to our arbitration.
Compounding this disregard, Telstra provided misleading information concerning the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing outcomes to Ian Joblin, the clinical psychologist assigned to evaluate my mental health. Before I consulted with Mr. Joblin, he reviewed the BCI tests, which deceptively suggested that my reported phone issues were mere illusions conjured by my imagination. To add insult to injury, Freehill failed to disclose to Mr. Joblin that these tests had been conducted for a different phone service located more than 112 kilometres away from my business, obscuring the context of the findings.
Furthermore, the witness statement presented by Mr. Joblin to the arbitrator bore only the signature of Maurice Wayne Condon from Freehill, glaringly absent of the necessary signature from the psychologist himself, raising questions about the authenticity and integrity of the document.
Taken together, these unsettling events reveal a troubling narrative of systematic deceit and exploitation endured by the participants in the COT Case. We were not merely mishandled; we were subjected to a calculated pattern of manipulation that has left deep, lasting scars in our lives. The repercussions of these actions extend far beyond legal matters, reflecting a profound failure of accountability from Freehill Hollingdale & Page and their client, Telstra. This disheartening saga of manipulation and injustice has had far-reaching effects, highlighting the urgent need for accountability and transparency.
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.
On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the kangaroo image to the right of this page → → →
It is crucial to emphasise the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters state that Gaslighting methods were used against the COT Cases to destroy our legitimate claims against Telstra. (rb.gy/dsvidd).
What prompted the threatening communications I received from Telstra, and why did the company follow through on those threats when I chose to disregard them? Additionally, why does the confidentiality agreement stipulating terms in my arbitration seem to obscure these threats, buried beneath the secrecy provisions of the arbitration contract? Furthermore, how prevalent are confidentiality agreements worldwide in government-sanctioned arbitrations against citizens, effectively concealing wrongdoings perpetrated against them throughout the arbitration process?
What prompted the threatening communications I received from Telstra, and why did the company follow through on those threats when I chose to disregard them? Additionally, why does the confidentiality agreement stipulating terms in my arbitration seem to obscure these threats, buried beneath the secrecy provisions of the arbitration contract? Furthermore, how prevalent are confidentiality agreements worldwide in government-sanctioned arbitrations against citizens, effectively concealing wrongdoings perpetrated against them throughout the arbitration process?
IMPORTANT: As you scroll to the bottom of the page, remember to hover your mouse over the displayed images.
Gaslighting
Psychological manipulation
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.
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 institutionalization. It is evident that 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?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.
It was not of Mr Joblin's hand
It bore no signature of the psychologist
As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being of sound mind?
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?"
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, as well as mine, is that although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged or altered in my case, changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. Maurice Wayne Condon must have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist when no signature by Ian Joblin was on this affirmation, which is further proof that the COT story must be investigated.
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).
On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), which Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed. Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service and me at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they noted:
‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’
During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)
A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr. Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims.
By February 1994, I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assanage File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file shows that Telstra experienced major problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with one installed at Graham’s office.
It is essential to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.
In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organisations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording my single club members' names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.
After this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, a primary entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declined to suspend the arbitrations.
Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra could determine when my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. At the same time, I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
During my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which was turned into Telstra's preferred arbitration process, AUSTEL/ACMA wrote to Telstra on 10 February 1994, stating:
“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.
“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” Illegal Interception File No/3.
In this 10 February 1994 letter, AUSTEL (now ACMA), the current Australian Communications Media Authority, informed Steve Black of Telstra that they had provided nine audio tapes containing essential evidence to support the privacy issues raised by the COT cases during their arbitrations. This evidence was crucial during the COT government-endorsed arbitrations because it clearly proved that their business and personal telephone conversations had been tapped and listened to. However, AUSTEL and the Australian Federal Police concealed these nine tapes from the COT cases during their respective arbitrations, and no written findings were made in the arbitrator's award on these privacy issues.
Fighting on two fronts
Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases’ businesses, and it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process. This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:
- How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken simultaneously by two organisations, i.e., an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
- While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with their investigations?
- Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?
Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation, but these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being run concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act, 1984), for NOT supplying the COT cases with the promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. That investigation started before the COTS signed their arbitrations and continued for five years.
How many other Australian arbitration processes have been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration?
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put many questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):
- Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
- Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
- On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
- (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
- Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
- Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
- How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?
The response to Question 5 (see Main Evidence File No/29) notes, “…These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom;"
It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom”.
Telstra’s claim (when referring to Question 5 On Notice) that it would be inappropriate for them to comment on these phone interception issues whilst the AFP was still investigating these matters is, in itself, the typical and expected comment that Telstra lawyers would have ensured that Telstra would make, under those circumstances. No other form of interception/privacy investigation by any other authority should have taken place whilst the AFP were still investigating these breaches of privacy issues because that might well have undermined the AFP process.
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty.
Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.
This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)
Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, particularly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop exercise book into neatly organised hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.
Regrettably, a grave oversight unfolded several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors had assured me would be rigorously safeguarded throughout the AFP's extensive thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra via the arbitrator's office. This occurred despite clear communication from the AFP urging me not to disclose these documents under any circumstances, as this aspect of my case was still under ongoing investigation.
Both the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, a respected figure in academia, and the Administrator, Warwick Smith, had been made aware of the troubling harassment and intimidation I was facing from Telstra. This was directly linked to my cooperation with the AFP, particularly concerning Freedom of Information documents that substantiated my claims of being under surveillance since at least September 1992.
As my narrative reveals, the release of these diary notes was tragically misinterpreted and undervalued, resulting in a flagrant dismissal of my arbitration claims concerning the significant single club losses I incurred. Telstra had meticulously orchestrated a trap, and Dr. Hughes, lacking practical experience as an arbitrator, unwittingly fell prey to Telstra’s duplicitous tactics. This sequence of events severely undermined my claim, compromising a proper assessment of my single club's lost revenue.
It is most important we raise the statement made in a Telstra internal email that is discussed on this website absentjustice.com noting:
The sensitive papers referred by Telstra, on 23 August 1993, of which Telstra’s corporate secretary claimed, “Nothing in these documents to cause Telecom any concern in respect of your case,” actually provided clear evidence that Telstra’s management had recorded a telephone conference I had with the former prime minister of Australia Malcolm Fraser in April 1993, although what I had discussed with Mr Fraser had been redacted (blanked) out.
What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document
The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense
During my first meetings with the AFP, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with two Australian newspaper articles concerning two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia. Mr Fraser reported to the media only what he thought was necessary concerning our telephone conversation, as recorded below:
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.
“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.”
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, I provided comprehensive responses to 93 questions about unauthorised surveillance and the threats I encountered from Telstra. The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 includes detailed transcripts of this interview, which extensively address the threats issued by Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Paul Rumble, and the unlawful interception of my telecommunications and arbitration-related faxes.
It is noteworthy that Paul Rumble and the arbitrator operated in collaboration. Dr. Gordon Hughes supplied Mr. Rumble with my arbitration submission materials months before Telstra should have received these documents, according to the terms of my arbitration agreement.
When I telephoned Mr Fraser in April 1993, I discussed my previous letter to him dated 18 September 1967, when he was Minister for the Army during the Vietnam War and the selling of wheat to Communist China during the period of the Vietnam War.
Other documents in that 3 June 1993 briefcase showed how Telstra, including their corporate secretary Jim Holmes, had misled and deceived me on 11 December 1992, during my settlement process, where Telstra had concealed from me and the government how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was.
Why this statement is so important is because during a meeting with AUSTEL (the then Australian government communications regulator now called ACMA) AUSTEL's General Manager of Consumer Affairs discussed some very sensitive documents in which he stated words to the effect "...they, meaning AUSTEL, had to force Telstra under threat of cancelling their telecommunications licence if they did not corporate with the Australian Federal Police Investigations into my evidence received by both the government and me that Telstra had been intercepting my telephone conversations between me and several patrons of my "Over 40s Single Club" which was another branch of my holiday camp and convention centre. Telstra had written private telephone numbers of several single women members of my singles club on Telstra documentation, and the dates I would be away from my business and visiting those single clubs. (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1).
It was during one of these meetings with AUSTEL's John McMahon in and around February or March 1994 that John McMahon informed me by mistake that AUSTEL had uncovered documents that showed my business had been live monitored from at least from the middle of June 1993 and that AUSTEL's investigations had uncovered very unsavoury conduct by one of the Government Ministers involved in my phone and fax hacking claims. This conversation occurred on 3 June 1993, when Telstra technicians had left their elusive briefcase, exposing the severe telephone problems within Telstra's network. As AUSTEL had received documents confidently, Mr McMahon apologised that AUSTEL could not provide them to me while the AFP investigated my claims.
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues (refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. This included inquiries concerning the interception of my telecommunications conversations and Telstra's submission of false information to the government. I informed the AFP that John McMahon had told me about documents uncovered by AUSTEL, confirming that my phone conversations had been bugged over an extended period. In question 81 of the AFP transcripts, refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1; the AFP disclosed evidence indicating that John McMahon of AUSTEL had provided information supporting the claim that my phones had been bugged. This question confirms that the AFP informed me about the evidence supplied by AUSTEL's John McMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and the government communications authority. It is perplexing that the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, particularly after being presented with the AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, "... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."
Threats made during my arbitration
Threats carried out and ignored by the arbitrator during the arbitration.
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. 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 jeopardize 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.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
On 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 became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this: no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardising my legal rights.
Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.
According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in investigating Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.
As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.
Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete?
This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?
Delve into the dark web and uncover a disturbing phenomenon where individuals strategically exploit legal frameworks, wielding legal threats as instruments of manipulation and intimidation. This troubling practice, known as legal abuse or legal bullying, is particularly rampant among public officials in Australia. In numerous instances surrounding the Telstra arbitrations—both leading up to and during the tumultuous proceedings and in their aftermath—these officials have misused their positions of power to coerce individuals and organisations into compliance, exerting undue pressure behind the facade of legal authority.
Click on the image below to explore the specific locations where significant corruption took place during the arbitration process. This snapshot reveals how the facilitators of the arbitrations disregarded the fundamental principles of the rule of law, undermining the integrity of the proceedings. The process was strategically crafted to limit the financial liability of the defendant in the COT arbitrations, particularly in relation to the government-owned Telstra Corporation, raising serious concerns about fairness and accountability.
Fast forward to December 1998, four years after Telstra and the arbitrator ignored the fax hacking evidence I again raised the issue of the confidentiality clauses in the COT Cases arbitration agreement, I highlighted the covert changes made to the agreement after the first four claimants signed a misleading copy with the Major Fraud Group of the Victoria Police. This was before my secondment, during which I assisted them in understanding the arbitration-related faxes that reached the arbitrator's Melbourne office but were not seen by him because they were first sent to his Sydney office. This situation notably unsettled Mr. Neil Jepson, the barrister for the Major Fraud Group. However, in late 1998, Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for COT, had not disclosed the following information.
I must again take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. 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 alarming failure to disclose the significant faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration raises serious concerns about the integrity of the process. The AFP was actively investigating the troubling interception of my faxes intended for the arbitrator’s office—a critical element of my claim. Despite this, Dr. Hughes chose to ignore this pivotal matter in his award and failed to mention it in any of his findings.
The loss of vital arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of the entire process. It is troubling that the Senate was never made aware that some of these missing faxes and documents, not received by various parties involved, were not merely a reflection of Telstra's gross misconduct. Instead, they point to a significant mismanagement of arbitration-related documents between the Sydney and Melbourne offices, where Dr. Hughes held a prominent role. This oversight compromises the fairness of the arbitration and raises critical questions about accountability at the highest levels.
Even more troubling is that Dr. Hughes was aware of the faxing problems between the Sydney and Melbourne offices before his appointment as an arbitrator for seven arbitrations, all coordinated within twelve months. During this time, COT claimants—two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne—frequently voiced their frustrations about the arbitrator's office failing to respond to their faxes. This raises alarming questions regarding potential criminal negligence and the integrity of the arbitration process itself.
The Major Fraud Group of Victoria Policerequested that I elaborate on why I suspected that Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) did not travel to Cape Bridgewater as claimed in their report dated November 10, 1993. The explanation is relatively straightforward and rooted in the evidence.
During the investigation, it was discovered that the government, with the assistance of Telstra, conducted tests on the same telephone exchange over three of the five days that BCI asserted they were testing the number 055 267211. This facility has a stringent protocol: a mandatory 15-second interval between each test call to allow the system to reset properly for the next call.Upon analysing the data, I found that BCI generated an astonishing 13,590 test calls to 055 267211. BCI would have had to initiate calls at an unrealistic rate of just 8 seconds per call to achieve this volume. This lapse not only seemed implausible but also raised serious questions about the integrity of their testing procedures, effectively rendering my arbitration process a complete farce.Despite this overwhelming evidence, Telstra continues to deny the validity of my findings and has not acknowledged its error to the government regarding the BCI tests. In a rather troubling twist, they submitted these flawed results to their clinical psychologist, attempting to label me as paranoid.The current 2025, Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver has been sitting on this evidence since January and April 1998, when Telstra submitted this false BCI information on notice to the Senate (Refer to -BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46.
Transcripts from discussions with Senator Ron Boswell and Sue Owen's barrister, who filed fraud claims against Telstra on behalf of her four clients—Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer—along with solicitor William Hunt, indicate that Sue Owen believed the report I prepared for Mr. Neil Jepson, barrister for the Victoria Police, was of exceptional quality. Please refer Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)
Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police investigation
I needed to begin this narrative about the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) during the crucial period at the end of the COT arbitrations in 1999, rather than tracing back to its origins in 1987. That year is pivotal when I purchased my cherished Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, a picturesque retreat just 18 kilometres from the bustling seaport of Portland, Victoria, Australia. This venture came after I had spent 28 tumultuous years navigating the waves as a marine cook and seafarer, interspersed with my experiences as an industrial caterer in remote mining camps, bustling holiday resorts, and a licensee managing a motel and restaurants across Victoria.
This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 and copied to me from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor government, who wrote:
“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress. This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82)
Recognising the significance of my work, the Major Fraud Group requested my assistance in elucidating the findings within these reports. Over the following two years, starting from late 1998, I visited the St Kilda Road Fraud Group complex on three separate occasions, each lasting two full days. These sessions were marked by intense discussions and a shared commitment to uncovering the truth behind the systemic failures in Telstra’s services, determined to seek justice for those affected.
Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term
Now, I find myself questioning whether I will face imprisonment in 2025 for shedding light on this glaringly discriminatory act by the Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens. I am convinced that if the current Labor government were to seek a government-appointed representative to review the two In-Camera Hansards from July 6 and 9, 1998, that representative would have to advise the Anthony Albanese government of their moral obligation to grant compensation, as former Labor Senator Chris Schacht had insisted should have been the case back in 1998. Tragically, I reflect on the fact that at least three of these sixteen individuals have since passed away, making the urgency of addressing these injustices all the more poignant.
It may be challenging to comprehend, but in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government issued written threats (refer to Senate Evidence File No 12) warning me of potential contempt charges if I ever dared to disclose the contents of these in-camera Hansard records. These pivotal documents had the power to sway the outcomes of our cases had the COT claimants chosen to challenge the arbitration process. This situation raises a profound question: Where is the justice in such a scenario?
The Senate Hansard, dated 9 July 1998, shows National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashing a fiery verbal attack at a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process, the same person who withheld my May 1994 FOI request until 23 May 1995, two weeks after the arbitrator deliberated on my claim. With palpable frustration, Senator Ron Boswell exclaimed to this Telstra thug, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,”. (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
What is so appalling about withholding relevant documents from the COT Cases so they could not support their claims, the very same reason the Senate was investigating Telstra is this: no one in the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman's (TIO) office or within government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
However, the In-Camera- ansard dated 9 July 1998, which the people of Australia are not supposed to be privy to, shows the gravity of Senator Boswell's outburst, which quickly caught the attention of the committee chair, prompting a swift intervention. Under scrutiny and recognising the need for decorum in such a serious forum, Senator Boswell was compelled to offer an apology. Turning to the chairperson more measuredly, he declared, “Madam, I withdraw that remark.” This moment of accountability underscored the importance of respectful dialogue in legislative discussions and illuminated the ongoing challenges surrounding Telstra’s treatment of COT Cases, which should be a matter of significant public interest in 2025
“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”
I want to emphasise my firm belief that the Major Fraud Group was deeply embarrassed by being forced to abandon their investigations into Telstra's alleged fraud against the COT Cases. This abandonment occurred as the Australian Federal Police did in 1994 and 1995 during the COT arbitrations, under pressure from the government. This prevailing sense of shame inadvertently led to my receipt of the In-Camera Hansard documents from July 6 and 9, which contain critical information that I have not yet disclosed.
Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".
I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced under duress into arbitration with the same monstrous Telstra Corporation who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Please read the following two witness statements.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate," - "As part of that investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work done by the technical officers." “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” - Mr Direen then states: " When I attended at the exchange, I found the log book was missing and could not be located" but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” → that of course was me.
Where are the daily statements that were recorded in the logbook? In a town of 8,000 residents, it's essential to maintain a record of which services are operating up to standard and which are not. Without this information, the system that evaluates service providers cannot function properly. So, who kept the working notes? Who worked overtime, and who did not? There must be a valid reason why this logbook was not made available to the COT Cases, especially after those cases incurred hundreds of thousands in arbitration fees to resolve their phone and faxing issues.
Before the COT Cases went into arbitration, we were told we could check out our local telephone exchange logbook. The arbitrator could see parts of it that we requested, but I never saw the logbook for the exchange that serviced my business. As shown above, Des Direen, Telstra's head of security, didn’t get access to the logbook either. How can we have a fair arbitration process if one side can show its evidence while the other can’t?
Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.
To address this alarming situation, a survey leaflet was distributed to all police officers within the Major Fraud Group office. This leaflet specifically inquired if any officer had inadvertently collected my documents related to the Bell Canada International report. Regrettably, none of the officers came forward that day to acknowledge any error in collecting the documents, which raises serious concerns about handling sensitive information.
I conclude from the comments made on absentjustice.com. Voltaire warned that it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. I believe, as all those who suddenly saw something wrong became whistleblowers, knowing from then on that freedom matters, oppression and abuse of power simply must be resisted. Those who become whistleblowers believe their stand can make a difference. Even after thirty years of fighting the mammoth known as the Telstra Corporation, struggling for justice, I hold firm to the principle of equality before the law for all. It matters. It is a non-negotiable value of this great nation of Australia. It sustains our freedom and democracy.
In July 2005, eleven years after the first four government-endorsed arbitration agreements had been signed, 14 COT members met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia), and each provided him with their stories. The Senator visibly became very emotional during this meeting when several of the COT Cases provided clear proof that our arbitration-related faxes were being screened via Telstra's telecommunications network en route to Parliament House, Canberra and vice versa, the arbitrator and our advisors, before being redirected to their intended destination. Simply put, Telstra knew each claim's strength or weakness before defending it.
However, the Senator appeared even angrier when COT case Ann Garms and I explained the resultant effect of not having the logbook of the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange, which serviced Ann's business, and the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook of the exchange that serviced my business.
The Senator’s anger was palpable as Ann Garms from the COT case and I detailed the grave implications of lacking the logbook for the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange, which was vital for Ann’s business, as well as the logbook for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange that supported my enterprise. The weight of our explanation seemed to crush the Senator and his political advisor, leaving the Senator with his face buried in his hands, visibly shaking his head in frustration. His advisor’s pen trembled in his grip, mirroring the tension in the room.
I stood up in a moment of urgency, raising a critical document high above my head. Sandra Wolfe, another participant in the COT Cases, took it from me and confidently strode over to the Senator, presenting him with what could only be described as the cornerstone of my arbitration. This document held the power to alter the course of my case.
After it had been sent via fax to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman’s office, it faced an inexplicable fate—screened and intercepted, it vanished to an unknown destination after leaving the TIO's office. Had my circumstances not been so unique, which undermined the arbitration agreement the arbitrator had improperly relied upon, I would have been poised to appeal the unjust award. It was particularly critical because, just a day prior to this letter’s dispatch, the arbitrator had discredited the very agreement used against me. It would have been nearly impossible for an appeal judge to argue against the documented findings of an arbitration that had just ruled on my claim, especially when the same arbitrator condemned the agreement the next day, on May 12, 1995, in this very letter, as unworthy of consideration, attached here as: → (Open Letter File No 55-A).
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 7 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)
It was the withholding of the telephone exchange Logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that serviced the COT Cases business, including the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which most of the COT Cases believe prompted Senator Joyce to ensure we COT Cases finally get the justice that was denied us during the COT arbitrations. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce is still a very prominent member of the National Party government.
After this meeting, Senator Joyce made a historic agreement with the Australian government. If the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the Senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce cast that crucial vote (the one vote hanging in the balance) and made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip. What made the government break their promise? To find out, click on Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued
On 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary 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 its 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.
This was the same Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne that provided Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with falsified Cape Bridgwater Bell Canada International Inc. tests before he visited Portland during my arbitration in October 1994. The purpose of the visit was to assess my mental state and determine whether I should be considered paranoid (or somewhat insane) after Bell Canada International claimed that 13,590 test calls demonstrated the efficiency of Telstra's service, despite my ongoing complaints.
When I presented Ian Joblin with evidence against Bell Canada, he mentioned that he would address this falsehood with Freehill Hollingdale & Page upon his return to Melbourne. However, only Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill signed Mr Joblin's report, and the attached witness statement was then submitted to the arbitrator; the psychologist did not sign anything.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any references to what Ian Joblin had initially documented regarding my mental state, specifically that I was of sound mind?
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 (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?"
As of May 2025, I am still awaiting a copy of Telstra's Ted Benjamin's response to John Pinnock's letter dated March 21, 1997. Given the circumstances, I am entitled to this response, particularly since it is within the statutory limitation period that permits me to appeal the arbitrator's award. This situation raises an essential question: Why was I denied access to this critical information?
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?:
When I wrote this article twelve months ago on absentjustice.com, Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, was enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitating an extended hospitalisation, underscore the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.
In 2015, I presented pivotal evidence to the Australian Federal Police, several high-ranking government ministers, and four pertinent government agencies tasked with investigating such matters. I sought answers to why these vital clauses in the Confidentiality Agreement were altered and ultimately stripped from the arbitration agreement in two distinct incidents. Despite my thorough efforts, each agency declined to investigate further, leaving a cloud of unresolved concerns.
In an even more troubling twist, when the government became aware of this profound denial of justice, they took action to reinstate clauses 25 and 26 for the remaining twelve cases, allowing these claimants—collectively known as the COT Cases—to appeal their decisions based on negligence by the arbitration consultants. Disturbingly, the three claimants involved were kept in the dark about the amendments to the other twelve agreements, further complicating an already flawed process.
The meticulous work of redacting names and sensitive information from the intricate saga of the COT Cases has proven to be both labour-intensive and financially draining. Given that no subsequent actions have arisen from these redacted documents, I feel it is vital to share the evidence on absentjustice.com. We must not shy away from identifying those who bear responsibility, including certain government regulators and elite figures in Australia who operate behind the scenes to safeguard the government’s interests.
How does one share a deeply unsettling story without revealing the identities of those who relentlessly pressure low-income Australians into repaying financial assistance they once received, all while looming threats from these powerful public officials hover over them? This is the disturbing reality of the infamous Robodebt scheme.
(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)
My story, rooted in the complexities of the COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) experience, highlights a remarkable coalition of twenty-one Australians. Sixteen of them endured outright discrimination from public servants within our government. Driven by a profound sense of justice and a commitment to uncovering the truth, this group tirelessly sought to expose the negligence of AUSTEL, the then-government communications authority now known as ACMA. They unearthed startling evidence that over 120,000 Australians were grappling with significant phone issues—issues all but ignored by the government, as documented in a damning report dated April 13, 1994. The report revealed, with shocking clarity, that officials acknowledged only a limited range of phone problems, deliberately omitting the existence of the extensive COT-type complaints, which Telstra had pressured AUSTEL to keep silent about before the report was presented to the COT Case arbitrator, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, and the public at large.
How can one articulate such an extraordinary narrative when your editor incessantly demands more substantial evidence to back your claims, firmly asserting that she cannot refine your seemingly incomprehensible assertions without undeniable proof? What steps can you take to unravel the unsettling truth that the defendants in the arbitration process—once a powerful government-owned telecommunications giant—had the audacity to leverage their network equipment to covertly screen faxed materials leaving your office? They stored these sensitive documents without your consent or even your knowledge, rerouting them to their intended recipients under false pretences. Were these defendants exploiting this intercepted information to strengthen their defence in arbitration, ultimately jeopardising the chances of innocent claimants who were merely seeking justice?
Consider the gravity of the situation: how many other arbitration processes in Australia have fallen victim to this insidious and covert form of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping—this blatant intrusion into highly confidential documentation—still an ongoing reality in legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the claimants involved in the arbitration submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, revealing that sensitive, arbitration-related documents were being clandestinely and illegally screened before they reached their intended destinations.
In my own case, despite the arbitrator's contradictory statement—confirming that six of my faxed claim documents never made it to him—I was shockingly denied the opportunity to resubmit this critical material for assessment. My fax account provides irrefutable evidence that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.
Interestingly, one of the two technical consultants who signed off on the findings in that report, in a letter dated December 17, 2014, told me, “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 evidenced by the dual time stamps on the faxes.”
Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury
As I diligently worked on my draft in 1999, I shared it with Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister. She was deeply taken aback by the unwavering denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had suffered. Helen had visited my modest holiday camp twice, and after reviewing my draft, she looked at me with conviction and said, “I will get Rupert to publish this; he will be shocked.”
One of the most perplexing aspects of my narrative for Helen was the concrete evidence I had amassed, illustrating the extensive duration during which I had suffered from illegal fax hacking. This alarming breach of privacy persisted even during her second visit to my camp, highlighting the invasive nature of this violation. It’s important to remember that in 1999, the scandal surrounding the 'News of the World' and her brother’s troubles had yet to unfold. The information I later provided to the Australian Federal Police revealed that illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations—of which I was also a claimant—dated back as far as 1994. The evidence I provided to Helen suggested that this nefarious fax hacking was still pervasive at my business in 1999, a staggering four years after my arbitration was supposed to address these grievous injustices.
During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business on 26 September 1994, they asked me 93 questions as part of their investigation into the bugging issues. Refer to the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the transcripts explicitly stating, the document: "... does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it."
Tragically, Helen passed away in 2004, a profound loss that echoed through the circles of those who valued her voice. In the following years, I sent a draft of the original version of my book, "Ring for Justice," to her husband, Geoff Handbury, hoping to recapture the spirit of our prior discussions. I recounted my conversation with Helen and humbly asked if he could provide guidance on how best to get a copy of the book into Rupert Murdoch's hands.
On October 17, 2012, Mr. Handbury replied with a handwritten letter that showcased beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship, a testament to a bygone era that feels almost obsolete in today’s digital age. Yet, despite being a well-respected philanthropist with deep ties to numerous charitable initiatives across Victoria, he was 87 years old, and regrettably, too much time had elapsed for him to assist me. Nonetheless, I cherish the memory of how the sister of the world’s most powerful newspaper owner believed my “intriguing story” deserved publication, and I remain immensely thankful for her unwavering support and belief in my cause.
Now, how can I effectively unveil my COT story—one that intricately weaves together the actions of public servants within government agencies who leaked privileged information to the Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier, Telstra—while still safeguarding the essential documents from the claimants involved in those mediations and arbitrations? These fellow Australian citizens are desperate for justice in a system that should be their sanctuary, shielding them from the injustices they have endured.
It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.
I reference the two witness statements in File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789. These critical statements vividly illustrate how a police officer felt helpless and overwhelmed while navigating a complex situation with the Telstra Corporation. Similarly, the COT Cases found themselves in a tense and challenging position, being coerced into arbitration with Telstra under significant pressure. The arbitrator and the administrator overseeing the COT arbitrations appeared to be apprehensive about withdrawing from the process, mainly due to the immense power and influence that Telstra wields within the Australian legal system. I encourage you to read the following two witness statements for further insight.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
What has not been proven, even though both the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes and the administrator to my arbitration, Warwick Smith, were aware that the Australian Federal Police was investigating the same phone/fax interception issues that Des Direen on behalf of Telstra was investigating at the Portland Telephone exchange, were real problems of great concern no stepped forward to confirm either one way of another transparently were my advance group booking enquires being redirected to another holiday camp operator or a booking agent on commission from holiday camp operators to bring business their way unaware that business they were now being advised of was poached from my intercepted telephone and faxes?
In late 1999, a significant development unfolded during an investigation by the Major Fraud Group, led by Barrister Neil Jepson. As the probe progressed, Mr. Jepson uncovered troubling fraud allegations put forth by Barrister Sue Owens. These allegations were on behalf of four individuals involved in the COT Cases: Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova, and Graham Schorer.
The allegations suggested a startling connection to Senator Ron Boswell, who had reportedly been implicated in similar claims that I had filed with the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, at the onset of my government-endorsed arbitration process in 1994. Dr. Hughes's unwillingness to investigate these serious claims made this situation even more alarming, leaving many questions unanswered.
A troubling revelation emerged, adding further complexity to an already tangled situation: critical faxes containing essential information about the fraud allegations had been intercepted before they could reach Dr. Hughes’s office. This unexpected interference created confusion and severely obstructed my efforts to compile and submit a comprehensive arbitration claim. In the wake of these unsettling developments, Mr. Jepson urgently contacted me, imploring my assistance to illuminate this grave matter, which had abruptly derailed my arbitration process. This situation had disallowed DMR & Lane, the advisors to the arbitrator, from securing the additional weeks they had requested on 30 April 1995 to finalise my arbitration adequately. Consequently, my case was prematurely concluded on 11 May 1995.
Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?
As the situation unfolded, the government communications authority, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), was informed that the systemic billing issues I had initially reported to them on 9 June 1993 and subsequently followed up on through March 1994 had not been thoroughly investigated by the arbitrator nor adequately addressed by Telstra. In a clandestine manoeuvre, AUSTEL permitted Telstra to handle that segment of my claim in camera on 16 October, without my presence or that of Dr. Hughes. This stripped me of my legal right to contest Telstra's submission on 16 October 1995, leaving Dr. Hughes powerless to issue a finding.
In sharp contrast, Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan were afforded an additional thirteen months each to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence of those claims. Meanwhile, Dr. Hughes had only permitted me to submit a complete claim, leaving me at a significant disadvantage in an already challenging landscape.
Moreover, Dr. Hughes surprised everyone by granting an unexpected two-year extension in the arbitration case of Graham Schorer. This decision essentially allowed him an additional two years, on top of the thirteen-month extension he had already been provided in the other two COT cases, to finalise his claim. One can only speculate about the motivations behind this notable favour, which seems particularly curious given that Dr. Hughes had previously assisted Mr. Schorer in a contentious Federal Court case against Telstra. In that instance, Dr. Hughes’s office had controversially withheld crucial evidence from Graham during the proceedings three years earlier, as detailed in the following Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest
Mr Jepson and several other members of the Major Fraud Group, who had worked with me three times on various two-day occasions, with me stopping in an apartment two blocks from their office, which was a short walk to Queens Road Melbourme where this apartment was, were stunned by this evidence and my ability to prove that Telstra and the government perverted the course of justice (on three occasions) by concealing the truth from the arbitration process. It is critical at this point that a link to the unlaw way in which Dr Gordon Hughes between 1994 and at least 26 September 1997, had no control over the arbitration process as proven to be the case by John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of the COT when he alerted the Senate and the government in an official Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report also dated 26 September 1997.
I need to reference John Pinnock's official acknowledgement, which includes the threats made during my arbitration. It's important to highlight that Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith did nothing to prevent Telstra from carrying out those threats. Additionally, the Australian Federal Police appeared powerless to intervene, not only in my arbitration but also in the arbitrations of all sixteen cases involved in the COT arbitration and mediation processes.
This combination of governmental endorsement of the arbitration process and the failure of the Australian Federal Police to act was further complicated by a Major Fraud Group investigation by Victoria Police from 1998 to 2000. This investigation, which aimed to address the serious denial of justice faced by the COT cases, was ultimately abandoned. However, before this startling turn of events, which led to me being asked to meet with two very influential police officers who literally forced me to take a large manila envelope home with me on leaving the St Kilida Road Victorian Police complex with assurance my five huge storage boxes of evidence would be couried to me shortly. When I asked if they could place this manila envelope in with the five storage boxes, which I received about a week later, the abruptness from both police officers was noticeable. Take it now.
Labor Party Senator Chris Schacht further articulated the gravity of the situation, emphasizing to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if the telecommunications giant were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases, while neglecting the other unresolved cases, it would be a profound "injustice to those remaining 16" individuals. Despite this warning, the John Howard National Liberal Party government moved forward, approving punitive damages for those five 'litmus' test cases to eighteen million dollars. In a remarkable turn of events, more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents, which had been shrouded in secrecy and initially withheld from the five 'litmus' test cases as well as the still unresolved sixteen COT cases, who in 2025, have still not been allowed to view those previously withheld 150,000 FOI documents.
At least some of the sixteen COT cases, including me, might have had the potential to utilise these previously hidden 150,000 FOI documents to bolster an appeal against their arbitration awards.
The twelve new chapters below, titled Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page to The Promised Documents Never Arrived, create a vibrant tapestry of titles and narratives designed to engage and captivate the public's interest. While these compelling stories will eventually be removed, they are crucial in highlighting the complex issues intertwined with the COT narrative.
These fearless trailblazers navigate a world plagued by corruption and deceit, where the burden of concealing uncomfortable truths can become a heavy cross to bear. For them, living in a state of complicity with the lies they've uncovered is not an option. Driven by a profound moral obligation, they confront these injustices head-on, determined to illuminate transgressions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their unwavering courage and steadfast commitment to truth are potent reminders of the extraordinary sacrifices made in the name of accountability. Their stories urge governments and societies to acknowledge and honour whistleblowers' invaluable role in the relentless pursuit of justice, inspiring others to do likewise.
Whistleblowing - Gaslighting
The Narcissus's Chosen Weapon
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.
The narratives above and below echo the recent British Government Post Office scandal. For more details, refer to the following link. Upon delving deeper into the Casualties of Telstra, one realises the striking resemblance to the UK Alan Bates vs. Post Office story. To watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for "Mr Bates vs. the Post Office," which went to air in Australia, → Click here. The latest update on that terrible story is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.
This UK Post Office story sheds light on how sub-post office contractors were misled; some were even jailed and, tragically, led to suicides after encountering the might of the British Post Office, a government-owned organisation similar to Telstra. The COTs (Casualties of Telstra) were compelled into arbitration in 1994 with the assurance of receiving essential documents to substantiate their claims. Even thirty years later, in 2024, COT has yet to receive these critical documents.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
A Government-backed Arbitration
An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose
AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator
Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective
In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived
In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.
Below are the captivating chapters 1 to 12 from my unpublished manuscript. The narrative has garnered insightful feedback from several esteemed individuals, including Sister Maureen Burke, IBVM, the dedicated Principal of Loretto College Ballarat, and Senator Kim Carr, who has contributed his thoughtful reflections. Their comments and perspectives follow, adding depth to the work.
Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp. Sister Donnellon later wrote:
“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp. In that time I tried many times to phone through.
Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank. Even after several re-dials there was no response. I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,
“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice” File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript, absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, Sister to Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury and Senator Kim Carr, who 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.”

Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.

Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.

Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.

Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
