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..

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.