This website absentjustice.com / absentjustice.com.au and www.promoteyourstory.com.au is a work in progress, last edited in December 2025
If you understand the profound significance of this research and the invaluable insights it brings to light, we encourage you to support Transparency International! Your contributions will be instrumental in amplifying awareness of the injustices that jeopardize the very foundations of democracy across the globe. Together, we can shine a spotlight on corruption and advocate for transparency, accountability, and justice. Thank you for your interest and your commitment to this essential cause.
Learn about Horrendous Crimes, Unscrupulous Criminals, and Corrupt Politicians and Lawyers Who Control the Legal Profession in Australia.
Shameful. Hideous. Treacherous.
These words only begin to describe the lawbreakers who have tarnished Australia’s legal system. Unscrupulous, vile, and corrupt actions within the government have undermined the arbitration process, a system the government once endorsed. The pressing question is: Is the Institute of Arbitrator Mediator Australia (IAMA) fundamentally biased and lacking in transparency? Click this link—representing the eleventh remedy pursued—and judge for yourself.
The fax imprint at the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) matches the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming that at least four of the COT faxes, arbitration-related faxes, were intercepted by a secondary fax screening machine connected at each of the COT Cases businesses during their (our) arbitrations.
Remember to hover your mouse or cursor over the images as you scroll down the homepage.
Hugh Grant, British Actor
As you begin to scroll down this absentjusatice.com home page and click on the chilling twelve mini evidence files, ranging from "Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page" to "The Promised Documents Never Arrived, a haunting truth unfolds. After just a glimpse into two of these files, the staggering burden of enduring constant attacks on your freedoms for over three decades becomes all too clear.
The oppressive weight of knowing that influential and malicious figures have relentlessly surveilled your life is a reality no one should have to bear. This sinister orchestration is epitomised by the plight of British actor Hugh Grant, alongside others ensnared in the treacherous Rupert Murdoch scandal. They have been granted apologies and compensation for the devastation wrought upon their lives, yet those entangled in the notorious COT Case sixteen remain forsaken. They are still waiting for the establishment to acknowledge and address the insidious intrusions that have plagued their existence for far too long. The silence is deafening, and the injustice unparalleled.
The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the Federal Attorney-General have still not answered is:
- Was the letter mentioned above (Open Letter File No 55-A) actually faxed to my office by the TIO to assist me in any pending appeal process, but was it hijacked en route?
- If the letter was never intended to be faxed to me the day after the arbitrator concluded his findings? Why was such an important letter withheld from me during my designated appeal period?
How could I have lost my arbitration appeal when the arbitrator's own wording in the document (Open Letter File No 55-A) states that the agreement he used on May 11, 1995, to deliberate his findings on my case was not a credible document? Despite this, Dr Gordon Hughes still chose to use it, fully aware that it would cause significant grief for me, my business, and my partner.
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) emailed me on 17 December 2014, fifteen years after he assisted in compiling this fax report, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)
The Long Journey
The long journey to my forthcoming ebook, The Arbitraitor, to be launched on www.promoteyourstory.com.au by 19 December 2025, underscores why understanding “the first remedy pursued” is essential. It lays bare the foundations of our struggle and the devastating implications for all who have suffered under institutional silence and betrayal.
The Evidence Files
The intricacies of each betrayal were compounded by a convoluted landscape of arbitrations and mediations, often entangling three or four separate cases at once. To navigate this chaos, our reporting on these two websites undertook the painstaking task of organising the accounts into clearly defined sections. Yet even this effort was obstructed by significant challenges encountered on absentjustice.com, where we laboured to weave together a mosaic of distressing mini‑stories that exposed the broader corruption. Our focus may also shift depending on whether the Australian government finally chooses to investigate all twenty‑one ongoing COT cases, rather than having already allowed compensation to be paid out to five of the twenty-one COT Cases named in government records as the five litmus-test cases, dating from a Senate investigation between June 1997 and March 1999.
The government’s decision to limit its inquiries to just five litmus test COT cases is particularly concerning. These cases have already resulted in over $18 million in compensation from Telstra. By focusing solely on these five cases, the government is effectively abandoning the sixteen remaining cases, leaving these Australians in limbo for two decades. This has devastated their lives and the lives of their families.
These individuals were promised similar compensation packages, contingent upon the validation of their claims through the outcomes of the litmus test cases—claims that have been substantiated. The refusal to extend compensation to these sixteen citizens, despite clear precedent, raises serious ethical concerns and highlights a significant injustice.
This situation is not just a case of bureaucratic neglect; it represents a systemic failure that undermines the principles of fairness and equity that should guide such processes. By denying these rightful reparations, the government has exacerbated feelings of betrayal and exposed the troubling power imbalance that continues to silence those who seek justice → An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
The Weight of Treachery
My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.
Leading up to the signing of the COT Cases arbitration, on 21 April 1994, AUSTEL 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.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)
An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)
This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)
A System Built on Silence
Unanswered Questions and Withheld Evidence
Exhibits 646 and 647 (see ) clearly show that, in writing, Telstra admitted 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.
This particular Telstra technician, who was then based in Portland, not only monitored my phone conversations but also took the alarming step of sharing my personal and business information with an individual named "Micky." He provided Micky with my phone and fax numbers, which I had used to contact my telephone and fax service provider (please refer to Exhibit 518, FOI folio document K03273 - ).
To this day, this technician has not been held accountable or asked to clarify who authorised him to disclose my sensitive information to "Micky." I am perplexed as to why Dr Gordon Hughes did not pursue any inquiries with Telstra regarding this local technician’s actions. Specifically, why was he permitted to reveal my private and business details without any apparent oversight or justification?
The evidence within the above-named Scandrett & Associates report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also confirmed at Exhibit 1-c → File No/13) that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello on 2 November 1998, was similarly intercepted 30 months after the conclusion of my arbitration on 11 May 1995, i.e.,
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
At the age of 81, I stand defiant, yet crushed beneath the monstrous weight of treachery that has pursued me for decades. My life has devolved into a grotesque theatre of corruption, where the darkest chapters seep into the light like venomous ink. It is not just betrayal that sends me spiralling into despair, but the insidious machinery of a malevolent legal firm in Melbourne, entwined in a web of deceit, greed, and moral decay during my arbitration in 1994/95. The very fact that crucial arbitration-related documents, which were faxed to Dr Hughes' Melbourne office for assessment, were instead misdirected to his Sydney office—and never returned—screams of betrayal. He knew of this treachery and chose silence when the Australian Federal Police began probing the mystery of my lost faxes; his inaction is nothing less than criminal → Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.
I must 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 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, (the company's) 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.
I reiterate, Dr Hughes’s failure to disclose the faxing issues to the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration is deeply concerning. The AFP was investigating the interception of my faxes to the arbitrator's office. Yet, this crucial matter was a significant aspect of my claim that Dr Hughes chose not to address in his award or mention in any of his findings. The loss of essential arbitration documents throughout the COT Cases is a serious indictment of the process, as was Dr Hughes's conflict of interest during that process (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).
Open Letter dated 25 September 2025 → "The first remedy pursued"
In 2025, Dr Gordon Hughes is Principal Lawyer of Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers Melbourne → https://shorturl.at/L4tbp
Rather than confront the horrifying reality that he had lost control over four arbitrations involving me and three other Australians, Hughes orchestrated a campaign of calculated destruction. He did not stumble into dishonour — he engineered it. With his wife either a willing conspirator or a silent accomplice, they twisted a trivial moment into a monstrous fabrication: a grotesque lie that I had made a 2:00 AM phone call to her. This was no misunderstanding. It was a weapon forged in malice, designed to paint me as a predator in the night, a demon to be feared, and to suffocate any investigation into Hughes’s own corruption within the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
The abyss deepened when John Pinnock, Australia’s second Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, joined this insidious conspiracy. In a deceitful letter to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Pinnock shamelessly implicated me, alleging I had confessed in writing to the fabricated call. I never wrote such a letter. The lie was pure invention, a phantom conjured to dismantle my existence. And yet, Pinnock never produced this supposed confession — because it did not exist. The truth was buried beneath layers of deceit, and the silence of institutions became their accomplice.
This was not incompetence. It was a deliberate, orchestrated campaign of lies, betrayal, and character assassination. It was corruption weaponised, treachery institutionalised, deceit sanctified by those entrusted with justice. Their actions were not isolated — they were systemic, a coordinated effort to erase truth and protect the guilty.
Haunted by this web of lies, traumatised by the profound damage inflicted upon my life, I reached out in desperation in June 2011 to The Most Hon. Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, pleading for recognition of the horror I endured. I copied my entreaties to Robert McLelland, Federal Attorney General, and Robert Clark, Victorian Attorney General, clinging to the faint hope that truth might pierce the cold indifference that enveloped me. I sent my pleas to government officials, begging for validation against the chilling grip of Hughes, the malicious deceit of Pinnock, and the false witness statements manufactured by Telstra to defend their corruption in my 1994/95 arbitration.
I implore you to read my COT story. It is not merely a personal account — it is a revelation of systemic horror. It exposes corruption so insidious, treachery so malignant, that it leaves scars not only on my life but on the integrity of justice itself. The malicious lies of Hughes, Pinnock, and Rundell from 1995 and 1996 are not forgotten. They loom like a grotesque spectre, an elephant in the room that refuses to be ignored. Their deceit is a cancer that festers still, protected by silence and cover-up.
It is this urgency — this relentless need for justice — that compels me to speak. My story is not just mine. It is a warning, a testament, a cry against the insidious treachery that still holds power to cover up its crimes.
Echoes of Betrayal: Wheat Sales to China
The betrayal is not new. Reflecting on Australia’s wheat sales to Communist China in 1967, the hypocrisy becomes clear. Bureaucrats knowingly allowed grain to be repurposed to fuel North Vietnam’s war effort against Australian, New Zealand, and American troops. This act of negligence and complicity demonstrates how detached decision-makers, insulated by theory and bureaucracy, can transform potential solutions into catastrophic consequences. It is a reminder that betrayal often comes not from enemies abroad, but from incompetence at home.
The People's Republic of China
Murdered for Mao: The killings China ‘forgot’
The Letter, the Truth, and the Waiting
In August 1967, I found myself in a situation so precarious, so surreal, that it would etch itself into the marrow of my memory. I was aboard a cargo ship docked in China, surrounded by Red Guards stationed on board twenty-four hours a day, spaced no more than thirty paces apart. After being coerced into writing a confession—declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan—I was told by the second steward, who handled the ship’s correspondence, that I had about two days before a response to my letter might reach me. That response, whatever it might be, would be delivered by the head of the Red Guards himself.
It was the second steward who quietly suggested I write to my parents. I did. I poured myself into 22 foolscap pages, writing with the urgency of a man who believed he might not live to see the end of the week. I told my church-going parents that I was not the saintly 18-year-old they believed I was. I confessed that the woman they had so often thanked in their letters—believing her to be my landlady or carer—was in fact my lover. She was 42. I was 18 when we met. From 1963 to 1967, she had been my anchor, my warmth, my truth. I wrote about my life at sea, about the chaos and the camaraderie, about the loneliness and the longing. I wrote because I needed them to know who I really was, in case I was executed before I ever saw them again.
As the ship’s cook and duty mess room steward, I had a front-row seat to the daily rhythms of life on board. I often watched the crew eat their meals on deck, plates balanced on the handrails that lined the ship. We were carrying grain to China on humanitarian grounds, and yet, the irony was unbearable—food was being wasted while the people we were meant to help were starving. Sausages, half-eaten steaks, baked potatoes—they’d slip from plates and tumble into the sea. But there were no seagulls to swoop down and claim them. They’d been eaten too. The food floated aimlessly, untouched even by fish, which had grown scarce in the harbour. Starvation wasn’t a concept. It was a presence. It was in the eyes of the Red Guards who watched us eat. It was in the silence that followed every wasted bite.
A Tray of Leftovers and a Silent Exchange
After my arrest, I was placed under house arrest aboard the ship. One day, I took a small metal tray from the galley and filled it—not with scraps, but with decent leftovers. Food that would have gone into the stockpot or been turned into dry hash cakes. I walked it out to the deck, placed it on one of the long benches, patted my stomach as if I’d eaten my fill, and walked away without a word.
Ten minutes later, I returned. The tray had been licked clean.
At the next meal, I did it again—this time with enough food for three or four Red Guards. I placed the tray on the bench and left. No words. No eye contact. Just food. I repeated this quiet ritual for two more days, all while waiting for the response to my letter. During that time, something shifted. The Red Guard, who had been waking me every hour to check if I was sleeping, stopped coming. The tension in the air thinned, just slightly. And I kept bringing food—whenever the crew was busy unloading wheat with grappling hooks wrapped in chicken wire, I’d slip out with another tray.
To this day, I don’t know what saved me. It was certainly not the letter declaring myself a U.S. aggressor and a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader in Taiwan. Maybe it was luck. Or perhaps it was that tray of food, offered without expectation, without speech, without condition. A silent gesture that said, “I see you. I know you’re hungry. I know you’re human.”
And maybe, just maybe, that was enough. British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smith's Seaman. → Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong-2
Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1
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, a 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.”
In May 1994, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, demanded answers from Telstra regarding their suspicious surveillance of my phone conversations with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. What sinister motives lie behind their actions? Why did they redact crucial portions of their files that documented my discussions with Fraser over twelve months? Telstra’s silence spoke volumes, as they repeatedly evaded Wynack's inquiries.
I had written to Fraser on September 18, 1967, exposing a treacherous wheat deal that was not just a business transaction; it was clandestinely fueling the enemy that was ruthlessly attacking our troops, as well as those from New Zealand and the USA, entrenched in the jungles of North Vietnam.
What dark purpose drove Telstra to monitor my phone calls between April 1993 and April 1994 about events that unfolded in August and September 1967, decades earlier? The implications are chilling.
Why didn't Dr Hughes, as arbitrator to my arbitration demand the same answers from Telstra as the Commonwealth Ombudsman was asking?
I spoke with the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to discuss events I witnessed, along with other seamen, when our ship unloaded Australian wheat from the holds of the MV Hopepeak. I wonder if, when he was the Minister of the Army on 18 September 1967, he remembers my two-page letter to him detailing what we had seen. Our precious cargo of wheat was sent to China on humanitarian grounds to alleviate hunger among the Chinese people. However, some of this cargo was being reloaded and redirected to North Vietnam, where it would feed the army that was killing and maiming Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. troops in the jungles of Vietnam.
I relayed to Mr Fraser my profound and unsettling concerns about the disturbing experiences I suffered at the hands of the government-owned Telstra Corporation, both in the lead-up to and during my arbitration. These included insidious and manipulative threats from Telstra, accompanied by a glaring absence of any governmental investigation into these menacing actions or any genuine effort to hold Telstra accountable for its transgressions.
Something was not right.
On July 4, 1994, (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A), I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra representative on the arbitration defence team. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred five months before the arbitrator should have proved this information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. It was at this early stage of my arbitration, less than three months in, that Dr Hughes had already broken the rules of the arbitration agreement. 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 intention of submitting any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardise my access to crucial documents and risk ongoing problems 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 affect the arbitrator's decision in my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on 26 September 1994. During this visit, they began asking probing questions about my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating 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.
Threats carried out
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 Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or the government has ever investigated the disastrous impact of this withholding 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 its investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged in a civil arbitration.
Why did Dr Hughes, the government-appointed arbitrator, fail to report these threats to the Supreme Court of Victoria, under whose auspices the arbitration was conducted, especially after Telstra implemented these threats
Senate Hansard dated June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s primary arbitration defence Counsel (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 the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the necessary expertise, i.e., government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before it 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, regarding Telstra officials, holds my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I actually 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 evident that this story had two sides.
I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action.
I have never received a written response from BCI, but 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."
The Canadian government’s handling of the Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange report reveals a chilling, troubling narrative—one intricately woven into a sinister tapestry of deceit and manipulation. In Australia, I witnessed key stakeholders—government officials, legal representatives, and those overseeing the arbitration process—demonstrate a blatant apathy toward pursuing the truth. Their indifference cultivated an insidious culture of corruption that thrived in the shadows.
😈 The Devil's letters → the first remedy pursued
What dark motives drove the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock, and arbitration project manager John Rundell to engage in such treachery? These so-called "pillars of society" conspired to weave a web of deceit, crafting letters laden with malicious lies. It is nothing short of appalling that Dr Hughes allowed his wife’s good name to be manipulated by John Pinnock in their desperate attempt to hide their malevolent actions from Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. This act of betrayal is among the most contemptible imaginable.
John Pinnock’s second dishonest letter, one of four authored by this unscrupulous trio, effectively halted an investigation that could have validated my claims of persistent telephone problems. Instead, their calculated deceit has festered for over three decades. In this letter to The Hon. David Hawker MP, Pinnock falsely claimed that my billing issues had been resolved during arbitration by May 11, 1995. However, the information available on absentjustice.com starkly reveals that these problems continued until at least November 2006—eleven long years after my arbitration had concluded.
✍️When Pinnock wrote this misleading letter to The Hon. David Hawker MP in March 1996, he had already received damning evidence from AUSTEL, the government communications authority, in a letter dated August 3, 1995 (see 46-K Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l). This letter clearly stated that my ongoing 1800 billing arbitration issues had not yet been addressed, yet Pinnock chose to ignore it, perpetuating a reign of deception. The depth of this corruption is alarming, highlighting a willingness to sacrifice integrity and truth.
In fact, neither John Pinnock nor Telstra would investigate my ongoing complaint through to 2001, telling the government my 1994/95 arbitration had fixed my ongoing telephone problems. In desperation, my partner and I sold the business in December 2001 for land value only, because there was no goodwill left sell. Darren and Jenny Lewis took the gamble and lost, as the following exhibit shows → See Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story.
The False Award
The arbitrator, fully aware of the deep-rooted corruption pervading the case, chose to turn a blind eye before issuing his formal award on May 11, 1995. In a betrayal, he deceitfully presented the DMR & Lane technical report as a definitive set of findings, despite the glaring fact that only 23 assessments had been conducted by the consultants. This misrepresentation was not an oversight; it was a calculated ploy to obscure the truth.
“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation that these faults would remain ‘open’,” (Exhibit 45-c -File No/45-A)
Click the link below →
Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”
Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”
Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.
Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom, doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes being reported.”
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
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 unauthorised 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.
Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term.
It may be unsettling to confront, but in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government issued chilling written threats (see Senate Evidence File No 12) warning me of potential contempt charges if I even dared to reveal the sinister contents of the in-camera Hansard records from July 6 and 9, 1998. These records lay bare a dark conspiracy: that ignoring the five COT cases under investigation by the Senate Committee, while leaving the remaining sixteen unresolved, would be a gross injustice against the ignored claimants.
An intense confrontation unfolded in a heated Senate committee meeting when National Party Senator Ron Boswell delivered a fiery critique to a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable frustration, he exclaimed, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” his voice resonating throughout the chamber. The remarks cast a shadow over the already tense atmosphere as Telstra's conduct regarding the COT Cases took centre stage.
However, the gravity of his words quickly caught the committee chair's attention, 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, a matter of significant public interest.
“Madam, I withdraw that remark, 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.”
💰 Discriminative Compensation: The Litmus Divide
A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, made it clear to the Telstra arbitration officer that awarding compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases—while ignoring the unresolved claims of the remaining sixteen—would be a grave injustice. Yet the John Howard-led National Liberal Party government sanctioned punitive damages solely for those five, along with the release of over 150,000 Freedom of Information documents that had been concealed during their arbitrations from 1994 to 1998.
Those five individuals received a combined $18 million. That sum should have been divided equally among all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases. It was not.
Will I go to jail in 2025 for revealing this grossly discriminatory act by the Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens? I believe the current Labor government—if they appointed a representative to view the In-Camera Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998—would be morally compelled to act. As Senator Schacht stated in 1998, compensation should have been extended to all thirty-one cases. Sadly, at least four of those sixteen have since passed away.
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
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
