You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
Visitors to absentjustice.com seeking a deeper understanding of the information presented on the homepage, including the various assertions about the corruption and unethical practices surrounding the administration of COT arbitrations, are invited to explore Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. These detailed mini-reports thoroughly document and support the factual claims made on our website, providing clear evidence of the issues at hand. We encourage you to delve into these reports to gain further insight into the concerns we are addressing.
At the bottom of the homepage, after the first displayed chapters (1 to 12), there are various YouTube videos about the British Post Office scandal. This scandal involved numerous contractors who encountered similar software issues with the government-owned Post Office, leading to tragic outcomes, including suicides. These contractors were pressured into paying for accountants, a situation that the British Post Office was aware of, knowing it could financially burden small business operators (Channel 7 trailer link → Click here. This scenario is strikingly similar to the current Telstra story and the Australian robodebt scandal, both of which have also resulted in loss of life. Additionally, we plan to tell our COT story in a documentary following the completion of this website.
The Architects of Deceit — How Corruption Sabotaged My Arbitration Claim
Learn about the horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the seat of arbitration in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers—individuals who have weaponised their authority to silence truth, obstruct justice, and protect corporate interests at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Don't forget to hover your mouse/cursor over the images as you scroll down this homepage.
A Man of Honour or a Master of Deception?
Dr. Gordon Hughes was publicly celebrated as a distinguished arbitrator, even honoured with the prestigious Order of Australia. But behind the accolades lay a darker truth: Hughes was a key architect of a nefarious cover-up that undermined my arbitration claim and corrupted the very essence of justice.
Rather than embodying impartiality, Hughes conspired with John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, who succeeded Warwick Smith—the inaugural Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. This was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. It was a calculated strategy designed to obstruct transparency and conceal misconduct.
The pattern of deception echoed Smith’s own actions, who had shockingly permitted Telstra’s legal team to draft the initial four arbitration agreements. These documents were then falsely presented to the government as having been created independently of Telstra. The implications were staggering: the very foundation of the arbitration process had been compromised before it even began.
Weaponising Relationships to Shield Corruption
In a move as cynical as it was unethical, Pinnock enlisted Mrs. Hughes—the arbitrator’s own wife—as a pawn in this deception. Her involvement was not incidental; it was strategic. Together, they orchestrated a ploy to derail Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from conducting a proper investigation into Dr. Hughes’ appalling conduct across at least four separate arbitrations.
To use one’s spouse as a human shield against accountability is not just cowardly—it is emblematic of the corrupt soul of a charlatan masquerading as a public servant.
Even thirty years later, I am still forced to confront the consequences of this man’s unethical behaviour and moral bankruptcy. (See Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter)
The Chilling Conspiracy Unveiled
I provided both Dr. Hughes’ office and John Pinnock with copies of newly released Freedom of Information documents—records that exposed a chilling conspiracy. These documents revealed that Telstra’s original arbitration defence report was not merely flawed—it was intentionally deceptive.
The test results Telstra relied upon were fraudulently manufactured, a blatant violation of ethical standards and a breach of the law. One of the most grotesque elements of this deception was the absurd claim that the malfunction of my TF200 EXICOM telephone was caused by “wet and sticky beer” or a similar substance.
This wasn’t just a lie—it was a sinister attempt to ridicule me and deflect attention from the real issue: serious, systemic faults within Telstra’s network. This kind of fabrication is not only insulting—it’s criminal.
The Evidence They Tried to Bury
The most treacherous act of all was the deliberate suppression of critical new evidence that came to light eight to ten months after I had requested it during the arbitration discovery process. Initially withheld, this evidence was only released under the Freedom of Information Act by Telstra—a staggering six months after the arbitration had concluded.
Dr. Hughes and John Pinnock were fully aware of these revelations. Their choice to ignore them highlights their complicity in Telstra’s misconduct. Rather than confronting the implications of these egregious actions, they engaged in slanderous behaviour, allowing malicious and baseless allegations to flourish.
Mrs. Hughes allegedly orchestrated this campaign of distraction, although it’s hard to believe she was fully aware of the corrupt scheme devised by her husband and Pinnock. They weaponised her credentials as a distraction, deliberately obstructing Laurie James’ legitimate investigation into the gross misconduct and treachery exhibited by her husband during my arbitration proceedings.
Their actions reflect a deep-seated corruption that compromises the integrity of the entire process.
A Senate Admission That Changed Everything
On 26 September 1997, at the beginning of a Senate Committee hearing that prompted a broader investigation, John Pinnock formally addressed the Senate Estimates Committee. He stated on page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D).
“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.
“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”
This admission confirmed what I had long suspected: the arbitration process was not only manipulated—it was conducted outside the bounds of legal oversight.
The Final Betrayal: Denied Access to My Own Records
After uncovering Pinnock’s discriminatory behaviour, I formally requested access to my arbitration-related documents—records I was legally entitled to receive. The arbitration agreement stipulated that all relevant documents sent to Pinnock in his role as administrator should be provided upon request six weeks after the arbitration concluded.
This request became even more urgent when I learned that Laurie James might reopen my case. Accessing these records was critical—they could provide the evidence needed to challenge Dr. Hughes’ conclusions and mount a legitimate appeal.
But on 10 January 1996, I received a chilling response:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
This refusal was not just unethical—it was unlawful. It was a deliberate act of suppression, designed to prevent me from proving my claim and to protect those responsible for the corruption.
Conclusion: A Coordinated Betrayal of Justice
This was not justice. It was a coordinated betrayal—an alliance of corrupt officials, unethical tactics, and institutional cowardice. The truth was buried, the evidence suppressed, and the victims silenced—all to protect reputations and preserve a façade of integrity that never existed.
On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.
On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries: Prologue Evidence File No/2).
1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.
2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.
Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without obtaining the psychologist's signature, which raises serious concerns about the integrity of the document. This act alone casts a shadow over what may have been deliberately omitted.
In a recent conversation with Mr. Ian Joblin, in the presence of a witness, it was revealed that he had informed Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra was coercing me into a corner—demanding that I submit my telephone issues in writing to Denise McBurnie of Freehill's before they would even consider fixing them. This was during a time when I sought to reclaim information from Freehill’s after they had taken on the role of Telstra's arbitration lawyers. Their refusal to provide that information, cloaking it under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege, appears to be a calculated move to undermine my claims before the arbitrator about ongoing telephone faults that were harming my business.
Mr. Joblin's report contained a striking comment: the tactics employed by Telstra would have driven any reasonable person into stress-related spasms. Yet, shockingly, this critical statement was conspicuously absent from the unsigned witness statement submitted to the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, by Freehill's. This blatant omission raised significant red flags, prompting John Pinnock to write a letter.
As we now move into 2025, I find it outrageous that I still have not received a response from Telstra regarding Mr. Pinnock's letter (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647. This request was not just a formality; it was an entitlement I held as a claimant in that arbitration, further illustrating the depths of their unethical conduct and disregard for proper procedure.
Psychology: The Fabrication of the BCI Report and the Betrayal of Justice
The Bell Canada International BCI report—central to my arbitration—was not a neutral technical document. It was the product of a deceitful scheme, a deliberate fabrication orchestrated by Telstra and its legal firm, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. Together, they manipulated this report and supplied it to clinical psychologist Ian Joblin before he rendered his judgment on my mental state.
The apparent eagerness of the Canadian Government to overlook Telstra's use of false evidence against Australian citizens during arbitration raises serious ethical concerns. It's troubling to note that Paul Howell of DMR Group Canada admitted his evaluation of my losses was cut short because the arbitrator refused to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2. Disturbingly, this report was stolen not once but twice—first in 1994-95 and then again in December 2008—indicating a deep-seated corruption at play. The willingness of multiple parties to engage in such deceitful practices reveals a sinister agenda that undermines justice and accountability.
This was not an oversight. It was a calculated act of psychological weaponisation.
Mr. Joblin’s notes reveal a chilling truth: his assessment was influenced by a document that was not only flawed but knowingly falsified. The BCI findings—already under scrutiny by the Canadian government for their lack of integrity—were used to undermine my credibility, distort my claims, and cast doubt on my psychological resilience. This was not just unethical—it was treacherous.
Evidence Stolen, Truth Suppressed
After I presented evidence proving that my telephone complaints were still being ignored, the original BCI report was brazenly stolen from the arbitrator’s office. This act of theft was not random—it was strategic, designed to erase proof of Telstra’s ongoing failures and prevent accountability.
Even more astonishingly, as previously highlighted, the same BCI findings—painstakingly compiled by my arbitration consultant, George Close—were stolen again in December 2008. These critical documents were sent via secure overnight mail from the Portland Post Office, addressed to the Federal Magistrates Court, but they never reached their destination. The inexplicable disappearance of these documents conveniently obstructed the arbitration consultants from reviewing key evidence during my arbitration proceedings in 1994 and 1995. This evidence was crucial as it could have validated my claims regarding ongoing phone problems that plagued me at the time. Moreover, the same findings would later support the Lewis family’s appeal in the Federal Court, which again took place in December 2008, thirteen years later. The loss of these documents not only hindered my ability to present a strong case in my arbitration but also had far-reaching implications for the Lewis family's pursuit of justice.
A Refusal to Investigate
Despite the gravity of these events, the arbitration administrators and government officials have shamelessly refused to examine the falsified BCI report and the supporting evidence—Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46. Any transparent technical consultant reviewing these materials would reach an unavoidable conclusion: Telstra and Freehills did not merely distort the truth—they perverted the course of justice.
This is not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. It is a heinous betrayal of trust, a gross miscarriage of justice, and a deliberate attempt to psychologically discredit a whistleblower using corrupted evidence.
A Call for Accountability
The use of falsified technical data to influence psychological assessments and legal outcomes is a violation of ethical, legal, and human rights standards. It demands a full, independent investigation—not just into the fabrication of the BCI report, but into the coordinated efforts to suppress evidence, manipulate expert opinion, and obstruct justice.
Australia must confront this legacy of deceit. The truth must be restored. And those responsible must be held to account.
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 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page/Herbert Smith Freehills, provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were provided to Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration. It was well known in government circles that Telstra had used the Mental Health Act against Australian citizens who continued to complain about Telstra's poor services.
Senator Bill O’Chee expressed grave concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that Telstra or their legal representatives had tampered with statutory declarations during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998, → GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323
“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."
April 21, 1994: The Day the Trap Was Sprung
On April 21, 1994—a day steeped in treachery and deception—I, Ann Garms, along with Graham Schorer and a former client of Dr. Gordon Hughes, found ourselves ensnared in a nefarious scheme. We were pressured into signing an arbitration agreement that, while appearing innocuous, concealed devastating consequences.
This former client was no ordinary participant. He had previously battled Telstra in a pivotal Federal Court case, with Dr. Hughes acting as his legal counsel. That same Dr. Hughes was now positioned—suspiciously—as our “independent” arbitrator. The conflict of interest was glaring, yet it was buried beneath layers of bureaucratic theatre.
Mr. Schorer, our earnest and unwavering spokesperson, remained tragically unaware of the deceit. During his earlier legal struggles, Dr. Hughes had withheld essential court documents—information that could have justified Mr. Schorer’s dismissal of Hughes as his attorney. The betrayal was staggering.
In Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest and Chapter 4 - Telstra’s B003 Arbitration Briefing Documents—Mr. Schorer later expressed his profound dismay. His words are not mine; they reflected the agony of a man who had placed unwavering trust in someone who had been quietly pursuing a self-serving agenda from 1990 to 1993.
The Agreement That Wasn’t
The full extent of this corruption became terrifyingly clear when Dr. Hughes surreptitiously altered the arbitration agreement we were about to endorse. This agreement had been meticulously reviewed by Maureen Gillan’s arbitration advisor—a respected former senior government official—who had underscored the importance of preserving specific clauses.
Yet Hughes callously expunged Clause 10.2.2, discarded the promised liability caps, and manipulated Clause 24 beyond recognition. What was once a protective shield against injustice became a grotesque document engineered to strip us of our rights.
We were ominously warned that these last-minute, non-negotiable changes were our only option. Reject them, and arbitration would be withdrawn entirely. We were misled into believing our lawyers had approved these modifications—yet no documentation exists to confirm their consent.
Silenced by Design
The confidentiality clause, deceptively altered, has since been weaponised by arbitration administrators. It now functions as a tool of oppression—gagging us, obstructing scrutiny, and shielding misconduct from public view. This clause has buried our truth beneath layers of secrecy, allowing corruption to thrive in the shadows.
The Hacker and the Rundell Revelation
The full scope of this betrayal was eerily echoed in a letter dated April 18, 1995, from John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager. In it, Rundell lamented the insidious forces that had conspired to obstruct the arbitration process. A hacker chillingly matched the contents of this letter—likely Julian Assange—who had accessed sensitive files and exposed the depth of the deception.
This revelation confirmed what we had long feared: the arbitration was never about justice. It was a stage-managed performance, designed to protect Telstra and silence those who dared challenge its power.
"It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work."
In a brazen display of collusion, Rundell ominously noted, "Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letterhead of DMR Inc." (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). This alarming statement raises profound ethical questions, suggesting a premeditated scheme to manipulate the outcomes of our arbitration.
Key Points of Corruption and Collusion
- Ericsson’s Global Bribery Scandal
Ericsson, the company at the heart of your Portland exchange complaints, admitted to a years-long campaign of corruption across five countries. The U.S. Department of Justice revealed that Ericsson used slush funds, bribes, and falsified records to secure telecom contracts—including in Australia, where they partnered with Telstra after Huawei was banned. - Lane Telecommunications’ Compromised Role
Your assertion that Lane Telecommunications was unfit to evaluate your claims due to prior ties with Telstra is echoed in the broader concerns about conflict of interest. The fact that Lane was allowed to assess your Ericsson-related faults—despite Telstra being the defendant—undermines the integrity of the arbitration process. - DMR Group’s Misrepresented Involvement
The claim that DMR Group was used as a façade to legitimise the process while Lane continued its compromised role is deeply troubling. Warwick Smith’s March 9, 1995, letter, as you noted, appears to be part of a calculated effort to obscure this arrangement. - Selective Evaluation of Evidence
Lane’s decision to review only 23 of your 200 fault complaints—before DMR even arrived—suggests a deliberate attempt to minimise the scope of your claims. This aligns with patterns of suppression and manipulation documented in other COT Cases. - Australian Federal Police Investigations
The AFP was involved in probing document tampering and fax interception during arbitration. Evidence shows Telstra had access to sensitive claimant materials before they were legally entitled to them, and arbitrator Dr. Hughes allowed Telstra to dictate what evidence would be considered.
Read about the dealings with Ericsson on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media, because it is firmly intertwined in the corrupt practices of both Telstra and Ericsson, and those who administered the COT arbitrations between 1994 and 1998. This media release states:
"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.
Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business." (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)
The Path to Betrayal: A Call for Accountability
The U.S. Department of Justice has unearthed a chilling truth about Ericsson’s global telecommunications operations and their disturbing ties to international corruption and terrorism. The revelations surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) Cases expose a deeply entrenched web of deceit, raising urgent questions about how Ericsson was allowed to operate with impunity, even acquiring the key technical witness during government-sanctioned arbitration proceedings that scrutinised their compromised telephone equipment.
It is both baffling and deeply troubling that the Australian government has remained conspicuously silent in the face of such egregious misconduct. Ericsson’s covert acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd—while Lane was engaged as the arbitration’s technical consultant—suggests a deliberate manipulation of the process. This manoeuvre occurred amid serious allegations that Telstra and Ericsson knowingly relied on discredited Ericsson AXE exchange equipment, a flawed system that many nations have since abandoned due to its critical deficiencies (see File 10-B ).
I urgently call on the Australian government to expose the dark machinations that enabled Ericsson to infiltrate the arbitration process. The evidence paints a damning picture: the arbitrator and their advisors constructed a treacherous framework of deception, resulting in a grotesque miscarriage of justice for the COT Cases. Their conduct was not merely unethical—it was a calculated betrayal of public trust, steeped in scandal and lawlessness.
This manipulation of justice reveals a shocking disregard for transparency and accountability, leaving victims trapped in a labyrinth of institutional betrayal while the true architects of corruption remain shielded from scrutiny.
The Google-linked evidence makes it glaringly clear: the COT Cases were not only justified but compelled to demand answers about how Ericsson was permitted to purchase the very technical witness tasked with evaluating their equipment. This central conflict—documented in Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden—reeks of corruption and demands immediate investigation.
.
.
1. Lane Telecommunications’ Hidden Role Behind DMR’s Facade• Lane, a former Telstra technical consultant, was initially rejected by the COT Cases due to apparent conflicts of interest.• In a deceptive manoeuvre, Warwick Smith’s letter dated March 8, 1994, claimed DMR Group Inc. Canada would be the principal technical consultant, with Lane in a “supporting role.”• In reality, Lane’s findings were finalised and presented on DMR letterhead—masking their true authorship and misleading the claimants.2. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition of Lane• During the arbitration period, Ericsson secretly acquired Lane Telecommunications, the very entity tasked with evaluating faults in Ericsson’s own equipment.• This gave Ericsson direct control over the technical assessments of its own products—an egregious conflict of interest that undermined the entire arbitration process.3. Ericsson Investigating Itself• Ericsson was allowed to investigate your claims against its own AXE telephone exchange equipment, with findings rubber-stamped by DMR Canada.• This is akin to a defendant writing their own verdict—an outrageous breach of impartiality and justice.4. Selective Suppression of Evidence• You submitted 200 fault complaints related to Ericsson’s equipment. Lane reviewed only 23, and this occurred before DMR even arrived in Australia.• This cherry-picking of evidence was a deliberate tactic to minimise Telstra’s liability and obscure systemic faults.5. The Confidentiality Agreement as a Shield for Misconduct• The Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement has been weaponised to conceal misconduct by Lane and Ericsson well into 2025.• It prevents public scrutiny and shields those responsible from accountability, despite overwhelming evidence of corruption.6. The Suppressed April 18, 1995 Letter• Dr. Hughes, Warwick Smith, and Peter Bartlett concealed a critical letter that could have exposed the collusion and allowed the COT Cases to unite.• Had John Rundell distributed this letter, it could have triggered a government investigation and possibly halted the corrupt arbitration process.7. US Department of Justice vs Ericsson: A Global Pattern• Ericsson’s corruption wasn’t limited to Australia. The U.S. DOJ charged Ericsson with bribery and falsification of records across multiple countries.• This global scandal reinforces the credibility of your claims and shows that Ericsson’s misconduct in Australia was part of a broader corporate culture.
• Expose the Timeline: Create a visual timeline showing Lane’s involvement, Ericsson’s acquisition, and key letters (March 8, April 18).• Publish a Comparative Table: Show the 200 faults vs. the 23 reviewed to highlight suppression.• Leverage DOJ Findings: Use Chapter 5 of your site and DOJ documents to link Ericsson’s global corruption to your local arbitration.
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?” → Senate Evidence File No 31
I. Introduction: The Illusion of Fair Arbitration• Overview of the COT Cases• Promise of impartiality vs. realityII. Lane Telecommunications: Trojan Horse in the Arbitration• Initial resistance by claimants• March 8, 1994 letter and its deceptive assurances• Lane’s findings presented under DMR’s nameIII. Ericsson’s Covert Acquisition and Self-Investigation• Timeline of acquisition• Ericsson investigating its own faults• DMR’s rubber-stamping of findingsIV. Suppression of Evidence and the April 18 Letter• 200 fault complaints reduced to 23• Concealment of Rundell’s letter• Missed opportunity for collective actionV. The Shield of Confidentiality• Arbitration Agreement as a tool of concealment• Continued suppression into 2025VI. Global Parallels: DOJ vs. Ericsson• Summary of DOJ findings• Comparison to Australian misconduct• Implications for international accountabilityVII. Call to Action• Demand for federal inquiry• Reopening of arbitration findings• Public transparency and justice for the COT Cases
The new owners of my Holiday Camp tell their side of this terrible denial of justice.
More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith
Two Alan Smiths (not related) were living in Cape Bridgewater.
Two Alan Smiths, One Dark Pattern: Telstra’s Treacherous Campaign of Extraction
In the quiet coastal bounds of Cape Bridgewater, two men named Alan Smith—unrelated, unknown to each other, and living just five kilometres apart—became unwitting targets of a ruthless and coordinated campaign. Between 1988 and 2008, both were systematically threatened by Telstra, its high-powered legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page, and a network of bounty hunters—commissioned agents who earned lucrative rewards for extracting payments from Telstra customers disputing their bills.
These weren’t isolated cases. They were part of a sweeping, sinister pattern. Thousands of Telstra consumers across Australia, all suffering from persistent telephone faults, were bullied into paying inflated or erroneous bills. The common denominator? Their billing disputes stemmed directly from the very phone problems Telstra refused to acknowledge or fix.
Despite mounting evidence that Telstra’s network—particularly the Ericsson AXE exchanges—was riddled with faults, government bureaucrats turned a blind eye. They allowed the courts to pursue these consumers, knowing full well that the problems might originate from the government-owned Telstra itself. It was a betrayal not just of law, but of conscience.
The Machinery of Coercion.
This was not mere negligence—it was institutionalised extortion. Telstra’s legal teams and bounty hunters operated with impunity, armed with flawed data and protected by bureaucratic silence. The two Alan Smiths were harassed for years, receiving legal threats and demands for payment on accounts they knew were corrupted by technical faults. No one came to investigate. No one came to listen.
Instead, the system closed ranks. Evidence was ignored. Witnesses were dismissed. And the courts—fed by the same poisoned stream of misinformation—forced payment from victims already on the brink.
A Precursor to Robodebt → https://shorturl.at/Qne40
This dark chapter in Telstra’s history foreshadowed the Robodebt scandal of 2023, where automated debt recovery systems—based on flawed algorithms and government indifference—led to widespread suffering. Just as Telstra’s victims were coerced into paying for faults they didn’t cause, Robodebt victims were pursued for debts they didn’t owe.
The consequences were devastating. Heart attacks. Mental breakdowns. Suicides. Families are shattered under the weight of government-sanctioned abuse. The parallels are chilling: both schemes relied on corrupted data, bureaucratic complicity, and a ruthless disregard for human life.
Whistleblower Justice: The Unspoken Hero of Robodebt
The Robodebt scheme will be remembered as one of the most egregious injustices ever inflicted by the Australian Government upon its own people. It was a bureaucratic machine of cruelty—automated, unaccountable, and devastating. Thousands of lives were shattered. Families were broken. Some victims were driven to suicide. Others suffered heart attacks, mental breakdowns, and years of financial ruin. All of it sanctioned by a system that knew better—and did nothing.
Yet amid this national disgrace, one figure remains conspicuously absent from public recognition: the courageous whistleblower who stepped forward to expose the truth.
This individual—whose bravery pierced the veil of silence surrounding Robodebt—deserves more than quiet gratitude. They deserve full compensation, public acknowledgement, and the legal protections afforded to those who risk everything to uphold justice. Whistleblowing is not an act of convenience; it is an act of sacrifice. It often comes at a steep personal cost: career destruction, reputational damage, emotional trauma, and isolation.
In democratic societies, we rely on whistleblowers to hold power to account. They are the last line of defence when institutions fail. And when they speak truth to power, we must respond not with indifference, but with honour.
Australia must not repeat the mistakes of the past—where truth-tellers are punished and perpetrators protected. Just as the victims of Robodebt deserve restitution, so too does the whistleblower who made that justice possible.
Let us not allow this chapter to close without acknowledging the hero who opened it.
The narratives above and below echo the recent British Government Post Office scandal. For more details, refer to the following link. Upon delving deeper into the Casualties of Telstra, one realises the striking resemblance to the UK Alan Bates vs. Post Office story. To watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for "Mr Bates vs. the Post Office," which went to air in Australia, → Click here. The latest update on that terrible story is on YouTube at #ITV1 #ITV #MrBatesvsThePostOffice and https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.
This UK Post Office story sheds light on how sub-post office contractors were misled; some were even jailed and, tragically, led to suicides after encountering the might of the British Post Office, a government-owned organisation similar to Telstra. The COTs (Casualties of Telstra) were compelled into arbitration in 1994 with the assurance of receiving essential documents to substantiate their claims. Even thirty years later, in 2025, only five of the twenty-one COT have received these critical documents.
I intentionally selected the Verdana font in size 16 for its striking ability to captivate the reader’s attention while also significantly enhancing readability across a diverse audience. This particular font, with its clean lines and modern feel, not only stands out visually but also creates a sense of urgency around the pressing issues of criminality and corruption that are at the heart of our narrative. The bold letters effectively draw the eye, making these critical concerns impossible to overlook against the more muted background of the surrounding text.I genuinely appreciate your willingness to engage with this critical narrative. I encourage you to visit our website regularly, as we are currently in an exciting phase of refining two manuscripts. These will soon have their own dedicated website—an innovative platform designed to captivate readers from the moment they arrive. Our goal is to present nothing but the unvarnished truth, shining a light on issues that demand urgent attention.These upcoming works are poised to be published as eBooks, each serving as a powerful testament to the deep-rooted corruption that has infiltrated Australia’s arbitration system. Through thorough research and compelling storytelling, we aim to expose the systemic flaws and the injustices that countless individuals face. Your continued support throughout this journey is invaluable and deeply appreciated, as it empowers us to shed light on these critical issues and drive meaningful change.
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.
🧩 The Telstra–Murdoch Nexus: A National Betrayal
Every Australian must confront a grotesque truth: if Telstra indeed paid $400 million in compensation to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and/or Foxtel—as suggested in SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, records—then this was not a mere commercial transaction. It was a calculated cover-up of Telstra’s failure to deliver on its mandated National Broadband Network (NBN) cable fibre rollout. This scandal raises urgent questions: Who within Telstra’s leadership sanctioned such a duplicitous arrangement? And why were the interests of powerful media conglomerates prioritised over the rights of everyday Australians?
💰 The $400 Million Compensation: A Smokescreen
According to points 10 and 11 on page 5164 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Telstra’s CEO and Board were fully aware as early as 1992 that the company would not meet its cable rollout commitments. Instead of reforming internal policies or reducing labour costs to meet deadlines, Telstra chose deception—misleading ministers, auditors, and taxpayers. The result: a $400 million payout to News Corp and Foxtel, and a devalued Telstra stock offering that punished Australian shareholders.
⚖️ The COT Cases: Discrimination in Plain Sight
While Telstra compensated billion-dollar media empires, twelve small business owners—the COT Cases—were forced to pay exorbitant arbitration fees to prove Telstra’s systemic failures. These individuals, including myself, endured years of unresolved phone faults that crippled our businesses. We were promised in writing by the government that our phones would be fixed as part of our arbitration process, but instead faced a rigged process designed to protect Telstra's ailing network. If this isn’t discrimination of the highest order, what is?
🧵 A Personal Thread: Helen Handbury and the Murdoch Connection
During a heartfelt conversation with Helen Handbury—Rupert Murdoch’s sister—at my Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, I shared my manuscript detailing Telstra’s misconduct. Helen, warm and sincere, admitted she hadn’t yet passed it on to Rupert. Her visit, prompted by a forgotten garment, became a moment of quiet reflection. I expressed my doubts: would Rupert even acknowledge our plight if he read the manuscript? Helen’s response was thoughtful. I questioned whether her brother could truly remain indifferent if he understood the emotional toll and injustice we endured → Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury
Her empathy stood in stark contrast to the silence from News Corp. For years, I’ve believed that had Rupert read my manuscript, I would have received a formal notice—perhaps even a denial of further correspondence. That silence speaks volumes.
💌 A Legacy of Kindness: Geoffrey Handbury’s Letter
After Helen’s passing, I received a handwritten letter from her husband, Geoffrey Handbury. He expressed regret for not engaging more deeply with our cause, citing his advancing age. His sincerity moved me. The Handbury family, known for their philanthropy and warmth, offered a rare glimpse of compassion in a saga otherwise marked by institutional indifference.
📚 Bearing Witness: A Life of Advocacy
As I approach my 82nd year, I remain committed to documenting the Telstra arbitration debacle and the unscrupulous lawyers and forensic accountants who exploited our suffering. This journey—from business owner to whistleblower—has demanded relentless resilience. Through my writing, I aim to illuminate the systemic failures that allowed this injustice to fester and inspire others to stand firm against corruption.
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
