Welcome to absentjustice.com. If you are interested in reading about truth against adversity, you can access it for free with a simple click. Reading either my first published book, "Absent Justice," → Order Now— It's Free, or my non-published chronology of events, "My Story Warts and All," will allow visitors to absentjustice.com to form their own conclusions regarding whether my claims are true or false. If you acknowledge the dedication and time invested in its creation, we kindly request your consideration of a donation to Transparency International Australia.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom, now privatized and known as Telstra. Telecom's monopoly on communications allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Despite the significant cost to claimants to mount their claims against Telstra, the issues were not resolved through the government-endorsed arbitration process. Crimes were committed against us, our integrity was attacked, and our livelihoods were ruined, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars and a decline in our mental health. 

1. Examine the documented instances of corruption within the Australian government, including the grave offences perpetrated under the auspices of Australian public officials.
2. Explore the activities of unscrupulous, illicit, and morally compromised politicians and their associated legal representatives, some of whom continue to practice law in Australia and abroad.
3. Gain insight into the failure to address Telstra's unethical behaviour prior to, during, and subsequent to government-sanctioned arbitrations, as well as the oversight by arbitrators in investigating significant telephone malfunctions that continued to inflict widespread harm on numerous small businesses throughout the country. These transgressions warrant scrutiny.
4. Uncover why the persistent telephone issues continued to adversely impact the businesses involved in the COT cases, even twelve years after their arbitrations, which were intended to rectify their telecommunications problems as part of the arbitration process.
5. Learn the disturbing realities of corrupt practices, egregious crimes, and unethical conduct within Australia's legal and political frameworks. Those complicit in corrupt activities may encompass politicians, government functionaries, public servants, business figures, and auditing firms who, for remuneration, manipulate their findings to favour one party to the detriment of another.

Coopers & Lybrand's, now part of Price Waterhouse Coopers 1, coercion to alter its conclusions significantly impacted the outcomes of at least four COT case arbitrations, including mine. 

The blog by Shane Dowling, author of the Kangaroo Court website, is featured here on Absent Justice because Australian citizens and several other media outlets are still discussing corruption concerning the big four auditing firms. Three of those auditing firms are linked in some way to the COT arbitrations https://shorturl.at/a9g1S

 

Thugs run Telstra, as the following two identical threats show 

Why has the government not investigated these threats and issued a report?

It is imperative to highlight the threats directed at me by the Telstra corporation both before and during my arbitration. This is clearly outlined in the Senate Hansard Senate Evidence File No 31, where Senator Ron Boswell interrogated Telstra in the Senate on 29 November 1994:

“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?”

The rationale behind my assertion regarding the necessity of addressing the threats levelled against me during my arbitration is their direct correlation to the threats documented in Telstra's internal memorandum dated 9 November 1993, issued by Mr Doug Campbell, the Group Managing Director of Telstra, to Mr Ian Campbell, Telstra's General Manager of Commercial (Exhibit 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946). 

"I believe that it should be pointed out to Coopers and Lybrand that unless this report is withdrawn and revised, their future in relation to Telecom may be irreparably damaged."

Telstra Corporation, the largest telecommunications company in Australia, is accused of government corruption, evidence tampering, and the submission of arbitration falsified reports, as the following three reports—Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, and Tampering With Evidence—1 show.

There were also allegations of pressuring arbitration auditors Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory to minimize their findings (e.g., Open letter File No/45-E). The COT story below extensively documents these serious transgressions during the COT arbitrations.

On absentjustice.com, it has been revealed that a partner of KPMG, another major Australian auditing company, misled and deceived the official Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman after leaving his role as the Project Manager for the COT arbitrations. He admitted that his financial arbitration report was incomplete when submitted to the arbitrator of my arbitration claim (see Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete).

The COT story below documents shocking crimes committed during the COT arbitrations. Despite the passage of thirty years, these crimes remain unresolved and hidden under a confidentiality arbitration agreement that was covertly altered to the detriment of those in the arbitration process.

In October 1993, there were suspicions that Ann Garms', Graham Schorer's, and my business lines were being bugged. Even though there was no concrete evidence at the time, Ann, with her extensive network of influential contacts, including politicians, had received information suggesting sabotage of her business and that of Brian Grey, Compass Airways.

The statement on this Telstra File 1122 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132:

Customer - 'TIVOLI THEATER RESTAURANT' Line 1 NDT NRR SUSPECT SABOTAGE ?????--LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR SUPER SLEUTH SHERLOCK KELLY ???????. 

This document shows even Telstra officials thought Ann's business had been sabotaged. File 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 should be read in conjunction with File 1122 and file Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C because it looks like Telstra is implementing a strategy similar to the one used by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (Telstra's Arbitration Layers) who singled the 'Tivoli Theatre Restaurant/Ann Garm and my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp /Alan Smith and Graham Schorer, Golden Messenger one of the other two COT businesses.

Criminal Conduct 1

Leading up to my arbitration 

Forty-one faxed arbitration-related documents did not arrive at their intended destination. 

Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra's technicians were testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they made the following statement:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

I am sure Detective Superintendent Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the AFP would recall that on September 26, 1994, I presented five pages of evidence indicating that eighty-one incoming calls registered in Telstra's Portland telephone exchange appeared in the Call Line Identification system CCAS data. Still, the testing equipment data installed at Cape Bridgewater showed they were not connected to my service lines. This occurred over a two-month period. Then, the AFP acknowledged that in another COT Case, a massage owner was losing calls to a rival massage parlour. This comparison did not surprise the AFP.

Faves screened by the defendants?

 

Where are these faxes stored?

The internal investigators at Telstra failed to disclose to these technicians that I was under electronic surveillance as one of four COT Cases after two Telstra technicians mistakenly left a briefcase at my premises on 3 June 1993. If the contents had fallen into the wrong hands, it could have exposed the Australian government to the fact that Telstra had been deceiving it for years about the actual state of the Telstra copper wire network. As you delve into the COT story, you will see the lasting impact of standing up against a government-owned corporation on your life and that of your immediate family. 

 By July/August 1993, I had provided AUSTEL with most of the information I had copied from a briefcase belonging to the government that still owned Telstra. AUSTEL, the communications regulator, was becoming concerned about Telstra's approach to our complaints, particularly their continuous use of outside solicitors. In October 1993, while the regulator was negotiating a commercial settlement proposal for the COT members with Telstra, AUSTEL, the regulator's chairman Robin Davey, made it clear to Telstra's commercial division that the regulator would not be happy if Telstra's solicitors were used in future COT matters. However, Telstra ignored this request and insisted that I register my phone complaints in writing through their nominated solicitor, Denise McBurnie from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, even though I would soon be in litigation with Telstra.

Criminal Conduct 2

Faults in their network

On 3 June 1990, during the period Telstra was telling me they had not found any problems (faults in their network) that were still affecting the viability of my businesses, The Australian (newspaper) printed an article under the heading: Telecom ‘spying’ on its employees, which supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The newspaper article states:

“She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom’s Protective Services branch.

“Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:

• He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. …
• He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
• Claimants have had a ‘C.CASS run’ on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone.” (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)

Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week Telecom's activities included bugging workers' homes. …

In February 1994, the AFP visited my business at Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that I had recently received FOI documents suggesting Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned that Telstra had written the names of various people and businesses I had called on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). The hand-written notes in the right-hand column of this CCAS data include, against dates, the names of people I telephoned and faxed, e.g., 31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL and the Ombudsman. In one instance, the name Faye Smith appeared on several Telstra documents when I phoned my ex-wife. The writing up of my ex-wife's name on Telstra documentation reflects Senator Jenkin's statements above regarding Telstra's secret surveillance of their employees in 1990 because Telstra used similar tactics in January 1994 while in a litigation process with me.

How did Telstra acquire this information?

Has this information been destroyed?

In my initial meeting with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in February 1994, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with authentic Australian newspaper articles. These articles contained concrete evidence that AUSTEL and the AFP had uncovered unauthorized monitoring, recording, and documentation of my telephone conversations dating back to September 1992.

 I established a country get-away club for over forties singles in 1991, focusing on outdoor activities like canoeing, horse riding, caving, and bushwalking. However, club members were subjected to unwelcome, suggestive phone calls, suggesting a breach of our privacy. These calls obtained sensitive information, such as their age and relationship status, from our booking arrangements and the over-forties single information I had shared with interested individuals requesting details about our three-night, four-day adventure country getaways.

Additionally, I informed the AFP about my two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia, one in April 1993 and another in April 1994. These incidents raise serious concerns about privacy and security.

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

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.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations 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)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

Intrusion into the lives of the COT Cases 

One of the most dangerous companies in Australia  

In Australia, though, during a government-endorsed arbitration process, with faxes travelling between claimants, their lawyers and advisors, various government officials, at least one senator and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, the Telstra Corporation had so much power, even over the government-endorsed legal process, that it was able to cover up this hacking scandal.

On page 15 of The Most Dangerous Man in the World, written in 2011 by ABC’s Four Corners journalist Andrew Fowler, Mr Fowler notes that Julian Assange was one of those who hacked into Telstra’s Lonsdale Street telephone exchange computer system in the centre of Melbourne. The covert AUSTEL draft report (see ) concerning my telephone problems and faults refers to this same exchange where, for some seven months, Telstra forgot to program in the 055 267 telephone prefix for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange.

Page 21 in the 26 November 1996 Telstra Arbitration Briefing Document for Graham (Golden Messenger) also refers to problems at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange, stating the issues affected the service lines into Golden Messenger over an extended period. So what did Julian Assange and his friends find at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange that prompted them to telephone Graham?

My statement to the TIO in my 20 October 1995 letter that “This phrase has now come home to roost” (File GS 537- GS-CAV 522 to 580) reflected that I believed the advice Graham received from these hackers – that Telstra and others associated with the COT arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT cases – was the truth.

Graham's statutory declaration regarding these hackers, which I provided to Victorian Attorney-General Hon. Robert Clark in 2011, includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12  and File No/13), confirms arbitration-related faxes were intercepted (screened) before being redirected on to their intended destination and states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena [sic].

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 9 January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

 

 

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, raising several important questions. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those government offices have officially organised the fax streaming arrangement, what could happen to the documents that go through that system without the government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private?

Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not diminish the fact that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page (see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC—17:34). In simple terms, those with access to Telstra's network were able to use 'keywords', so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close's residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe that, up to the day George Close passed away, he had never gotten over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.

 

Senators Chris Schacht and Kim Carr were fully cognizant of Telstra's victory in the COT Cases and the extent to which Telstra meticulously documented my business activities. This included their knowledge of my travel plans to Melbourne, the duration of my stay, and even the exact time my secretary left while I was away weeks before I travelled to Melbourne in August 1994 during my arbitration. 

During the same period, Cathy Ezard, my partner of thirty years, was a professional associate who had visited my business with a social club from Ballarat. Cathy later signed a statutory declaration dated 20 May 1994 detailing several disturbing incidents when she tried to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office Exhibit 22 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 ). This declaration raises serious questions about who collected my mail and how they were aware of its availability at the Ballarat Courier mail office. On both occasions, when a third party retrieved this mail, I had previously informed Cathy that the Ballarat Courier had notified me about the mail awaiting pickup.

Pages 12 and 13 of a transcript from the Australian Federal Police inquiry into my allegations of unauthorized interception of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes (Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) state at Question-59:

"And that directly relates to the monitoring of your service, indicating that surveillance was taking place without your consent."

On 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] 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 correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about 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 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 obvious that this story had two sides.

Similar injustices were experienced in the COT case of Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:

In October 2023, Sandra Wolfe emailed me that her Telstra FOI / Mental Health Act issue and her withheld arbitration-related document issues have still not been resolved.

Criminal Conduct 3

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

In the four-minute video below, I discuss a legal document called “The COT Strategy” prepared by Telstra’s arbitration lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. The document targeted four businesses, including mine, and attempted to prevent us from accessing Freedom of Information (FOI) documents through legal professional privilege. This hindered my ability to prove that my telephone faults were ongoing and still affecting my business.

The document named the owners of the four businesses and targeted them on 10 September 1993, even though the arbitration didn't begin until April 1994. No relevant FOI document was released to the four claimants, highlighting the injustice faced by newcomers to the legal process of arbitration in Australia.

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults to these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

Upon review, the Senate committee discovered that on June 24, 1997, Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White was directed by Telstra management to cease the COT Cases at any cost. This directive was issued while White evaluated the technical information requested by the COT claimants under the Freedom of Information Act. This revelation came to light a day prior to the unveiling of the "COT Case Strategy" by the Senate committee and is documented on pages 36 to 39 of the Senate—Parliament of Australia. as follows:

Mr White -- "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White --"Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the induction process—"

Mr. White's statement unequivocally asserts that Telstra deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants to obstruct our ability to prove our claims against Telstra.

One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report hat the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

AUSTEL (the Government Communications Authority) issued a communication marked 23-E - Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G on 11 October 1994, directed to Peter Gamble. A second correspondence, labelled exhibit 23-F Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G, was dispatched to Telstra's Steve Black on 16 November 1994 and similarly copied to Peter Gamble. These two government letters asked Telstra what they intended to do regarding the severely substandard arbitration Service Verification testing conducted at my establishment.

 

Criminal Conduct 4

Living with these crimes for thirty years has taken its toll.

 

Exhibit 23-G of the Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G, unambiguously indicates that on December 12, 1994, Peter Gamble made a sworn statement to the arbitrator, asserting that his SVT process carried out at my premises surpassed the government's expectations, despite being mindful of its falsity. Affixing a signature to a sworn statement in the context of legal proceedings, with the awareness of its falsehood, constitutes a perversion of the course of justice.

The Peter Gamble witness statement fails to acknowledge that eight other Telstra employees provided witness statements for the Telstra arbitration defence, knowing that those statements were fundamentally flawed. Despite this, the statements were still submitted to the arbitration process and accepted by the arbitrator as factual. The arbitrator relied on these witness statements to conclude that my business was no longer experiencing ongoing telephone faults. However, evidence from absentjustice.com proves that my business continued to experience significant faults for eleven years after the arbitration was completed.

Following a meeting with two AUSTEL representatives at Parliament House Canberra on 21 March 1995, I was advised to bring to the arbitrator's attention the deficient SVT process at my establishment, allowing the arbitrator to compel a repetition of these tests, this time under the supervision of an arbitration technical consultant.

These AUSTEL representatives expressed surprise at the arbitrator's allowance of the original SVT process within the arbitration proceedings without the supervision of an independent arbitration consultant during the extraordinary testing. Notably, the entire arbitration process was instigated in response to the COT case claims concerning the inadequate Telstra equipment. It is worth noting that, in most instances, Telstra continued to operate the flawed Ericsson AXE equipment.

On April 6, 1995, David Reid and Telstra's Peter Gamble visited Cape Bridgewater to conduct tests on three separate telephone service lines connected to the faulty Ericsson AXE telephone exchange in Portland, which was the subject of my arbitration. However, they refused to conduct any type of testing. Shortly after this incident, David Reid, the proprietor of Lane Telecommunications and the appointed technical consultant to the arbitrator, was bought out by Ericsson during the COT arbitrations (refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

 

A judas kiss 

Maureen Gillan, the initial party in the four COT Cases, executed her arbitration agreement on April 8, 1994. This agreement was endorsed by Senator Richard Alston, Senator Ron Boswell, and our legal representatives as the definitive and binding arrangement for the remaining claimants. Primarily, the agreement permitted the claimant to take legal action against the special counsel to the arbitrations and the arbitrator's consultants for any negligence in their roles in the arbitration process (refer to Part 2—Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct).

However, the remaining three COT Cases—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I—were forced, under duress, to sign the altered arbitration agreement after Maureen Gillan, the aforementioned senators, and our legal representatives had reviewed the unaltered document with the understanding that it would be the agreement used for the remaining claimants as well.

In essence, Dr Gordon Hughes, who currently serves as the Principal of a distinguished legal firm in Melbourne, presided over an arbitration process that resulted in one of the four COT Cases being permitted to bring suit against the legal counsel and arbitration consultants for negligence. Meanwhile, the altered agreements precluded the remaining three cases from pursuing legal action against the same legal counsel and arbitration consultants.

Furthermore, this altered confidentiality agreement is still being used to impede an investigation into the conduct of the arbitration process.

Even Telstra's principal arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, expressed concern about removing liability caps in a letter to the arbitrator before the claimants signed the agreement (exhibit 54-E - Open letter File No 54-A). It will be apparent to visitors of this website that the arbitration consultants took full advantage of not being sued for their wrongful acts in favour of Telstra's arbitration defence, as shown in the following link - Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete.

Despite Dr Gordon Hughes advising the administrator of the arbitration process that the arbitration agreement used in my case was not credible and should be revised, it was still used to the detriment of my claim (Open Letter File No 55-A). For a more detailed explanation of the deficiencies in my arbitration agreement, you can click on Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter.

Criminal Conduct 5

Systemic corruption within the government bureaucracy  

Heavily censored. 

 

On March 25, 1994, I, Ms. Philippa Smith, Commonwealth Ombudsman, wrote to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, clearly stating that Telstra had been meticulously scrutinizing FOI documents requested by COT Cases Ann Garms and Alan Smith. This was in response to my disclosure of sensitive information to the media. 

It is important to note that Telstra failed to disclose to the Commonwealth Ombudsman I released sensitive documents to the Australian Federal Police to aid their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interceptions of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxed documents.  Ms Philippa then stated that Telstra informed Mr Wynack, Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, that Telstra expected the vetting of the documents to take only a couple of days. (See 2-B - page 3  Home Page – Part One File No/2-B).

The correspondence from Ms. Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, validates that Telstra examined sensitive freedom of information documents before they were disseminated to the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, the correspondence neglects to elucidate Telstra's course of action regarding the sensitive information in instances where it was detrimental to Telstra and government officials, such as Senator Bob Collins, as elaborated below.

It is crucial to emphasize the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)

During the period in which Ann Garms sent the four attached letters, I also communicated with The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, who held the positions of Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister of Australia. I provided a detailed timeline of events to The Hon. Mathias Cormann, the Minister for Finance, and a lawyer from Hamilton, Victoria. My letter to Mr Cormann was formalized into a statutory declaration dated 26 July 2019, and the lawyer witnessed it. This timeline of events is now firmly incorporated into the webpage Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Ann Garms' letter unequivocally asserts that the cover-up of her arbitration matters, which were linked to all the other COT Cases arbitrations, in Ms Garms's case resulted in the loss of her home and superannuation, directly stemmed from the risk associated with exposing the paedophile activities of former Minister for Communications, Senator Bob Collins.

During our separate arbitrations, Senator Collins' illicit activities significantly obstructed the COT claimants' access to freedom of information documents from his office. It is a well-established fact that these documents were deliberately withheld from us COT Cases due to the potential release of non-related papers associated with the raping of aboriginal (one nation) children by Senator Collins in his parliamentary office. These actions would have been severely detrimental to the government if made public.

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

The extortion continues 

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) was actively investigating the paedophile activities of Senator Bob Collins and unauthorized telephone and fax interception issues involving Telstra. As part of the COT Cases AFP investigation, we received a clear directive that if we discovered any Freedom of Information (FOI) documents suggesting paedophile activities by other parliament members, aside from those committed by Senator Collins, we were obligated to provide these documents to the AFP. It was strictly emphasized that such documents should not be released to the public, as we were officially collaborating with the AFP in their investigations. 

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts prepared during my arbitration on 26 September 1994 by the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon (Government bureaucrat) had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period as their statement to shows, i.e.;  

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration, stating: 

“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)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Forced to proceed with arbitration

Dishonesty and duplicity served as a breeding ground for corruption 

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

The following six senators formally recorded how they believed Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations. Where were Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was carried out?  

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

It is crucial to emphasize to all parties reading this account that the COT Cases agreed to the arbitration process because the Australian government, along with several senators, prominent lawyers, and the Canberra media, were officially advised by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the proposed arbitrations) that the COT Cases arbitrations would be conducted under the Arbitration Procedure (the Act). Furthermore, we were informed that Telstra and the government would provide the documents we requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

To substantiate this understanding, John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally communicated to the Government and provided testimony to a Senate Estimate Committee on September 26, 1997, after the completion of most arbitrations that:  

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—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 of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”.  ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) 

I reiterate that it's concerning how the COT Cases were burdened with the financial responsibility for arbitration fees to resolve their ongoing telephone problems. They were essentially left with the choice of funding an arbitration to compel Telstra to fix these problems or operating their businesses at a significant disadvantage due to unresolved telecommunication issues. 

Criminal Conduct 6

Infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable. 

Clandestine dealings and betrayal.

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

Forty-five of Australia's prestigious law firms on retainer.

Horrendous injustices committed  

 

The initial Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (ex-lawyer) assumed the administrator role in the commercial assessment processes and exerted pressure on the COT Cases. This coercion led to abandoning the operational and executed Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) in favour of Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration rules, which incorporated a specific confidentiality clause not present in the FTSP Commercial Assessment Process. The threat of discontinuing the administration of the ongoing commercial assessment process, previously endorsed by Telstra and the Australian Government, dealt a severe blow to the claimants. Unbeknownst to the COT claimants, it was subsequently disclosed that Warwick Smith had permitted Telstra's legal representatives to devise this new highly legalistic agreement, benefiting Telstra to the detriment of the COT Cases.

This egregious and treacherous betrayal of trust  

Graft, malfeasance, and nepotism

The documented evidence indicates that Telstra's CEO and the entire board foresaw millions of dollars being unlawfully withdrawn from government funds. These funds were utilized to exert control over 45 prominent legal firms, thereby obstructing ordinary citizens with claims against Telstra from pursuing legal remedies. This crucial information is publicly available on absentjustice.com, shedding light on pervasive unethical practices and erroneously billed accounts.

Senator Mark Bishop's denouncement of Telstra's utilization of these 45 prominent legal firms against ordinary Australian citizens and small business operators, who had lodged complaints solely regarding inadequate service, is accessible at parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11. His condemnation of this unjust practice underscores the enormity of a government-owned entity, Telstra, employing public funds in opposition to the public interest, constituting an abuse of power. The enduring absence of an investigation into this scandalous matter is noteworthy.

 

Intimidation, legal abuse, and bullying were perpetrated by public officials against the COT Cases 

$24 million of moneys being used to crush these people 

On March 11, 1999, after Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith utilized heavy-handed tactics to handle the COT Cases, their arbitrations were concluded, with less than 11 per cent of the claims being met. Senator Kim Carr criticized the handling of the COT arbitrations, as evidenced in the following Hansard link shows:

Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Telstra's misuse of public funds, which should have gone to the Australian government instead of paying yearly retainers to 45 leading legal firms, is concerning. Moreover, during the COT arbitrations, they spent an additional $24 million to suppress sixteen Australian small business operators, hindering their efforts to prove events over two decades. This also affected around 120,000 similar COT cases, where individuals were fighting Telstra for a reassessment of their wrongly billed accounts. Senator Kim Carr's statement about the $24 million is deeply troubling for COT cases. 

 

The abuse of entrusted power for personal gain,

Senator Chris Schacht was even more vocal

Who had the authority in Australia to convince the senator to investigate and grant damages to only five of the twenty-one COT Cases with unresolved FOI issues?

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Welcomed news for five COTs, but not for the remaining sixteen COT cases discarded by the senate refer to: An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

Criminal Conduct 7

On July 25, 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland

This trip took more than seven hours to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne.

On July 25, 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland. This trip took more than seven hours to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne and ensure that our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned by how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s August 9, 2001, letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records — supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner — then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?

Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?

Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?

Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)

The LNP government knew that not only the litmus test cases should receive their requested documents, but so should the other 16. These Hansards, only three days apart, confirm that the Telstra Corporation acted illegally against all 21 citizens. However, the government only sanctioned Telstra to compensate for the litmus cases, not the remaining 16. The litmus cases also received 150,000 or more previously withheld discovery documents ((see Senate Evidence File No/11), which allowed them to appeal their arbitration process. However, the remaining 16 who didn't receive their withheld documents could not appeal.

The following exhibit, Senate Evidence File No 12, shows that I have been threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclose the 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate will charge me with contempt of the Senate, even though these Hansards could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

Will I go to jail in 2024 for revealing this gross discriminative act

 

Senator Chris Schacht made the following statement during a Senate committee hearing on July 9, 1998, in Parliament House, Canberra:

"would be an injustice for those remaining 16"

In fact, after one National Party Senator, Ron Boswell, verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, saying:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to those five litmus test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents initially concealed from those five. The eighteen million dollars those five received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases FOI issues. It was not. 

Will I go to jail in 2024 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens? I believe the current Labor government, if they were to ask me to provide a government-appointed representative to view these two In-Cameral Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998, that representative would advise the Anothony Albenise government they are morally obliged to pay compensation as former Labor Senator Chris Schacht stated should have been the case in 1998. Sadly, at least three of those sixteen have since died.