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. ​

After thoroughly examining the initial twelve pages of my 280-page manuscript, referenced by Senator Kim Carr and later by Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, the editor expressed profound astonishment at the portrayal of the COT narrative. The narrative presents a compelling chronicle characterized by betrayal, conspiracy, and deception orchestrated by a cunning and unscrupulous legal practitioner and his arbitration associates. Their adept circumvention of numerous legal professionals was achieved by manipulating a confidentiality agreement altered to the detriment of the claimants and to impede any third-party assessment of their evidence. The potential utilization of this stratagem in a court action would have had adverse implications for the government, which owned Telstra during the arbitrations. It is noteworthy that the arbitrators, Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith (the administrator of the COT arbitrations), have both been honoured with the Orders of Australia for their dedicated service to the nation's citizens.

My holiday camp was certainly in a pristine location

If only we had received a reliable phone service comparable to our competitor 

Examine the documented corruption within the Australian government, including the serious offences committed by Australian public officials. Investigate the activities of unscrupulous, illegal, and morally compromised politicians and their associated legal representatives, some of whom continue to practice law in Australia and abroad. Gain insight into the failure to address Telstra's unethical behaviour before, during, and after government-sanctioned arbitrations, as well as the oversight by arbitrators in investigating significant telephone malfunctions that continued to cause widespread harm to numerous small businesses nationwide; refer to (Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN). These transgressions warrant scrutiny. Could you elucidate the reasons behind the persistent adverse impact of telephone issues on the businesses involved in the COT cases, even twelve years after their arbitrations intended to rectify their telecommunications problems as part of the arbitration process?

Evaluate the unsettling realities of corrupt practices, flagrant crimes, and unethical behaviour within Australia's legal and political frameworks. Those involved in corrupt activities may encompass politicians, government officials, public servants, business leaders, and auditing firms who, for monetary gain, manipulate their findings to favour a specific party at the expense of others. Delve into the historical context of the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury aspect of the COT narrative. This account suggests that individuals within the Telstra Corporation were deeply involved in the Rupert Murdoch Fox and Telstra side of the COT story, which hindered a thorough investigation into the deceptive conduct of the Telstra Corporation. For additional information, please refer to page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, and Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C)

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

In the four-minute video above, I discuss the legal document 'The COT Strategy '→ Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C" 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, as the following two exhibits  Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story  and Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct show 

I have provided downloadable government records with specific names and numbers in the attached texts on this website to support my story. Without this evidence, it would have been challenging for visitors to this website to believe what they were reading (refer to Evidence Files).

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.  Reading this Price Waterhouse Coopers 1  page on absentjustice.com will convince most visitors to this website that Telstra's 

When Coopers & Lybrand later presented their draft report, it did include the suggestion that Telstra may have been party to misleading and deceptive conduct. Still, all those references were removed from the final version. The final version also excluded any references to a letter that Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) wrote to Robert Nason (a partner at Coopers & Lybrand) confirming that Telstra had knowingly sold faulty equipment to him, nor did it refer to the evidence that I also provided to Mr Nason supporting me and Graham’s belief that Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived them, nor did it include the proof that I had found in the briefcase and also passed on to Mr Nason.

Perhaps this conduct was not disclosed because it is directly related to the threats recorded in Telstra’s internal memo of 9 November from the Group Managing Director of Telstra, Mr Doug Campbell, to Telstra's General Manager of Commercial, Mr Ian Campbell (Exhibit 942 - AS-CAV 923 to 946), saying: 

"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."

These are strong words from the senior manager below the CEO of the largest telecommunications corporation in the country, a corporation that, at the time, had a monopoly hold on the industry in Australia.

Although the draft and final versions of the Coopers & Lybrand reports are not exactly complimentary of Telstra’s handling of COT matters, anyone reading them would not notice that by simply changing a word here and a phrase there, Coopers & Lybrand altered the draft so that the final version did not reveal what they uncovered. For example, in paragraph 15 of the draft, it is noted (Exhibit 943 - AS-CAV 923 to 946) that:

"Telecom should satisfy itself that the customer premises equipment complies with Austel's technical specification or seek assurances from the customer that this is the case to ensure that the services supplied by Telecom are fit for purpose under the 1974 Trade Practices Act."

Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury

I'm grateful for her Helens comments. 

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  

During the Senate hearing, it was abundantly clear that Telstra and its board were fully cognizant of their need for additional time to meet the system requirements stipulated by Mr. Murdoch and Fox. This revelation strongly indicates that the ongoing telephone issues plaguing the COT Cases' business, the focal point of government-endorsed arbitrations, would inevitably surpass the arbitration process deadline. This prompts a crucial question: why were the COT Cases compelled into arbitration, incurring substantial costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, when Telstra and its board were fully aware of their inability to rectify the persistent telephone problems, a critical aspect of the arbitration processes?

AUSTEL (now ACMA) withheld the following information from the COT arbitrator 

Could be as high as 120,000 COT-type customers 

The following letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, to AUSTEL’s chair from Telstra’s group general manager, suggest AUSTEL was far from genuinely independent but instead could be manipulated to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this first letter. For example, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. …  (See Open Letter File No/11)

And the next day:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report released into the public domain notes:

“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.

The fact that Telstra (the defendants) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is deeply disturbing. The 120,000 other customers – ordinary Australian citizens who were experiencing COT-type problems – are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report (see Senate Evidence File No 28). However, they used this to determine the validity of the COT claims.

For a government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to its citizens. Were the government's downplaying of the Ericsson AXE fault complaints part of the overall conspiracy, which involved purchasing Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, who often worked on government contracts? 

Upon reviewing these two letters, which comprised a draft chapter in the manuscript I provided to Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, she was astounded by the government's concealment of the scale of the ongoing telephone problems affecting over 120 thousand Australian citizens.

The awareness of Telstra's inability to fulfil its telecommunications obligations to Rupert Murdoch and the COT cases was not limited to the Telstra board; AUSTEL (now ACMA) was also cognizant of this fact. Despite this knowledge, AUSTEL's decision to proceed with the COT arbitrations raises the question of why such actions were permitted, ultimately leading to further detrimental impacts on the lives of the individuals involved and their families.

A mind field of ongoing telephone problems.

An example of the type of poor Telstra workmanship that the COT Cases and some 120,000 COT-type Australian citizens were experiencing became the second devil the COT cases had to face in their attempt to run their businesses, i.e.:> Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.

00O00

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to pass along my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed that he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices and the promises they rarely ever kept because I greatly respected her. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue that should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the specified deadline. My primary concern, however, does not revolve around the fulfilment of this compensation in the event of a missed deadline by Telstra. Instead, I am troubled by the failure to transparently address the persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration of April 7 and 8, 1994. Despite the prior validation of our claims by the government regulator and the substantial upfront arbitration fees paid by the COT Cases, our ongoing faults remained unremedied. 

The discrepancy highlights a concerning disparity in the treatment of influential Australian citizens who relinquished their citizenship to become American citizens, such as Rupert Murdoch, and ordinary Australian citizens striving to sustain businesses reliant on dependable phone service. This asymmetry underscores the one-sided nature of the COT story.

In simple words, why should Rupert Murdoch receive special treatment from an Australian government-owned telecommunications company, which Telstra was when this deal was made, and the rest of Australia's citizens have to wait years, and in rural Australia, more than a decade to receive the same service which was to be provided to Mr Murdoch and if Telstra failed to do so be awarded 400 million dollars. We will never know how many Australian small business operators went bust because their surname was not Murdoch.

PLEASE NOTE:

I do not anticipate universal viewership of Ann Garms' YouTube video; nonetheless, those who engage with its content may find it worthwhile to retain a copy for future reference. The video presents a compelling perspective on Ann's approach to arbitration and resonates with the adverse experiences reported by other COT Cases. In the context of my arbitration, the Arbitration Project Manager selectively assessed a portion of my claim (See Open letter File No/45-E), neglecting to thoroughly review all pertinent material, as Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete shows. Furthermore, during my arbitration, Deloitte, acting on behalf of Telstra, erroneously asserted that they had conducted tests on my telephone lines, finding no irregularities with the service, contrary to the divergent covert account provided by government communications regulators at points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms the government investigated my ongoing telephone problems finding my claims against Telstra validated. 

One does not require extraordinary acumen to comprehend that had the arbitrator been provided with AUSTEL's Adverse Findings, inclusive of AUSTEL's own acknowledgement in their findings that Telstra was withholding requested documents from the government concerning the extent of my persistent telephone issues, the awarded compensation for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than the amount determined solely based on my submission. In light of the Australian government's inability to compel Telstra, an Australian-owned corporation, to disclose information related to my ongoing telephone problems, it is evident that my prospects for obtaining such crucial information in support of the ongoing telecommunications challenges were bleak. This is further detailed in points 43, 48, 71, 140 and 160 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.