Visitors to this website have recognized similarities between its content and a comprehensive depiction of criminal activities, including fraud, bribery, and corruption, accompanied by manifestations of immorality, depravity, sinfulness, and wickedness. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the diminishing effectiveness of the arbitration system and the widespread distortion of truth, leading to a perversion of justice. The terms "The Slippery Slope of Law and Disorder," "Deadly Deception," and "heinous criminality" aptly characterize the experiences of those in Australia who opt for arbitration instead of the court system.

Before the late 1990s, the Australian government owned Telecom, the country's telephone network and communications carrier, which was later privatized and renamed Telstra. Telecom held a monopoly on communications, allowing the network to deteriorate. When four small business owners faced severe communication problems, they participated in a government commercial assessment process known as the "Fast Track Settlement Proposal" (FTSP).  All four claimants and Telstra accepted and signed this process in November 1993. The claimants were promised they would be given access to Telstra and government documents needed to prove their ongoing telephone problems and faults were still affecting their businesses. Unfortunately, very few documents were provided after signing this landmark FTSP, leading to a stalemate.

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered a deeper exploration into the world of political corruption. It stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime. Corruption in the seat of arbitration in Australia is being manipulated to conceal the non-graded arbitrators who have been earning top dollar when not even qualified to demand such fees. In several of Australia's arbitration processes, exploitation, extortion, and fraud, referred to as graft, malfeasance, and nepotism, have been hidden by crooked public servants with their own agenda.

The world of political corruption 

Graft, malfeasance, and nepotism

The documented evidence indicates that Telstra's CEO and the entire board possessed foreknowledge of millions of dollars being unlawfully withdrawn from government funds.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.

Many of the documents were unreadable. 

Telstra was the CAT, and the COT Cases were the mouse.

In the case of Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT arbitrator, it is important that he should have disclosed to the COT Cases and their legal representatives that he operated as an 'ungraded arbitrator' and achieved graded status only after the conclusion of my arbitration. Additionally, he should have informed the COT Cases and their legal representatives that his Sydney-based firm was examining the business affairs of the NSW (Sydney) arm of several Telstra employees. It is also important to note that he should have disclosed that the faxes intended for the COT Cases sent to his Melbourne office were rerouted to his Sydney office outside of standard business hours and during weekends.

When the arbitrator returned the claim documents we had submitted after our arbitrations, we were surprised to discover that many documents and reports were stapled together with unrelated material. Some of the documents even belonged to a different claimant. Despite reporting the issue to the arbitrator and arbitration administrator, John Pinnock, no investigation was conducted as our arbitrations had concluded.

This document mixing-up occurred one month into my arbitration after I received documents and reports from Telstra under Freedom of Information (FOI). The FOI documents did not match the accompanying text and fax-header sheets in several instances. Realizing the seriousness of the issue, I sought intervention from Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police on May 14, 1994.

He encouraged me to provide evidence of this misconduct to the arbitrator and administrator through a statutory declaration, which I promptly did. Refer to File 76 and 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91. Despite providing the arbitrator and the administrator with a copy of Statutory Declaration File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), which had been given to the Federal Police, neither investigated the FOI document issue.

Concerning document 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91, Sue Harlow, Deputy (TIO) Ombudsman, was entrusted with evidence regarding 56 reports that had been tampered with to the extent that they were indecipherable. Notably, the issues relating to tampered arbitration documents from 1994 and 1995 remain uninvestigated as of 2024.

It is deeply concerning that neither Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) nor Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) saw fit to investigate why Telstra was engaging in such questionable practices when supplying FOI documents. In my case (File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), I confirmed I found that '56 reports' fax header introduction pages' were stapled with information irrelevant to the attached content. This blatant disregard for proper document handling was unacceptable and warranted immediate attention. It received no response whatsoever.

 

Heavy-handed tactics 

$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. However, the following statement by John Pinnock (the second administrator to the COT arbitrations) on the 26th of September 1997, two years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine. ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) states 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”.  

Had I been officially informed when I signed this government-endorsed arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994 that the arbitrator would have no control over my arbitration because the process would be conducted entirely outside of the 'agreed and accepted ambit of the arbitration procedures', I would never have signed this agreement.  Before Ann Garms and Maureen Gillan (both now deceased) and Graham Schorer, who is unable to speak for himself because of sickness, who, like me, signed this terrible document in April 1994, likewise informed me many years ago, they too would not have signed this document. The Australian government should have declared all COT arbitrations null-in-void as soon as the process administrator, John Pinnock, advised the Senate on 26 September 1997 what he did. These past thirty years, our lives would not have been destroyed by Dr Gordon Hughes, who went along with this charade, making millions for his legal firm at the expense of his fellow Australian citizens. 

During the pending arbitration, Telstra's influence was evident, despite Dr. Hughes assuring us during the official pre-arbitration meeting on 17 February 1994 that if Telstra failed to supply the necessary documents as promised by the government to support our claims, he, as "...the Arbitrator, he would not hand down a determination on incomplete information", Refer to Arbitrator File No/103). However, the Arbitrator proceeded with his findings, fully aware that I had still not received my requested documents. Moreover, Dr Hughes' written findings in his award do not mention that the Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to intervene to force Telstra to comply with our FOI request.

It is now 2024, and Telstra still needs to comply with the joint demand by the AGS and the Commonwealth Ombudsman in December 1994 to release the Portland and Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook, which contains every single daily record of my ongoing telephone faults.

In April 1988, I reported ongoing telephone and faxing faults. Therefore, Telstra's response to these complaints should be logged, along with the number of other subscribers in my area who experienced similar issues. This logbook should also record Telstra's repair time for these faults. AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, must have used this logbook or its extracts to make the findings during their 1994 investigation into the ongoing problems (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) dated March 1994, at points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009.

 

Dr Gordon Hughes 

According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company's] Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

Please take note:

You will be redirected to the government archives if you click on the following Australian Government Hansard records. This will only take around half a minute. The records are from the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, pages 5163 to 5168. These pages expose that Telstra employees have been embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, including the government and Australian citizens who were Telstra owners. This misappropriation of public funds was not limited to NSW alone; similar activities were also occurring in other states. Astonishingly, the Telstra CEO and board were aware of this illegal extraction of millions of dollars from the government coffers. There are even claims that the amounts involved could reach into the billions.

Was there a more sinister reason for Dr Hughes not disclosing that his company was also working with Telstra employees when he accepted his commission as the commercial assessor to the first COT Cases Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP)? This means that Telstra management would have had to know that Dr Hughes was working for them when they accepted him as the FTSP (assessor), which six months later became the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure FTAP.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Dr Hughes and Graham Schorer (refer to document File 567 - GS-CAV 522 to 580 ).

 

On 21 November 2012, Graham produced a letter of understanding that included:

“During the period that I retained Landers & Rogers, at no stage was I informed by Gordon Hughes or any other member of Landers & Rogers staff, that Telecom or the Australian Government Solicitor contacted them with information regarding the North Melbourne exchange.

“Furthermore, had I known that Gordon Hughes had concealed knowledge of such an important document from me, I would not have accepted his appointment as the arbitrator in my arbitration process” (refer File 567 - GS-CAV 522 to 580 ).

Upon reviewing "Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest," it is abundantly clear that Dr. Hughes neglected to disclose crucial court documents while representing Mr. Graham Schorer in a Federal Court Action against Telstra, a full two years before assuming the role of FTSP assessor, which eventually transitioned into Telstra's intricate Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. If I had been aware of Dr Hughes' prior representation of COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer, I would have adamantly refused to accept him as the assessor for FTSP or arbitrator for FTAP.

Those who delve into this disturbing tale of deception will unmistakably identify Dr. Gordon Hughes's biased treatment of Mr. Schorer. The arbitrator's egregious unethical behaviour is well-documented in the numerous files for public download from the website. They vividly recount the events as they unfolded. As the author of the COT story, I find the evidence on absentjustices.com incontrovertible.

 

AUSTEL COT Case’s public report

At point 5.46 on page 95 ‘ of the AUSTEL/ACMA COT Cases April 1994 report it notes: 

"As part of its direction, AUSTEL sought to obtain detailed information on each of the exchanges involved in terms of performance standards, actual performance, maintenance requirements, and achievements. Telecom initially responded with advice in terms of a few generalisations. A cooperative approach may have been expected to deliver particular requests that were necessary to obtain data. Indeed, throughout this inquiry, it has been apparent that Telecom has interpreted AUSTEL’s request for information in the narrowest possible terms. The net effect was to minimise the amount of relevant data it put before AUSTEL and lengthen the process necessary to extract it."

On 21st November 2007, I received from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), under FOI, a copy of AUSTEL’s original draft findings dated 2nd / 3rd March 1994 regarding the telephone problems experienced by the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp from 1988 to 1994. Copied below are some of the page numbers and points in the report. I am discussing these issues here in Chapter 4 to show the difficulties that AUSTEL, as the Government regulator, had in obtaining documents from Telstra (at the time, a fully Government-owned Corporation). Given these difficulties experienced by the government, it should have been enough to halt the arbitration process until all the evidence needed by all the parties was made available to allow those parties to prove or disprove each COT Case claim.

If the government was unable to access the documents it needed to prove the various COT Cases claims and still allowed the claimants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to access documents from Telstra that even the government regulator could not access from Telstra breached their statutory obligation to the COT Cases for allowing Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) into forcing the COT Cases into arbitration without the necessary documents to prove they still had ongoing telephone problems. 

Without this supply of documents to the COT claimants during their respective arbitrations, it is one of the reasons we, COT Cases, could not conclusively prove to the arbitrator my telephone faults were still ongoing. The following list identifies some areas (in the AUSTEL draft report) where AUSTEL had problems with access to Telstra records on the service provided to me:

     Point 43 on page 20 “As no fault report records remain in existence from Cape Bridgewater residents prior to this period, or these records have not been provided to AUSTEL, it is difficult to gauge the level of problems in the area.”

     Point 48 on page 22 “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”

     Point 71 on pages 28 and 29 “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”

     Point 140 on page 49 “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

     Point 160 on page 55 “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”

Once AUSTEL was fully aware Telstra was refusing AUSTEL relevant information that would allow the government communications regulator to prepare its official report for the minister after the regulator facilitated the arbitration and mediation processes that were to be based on information obtained from Telstra, it is evident that AUSTEL should never have allowed the COT Cases "Fast Track Settlement Proposals and Fast Track Arbitration Procedures" to proceed. AUSTEL breached its duty of care to the COT cases by permitting the arbitrations/mediations to proceed. After all, if the government could not officially order Telstra to supply records to the minister, then what hope did the COT cases ever have of obtaining the same documents?

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked: ‘What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report? And Mr Matthews replied: ‘The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received its copy then.

 

 

In simple terms, AUSTEL only providing Telstra with a copy of their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings in March 1994 not only assisted Telstra during their defence of my 1994/95 arbitration but also assisted Telstra in 2006, when the government could only assess my claims on a sanitized report prepared by AUSTEL and not their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

The actions by AUSTEL were an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was one condemnation, but to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia. 

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

I reiterate. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

Page 2 – "Mr Smith has had an ongoing complaint about the level of service for some time .....customer was originally connected to an old RAX exchange, which had limited junctions brtween Portland and Cape Bridgewater, Thus congestion was a problem for all customers on the Cape Bridgewater exchnage. The exchange was up graded to an RCM parented back to the Portland AXE 104".  

Page 10 – “Whilst Network Investigation and Support advised that all faults were rectified, the above faults and record of degraded service minutes indicate a significant network problem from August 1991 to March 1993.”

Point 23 – “It is difficult to discern exactly who had responsibility for Mr Smith’s problems at the time, and how information on his problems was disseminated within Telecom. Information imparted by the Portland officer on 10 February 1993 of suspected problems in the RCM [Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange]“caused by a lighting (sic) strike to a bearer in late November” led to a specialist examination of the RCM on March 1993. Serious problems were identified by this examination.”

Adequacy of Response 

Point 25 – "It should also be noted that during the period of time covered by this chronology of significance events it is clear 

• Telecom had conducted extensive testing 
• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp frequestly reported problems with the quality of telephone service
• both the camp and Telecom were receiving confirmation of reported from other network users
• major faults were identified more through persitense reporting of probles by customer than through testing of the network 
• customers in the Cape Bridgewater area also complaining of similar problems

Point 26 – "The chronology of significant events demonstrates that Telecom conducted estensive testing and Telecom rectified faults without delay when faults were identified. It is clear however, that

• Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was exposed to significant network problems over an extended period of time 
• Telecom testing did not not detect all of the network problems affecting Mr Smith".

Telecom's Approach to reaching Settlement 

Point 27 – "As is discussed under allegation in more detail throughout this document, Telecom's failure to adequately identify Mr Smith's network problems challenges the bases of Senior Telecom Management's approach to the resolution of Mr Smith's complaints and his claims for compensation etc, etc 

Point 29 – "A fundamental issue underlying Telecom's settlement with Mr Smith was the question of whether Telecom had taken reasonable steps to comprehensively diagnose the standard of Mr Smith's telephone service. This is an important point as settlement took place on the bases that both parties agreed Mr Smith was receiving an acceptable standard of service at the time of settlement. Mr Smith maintains he was under considerable financial pressure to reach settlement, leading him to accept Telecom's assurances of his services at the time of settlement."

Point 32 – "Telecom's communications with Mr Smith in the months prior to settlement uniformaly argued that the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp was at an acceptable level and that Telecom was capable of rapidly rectifying faults as they occured."

Point 42 – “Some important questions are raised by the possible existence of a cable problem affecting the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service. Foremost of these questions is why was the test call program conducted during July and August 1992 did not lead to the discovery of the cable problem. Another important question is exactly how the cable problem would have manifested in terms of service difficulties to the subscriber.”

Point 44 – “Given the range of faults being experienced by Mr Smith and other subscribers in Cape Bridgewater, it is clear that Telecom should have initiated more comprehensive action than the test call program. It appears that there was expensive reliance on the results of the test program and insufficient analysis of other data identifying problems. Again, this deficiency demonstrated Telecom’s lack of a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to resolution of Mr Smith’s problems.” 

Point 46 –“File evidence clearly indicates that Telecom at the time of settlement with Mr Smith had not taken appropriate action to identify possible problems with the RCM . It was not until a resurgence of complaints from Mr Smith in early 1993 that appropriate investigative action was undertaken on this potential cause In March 1993 a major fault was discovered in the digital remote customer multiplexer (RCM) providing telephone service to Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. This fault may have been existence for approximately 18 months. The Fault would have affected approximately one third of subscribers receiving a service of this RCM.  Given the nature of Mr Smith’s business in comparison with the essentially domestic services surrounding subscribers, Mr Smith would have been more affected by this problem due to the greater volume of incoming traffic than his neighbours.”

Point 47 –“Telecom's ignorance of the existence of the RCM fault raises a number of questions in regard to Telecom's settlement with Smith. For example, on what bases was settlement made by Telecom if this fault was not known to them at this time? Did Telecom settle with Mr Smith on the bases that his complaints , of faults were justified without a full investigation of the validity of these complaints, or did Telecom settle on the basis of faults substantiated to the time of settlement? Wither criteria for settlement would have been inadequate, with the later critera disadvantaging Mr Smith, as knowledge of the existence of more faults on his service may have led to an increase in the amount offered for settlement of his claims".

Point 48 – “AUSTEL has been hampered in assessing Telecom’s dealings with Mr Smith by Telecom’s failure to provide files relating to Mr Smith’s complaints.”

Point 49 –: "As a result of Telecom's failure to provide file documentation relating to Mr Smith some of the following conclusions are consequently based on insufficient information. The information which is avaialble however, demonstates that on a number of issues Telecom failed to keep Mr Smith informed on matters fundamental to the assessment of his complaints". 

Point 71 –: “AUSTEL has not been provided with the documents on which the conclusion in this briefing summary were reached, such as fault reports from other Cape Bridgewater subscribers over this period or the details of the final selector fault.  It would have been expected that these documents would have been retained on file as background to the summary.  It can only be assumed that they are contained within the documentation not provided to AUSTEL.”

Point 76 – “One disturbing matter in relation to Mr Smith’s complaints of NRR [not receiving ring] is that information on other people in the Cape Bridgewater area experiencing the problem has been misrepresented from local Telecom regional manager to more senior manager.” 

Point 86 – “From examination of Telecom’s documention concerning RVA [a recorded voice announcement – not in service] messages on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp there are a wide range of possible causes of this message.” 

Point 109 – The view of the local Telecom technicians in relation to the RVA problem is conveyed in a 2 July 1992 Minute from Customer Service Manager – Hamilton to Managers in the Network Operations and Vic/Tas Fault Bureau:

• “Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnecte. They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE. (AXE – Portland telephone exchange)”

Point 115 –“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

Point 130 – “On April 1993 Mr Smith wrote to AUSTEL and referred to the absent resolution of the Answer NO Voice problem on his service. Mr Smith maintained that it was only his constant complaints that had led Telecom to uncover this condition affecting his service, which he maintained he had been informed was caused by “increased customer traffic through the exchange.”  On the evidence available to AUSTEL it appears that it was Mr Smith’s persistence which led to the uncovering and resolving of his problem – to the benefit of all subscribers in his area”.

Point 140 – “It should be noted that AUSTEL’s investigation of matters relating to the RCM problem has been hampered by Telecom’s failure to make available to AUSTEL a file specifically relating to the Pairs Gains Support investigation of the RCM.  The file was requested by AUSTEL on 9 February 1994.”

Point 153 –“A feature of the RCM system is that when a system goes “down” the system is also capable of automatically returning back to service. As quoted above, normally when the system goes “down” an alarm would have been generated at the Portland exchange, alerting local staff to a problem in the network. This would not have occurred in the case of the Cape Bridgewater RCM however, as the alarms had not been programmed. It was some 18 months after the RCM was put into operation that the fact the alarms were not programmed was discovered. In normal circumstances the failure to program the alarms would have been deficient, but in the case of the ongoing complaints from Mr Smith and other subscribers in the area the failure to program these alarms or determine whether they were programmed is almost inconceivable.”

Point 158 – “The crucial issue in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM is that assuming the lightning strike did cause problems to the RCM om late November 1992 these problems were not resolved till the beginning of March 1993, over 3 months later. This was despite a number of indications of problems in the Cape Bridgewater area. Fault reports from September 1992 also indicate that the commencement of problems with the RCM may have occurred earlier than November 1992. A related issue is that Mr Smith’s persistent complaints were almost certainly responsible for an earlier identification of problems with the RCM than would otherwise have been the case.”

Point 160 – “It should be noted that it is hoped that a number of issues in regard to the Cape Bridgewater RCM will be clarified when Telecom provides the documentation requested by AUSTEL.”

Point 169 –" Documentation reviewed indicates that other network users attached to the Cape Bridgewater exchange did report problems similar to those experienced by Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. It is also clear that problems identified in the area would have impacted on other network users as well as Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp."

Point 209 – “Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp has a history of service difficulties dating back to 1988. Although most of the documentation dates from 1991 it is apparent that the camp has had ongoing service difficulties for the past six years which has impacted on its business operations causing losses and erosion of customer base.”

Point 210 – “Service faults of a recurrent nature were continually reported by Smith and Telecom was provided with supporting evidence in the form of testimonials from other network users who were unable to make telephone contact with the camp.”

Point 211 – “Telecom testing isolated and rectified faults as they were found however significant faults were identified not by routine testing but rather by the persistence-fault reporting of Smith”.

Point 212 – “In view of the continuing nature of the fault reports and the level of testing undertaken by Telecom doubts are raised on the capability of the testing regime to locate the causes of faults being reported.”

 

The Brotherhood 

Organised Crime within Telstra and the ACMA

 

In the Senate Hansard records dated 20 September 1995, under the heading "A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST," Senator Ron Boswell passionately discussed the injustices suffered by myself and the other three COT claimants (Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer) before, during, and after our government-endorsed arbitrations.

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra" 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding".

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all". 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

During my research into preparing the COT story for how arbitrations are conducted in Australia, I am still looking for a worse sheer neglect of duty than that of Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator to at least six arbitrations and mediations. No one had ever sunk as low as Dr Gordon Hughes when he allowed John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, to use Mr Hughes' good name to discredit me. I doubt that Mrs Hughes knows her husband, Gordon Hughes, used her credibility to protect his unethical actions during and after the COT arbitrations.

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct - Lies and more lies.

Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter

On 27 February 1996, as part of an official inquiry conducted by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia (IAA) concerning the alleged misconduct of Dr Gordon Hughes, who served as the arbitrator for my arbitration proceedings in 1994 and 1995, John Pinnock, the administrator of the arbitration, corresponded with Laurie James, President of the IAA, questioning my credibility. Mr. Pinnock deliberately provided Mr. James with false information, suggesting that I had made a 2 am phone call to the arbitrator's spouse, implying that my credibility was questionable, stating:

“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00 am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (See page 3, Arbitrator File No /49)

When John Pinnock wrote, “Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00 am)," why didn't he send a copy of my letter to Mr James? He couldn't because no such letter exists. I wrote no such a letter. 

John Pinnock's letter was also copied to Dr. Hughes. Why did Dr. Hughes allow such a letter to be sent when he must have known I did not telephone his wife at 2:00 a.m.? I telephoned at 8:02 p.m. to inform Dr Hughes of the fresh evidence that revealed Telstra had tampered with evidence (a collected telephone) after it left my business (refer to Tampering With Evidence).

Criminal Conduct Example 1

Who poured the wet substance into the telephone after it left my promises?

Why did it take ten days to reach Telstra's laboratories? 

Tampering With Evidence

After Telstra's Ross Anderson completed his testing on 27 April, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

“The suspect TF200 telephone when received was found to be very dirty around the keypad with what appeared to be a sticky substance, possibly coffee.” (Tampering With Evidence File No 3)

A second photo I received under FOI is taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming a note I placed on the phone was quite clean when it was received at Telstra (see Open Letter File No/37 exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6). Who within Telstra smeared grease or dirt over the front keypad of the TF200 phone as these three photos show was the case (File 636, 637 and 638  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647).

 

Sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing

Ongoing lock-up problems

Another disturbing side to this tapering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration, Telstra twisted why I could not be present to test my TF200 telephone at my premises during a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

It is clear from our Tampering With Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was just too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, but after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. In its arbitration defence report, Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This wicked deed and the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration testify that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond, by supplying vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both occasions during my arbitration.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, 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.” 

Senator 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)

Criminal Conduct Example 2

 

The COT Cases never had a chance.

 

Big Brother again wins in Australia as the following thirty-year battle shows.

TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith, the first appointed Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal FTSP, which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he was providing the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) of that process with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Not only did the TIO breach his duty of care to the COT claimants, but he also compromised his own future position as the official independent administrator of the process.

It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.

 

Legal Professional Privilege

The Firm - John Grisham 

It was while all this skulduggery and deception was taking place, and Denise McBurnie, along with Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had drained me of all my reserved energies to keep going, that I remembered the ruthless legal firm portrayed in John Grisham's 1991 novel The Firm.

Both Telstra’s 14 April 1994 letter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), which admits at least one Telstra employee was intercepting my telephone conversations and my 9 September 1994 response concerning this unauthorised interception over an extended period, are now stamped “Protected AFP” material. The SENATE official Hansard refers to Telstra’s conduct, stand-over tactics and threats against the COT cases. 

Senate Hansard (records), the following AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 of their conversations with me concerning these threats and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s records all confirm Telstra carried out those threats against me. Yet, neither the arbitrator nor the TIO addressed this during my arbitration. Why has no one ever addressed this unethical conduct publicly? Why is there no record in the arbitrator’s award exposing these threats? Why was Telstra allowed to make these threats and commit similar unlawful acts against the COT cases leading up to and during our four arbitrations?

Neither the TIO nor the arbitrator came to my aid or asked why a corporation could take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process.

By this time, the four cases were being forced into a highly legalistic, government-endorsed arbitration with the threat that they either accept Telstra's new arbitration process or take the government (which entirely owned Telstra) to court. These four COT Cases - Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and myself - were not told that the FTSP assessor, Dr Gordon Hughes, and the FTSP administrator, Warwick Smith, had covertly been negotiating with Telstra to use their arbitration agreement prepared by their lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

The government communications authority AUSTEL had assured the COT Cases in writing that because of the terrible things that Freehill Hollingdale & Page had done to the four COT Cases. In my case, Telstra had refused to investigate my ongoing telephone problems unless they were first registered in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, with Frehill's refusing to respond to that registered written complaint on the grounds it was now considered Legal and Professional Privilege.

My lawyers were shocked and reported their disgust with AUSTEL. Then, AUSTEL promised the COT Cases Freehill would not be used in any process involving the four COT Cases. Confirmation of this can be verified by viewing the draft of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) dated 5 October 1993, from AUSTEL’s Robin Davey to Telstra's then most senior Commercial Business Manager, Ian Campbell states, at point 40:-

“Finally, if the attached letter (Attachment ‘D’) dated 7 July 1993 from Freehill, Hollingdale & Page to one of the COT Cases’ solicitors is indicative of the way that Freehill, Hollingdale & Page have approached the COT Cases in the past, I would be more than a little concerned if they were to have a continuing role.” (File GS-110 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) 

Not only did Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith allow the Freehill Hollingdale & Page drafted Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP Agreement) to be used in all four arbitrations, but it was also used in my arbitration, aware it was grossly deficient. When Dr. Hughes uncovered this during the deliberation period of my arbitration, the other three claimants were granted more than thirteen months longer to prepare their new amended arbitration agreements than was allowed for me. My appeal lawyers, Law Partners of Melbourne, were not advised that the arbitration agreement we were about to challenge had been abandoned. This letter from Dr Hughes to Warwick Smith, written the day after my award was handed down, advises of its many deficiencies and can be read by clicking on Open Letter File No 55-A).

As shown in Part 2 →Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct, COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and I were in attendance when we were forced to exonerate the financial and technical consultants from any liability in our arbitration when the $250,000,00 liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 were removed from the arbitration agreement drafted by Telstra's lawyers. Additionally, we were compelled to exonerate the administrator's legal special counsel from any liability due to late changes made to clause 24.

Had we known that Telstra's lawyers had written the document and that Frank Shelton was only making superficial alterations to the Telstra-drafted agreement, we would not have exonerated Mr Shelton or the Legal Counsel from their involvement in using Telstra's drafted agreement instead of the independently agreed-upon one. Frank Shelton was appointed as a County Court Judge shortly after these events.

Fourteen and eighteen years after those arbitrations concluded, the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA), representing the government, continued to aid Telstra in concealing the crucial evidence that the COT Cases had been promised.   

I appeared before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 3 October 2008 and 12 May 2011 in two separate instances. During these proceedings, I sought the release of Freedom of Information documents promised by the Australian government in 1994. These documents were integral to my 1994 arbitration claim against the government-owned Telstra Corporation, as they were essential in illustrating the detrimental impact of persistent telephone issues on the viability of my business during that period. At the 3 October 2008 AAT hearing (No V2008/1836), the senior member, Mr. GA Friedman, acting on behalf of the government, openly acknowledged the significance of my request while addressing government lawyers representing the Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA) and the AAT Gallery.

 “Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

In 1996, during my investigations into the 1995 final phase of my arbitration, I discovered that John Rundell, a current partner at KPMG, had communicated false information to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), during an official TIO inquiry into the handling of my arbitration while Rundell was serving as the Project Manager. In 2024, the government has been urged to reconsider its ongoing use of KPMG and other auditing firms due to concerns about their influence within the public sector. The same public sector refuses to investigate my claims, now raised by absentjustice.com.

As outlined on absentjustice.com, John Rundell, who managed my dispute on behalf of the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, knew that important information had been omitted from the financial report provided to me (the claimant) and Telstra (the defendant). Despite this, we were instructed to respond to the report even though it was incomplete.

 

Criminal Conduct Example 3

My forensic accountant wrote his concerns about John Rundell

 

Unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired

On 6 December 1995, Derek Ryan, my arbitration accountant, wrote to the Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Richard Alston, stating:

“Over the last 2 years I have acted as an independent accountant for Alan Smith and I prepared the independent assessment of his losses and damages which formed part of his submission to the arbitrator, Dr G Hughes.

“In response to accounting documents and evidence submitted to the arbitrator, he appointed Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd.(‘FHCA’) to support him in assessing the losses and damages.

“The FHCA report was inaccurate and incomplete. I have since been advised by a staff member of FHCA that a large amount of information was excluded from their final report at the request of the arbitrator. This has left the report in an incomplete state and it is impossible for anyone to re-calculate or understand how the FHCA loss figures were determined. This effectively meant that it was impossible to challenge the assumptions, calculations and the time periods used in the FHCA report.” (refer to File 45-E -Open letter File No/45-E)

On the 22 December 1995, Derek Ryan wrote to TIO John Pinnock, noting:

“The Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (Vic) Pty Ltd (‘FHCA’) report was dated 3 May 1995 and I received a copy of the report on 5 May. After discussions with Alan Smith it was decided that I should reply to the report as soon as possible.

“I worked all day Saturday and Sunday with Alan Smith trying to interpret the FHCA report. After this work I considered that the report was incomplete as the calculations of the FHCA loss figures were not included in their report. …

“In 17 May I telephoned John Rundell and he stated that he was unable to discuss anything with me until the appeal period had expired. … He then stated that he understood my problems and that FHCA had excluded a large amount of information from their final report at the request of the arbitrator.” (refer to File 45-E - Open letter File No/45-E)

To highlight the true deceptive nature of what transpired during my arbitration, I have been to use the following letter dated 9 March 1995 from Warwick Smith (TIO) to me in which he noted:

“Messrs, Read and Souter will assist Mr, Paul; Howell of DMR Group In (Canada) in technical assessment under the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. Mr Howell the principal technical advisor to the Resource nit will be in Australia within two weeks. The technical enquiries will commence on Thursday 16th March, 1995.

However, John Rundell, the arbitration project manager, also advised the TIO that the director of the Canadian technical consultancy firm, appointed by the TIO as the Principal technical consultant who was supposed to take charge of the technical side of the arbitration, arrived in Australia on 13 April 1995, not in March 1995 as promised by the TIO in his 9 March 1995 letter. Mr Rundell’s true colours were exposed On 18 April 1995 on 18 April 1995, when he advised the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman TIO, Warwick Smith (who was also the administrator of the COT arbitrations) the arbitrator (Dr Gordon Hughes) and the TIO counsel (Peter Barlett) that: “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A).

“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.” (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)

The blog https://shorturl.at/KWBT4 and https://shorturl.at/Ip6vJ 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 within the public service https://shorturl.at/q4rL1.

In the course of my AAT government FOI hearings with ACMA in 2007 and 2008 (No V2008/1836) and during my subsequent AAT hearing in May 2011 (No 2010/4634), I expressed my apprehensions regarding acts of impropriety to the entire ACMA Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was tasked with evaluating my assertions on behalf of the government. I unequivocally asserted that either the principals of KPMG, PWC, and Deloitte had participated in dubious conduct linked to my arbitration or that individuals employed by these three auditing firms were cognizant of the fundamental flaws in their submissions to my arbitration or leading up to it.

The corruption dates back to when the soon-to-be partner of KPMG became the Arbitration Project Manager for the COT arbitrations. As soon as he and his fellow arbitration advisors learned that FHCA had been covertly exonerated from all liability for negligence as administrators to the financial side of three of the first four arbitrations, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, allowed the wrong technical consultant, Lane Telecommunications Consultant, to assess the COT Cases' claims instead of the Principal Technical Expert, Paul Howell, who had flown in from Canada for that assessment.

As an increasing number of submissions in the COT Case arbitration shed light on the inherent faults of the Ericsson AXE equipment and the prior knowledge possessed by Telstra before the commencement of arbitrations, it has become evident that Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, comprising ex-Telstra officials, was tasked with investigating the failure of Ericsson's telephone exchange equipment. The draft report, authored by Lane and counter-signed by DMR (Canada), failed to include any written findings concerning my ongoing problems with Ericsson telephone exchange equipment. Shortly thereafter, while assessing the COT Cases claims, Lane was acquired by Ericsson for an undisclosed sum (Refer to  Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden).

In simple terms, John Rundell must explain why he allowed Lane to be the Principal Technical consultant instead of the agreed-upon DMR Inc.

Chapter 1—The Collusion Continues and Chapter 2—Inaccurate and Incomplete expose further untruths told by John Rundell while a partner of KPMG. We need to consider how the deception issues present in the COT arbitrations are exacerbated by the statements made by the young computer hackers who contacted Graham Schorer, as discussed below.

 

He did not ask for payment in sharing what he and his mates had uncovered. 

 

 

He wanted us to have a fair arbitration hearing and that was all

(Arbitrator File No/84)

At the commencement of the arbitrations, Graham Schorer, the designated spokesperson for the COT Case, received two phone calls from a group of young computer hackers who had gained access to Australia's Telecom/Telstra telecommunications centre in Melbourne. These individuals forewarned him of the impending unfair treatment of the COT Cases by the administrators of the COT arbitrations. Regrettably, their warnings were disregarded and their offer of documents rejected, as it was suspected to be a potential ploy orchestrated by either the government, Telstra, or both, with the intention of trapping the recipients in non-compliance with the agreed process of Freedom of Information or discovery. Subsequently, it was revealed that the hackers in question were Julian Assange and his associates Julian Assange - Absent Justice. Had the documents they offered, which were intended to substantiate our arbitration claims, been accepted, the adverse impact on the lives of the COT Cases in arbitration might have been averted. Five years after these events, an official twenty-month investigation conducted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and a Senate working party substantiated the veracity of the information communicated by the hackers. 

Forced members to proceed with arbitration. 

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.”  

It is crucial to remember that Telstra was the defendant in the COT arbitrations. They could not have compelled the COT Cases into arbitration without providing the necessary documents unless the arbitrator and administrator had agreed to this forceful tactic. It is vital to uphold impartiality in justice, ensuring all parties involved have equal opportunities to present their case. Hence, it is important to prevent such tactics in legal proceedings. The Senate findings indicate this discrepancy. So, why were Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith bestowed with the 'Orders of Australia' honours? This was a blatant disregard for justice, especially in light of John Pinnock, the second TIO overseeing the COT arbitrations, alerting a Senate Estimates Committee on the 26th of September 1997, two years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine. ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D) 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”.  

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) 

 

A shrewdly formulated confidentiality agreement effectively shielded the persisting unattended telephone issues from public and governmental scrutiny. Consequently, the sole beneficiaries were the arbitrators, mediators, and the incumbent government, which retained ownership of the Telstra corporation.

 

Treacherous and unconscionable conduct 

Numerous visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and an exhaustive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud, bribery, and corruption, accompanied by immorality, depravity, sinfulness, and wickedness. Additionally, there are apprehensions concerning the diminishing efficacy of the arbitration system and the pervasive distortion of truth, leading to a perverted sense of justice. Notably, the arbitrator and the administrators involved in the government-endorsed arbitration facilitated clandestine modifications to multiple arbitration-related documents. This included the addition of a confidentiality annexe to the arbitration agreement, which was withheld from the claimant's legal representatives before they reviewed the final agreement. This manoeuvre is perceived as a form of coercion, the implications of which are significant. The identity and actions of the implicated parties, who persist in shielding their malpractices behind an inherently flawed confidentiality agreement, are revealed upon further examination.

Criminal Conduct Example 4

“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” (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. When leaving absentjustice.com to view the SENATE official, Hansard, please remember you will visit a safe government website whose records show what the government has accepted as factual.    

I informed the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, about my distressing visit to Telstra's union offices in Collingwood, Melbourne, where I spoke to union official Peter Aberheart. I clarified with Mr Aberheart that the COT Cases were not targeting regular Telstra technicians but Telstra's internal arbitration defence management team, which had threatened me. Despite this, the arbitrator, administrator, and legal counsel involved in the arbitration failed to take any action to support me. I cautioned that if the threats continued, I would take the matter directly to Telstra technician Gordon Stokes in Portland.

In accordance with my undertaking, I visited Mr Stokes, who, in the presence of witnesses, attested that he was not the solitary Telstra employee in Portland engaging in the surveillance of my telephonic communications. 

Lastly, I reported these troubling occurrences to the Australian Federal Police. Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms that the AFP told me that the Government Communications Authority (AUSTEL), their General Manager of Consumer Affairs,  John MacMahon, had supplied the AFP evidence my phones had been bugged over an extended period noting: 

"... it 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".

I had a phone conversation with Ann Garms, one of the four COT Cases, who, along with me and two of the other COT Cases, had been targeted by Denise McBurnie Telstra's lawyers (see  (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), so we four COT Cases could not prove our claims. During Ann's arbitration appeal period, which cost her more than $600,000.00 in legal fees, Ann became emotional. She repeatedly asked why the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, didn't help her access vital sabotage evidence against Telstra.

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 the other two COT businesses.

Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET Front Page Part Two 2-B, which relates to covert findings withheld from me during my 11 December 1992 settlement process and states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

The following Telstra internal email dated 21 April 1993, FOI folio C04094, which is in the same folio numbering as Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008 attached above from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious [sic].” (File 75 GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88.

The content featured in the aforementioned documents illustrates firsthand the perspective of government-owned corporations in Australia and their public servants regarding the grievances of ordinary citizens, irrespective of their validity. These were the individuals engaged in the arbitration of the COT Cases.

Criminal Conduct Example 5

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this "COT Case Strategy", they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia, from an ex-Telstra employee, turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

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

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

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

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

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me (Alan Smith) and three of the other COT Cases named in Freehill Hollingdale & Page COT Case Strategy (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), namely Ann Garms, Mauree Gillan and Graham Schorer, as four of the five COT claimants that Telstra had to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving our claims. 

Criminal Conduct Example 6

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

In my arbitration in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin that Telstra had been monitoring my daily movements since 1992 and that FOI documents showed Telstra had redacted those recorded conversations. This revelation greatly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized he had been deceived by Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I presented evidence that Freehill Hollingdale & Page had provided him with a false report regarding my phone problems before he interviewed me. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address this concern. Nonetheless, there were no adverse findings against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

My Joblin was adamant that he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that Telstra's treatment of me was not proper and fit and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed. There were no adverse findings against Telstra nor Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to Ian Joblin's initial writing about me being of sound mind? 

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes [the arbitrator] compared to the signed statement?" 

In 2014, I personally have still not received any response to John Pinnock's letter File 596 to Telstra's Ted Benjamin. 

 

The Casualties of the Telstra 008/800 billing saga continued

At point 3.2 (h) in the arbitrator's award, Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) states The claimant adds that he continued to suffer transmission problems after March 1993, "although since July 1994 he had relatively little cause of complaint."

Yet the formal DMR and Lane Report, at point 2.23 (File 45-c -File No/45-A) notes:

“Continued reports of 008 faults up to the present. As the level of disruption to overall CBHC [Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp] service is not clear, and fault causes have not been diagnosed, a reasonable expectation is that these faults would remain ‘open’.”  (not my emphasis)

How could Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) write in his findings at point 3.2 (h) that there were no problems after July 1994 when his technical consultants DMR & Lave told him on 30 April 1995 they had not diagnosed the fault causes and therefore "these faults would remain "Open"? 

Furthermore, Dr. Hughes omitted to mention in his written findings that he received multiple letters from Telstra and AUSTEL during my arbitration.  These letters at 46-F to 46-J - Open letter File No/46-A to 46-L sought confirmation regarding his intention to investigate and address my ongoing faxing transmissions and the persistent issues with my ongoing 1800 problems. As evidenced on the absentjustice.com website, Dr Hughes's lack of response to Telstra and the government communications authority AUSTEL is concerning as Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? shows

In 2024, Dr. Gordon Hughes continues to hold the esteemed position of senior partner at a prestigious legal firm in Melbourne. The decision to divest my cherished holiday camp in December 2001 was necessitated by persistent telephone and faxing issues dating back to 1988. Despite receiving assurances from Telstra, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and Dr Gordon Hughes to the Australian government, my historical and ongoing telephone faults were not rectified during the 1994 arbitration, as the following link, Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, shows.

TELSTRA - FILE - NOTES

The file notes from Telstra, dated 16 October 2002 (FOI folio 100264), pertain to the new proprietor of my enterprise, Mr. Lewis. He had been experiencing persistent telephone issues and had sought assistance from his local Member of Parliament, the Honorable David Hawker MP. Mr. Hawker first engaged with my ongoing telephone predicament in August 1992, precisely a decade prior.

“Customer has contacted MP again re service as he is not receiving calls on message bank or *10#. Customer is aware previous owner of business also had problems with service [sic]. Customer said he was told by Telstra that there was a problem in his exchange.” (File 289 - AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323  

 This Telstra FOI folio 100266, dated 18 October 2002, also discusses the new owner's ongoing faults as well as the problems I experienced and notes:

“The TIO have now raised a Level 1 complaint on behalf of Mr & Mrs Lewis. The TIO have specifically mentioned in their correspondence that the TIO have previously investigated a number of complaints raised by Alan Smith the previous account holder for this service.” (File 290  AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323 )

 

The holiday camp had everything except an adequate phone service. 

 

 

Mobile phones were still not operating correctly until 2007

 

The sale holiday camp agreement exhibited a lack of goodwill. Despite multiple attempts at arbitration, persistent issues were regularly identified during Portland Tourist meetings, presenting challenges in portraying a prosperous business to the Lewises. This predicament deteriorated over time, culminating in an increasingly unfavourable situation.

8th November 2002:  This Portland Observer newspaper article is headed: “Holiday camp still plagued by phone and fax problems” and says:-

“The telecommunications problems which plagued former Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp operator Alan Smith continued to beset current owner Darren Lewis.” (File 414 - GS-CAV Exhibit 410-a to 447)

Brian Hodge, B, Tech, MBA, a thirty-year veteran ex-Telstra technical expert, investigated Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp independently. His report (File 486 - AS-CAV Exhibit 470 to 486) strongly criticized Telstra's two separate testing processes at Cape Bridgewater, conducted twelve months apart, as severely lacking. Hodge's report from July 2007 accused the tests of being deceptively manufactured. He emphasized that Telstra would have been fully aware of this when the reports were presented to the arbitrator and government regulator as accurate.

Furthermore, in his report from July 2007, Hodge emphasized that, according to Telstra's network data, the ongoing phone issues were still affecting the holiday camp as recently as November 2006. In essence, this indicates that the persistent telephone problems, which Dr. Gordon Hughes prohibited his arbitration consultants (File 45-c -File No/45-A) from identifying and resolving as part of the agreed arbitration, persisted for a further eleven years after he concluded my arbitration procedure.

 

Corruption in Arbitration Continues

 

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

The precise target of Thomas Jefferson's remark 'let us tie the second down with the Constitution', whether it encompassed investigative journalists or akin to figures such as Julian Assange, remains uncertain. However, the indispensable role of investigative journalists, who willingly hazard all to bring to light the truth, is incontrovertible. Deprived of their efforts, our world would undoubtedly deteriorate significantly.

When Law Partners learned I was getting nowhere from the arbitrator's office, the Administrator's legal Counsel office, including John Pinnock's office, with many apologies, advised that they could not work pro bono unless I had relevant documents to show legal lending institutions that I had a winnable case, they suggested I again approach the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who had been helpful during my arbitration. 

Between October 18, 1995, and October 4, 1997, I teamed up with Mr John Wynack, the Director of Investigations representing the Commonwealth Ombudsman, in our efforts to obtain a copy of Telstra's arbitration file through the Freedom of Information (FOI Act). Exhibit Home Page File No/82 validates Mr. Wynack's rejection of Telstra's claim regarding destroying my arbitration file despite refusals from all involved parties.

To locate this crucial file, Mr. Wynack flew from Canberra to Telstra's FOI viewing room in Melbourne. Regrettably, as of 2024, the arbitration file has not been released to me or any of the other COT cases, despite our rightful entitlement during our arbitration appeal processes. This denial has significantly disadvantaged our appeal procedures, as we could not pinpoint the individuals responsible for the unauthorized modifications to our agreements.

Criminal Conduct Example 7 

We COT Cases never had a chance from the very beginning

Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct)

John Rundell, Arbitration Project Manager 

Even though John Rundell was aware that Warwick Smith, the administrator of the arbitrations, had sent an official letter to the four COT Cases on 9th March 1995, promising them that due to their mistrust in Lane (an ex-Telstra official) who had suddenly been chosen to assess each of the four COT Cases claims, DMR Inc. from Canada would be the principal technical consultants. 

On 18th April 1995, John Rundell sent another official letter, this time to Warwick Smith, Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator), and Peter Bartlett (Warwick Smith's legal counsel). However, he neglected to send a copy of his letter to the four COT Cases. “Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc." (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A).

 John Rundell of Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (FHCA), was designated as the arbitration project manager and financial advisor to the COT arbitrator. Three of the four COT claimants were coerced into accepting last-minute modifications to the arbitration agreement, governing the operational rules of the process (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct). This agreement, encompassing clauses 24, 25, and 26, was endorsed and approved by the government and the claimants' legal representatives. Subsequently, upon receiving the agreement via facsimile from the arbitrator's office on the afternoon of April 19, 1994, the claimants' legal counsel sought additional counsel from a Queen's Counsel prior to advising the three remaining claimants, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and myself, to execute it.

Maureen Gillan, the initial of the four COT cases, had previously executed the same agreement on April 8, 1994. Given Maureen's affliction with PSD, the former government communications regulator, AUSTEL's General Manager of Consumer Affairs, Amanda Davis, consented to serve as a power of attorney in Maureen Gillan's arbitration. Amanda Davis, after careful consideration, concluded that clauses 24, 25, and 26, firmly incorporated into the agreement, afforded her client Maureen Gillan a degree of assurance that the arbitration process would be conducted in adherence to the rule of law and with transparency, overseen by legal counsel and financial and technical consultants.

Chapter 5 (Fraudulent conduct) reveals that clauses 25 and 26 were completely removed from the arbitration agreement. The remaining three claimants were coerced to sign on April 21, 1994. It was discovered that clause 24 had been modified to the disadvantage of the three named claimants. These changes also had a significant impact on any potential future appeal against the entire arbitration process or against a single consultant, as mentioned in clauses 25 and 26.

Despite this, the government authority has not taken action against the threats the three COT Cases received if they did not accept the altered agreement. It is presumed that the influence of the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman who approved these modifications is the reason why no government official has assisted the COT Cases in bringing this serious issue into the public domain. Before the arbitrations commenced, the government and media were informed that an independent technical consultant would be appointed to assess the COT Cases' claims against the telephone equipment installed by Telstra in their exchanges, which seemed to be causing widespread problems throughout Australia, not limited to the business operations of the COT Cases.

The COT arbitrations were of public interest, and although the names of the claimants would be disclosed in the media, the claims would be utilized to improve the network before being sold off. As more and more COT Case submissions began to demonstrate the faulty nature of the Ericsson AXE equipment and that Telstra had prior knowledge before the arbitrations began. Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd ex-Telstra officials were assigned to investigate the failure of Ericsson's telephone equipment. Lane did not make any written findings regarding my ongoing Ericsson telephone problems. Not long after, while assessing the COT Cases claims, Lane was sold off to Ericsson for an undisclosed amount (Refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden:

 

As a point of interest 

Arbitrator False Evidence File 1

In 2002, I obtained a document containing information that had been withheld from me by John Pinnock, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, in 1996. This document disclosed an admission by John Rundell (refer to File 45-E - Open letter File No/45-E) of knowingly submitting incomplete financial findings to the arbitrator as his statement referrs: "I did advise Mr Ryan that the final report did not cover all material and working papepers". Furthermore, it featured a concocted narrative implicating me in criminal damage to Mr. Rundell's Brighton property, with purported involvement of the Brighton CIB police, which, upon verification, was found to be unsubstantiated. Despite the 2002 notification suggesting police investigation, the Brighton police station confirmed, upon inquiry by myself and Mr. Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, that I had never been a suspect in any criminal investigation.

Subsequently, I engaged Quest Private Detective Investigations, as recommended by (Law Partners Melbourne) legal firm, and they informed me that the letter in question (Prologue Evidence File No/8-E) had been provided by the arbitrator Dr. Gordon Hughes to Laure James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, during an inquiry into Dr. Hughes's conduct as the arbitrator of my case.

In 1994, during my arbitration, a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation began and concluded in 1997. An international investigator, Mr. Tony Morgon from GB Robins, was brought in. The investigation found that the 24,000 plus documents mentioned by Dr. Hughes in his letter to Laurie James (Prologue Evidence File No/8-E), which were claimed to have been assessed and valued by either himself or his arbitration unit, were never read or assessed. This was because Telstra's FOI unit sent those documents to Queensland, and by the time they arrived back in Melbourne, Dr. Hughes refused to accept them into arbitration due to the lateness of my submission (refer to his letter of 5 May 1995 Arbitrator False Evidence File 1 - (Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter)

Criminal Conduct Example 8 

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

Telstra threats carried out. 

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. This issue arose from my assistance to the AFP in their investigations into Telstra's interception of my telephone conversations and related faxes. Notably, forty-three arbitration-related claim documents faxed to the arbitrator never arrived, as indicated in his arbitration document schedule. This alarming event, which has not undergone a transparent investigation as of June 1994, demands attention.

“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)

It is possible that when I received threats not to disclose any documents to the Australian Federal Police, the Telstra two 'Thugs in Suits' might have been referring to documents inadvertently released under the Freedom of Information (FOI) showing Senator Bob Collins' was involved in paedophile activities. If this is the case, why were Telstra officials concerned if I released any paedophile documentation to the AFP?  

Shouldn't Telstra have wanted me to expose this terrible crime unless, of course, some of their own members were known to be involved in a paedophile ring?

AUSTEL, the former government communications authority (now known as ACMA), issued a letter to Telstra addressing these concerns and the potential interception of telephone conversations for the four main COT Cases individuals - Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and myself. This communication covers the period during which we established the COT Cases group and when we brought these issues to the attention of AUSTEL. On 10 February 1994 AUSTEL wrote to Telstra's Steve Black,  who was Telstra's principal Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP defence officer), 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)

Here is evidence that AUSTEL (now ACMA) clearly favoured Telstra by exclusively dealing with Telstra on these nine audio tape matters while neglecting the four COT Cases, the actual victims of Telstra's unauthorized interception of their telephone services.

After receiving only a copy of AUSTEL's letter dated February 10, 1994, addressed to Telstra's Steve Black, and not a copy of the actual nine audios of Telstra's tape recordings of their unauthorized interception of our telephone conversations, we promptly brought this critical issue to the attention of Senators Ron Boswell and Richard Alston. Two legal experts confirmed that, as the COT Cases were in a signed government-endorsed process executed by Telstra on November 18, 1993, and the four COT Cases on November 23, 1993, we were legally entitled to these nine tapes. Senator Richard Alston, a former barrister, concurred with this assessment.

 

Unauthorized interception of telephone conversations 

 

 

Questions raised on 'Notice' in the Senate regarding interception/privacy issues  

We stressed the importance of these nine tapes as conclusive evidence for our Fast Track Settlement Proposals/Arbitration with Telstra. They were the crucial 'nine smoking guns' that would undoubtedly strengthen our claims against Telstra. Consequently, Senator Richard Alston committed to initiating inquiries directed at Telstra on February 15, 1994, to address this troubling matter (Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
2. Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
3. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
4. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
5. Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
6. Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
7. How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?

The nine tapes (the nine smoking guns) mentioned were never released to the four COT Cases, despite FOI requests to all involved parties. The arbitrator made no finding regarding Telstra's unlawful conduct in intercepting my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, even though it was clearly defined in my Letter of Claim that these privacy issues were part of that claim.

In early 2000, Frank Blount, Telstra's CEO, discussed the problems Telstra had with its 008/1800 billing problems on pages 132 and 133 of his publication Managing in Australia File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127, the author exposes the problems Telstra were hiding from their 1800 customers:

“Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem." 

"The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.”

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can still be purchased online. 

To what extent is the Australian government endorsing Telstra's ongoing refusal to recognize the dismissal of its arbitration billing issues as unwarranted? This persists despite the informed understanding of Telstra's arbitration defence and the entire Telstra board and CEO's comprehensive awareness of the systematic billing discrepancy within its network software, as verified in Frank Blount's co-authored publication.

 

I still await the AFP's assistance. 

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms that the AFP told me that the government communications authority representative AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence 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?

"... 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".

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the one described in the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which confirms that two highly skilled telecommunications forensic experts agree that a secondary fax machine was intercepting (screening) the COT Cases faxes during their arbitrations.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this 7 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)

I received some redacted documents twenty or so years after my arbitration, which is outside the statute of limitations for me to appeal. You can easily view these documents by clicking on the image below with your mouse/cursor.

Given the extensive amount of information I need to have on record in case any of my mini-stories are challenged by authorities who claim our Casualties of Telstra stories are not of public interest or that it is not in Australia's interest to have these matters disclosed online (Refer to Evidence Files), it was also important for me to find a parallel event in a Western nation that claims to be governed by the rule of law. An example of this is the ongoing British Post Office scandal. In this case, the Post Office board and CEO were willing to ruin the lives of hundreds of UK citizens who were Post Office subcontractors operating under the license of a Post Office in various locations around the United Kingdom. The involvement of Alan Bates and his Post Office subcontractors in uncovering several unlawful practices by the British Post Office has turned into a national scandal.

After almost two decades, the British public and several British politicians have been saying that this matter is of public interest and should not be concealed (hidden) by the government. It is essential for England's interest that this matter be thoroughly investigated. Click here to watch the Australian television Channel 7 trailer for ‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’, which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The British Post Office public servants knew that the Fujitsu Horizon computer software was responsible for the incorrect billing accounting system, as evidenced in this YouTube link:  https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

The Australian government hid the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment issues, which caused widespread software billing problems across Australia for several years. This impacted up to 120,000 COT Type Telstra customers. The Ericsson AXE billing problem and the ‘1800 Free-call’ service billing software issue in Telstra's telephone exchanges are of public concern. Similar issues with the British Post Office Horizon software resulted in the loss of lives due to the stress of operating a business with known systemic equipment issues supplied by the government in both countries.

You will be able to learn more about this story from either my blog at Documentary Alan-Bates vs Post Office, or on line. 

At 80 years of age, I miss the noise of the children 

I am dedicated to preserving the positive recollections I acquired at my Cape Bridgewater holiday camp. It is disconcerting that, during the government-sanctioned arbitration, nine Telstra employees were predisposed to provide false testimony, resulting in the arbitrator dismissing the ongoing telephone issues at my holiday camp despite my contrary assertions. The meticulous documentation of these deceptive declarations can be accessed on absentjustice.com.

 

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

I think it's essential to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. Two Telstra technical consultants inadvertently left a briefcase in my office. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B).

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER' - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a significant AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, and with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over 8 months received a 'service disconnected' message telling the caller my line was disconnected. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I managed to copy about one-third of the briefcase before my copying fax line jammed as it always did after sending more than five or six pages. Telstra retrieved the briefcase the next day, but not before I had sent the other copied information by Australia Post to AUSTEL, the government communications regulator. This act felt like signing my own death warrant. If I had retained these copies and refrained from copying the information, I am confident that I would have won my arbitration and settled by 1993 or early 1994. This would have spared me the thirty-year pursuit of evidence that AUSTEL and Telstra were on the verge of destroying once the COT case arbitrations had commenced. AUSTEL, representing the government, believed that retaining these documents would enable access under FOI or through the arbitration discovery process.

One-third of the documents that I managed to copy contained enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware that the AXE Ericsson lock-up software problems and faults were a problem worldwide, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment. The fault locked up the system and affected the billing software. 

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries worldwide were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Lies were told by Telstra to minimise their liability for the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)

Was this why the Australian government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane during the government-endorsed COT arbitration while the arbitrations were still in progress?

When the COT arbitration documents were submitted into arbitration, it proved that this Ericsson AXE lock-up call loss rate was between 15% and 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f clearly shows. AUSTEL then instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C) shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding of 120,000 COT-type complaints to show a hundred. When the public AUSTEL COT Cases report was launched on 13 April 1994, it stated AUSTEL located up-wards of 50 or more COT-type complaints being experienced around Australia. 

In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson, whose official arbitration records numbered A56132, were investigated, including Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignore this evidence against Ericsson?  

Even worse, when my arbitration claim documents were returned to me after the arbitration concluded, none of my Ericsson technical data was amongst the returned material.

The Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in contact with Ericsson, Telstra's major telecommunication equipment supplier, before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson's purchase of Lane during the COT arbitration process?

Legal abuse in arbitration and the exposure of crime and corruption within those arbitrations have been costly. Those who controlled the arbitrations committed heinous, scandalous, vile, and mischievous crimes. Absent Justice.com is about exposing this corruption. 

As discussed above, the COT Cases faced a challenging situation when Telstra, Warwick Smith, and Dr Gordon Hughes (the FTSP-Assessor) insisted on transforming our assessment process into a legalistic arbitration process despite the lack of a confidentiality clause. Their demand put us in a difficult position, as they threatened to withdraw from the FTSP if we didn't comply. Additionally, our efforts to seek legal support faced roadblocks, as no firm in Melbourne was willing to take on our case due to their commercial ties with Telstra. Ultimately, we felt compelled to agree to arbitration reluctantly.

This change would generate millions of dollars for Telstra's lawyers who had drafted the agreement (according to a Senate statement, it cost 23 million dollars). Warwick Smith, who later became a politician, was providing assistance to the defendants in the forthcoming arbitrations, allowing Telstra and the assessor, Dr Gordon Hughes, to convert the assessment process into a lengthy arbitration. Ultimately, this led to the bankruptcy of three of the four COT Cases.

On 21 November 2012, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) produced a letter of understanding (567 file GS-CAV 522 to 580) that included:

“During the period that I retained Landers & Rogers, at no stage was I informed by Gordon Hughes or any other member of Landers & Rogers staff, that Telecom or the Australian Government Solicitor contacted them with information regarding the North Melbourne exchange.

“Furthermore, had I known that Gordon Hughes had concealed knowledge of such an important document from me, I would not have accepted his appointment as the arbitrator in my arbitration process” (refer 567 file  GS-CAV 522 to 580 ).

The included Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) letter is crucial because when Dr. Gordon Hughes was appointed as the official arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he failed to disclose his conflict of interest regarding Graham Schorer, who was a client of Dr. Hughes in a Federal Court action against Telstra. The same Telstra issues raised in that court case were assessed again in Mr Schorer's arbitration three years later. Dr Hughes granted Mr Schorer more than three years longer than he allowed me to submit my arbitration claim when Mr Schorer re-utilized Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement used in the first four arbitrations, including mine.

The AGS letter and the previous Federal Court action were utilized to demonstrate Dr Gordon Hughes's unethical behaviour in not granting me the extra time he stated was needed in the Telstra-drafted agreement that had been overlooked (refer to Dr Hughes' letter advising that the agreement he had just utilized in my arbitration was not credible - Open Letter File No 55-A).

I have valid claims that were still not addressed, as the following information shows.

On 9 December 1993, The Hon David Hawker MP, my local federal member of Parliament, wrote to congratulate me for:

“your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”  (File 837 -  AS-CAV Exhibit 819 to 843)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor Government, to Senator Michael Baume, Senator for New South Whales, which said:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82)

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

Sister Maureen Burke drove the three-hour drive to confirm the booking. 

Forty-five smiling children - nothing like it in the whole world

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins. I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities — it didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas. Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland. This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact; calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a very angry man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp.   Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these wonderful women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or, alternatively the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line. Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government communication authority AUSTEL (now ACMA) investigated my ongoing telephone problems concerning my belief that hundreds if not possibly thousands of residents in Ballarat Victoria had problems like Loreto College in tying to telephone my business. It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings that AUSTEL/ACMA found my claims were valid concerning Ballarat as the following point 115 notes:

“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

The document unequivocally demonstrates that systemic Ericsson AXE billing faults were present as early as July 1992. After reviewing additional Ericsson AXE documents, it becomes increasingly clear that the billing problems were deeply rooted within Telstra's systems, at least by October 1997.

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” False Witness Statement File No 3-A

   

It's clear that any reasonable person, given access to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, and knowing that my social club bookings were also being generated from Ballarat (Victoria), would have awarded substantially more for my financial business losses than the arbitrator did. The fact that the government authority has admitted in writing to a massive problem lasting at least two years, for which I have yet to be compensated, only strengthens my story. 

A 3-minute YouTube video featuring my story against the beautiful backdrop of "Lake Wendouree Ballarat."

 

This is a never-ending saga.

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  read:

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.” Evidence File 10 B 

The challenges I faced during the arbitration in 1994 were substantial. Telstra not only made threats but acted upon them, which significantly disadvantaged my claim. These threats are well-documented in Senate Hansard's records (Senate Evidence File No 31). As the years passed without resolution to ongoing telephone problems, I had no choice but to sell my beloved holiday camp in December 2001 to Darren and Jenny Lewis for land value only. Within a year of taking over, Darren Lewis started to receive threats from Melbourne's Telstra technicians via telephone from Melbourne, an exercise that Telstra had done throughout the COT Cases arbitrations and had been using for years.   Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

Never showing their face when making those threats but not concealing their names. It's thuggery at its worst.

The sale agreement could hardly reflect any goodwill. Multiple law firms and real estate agents in Portland knew the issues that had not been fixed during my arbitration. I found it difficult to convey a thriving business to the Lewises, especially with the local Portland Observer regularly reporting the Australian Federal Police's investigation into Telstra's illegal interception of my telephone conversations and the potential interception of my faxes. Media coverage in the Herald Sun newspaper (owned by Rupert Murdoch) also highlighted the involvement of former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and a near-death experience of a child from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne who had stayed at the camp. 

The Herald Sun newspaper strongly emphasized that the nurses faced significant challenges when attempting to make calls from the camp, encountering numerous issues with the phone services. It's important to note that mobile phones were not usable at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp until 2004, a decade after the reported difficulties.

This prompted Rupert Murdoch's sister, Helen Handury, to visit and offer her assistance. Helen's significant contributions are well-documented in Rupert Murdoch - Hacked Documents.

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

How could I really sell the holiday camp as a thriving business? I advised the Australian Federal Police I firmly believed that once I stepped down from managing the holiday camp, Telstra would take immediate action to address any issues. True enough, shortly after my departure, Telstra revamped the business operations, leading to a substantial increase in incoming calls, as verified by Darren Lewis. Nevertheless, intermittent problems persisted, as evidenced in the following document.

Telstra also made severe threats against the new owners, who purchased the company seven years after the arbitrator allowed Telstra not to address my ongoing telephone problems. The threats made and carried out by Telstra during my arbitration are recorded in the Senate Hansard. The threats made by Telstra to Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of the holiday camp, are documented with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. (Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

I want to emphasize that the arbitrator only awarded compensation for past telephone faults, not for those still affecting my business. Even though the arbitrator was provided with written evidence from several COT Cases showing that the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment under investigation during the COT arbitrations had been removed or was in the process of being removed from telephone exchanges around the globe, the arbitrator still would not make a finding on this Ericsson equipment.

The situation resulted in the closure of businesses unable to withstand these persistent billing issues, ultimately impacting the livelihoods of numerous small business owners. Some individuals faced tragic consequences like suicide and marital breakdowns due to the financial strain. Additionally, Telstra pursued legal action against Australian citizens for unpaid disputed billing accounts despite being fully aware of the systemic software problem in their accounting system.

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

The Ericsson AXE billing problems continued

I formally addressed the possibility that another Australian citizen, Alan Smith, residing in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, might have received my arbitration correspondence. This circumstance made me suspect that my lack of arbitration-related communication may have originated from this source. Regrettably, no inquiry was pursued on this essential matter. Furthermore, I duly informed the arbitrator and arbitration administrator of the intimidations I faced from the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically Freehill Hollingdale & Page, leading up to and during the arbitration process. I also underscored that the aforementioned individual, who shares the same name and resides in Cape Bridgewater, had encountered similar intimidations from Telstra’s legal representatives, who were presently representing Telstra in my arbitration. Despite these disclosures, no subsequent investigation into these intimidations ensued. Moreover, despite the acknowledgement of these matters by a Senate Committee, no proactive measures were undertaken to aid my situation by the arbitrators, Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, to stop these threats from being carried out. Commonwealth Ombudsman records show these threats were duly carried out.

I presented Alan Smith's billing information, obtained through the FOI, to the arbitrator as evidence of the threats he received from Telstra and their lawyers. In my experience, Alan contested the billing accounts for calls he did not make. Regrettably, there has been no response from Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) or Warwick Smith (the administrator).

Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal? it is revealed that on 16 October 1995, five months subsequent to the finalization of my arbitration process, AUSTEL/ACMA authorized Telstra's original arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, to address the most critical components of my ongoing 1800 Ericsson AXE billing claim documents in confidence (Open letter File No/46-A to 46-l), without the presence of the arbitrator or myself. Consequently, my legal entitlement to contest Telstra's billing submission was abrogated.

BCI and SVT reports - Section One

Who highjacked the BCI and SVT Reports 

The following Federal Magistrates Court letter dated 3 December 2008, from Darren Lewis, was never discussed by the government or Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman or its relevance to several arbitration documents in 1994 to 1995 being highjacked, i.e., never arriving at the Magistrates Court. 

My letter to the Hon David Hawker MP (see File 274 - AS-CAV Exhibit 282 to 323) clearly indicates that even the Portland Australia Post office staff know that the security of specific mail leaving the Portland Post Office cannot be given the green light. So what was the use of me road mailing my arbitration documents to the arbitrator in 1994 and 1995 and the new owners of my business sending similar Telstra-related documents to the Federal Magistrate Court when there was a big chance the mail would not arrive? Darren and Jenny Lewis (the new owners of my business letter of 3 December 2008, is just further alarming information that the government has not transparently investigated (see the following statement by Darren Lewis to the Federal Magistrates Court:

“I was advised by Ms McCormick that the Federal Magistrates Court had only received on 5th December 2008 an affidavit prepared by Alan Smith dated 2 December 2008. PLEASE NOTE: I originally enclosed with Alan Smith’s affidavit in the (envelope) overnight mail the following documents:

1. Two 29 page transparent s/comb bound report titled SVT & BCI – Federal Magistrates Court File No (P) MLG1229/2008 prepared by Alan Smith in support of my claims that I had inherited the ongoing telephone problems and faults when I purchased the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp
2. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 1 to 34
3. Two s/comb transparent bound documents titled Exhibits 35 to 71 (the attached 71 Exhibits was enclosed in support of Alan Smith’s 29 page report);
4. Three CD Disks which incorporated all of the submitted material.

“On learning from Ms McCormick that the information discussed above in points 1 to 4 had not been received by the Federal Magistrates Court I again had a stress attack seizure, a problem I have been suffering with for quite some time due to the predicament I now find myself in and the disbelief that once again my mail has been intercepted. I have attached herewith dated 3rd December 2008, a copy of the Australia Post overnight mail receipt docket numbers SV0750627 and SV0750626 confirming the total cost to send the above aforementioned information was $21.80. I am sure Australia Post would confirm that a large amount of documents would have been enclosed in these two envelopes when they left Portland.” My Story Evidence File 12-A to 12-B

Australia Post will not charge any postage fee for an overnight parcel unless they stamp and retain it. Since neither of these parcels arrived at their proper destination with all the information enclosed initially, those documents must have been ‘lost’ between the Portland Post Office and the Magistrates Court.

As I have reported throughout this webpage, numerous Telstra COT-related arbitration documents (like those lost on route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008) were also lost during 1994/95 on route to the arbitrator hearing my case.

As Darren’s letter shows, I helped him prepare his bankruptcy appeal against the Australian Taxation Office (for back taxes) using my own evidence that the Telstra Corporation knowingly submitted two false and fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater reports to the arbitrator during my arbitration to deliberately mislead the arbitrator into believing that there were no more ongoing phone problems affecting my business.

Lost in transit 

Bankrupt in 2009

Receivers walked Darren Lewis off the property and went bankrupt in August 2008.

After viewing the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (SVT) CCAS data dated 29 September 1994 (see Arbitrator File No/110), Brian Hodge (B Tech, MBA, B.C. Telecommunications), on 27 July 2007, prepared a report. On page 22, he states:

“It is my opinion that the reports submitted to Austel on this testing program was [sic] flawed, erroneous, fictitious, fraudulent & fabricated, as it is clear that no such testing has taken place as Telstra’s own call charge system DOES NOT record any such activities. Therefore the results are flawed or did not occur.” (Main Evidence File No 3)

Brian Hodges concluded that two Telstra Cape Bridgewater BCI and SVT reports were fabricated. Copies of the same material I attached to the (same) two reports were stolen before they reached the Magistrates Court. The same technical information that I was showing the Magistrates Court proved not only did my telephone problems continue for seven years after the conclusion of my 1994/95 arbitration, but they continued to affect the holiday camp as late as November 2006, five years after I sold the business to Darren and Jenny Lewis. 

The illusive logbook (example 1)

 

Telstra's Principal Investigator could not access the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook.

Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. The Major Fraud Group also seconded me as a witness in that same investigation (see page 11 → Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

 

Sworn Witness Statement dated 10/08/2006  

In Mr Direen's sworn witness statement, he notes: 

Point 20: - "Finally, I would like to say this while I was working at Telstra and it would have been the early nineties I had cause to travel ro Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange." 

Point 21: - “As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.”

Point 22: - “When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater are south of Portland was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation. I was not told about this complaint prior to travelling to Portland and when I made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne I was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra. I later found out that the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who used extracts from the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbooks when investigating my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided Telstra's logbook, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded. Living with these types of injustices has taken its toll on all COT Cases and their immediate family.

If the two most recent Kangaroo Court stories are indeed accurate, as appears to be the case upon review, then the assertions made in my COT story warrant serious consideration. My narrative contains over 2,000 evidence exhibits available for examination on absentjustice.com.

The sexual abuse and the raping of Australian citizens in Parliament House Canberra during the period of the Casualties of Telstra mediation and then arbitrations is still very much in the public eye in 2024 as the following  Kangaroo Court website https://shorturl.at/dtDH9, https://shorturl.at/svwI5 and  https://shorturl.at/hqzHO shows. 

Therefore, it is crucial to highlight 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 assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, he is well-informed about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. Nevertheless, our claims have yet to be thoroughly and transparently investigated. These letters are documented under reference See File Ann Garms 104 Document, where she exposes the raping of the first nation (aboriginal children) by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office (rb.gy/dsvidd). ​

Access to crucial Freedom of Information (FOI) documents stored in Senator Bob Collins' offices, which included information related to Australia-wide Ericsson software issues, was denied to the COT Cases. This denial of access may have been motivated by concerns about inadvertently exposing evidence of the Senator's criminal activities during one of several FOI requests. It is essential to note that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) was concurrently investigating Senator Collins for criminal conduct (child rape) while also probing Telstra for intercepting telephone conversations and COT arbitration-related faxes, some of which were intercepted to and from Parliament House. The potential dissemination of this sensitive material to the media could have given rise to significant issues. Consequently, the COT Cases arbitrations suffered through no fault of their own.

The embezzlement of public funds by Telstra employees and the complicit board of directors, who knowingly allowed millions of dollars in erroneous customer charges to inflate Telstra's value during its privatization, constitutes fraud against unwitting shareholders. Shareholders were unaware that a significant portion of Telstra's profits came from overcharging its customers over a span of more than six years. The link to Kangaroo Court https://shorturl.at/JnQx2 shows ongoing misappropriation of government funds in 2024.