Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

I am pleased to announce the release of my book, Absent Justice. - Press here - Order Now—it's Free. This publication is the culmination of extensive research and thorough evidence collection. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you recognize the importance of the research and evidence that underpin this work, I would sincerely appreciate your consideration of donating to Transparency International Australia.

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

Bribery and corruption, while deeply embedded in society, can be tackled by a dedicated network of professionals, including bankers, lawyers, accountants, and arbitrators committed to transparency and integrity. These individuals can dismantle opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that facilitate corrupt activities and protect those who commit serious crimes against the public.

Please refer to pages 5165 to 5169 in the official Hansard of the Australian Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. Telstra's lawyers, Freehills Hollingdale & Page, prepared a legal document titled “COT Case Strategy” (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). This document instructed their client, Telstra, on targeting me, my named business, 'The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp' and three other COT Cases along with their businesses so that we could not prove our claims against the government-owned Telstra Corporation. They advised Telstra on how to withhold technical information from us—the undersigned businesses—leading up to and during our government-endorsed arbitrations. They did this under the pretence of 'Legal Professional Privilege,' even though the information in question was not privileged.

In my situation, leading up to my arbitration and during the early stages of the process, Telstra refused to investigate my ongoing telephone faults unless I submitted my issues in writing to Denise McBurnie. She was also the author of Prologue Evidence Files 1-A to 1-C. When I attempted to access my written correspondence regarding the faults to provide to the arbitrator, demonstrating that my phone issues were still unresolved, Freehills Hollingdale & Page never supplied those documents.

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

Two individuals named Alan Smith (unrelated) lived in Cape Bridgewater before and during my arbitration. No one investigated whether the other Alan Smith, who resides in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration correspondence. I submitted billing information for Alan Smith, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information request, to demonstrate to the arbitrator that he, like me, was receiving threats from Telstra and their lawyers due to his disputes over billing accounts for calls he did not make. The phone issues at the Cape Bridgewater (unmanned roadside switching device) were chaotic before and during my arbitration. Telstra's billing software could not determine if there was a fault in the line, meaning that the phone service would become unresponsive. This software could not distinguish whether the issue was due to a fault or if someone on the line was talking for an extended period.

Taking a strong stand against the concealment of telephone issues plaguing rural Australia is paramount. For too long, corruption and political misconduct have allowed these pressing problems to be hidden from the government, eroding public trust and weakening governmental integrity.

The lessons learned from the painful fallout of the Telstra government-endorsed arbitrations serve as a stark reminder of the critical need for transparency and accountability when addressing such vital concerns. Unfortunately, we found ourselves unable to boldly confront the concealment of these issues due to the government's ignorance—an ignorance fostered by Telstra’s deliberate actions.

In Australia, as in other Western nations that uphold the rule of law, we have the power to challenge political corruption that harms both large and small businesses and undermines our cherished democratic principles of justice. Keywords that define the events during the Casualties of Telstra arbitrations—such as shameful, treacherous, unscrupulous, and biased—serve as a call to action. They remind us of the importance of standing against intimidation and demanding accountability from all parties, inspiring a future of integrity and fairness.

If Telstra's current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, had disclosed to the Senate in January and April 1998 the false information that Telstra provided regarding my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp evidence, the issues raised on absentjustice.com would have been resolved twenty-eight years ago. This includes referencing Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.

Welcome to absentjustice.com, where our mission is to illuminate the challenges surrounding government agencies and public servants who may have misled Australia's citizens under the guise of impartial arbitration and mediation. By sharing my experience, I aim to offer a detailed overview of the facts and supporting evidence in Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. I hope to establish a global dialogue that encourages constructive discussions on critical procedural questions within arbitration processes.

For instance, should arbitration claimants be fully informed before signing an agreement that not all of their submitted claim documents may be addressed by government-appointed consultants? These consultants often determine that specific issues are systemic and not solely related to the individual claim. This was a significant aspect of my own arbitration process that I believe warrants discussion.

Furthermore, if the arbitrator considers a claimant's issues to be systemic and communicates this to the government, should the claimant also receive that same information, which is shared with the defence and arbitrator? In my experience, the arbitration process incurred over $300,000 in professional fees, making transparency crucial.

Finally, I pose this essential question for further consideration in Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct: Is it appropriate for arbitrators to remove clauses from arbitration agreements that might hold consultants accountable for not addressing specific claim documents? By examining these questions collaboratively, we can work towards enhancing the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. I have received thoughtful feedback from two international arbitration consultants who were surprised by my findings. One of these consultants, an international arbitrator from Egypt, has generously allowed me to share his insights on the process. His name has been provided to the Australian Federal Police, who have been involved from the beginning, as detailed in my narrative.

As I approach my 81st birthday in May 2025, I am determined to share this important story, despite the challenges it has already cost me—my beloved holiday camp and my partner's venue, Seal Cove Guest House at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria. I firmly believe that with proper funding, this story can be transformed into a compelling documentary that honors the truth of what transpired. I welcome all suggestions and opportunities for collaboration to ensure this story is told accurately and powerfully. Let’s bring this story to life.

The ultimate betrayal

Telstra engaged in unethical practices

(File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91) and Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1

Out of the twenty-one COT (Casualties of Telstra) cases examined on 6 September 2016 in Parliament House Canberra, a striking fourteen shared a common sentiment regarding the profound struggle they faced in trying to move on with their lives after confronting Telstra and the larger establishment. They articulated that if they had endured the loss of their businesses due to devastating events like fire, flood, or theft—natural disasters that strike without warning—they would, over time, likely find a way to heal and rebuild.

Their pain was deeply profound, stemming from the betrayal they felt after being misled by the institutions meant to be impartial and unbiased in administering their government-endorsed arbitration and mediation procedures. There was no level playing field for the claimants. Instead, the arbitrators, mediators, and government agencies responsible for oversight acted as silent witnesses, standing by as Telstra engaged in unethical practices that led to the failure of their businesses. Telstra misled the arbitrators and mediators by claiming that the phone faults had been resolved when, in fact, the phone problems continued to destroy their businesses.

This betrayal felt like a wound that would not heal as these individuals struggled with Telstra's ongoing lies about their telephone service. They could not simply turn away from the profound injustice they had suffered—an injustice caused by deceitful and treacherous actions that destroyed their livelihoods. The emotional toll was overwhelming, making it impossible for them to forget what had happened and regain a sense of normalcy in their lives.

The claims presented in the narrative below reveal a disturbing landscape of corporate wrongdoing, including acts of intimidation, unethical behaviour, and manipulation of justice related to the government-endorsed COT arbitrations. This entrenched political corruption not only jeopardizes the operations of businesses—regardless of their size—but also undermines the fundamental democratic principles of justice. The troubling accounts detailed in the Casualties of Telstra government stories, showcased on absentjustice.com, serve as poignant evidence of this erosion.

Addressing this grave threat to governmental integrity is of utmost importance, particularly given the insidious interplay of bribery, corruption, and political malpractice exemplified by the COT arbitrations. These clandestine practices are often shielded by a web of professional intermediaries, including bankers, lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents, who facilitate the dark undercurrents of these schemes. Coupled with opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies, these methods empower the proliferation of corruption while concealing substantial illicit wealth from scrutiny.

It is critical to confront the profound threat to government integrity stemming from the intertwining of bribery, corruption, and political malfeasance, as vividly exemplified by the Telstra government-endorsed arbitrations. Professional intermediaries—such as lawyers, accountants, and technical consultants—often play a significant role in perpetuating these corrupt practices. They exploit convoluted financial systems and utilize anonymous shell companies to obscure their activities, thereby facilitating the continued operation of corrupt schemes while shielding illicit wealth from regulatory scrutiny and public awareness.

The government communications authority has validated my claims; however, they withheld a significant report (AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) that could have substantiated my position. This withholding has resulted in my incurring extensive arbitration fees over thirteen months, as I sought to prove a matter for which the government had already documented evidence against Telstra as early as March 1994—six weeks prior to the commencement of my arbitration. It raises concerns that this report was not provided to me until November 2007, a full twelve years after the conclusion of my arbitration. Had this report been presented to the arbitrator at the appropriate time, it is reasonable to believe that he would not have concluded in his award that no further phone issues impacted my business in 1995. Furthermore, Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct, illustrate that the phone faults continued to persist until at least November 2006, a full eleven years after the arbitration was finalized.

Had the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims correctly investigated ALL of my submitted evidence, he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem, NOT a past problem, as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated 23 June 2015: > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with Can We Fix The Can, which was released in March 1994, these faults copper-wire network faults have been in existence for more than 24-years.

By 9 November 2017: Sadly, many Australians in rural Australia can only access a second-rate NBN. This didn’t have to be the case: had the Australian government ensured the arbitration process it endorsed to investigate the COT cases’ claims of ongoing telephone problems was conducted transparently, it could have used our evidence to start fixing the problems we uncovered in 1993/94. This news article https://theconversation.com/the-accc-investigation-into-the-nbn-will-be-useful-but-its-too-little-too-late-87095 and absentjustice.com/Introduction again shows that the COT Cases claims of the ailing copper-wire network were more than valid.

Latest News

In January 2025, the latest pre-election announcement, the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, said only a Labor government would "finish the National Broadband Network NBN" and "keep the NBN in public hands."

A Labor government will inject $3bn in equity into the national broadband network, as Anthony Albanese warns against letting the critical Coalition control the necessary infrastructure.

The equity injection will fund the upgrade of Australia's remaining national fibre to the node network, which the Government claims will deliver higher internet speeds for more than 600,000 premises by 2030.

It's about how we live our lives. It is about telehealth and education services. It is absolutely critical to the way that a modern economy and a modern society function. refer to https://shorturl.at/68hD6

In simple words the arbitration process failed the COT Cases in receiving a reliable phone service in 1995.

On January 27, 1999, I took a significant step by sharing my first manuscript draft, absentjustice.com. This document, which detailed my experiences and frustrations, caught the attention of Helen Handbury, the sister of media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

As Helen read through the pages, she became visibly emotional, nearly bursting into tears. Helen could relate deeply to the challenges I described, particularly the frustrating telephone issues she had faced while attempting to reach a holiday camp she had stayed at on two separate occasions. The manuscript also caught the eye of Senator Kim Carr. After he reviewed it, he expressed his thoughts in writing, indicating a serious engagement with the content and the issues I highlighted. His response suggested that the themes in my manuscript resonated with him as well, emphasizing the widespread impact of the injustices I attempted to address.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable

“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.”

During her second visit, Helen Haddbury animatedly shared her plans to enlist her brother Rupert, a prominent media mogul, to help bring my story to the public's attention. As she spoke, I felt a knot tightening in my stomach; I hesitated to reveal that Rupert was already acutely aware of the grave inadequacies plaguing Telstra’s infrastructure. After all, he had successfully pursued a jaw-dropping $400 million claim against the telecommunications behemoth, exposing its failures. This stark contrast in our positions underscored the vast chasm in power and resources—Rupert’s influence was monumental. At the same time, we, the COT cases, felt like mere whispers in the chaotic din of corporate negligence as the Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury) pages show.

In our desperate fight for justice, COT members had no choice but to bear the financial burden of hiring our own arbitration consultants to sift through the tangled mess of our ongoing telephone issues. It was an exhausting and costly process that felt almost Sisyphean, as Telstra remained obstinately defiant, refusing to admit to any faults in their service. This obstinacy was particularly infuriating given that Rupert Murdoch’s legal triumphs had starkly illustrated the glaring deficiencies in Telstra’s service, which consistently fell short of the quality offered by its competitors point 10, pages 5164 and 5165, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

An investigation conducted by the Senate Committee, which the government appointed to examine five of the twenty-one COT cases as a "litmus test," found significant misconduct by Telstra. This was highlighted by the statements of six senators in the Senate in March 1999:

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

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

Regrettably, because my case had been settled three years earlier, I and several other COT Cases could not take advantage of this investigation's valuable insights or recommendations. Pursuing an appeal of my arbitration decision would have incurred significant financial costs that I could not afford as shown in an injustice for the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The Senate investigation statement demonstrates that the COT Cases were promised essential documents prior to being compelled into government-endorsed arbitrations. This occurred without the crucial documents we were entitled to, including the Telstra telephone exchange Logbook, which should have been provided through the agreed discovery process or under the Freedom of Information (FOI Act).

The six senators mentioned above formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' leading up to and throughout the COT arbitrations; however, where were Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the arbitration administrator) when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was being carried out?

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

A second version of the COT story is being developed and has yet to be edited entirely. My narrative, "My Story Warts and All," seeks to illuminate the troubling and unethical practices of certain so-called arbitrators, which must be exposed for the sake of justice.

The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG

In June 2009, I wrote to The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, the then-president of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), about what had now become my eleventh remedy pursued. In his response to my letter, The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, advised:

“In accordance with established procedure, I have referred the complaint to the Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee of the Institute.

“In due course, you will be informed following this reference.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A)

Within two days of receiving this letter, I received a telephone call from the CEO of the IAMA, who explained that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee would investigate these fresh allegations and notify me of their findings. I advised the CEO that in 1996 and again in 2001 and 2002, the IAMA began investigating similar complaints concerning the same arbitrator but returned my documents without bringing down a finding. The CEO confirmed this would not be the case now. I deduced, from the CEO’s tone, that he had read the damning evidence against the arbitrator that had prompted the president of the IAMA to send the above letter of 9 July 2009.

The "IAMA" page on absentjustice.com, Chapter 11—The eleventh remedy pursued, offers a detailed account of the concealment of claims made by arbitrators endorsed by the Australian government during 2009 and 2010. The IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee approached me and asked me to provide substantial proof of these flawed arbitrations. In response, I meticulously compiled and presented 23 comprehensive spiral-bound reports.

Unfortunately, the IAMA did not issue a ruling or return these crucial documents. As of 2025, they have still failed to return this critical evidence, keeping their actions secret.

The Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA)

When Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators, initiated an investigation into my allegations against Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator who presided over my case, a troubling pattern of misconduct began to emerge. Dr Hughes failed to adhere to the established arbitration procedures and disregarded crucial new evidence indicating that Telstra had tampered with my telephone after I submitted it for evaluation as part of their defence. This oversight was not just negligence but a serious breach of trust.

Instead of admitting that I had been unfairly denied the right to appoint a forensic document researcher to scrutinize how Telstra arrived at their misleading conclusion—that my telephone was to blame for the ongoing issues—I found myself the target of a fabricated narrative. Dr. Hughes permitted the administrator to send a damaging letter to Laurie James, erroneously asserting that I had called the arbitrator's wife at 2:00 AM, right after the fresh evidence had surfaced the night before. This insinuation painted me as a person of questionable character. However, the truth is that I had telephoned Dr Hughes two minutes past 8:00 PM, eager to discuss the significant evidence that could potentially sway the arbitration's outcome in my favour. Dr Hughes was not home. My 28-second apology to Mrs James for the intuition was nothing but honourable.

In a disturbing display of influence, the Brotherhood convinced Laurie James, government officials, and various individuals within their network to suppress my evidence completely. It is alarming and disheartening that Dr. Hughes allowed his wife to be exploited in such a reprehensible manner, undermining the integrity of the arbitration process to which I had entrusted my case. (Refer to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter)

Delve further into this profoundly concerning issue of falsified technical reports submitted during the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations, a situation that has raised serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process. The disturbing acceptance of such unlawful conduct by the arbitrator—who appeared to endorse these misleading reports provided by Telstra—has profoundly influenced the overall narrative surrounding these proceedings. My experiences are intricately intertwined with the complex matters pertaining to Bell Canada International Inc. and the questionable testing allegedly conducted at Cape Bridgewater. This saga is poignantly documented in the compelling account titled "Confronting Despair," which details the significant implications of these actions.

The startling incident involving a sticky, wet beer substance that Telstra reportedly discovered after they collected my TF200 telephone from my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater is compounding this already perplexing situation. This peculiar event occurred the day after I had been battling an out-of-control bushfire as a committed volunteer firefighter with the Country Fire Authority (CFA). During these fourteen hours, I was fully dedicated to operating our CFA fire truck, protecting lives and property. This leads one to ponder: who within Telstra could have surreptitiously introduced this 'sticky beer' into my TF200 telephone during my absence? Such glaring injustices drive my motivation to document my experiences and raise awareness of these critical issues on my platform, absentjustice.com.

Telstra was the worst of the worst

Telstra's arbitration defence knew no bounds of common decency

Perhaps even more troubling was the way Telstra's arbitration defence unit distorted the facts surrounding my inability to attend the testing of my TF200 telephone at my home on the morning of April 27, 1994. This meeting occurred just a day after I had valiantly battled an out-of-control fire for an exhausting 14 hours. In their file notes later submitted to the arbitrator, Telstra inaccurately stated that I had refused to allow them to test the phones simply because I was tired. They conveniently ignored the crucial information I provided to the fault response unit—that I had been engaged in a relentless fight against a raging fire the previous evening, from 6 PM to 9 AM the following morning. My weary and sore eyes made it nearly impossible for me to oversee such testing.

Our "Tampering with Evidence” page indicates that Telstra aimed to undermine my credibility by implying I was merely lethargic. After Telstra removed the phone from my premises, it was tampered with before even reaching their laboratories in Melbourne. Astonishingly, someone from Telstra poured beer into the device. In their arbitration defence report, Telstra absurdly claimed that this sticky beer was the root cause of the phone's persistent lock-up issues instead of attributing the problem to the faulty Cape Bridgewater network.

This underhanded act of sabotage, coupled with the intimidating threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration process, should have prompted a thorough investigation twenty-eight years ago. Despite my earnest efforts to uphold my civic responsibilities as an Australian citizen—by providing vital evidence to the Australian Federal Police and combating a devastating fire—I faced penalties in the arbitration process on both occasions.

These are the types of injustices that Telstra, aided by their government public servant overseers, have allowed to fester unchecked for nearly three decades. Such negligence has not only ravaged the lives of those involved in the COT Cases but also inflicted deep emotional scars on their loved ones.

I am compelled to seek clarity regarding the arbitrator's decision to disallow my forensic document researcher, Mr Westwood, from thoroughly investigating this significant aspect of Telstra's arbitration defence concerning the collection of my TF200 telephone. Additionally, I wish to understand the rationale behind the arbitrator permitting the administrator of my arbitration to compose a letter to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In this correspondence, my character was unjustly maligned by the false claim that I had telephoned the arbitrator's wife at 2:00 AM regarding my TF200 telephone.

This baseless insinuation has cast a shadow over my character, especially considering I did not make any such call during that hour.

When this letter was subsequently communicated to Dr Gordon Hughes, who had been misled by the erroneous assertions made by the administrator, I must ask whether he took the initiative to defend my reputation and clarify that I had not contacted his wife in the early hours of the morning. A straightforward and forthright letter from Dr. Hughes, unequivocally refuting the misleading allegations propagated by John Pinnock, who served as the arbitration administrator, could have significantly mitigated much of the pain and distress caused by the unauthorized introduction of this erroneous beer substance into my telephone, as well as by the deceptive claims regarding the alleged 2:00 AM phone call.

The treacherous conduct continued.

Utterly shameful and profoundly disheartening: We must delve into the troubling actions and misconduct of specific public servants in Australia whose illegal activities have come to light. These individuals, entrusted with the responsibility of serving the public, have instead opted for behavior that undermines the very foundations of trust in our institutions. By examining the complex circumstances that fueled their lawbreaking—ranging from personal motivations to systemic issues—we can gain insight into the broader implications for society. The erosion of public trust is strikingly evident, as citizens grow more and more cautious of those wielding power. The growing skepticism stems from a pervasive sense of betrayal and disappointment in leaders who have failed to uphold their responsibilities. It is imperative to confront the glaring lack of accountability that persists, allowing these individuals to evade the serious consequences of their actions. This ongoing situation further intensifies the feelings of injustice among those who have bravely challenged these lawbreakers, who boldly present themselves as politicians advocating for the needs of the people, while their actions suggest otherwise.

In conjunction with her colleagues at the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), the Honourable Senator Helen Coonan is facing serious allegations regarding the misuse of their authority during an independent review process. This review is primarily outlined in a critical document referred to as Exhibit AS 639. This document, formally titled "Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for the Minister's Office," was designed to serve as a guiding framework for evaluating various matters concerning COT case issues. These issues include historical arbitration disputes and troubling claims of fax interception. However, an alarming oversight must be noted: Exhibit AS 639 File AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 lacks crucial details that are reportedly available on the official government website, raising questions about its comprehensiveness and authenticity.

Specifically regarding my arbitration process, this contentious document starkly contrasts the findings articulated in the report entitled AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. Notably, AUSTEL chose to conceal these significant findings from the arbitration proceedings in 1994, only disclosing them to the public twelve years after my arbitration was concluded. This delay in transparency fundamentally undermines the integrity of the arbitration process and calls into question the motivations behind the government's actions.

Moreover, this government archive document has been strategically created to cloud the reassessment of COT claims in 2006. Its purpose seems to align with the interests of those determined to obscure the truth regarding these matters. Alarmingly, evidence suggests that some aspects of the Australian public service are actively shielding individuals who have defended Telstra and the arbitrators responsible for the adjudication of COT claims. This manipulation of government assessment tools and the dissemination of misleading information indicates a troubling disregard for the rule of law.

As this situation continues to unfold, it is becoming increasingly evident that the tactics employed by certain bureaucrats resemble spin-doctoring, designed to distort the perception of events and filter out the truth from government archives. This deliberate lack of transparency threatens the rule of law and poses a significant risk to the educational pursuits of both local and international students. These students lack a genuine understanding of Australia’s complex and sometimes contentious history, which is vital for fostering informed citizenship and global awareness. Such distortion's implications extend beyond individual cases, impacting the collective historical narrative that shapes our national identity.

THE BROTHERHOOD 1

Australia's arbitration system faced a profound crisis due to the clandestine operations of a Brotherhood that ran a Kangaroo Court from 1993 to at least 1998. This shadowy organization operated outside the bounds of recognized legal standards, with an arbitrator whose qualifications were never officially assessed. Instead, he was allowed to conduct his proceedings based on decisions that had already been predetermined long before the claimants affixed their signatures to arbitration agreements. Such practices ignited serious doubts regarding the integrity and fairness of the entire arbitration process.

The workings of this Kangaroo Court severely compromised the foundational principles of justice. For those involved, the arbitration framework, designed to ensure an impartial and equitable resolution of disputes, was utterly undermined. Decisions were made in advance, effectively rendering the legal process a mere formality devoid of genuine consideration for the claims presented.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, the administrator of these Kangaroo Courts told several Australian Senators that the arbitrator had "no control over these COT arbitrations," as they were conducted entirely outside of established arbitration procedures. Yet, despite this alarming revelation, no measures were taken to compensate the individuals whose lives were irrevocably altered by the unjust outcomes of this Kangaroo Court system.

The first four cases under the Customer Owned Telecommunications (COT) program included Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. In February 1994, we received assurances from two key figures involved in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP): Dr. Gordon Hughes, the assessor, and Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the entire FTSP process. They inspired us with the promise that by stepping away from the FTSP and embracing Telstra's preferred guidelines for the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), we would gain access to the crucial telephone logbooks from the exchanges that supported our businesses as part of the arbitration discovery process.

The prospect of obtaining these logbooks "under discovery" fueled our determination to pursue change, especially given our unsuccessful attempts to acquire them through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request during the FTSP assessment process.

Regrettably, despite our fervent hopes, the logbooks were never provided to any of the four COT cases, neither during the FTSP assessment phase nor throughout the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure that followed. This absence of vital documentation became a testament to our resilience in the face of challenges as we sought justice and resolution for our telecommunications issues.

On November 11, 1994, I was entrenched in the complexities of an ongoing arbitration process that had already stretched into its eighth month. Throughout this extended period, the arbitrator had yet to request the crucial Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone logbook, which was a critical component of the discovery process we had all agreed upon. .As my frustration and desperation mounted, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, stepped in with a decisive action.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, Mr. Wynack drafted a formal letter addressed to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra. This letter, also forwarded to Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith, articulated my mounting frustrations and the urgency of my plight. It served as vital communication, shedding light on my pressing issues.

In his letter, Mr Wynack conveyed his serious apprehensions about the allegations I had raised. I had asserted that Telstra had deliberately concealed critical information from me in the documents provided under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This assertion wasn’t made lightly; I am convinced they deliberately withheld the logbook entries from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange. Other Telstra customers from Cape Bridgewater have been filing their complaints with local technicians, who must record the fault complaints they receive daily from residents into the logbook when completing their day. Telstra concealed my persistent telephone faults from the arbitrator by withholding this logbook from discovery.

Mr. Wynack's correspondence carried considerable weight as he underscored the seriousness of my claims to Mr. Blount, urging him to give immediate attention to this troubling matter. The stakes were high, and the need for resolution was more pressing than ever. (Refer to File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47) in which Mr Wynack states:

“I am notifying you of the details of the complaints made to the Ombudsman by Alan Smith;

Telecom claimed that documents given to Telecom by Mr Smith in 1992 had been destroyed or lost.
Telecom has lost or destroyed a number of files relating to his contacts with Telecom prior to 1991.
Telecom unreasonably delaying providing access to many documents.
Telecom unreasonably refused to provide the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book associated with the RCM at Cape Bridgewater’ for the period 2 June 1993 to 6 March 1994″

The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange Logbook

Why has the government concealed this injustice?

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who became the new administrator of the arbitrations, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we four COT Cases were forced to abandon our Fast Track Settlement Proposals and sign our highly legalistic arbitration agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

Ironically, the arbitrator who played a central role in these questionable processes now holds a prestigious position as a principal in a leading Australian legal firm in Melbourne, raising further concerns about the implications of this dark chapter in the country's legal history.

As we grappled with these unresolved issues, it became increasingly apparent to us, the beleaguered COT cases, that a shadowy organization known as the Brotherhood was operating within Australia. Their motives seemed cloaked in secrecy, but their actions were unmistakably aimed at undermining our struggles. Despite our best efforts and the extensive evidence of ongoing phone problems—even after the conclusions of our arbitration proceedings—we found ourselves without the support we desperately needed. The battle we faced extended far beyond mere technical failures; it was deeply intertwined with systemic issues of accountability, transparency, and the quest for equitable treatment within the telecommunications landscape.

It is simply unacceptable that the government communications authority, AUSTEL—now ACMA—allowed me to incur over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove a case against Telstra that AUSTEL had already established in March 1994, just six weeks before my arbitration commenced (Refer to points 2 to 212 of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings).

Treacherous

On 11 March 1999, Senator Kim Carr expressed heartfelt concern regarding the government's management of the COT arbitrations, as indicated in the accompanying Hansard link. In his remarks, he compassionately addressed the challenges faced by those involved, acknowledging the significant impact of the government's apparent lack of authority in navigating these difficult negotiations. Senator Carr emphasized the importance of adopting a more supportive and effective approach to ensure that all parties are treated with fairness and accountability throughout this complex process.

“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)

I also brought this Brotherhood issue to light during my two Freedom of Information (FOI) appeal processes at the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) in 2008 (No V2008/1836) and 2011 (No 2010/4634) hearings, where the government communications authority ACMA was the respondent. On October 8, 2008, after a ten-month hearing, where I provided the AAT and ACMA with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the judge—a Senior Member of the AAT—turned to the two ACMA government lawyers who had attempted to suggest that I was a vexatious litigant who could not accept the rulings made by the government and Telstra regarding their non-supply of discovery documents during my nineteen-month settlement/arbitration process. The judge responded: "

“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.”

THE BROTHERHOOD 2

The following document, referred to as (File 517AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541, is submitted as evidence supporting the existence of a Brotherhood in Australia during the COT arbitrations. This is illustrated by a witness statement dated August 10, 2006, provided to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). The statement was sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who later became a Principal Investigator. Mr. Direen courageously revealed that in 1999-2000, after leaving Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group with their investigations into the allegations of fraud related to the COT Telstra arbitrations.

I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group as a witness (refer to Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen's statement explained that,, based on what he observed that day and applying the knowledge he gained during his twelve years at Telstra, he did not doubt that the phones at Rod Kueris's address had beenhad possibly been interfered with.

A few weeks after Mr. Direen began assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly apparent that Detective Sergeant Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to highlight the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during the same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents related to the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to reach the Major Fraud Group's machine.

Parts of the same Bell Canada Information submitted by me to the Major Fraud Group was intercepted in 2000 while under investigation by the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police was again intercepted leaving Portland Post Office in December 2008, this time en route to the Federal Magistrates Court Melbourne and Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct) sent by Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business.

During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues, they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their interview surrounding the interception of my telecommunication services conversations and Telstra's submission of false information to the government.

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

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

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

A John Grisham blockbuster?

A hell that rivals a John Grisham's novel.

The following five paragraphs provide essential background information that should be read before exploring absentjustice.com. This will help you better to understand the serious shortcomings of Australia’s arbitration system. Gaining this insight at the outset of our story regarding the COT will equip you to see the unethical practices embedded within the system, especially when it falls under the influence of influential individuals, as we will illustrate through the cases of those currently facing trial. In Australia, this network of individuals is often called the Brotherhood, which encapsulates their questionable dealings and the manipulation of justice for personal gain.

As shown on pages 5166 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

The following Senate Hansard record dates 25 June 1994 points 29, 30 and 31 page 5169 present a compelling narrative that sheds light on a troubling intersection of legal influence and corporate misconduct in Australia’s telecommunications sector. These records reveal that two of the country's most prominent legal firms, with their principal partners occupying key positions on the board of Telstra, were deeply entwined in the government-sanctioned arbitrations surrounding the Claimants of Telstra (COT) cases. It is within this complex framework that millions of dollars were misappropriated from Telstra, then a government-owned telecommunication provider responsible for ensuring the nation’s connectivity and communication needs.

In this challenging and often adversarial context, I found myself among the initial four COT cases, subjected to stringent requirements imposed by Telstra. I was mandated to meticulously document every fault and issue related to my telephone service in writing and submit these records to Denise McBurnie, a solicitor from Freehill Hollingdale & Page—one of the legal firms at the heart of the matter. This stipulation presented a daunting challenge: if I failed to comply, Telstra would categorically refuse to investigate or rectify my ongoing and persistent telephone problems. It is particularly alarming to note that Denise McBurnie was the architect of "The COT Strategy", a detailed plan discussed within the Senate Hansards. This legal strategy was wielded by Telstra as a tool to obstruct the release of vital evidence necessary for the COT cases, thereby significantly hampering our ability to substantiate our claims. McBurnie’s dual role in crafting and managing this strategy raises profound concerns regarding conflicts of interest, as she effectively operated on behalf of Telstra throughout these proceedings.

A particularly intriguing and perplexing question arises concerning the eventual release of Telstra's Portland Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange book. This document was promised to me upon my entry into the arbitration process, and its potential contents could have had far-reaching implications. It held the power to expose discrepancies in the narrative being presented to me—either indicating that McBurnie had misinformed me as a citizen entitled to trustworthy telephone service or suggesting that Telstra had manipulated McBurnie, thus undermining the credibility of their own legal representative.

Moreover, the Senate Hansard records illuminate another alarming component of "The COT Strategy", which explicitly targeted me and my business. This strategy was designed to thwart my ability to substantiate my claims—an act of deliberate harassment and intimidation during the arbitration process. It is distressing and ironic that such egregious actions have not been addressed publicly or brought to light, leaving me to navigate these turbulent waters largely alone.

The lack of proactive measures in addressing these issues may stem from the intertwined relationships that existed between the arbitrator and several lawyers involved in the COT arbitrations. Many of these individuals had either previously collaborated with or were affiliates of the aforementioned law firms. This relationship likely created a reluctance to challenge the established order, as these legal professionals appeared more motivated to preserve their ties and future opportunities with these influential firms, even at the cost of denying justice to those like myself whose livelihoods and businesses were jeopardized. This intricate interplay of personal and professional interests raises profound ethical questions about the integrity of the legal frameworks in place and underscores the urgent need for greater accountability and transparency in the arbitration process.

Corruption embedded in government-endorsed arbitrations

This investigation thoroughly examines the alarming realities that underpin severe criminal activities and the individuals orchestrating these acts. At the core of this inquiry lie unscrupulous politicians and lawyers who adeptly exploit Australia’s intricate legal and arbitration systems. With a calculated disregard for ethics, they manipulate these frameworks to advance their personal agendas, often at the expense of justice, fairness, and public trust.

We will meticulously identify these officials, revealing their significant and lasting influence—an influence that continues to reverberate three decades after their initial offences. This prolonged impact raises critical questions about the accountability and oversight mechanisms within the legal system. Additionally, this investigation will delve into the sophisticated and often insidious tactics employed by these individuals prior to arbitration proceedings, as Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct, shows.

In a concerning and strategic manoeuvre, the arbitration agreements, intended initially to uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process, were surreptitiously modified. These alterations, executed without the necessary disclosure to affected parties, compromised the fundamental principles of the agreements. Consequently, the confidentiality agreement that governed the three arbitration agreements should have been deemed null and void, as its protective intent was undermined. The covert nature of these modifications introduced substantial loopholes, enabling individuals with insider knowledge of various cases to exploit these weaknesses and manipulate the arbitration consultants, thereby threatening the impartiality and efficacy of the arbitration process.

This manipulation ultimately distorted the outcomes, benefiting those orchestrating the deceit. Shockingly, the arbitration consultants were complicit in this subterfuge and facilitated it by ensuring they remained insulated from accountability. They worked behind the scenes to exonerate these specialized consultants from any legal responsibility for their corrupt actions during the most pivotal arbitrations, mainly when compelling evidence against Telstra was evident.

Once these insidious changes were implemented, the three arbitration agreements signed by Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me took on a new, troubling dimension. The previously established $250,000 liability caps were reinstated on twelve subsequent COT case arbitration agreements administered by the TIO office who had originally allowed the removal of our clauses.

In a further troubling turn of events, the administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, representing the TIO, adamantly refused to provide my arbitration appeal lawyers and me with access to all pertinent communications—both from the TIO and within the arbitration sphere. This included crucial documentation from the government that had tacitly approved this discriminatory conduct, leaving us in the dark about the intricate web of deception at play.

I reiterate, had the arbitration $250.000 caps liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement not been covertly removed after the COT lawyers had voted on the unchanged clauses, I could have sued the arbitration consultants for negligence; no arbitration records were provided to me, until after the statute of limitations period had expired.

John Pinnock, Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

I seek to thoroughly examine whether this individual approached the management of our three COT arbitrations in a manner that differs from his current facilitation practices. If such a distinction exists, he must acknowledge the critical importance of transparency in this context. He should be encouraged to come forward and explain why he was involved in the misconduct observed in Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete).

Moreover, I would like to emphasize the necessity of addressing a fundamental question: Are his strategies and tactics during the COT arbitrations involving Telstra in 1994 and 1995 reflective of the methodologies he employs in the arbitrations he conducts in Australia and Hong Kong today? This inquiry is essential not only for understanding his current practices but also for assessing their ethical implications.

Additionally, it is vital to consider whether the readers of our COT story in 2025 grasp the significance of revealing the events that occurred during the COT arbitrations. They must consider the compelling evidence on this website, supporting my claims and underscoring the need for accountability and transparency in these arbitration processes. This understanding is crucial for fostering a fair and just resolution to the issues at hand.

A confidentiality agreement should never be a shield to impede or hinder an investigation into unlawful activities.

Individuals who find my statements to be troubling and are questioning why there has been a lack of transparent investigation into these serious matters should be made aware that the confidentiality clauses contained within the Arbitration Agreement significantly hinder the ability of the COT Cases to disclose the nature of events that transpired during the arbitration process. These confidentiality provisions have been deliberately altered and manipulated, resulting in detrimental effects for the COT Cases involved. Instead of fostering accountability and justice, these clauses are utilized to conceal a range of serious offences that were perpetrated against the COT Cases. These offences occurred not only in the lead-up to the signing of the agreement but also throughout the arbitration proceedings themselves and included various unlawful actions carried out after the government-sanctioned arbitration had concluded. Refer to "A Government-backed Arbitration,"

absentjustice.com needed to be produced to support *Abent Justice*

Many would have doubted our COT story without Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2,

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government-owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the sixteen claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let them (the defendant run the arbitrations). Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government has not held Telstra or the other entities involved in this deceit accountable.

Six months before the arbitrations officially began, the administration overseeing the arbitration process contacted COT Cases, including me—alongside Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer. In this communication, they outlined a significant opportunity contingent upon our decision regarding the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) we had previously signed. They informed us that if we decided to abandon our existing FTSP, which was actively operating at the time, and instead opted to sign an arbitration agreement that aligned with Telstra's preferred rules, we would be granted access to the telephone logbooks maintained by the exchange that serviced our businesses.

This access was purported to be granted under the Freedom of Information Act , ensuring that the logbooks would be available to the appointed arbitrator once we completed the necessary signing of our arbitration agreements. The logbooks held the potential for vital information regarding our telecommunications usage, which could impact our claims significantly.

Despite agreeing to abandon our four Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP) and subsequently signing Telstra's Fast Track Arbitration Procedure, we faced a disappointing reality — the promised logbooks were never made available to us or any of the other claimants. This lack of access to the logbooks has left all claimants without crucial data, undermining our positions and leaving us uncertain and frustrated regarding the process we had committed to. None of the claimants has received these essential logbooks; now, thirty years past the date we were initially assured we would receive them.

Before the agreement was entered into

Tragically, circumstances took a much darker turn when AUSTEL initiated a covert investigation into the distressing claims put forth by the business owners. The outcome, unveiled in AUSTEL's publicly available version of their COT Cases report, was sanitized to obscure the true extent of the issues endured over the seven long years that Telstra steadfastly denied any systemic problems existed. For a more precise understanding, the unsanitized version of the findings from their investigation into my claims can be found attached as point 1 within the 212 AUSTEL Adverse Findings report.

The government's deliberate concealment of critical adverse findings from the arbitration process I was compelled to navigate represented a significant breach of trust. The situation was made even more painful by the actions of Dr Gordon Hughes, the appointed assessor, and Warwick Smith, the administrator, who heartlessly refused to honour my existing Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). They pressured me and the other three claimants to abandon our FTSP process and sign their arbitration agreement or be left to navigate the unforgiving legal landscape without support.

None of us had the financial means to challenge the powerful government telecommunications entity in court, so we reluctantly opted for arbitration—blind to the fact that Telstra’s lawyers had crafted the arbitration agreement (the rules) to favour their client heavily. This grim double-edged sword starkly illustrates individuals' struggles to seek justice and accountability amid overwhelming resistance. It is a powerful narrative of determination, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of fairness that resonates deeply with many who have faced similar challenges.

In July 2005, eleven years after the signing of the first four government-endorsed arbitration agreements, a group of determined members from the COT Cases convened with Senator Barnaby Joyce in the vibrant city of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Each member recounted their unique and often heart-wrenching stories with earnest expressions, moving the Senator to deep emotions. As they shared their experiences, several COT Cases presented compelling evidence that their arbitration-related faxes were being intercepted and screened through Telstra's telecommunications network. This manipulation occurred before the faxes reached both the arbitrator and their advisors, ultimately redirecting them from their rightful destinations.

Senator Joyce’s frustration grew more pronounced when Ann Garms and I detailed the significant repercussions of being denied access to the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange logbook, which served Ann's thriving business, and the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook, which supported my own. We were all assured that the arbitrator would retrieve these essential logbooks from the telephone exchanges dedicated to each of our businesses.

To illustrate the urgency of this issue, we pointed out that the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook had been utilized by the government communications regulator just six weeks before our arbitration hearings began on the pivotal date of March 4, 1994. This logbook contained invaluable information that enabled them to make definitive findings related to my claims against Telstra, as laid out in points 2 to 212 of their comprehensive report AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

Had I received the logbook holding the records of fault complaints I had diligently registered over those seven arduous years, this COT story might never have needed to unfold.

I needed to investigate the intricate connections between Rupert Murdoch, the Telstra Scandal, and Helen Handbury, placing special emphasis on Helen Handbury, who plays a pivotal role in these controversies. After carefully reviewing my draft—now showcased on my website, absent justice.com—she expressed her belief that her brother Rupert Murdoch should take the initiative to publish my compelling story.

Arbitration

The Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) cases never had a chance

Delve into the dark and compelling tales of horrendous crimes committed by unscrupulous criminals, where morality is cast aside in pursuit of greed and power. Encounter the deceitful machinations of corrupt politicians who manipulate the system for their gain and the skilled lawyers who navigate and control the intricate web of the legal profession in Australia. From the shameful acts to the hideous betrayals of trust and loyalty, this narrative reveals the treacherous depths of human behaviour that often lurk beneath the surface.

For the past twenty-seven years, I have grappled with a perplexing and critical question that has captured the attention of many: Why did the Telstra Corporation, a major telecommunications company owned by the Australian public, agree to a staggering $400 million compensation deal with FOXTEL and the Rupert Murdoch Corporation? This negotiation transpired despite Telstra's prior knowledge that it could never meet the intricate cabling infrastructure requirements needed to support the FOXTEL service. This impossibility was not just a private concern but something that even some government officials recognized.

This inquiry becomes particularly compelling when examined alongside the official government Senate Hansard from September 26, 1997, which documents this monumental agreement in detail. Central to this dilemma is the bewildering issue of deadlines. Given Telstra's capabilities and resources, why would the corporation willingly enter a high-stakes alliance if it could not feasibly deliver the necessary telecommunications infrastructure?

The profound considerations for approximately 120,000 COT-type Australian citizens further complicate the situation (Refer to Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN).

The government was well aware that these individuals were enduring significant telecommunications challenges, which were not adequately addressed regarding their personal and business needs. Strikingly, government records indicate that only a mere 50 or so COT-type phone problems were officially acknowledged, despite many more Australians suffering from similar issues. Why was this widespread struggle concealed from the report submitted to an arbitrator appointed by the government to evaluate some of the claims against Telstra filed by these COT Cases?

Individuals impacted by Telstra's services had every right to expect the level of connectivity outlined in the agreements between Telstra and the government—specifically, a robust and reliable communication network that meets the demands of modern technology. This expectation brings to light a crucial question: Why wasn’t a similar dedication shown to the citizens who rely on these services?

In light of Telstra's inability to adhere to its licensing conditions, it is apparent that if the company cannot fulfil its obligations to the government, compensation should be extended to all Australians affected. Moreover, one must question why the COT Cases were compelled to endure an arduous arbitration process, which resulted in exorbitant professional fees. In my personal experience, I faced over $300,000 in costs as I sought to compel Telstra, through an arbitrator, to finally address persistent telephone and fax issues that had troubled me for an astonishing seven years.

In this scenario, one cannot help but wonder why prominent business figures such as Rupert Murdoch and FOXTEL appear to receive preferential treatment. The disparities in how ordinary citizens and high-profile corporations are treated raise significant concerns about fairness and accountability in the communication industry.

The ramifications of this contentious deal continue to ripple through the Australian public, leaving many citizens in their wake seeking answers that have remained frustratingly elusive for nearly three decades. The complexity of this situation intertwines governance, corporate responsibility, and the very real implications for thousands of Australians who have been left in the lurch.

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I'm grateful for her Helens comments.

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

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

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

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalizing this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

Four small business owners—the Casualties of Telstra (COT) individuals—faced profound communication challenges that significantly disrupted their ability to operate effectively. These challenges arose from a lack of reliable telephone service, which hampered their daily business operations and led to frustrating losses. In response to their plight, the Australian government’s communications authority, AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), stepped in to offer them a commercial assessment process. This was initiated with the involvement of AUSTEL and the Minister for Communications.

In a remarkable and unprecedented move, the government promised the COT owners that if they abandoned their push for a comprehensive Senate Estimates Committee investigation into their claims, it would honour a previously signed agreement with Telstra and compel Telstra to supply the crucial documents the owners needed to substantiate their allegations. This agreement was historically significant, as no such arrangement had ever been brokered between a government and its citizens since the establishment of the Federation.

At the time, the prospect of a Senate investigation loomed ominously over the government. There was a palpable fear that such an inquiry might uncover a disturbing reality: Telstra and its employees were allegedly siphoning off millions of dollars from government funds while systemic billing problems festered unchecked. At the moment when Telstra’s Corporate Secretary, Jim Holmes, signed the Fast Track Settlement Proposal on November 18, 1993, the full extent of these issues remained largely concealed. Still, signs of severe trouble were beginning to surface. The four COT Cases formally signed their agreements just a few days later, on November 23, 1993.

In addition to addressing the grievances of the COT owners, AUSTEL also facilitated an agreement on behalf of the government under the Commercial Arbitration Act for other Australian citizens who had reported similar telecommunications complaints. This process was modelled after a system successfully implemented with its then-British-owned telecom provider in the United Kingdom.

However, the four COT Cases were urgent. They faced a critical deadline: if they did not sign their special agreement by the close of business on November 23, 1993, they would be forced to navigate the traditional and often arduous arbitration process. The government made this special offer to recognize the tireless efforts of these four business owners, who had collaborated closely with AUSTEL and local government ministers to advocate for improved telephone services that would benefit all Australians (Refer to official Senate Hansard titled A Matter of Public Interest Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

Tragically, circumstances took a much darker turn when AUSTEL initiated a covert investigation into the distressing claims put forth by the business owners. The outcome, unveiled in AUSTEL's publicly available version of their COT Cases report, was sanitized to obscure the true extent of the issues endured over the seven long years that Telstra steadfastly denied any systemic problems existed. For a more precise understanding, the unsanitized version of the findings from their investigation into my claims can be found in points 2 to 212 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

The government's deliberate concealment of critical adverse findings during the arbitration process I was compelled to navigate represented a significant breach of trust. The situation was further exacerbated by the actions of the appointed Assessor and the Administrator, who callously refused to honour my existing Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP). In this proposal, I submitted a complete and comprehensive log of my complaints related to the interim claim material, which was never assessed or returned to me. The four COT Cases were pressured to abandon our FTSP process and sign their arbitration agreement, leaving us to face the unforgiving legal landscape without support.

On 30 April 1995, during the arbitration process, the technical consultants for the arbitrators stated in their final evaluation that a comprehensive log of Mr. Smith's complaints did not seem to exist (see Open Letter File No/47-A to 47-D). However, this log of my complaints was included in my original settlement proposal, which I was forced to abandon.

Hiding the truth

(see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two)

Not compatible

The COT cases are troubling in Australia's legal and political history. They are characterized by rampant government corruption, systematic bribery, and a persistent pattern of misleading and deceptive conduct that tainted the government-endorsed arbitrations meant to resolve these disputes. This examination reveals a complex and troubling landscape in which ethical standards have been compromised, leading to significant injustices.

A disturbing pattern of corruption within the Australian government is at the heart of this saga. Public servants entrusted with the responsibility to uphold justice and integrity have engaged in or turned a blind eye to egregious crimes and unethical conduct. This analysis aims to uncover the key figures involved—those unscrupulous politicians who have sacrificed public trust for personal gain, whose actions have encouraged a culture of impunity, and whose legacies continue to influence the political terrain. We will also examine their legal representatives, some of whom still actively practice law, perpetuating these unethical practices in Australian and international legal contexts.

In particular, we will investigate Telstra's role in this narrative, scrutinizing how influential individuals in governmental roles tolerated and facilitated the company's conduct, which was marked by blatant unethical behaviour. This complicity occurred at various stages: before the arbitration proceedings commenced, throughout the arbitration processes, and even in the aftermath, highlighting a systemic failure to protect the interests of the businesses involved in the COT cases.

This analysis will focus on the actions, or lack thereof, of the arbitrator appointed to oversee the initial four cases. It is essential to comprehend how this individual failed to undertake a comprehensive investigation, jeopardizing the businesses that sought resolution through arbitration. Furthermore, the arbitration financial and technical resource unit, tasked with assisting the arbitrator, was covertly exonerated from any liability for negligence or complicity. This action undermined the foundational principles of fairness and justice, raising significant concerns regarding the integrity of the arbitration process.

Moreover, clause 24 was clandestinely altered, and clauses 25 and 26 were removed from the agreement and sent to the claimant's legal representatives for approval after these accords were faxed and delivered to the offices of two interested Senators. In summary, the COT Cases were never intended to prevail in their claims. Additional information supporting the tampering with the arbitration agreement after it was agreed to is available in Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct.

This detailed recounting of events aims to illuminate significant breaches of trust within the Australian system. It fundamentally challenges the notion of accountability and highlights the profound implications that arise when ethical standards are disregarded in the pursuit of power and profit.

Post Office subcontractors jailed.

The Alan Bates vs British Post Office story - Absent Justice

https://shorturl.at/Lh0fD

They were innocent, just as the COT Cases were.

If you find the introduction to the COT story hard to believe, I invite you to examine the compelling and troubling case of Mr. Bates vs. the British Post Office. This notorious saga vividly illustrates the unethical behaviour that can emerge from government-owned corporations. The events leading up to and during the COT government-endorsed arbitrations reveal how such organizations can deviate from ethical standards, highlighting a broader pattern of alarming and instructive misconduct → Mr. Bates vs the Post Office.

In this troubling narrative, the British Post Office, fully aware of the significant and systemic billing issues plaguing its Fujitsu Horizon computer system, consciously blamed its sub-contractors for alarming billing discrepancies. This reckless mismanagement forced these sub-contractors to assume responsibility for inflated accounts that hundreds or thousands of dollars could have overstated. The ramifications of this misconduct were deeply troubling, leading to innocent individuals being imprisoned for theft—an injustice rooted in the Post Office’s awareness of their potential innocence. This calculated move aimed to obscure the grave extent of the problems inherent in their Fujitsu Horizon billing system.

This situation echoes a similar debacle that occurred over two decades ago in Australia, where the government was cognizant that many ordinary citizens were struggling to prove that the Australian-owned Telstra Corporation was also grappling with significant systemic billing issues. Frank Blount, the CEO at the time, candidly acknowledged these challenges in his co-authored book, *Managing in Australia*, bringing attention to the internal failings of the corporation.

On pages 132 and 133 of Mr Blount's co-produced book, it notes:

“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.” (File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

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

For a deeper understanding, explore Alan Bate'ss comprehensive coverage of the British Post Office saga and compare it with the account available on abesentjustice.com. A detailed examination reveals that both stories accurately represent systemic failures and that the closely intertwined governments of Britain and Australia are determined to conceal these issues.

The involvement of Alan Bates and his Post Office subcontractors in uncovering these unlawful practices by the British Post Office has become a national scandal, and we demand swift and decisive action to bring them to justice. 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 latest update on that terrible story is on the following YouTube link: https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.

The unethical conduct continued.

"Could you please protect this information as confidential?"

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 vital members of the then-government owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:

“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.

“Advice from Warwick is:

Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.

“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.

“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”

Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A provides crucial evidence that just two weeks before the official appointment of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP)—which subsequently evolved into the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP)—the TIO engaged in providing privileged government part-room confidential information to Telstra. This entity would soon find itself as a defendant in this process. This course of action not only constituted a serious breach of the TIO’s professional duty of care to the Claimant of the COT (Companies and Other Telecommunications cases) but also represented an apparent conflict of interest that compromised his integrity and future role as the so-called independent administrator of the arbitration process.

The TIO’s discussions with Telstra’s senior executives included critical insights regarding the sentiment within Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party room, particularly their lack of enthusiasm for pursuing a Senate inquiry into the COT matters. This insider information likely influenced Telstra's decision-making process, leading them to transition from the original non-legalistic commercial assessment framework of the FTSP to a more defensible legalistic arbitration approach. Armed with the knowledge that the threat of a Senate inquiry was significantly diminished due to the TIO’s disclosures, Telstra felt empowered to pursue a strategy that would better align with their interests and desired outcomes.

How is it possible that Warwick Smith, who served as the administrator of both the settlement and arbitration process, was able to work closely with the defendant in a way that allowed them to acquire critical information from government discussions? This information had the potential to directly influence and alter the outcome of the initial settlement proposals. If such actions are not deemed criminal conduct that facilitated Telstra's claims against us in the four COT cases, then one must question what other category of misconduct would accurately describe this behaviour. Additionally, it raises important concerns as to why numerous government entities have chosen to overlook this blatant conflict of interest. Could this negligence be linked to Warwick Smith's elevation to a front-bench politician during John Howard's government in March 1996? This connection warrants a thorough investigation, considering the implications it holds for fairness in the arbitration process.

ttps://shorturl.at/oUMWl

Whistleblowing

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:

"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

The narrative regarding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) presents a significant examination of the hardships endured by individuals who lacked the political connections that benefited certain cases, specifically the "litmus five" COT Cases. These five individuals successfully acquired 150,000 previously withheld freedom of information documents, which are critical to understanding their situation. In addition, they received technical assistance that enabled them to evaluate the importance of these documents, which collectively encompass a staggering 150,000 items.

The impact of this assistance was profound, as the "litmus five" were awarded over 18 million dollars in punitive damages, a substantial sum highlighting the severity of the injustices they faced. In stark contrast, the remaining sixteen COT Cases received no financial compensation, underscoring a significant disparity in treatment. This pattern of discrimination and disregard has continued for years after the completion of the COT arbitration and mediation processes, which reflects a troubling historical precedent from thirty years earlier, when the same Liberal Coalition government dismissed concerns related to the controversial Red Communist Chinese wheat deal, thereby showcasing a recurring theme of neglect for the grievances of affected individuals. (Refer to Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong - British Seaman’s Record R744269 - Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman.

Illuminating this historical context is essential for readers of my COT narrative to grasp these events' genuine nature fully. The actions taken—or, in some cases, not taken—by Australia’s Liberal Coalition Country Party government illustrate a clear trajectory of injustice, occurring not merely once but on two separate occasions. Understanding this context is essential for recognizing the broader implications of these governmental actions and their ongoing effects on the individuals involved (refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens). In simple terms, if you have connections in government, you have a better chance of finding justice in Australia than those who do not.

Confronting Despair

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."

On pages 23-8 of the letter, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) clearly provided Sue Laver (the current 2024 Telstra Corporate Secretary) with damning evidence. It shows that Telstra knowingly submitted false information to the Senate Committee on Notice while Ms Laver and Telstra were assuring the chair of the Senate legislation committee that there was nothing wrong with the Bell Canada International Inc. BCI test conducted at Cape Bridgewater (refer also to Confronting Despair)

This false information was provided to the Senate regardless of whether the Senate requested it to be supplied on notice. Additionally, the two documents dated January 1998 (refer to (Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One confirm that Telstra knew in January 1998 that the Bell Canada International Inc. BCI information, later provided to the Senate in October 1998, had to have been false. It is concerning that no one within Telstra has been held accountable for supplying false Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc. BCI results to the Senate on notice. Had Telstra not provided this false information to the Senate on notice and acknowledged the accuracy of my claims, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters in 1998, the same BCI matters I am now highlighting on absentjustice.com in 2024. Refer to Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2.

After a meticulous review of the compelling evidence connected to DMR Group Inc. (Canada), it has come to my attention that Paul Howell, the esteemed Principal Technical Arbitration Consultant, was sent from Canada with the specific purpose of investigating the technical grievances I raised against Telstra during the years 1994 and 1995. My complaints were centred on the alarming and deceptive practices employed by Telstra, particularly their use of falsified testing results provided by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) at the Cape Bridgewater Telstra facility. These misleading results persuaded the arbitrator that I was not experiencing any ongoing telephone faults, which was far from the truth.

What adds a layer of distress to this situation is the knowledge the government communications authority possessed regarding Telstra's testing methodologies, which were inadequate for identifying the recurring systemic issues I had reported. This was documented in their AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings dated March 1994 (Refer to points 2 to 212, especially at points 210, 211 and 212, underscoring a troubling disregard for the validity of the tests being conducted

Moreover, neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications must take any initiative to investigate or resolve the persistent telephone faults that plague my service. In point 2.23 of their report, it is starkly highlighted that the lack of investigation into these ongoing issues left the faults unresolved and "open." The arbitration report dated April 30 suggests that Mr Howell’s journey from Canada was merely a formality to endorse a flawed report that would ultimately lead to the collapse of my business and significantly disrupt my life. This alarming scenario raises profound questions about the ethical integrity of the Canadian telecommunications industry.

I have attached a mirrored copy of the statement in point 2.23, titled Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp Evaluation Report 30 April 1995. File 45-c File No/45-A)

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

The ongoing reports of 008/1800 faults, which extend to the present day, indicate that the level of disruption to the overall Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (CBHC) service is still unclear. As the underlying causes of these faults have never been diagnosed, it is reasonable to expect that they remain "open," unresolved, and continued to negatively impact my service until 2006, twelve years after the completion of the arbitration.

In straightforward terms, Telstra, in collaboration with their governmental advisors, successfully engaged two esteemed Canadian telecommunications firms, Bell Canada International Inc. and DMR Group Inc. Canadia, to produce two reports. Rather than accurately documenting the ongoing issues related to my telephone service, these reports presented technical findings that were knowingly misleading. Both companies were aware that their assessments did not truthfully reflect the actual situation, opting instead to conform to the narrative that Telstra sought to establish.

There are discrepancies between the arbitrator’s version and my version of Lane's prepared technical consultant report titled Resource Unit Technical Evaluation Report. Mr Alan Smith. CBHC. 30 April 1995. The second paragraph on page one consists of only one short sentence, “It is complete and final as it is,” (see Arbitrator File No/27). However, the second paragraph on the equivalent page (page two) of the arbitrator’s report, also dated 30 April 1995, says:

“There is, however, an addendum which we may find it necessary to add during the next few weeks on billing, i.e. possible discrepancies in Smith’s Telecom bills.” (See Arbitrator File No/28)

The information on (Arbitrator File No/28) indicates that the appointed arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, prevented his arbitration consultants from investigating the ongoing telephone 008/1800 problems, as outlined in the DMR & Lane segment. When the discussion shifted to Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, it came to light that DMR & Lane needed additional weeks to address these critical issues thoroughly. Why were these extra weeks not taken to complete the reporting on my claim by DMR & Lane?

Leading up to the arbitration process

My own experience, which I have documented on absentjustice.com and elsewhere, highlights the shortcomings of the arbitration process. For inexplicable reasons, the arbitrator failed to compel Telstra to address the ongoing telephone issues that had initially prompted my case. On 13 April 1994, the government issued clear findings to the arbitrator, stating that Telstra had a duty to demonstrate no lingering telephone problems impacting the services affecting the COT cases that had opted for arbitration.

However, when my arbitration concluded on 11 May 1995, the situation had deteriorated further; the communication issues I faced were more severe than at the outset. The new owners of my business, who acquired it in December 2001, continued to grapple with these unresolved problems until November 2006—an astonishing eleven years after the arbitration ended. Yet, I was granted compensation for losses until the start of my arbitration, leaving me without the full resolution I desperately needed. Refer to Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5, Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

Not Fit For Purpose

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

The Under Belly Of Telstra

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”

After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.

Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.

Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.

I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )

Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:

“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 , 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 in 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.”

“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)

Senator Boswell’s statement that: “a point confirmed by professionals deeply involved in the arbitration process itself and by the TIO’s annual report, where conclusion is described as ‘if that is ever achievable’ shows, by the date of this Senate Hansard on 20 September 1995, the TIO had already condemned the arbitration process. So why did John Pinnock (the second administrator to the COT arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes, eight months later, conspire to mislead and deceive Laurie James, President of The Institute of Arbitrators Australia (refer Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter and Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter) concerning the truth of my claims, which were registered with the proper authority, i.e., the president of Institute of Arbitrators Australia?

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

On 23 March 1999, the Australian Financial. Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases, noting:

“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 have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith

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

No one investigated whether another person named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater, received some of my arbitration mail. Both the arbitrator and the administrator of my arbitration were informed that road mail sent by Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration from 1994 to 1995.

Additionally, the new owners of my business lost legally prepared documents related to Telstra when they attempted to send mail to the Melbourne Magistrates Court. I had prepared these documents in a determined effort to prevent them from being declared bankrupt due to ongoing telephone issues. They were sent from the Portland Post Office but did not arrive (Refer to Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct).

Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police investigation

This chapter explores the significant errors that came to light during the five Senate Estimates committee investigations tied to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, particularly focusing on the flawed Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing process. Deficiencies marked this process and, in my experience, proved to be impractical.

From 1994 until at least 2011, Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for the COT Cases, consistently maintained a compelling belief. He recalled an unsettling interaction when he received a phone call from computer hackers in April 1994. During this conversation, they suggested that Telstra was engaged in unlawful conduct. Among these hackers, one prominent individual—whom we now suspect to be Julian Assange—used the term “report” when they discussed certain documents and emails. They tantalizingly offered to provide copies of these materials, claiming they would substantiate their accusations against Telstra’s unlawful behaviour toward us.

This prompts an important question: Did the BCI Cape Bridgwater tests, referenced by Julian Assange, provide evidence of Telstra’s illicit actions? Neil Jepson, a barrister representing the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, has stated unequivocally that this report was false. He contended that for Telstra to utilize it as part of their defence strategy in arbitration—specifically, by presenting it to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist—was inappropriate. This occurred just before Joblin met with me, inquiring if my concerns regarding ongoing telephone issues stemmed from paranoia.

When we discussed these hackers with Neil Jepson, Julian Assange had not yet emerged as a significant figure in the public eye. The BCI reports were paramount to the Major Fraud Group’s investigation, so Victoria Police sought my assistance in their fraud inquiry into Telstra's activities.

During this period, all members involved in the COT cases were willing to remain patient, convinced that the investigation into the litmus cases would eventually influence the other 16 cases listed on Senate Schedule B. However, as the investigation progressed, none of the 16 COT cases were updated about its status. John Wynack, the director of investigations who was aiding the Senate chair with the litmus cases, was simultaneously examining my FOI issues. He demanded that Telstra initially provide the documents I had requested in my FOI submission dated October 18, 1995.

While the litmus test cases garnered an impressive volume of approximately 150,000 FOI documents through the Senate Estimates Committee investigation, I found myself in a frustrating position: I received not a single document. Wynack's own records from March 11 and 13, 1997, reveal that he did not accept Telstra's claim that they had destroyed the arbitration file essential for my ongoing appeal process.

This troubling situation was precisely the kind of misconduct that Julian Assange attempted to warn us about about the COT cases, yet we failed to heed his advice. Had we taken his warnings seriously, our lives might have avoided the detrimental impacts we have endured.

The remaining COT cases, bearing names on the Senate Schedule B, similarly sought FOI documents from Telstra amid their own arbitration and mediation efforts, just as the litmus test cases had. The Senate was well aware of this situation, so a litmus test framework was instituted. The litmus test cases are enumerated on Senate Schedule A, while Schedule B lists the other 16 cases. If the litmus test cases established that Telstra had improperly withheld essential documents during their arbitration processes, the remaining 16 cases would have been poised to receive an equivalent outcome.

Nevertheless, the treatment of the Australian litmus cases starkly contrasted with that of the 16 other Australian citizens who faced dismissal. The rationale for this disparate treatment is clear: it stemmed from political dynamics and the passage of time. It took nearly two years, involving the concerted efforts of numerous senators, to obtain the necessary documents for the five litmus cases. Some observers believe that the looming privatization of Telstra may have played a significant role in the dismissive attitude toward the remaining 16 cases. This situation represents a grave instance of discrimination against these 16 Australian citizens, highlighting systemic failures that continue to resonate today.

Litmus Tests

Absent Justice - Discrimination against 19 Australian Citizens

The coalition LNP government should have fully acknowledged its profound constitutional and ethical obligation to represent and serve all citizens without prejudice rather than disproportionately favouring those individuals with established government influence. It is paramount for all relevant parties, including the COT Cases, to be treated with the utmost fairness and equity under the law. Regrettably, this fundamental principle was not upheld when the government denied the remaining 16 citizens access to the same comprehensive legal remedies and justice measures afforded to the five litmus test cases.

This failure is particularly alarming given the multiple warnings and advisories received by the government concerning the grave injustices that Julian Assange later brought to light. These warnings unfolded over an extended period from June 1997 to September 1999. The injustices initially highlighted by Assange during his discussions with COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer in 1994 are substantiated by meticulous records found in the Senate Hansard dated June 24 and 25, 1997. These official documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Refer to (1) Senate - Parliament of Australia and:- (2) SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

This situation is particularly concerning in light of the numerous warnings and advisories the government received regarding the grave injustices affecting three computer hackers—presumed to be Julian Assange since there has been no official confirmation from the government. Their communication emerged in April 1994, as the first four COT arbitrations began. During this crucial period, all four parties executed their arbitration agreements: Maureen Gillan signed on April 8, 1994, while Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I followed suit on April 21, 1994.

Over the years, various authoritative sources issued warnings, neglecting to take decisive action. These included the hackers, the Australian Federal Police in 1995, and the Quest Private Detective Agency in Melbourne in January 1996. The Senate and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman raised concerns in 1997, and the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police joined in alerting the public in 1998. The Senate reiterated these warnings in 1999, followed by an essential message from ex-senior principal Telstra Protective Officer Des Direen in August 2006. Finally, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal weighed in as well in 2008. This alarming sequence of warnings unfolded over many years.

These documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Furthermore, the LNP government was acutely aware that the litmus test cases were not the only individuals entitled to receive the critical documents pertinent to their legal cases; the other 16 citizens equally deserved such access, which is an essential aspect of justice.

The Senate Hansard records issued within three days distinctly confirm that Telstra Corporation engaged in unlawful practices against all 21 citizens involved. Despite this compelling evidence, the government inexplicably authorized financial compensation solely for the litmus test cases, thereby systematically excluding the other 16 individuals who were also victims of this injustice. The litmus test cases, consequently, benefitted from access to over 150,000 previously withheld discovery documents, which played a crucial role in enabling them to appeal the outcomes of their arbitration processes. In stark contrast, the remaining 16 citizens were left without the necessary documentation, rendering them powerless to pursue legal recourse or appeal.

Moreover, compelling evidence from Senate Evidence File No 12, indicates that I have faced direct threats on two separate occasions—first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. During these tense moments, I was expressly warned that should I disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face serious charges of contempt against the Senate. This warning is particularly vexing, given that these records contain vital information that could facilitate successful arbitration and mediation appeals for the 16 citizens who were unjustly deprived of legal redress.

This troubling situation raises a critical question: Where is the justice in threatening imprisonment against individuals striving to expose the truth regarding unethical conduct directed at the COT Cases? Such actions appear to starkly contradict the core values and responsibilities that underpin the very purpose of the Senate in Australia. I am concerned about the potential repercussions of publicly disclosing these In-Camera Senate Hansard records from July 6 and 9, 1998. These records were provided to me by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, which believed that the dissemination of this information could catalyze an appeal on behalf of the remaining sixteen COT Cases. Regrettably, these individuals have endured treatment that is not only unjust but also demands unequivocal recognition and corrective action to address the inequities they have faced.

Absent Justice - Where was the Justice

An intense confrontation in a heated Senate committee meeting unfolded when National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashed a fiery critique towards a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable frustration, he exclaimed, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” his voice resonating throughout the chamber. The remarks cast a shadow over the already tense atmosphere as Telstra's conduct regarding the COT Cases took centre stage.

However, the gravity of his words quickly caught the attention of the committee chair, prompting a swift intervention. Under scrutiny and recognizing the need for decorum in such a serious forum, Senator Boswell was compelled to offer an apology. Turning to the chairperson more measuredly, he declared, “Madam, I withdraw that remark.” This moment of accountability underscored the importance of respectful dialogue in legislative discussions and illuminated the ongoing challenges surrounding Telstra’s treatment of COT Cases, a matter of significant public interest.

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

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". However, the John Howard National Liber Part NLP government sanctioned punitive damages to those five litmus test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents initially concealed from those five COT Cases during their government-endorsed arbitration of 1994 to 1998. The eighteen million dollars those five received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases FOI issues. It was not.

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

Before I proceed further with this Senate matter, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation involving the Telstra arbitration officer, who became the target of Senator Ron Boswell's intense frustration and anger. This particular individual was not merely a senior executive at Telstra; he also held an influential position as a Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO Council) member. This council was crucial in managing the COT arbitrations intended to ensure fair treatment for customers.

What raises serious ethical concerns is that this Telstra executive violated his fiduciary duties by sharing confidential information discussed in TIO Council meetings with his superiors at Telstra. Such information was strictly classified and meant to be kept within the confines of the council, highlighting a severe breach of trust that undermined the integrity of the arbitration process.

Moreover, during a significant Senate debate on September 26, 1997, this same Telstra arbitration officer made a startling admission. He revealed that he had participated in numerous TIO Council meetings where the trajectory and progress of the COT arbitrations were regularly discussed. At this pivotal hearing—which sought to investigate the questionable treatment of the COT arbitrations—he openly admitted that he failed to disclose his conflict of interest while attending these meetings. This lack of transparency questioned the legitimacy of the arbitration process and raised serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

In the context of Senator Ron Boswell’s impactful statements, which resulted in our organization issuing a public apology, it is important to grasp the events leading to his remarks. On November 29, 1994, amid the unfolding events of my arbitration case, Senator Boswell boldly took a stand and demanded answers from Telstra's legal Directorate. His inquiries were pointed and direct: he wanted to understand why Telstra had resorted to issuing threats against me. Specifically, if I did not cease my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police in their ongoing investigation into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and essential fax documents related to my arbitration claim, they would cut off access to the critical documents that I needed to support my case.

The correspondence addressed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman reveals a troubling injustice that has affected the remaining 16 Australian citizens involved in the Change of Tenancy (COT) claims. Notably, this correspondence includes input from several technical experts appointed via a Senate working party tasked with evaluating the relevance of Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that the ‘Five Litmus COT claimants’ requested during the Senate investigation.

A significant document among these communications is a comprehensive 14-page letter from Qyncom IT & T Business Consultants Pty Ltd, based in Victoria. This letter was directed to Mr. John Wynack, the working party chair (as referenced in Senate Evidence File No 13A & 13B).

This letter and numerous others submitted to the Commonwealth Ombudsman reveal that the ‘Five Litmus COT claimants’ were afforded considerable advantages. They received free, qualified technical support from independent consultants appointed by the government, which greatly assisted them throughout the lengthy sixteen-month investigation into FOI requests, which the Liberal Government enforced.

In stark contrast, the remaining 16 claimants, also noted on the Senate Schedule as having unresolved COT issues, were systematically denied access to these same levels of assistance and expertise. This glaring discrepancy raises serious concerns about fairness and equity. If this situation does not constitute one of the worst forms of discrimination, what indeed does?

Absent Justice - Don+39t shoot the messenger

Senate Schedule A and B list

It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the possibility that additional factors—potentially a second or even a third reason—contributed to the denial of compensation for the remaining cases linked to 16 COT. These cases, which have experienced unfavourable outcomes, stand in contrast to those awarded compensation in the litmus test cases. A detailed analysis of the reasons for these discrepancies could yield significant insights that might illuminate the underlying issues.

Furthermore, it is crucial to anticipate the types of inquiries that the larger cohort of 21 claimants may raise once the sale prospectus is finalized. Addressing a subset of the outstanding arbitration claims that have remained unresolved for four years, before the preparation of the prospectus, would not only provide clarity regarding the overall claim situation but also bolster the integrity and credibility of the claims process. Presenting a record with fewer unresolved issues will undoubtedly enhance the perceived fairness of the proceedings compared to a scenario in which 21 arbitration claims remain outstanding.

The depth of this matter is magnified by the fact that 16 claimants are still waiting for the relevant discovery documents. These documents are essential as stipulated under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which was agreed upon as part of the procedural stipulations before initiating the arbitration proceedings. This agreement mandated that the administrator provide these crucial documents to support the claimants in substantiating their cases (refer to Arbitrator File No/71 for details).

It is also essential to highlight the government's awareness of Telstra's ongoing refusal to fulfil its obligation to provide the necessary documents throughout the litmus test process, which has continued even four years later. On October 23, 1997, the office of Senator Schacht, serving as the Shadow Minister for Communications, transmitted a fax to Senator Ron Boswell containing the proposed terms of reference for a Senate working party. This group was explicitly assigned to investigate the FOI issues relevant to the COT arbitration cases. The document not only outlines the findings but also delineates two extensive lists of unresolved COT cases that require further investigation concerning their respective FOI issues. Notably, my name appears on Schedule B of that document (see Arbitrator File No 67).

By consistently refusing to provide the 16 COT cases with the discovery documents initially requested four years ago, Telstra has undeniably acted contrary to the principles of the rule of law. This refusal is particularly concerning because these 16 claimants have not received any assistance from law enforcement, arbitrators, or government officials. As a direct result of this inaction, they have been denied access to critical documents needed for their claims. This alarming situation has been documented on absentjustice.com, highlighting the urgent need for accountability, transparency, and justice.

150,000 FOI Documents

The 150.000 late provided FOI documents to the five litmus test cases mentioned above were not historic in the case of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer; the forty-four large storage boxes that I received from Graham’s office in 2006 when I started to investigate these issues on behalf of Graham/Golden messenger I did not see any relevant Leopard or Ericsson Data for the exchanges that Graham’s Golden Messenger Courier Services were routed through. Between the end of 2006 and 2017, I have worked continually on some eight significant projects on behalf of Graham/Golden, who had commissioned me to investigate evidence they had received which showed Telstra had been aware before Graham’s arbitration process that Telstra had knowingly misled both Graham/Golden and the COT arbitrator concerning Graham/Golden 1994 to 1999 arbitration process.

Since that period, I have collated and written five major reports plus two separate manuscripts (not yet completed) so that Graham/Golden can submit this material to the government as a testament; there needs to be a Royal Commission Investigation into the COT arbitration process. During my first Administerial Appeals Tribunal FOI oral hearing in October 2008, the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) was the respondent; Graham Schorer advised the AAT under oath during cross-examination by ACMA lawyers that once my investigation on behalf of Golden was complete and the evidence collated and reported on was bound into submission, those reports would be provided to the government.

Since that 2008 AAT hearing, I have viewed numerous COT Case Telstra-related documents, which support Graham/Golden's claim that even though members of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman office (who were the administrators of the COT arbitrations) had been aware before the COT Cases went into arbitration that the historic Telstra fault data that would be needed by the COT Cases to support their claims had already been destroyed (see TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C), this knowledge was never broadcast to the government, which had endorsed the COT arbitrations.

This release of 150,000 non-historic fault data documents, NOT the requested historical data, which the five ‘litmus’ test cases requested, shows that the compensation the five litmus cases received was partly associated with Telstra's inability to provide those five cases with the documents they should have received during their arbitrations.

The fact that none of the sixteen COT Cases were also on the Senate Schedule B list as unresolved COT FOI Cases is further testament to the government's discrimination against us in COT sixteen.

To be continued

Sound confident

As I approach my 81st birthday in May 2025, I am determined to share this important story, despite the challenges it has already cost me—my beloved holiday camp and my partner's venue, Seal Cove Guest House at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria. I firmly believe that with proper funding, this story can be transformed into a compelling documentary that honors the truth of what transpired. I welcome all suggestions and opportunities for collaboration to ensure this story is told accurately and powerfully. If you are interested in discussing potential funding or partnerships, please reach out to me at the addresses provided below. Let’s bring this story to life.