Delve into the dark web and uncover a disturbing phenomenon where individuals strategically exploit legal frameworks, wielding legal threats as instruments of manipulation and intimidation. This troubling practice, known as legal abuse or legal bullying, is particularly rampant among public officials in Australia. In numerous instances surrounding the Telstra arbitrations—both leading up to and during the tumultuous proceedings and in their aftermath—these officials have misused their positions of power to coerce individuals and organisations into compliance, exerting undue pressure behind the facade of legal authority.

It will be clear to all visitors who click on the "The Godfather" image below that the arbitration process and its facilitators showed little regard for the rule of law. This process was designed to minimise the defendant's liability in the COT arbitrations, specifically the government-owned Telstra Corporation.

In the context of the Telstra arbitrations, several media representatives have actively engaged with COT spokesperson Graham Schorer, who meticulously documented significant observations for a forthcoming, unpublished manuscript. The issues highlighted on absentjustice.com have been characterised in a troubling array of terms: counterfeit, bogus, fraudulent, forged, fabricated, sham, and spurious. These labels paint a stark picture of a landscape rife with deceitful practices, extortion, broken promises, and profound corruption.

The narrative weaves together themes of treachery and malfeasance, portraying misleading conduct alongside acts of thuggery and insidious criminal deceit. Underlying this complex web is a pervasive lack of honesty—what has been presented is not just inaccurate, but impractical and fundamentally flawed in all respects, compounded by ominous threats from criminal elements lurking in the shadows. Sadly, Graham can no longer voice these pressing concerns due to health restrictions. I have taken on the responsibility of being his representative, articulating the collective experiences and struggles of all those impacted in the COT cases.

Authors must construct a comprehensive narrative that is deeply rooted in factual information. The notion of skirting the truth to shield essential details that could affect others involved in this compelling story—one that has shaped and transformed countless lives over the past three decades—is not an option. While delving into these complex matters has undeniably posed challenges, standing firm and sharing my insights has proven imperative, as I have endeavoured to do in Chapter 3 Conflict of Interest.

Visitors to absentjustice.com will likely grasp the profound reasoning behind my unwavering dedication to recounting this narrative at the age of eighty-one, driven by the belief that truth deserves to be illuminated, no matter how difficult the path may be.

My first draft manuscript of Absent Justice 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, emphasising 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.” 

Introduction 

After Mr Anderson, Telstra's Portland technician, completed his testing on 27 April 1994, the phone took nine days to reach Telstra’s laboratory. It arrived on 6 May, and laboratory testing did not commence for another four days. Ray Bell, the author of the TF 200 report, was adamant at point 1.3, under the heading Initial Inspection, that:

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

Clicking on the TF200 telephone below will show that a second photo I received under FOI was taken from the front of the same TF200 phone, confirming that the note I placed on it was pretty clean when it was received at Telstra. See Open Letter File No/37 exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, who smothered the grease over the front of the telephone after it left my business and poured the sticky beer residue into the same now dirty telephone, insinuating I was a hopeless drunk?

This report raises several questions. When the phone left my office, it was pretty clean. Why did it arrive at the laboratory in such a filthy state? How did the beer get inside the phone? Who would have a reason to pour beer into the phone and why? If the addition of beer was not deliberate, how did it get inside the phone? The main aim of Telstra’s submitted report, used as evidence, was to prove that Telstra’s service was not at fault.

As soon as I read this beer-in-the-phone report, I requested the arbitrator, asking for a copy of all the laboratory technicians' handwritten notes so he could see how Telstra had arrived at their conclusion. I had appointed my forensic document researcher to look over the documents when I received them, and he provided me with his CV credentials and signed a confidentiality agreement stating he would not disclose his findings to anyone outside of the arbitration procedure. Although I passed all this information on to the arbitrator, the only response I received from the arbitrator and Telstra was a duplicate copy of the report I had already received as part of Telstra’s defence.

On 28 November 1995, six months after my arbitration ended, I received Telstra’s TF200 EXICOM report. This report confirms Telstra carried out two separate investigations of my EXICOM TF200 telephone, two weeks apart and the second test report, dated between 24 and 26 May 1994, proved that the first one, the report provided to the arbitrator, was not an accurate account of the testing process at all, but a total fabrication. Photos and graphs by Telstra laboratory staff proved wet beer introduced into the TF200 phone dried out entirely in 48 hours. As mentioned above, Telstra collected my phone from my business on 27 April 1994, but it was not tested until 10 May – a gap of 14 days. Various pages (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5) confirm that, even though Telstra knew its second investigation proved the first arbitration report, dated between 10 and 12 May 1994, was more than fundamentally flawed, it still submitted the first flawed report to the arbitrator as Telstra’s true findings.

The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5) are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the phone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?

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

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

The other twist to this part of my story is, how could I have spilt beer into my telephone, as Telstra's arbitration defence documents state, when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire? I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fire buddies had I been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to put up with from Telstra as we battled for a reliable phone service. 

I believe the Canadian government would have been deeply concerned by the egregiously fabricated report, which falsely depicted me as an alcoholic. Such an outrageous claim undermines the integrity of firefighters, a profession that demands reliability and composure. The Canadian Firefighters Association, much like its counterpart in Australia, has a zero-tolerance policy for intoxicated personnel. Yet, despite the seriousness of the allegations, the Australian government has failed to investigate the disturbing circumstances surrounding Telstra's submission of such a maliciously falsified document. This negligence raises serious questions about accountability and the protection of professional reputations.

The Australian government, which held ownership of the national telecommunications network, chose to distance itself from a troubling situation that emerged from my evidence. This evidence revealed that Telstra had knowingly relied on fundamentally flawed test results supervised by Bell Canada International Inc., one of Canada’s most prestigious telecommunications firms. Despite my attempts to seek clarification from Telstra regarding the inaccuracies in the BCI reporting, they remained unresponsive. Similarly, Bell Canada did not bother to address my inquiries concerning the discrepancies found in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests. In contrast, as illustrated in the following letter, the Canadian government took the initiative to respond, demonstrating its commitment to accountability.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

The Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

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

On 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. 

On June 29, 1995, the Canadian government expressed serious concerns regarding the actions of Telstra's legal team, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne). They were accused of providing falsified test results from Bell Canada International Inc., which were misleading and untruthful. These deceptive results claimed that 15,590 test calls had successfully navigated the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchanges over a five-day testing period. This system was crucial for the operation of my business, and astonishingly, it reported a success rate beyond all expectations. This figure seemed extraordinary and exceeded the global standards not yet implemented in those specific exchanges.

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the  Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings in 1994/95, I disclosed to Mr. Joblin that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. I also presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents showing that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations related to my case. This information visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realised he had been misled by Telstra's legal representatives, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had given Mr. Joblin a misleading report regarding my telecommunications issues prior to our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these serious concerns in light of this evidence. However, it is essential to note that, despite the gravity of the situation, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

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

COT Case Strategy - Legal Advice - Freehill Hollingdale & Page 

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

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

Mr. Joblin insisted that he include the inappropriate way Telstra treated me in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page. He emphasised that their inadequate methods of assistance warranted a careful review. Mr. Joblin made it clear that no consumer should be forced to write to their provider's lawyers, detailing the ongoing complaints their business is experiencing, under the threat that if they do not, their provider will not try to resolve the issues. However, ensuring that no negative findings are documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page is crucial.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

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

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon from Freehills, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's necessary signature raises serious concerns about the substantial influence that Telstra’s legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia. This situation is particularly troubling given that I have yet to receive a copy of Telstra's formal response to John Pinnock's letter. Legally, I should have been notified, especially since we are still within the statute of limitations period for appealing my arbitration outcome.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases indeed did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

I have actively raised awareness with the Canadian government about the troubling issues highlighted on absentjustice.com. This initiative stems from my firm belief that if the Australian government had offered similar support, I could have effectively used their letter of concern to engage with the appropriate government agencies. Such a cooperative approach could have initiated a thorough and transparent investigation into Telstra's concerning practice of using falsified arbitration reports as legal defences against an Australian citizen.

Any individual who has signed an agreement endorsed by the government as a fair agreement and finds that the process which the government had endorsed is not being conducted under the rule of law has a legal right to contest these unlawful actions if they can prove their legitimate grievances are tragically being overlooked by both the arbitrator and the arbitrators advisor. If these serious matters had been treated with the urgency and attention they warranted, I would have been able to expose further significant discrepancies, including three additional false reports submitted by Telstra—documents that were egregiously inaccurate at the time they were submitted. Such revelations could have prompted the government to take a more critical stance toward my claims and necessary actions. 

I emphasise that if the Australian government had launched a thorough investigation during the pivotal months of late 1995, when the Hon David Hawker MP, my federal representative, presented my report highlighting egregious crimes and significant inaccuracies, the outcome might have been different. As illustrated in the accompanying image, my report unveiled that Telstra, Australia’s major government-owned telecommunications company, relied on three other documented reports known to be inaccurate to bolster its defence against my claims. This troubling situation raises profound questions about how a corporation under government ownership was allowed to submit misleading evidence in a government-sanctioned arbitration process, effectively undermining the rights of its own citizens..

After reviewing both Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it's clear that the exhibits and evidence attached to the report provided by both the Hon David Hawker MP and me to Senator Richard Alston, who then passed it on to his staff manager, Paul Fletcher, for investigation.

The Canadian government's interest in uncovering the truth about Bell Canada International Inc. has inspired me to leverage their commitment as a foundation for sharing my story on this homepage. Their proactive approach in seeking transparency has provided a compelling backdrop for the narrative I wish to present.

Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two

As illustrated in Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct, the arbitrator undertook a misguided and relentless campaign to exonerate both the technical and financial advisors from any potential liability for negligence during their arbitration process. This campaign strategically removed crucial clauses from the agreed arbitration framework, effectively allowing both technical and financial advisors to operate outside the rule of law. 

Once the arbitrations were underway, this lack of oversight had significant repercussions; both the technical and financial units could significantly minimise Telstra's liability, which was undoubtedly the case in my arbitration. This troubling outcome undermined the integrity of the process and placed the claimant at a severe disadvantage, compromising their rightful claims and interests.

The injustices detailed on absentjustice.com could have potentially been resolved as early as 1995, ultimately saving countless individuals from the prolonged struggles and hardships that have persisted over the years. The demand for accountability and justice in these cases is of utmost importance, and I remain committed to ensuring that these urgent issues receive the attention they truly deserve.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government entirely owned Telecom, Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they were forced into arbitration with Telstra to fix their issues. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the Casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses but also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have not held Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable.

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of a group of ordinary small-business people fighting one of the largest companies in the country. It is the story of how, for years, Telstra (in the earlier days called Telecom) refused to address the many phone problems that were affecting the capacity of the COT Four to run their businesses, telling them, ‘No fault found.’

When the COT Four presented their dispute to the government, they were manipulated, pressured, and squeezed into an unfair and costly arbitration.

Telstra and its legal defence team perverted the course of justice in the arbitration process by using dubious strategies such as intercepting faxes and conversations (bugging), failing to deliver crucial FOI documents (or giving them months and even years too late, often so highly censored that little intelligible remained), and even destroying documentary evidence and fabricating evidence.

I learned how the arbitrator ignored central points in my claim at arbitration, and that no amount of effort to address these points bore any fruit.

During all these travesties, the regulatory bodies—Austel (for the government) and the TIO (for the carriers)—failed to exercise any control over Telstra to the point where they could reasonably be seen as acting in concert.

Together, these travesties spell a breakdown of justice that is way out of proportion to the problem we began with—people asking that their phone services be guaranteed to work to a reasonable standard so that they can reliably conduct their businesses.

On October 3, 2008, I entered the imposing room of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to present my claims before Mr. G.D. Friedman, a distinguished senior member known for his fair and insightful rulings. I had come to discuss the elusive 1994 arbitration documents, which were crucial to my case and had been withheld for far too long. This hearing represented a pivotal moment in my long quest for justice.

In my 157-page Statement of Facts and Contentions (submission to the court dated 26 July 2008, which I submitted to Mr. Friedman and the government lawyers representing ACMA, I clearly outlined how AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) acted inappropriately and lacked transparency for reasons that remain unclear. To support my claims, I presented over 1,760 exhibits during the ten-month AAT hearing, along with 23 letters and attachments directed to the ACMA board. These materials provided conclusive evidence that AUSTEL had violated its statutory obligations to me as a claimant in their endorsed arbitration process

Standing before the tribunal, I asserted my rightful claim to these long-awaited documents, emphasising that the government had solemnly promised to provide them to me in 2008. This assurance had been given in exchange for my decision not to take my claims to the Senate and the Parliament House Press Gallery immediately after signing the government-endorsed arbitration agreement. I had signed this agreement on April 21, 1994, with a sense of hope and trust that the government would honor its commitment.

Yet, by the time October 3, 2008, arrived—an agonising fourteen years later—I was still waiting for the delivery of the promised documents. The atmosphere in the courtroom was tense; while the AAT did not have the authority to release these documents for public scrutiny, an extraordinary moment unfolded.

I am sure that those in the court gallery that day would conclude that Mr. G.D. Friedman encouraged me to continue my pursuit of justice in a surprising gesture of support. He turned towards me, addressing me directly in open court. His voice was steady and reassuring, resonating throughout the chamber and capturing the attention of everyone present, including two government lawyers from the ACMA who were watching intently. His words served as a rallying cry, reminding me that my quest for the truth was a worthy endeavour that should not be abandoned despite the many obstacles I was facing noting:

“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 book "Absent Justice" is available for online reading in Chapters 1-12. This compelling narrative is rooted in real events, starkly contrasting the accounts of many public servants, who often lack the depth of real-world experience. Their understanding of governance and law is primarily derived from textbooks and the academic discussions they engaged in during their university years, rather than from hands-on experience.

I recognised this disparity and felt a pressing need to assemble a comprehensive evidence file. This file illustrates that the establishment's claims do not accurately depict the complex realities surrounding the events leading up to, during, and following the casualties associated with the Telstra government-endorsed arbitrations. To explore this evidence, you can click on Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2.

The chronology of events featured on absentjustice.com, titled 'My Story Warts and All', remains a work in progress. It is deliberately unillustrated at this stage because, as previously mentioned, readers can seek verification of our narrative simply by accessing Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2. I invite every visitor to this website to embark on their own journey to uncover the truth about the struggles faced by a group of Australian small business owners who bravely challenged the Telstra Corporation. Their story is one of resilience and unwavering determination in adversity.

On page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Mr Barry O’Sullivan, who was the original arbitration claim advisor to COT Case Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me, advised a Senate Committee, under oath, that we three claimants:

“… had expressed identical concerns about accessing their documents. They had all suffered frustration with the FOI process to that point in time. This issue remained as one of the major stumbling blocks in their signing the arbitration document itself. We spent almost two hours with Mr Peter Bartlett  in a boardroom at Minter Ellison. The claimants very clearly articulated to him their serious concerns about whether they would be able to access the documents or be given sufficient documents to prepare their claim.

Mr Bartlett actually left the room and returned and reported to us that he had spoken to Dr Hughes and that he had been given an assurance by Dr Hughes that all documents requested by the claimants in the process of the preparation of their claims would be provided. All I can tell you from that date forward is that a combination of requests to the arbitrator and under freedom of information have failed in any way to allow the claimants, at least the ones that we have dealt with, to prepare their claim in a conventional manner”

As has been further confirmed above on page 62 in Senate Hansard – Parliament of Australia, before I and the other three COT Cases signed for arbitration, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and Dr Hughes all assured us the documents we required from Telstra would begin to flow through to us once our signatures were on the agreement.  The Arbitration Agreement was secretly altered just 36 hours before we were told if we did not sign this altered agreement, Telstra would walk away. 

In 2005, Barry O'Sullivan became a senator on behalf of the National Party.

Who made the decision to eliminate the $250,000 liability caps from the arbitration agreement before Ms. Garms, Mr. Schorer, and I felt compelled to sign it under the threat that refusing to comply would leave us with no option but to seek resolution in court?

 

Who was responsible for replacing the $250,000 liability clauses in the newly drafted arbitration agreement, which was subsequently utilized for the remaining twelve COT cases? Why was this significant change to the liability terms communicated to the claimants, who had already been pressured under duress to accept the removal of clauses 25 and 26 from their arbitration agreements? Furthermore, why were my appeal lawyers not notified of these critical changes at the moment when we were seeking to leverage the coerced removal as a pivotal point in our appeal?