“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
― Maya Angelou
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. Government corruption, fraudulent reporting, and misleading journalistic practices, including deceptive news reporting and the dissemination of false information, are unacceptable in a Western nation such as Australia, which asserts its commitment to the rule of law. Such actions undermine the integrity of governance and the principles of transparent and responsible journalism.
INTRODUCTION
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government held complete ownership of the nation’s telephone network and communications carrier, known as Telecom, which is now operating privately under the name Telstra. During this time, Telecom maintained a government-sanctioned monopoly over communications services, allowing the infrastructure to deteriorate significantly and leaving consumers frustrated.
When four small business owners grappled with severe and chronic communication issues, they turned to arbitration, guided by the belief that the government would compel Telstra to resolve their ongoing telephone troubles. However, they quickly discovered that the arbitration process was deeply flawed. The arbitrator failed to insist that Telstra explain the persistent telephone and faxing problems that continued to disrupt the COT Cases business. This drawn-out arbitration lasted thirteen months to an astonishing three years, leaving the business owners in a torturous limbo.
By the time the process was nearing its end, the number of COT Cases had swelled to twenty-one. More business owners, eager for resolution and unaware of the public nature of these procedures, sought to join as arbitration claimants. The initial four had already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in mounting their complex and legally intricate claims against Telstra's legal team, resulting in a costly battle.
In a display of overwhelming legal might, forty-seven of Australia’s most prominent law firms, which had long been on retainer, were unleashed to challenge and undermine the COT Cases. Telstra, demonstrating its willingness to spare no expense, poured over twenty million dollars into fighting claims that, when all costs were aggregated, were worth less than half that amount. The situation painted a stark picture of David versus Goliath, with the small business owners caught in a relentless struggle against a corporate giant.
My efforts to bring this significant discrepancy to the government's attention came two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, but I was met with indifference. The government's lack of interest in contacting BCI in Canada was disheartening. Instead, the Canadian Government recommended that I write directly to Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) from Australia for guidance and support, leaving me feeling heartened that someone cared.
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. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.
I am convinced that the submission of fraudulent test call records from Bell Canada International Inc. concerning Cape Bridgewater, which were presented to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, during my arbitration, aimed to mislead Mr. Joblin into believing that I was mentally unstable. This deliberate manipulation of information misrepresented my state of mind and provoked significant concern from the Canadian government. Please refer to my detailed explanation below for a more comprehensive understanding of this matter.
In a troubling turn, Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), presented a fabricated Bell Canada International (BCI) report to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to read before Mr Joblin assessed my mental state. This misleading BCI document claimed that 15,590 test calls were successfully transmitted over four to five hours spanning five days, from November 4 to November 9, 1993, to my local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater. During my arbitration, this spurious information concerning my telephone claims was presented to Ian Joblin, who was part of Telstra's arbitration defence unit.
By utilizing these deceptive BCI tests, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne aimed to create the impression that Ian Joblin would conclude I must be suffering from paranoia regarding my alleged phone issues. They implied that anyone of sound mind would not assert they were experiencing phone problems when, according to the fabricated BCI report, the 15,590 test calls were supposedly transmitted without incident. This manipulation of information raises serious concerns about the integrity of their defence and the implications for my claims.
The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without Ian Joblin (the psychologist) signature being on the witness statement when presented to the arbitrator hearing my case is unlawful enough; however, with that said, the fact John Pinnock, administrator to my arbitration as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has in 2025, still not provided Telstra's official response concerning this dreadful conduct by Mautice Wayne Condon of Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.
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 (refer to File 596 Exhibits 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?"
As of 2025, I am still awaiting a copy of Ted Benjamin's comprehensive explanation regarding John Pinnock’s letter dated March 21, 1997. This clarification could have shed light on the circumstances surrounding a crucial witness statement and might have provided me with valid grounds to appeal my arbitration decision. The delay in obtaining this information is exceedingly concerning.
I have reason to question whether the BCI's factual findings were improperly removed and subsequently provided to Mr. Joblin, then extracted from his witness statements. Dr. Joblin himself criticized Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now operating as ) for neglecting to review the BCI documents before presenting evidence related to Ian Joblin. This situation raises significant questions that should have been thoroughly examined, enabling me to leverage materials, such as this unsigned witness statement, as essential tools to pursue a fair appeal.
The conduct of Freehill Hollingdale & Page/ Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne is deeply troubling. They not only supplied misleading BCI information to Ian Joblin but also appeared to manipulate his statements by omitting them or altering their content. Further complicating matters, they submitted an unsigned witness statement to the arbitration process, despite the government previously advising Telstra that Freehill Hollingdale & Page should not be utilized against the COT cases in any of their future dealings. This directive was clearly outlined in point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2. However, despite this explicit warning, Telstra chose to engage the services of Freehill Hollingdale & Page./ Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. This critical information could have been instrumental in my efforts to win an appeal or amend my claims substantively.
BELL CANADA INTERNATIONAL BCI - Cape Bridgewater tests.
Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) employed the highly regarded CCS7 monitoring equipment to generate an astonishing number of calls. However, the nearest telephone exchange equipped to handle this advanced CCS7 technology was 112 kilometers from my business location. This raises the question: where did the staggering 15,590 test calls ultimately end up? As you delve into this story, you'll uncover a troubling detail — Telstra audaciously contaminated the collected TF200 telephone by pouring wet and sticky beer residue into it after those phones departed from the COT Cases businesses. Adding to this bizarre scenario, Telstra sought to label other COT Cases members as mentally unstable, as evidenced by my narrative. This corporation has remained unchanged; the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, holds the key to revealing the truth about the BCI (false test results) provided to Ian Joblin. All she needs to do to clarify matters is publicly dismiss my claims as frivolous in a media release, along with the evidence that my claims are false.
In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (page - 87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Health warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
Sandra Wolfe, an 84-year-old cancer patient, is enduring severe challenges while striving to seek resolution for her ongoing concerns. Upon reviewing her recent correspondence, it becomes evident that a notable lack of transparency has marked her experience with the Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue. The actions of Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives towards the COT Cases portray a concerning pattern. This is exemplified by the unfortunate outcomes experienced by many COT Cases, including fatalities and ongoing distress. My health struggles, including a second heart attack in 2018, necessitated an extended hospitalization, underscoring the urgency with which these matters must be addressed. It is my sincere aspiration that my forthcoming publication will serve to expose the egregious conduct of Telstra, a corporation that warrants closer scrutiny.
Regrettably, the Senate only chose to investigate five of the twenty-one COT processes. These five cases were designated as litmus tests, crucial for understanding the broader issues at hand. Meanwhile, the remaining sixteen cases were informed that their individual concerns would be collectively assessed as a group, contingent upon the outcomes of the five litmus test cases. If those initial cases successfully demonstrated their claims against the flawed government-endorsed processes, it could pave the way for a more thorough examination of the broader set of concerns.
See below what six Senators collectively stated after investigating the five aforementioned litmus test cases.
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 arbitrator appointed to oversee the proceedings dismissed many claims made by the members of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) and allowed Telstra to take control of the arbitration process itself. This created an environment where Telstra could operate with impunity, even as it engaged in serious misconduct throughout the hearings. Despite the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, neither the Australian government nor the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has taken action to hold Telstra or any other involved parties accountable for their deceptive practices.
On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith who was the administrator to 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.”
No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the 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 had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?
How can the arbitrator—who had no control over the arbitration proceedings—continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question effectively.
The complexities surrounding the COT cases and their arbitration are vast and intricate. In establishing this website, we realized that the only way to present the information clearly was to categorize the various issues under distinct headings (please refer to the menu bar above). As we continued to develop the site, we uncovered numerous interconnections among the issues that spanned multiple events, revealing a tapestry of corruption and illegal activities. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the severe misconduct that occurred during and after the arbitrations, some events are detailed in several sections of the website, ensuring a thorough exploration of this troubling saga.
Whistleblowing in Australia, along with the protective legislation that surrounds it, is often clouded by misconceptions, particularly regarding the crucial role that reporting misconduct plays in promoting accountability and integrity. If the COT Cases had been aware of the incoming arbitrator, Dr. Hughes AO, and his prior history of favoring Telstra—the corporate giant embroiled in their legal disputes—they would have approached their circumstances with far greater caution and scrutiny. Dr. Hughes AO had previously engaged in unethical behavior by concealing vital information from a client during a pivotal Federal Court action, severely compromising the client's ability to negotiate a more advantageous out-of-court settlement (as detailed in Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest - File 567 GS-CAV 522 to 580). This deliberate withholding of information distorted the landscape of the legal proceedings and significantly influenced the Federal Court's findings. Armed with this critical knowledge, the COT Cases would have decisively rejected Dr. Hughes AO as their arbitrator three years later in the subsequent arbitration against Telstra. Unfortunately, history repeated itself during this arbitration process, where Dr. Hughes AO failed to disclose significant relevant Telstra-related information, ultimately obstructing the pursuit of justice and leaving the claimants at a profound disadvantage.
Had Dr. Hughes AO taken the initiative to inform the COT Cases, their legal representatives, and several government ministers who showed interest in the COT Cases that he had previously offered legal counsel regarding similar telephone issues during Mr Schorer's previous Federal Court Action with Telstra as the defendants, a crucial dialogue could have occurred before the proceedings. This would have facilitated a meeting among all relevant parties, enabling us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complex relationship between Dr. Hughes and Graham Schorer, who, in 1994, was the spokesperson for the COT Cases.
Thorough research into this matter prior to accepting Dr. Hughes as the arbitrator could have unearthed pertinent legal documents. These documents would likely have revealed that Dr. Hughes AO and the Partnership concealed important government correspondence regarding the serious deficiencies of the telephone exchange linked to Mr. Schorer's business.
Armed with this vital information, the COT Cases, myself included, would have had compelling reasons to doubt Dr. Hughes's ability to act as an impartial arbitrator, leading us to reject his candidacy outright.
In the twelve chapters and mini-stories available on absentjustice.com, we illuminate the discrimination faced by a vital segment of the business community. This discrimination manifests as preferential treatment for large corporations that provide kickbacks to government bureaucrats, allowing these injustices to persist through 2025. It is time for individuals to rise and spotlight the issues presented in my narratives, alongside the accompanying 3,360 exhibit files that empower us by supporting the claims made in the twelve chapters and all significant statements related to the theme of absent justice.
Each chapter has been meticulously edited for clarity, and we are dedicated to continuously expanding and refining the narrative as the story unfolds. By offering these chapters individually, we provide readers with an accessible gateway to the intricate and multifaceted issues surrounding arbitration practices in Australia. Exploring one, two, or even three chapters will uncover engaging insights that set the stage for a deeper understanding before immersing yourself in the complete story, which encompasses 67,520 words. This structure allows readers to navigate the complexities of the subject matter at their own pace, ensuring a rich and fulfilling reading experience.
Chapter 1
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens
Chapter 2
Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.
Chapter 3
Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.
Chapter 4
Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations.
Chapter 5
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.
Chapter 6
Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance
Chapter 7
Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.
Chapter 8
Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.
Chapter 9
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity.
Chapter 10
The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated.
Chapter 11
This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a
Chapter 12
Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.
I invite you to continue exploring this introduction to absentjustice.com.
Helen was shocked that my faxes were still being intercepted en route to the government.
HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch.
I grappled with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted as discussed in Senate Hansard. If this amount were channeled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal of every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritize ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia
When Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, 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 unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The revenue in question should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public at large. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfill their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that Telstra would not meet the deadline.
If we accept this premise, as pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia records appears to recognize in points 10 and 11 below, that Telstra and its board knew Telstra would not make the prescribed rollout deadline, then serious concerns will arise. Why were the COT Cases—business owners struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, what does?
10. Telstra's CEO and Board have known about this scam since 1992. They have had the time and the 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 stockÐ 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.
11. Telstra not only failed to act responsibly, it failed in its duty of care to its shareholders. So the real losers are the taxpayers and to an extent, the thousands of employees who will be sacked when Telstra reaches its roll-out targetÐcable past 4 million households, or 2.5 million households if it is assumed that Telstra's CEO accepts directives from the Minister.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
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.
Not Fit For Purpose
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.
