My first book, *Absent Justice*, is the inaugural instalment in a trilogy that addresses the corrupt practices that have infiltrated the Australian societal framework. This work is available Order Now—It's Free, ensuring accessibility for all readers. It is the culmination of extensive research and meticulous evidence compilation, presenting a compelling narrative that tackles significant issues related to justice and equity within Australia’s arbitration and mediation systems. Should you recognize the importance of the research and evidence underpinning this narrative, I would greatly appreciate your consideration of donating to Transparency International Australia. Your support can play a crucial role in fostering transparency and accountability.

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.

In a kleptocracy, a small group of corrupt politicians operates with alarming boldness, using a variety of clandestine tactics to amass wealth at the expense of the nation they are supposed to serve. They engage in bribery and kickbacks, forging intimate alliances with lobbyists and powerful corporations who provide them with lucrative favors. These leaders shamelessly redirect state funds into their personal coffers, enriching themselves, their families, and their close associates, effectively treating public resources as their personal piggy bank.

Moreover, many of these kleptocrats anticipate scrutiny by tax authorities, cleverly exporting significant portions of their ill-gotten profits to foreign lands. This preemptive move reveals a deep-seated mistrust of the system they exploit. The practices they employ are not only shameful but also reflect a treacherous disregard for justice, steeped in unscrupulous behavior that fosters deep bias and nepotism. Collectively, these tactics form a disturbingly effective arsenal that enables them to rob their nations blind, leaving the public to bear the consequences of their greed. (Refer to Senate Hansard pages: 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from 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."   

Upon thoroughly examining the evidence associated with DMR Group Inc. (Canada), it has come to light that Paul Howell, the Principal Technical Arbitration consultant, was specifically dispatched from Canada to investigate the technical complaints I had lodged against Telstra in 1994 and 1995. My grievances primarily revolved around Telstra's reliance on falsified testing results provided by Call Canada International regarding their alleged Cape Bridgewater tests. These impracticable test results were used to persuade the arbitrator that no ongoing telephone faults were affecting my service. What is particularly concerning is that the government communications authority had at their disposal knowledge that Telstra's testing methods were incapable of detecting the recurring systemic phone issues that I had reported, as documented in their March 1994 report.

Moreover, neither DMR Group Inc. Canada nor Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd attempted to diagnose or address these persistent telephone faults. In point 2.23 of their report, it is explicitly stated that the lack of investigation into these systemic issues resulted in the faults being left “open” (not my emphasis). The arbitration report dated April 30, 1995, reveals that Mr Howell’s journey from Canada was merely to lend his endorsement to a report that he never completed, ultimately devastating my business and subsequently disrupting my life (Refer to Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues).

This situation raises profound concerns regarding the ethical standing of the Canadian telecommunications industry. Alarmingly, the April 30, 1995 report does not mention the significant flaws inherent in the Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater tests, a glaring oversight that is deeply troubling. 

I have attached immediately below the actual segment at point 2.23 in the DMR & Lane report, which unequivocally confirms that neither DMR Group Canada Inc. (the principal technical unit) nor Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd. (Australia) took any initiatives to investigate or resolve my telephone complaints, leaving those significant complaints "Open" (see File 45-c - File No/45-A) as stated in their reporting. 

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

Had DMR Group Inc. Canada fulfilled the obligations stipulated by Warwick Smith, the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, they would have acted as the principal technical consultants in investigating the initial four COT Cases claims, including mine. This oversight would have prevented Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (Australia) from assuming control over the assessment of my claims, as evidenced by the documentation available on absentjustice.com.

Regrettably, DMR Group Inc. (Canada) did not participate in the arbitration testing process conducted at my holiday camp. Instead, they permitted Lane Telecommunications to perform the arbitration testing at my business premises. On April 6, 1995, representatives of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd and Telstra's Peter Gamble visited my business. Both consultants declined to conduct the mandatory arbitration service verification testing on my three phone services during this visit. At that time, the owner of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was a former senior executive at Telstra.

If Lanes Telecommunications Pty Ltd had not been secretly elevated to direct DMR Group Inc. (Canada) during the COT arbitrations, and if DMR Group Inc. Canada had stood firm in endorsing their primary role as the principal technical consultants, it’s likely that Lane would not have been sold to Ericsson during the arbitration process. It’s hard to imagine that DMR Group Inc. Canada would have been acquired by Ericsson, which was primarily interested in obtaining all the COT Cases arbitration documentation related to the complaints against Ericsson. At least seven COT Cases had accumulated over many years, and this documentation was in Lane's possession. The US Department of Justice has revealed the corruption in Ericsson's business dealings around the world.

Foreign bribery, corrupt practices, and kleptocracy refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden -- Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, and foreign corruption programs exist. absentjustice.com—the website that triggered the more profound exploration into political corruption—stands shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime narrative, where international fraud against the government presents significant challenges.

It is crucial to highlight the bribery and corruption allegations the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as reported in the Australian media.   

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business.(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

We must engage with the Ericsson link referenced above and below as part of my ongoing endeavour to encourage the Australian government to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation into my allegations against Telstra. Additionally, this investigation should examine the legitimacy of Ericsson's acquisition of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, which has served as the principal witness against Ericsson in this matter. The facts speak for themselves, and I urge you to make your own judgment.

Lane Telecommunications, once a fully Australian-owned telecommunications firm, significantly undermined its credibility when it betrayed the interests of the COT Cases. They had assured these claimants that they would conduct a fair and transparent evaluation of each claim, adhering strictly to their organizational charter. However, by selling out to Ericsson, Lane effectively aligned itself with the very parties it was meant to scrutinize. This strategic purchase appears to have been motivated by Ericsson's desire to obfuscate potential exposure related to the technical performance of their equipment, which was under investigation during the COT government-endorsed arbitration process.

The timing of the acquisition raises serious concerns. Ericsson understood that if Lane continued to operate independently, the documents and evidence regarding the COT technical arbitrations would be available to those with the power to use that information commercially, potentially damaging their reputation and financial standing. Thus, by acquiring Lane and its confidential arbitration materials, Ericsson effectively silenced a key witness and avoided accountability.

While some may dismiss this behaviour as a standard business practice, I contend that such actions can also be viewed as acts of terrorism, given the potential harm to the claimants and the integrity of the arbitration investigation. Furthermore, as the accompanying image below illustrates, Ericsson has a history of questionable associations. This context underscores the need to thoroughly examine Ericsson's and Lane's roles in this troubling saga.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government maintained ownership of the country's telephone network and the primary communications carrier, Telecom, which has since been privatized and rebranded as Telstra. During this period, Telecom's monopoly on communications ended, leading to a gradual decline in the quality and reliability of the network; neglect and mismanagement resulted in the system falling into a state of disrepair.

When six small business owners grappling with grave communication issues sought recourse through arbitration with Telstra, they faced an uphill battle. The process was deeply flawed: The appointed arbitrator permitted Telstra to downplay the severity of the sixteen claims and losses and allowed the company to exert undue influence over the arbitration proceedings. Disturbingly, Telstra engaged in serious misconduct during the arbitrations. Yet, the Australian government chose not to hold Telstra or the other parties implicated in this dubious process accountable for their actions.

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

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

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

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

Six months before the arbitration hearings, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to the telephone logbook from our local Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. Upon signing our arbitration agreements, we were assured that this critical logbook would be made available to the arbitrator. However, to our dismay, this vital document was never provided to any claimants.

This logbook held the key to validating our claims. It contained essential data demonstrating to the arbitrator that our telephone problems were ongoing and unresolved. If we had been granted access, the arbitrator could have dismissed the claims as complete only after Telstra, the defendant in all these arbitrations, conclusively proved that there were no lingering issues connected to their Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges.

In my pursuit of justice, I wasn't alone in this struggle. The Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman, a respected figurehead of a well-funded government agency, also attempted to obtain this same AXE logbook from Telstra's CEO. Unfortunately, his efforts were met with silence, as his office never received any response whatsoever. Suppose the Commonwealth Ombudsman, despite his authority and resources, could not access my case's most relevant documents in the whole arbitration process. What hope did I or any other claimants truly have of substantiating our claims against Telstra?

The transcripts from my two Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) hearings, where the government was the responding party through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), reveal my persistent stance that both of my FOI applications to ACMA should be granted free of charge due to their significance to the public interest. This request encompassed all the information that Telstra and AUSTEL had deliberately withheld during my government-endorsed arbitration process, which included the illusive Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telstra telephone exchange logbooks.

 Senior AAT member (judge) Mr G.D. Friedman presided over these hearings, and it has become increasingly clear that he remained unaware that both the Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and ACMA grounded their defence of my claims on an inaccurate and sanitized version of the public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994. This edited document failed to reflect the actual and significantly adverse findings that AUSTEL had originally reached concerning Telstra's dealings with me, which are detailed in the report.

The AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings dated March 1994 makes it abundantly clear that AUSTEL (now recognized as ACMA) allegedly abused the process. They allowed me to initiate arbitration and legal proceedings against Telstra while neglecting to provide the vital documentation necessary to substantiate my claims. This oversight is particularly troubling, considering I invested over $300,000 in arbitration fees, attempting to prove a case that AUSTEL/ACMA had already established against Telstra. This case was founded on critical evidence obtained from Telstra’s Portland telephone exchange logbook. Despite its significance, AUSTEL/ACMA failed to furnish me with this crucial logbook during my arbitration proceedings and two hearings at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2008 and 2011. This lack of transparency and support not only jeopardized my position but also raised serious questions about the integrity of the entire process.

Furthermore, during my first AAT hearing (No. V2008/1836), Mr. Friedman made the following statement:

“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.

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.

In addition to the initial introduction to our COT narrative, it's crucial to emphasize the pivotal role of the Telstra telephone exchange logbook. This essential document was systematically concealed from the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings, despite assurances that it would be made available upon our agreement to participate in government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes.

Once I thoroughly established that Telstra had resorted to fraudulent activities throughout the arbitration of the COT Cases, four individuals—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowerman—approached me with a request. They asked if I could relay my findings to their barrister, Sue Owens, who had already submitted allegations of fraud against Telstra to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. My evidence was compelling, and it reached a point where even the Canadian Government recommended that I communicate with Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) to clarify my assertions. I highlighted that Telstra had improperly cited the BCI report as part of its defence despite the serious flaws inherent in that document.

I diligently followed through on this advice. Within a week of discussing the BCI report with Mr. Neil Jepson, who represented the Major Fraud Group, I was invited to contribute part-time to their investigations of two additional reports. The findings I later documented, as outlined on my website absentjustice.com, revealed that Telstra had misused three separate technical reports provided to them on December 12, 1994: the BCI report mentioned above, Tampering with Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2, and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. 

These three reports were presented as legitimate evidence in support of their defence during my arbitration claim. It is particularly noteworthy that the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, was aware that all three of these reports were fundamentally flawed.

Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File, 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 comprise a witness statement dated August 10, 2006. This statement was submitted to the DCITA and authored by Ann Garms. It was formally sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who eventually became Principal Investigator. Mr Direen has demonstrated considerable bravery by revealing that, in the years 1999 and 2000, after he departed from Telstra, he played a crucial role in assisting the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group—particularly Rod Kueris—in their investigations into the allegations of fraud associated with COT. I was subsequently called upon to participate in this investigation as a witness. This role underscores the seriousness of the claims being addressed (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that: 

“From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with". 

Within a few weeks of Mr Direen assisting the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.

"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this, he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate

 “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements of 8 and 10 August 2006 released in full as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) confirm how Telstra and their corporate employees bullied and harassed a fully trained senior police officer to breaking point during his official investigations into the COT Cases claims.

It will be on record, within the archives of the Major Fraud Group, that both Mr Neil Jepson and three officers with whom I had worked and lunched were able to confirm that at least two sets of documents I had faxed from my residence to Mr Jepson's office facsimile service line 0395266614 (see File 800B in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 never arrived at his office. This is despite my fax journal showing it had connected to that number 0395266614. It is also on record at the Major Fraud Group that on one of my visits to Melbourne, my apartment had been entered, and certain documents in my bedside drawer had been shifted around in a manila folder where there was chalk dust, which I placed in my folder in said drawer which contained the folder. 

Document File 643 in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 is a letter written by a previous resident of Cape Bridgewater who, after viewing the Sunday Television program now attached to this website as a YouTube video (see Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte), explained that he had been contacted by the Major Fraud Group concerning a Telstra employee by the name of Anderson. He noted the police would not elaborate on what they were investigating, and I will not do so here. I have only attached this letter as confirmation that the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were concerned about my claims.

It is of utmost importance for me to share the witness statement provided by Mr Des Direen, as it vividly highlights the troubling dynamics at play during the investigations conducted by Victoria Police into my claims and those of the four other COT cases. This statement reveals how Telstra managed to exert pressure and intimidate a Victorian Police officer during a formal inquiry between 1999 and 2001. This blatant disregard for the authority of law enforcement came six years after Telstra had already subjected me to a campaign of bullying and intimidation while I was collaborating with the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration process. As I reflect on 2024, I find it disheartening that both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the government have opted not to pursue an investigation into these threats that became a reality, leaving me with a profound sense of unease and a lack of resolution at the age of 80.