Absentjustice.com is a work in progress, last edited in February 2025. 

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. Visitors to this website have drawn parallels between its content and a comprehensive portrayal of criminal activities encompassing fraud. Instances of foreign bribery, foreign corrupt practices, kleptocracy, foreign corruption programs, absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the more profound exploration into the world of political corruption, stand shoulder to shoulder with any true cold case crime committed against a citizen whose country purports to be governed by the rule of law.

Voltaire warned that it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. or Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, regarding Telstra's submission of the now-proven fundamentally flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests as defence documents. However, I did receive a letter from the Canadian government's ministers' office on July 7, 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."   

Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now called Herbert Smith Freehills - 

Global Law Firm  →  https://shorturl.at/Fh2Nm

At the outset of this homepage, I wish to emphasize the important appointment of Mr Ian Joblin, an esteemed clinical psychologist who, in 1994, practised in Queens Street in Melbourne as one of the principal arbitration witnesses for Telstra. Mr. Joblin is renowned in his field for his expertise and integrity, which brings additional weight to this matter.

For the last twenty years, I have actively sought clarity from various representatives within the Australian government regarding a pressing issue that has implications not only for my business but potentially for many others who rely on consistent and reliable telecommunication services. The crux of the problem involves misleading testing results presented to Mr Joblin by Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. These results were purportedly produced by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) regarding their evaluation of the Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange.

The Cape Bridgewater exchange has been a cornerstone of my business operations, providing vital communication channels necessary for maintaining relationships with our clients and facilitating smooth operational functions. However, I am increasingly concerned about the reliability of Mr. Joblin’s assessment, which was conducted based on these questionable and potentially erroneous results.

I am eager to ascertain whether Freehill Hollingdale & Page was aware of the deficiencies in the BCI report concerning the Cape Bridgewater exchange. Suppose they were indeed unaware and thus misled by their client, Telstra. In that case, this leads to a critical and significant question: Why has Freehill Hollingdale & Page not taken decisive steps to inform the Australian government about what appears to be a grave miscarriage of justice?

If they have reported this situation to the Australian government, who endorsed my Telstra arbitration, why has the government not rectified this injustice?

According to the Bell Canada International (BCI) link on the absentjustice.com website, Telstra's Corporate Secretary, Sue Lava, should have reported the BCI Cape Bridgewater issue. This was particularly relevant when the Senate questioned Telstra on 26 September 1997 regarding the validity of my claims about false BCI tests. In January and April 1998, Ms Lava presented evidence during a Commonwealth Ombudsman and Senate Committee hearing indicating that the BCI Cape Bridgewater tests were fundamentally flawed. However, Sue Lava has failed to acknowledge this despite the Senate Chair requesting that advice be provided. Failing to provide the requested information or supplying false information to the Senate constitutes Contempt of the Senate. Why has the government not followed up on this matter?

 "The COT Strategy" below provides an in-depth examination of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. This section reveals that Freehills intentionally singled out four small businesses and their owners to prevent these businesses from effectively presenting their forthcoming arbitration claims against Telstra. When I presented this troubling information to Ian Joblin, along with the inaccurate BCI test results that Freehills had provided him prior to our meeting, I noticed a marked change in Mr Joblin's demeanour, suggesting that the revelations unsettled him.

I would like to formally articulate my persistent concerns surrounding the misleading test results submitted by Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), facilitated by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to Ian Joblin. A critical issue is that only Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehills initially signed Mr Joblin's witness statement, while Mr Joblin's signature is conspicuously absent. Despite numerous inquiries over the years, I have received little to no substantial response regarding this crucial concern, leaving me frustrated and unheard of.

According to government records, Robin Davey, the Chairman of AUSTEL, communicated with Telstra regarding the AUSTEL-drafted commercial assessment process, previously referred to as the "Fast Track Settlement Proposal" (see point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). He indicated that the government would express significant concern if Freehill Hollingdale & Page continued to be involved in our dispute with Telstra.

Upon learning that I was being compelled, under duress, to document all of my ongoing telephone issues in writing to Freehill Hollingdale & Page before any investigation into my persistent telephone faults would be conducted, AUSTEL took action by informing Telstra that Freehill must not be part of the forthcoming settlement process. AUSTEL assured the COT Cases that the government would uphold this stipulation contingent upon our signing of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal, which we duly signed on November 23, 1993, following this guarantee.

Telstra disregarded its previous commitments and engaged the legal firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page. This choice directly contradicted the assurances that AUSTEL (now known as ACMA) had provided to the four COT Cases I was a part of. This situation has raised serious concerns about the government's treatment of our rights as Australian citizens. It is particularly troubling that the government was aware of the ethical issues surrounding Freehill Hollingdale & Page, especially regarding their conduct towards the initial four COT Cases. Despite this knowledge, they still permitted this firm to represent Telstra, which was still owned by the government during that settlement process, reflecting a concerning abuse of power and a significant erosion of trust in our institutions. The implications of such actions extend beyond individual cases, undermining public confidence in the governmental and legal processes designed to protect citizens' rights.

This correspondence occurred during a significant period when Freehill Hollingdale & Page was still operating under its former name. They have since rebranded and are now known as Herbert Smith Freehills. 

While I have endeavoured to recount this account without explicitly naming Freehill Hollingdale & Page, this endeavour has increasingly proven impractical. The substantial evidence against them is thoroughly documented within governmental archives and is available for public review on absentjustice.com, a resource I accessed legally under the Freedom of Information Act. This accessibility underscores the transparency and integrity with which I approach these critical issues as I seek to illuminate the injustices at play.

Gaslighting

Psychological manipulation 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in the victim's mind, i.e., you do not have a telephone problem. Our records show you are the only customer complaining when the documents show the situation the person is complaining about is systemic. Typically, gaslighting methods are used to seek power and control over the other person by distorting reality and forcing them to question their judgment and intuition.

In my arbitration case, Wayne Maurice Condon, a Telstra lawyer employed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who is now a leading world law firm, submitted a clinical psychologist report which discusses my mental health after clinical psychologist Ian Joblin, a witness on Telstra's behalf, In 1997, when the administrator of the arbitration process John Pinnock heard that only Wayne Maurice Condon had signed the psychologist report witnessing a blank signature where Ian Joblin was supposed to have signed it but only Freehill's signature was on it.

Later, rumours circulated that Ian Joblin had turned the tables on Telstra, dammed their conduct towards me, and wanted an investigation into this conduct. It was rumoured that Wayne Maurice Condon had removed this statement from Telstra's arbitration defence.

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?" 

Stop the COT Cases at all cost

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

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

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

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

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

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht - "Who".

Mr White - "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. 

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information is impartially catalogued for future use.  

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

PLEASE NOTE:

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.

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 Heath 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. Telstra and its arbitration and mediation legal representatives' actions 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.

Regarding Telstra's lawyers using the Mental Health Act against the COT Cases to deflect the truth about what the COT Cases had uncovered about Telstra's ailing copper wire network, it is essential to reference the COT Case strategy legal advice discussed above.

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyer Denise McBurnie of 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. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers (in writing) before they would investigate my complaints. 

I was unaware I would need this evidence twelve months later for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the documentation I had previously provided to Telstra via this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I ask all visitors to my website absentjustice.com to page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 in SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which states:    

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

I am confident that the new leadership at Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, will acknowledge my desire, at the age of 81, to put an end to this challenging chapter of my life. Writing about the facts surrounding our involvement in the COT cases provides me with a means, albeit a limited one, to derive some closure from this experience.

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.

Who would ever have believed that a small group of business owners was forced into arbitration with advice from the government that they would receive all necessary documentation to support their claims, only to find those documents never arrived until three years after their arbitrations concluded? We have no alternative but to include the exhibits as we have (Refer to Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2). This is truly an unbelievable story.  

And why did it seem everyone was protecting Telstra, turning a blind eye to what was unlawful behaviour? Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure is illegal. Tampering with evidence in the arbitration is prohibited (see Tampering With Evidence). Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed in arbitration is unlawful. Phone tapping of conversations without a warrant is illegal. Someone within Telstra must have authorised this criminal conduct. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and Austel (the then government communications authority), often enough, refused to act; Members of Parliament, when in Opposition, were happy to provide support for the COT cause, but as soon as the government was theirs, that support vanished. No one was prepared to make Telstra accountable. It was enough to make the most level-headed person suspect conspiracies.

The depths to which Telstra stooped in its conduct with the COT claimants seem to suggest just how little confidence Telstra had in its own case. But why was it so fearful of being found liable? What was the worst that could happen if our claims were vindicated? What was it trying to conceal?

Documents Telstra released to us years later made it incontrovertibly clear that Telstra knew its systemic problems and how to solve them in rural areas, where many of the COT cases businesses were located.  

So, today’s younger generations might find it hard to understand that, only 20 years ago, a corporation like Telstra and its government minders were able to cheat so many Australians into believing it was trying to fix its ailing network. However, in reality, it was band-aiding the many known problems in Australia’s network to defer capital expenditure, as privatisation was on the agenda. Let the shareholders foot the bill was Telstra and its minder's answer to the ongoing problems (see Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct).

For most rural Australian business operators, running a telephone-dependent business was not like it is today. When our story began, most rural businesses were not using the Internet, email, or mobile phones. Regularly checking emails and mobile phones at the start of each working day was not an option. Mobile phones did not work in most rural locations, and mobile blackspots, even in the city outskirts, were common. It was not until the late 1990s that this new technology became a typical way to run a business. 

More Threats, this time to the other Alan Smith 

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

No one investigated whether another individual named Alan Smith, who lived in the Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater received some of my arbitration correspondence. Both the arbitrator and the administrator involved in my arbitration were informed that mail sent via Australia Post had not arrived at my premises during my arbitration period from 1994 to 1995. This other Alan Smith had also been threatened by Telstra's extensive list of lawyers, who sought to join the lucrative legal battles with Telstra. These lawyers would pressure and harass Telstra customers to pay disputed bills, which Telstra knew could have been incorrectly charged due to systemic software issues within their network. Interestingly, Freehill Hollingdale & Page were also aware of this other Alan Smith's problems, as evidenced by the fax imprint on two letters of demand they sent.

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).

Clicking on the following twelve chapters immediately below will help you navigate this story, as will clicking on the LEARN MORE icon after these chapters. 

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.

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”