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, attached to this website the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury, sister to Rupert Murdoch, after Helen's second stay at my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater Portland, Victoria Australia (refer to Rupert Murdoch -Telstra Scandal - Helen Handbury,  Senator Kim Carr wrote the following:

“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.” 

On 24 September 2024, I emailed the following letter to The Hon. Cathrine King, MP, concerning the same issues I raised with Senator Kim Carr (a former colleague of Ms King's, as the image shows, is aware of the truth surrounding my Casualties of Telstra story which commenced in April 1987 and is still ongoing as my email to The Hon Cathrine King shows see attached below. 

I respectfully urge the readers of the COT story to recognize the significant injustice that has been imposed upon the COT cases. On March 21, 1995, numerous influential figures were made aware of compelling evidence presented to the AFP and senators during the discussions regarding the "Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1994." Despite this awareness, a serious violation occurred: our arbitration-related faxes and phone conversations were unlawfully intercepted during government-sanctioned arbitrations.

Under these troubling circumstances, we, the COT Cases, faced coercion to continue with the arbitrations, compelled by threats from the arbitrator. Should we have halted the proceedings, our legitimate claims would have been rendered null and void. This situation positioned us in a no-win scenario, allowing Telstra to unjustly benefit from these misappropriations.

This egregious denial of justice is not solely about our grievances; it constitutes a pressing call to action and is further proof that Australia's public servants have more power than their masters.

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

 

The 91 questions contained within the AFP transcripts, meticulously prepared during my arbitration on 26 September 1994 under Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, serve to substantiate the AFP's profound apprehension regarding the interception of my faxes and telephone conversations over an extended period. Pages 12 and 13 of the AFP transcripts prominently feature their concern over Telstra arbitration liaison officer Paul Rumble's explicit threat to discontinue the provision of FOI documents in the event of my continued assistance to the AFP in their inquiries into Telstra's interception of my telephone and arbitration-related faxes.

In September 1994, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) encountered challenges establishing the requisite grounds to prosecute Telstra for severe privacy breaches, notwithstanding compelling evidence. The report from Scandrett & Associates, submitted to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999 (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), presents incontrovertible evidence that faxes were unlawfully intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The absence of this report at an earlier juncture undoubtedly caused irreparable harm to several COT Cases and their families.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration, stating: 

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” Senate Evidence File No 31)

The threats became a harsh reality. The withholding of relevant documents is particularly appalling because neither the TIO office nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Both the arbitrator and the government, which wholly owned Telstra at the time, should have probed into why an Australian citizen who aided the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes was significantly disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

 

"I just wonder what relevance this has"

"Do you use your intelligence networks in these CoT cases."

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,  (Telstra) 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 Telstra's intelligence networks established in Australia is that those within the Telstra Corporation have 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 2005/2006, 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 evident that this story had two sides.

 

 

Between 1990 and 1995, significant issues surrounding fax interception raised serious concerns. On July 31, 2001, I received alarming Freedom of Information (FOI) documents from ACMA, a government agency. Notably, one eight-page document was sent to the arbitrator’s office at 03 6148730 at 5:56 AM on February 15, 1995.

This document powerfully illustrates that on June 3, 1993, during the investigation into Telstra and the government communications regulator, a Telstra representative accidentally left a briefcase filled with crucial documents at my business. What was revealed within that briefcase was shocking: Telstra had been deceiving the government about serious ongoing telephone issues, which not only affected my business but also hampered other businesses in Ballarat, three hours away from my location in Portland, Victoria.

The FOI document I shared at the Senate hearing provides undeniable evidence that Telstra's local technician in Portland, Gordon Stokes, was covertly monitoring my phone and fax lines, tracking my communications regarding my business endeavours. This document, K03273, unequivocally confirms a troubling violation of privacy and trust that cannot be overlooked

 “Micky, This is a note from Gordon Stokes, if you want me to type up some info please advise ASAP. The information regarding the telephone numbers called by this customer following this incident are available from Network Investigation and my information was verbal from Gordon Stokes.”

When examined alongside Mr Stokes’ other diary notes found in the briefcase, the troubling reality about the lack of privacy in my faxing operations becomes undeniable. A key transcript reveals that the Australian Federal Police visited my business during my arbitration, uncovering serious privacy violations. Disturbingly, issues of phone and fax interception date back to at least September 1992, when I was organizing bus trips from Melbourne, Ballarat, and Cape Bridgewater.

The Ballarat connection is particularly telling. I was in the process of establishing a singles club for individuals over forty, aimed at providing enriching country retreats. Yet, documents supplied to the AFP disclose that women from Ballarat and Melbourne, merely inquiring about my weekend events, received unsolicited phone calls from unidentified individuals who clearly knew they were single. The AFP concluded that these intruders must have had unrestricted access to my phone and fax service lines. 

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

oOo

 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

AUSTEL writes to Telstra on 10 February 1994 stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

This internal, dated 25 February 1994, is a Government Memo confirming that the then-Minister for Communications and the Arts had written to advise that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my allegations of illegal phone/fax interception. (AFP Evidence File No 4)

 

Illicit fax screening 

 

Where are my lost arbitration-related documents?

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, started at least in September 1992 (fourteen months before I signed my Fast Track Settlement Proposal on 23 November 1993 and continued to at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration, stating: 

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” Senate Evidence File No 31)

The threats became a harsh reality. The withholding of relevant documents is particularly appalling because neither the TIO office nor the government has investigated the detrimental impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Both the arbitrator and the government, which wholly owned Telstra at the time, should have probed into why an Australian citizen who aided the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes was significantly disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

 

"I just wonder what relevance this has"

"Do you use your intelligence networks in these CoT cases."

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,  (Telstra) 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 2005/2006, 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 evident that this story had two sides.

 

 

The COT saga continues.

Our holiday camp was undoubtedly in a pristine location. 

All that was needed was a reliable phone service to operate that telephone-dependent business.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly 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 some sixteen small business owners had severe communication problems, they were forced into arbitration with Telstra to have their ongoing telephone problems fixed as part of the arbitration process, which each claimant knew they would fund. This would bring independence to the process. To have Telstra pay for the arbitrations would mean the process was not entirely independent. 

After thoroughly exploring every possible avenue to compel Telstra to resolve our ongoing telephone issues over the past seven years, we recognized that initiating an arbitration process was the most effective solution. The government's stipulation requiring Telstra to rectify our phone problems before the arbitrator could issue an award solidified our decision.

However, once we signed our arbitration agreements, the arbitrator only awarded on past historic phone faults, not those still affecting our businesses. Simply put, the arbitrator did us over. This is the reason for continuing to demand the government, through this website, force the precious arbitrator to explain why he only investigated historical faults and not those still destroying the COT Cases businesses and subsequent lives.

 

 

Ballarat Tourism-absentjustice.com lost business

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins.  I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities. It didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas.  Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.  This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact; calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Government and Telstra records clearly show that I experienced a significant loss of telephone calls to my business from Ballarat, Victoria. This loss undoubtedly harmed tourism in Ballarat as well. To bring attention to this critical issue, I utilized the Ballarat Tourism-absentjustice.com lost business link to share my COT story effectively. By clicking on this link, readers can gain insight into the challenges faced by both the residents and small business operators of Ballarat during the 1990s, long before the advent of email and computers transformed business operations.

In this website's "Who We Are" section, I invite readers to grapple with a profound question: "How can one tell a story so compelling that it forces the author to confront its own authenticity, ultimately prompting a thorough review of the records before moving forward?"

When Dr. Gordon Hughes was appointed COT versus Telstra arbitration arbitrator, he brought a wealth of experience. (or did he?) Yet, his prior involvement in one of the four COT cases casts a long shadow over his impartiality. In a bitter federal court battle against Telstra three years prior, Graham Schorer endured not just threats but a calculated campaign of intimidation from Telstra, their attorneys, and corporate management. This was more than a personal ordeal; it symbolized a systemic reluctance to disclose the critical information plaguing the telecommunications industry and affecting ordinary Australians like Mr. Schorer.

Now, Dr. Hughes was poised to evaluate these claims—claims he had previously examined while advocating for Mr. Schorer in a federal court case that wrapped up in April 1993. This leads us to a crucial point: when Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Mr. Schorer, and I signed our arbitration agreements in April 1994, Dr. Hughes was not only well-versed in the specifics of our case; he had firsthand knowledge of the egregious conduct perpetrated by Telstra and its executives.

Despite this glaring conflict of interest, none of us—Ann, Maureen, or I—received written correspondence from Dr Hughes, Telstra, or Graham Schorer regarding our serious objections to Dr Hughes. This lack of transparency is not just troubling; it is unacceptable. For those who seek to grasp the full context of Dr. Hughes's connections with Graham Schorer, I urge you to explore Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest.

Ignoring these connections is not an option; we must illuminate the truth to hold those involved in these proceedings accountable. It’s time to demand the integrity and transparency we deserve.

Why am I presenting this segment of our COT narrative first? The answer lies in its significance for establishing the foundational context for the reader. Upon reviewing Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest, it becomes apparent that Dr. Hughes, albeit inadvertently, caused substantial distress to me and the other two COT cases. By permitting Graham Schorer to forgo the submission of a complete claim against Telstra, Dr. Hughes effectively restricted our opportunity for redress, especially in light of Telstra's disclosure of prior unethical conduct, which included harassment, threats, and intimidation, during the initial four COT arbitrations.

The WHO WE ARE section poses a critical question: how does one articulate such a compelling narrative? This inquiry serves as a vital starting point for understanding the COT story. Accordingly, I have designated this page “Blowing The Whistle” Although it remains a work in progress, this section aims to convey the COT story in manageable segments, thereby avoiding overwhelming the reader with the extensive corruption, deception, and misconduct that plagued the COT arbitration from April 1994 to March 1999.

These wrongful acts were not solely attributable to Telstra; they also involved the collaboration of the arbitrator, the administrator, and various professional advisors, all of whom operated with immunity from liability for their negligent actions. This evidence is thoroughly documented in our Evidence Files. We must confront these issues and pursue justice for the wrongs inflicted upon us.

In the second paragraph, I mentioned that the arbitrator "indeed brought a wealth of experience (or did he?)." I need to clarify this point. The arbitrator did have considerable experience regarding the threats and intimidation directed at Mr. Schorer, as Dr. Hughes's office was also involved in these threats, as evidenced by various exhibits on absentjustice.com.

However, despite being informed that Dr. Hughes and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) legal counsel drafted the arbitration independently of Telstra, it was actually drafted by Telstra's lawyers. I should point out that the reader will come to see this as the story unfolds. Furthermore, the government had warned Telstra that these same lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, were prohibited from having any further role in COT matters. This stipulation was made by Robin Davey, Chairman of the government-funded Australian Communications Authority, on October 3, 1993, just four months before Freehill Hollingdale & Page faxed their drafted agreement to the TIO office on January 10, 1994.

Although Dr Hughes labelled the arbitration agreement as not credible—meaning it was an unsuitable set of rules on which to base his conclusions regarding my claims—he still proceeded to use it (refer to Open Letter File No 55-A)

Regarding his qualifications as a graded, experienced arbitrator, the website absentjustice.com indicates that Dr Hughes was not a graded arbitrator until well after the period in which I achieved my award based on an agreement (set of rules) drafted by the defendants' lawyers.

It is crucial to underscore the troubling behaviour of Telstra, which compelled me to document all my ongoing telephone complaints in writing before they would even consider investigating them. The designated lawyer, Denise McBurnie, frequently took a week or more to respond to my letters. During this time, I diligently submitted more complaints, only to find that she was overwhelmed with a backlog of unresolved issues—none of which Telstra addressed.

Chronology of messages Freehill Hollingdale & Page - Legal Professional Privilege 

21 April 1993:  Telstra internal email FOI folio C04094 from Greg Newbold to numerous Telstra executives and discussing “COT cases latest”, states:-

“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply.  I disagree with raising the issue of the courts.  That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder.  Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious [sic].” (GS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 88 - See GS CAV 75)

28 September 1993:  This Telstra internal email FOI folio A03254, from Don Pinel to Jim Holmes, with the subject Letter to Schorer, states:-

“One point not covered that you may like to consider is the question of ‘duress’. This has been raised in a number of places and requires rebuttal.”

“Perhaps I am getting too legalistic and defensive but we can’t afford to let anything get away. However, our best option is still to force these cases down a legal, structured path.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 108)

23 September 1993:  This internal Telstra email from Don Pinel to Rosanne Pittard and Corporate Secretary Jim Holmes, FOI folio R03022, advises the Project Team that all correspondence from COT (and similar) customers should be channelled through Denise McBurnie of Freehills.  He states:-

“Would you please ensure that with all customers that are, (or have the potential to become) serious complaints, correspondence is processed through Freehills with initial acknowledgement by the Region.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 102)

1 October 1993:  This document from Denise McBurnie to Telstra’s Don Pinel confirms that Freehill’s were also writing to Mr Alan Smith on behalf of Telstra. Ms McBurnie states:-

“I enclose a copy of the letter sent to Mr Alan Smith at 1.16 pm today.  I also confirm that I telephoned Mr Smith on phone number 055 267 267 and spoke to Mr Smith who confirmed that he had received the facsimile.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b) - See GS-CAV 109)

 

 

This is the same Denise McBurnie who, on September 10, 1993, created a legal document known as "The COT Strategy." (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, the Senate recognized that this document was weaponized against the four individuals named within it, myself included. It effectively barred us from receiving any technical information about our telephone faults. This alarming restriction was unjustly cloaked under the guise of "Legal Professional Privilege."

Disturbingly, Dr. Hughes chose to ignore this unethical conduct. The technical documents pertinent to my case were never disclosed to me during arbitration, a fact verified by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

It begs the question: Did Dr. Hughes feel too entangled in this web of deceit? His reliance on Telstra's and Freehill's drafted arbitration agreement, rather than pursuing an independently created one, may have clouded his judgment and prevented him from holding Telstra accountable for its unethical behaviour. The implications of this are not just concerning—they are a stark reminder of the need for integrity in legal and arbitration processes.

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

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.

In my arbitration in 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin that Telstra had been monitoring my daily movements since 1992 and that FOI documents showed Telstra had redacted those recorded conversations. This revelation greatly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized he had been deceived by Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I presented evidence that Freehill Hollingdale & Page had provided him with a false report regarding my phone problems before he interviewed me. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address this concern. Nonetheless, there were no adverse findings against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page in this unsigned witness statement or when it was re-submitted to the arbitrator and me signed by Mr Ian Joblin. Although Maurice Wayne Condon did not resign or re-date it.

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 [clinical psychologist’s].

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

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia. It is October 2024, and I have still not received a copy of Telstra's Ted Benjamin's response to the letter sent by John Pinncock on 21 March 1997 (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647).

The documents attached to absentjustice.com and our Evidence Files indicate that regardless of my Telstra fax account covering April 1994 to May 1995, 41 of my multiple claim documents were charged by Telstra as being sent to the arbitrator's fax machine during this period 41 of those faxed multiple claim documents are conspicuously absent from the arbitrator's schedule of papers received by me.

Dr Hughes made no finding that my business was still losing Ballarat customers during my arbitration. 

 

In the government communications regulator report AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings dated March 1994, AUSTEL notes at Point 115 –

“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years.”

At the request of the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) towards the end of 1993, I provided them with a condensed version of my comprehensive log of complaints, which did not include ongoing phone problems experienced after 1993. AUSTEL used some of those events to officially request from Telstra all data they had on file of how they responded to that chronology of events. I was losing group after group from the Ballarat region, which, en route to my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, took in tourist locations such as southwest Victoria (the Great Ocean Road) and the Grampians through to Hamilton and Portland.  Refer to Ballarat Tourism-absentjustice.com lost business.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show that AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

The actions by AUSTEL were an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was one condemnation, but to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia. 

Call for justice

Paedophile Activity in Parliament House Canberra 

Unsolved crimes committed against the Casualties of Telstra   

Why did the government allow the COT Cases to sign their arbitration and mediation processes when the Australian Federal Police were investigating the main government witness in that process for alleged child rape in Parliament House Canberra. Possibly worse is that one of the COT Cases had uncovered alleged paedophile activity involving Telstra employees (refer to point 6.8.7 Assistant Commissioner Ethical Standards Command Report 24 May 2001). 

It is therefore essential I raise the AFP transcripts of 10 February 1994, where it is shown Superintendent Jeffrey Penrose and Detective Sergeant Cochrane, Grahm Schorer (COT spokesperson) and Amanda Davis, Ex-government official, discussed a briefcase that Telstra had inadvertently left at my business which had the names of several people in it who like Mr Schorer and myself had our telephone conversations listened to and tapped. Pages 37, 38 and 39 in the transcripts of that AFP interview AFP evidence file GS 18 show that Mr Schorer advised the AFP that ex-Telstra employee Mr Marr provided this telephone interception (phone monitoring evidence) to Senator Bob Collins.

When the COT Cases tried to access these tapes from Senator Bob Collins during the arbitration process, they were never released under FOI or through the arbitration discovery process, even though they were needed to support our various arbitration claims against Telstra that our telephone conversations had been intercepted and tapped without our knowledge and consent. 

When government public servants thought it better to conceal relevant COT Case phone tapping evidence in cases of other evidence being mistakenly provided that shows the Senator was a paedophile during the period he was actively involved in the COT matters, they thought only of protecting the government and to hell with its citizens.

On March 25, 1994, I, Ms. Philippa Smith, Commonwealth Ombudsman, wrote to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, clearly stating that Telstra had been meticulously scrutinizing FOI documents requested by COT Cases Ann Garms and Alan Smith. This was in response to my disclosure of sensitive information to the media. 

It is important to note that Telstra failed to disclose to the Commonwealth Ombudsman I released sensitive documents to the Australian Federal Police to aid their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interceptions of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxed documents.  Ms Philippa then stated that Telstra informed Mr Wynack, Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, that Telstra expected the vetting of the documents to take only a couple of days. (See 2-B - page 3  Home Page – Part One File No/2-B).

The correspondence from Ms. Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, validates that Telstra examined sensitive freedom of information documents before they were disseminated to the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, the correspondence neglects to elucidate Telstra's course of action regarding the sensitive information in instances where it was detrimental to Telstra and government officials, such as Senator Bob Collins, as elaborated below.

It is crucial to emphasize the significance of the four letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he possesses comprehensive knowledge about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. (rb.gy/dsvidd)

During the period in which Ann Garms sent the four attached letters, I also communicated with The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, who held the positions of Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister of Australia. I provided a detailed timeline of events to The Hon. Mathias Cormann, the Minister for Finance, and a lawyer from Hamilton, Victoria. My letter to Mr Cormann was formalized into a statutory declaration dated 26 July 2019, and the lawyer witnessed it. This timeline of events is now firmly incorporated into the webpage Absent Justice Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Ann Garms' letter unequivocally asserts that the cover-up of her arbitration matters, which were linked to all the other COT Cases arbitrations, in Ms Garms's case resulted in the loss of her home and superannuation, directly stemmed from the risk associated with exposing the paedophile activities of former Minister for Communications, Senator Bob Collins.

During our separate arbitrations, Senator Collins' illicit activities significantly obstructed the COT claimants' access to freedom of information documents from his office. It is a well-established fact that these documents were deliberately withheld from us COT Cases due to the potential release of non-related papers associated with the raping of aboriginal (one nation) children by Senator Collins in his parliamentary office. These actions would have been severely detrimental to the government if made public.

Allowing the COT Cases to sign their arbitration and mediation processes while the AFP was investigating one of the major players involved in those arbitrations who had been raping children in Parliament House while he was investigating the COT Cases issues as part of his folio in Parliament House Canberra when the COT Cases had also raised phone and fax interception with this same Senator. It has now been proven in the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 that COT-related arbitration faxes were being intercepted en route to at least one Senator's parliament house office during the COT arbitrations is alarming.

Exhibit 10-C in File No/13 shows that one of my faxes to the Australian Federal Treasurer, The Hon Peter Costello, was intercepted on 2/11/1998. I reiterate that the COT cases should not have been forced into arbitration while the Australian Federal Police investigated Telstra's unauthorised interception of the COT cases' telecommunications services.