Previously Withheld Documents 

I took this new information to Austel and provided them with several documents that had previously been withheld from me during my 11 December 1992 settlement, which had been in the briefcase. On 9 June 1993, Austel's John MacMahon wrote to Telstra regarding my continuing phone faults after the settlement and the content of the briefcase documents (see also The Briefcase).

Further he claims that the Telecom documents contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customers concerned.

In Summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that in the context of the settlement, Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information.

I ask for your urgent comment on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation, which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith's premises for its inspection. This, together with your comment, will enable me to arrive at an appropriate recommendation for AUSTEL's consideration of any action it should take.

As to Mr Smith's claimed continuing service difficulties, please provide a statement as to whether Telecom believes that Mr Smith has been provided with a telephone service of normal network standard since the settlement. If not, you are asked to detail the problems which Telecom knows to exist, indicate how far beyond network standards they are and identify the cause/causes of these problems.

In light of Mr Smith's claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism that will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made.

I can only presume that Telstra did not comply with the request 'to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the available documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith's premises' on 3 August 1993.  Austel's General Manager, Consumer Affairs, wrote to Telstra requesting a copy of all the documents in this briefcase that had not already been forwarded to Austel.

I sent off several Statutory Declarations to Austel explaining what I had seen in the briefcase. Telstra had returned and picked up the briefcase. 

One-third of the documents I managed to copy contained enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware that the AXE Ericsson telephone exchange lock-up faults were a problem worldwide, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment. The lock-up flaws also affected the billing software. 

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries worldwide were removing or having removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia still denied to the arbitrator that there was ever a problem with that equipment. Telstra told lies to minimize their liability for the COT Cases. (See Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)

Was this why the Australian government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane while the government endorsed COT arbitration while the arbitrations were still in progress?

When the COT arbitration documents submitted into arbitration proved that this Ericsson AXE telephone exchange lock-up call loss rate was between 15% to 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f so clearly shows. AUSTEL then instigated an investigation into these Ericsson AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's principal arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding for 120,000 COT-type complaints to show a hundred. When the public AUSTEL COT Cases report was launched on 13 April 1994, it showed AUSTEL located up-wards of 50 or more COT-type complaints being experienced around Australia. 

Was this the major problem Julian Assange wanted to share with the COT Cases? He said corruption was significant. How bigger could this have been had it been exposed during the COT arbitrations?

In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson, whose official arbitration records numbered A56132, were investigated, including my ignored claims against Ericsson.  

Even worse, my arbitration claim documents were returned to me after the arbitration concluded. None of my Ericsson technical data was among the returned material.

The Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in contact with Ericsson, the major telecommunication equipment supplier to Telstra, before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and the purchase of Lane by Ericsson during the COT arbitration process?

Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation, which I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued).