---------------
Early in the COT story, visitors must face a harsh reality: the corruption surrounding our arbitrations didn't exist in isolation. It was intertwined with one of the darkest scandals ever to affect the Australian Parliament.
COT Case Ann Garms — whose YouTube video is available on KPMG featuring Ex‑Partner John Rundell — wrote multiple letters to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Bryce (see Evidence File Seven). These letters revealed that Senator Bob Collins, the Minister for Communications overseeing our four arbitrations, was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for child rape within Parliament House, Canberra. These were not mere rumours; they were documented, formally raised allegations known within government circles while our arbitrations were taking place.
The consequences were devastating. Because Collins, then Minister for Communications, was under investigation, we did not receive numerous government‑related Freedom of Information (FOI) documents connected to him and his telecommunications portfolio, documents we COT Cases needed to understand what he and his government knew about our telephone issues, which were about to be arbitrated. Evidence that should have supported the COT Cases was locked away, buried during a paedophile investigation by the AFP that had nothing to do with our four arbitrations, although the AFP were investigating Telstra during those same arbitrations for the unauthorised interception of our telephone and fax services provided by Telstra — an issue Senator Bob Collins was also interested in.
The whole government‑endorsed COT arbitrations were intertwined with tentacles festering within the system of government, which could not afford to let the media expose what we COT Cases had ploughed our arbitration fees into. We were soon to be slaughtered sacrificial lambs.
I have raised here four letters, dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, from COT Case Ann Garms, written just before her death, to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann (see See File Ann Garms 104 Document). In these letters she exposes not only the raping of First Nation (Aboriginal) children by Senator Collins in his Parliament House Canberra office (rb.gy/dsvidd), but also discloses in her 6 October 2017 letter, marked Doc B, to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, that former Telstra CEO Frank Blount co‑produced a book (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran admitting Telstra did have significant problems in their network during the COT arbitrations.
It was also essential to raise Ann Garms’s letters here because Wayne Goss (Chair of Deloitte), whom Ann referred to, had also been Premier of Queensland. Therefore, Ann’s statement that gaslighting methods were used against us during our arbitrations aligns with the gaslighting character assassination used against me in 1996 to stop Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from investigating my claims about the unethical way the four COT arbitrations were conducted.
The man named Wayne Goss in Ann’s letters was the former Premier of Queensland, a man with no ties to Collins’s crimes, yet with extensive knowledge of government operations. In his communications with Ann Garms, he warned her that we COT Cases were subjected to deliberate gaslighting attacks during and after our arbitrations. His warning was serious and came from someone who understood how government officials operate to discredit complainants and protect political interests.
This is why I urge visitors to read Anne's letters (see See File Ann Garms 104 Document). When you compare her documented warnings with the character assassinations directed at me by Dr Gordon Hughes, John Pinnock, and John Rundell, as detailed in The first remedy pursued, the pattern becomes unmistakable.
The same machinery that protected a minister under AFP investigation for child rape also destroyed our arbitrations. The same officials who buried FOI documents about Collins also buried FOI documents about Telstra. The gaslighting techniques used to silence victims of political abuse were employed to silence the COT Cases.
This is not simply corruption. It represents institutional evil, orchestrated without boundaries and executed against ordinary Australians who dared to challenge a government‑owned corporation.
It is a matter of public interest, not private grievance. Every Australian deserves to know how far the system went to protect itself, and how brutally it punished those who dared to expose the truth.
----------------
Early in the COT story, visitors must grasp a harsh reality: the corruption surrounding our arbitrations did not exist in isolation. It was intertwined with one of the darkest scandals ever to affect the Australian Parliament.
COT Case Ann Garms—whose YouTube video is available on KPMG featuring Ex-Partner John Rundell—wrote multiple letters to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Bryce (see Evidence File Seven). These letters revealed that Senator Bob Collins, the Minister for Communications overseeing our four arbitrations, was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for child rape within Parliament House, Canberra. These were not mere rumours; they were documented, formally raised allegations known within government circles while our arbitrations were taking place.
The consequences were devastating. Because Collins, then Minister for Communications, was under investigation, we did not receive numerous government-related Freedom of Information (FOI) documents connected to him and his telecommunications portfolio, which we, COT Cases, needed to see what he and his government knew about our telephone issues which were about to be arbitrated on. Evidence that should have supported the COT Cases was locked away, buried during a paedophile investigation by the AFP, that had nothing to do with our four arbitrations, although the AFP were investigating Telstra during those same arbitrations for the unauthorised interception of our telephone and faxing services provied by Telstra, and an issue that Senator Bob Collins was also interested in.
The whole government endorsed COT arbitrations were intertwined amongst tentacles that festered the system of governemnt which could not afford to have the media expose what we COT Cases had ploughed our arbitration fees into. We were to soon be slaughtered sacrificial lambs.
I have raised here four letters, one dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017 and 10 October 2017, from COT Case Anne Garms, just before her death, to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia and Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann (see See File Ann Garms 104 Document) where she exposes not only the raping of the first nation (aboriginal children) by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office (rb.gy/dsvidd) Ann also discloses in her 6 October 2017 letter which is marked Doc B, to the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, raises the fact that previous CEO during the COT arbitrations Frank Blount co-produced a book https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran admitting Telstra did have significant problems in their network.
It was also essential to raise Ann Garms's letter here because Wayne Goss (Chair of Deloitte), who Ann referred to, had also been Premier of Queensland. Therefore, Ann's statement that told her that during our arbitrations, Gaslighting methods were used against us fits in with the Gaslighting character assassination used against me in 1996, to stop Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from investigating my claims concerning the unethical way in which the four COT arbitrations had been conducted.
The man named Wayne Goss in Ann's letters was the former Premier of Queensland, a man with no ties to Collins’s crimes, yet with extensive knowledge of government operations. In his communications with Ann Garms, he warned her that we COT Cases were subject to deliberate gaslighting attacks during and after our arbitrations. His warning was serious and came from someone who understood how government officials operate to discredit complainants and protect political interests.
This is why I urge visitors to watch even a minute of Ann’s YouTube video and read her letters in Evidence File Seven. When you compare her documented warnings with the character assassinations directed at me by Dr Gordon Hughes, John Pinnock, and John Rundell, as detailed in First Remedy Pursued, the pattern becomes unmistakable.
The same machinery that protected a minister under investigation by the AFP for child rape also destroyed our arbitrations. The same officials who buried FOI documents about Collins also buried FOI documents about Telstra. The gaslighting techniques used to silence victims of political abuse were employed to silence the COT Cases.
This is not simply corruption. It represents institutional evil, orchestrated without boundaries and executed against ordinary Australians who dared to challenge a government-owned corporation.
It is a matter of public interest, not private grievance. Every Australian deserves to know how far the system went to protect itself—and how brutally it punished those who dared to expose the truth.
Early in the COT story, visitors must grasp a harsh reality: the corruption surrounding our arbitrations did not exist in isolation. It was intertwined with one of the darkest scandals ever to affect the Australian Parliament.
COT Case Ann Garms — whose YouTube video is available on KPMG featuring Ex‑Partner John Rundell — wrote multiple letters to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Bryce (see Evidence File Seven). These letters revealed that Senator Bob Collins, the Minister for Communications overseeing our four arbitrations, was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for child rape within Parliament House, Canberra. These were not rumours; they were documented, formally raised allegations known within government circles while our arbitrations were underway.
The consequences were devastating. Because Collins was under AFP investigation, numerous government‑related Freedom of Information (FOI) documents connected to him and his telecommunications portfolio — documents we COT Cases needed to understand what he and his government knew about our telephone issues — were never released. Evidence that should have supported the COT Cases was locked away, buried during a paedophile investigation that had nothing to do with our four arbitrations. At the same time, the AFP were also investigating Telstra for the unauthorised interception of our telephone and fax services.
I have raised here four letters — dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017 — from COT Case Ann Garms, written just before her death, to The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann (see See File Ann Garms 104 Document). In these letters she exposes not only the raping of First Nation (Aboriginal) children by Senator Collins in his Parliament House office (rb.gy/dsvidd), but also discloses in her 6 October 2017 letter, marked Doc B, that former Telstra CEO Frank Blount co‑produced a book (https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran) admitting Telstra did have significant problems in their network during the COT arbitrations.
It was essential to raise Ann Garms’s letters here because Wayne Goss (Chair of Deloitte), whom Ann referred to, had also been Premier of Queensland. Therefore, Ann’s statement that gaslighting methods were used against us during our arbitrations aligns with the gaslighting character assassination used against me in 1996 to stop Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, from investigating my claims about the unethical way the four COT arbitrations were conducted.
The man named Wayne Goss in Ann’s letters was the former Premier of Queensland — a man with no ties to Collins’s crimes, yet with extensive knowledge of government operations. In his communications with Ann Garms, he warned her that we COT Cases were subjected to deliberate gaslighting attacks during and after our arbitrations. His warning was serious and came from someone who understood how government officials operate to discredit complainants and protect political interests.
This is why I urge visitors to watch even a minute of Ann’s YouTube video and read her letters in Evidence File Seven. When you compare her documented warnings with the character assassinations directed at me by Dr Gordon Hughes, John Pinnock, and John Rundell — as detailed in First Remedy Pursued — the pattern becomes unmistakable.
The same machinery that protected a minister under AFP investigation for child rape also destroyed our arbitrations. The same officials who buried FOI documents about Collins also buried FOI documents about Telstra. The gaslighting techniques used to silence victims of political abuse were employed to silence the COT Cases.
This is not simply corruption. It represents institutional evil, orchestrated without boundaries and executed against ordinary Australians who dared to challenge a government‑owned corporation.
It is a matter of public interest, not private grievance. Every Australian deserves to know how far the system went to protect itself — and how brutally it punished those who dared to expose the truth.
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00 am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.”
- A formal technical evaluation report dated 30 April 1995 reveals that consultants had only ever scrutinised a mere 4,000 pages.
- Dr Hughes’s final award, brought down on 11 May 1995, claims he read just over 6,000 pages of documentary evidence.
- The remaining bulk of the 24,000 critical FOI documents were deliberately and maliciously withheld until after Telstra’s formal defence had been securely lodged, leaving me mathematically incapable of using the evidence of their collapsing network to protect my business.
- The precise origin of the fabricated 2:00 a.m. phone call allegation.
- The full exposure of the fictitious written admission John Pinnock claims.
- The literal disappearance of 18,000 evidence pages from the arbitrator's final assessment.
- The identities of the officials who authorised the withholding of the 1994 regulatory validation findings.
"Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00 am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit."
- The Technical Report (30 April 1995): Formally states that consultants only examined slightly more than 4,000 pages of material.
- The Final Arbitration Award (11 May 1995): Dr Hughes officially records that his judgment was based on reading more than 6,000 pages of documentary evidence.
- The Delayed FOI Release: Records prove that the remaining bulk of the 24,000 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents were deliberately withheld and only supplied after Telstra had already lodged its formal defence, leaving virtually zero procedural window for the claimant to inspect, analyze, or integrate them into their case.
INTRODUCTION
Learn about the horrendous crimes, the unscrupulous criminals, the corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who guard the gates of Australia’s legal establishment. “Shameful,” “hideous,” and “treacherous” barely scratch the surface.
Absentjustice.com exposes systemic corruption, institutional betrayal, and legal manipulation within Australia’s power structures. Here you will confront the serious issue of malfeasance in public office, supported by more than thirty‑six thousand downloadable documents, all freely available, all drawn from original government and Telstra records.
The telecommunications small‑business operators whose livelihoods were destroyed by ongoing telephone faults, known by the government as the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short), were promised a beacon of hope. We were told that if we funded our own arbitration fees against Telstra, a government‑owned carrier would fix our faults as part of the arbitration process before the arbitrator delivered a finding.
However, Telstra got to the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, who in my case delivered an award fully aware that my telephone problems were still crippling my business, as confirmed by his own technical consultants, DMR & Lane, in their formal evaluation report dated 30 April 1995 (Refer to Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues).
Not only did our faults remain unaddressed, but the COT Cases were delivered into a treacherously engineered arbitration system crafted with surgical precision to shield a once government‑owned corporation from ever facing the consequences of its misconduct. Telstra didn't merely defend itself; it manipulated the entire process to survive. Essential evidence was deliberately withheld. Telstra twisted, altered, and sanitised critical documents. Phone records vanished at the exact moment they became dangerous. Our communications were intercepted in the shadows, sifted for anything Telstra could weaponise or suppress.
COT CASE STRATEGY
Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne,,
Uncovering that AUSTEL (now ACMA), the government communications authority, had gone back on their word by allowing Freehill Hollingdale & Page to act as Telstra’s arbitration counsel was soul‑destroying enough. But imagine then learning that the very lawyer, Denise McBurnie, whom Telstra forced me to lodge my phone complaints with in writing — or Telstra would not treat those complaints as valid — had secretly devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy.” This document instructed Telstra, naming me and my business, on how it could conceal crucial technical information under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), even though the information was not privileged.
It was disheartening to discover that the arbitrator would not challenge the legality of these falsely labelled LPP documents. (See also page 5169, SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia).
Government records show that the COT Cases were assured (see point 40, Prologue Evidence File No/2) that Freehill Hollingdale & Page would have no further involvement in our matters. This was the same legal firm the government had covertly allowed to draft the arbitration agreement it claimed had been prepared independently of Telstra.
Only after Robin Davey, Chairman of the Government Communications Authority, saw what Freehill Hollingdale & Page had done to the four COT Cases, myself, Garms, Gillan, and Schorer — did he acknowledge the danger. Freehill’s strategy involved masking crucial technical documents as Legal Professional Privilege, preventing us from proving our claims against Telstra. Davey assured us that Telstra would not be permitted to use Freehill Hollingdale & Page in our arbitrations.
Yet in all four arbitrations, Freehill, now trading as Herbert Smith Freehills Melbourne, was Telstra’s principal defence counsel. The very firm the government promised would have no further role became the legal architect of Telstra’s defence, shaping the arbitration process to Telstra’s advantage. None of us would have signed our arbitration agreements if we had known Freehill drafted the agreement and would represent Telstra in all four arbitrations.
Read this Casualties of Telstra story and witness firsthand the power Australia’s legal establishment can wield over our democratic processes, our arbitrators, and the citizens who dare challenge them.
THE EVIDENCE THEY COULDN’T DESTROY
Don’t forget to hover your mouse over the following images as you scroll down this homepage.
When we sounded the alarm, the arbitrator — fully aware of the rot beneath the surface — failed to act. When we presented irrefutable proof of interference, government officials, stripped of integrity and moral courage, chose silence. And when we kept fighting, Telstra responded with intimidation tactics designed to break us, crush our resolve, and erase our demands for accountability.
This website is built from original documents, firsthand witness statements, government correspondence, and records that somehow slipped through Telstra’s relentless efforts to destroy them. As you move through this material, you will see the pattern clearly: archives cleansed of incriminating evidence, official files manipulated to protect Telstra’s interests, complainants deliberately misclassified to discredit them, and crucial evidence quietly disposed of before it could threaten the corporation’s carefully constructed façade.
WHY THIS MATTERS
I present these truths because the stakes reach far beyond the COT Cases. They strike at the heart of every Australian who believes in fair process, transparent governance, and the rule of law. The corruption we faced was not accidental. It was calculated. It was systemic. It was designed to protect Telstra at any cost, even if that cost was the destruction of innocent lives.
This website is not merely an accusation. It is a chilling archive of betrayal, a record of how a powerful corporation, backed by government authority, crushed ordinary Australians who dared to challenge it.
If you recognise the alarming significance of what this website reveals, I urge you to support Transparency International Australia. Your support helps expose the institutional corruption eroding our democracy and strengthens the fight to hold powerful entities to account.
The evidence presented here is neither theoretical nor speculative. It is a documented forensic chronicle of how bureaucratic failures were deliberately concealed, criminal conduct was protected, and the truth was systematically erased.
The Casualties of Telstra endured a betrayal that dismantled our businesses, stripped away our livelihoods, and consumed decades of our lives. Absentjustice.com illustrates, with remarkable clarity, how Telstra, regulators, and government officials manipulated a supposedly transparent arbitration process to obstruct the truth.
Every action you take—even reporting your concerns to your own government or arbitration centres in your country—becomes a countermeasure against the entrenched corruption in arbitration systems worldwide.
THE NEXT THREAT
And now a new danger waits in the wings.
With artificial intelligence preparing to inherit the role arbitrators failed to uphold, the future of justice grows darker. Instead of flawed human decision‑makers, we face machines trained on cleansed archives, altered records, and government‑approved distortions. Robots will judge where arbitrators once stood, robots built on the very misinformation Telstra engineered.
If we don’t expose this corruption, AI will not correct the past. It will automate it.
This is why your voice matters.
Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page
Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults
Confronting Despair
The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.
Flash Backs – China-Vietnam
In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.
A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost
As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.
Salvaging What I Could
Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.
Lies Deceit And Treachery
I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.
An Unlocked Briefcase
On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.
Not Fit For Purpose (Duplicate 1)
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 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.
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 unauthorised 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.
