Chapter 1 - The first remedy pursued November 1993

The website that triggered the more profound exploration into political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any actual crime narrative.

Please note as of March 2024, Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993  to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued are works in progress. I have meticulously researched and collected concrete documents and evidence to support every statement made in these twelve volumes. I am carefully and precisely editing each relevant remedy to ensure that the truth is presented in the most effective way possible. I can confidently guarantee that anyone who reads these twelve volumes will have an unwavering understanding of the truth that I am exposing. It will be strikingly clear to all who read these reports that government bureaucrats and certain government agencies, including self-funded regulators, were complicit in allowing the Telstra Corporation to commit illegal acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is indisputable and will leave no doubt in anyone's mind about the wrongdoing that occurred.

I created the following four-minute video on YouTube to illuminate the corruption surrounding the COT process during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations.

 

The legal expertise and qualifications attributed to Dr. Hughes would ostensibly necessitate appropriately addressing the distressing occurrences during my arbitration. The absence of recorded documentation pertaining to the threats posed by Telstra and their subsequent execution during the arbitration within Dr. Hughes's findings is perplexing. This is particularly noteworthy in light of the written confirmation from the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia, received in April 2001, indicating that Dr Hughes had not obtained the status of a graded arbitrator until a date after the delivery of his decision on my claim on May 11, 1995.

Despite being alerted to these issues in 1996, 2000, and 2009, the Australian Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators (IAMA) has failed to act. I supplied the IAMA with 23 spiral-bound submission materials in 2009 at their request, and they have yet to make a finding or return this material. The third investigation, initiated by the President of the IAMA, former High Court Judge The Hon D Kirby AC, CMG, promised to investigate (Burying The Evidence File 13-A). Yet, the IAMA has declined to make a written finding or return my submission material regarding my claims against Dr. Hughes. Their handling of the arbitration process suggests a lack of ethical conduct (See Chapter 11 - The eleventh remedy pursued). 

Our Corrupt Legal System 

Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals)

It may be difficult for people to believe that lawyers and arbitrators can (and do) pervert the course of justice for their own gain to the detriment of others. But remember, when accusations first emerged of child molestation linked to clergy, many people had difficulty believing that, too, and that has now been proven to have occurred for decades. Many books have been written over the years detailing the misbehaviour of trusted legal people worldwide (including Australia). Some publications that might help you to understand our story here at absentjustice.com are Evan Whitton’s books, which cover similar topics:

Our Corrupt Legal System; Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals),

The Cartel: Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks, and

Trial by Voodoo; how the law defeats justice and democracy.

 

In Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete," I have carefully articulated that, had the arbitration liability caps delineated in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement not been removed, I would have possessed substantial grounds to initiate a lawsuit against John Rundell for negligence. During the first week of October 1995, my arbitration appeal attorney, Law Partners of Melbourne, conveyed that I had accumulated compelling evidence against John Rundell, an individual associated with Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory and operating specifically within the specialized arbitration finance unit. This compelling evidence was deemed robust enough to warrant legal action under clause 25 of my arbitration agreement, representing a significant turning point in my case.

Law Partners procured the original version of this pivotal arbitration agreement from William Hunt Lawyers, a well-respected firm situated on Lonsdale Street in Melbourne, which represented Graham Schorer, the prominent spokesperson for the Coalition of Transmission (COT). Notably, clauses 25 and 26 were explicitly included in the faxed version of the agreement that was dispatched to William Hunt’s office in April 1994, underscoring their critical significance in the context of potential litigation. Yet, upon examining the copy that Graham Schorer executed on April 2 (year intentionally omitted), it was discovered that clauses 25 and 26 had been inexplicably omitted, alongside alterations made to clause 24 after April 19, 1994, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the document.

Following this disconcerting discovery, William Hunt advised Law Partners that, given Graham Schorer’s ongoing involvement in the arbitration process, he would address these troubling matters on Mr. Schorer’s behalf. However, the arbitration agreement I signed on 21 April 1994 was represented to me as having undergone a modification that removed only clause 10.2.2. Upon presenting this document to Law Partners, they expressed profound astonishment at what appeared to be a deliberate alteration. This modification had adverse consequences, resulting in a significant change to clause 24 and excluding the crucial $250,000 liability caps initially specified in clauses 25 and 26.

At this pivotal juncture, we undertook extensive efforts to obtain my arbitration files from Telstra, the entity identified as the defendant in my arbitration proceedings. To further facilitate this endeavour, we engaged the services of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, a federal independent agency, to assess my arbitration file under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.

The arbitrators had previously indicated that they did not retain an official copy of my arbitration file despite their obligation to do so for a period of six years under statutory limitation laws. However, in an unexpectedly alarming development, Telstra communicated to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in correspondence dated between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997 that they had destroyed my arbitration file. Correspondence labelled as Home Page File No/82  substantiates that Mr. Wynack, Senior Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, did not accept Telstra’s claims regarding the destruction of this critical file.

Law Partners engaged a Queen's Counsel, an esteemed legal expert, to fortify my case at a substantial financial cost, amounting to thousands of dollars. The counsel meticulously analyzed my case and advised me that the absence of the arbitration file, which should have existed in at least four distinct copies held by various entities—Telstra, the arbitrator, the legal counsel for the arbitration, and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who served as the administrator for the COT arbitrations—represented a significant obstacle in pursuing a favourable resolution to my claims.

John Pinnock the administrator to my arbitration letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

I have never received my arbitration file from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman John Pinnock. 

Download Attachments

Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C   Tampering With Evidence File No 2   Tampering With Evidence File No 3   Tampering With Evidence File No 4   Tampering With Evidence File No 5   Tampering With Evidence File No 6   Tampering With Evidence File No 7   Tampering With Evidence File No 9   Tampering With Evidence File No/10   Tampering With Evidence File 11-A to 11-B   Tampering With Evidence File No 13   Tampering With Evidence File No 14   AXE Faulty Equipment

Next Page ⟶