Chapter Ten - The tenth remedy pursued
Following the advice of Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, the Minister for Communications wrote to me in May 2007, suggesting that I take Telstra to court regarding privacy issues. I reached out to Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) and worked with an advisor who assisted me in preparing a claim to present to Peter Hiland, a barrister for CAV. From October 2007 to late 2008, this advisor, a former high-ranking Victorian police officer, had several discussions with Peter Hiland, who assessed my claims.
The barrister was pleased that I could provide evidence showing that faxes sent from Sir Owen Dixon Chambers, Melbourne's legal hub, were intercepted before reaching their intended recipients. He was also concerned to learn that neither the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) nor Telstra had returned to me the evidence I submitted, which confirmed that faxes meant for others were mistakenly delivered to my business in Cape Bridgewater.
Five years after CAV received this evidence, it was finally returned to me. Although it was not in disarray, the manner in which it was returned suggested it had undergone some investigation. However, similar to the situation with the Institute of Arbitrators Mediator Australia (IAMA), this investigation did not lead to any significant outcomes, and those who assessed my claims also reached conclusions without any resolution.
The barrister appeared genuinely excited that I could provide evidence regarding the interception of faxes leaving the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers before they reached their intended destinations. He was also troubled to learn that neither the TIO nor Telstra had returned the evidence I provided, which confirmed that faxes sent from the Crown Casino complex were incorrectly delivered to my business in Cape Bridgewater despite not being meant for me. Although the evidence was returned to me five years later in a seemingly organized manner, it indicated that some investigation had occurred. However, like with the IAMA, this investigation did not yield significant results, and those who assessed my claims concluded without reaching any decisive outcomes.
Since 2003, a well-respected former senior Victorian police officer, who is a recipient of the Order of Australia, has been working to help me resolve my arbitration issues from 1994. In 2007, at the request of the government’s most senior barrister, Peter Hiland, this same ex-police officer convened a meeting in Melbourne. This meeting took place in a restaurant just a short distance from the offices of Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), and included Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the COT (Customers of Telstra), as well as myself.
Peter Hiland and the ex-police officer were already acquainted through their professional backgrounds, as the former officer had served as a police prosecutor and had faced Hiland in court on opposite sides. Hiland agreed to this meeting after reviewing documents that prompted him to do so, which contained preliminary evidence related to the COT case. During the meeting, the barrister stated that CAV had been waiting for years to gather this type of evidence, as it clearly confirmed their long-held suspicions. This evidence indicated that certain individuals had access to privileged documents that had been sent via Telstra’s network during litigation processes.
The barrister also expressed serious concerns regarding Telstra's actions during my arbitration process, including the use of falsified reports, the authorization of false witness statements, and the serious threats made against claimants during the legal arbitration process conducted in Victoria. After reviewing some of the COT evidence, the barrister noted that there was still more evidence being compiled. He assured me that any information provided to the CAV would definitely be investigated.
A short time later, in October 2007, the same ex-police officer personally hand-delivered thirty-two separate, spiral-bound volumes of evidence to Consumer Affairs Victoria. Within a couple of weeks, I was asked (again via the ex-police officer) to copy all thirty-two volumes of this evidence onto a CD (a job that actually took me a full two days to complete). I was told that this would help speed up the then-ongoing CAV investigation.
More than two years later, that CD was returned to me, and, so far (i.e., in 2021), the Department of Justice in the State of Victoria has continued to refuse to release any findings based on that material. This has now led to all that material gradually being added to our website, absentjustice.com, so that the general public can decide A short time later, in October 2007, the same ex-police officer personally hand-delivered thirty-two separate, spiral-bound volumes of evidence to Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). Within a couple of weeks, I was asked (again through the ex-police officer) to copy all thirty-two volumes of this evidence onto a CD. This task took me a full two days to complete. I was informed that this would help expedite the then-ongoing CAV investigation.
More than two years later, that CD was returned to me, and as of 2021, the Department of Justice in the State of Victoria has continued to refuse to release any findings based on that material. As a result, this material has gradually been added to our website, absentjustice.com, allowing the general public to determine for themselves whether I was justified in bringing this evidence to the Victorian Government’s attention.
The barrister was also concerned that Telstra had engaged in falsified reporting (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report, Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report, and Tampering With Evidence) and had made false witness statements (see Summary of Events) while threatening claimants during arbitrations conducted in the State of Victoria.
You can view some of the types of exhibits provided to CAV during their two-plus-year investigation by clicking on CAV Part 1, 2, and 3 on the absentjustice.com website. This will allow you to form your own opinion on whether the State of Victoria Department of Justice should have reached a finding in 2007 regarding these serious issues. Some of these numbered CAV exhibits are dated well after the investigation and bear the CAV inscription; they were collected in 2011 when I introduced additional evidence to the Department of Justice.for themselves whether I was right to bring this evidence to the Victorian Government’s attention.
The barrister was also concerned that Telstra had used falsified reporting (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report, Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Tampering With Evidence) and made false witness statements (see page|my-story/summary-of-events/|Summary of events]Tampering With Evidence) as well as threatening claimants during arbitrations that were conducted in the state of Victoria (see Senate Evidence File No 31).
You can view some of the types of exhibits provided to the CAV during their two-year-plus investigation by clicking on CAV Part 1, 2 and 3, now collated on the absentjustice.com website, and form your own opinion as to whether the State of Victoria Department of Justice should have made a finding in 2007 regarding these severe issues. Some of these numbered CAV exhibits are dated well past that investigation and bear the CAV inscription; they were collated in 2011 when I introduced further evidence to the Department of Justice.
It is clear from exhibits AS-CAV 814, 815 and 816 (see AS-CAV 790 to 818) that the Victorian Department of Justice in 2011 would not investigate evidence of facsimiles that were intercepted in the State of Victoria during litigation/arbitration.
After being told more evidence was being collated, the barrister asked for all evidence to be provided for CAV to investigate. This ex-senior Victorian police officer personally submitted Alan’s 32 separate spiral-bound volumes of evidence to CAV. Within a couple of weeks, Alan was advised via this ex-senior Victorian police officer that CAV was investigating and requested all 32 separate volumes to be supplied on a CD (compact disc). More than two years after CAV said it was investigating this material, the evidence was returned and so far, in 2020, the State of Victoria Department of Justice has declined to make a finding on that material.
Next Page ⟶
