Chapter Seven - The seventh remedy pursued

The seventh remedy pursued went from 2001 to 2002

In mid-2001, I met with Peter Condliffe, Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia at 450 Lt Bourke St Melbourne 3000. On 12 January 2002, in response to a request from Mr Condliffe, I provided his office with further documents to help the IAMA with their investigation into claims that Dr Gordon Hughes did not conduct my arbitration in a transparent manner and/or according to the ambit of the arbitration procedures.

Two of the many documents provided to Mr Condliffe dated 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, were the statements made by the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations, John Pinnock, to a Senate Committee (page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia) that:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.”

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

My question to Mr Condliffe was: why were the arbitrations not conducted under the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures? How can arbitration be just when the arbitrator has no control over how it is conducted? When did Dr Hughes lose control over the arbitrations? Was it the first week, or two months or even nine months into the process? And, as importantly, who authorised him to conduct the process entirely outside the arbitration procedures? Where are these hidden arbitration-related Telstra documents that we COT Cases were told we would receive if we entered our government-endorsed arbitrations? Why hasn’t the government acted upon this official advice given by John Pinnock?

The second document provided to Mr Condliffe was the three-page Freehill Hollingdale & Page minutes of the covert pre-arbitration meeting in which the COT Cases were not invited, but the defendant's Telstra was Open letter File No 54-A. This document alarmed Mr Condliffe after I had alerted him that Dr Hughes had to have specified the removal of the $250,000.00 liability caps, which are discussed in Part 2, Chapter 5, Fraudulent conduct, and the Major Fraud Group investigation, Part 3 below. It meant that Dr Hughes was thinking only of his arbitration resource unit and not the four COT Cases, as Maureen Gillan had not yet signed her arbitration agreement on 8 April 1994, when these $250,000.00 liability caps had not yet been removed.

Mr Condliffe would not comment on this removal of the clauses from the agreement until he had read further into my claims. However, Mr Condliffe did comment that we had been entitled to a copy of the minutes from the clandestine gathering and notified by the administrator of the reason sections 4 and 5 of these official minutes had been removed from Open letter File No 54-A).

During this briefing with Mr Condliffe, I also showed him evidence, as shown in Part 3 Chapter 5, of Fraudulent conduct that a secret deal with Telstra by the TIO (the administrator to the arbitrations) to allow the TIO arbitration consultants first access to all significant arbitration-related documents before they were provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator). This covert deal, which undermined the arbitrator and his complete knowledge of what was happening during the first four arbitrations I had been party, freaked out Mr Condliffe. This secret deal left the arbitrator needing a thorough understanding of the documents flowing through the first four arbitrations. Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, was also interested in how such a deal could have been secretly implemented without the arbitrator's knowledge.  

I believed at the time, and I still do today, that it was this Secret Deal proof and the fact that Dr Hughes had not conducted the arbitrations see page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – Parliament of Australia according to the agreed ambit of the arbitration procedures that prompted the IAMA to agree to investigate my claims.

The world of political corruption 

Graft, malfeasance, and nepotism

The documented evidence indicates that Telstra's CEO and the entire board possessed foreknowledge of millions of dollars being unlawfully withdrawn from government funds. These funds were utilized to exert control over 45 prominent legal firms, thereby obstructing ordinary citizens with claims against Telstra from pursuing legal remedies. This crucial information is publicly available on absentjustice.com, shedding light on pervasive unethical practices and erroneously billed accounts.

Senator Mark Bishop's denouncement of Telstra's utilization of these 45 prominent legal firms against ordinary Australian citizens and small business operators, who had lodged complaints solely regarding inadequate service, is accessible at parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11. His condemnation of this unjust practice underscores the enormity of a government-owned entity, Telstra, employing public funds in opposition to the public interest, constituting an abuse of power. The enduring absence of an investigation into this scandalous matter is noteworthy.

Heavy-handed tactics 

$24 million of moneys being used to crush these people 

On March 11, 1999, after Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith utilized heavy-handed tactics to handle the COT Cases, their arbitrations were concluded, with less than 11 per cent of the claims being met. Senator Kim Carr criticized the handling of the COT arbitrations, as evidenced in the following Hansard link shows:

Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Telstra's misuse of public funds, which should have gone to the Australian government instead of paying yearly retainers to 45 leading legal firms, is concerning. Moreover, during the COT arbitrations, they spent an additional $24 million to suppress sixteen Australian small business operators, hindering their efforts to prove events over two decades. This also affected around 120,000 similar COT cases, where individuals were fighting Telstra for a reassessment of their wrongly billed accounts. Senator Kim Carr's statement about the $24 million is deeply troubling for COT cases. 

It is once again important to point out that the 26 September 1997 - John Pinnock Senate Hansard document was attached to my draft manuscript, which attracted Mr Condliffe's attention, which I had received from Senate Kim Carr dated 27 January 1999, which notes

“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.”

It also raise the following Senate Hansard records to Mr Condliffe, Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations, is incredible. The LNP government knew that not only should the litmus test cases receive their requested documents, but so should the other 16 Australian citizens who had been in the same government-endorsed arbitration process.

Although Senator Alan Eggleston's advice to the Australian Financial Review has been discussed on the Home Age, it was also relevant to raise it here in Chapter 7—The seventh remedy pursued. By incorporating the above six Senators' speeches with Senator Alan Eggleston's statement to the media directly below, we can show that all seven statements made by the seven senators were made in the public interest, i.e., on public record.

Forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information. 

It is also important to once again discuss the 23 March 1999, statement in the Australian Financial Review reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why Telstra withheld so many documents from the COT cases:

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focussed on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

However, I discussed with Mr Condliffe that what was not on public record in the same manner as above is that there were more than just the five referred to litmus COT test cases. Sixteen more COT cases suffered the same fate as those discussed by the six named senators above. 

After I had provided my manuscript and several Senate Hansard information to Mr Condliffe, he stated that the IAMA would investigate these matters because several claimants had suffered due to the arbitrator having no control over the arbitration process. This was a matter the IAMA would investigate.    

On 30 January 2002, I received a letter from Mr Nosworthy, Senior Vice President of the IAMA, advising me that:

“It should be clearly understood that the Institute’s role is to take seriously complaints which are articulated against its member arbitrators.  We will do so here.”

After I received this 30 January 2002 letter, I provided Nosworthy with a copy of Dr Hughes's letter dated 12 May 1995 to Warwick Smith (TIO) the day after Dr Hughes had deliberated on my arbitration claim, which notes

“…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports…

Most importantly, the question is: Why did Dr Hughes bring down his award on 11 May 1995 when he was aware that the agreement he was using was not credible?

I was entitled to receive this well-concealed 12 May 1995 letter during my designated appeal period, but I did not receive a copy until 2002 (and outside the statute of limitation period). In this letter, Dr Hughes states:

“…as far as I could observe, both Telecom and Smith co-operated in the Smith arbitration…”

 “…the time frames set in the original Arbitration Agreement were, with the benefit of hindsight, optimistic;

“in particular; we did not allow sufficient time in the Arbitration Agreement for inevitable delays associated with the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of technical reports…

“In summary, it is my view that if the process is to remain credible, it is necessary to contemplate a time frame for completion which is longer than presently contained in the Arbitration Agreement” (Open Letter File No 55-A)

The fax imprint across the top of this letter (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. The question the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman and the Federal Attorney-General has still not answered is:

Was this letter faxed to my office by the ombudsman to assist me in any pending appeal process? If not, why was such an important letter deliberately kept from me during my designated appeal period? 

If I had received a copy of this letter declaring the agreement used in my arbitration process was not credible, I would have appealed the arbitrator’s award. After all, how could an appeal judge argue against the arbitrator’s own findings that the agreement was not credible, even though he used it anyway?

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible).

Consider the order of the timestamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

Four months after having received a copy of this 12 May 1995 letter and the following supporting exhibits (seeFront Page Part One File No/1, File No/2-A to 2-E, File No/3, File No/4, and Front Page Part One File No/5, which show numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator’s office did not reach their intended destination Mr Nosworthy wrote to me on 10 April 2002 and stated:

“I note that your most recent actions have involved making a complaint to the police, alleging fraud – at least on the part of Telstra – and I do not propose to conduct further enquiry in relation to the matter if you are pursuing police action.

I have returned your papers to Mr Condliffe, Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia. Will you kindly contact him to make arrangements to collect them.”

Since the police were investigating Telstra—and not Dr Hughes—I found Mr Nosworthy’s decision to stop his investigation into my complaints against Dr Hughes rather puzzling. As shown above, I have already explained the facts surrounding the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group's involvement and that it was at their request that I provided evidence in support of the other COT case claims against Telstra.

Part 2 

I say: “I found Mr Nosworthy’s decision to stop his investigation into my complaints against Dr Hughes rather puzzling”, because, when I personally met with Mr Condliffe at the IAMA office (450 Lt Bourke St Melbourne) in late 2001, I had just had a meeting with Mr Neil Jepson, barrister of the Major Fraud Group. I discussed my pending appointment with Mr Condliffe and Mr Jepson and asked if the police might see me discussing my arbitration issues with the IAMA as compromising the Major Fraud Group’s investigation into alleged fraud by Telstra against COT cases Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, Ross Plowman and Ralph Bova. Mr Jepson said I was free to discuss anything with the IAMA that I believed was important to my own arbitration case.

Mr Jepson made a point of informing me that I should advise the IAMA that, although it had not yet been proven, it was my claims to the government that someone had tampered with Telstra-owned telephone equipment after it left my premises and that Telstra used known Bell Canada International Inc tests to support their arbitration defence of my claims that were of interest to the Major Fraud Group and the reason I had been called in as a witness to substantiate these claims, which I did, but this fact Mr Jepson said was not to be made known to the IAMA at this time, although senators Richard Alston, Ron Boswell, Chris Schacht and Len Harris had all been provided with conclusive evidence showing my claims were one hundred per cent correct.

What shocked the Major Fraud Group (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report) was that so many Senators were made aware of this fraud and yet had done nothing to assist me in resolving the matter. Senators Schacht and Boswell requested that Telstra prove my claims wrong, but Telstra could not. This upset numerous members of the Major Fraud Group. Of course, I did not reveal this to the IAMA then.

My involvement in the Major Fraud Group investigation can be further viewed by clicking on An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens