“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year indicates that during the year, the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra, totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C).  The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated:

"As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers in Australia at that time. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus, Australia's current Attorney General in 2024, so who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective in comparison to someone so highly qualified and with such vital friends? 

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich. The whole aim of that ‘COT Case Strategy’ was to stop us, the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims. Do you think my claim would have even the tiniest possibility of being heard under those circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members, what I am condemning is their condoning of the COT Cases Strategy designed to destroy any chance of the four COT Cases (which included me and my business), of a proper assessment of the ongoing telephone problems that were destroying our four businesses. I ask how any ordinary person could get past Telstra's powerful Board. After all, in comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is most relevant because Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers provided it to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia concerning Telstra having adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations, which Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page had spuriously prepared. 

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing telephone fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults detailing these daily problems to Denise McBurnie before Telstra would attempt to fix these problems almost sent me insane. Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist, Ian Joblin, after he investigated my mental health as part of Telstra's 12 December 1994 arbitration defence, commented that it was no wonder I was suffering stress having to register phone complaints with Telstra's lawyers before they would investigate my complaints. I provided this information with extreme difficulty while trying to run my telephone-dependent business. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

I have consistently articulated, over an extended period, the necessity and methodology behind transcribing fault complaint records from exercise books into diaries while upholding the accuracy of my chronology of fault events. I must note my repeated reminders to the arbitration project manager regarding soliciting these fault complaint notebooks during my oral arbitration hearing, as evidenced by the meeting transcripts. However, it is noteworthy that Telstra contested the submission of these records, and the arbitrator, without due examination, dismissed their relevance. Notably, Telstra omitted to disclose that Freehill Hollingdale & Page, from June 1993 to January 1994, refrained from documenting my phone complaints as reported by me and refused their release under FOI guidelines based on Legal Professional Privilege.

I posit that the acceptance of these notations from my exercise books as evidential, in conjunction with the retrieval of my fault complaints registered with Freehill Hollingdale & Page in the presence of Telstra's Forensic Documents Examiner, Mr. Holland, would have furnished substantial clarity and dispelled any suspicion of deceit. I acknowledge the potential scepticism concerning the narrative's veracity presented here, attributable to its seemingly incredulous nature.

The arbitrator's written findings in his award did not document the coercion I experienced during arbitration or the threats made and carried out against me by Telstra. He also failed to acknowledge that government solicitors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman had to be involved after Telstra refused to provide requested documents. These documents were promised to us if the commercial assessment process we had agreed to would be turned into an arbitration process. However, the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, did mention it in his award.

"… I have considered, and have no grounds to reject the expert evidence provided by Telecom from Neil William Holland, Forensic Document Examiner, who examined the claimant’s diaries and because of numerous instances of non-chronological entries, thereby causing doubt on their veracity and reliability."

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand 

It bore no signature of the psychologist

As outlined in official government records, the government explicitly assured that the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page would not have any further involvement in the ongoing COT cases (refer to point 40 in the Prologue Evidence File No/2). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, with a witness statement for the arbitrator. However, a significant issue arose: Maurice Wayne Condon, a Freehill Hollingdale & Page representative, only signed the witness statement, and notably lacked Mr. Joblin's signature.

During my arbitration proceedings 1994, I revealed to Mr. Joblin the troubling information that Telstra had been monitoring my daily activities since 1992. Furthermore, I presented Freedom of Information (FOI) documents indicating that Telstra had redacted key portions of the recorded conversations regarding my case. This disclosure visibly troubled Mr. Joblin, who realized that he had been misled by the legal representatives of Telstra, specifically those from Freehill Hollingdale & Page. I was able to provide compelling evidence that this law firm had supplied Mr. Joblin with a misleading report concerning my telecommunications issues before our interview. Mr. Joblin acknowledged that his findings would address these troubling concerns in light of this information. However, it is crucial to point out that despite the situation's gravity, no adverse findings were made against either Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

Mr. Joblin insisted that he would note in his report to Freehill Hollingdale & Page the inappropriate nature of Telstra's treatment of me. He emphasized that their methods of assistance warranted careful review. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that no adverse findings were documented against Telstra or Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

A critical question remains: Did Maurice Wayne Condon intentionally remove or alter any references in Ian Joblin's initial assessment regarding my mental soundness? On March 21, 1997—twenty-two months following the conclusion of my arbitration—John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my case, formally reached out to Ted Benjamin at Telstra (refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1. He requested an explanation for the apparent discrepancies in the attestation of Ian Joblin's witness statement.

2. He sought clarification on whether any modifications were made to the version of the Joblin statement initially submitted to Dr. Hughes, the arbitrator, compared to the signed version ultimately provided.

Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature, raising serious questions about the level of influence and power that Telstra's legal team wields over the arbitration process in Australia.

What is particularly shocking to numerous individuals who have scrutinized several other witness statements submitted by Telstra throughout various COT case arbitrations—including my own—is that, despite the Senate being informed of discrepancies concerning signatures in my case, the alteration of a medically diagnosed condition to imply that I was mentally disturbed constitutes an issue that transcends mere criminal misconduct. It raises profound ethical concerns. Maurice Wayne Condon's assertion that he witnessed a signature on the arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a qualified clinical psychologist, is rendered questionable by the absence of Joblin's signature on the affirmation in question. This discrepancy strongly suggests that a thorough investigation into the COT case's circumstances is warranted and essential.

Since then, the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, whose signature was on the undersigned witness statement, has shocked several senators, including Senator Joyce. This lawyer was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was set up by Telstra and its lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases indeed did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

Senator Bill O’Chee expressed serious concern over John Pinnock's failure to respond to his letter dated 21 March 1997 addressed to Ted Benjamin of Telstra. This lack of response, coupled with evidence from another COT Case suggesting that statutory declarations had been tampered with by Telstra or their legal representatives during arbitration, prompted Senator Bill O'Chee to write to Graeme Ward, Telstra's regulatory and external affairs, on 26 June 1998 (refer to File GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 on 26 June 1998 from, stating.

“I note in your letter’s last page you suggest the matter of the alteration of documents attached to statutory declarations should be dealt with by the relevant arbitrator. I do not concur. I would be grateful if you could advise why these matters should not be referred to the relevant police."

There was no transparent outcome to this matter. What did occur from Senator O'Chee's statement regarding Telstra stating it was up to the relevant arbitrator to deal with the unlawful conduct of altering statutory declarations is that when an investigation by the COTs concerning why Dr Gordon Hughes allowed this type of conduct to occur unchallenged is that he as a partner of another large legal firm withheld vital Telstra documents from COT Case Graham Schorer when he was Dr Hughes client in a Federal Court Action against Telstra four years previous see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest shows,  

It is October 2022, and I have still never seen a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement by Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist - re Maurice Wayne Condon attesting to seeing the signature on the witness statement when it was not there at all. 

Criminal Conduct

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

The day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 39 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

Mr White -- "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Freehills Hollingdale & Page - Telstra's arbitration ) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White --"Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the induction process—"

Mr. White's statement asserts that Telstra specifically targeted me and four other COT claimants to hinder our claims against the company. This issue was discussed in the Senate Hansard on June 24, 1997, between Senator Kim Carr and Telstra's arbitration counsel concerning Alan Smith, a TIO Council member.

It is significant that Peter Gamble, who advised Mr White, also claimed that the testing at my Cape Bridgewater business met AUSTEL's specifications. However, Telstra's falsified SVT report indicates otherwise. Gamble failed to mention that he abandoned the SVT process due to Telstra's use of faulty Ericsson equipment, which denied me the chance to have my phone lines retested by the arbitrator.

Gamble provided two sworn statements asserting that his SVT process complied with government requirements, leading Arbitrator Dr. Hughes to dismiss my claims of malfunctioning service lines. Six years after the arbitration, these false statements were still accepted, and my business was never retested. This resulted in significant losses that forced me to sell in December 2001. Even the new owners reported ongoing issues in September 2006, eleven years after the arbitration, despite Gamble's claims that there were no faults with my service lines. (Refer to Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report.

Despite my repeated requests during arbitration, no one re-tested the service lines. Six years later, I had to sell my business, which devastated my partner Cathy and me. Seeing the new owners continue to suffer due to this situation is disheartening.

Neither Telstra nor the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) took action to test the lines after arbitration, which is alarming. This negligence has left us all in a difficult position.

The new owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, faced significant financial troubles, which led to their bankruptcy. I tried to help them with Telstra's falsified Service Validation Test (SVT) Report and Bell Canada International (BCI) Report on several CDs for an appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court. Unfortunately, these documents never reached the court, much like the ones lost in 1994.

These reports highlight flaws in Telstra's faulty copper network at Cape Bridgewater and expose the inadequacy of tests conducted in 1993 and 1994, which falsely claimed to meet government standards. Cathy, Jenny, and Darren have a strong case against Telstra, and we hope these documents will aid our upcoming documentary. Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

BCI and SVT reports - Section One

Who highjacked the BCI and SVT Reports 

The failure of relevant arbitration mail to arrive at the arbitrator's office has been my primary concern, and I have spoken out about it numerous times. I raised this issue in my letter to the Hon. David Hawker MP on October 29, 2001, explaining how crucial arbitration mail never reached the arbitrator. Additionally, several letters on absentjustice.com, under Chapter 4 Government spying and Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirm that I discussed the matter of lost emails during my arbitration. This issue has been ongoing for years, and it seems that Telstra may have had a mole in Australia Post, as evidenced by the Federal Magistrates Court letter from December 3, 2008, sent by Darren Lewis, which the government or Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman never discussed. We must address this issue and ensure that arbitration mail arrives at the proper destination.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,   we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

Unfortunately, the Telstra official who oversaw my arbitration case withheld the freedom of information documents I requested in May 1994. I didn't gain access to these documents until two weeks after my claim concluded, on May 23, 1995. This negatively impacted my ongoing arbitration claims related to telephone faults.

Concerns about Telstra's intelligence networks in Australia were raised in the Senate Hansard. Knowing who has the expertise and clearance is vital to filter the information collected. We must understand how much confidential data was gathered during my discussions with the former Prime Minister regarding my Red Communist China episode and whether Telstra officials trusted this information. The 2005 privatization of Telstra also raises questions about who archived sensitive data collected over the decades. We, as citizens, must demand transparency and accountability from Telstra and the Australian government to safeguard our privacy.

Regarding my altercation with the Sheriff and his associates, my bankers had sent them to remove essential catering equipment from my property. I executed a "Full Nelson" move on the Sheriff during this incident but did not resort to violence. All charges were dropped after an appeal revealed two sides to the story.

Similar injustices occurred in Sandra Wolfe's COT case in 1997, where she faced several injustices during a government-endorsed mediation process. Without intervention, she could have been institutionalized under the Queensland Mental Health Act. Senator Schacht addressed these issues with Telstra.

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Why has the matter regarding the Queensland Mental Health warrant never been investigated transparently, and why hasn't the government communications regulator made a finding on it? In October 2023, Sandra Wolfe emailed me that her Telstra FOI/Mental Health Act issue and her withheld arbitration-related document issues have yet to be resolved.