Regrettably, the corruption among federal public officials has become alarmingly prevalent, representing a serious threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of our governmental institutions. The troubling developments surrounding the Australian government-endorsed Casualties of Telstra arbitrations serve as a poignant reminder of this issue. The behavior of certain public figures, especially politicians who prioritize their personal interests over ethical considerations and the well-being of the community, profoundly influences the efficacy and credibility of the Australian arbitration and mediation system. This troubling phenomenon calls for a thoughtful and in-depth exploration to uncover its implications.

Fraudulent Reporting: The public service is dedicated to combatting the rampant spread of misleading news and false information, as well as addressing unethical journalism practices that compromise objective reporting. This commitment includes the critical protection of whistleblowers in Australia through robust whistleblower protection laws, particularly in cases of substantial significance. It is imperative to ensure that those brave individuals who come forward with reports of government misconduct can do so without fear of reprisal or harm. Their safety and the integrity of their disclosures are vital for fostering accountability within our governmental framework.

Criminal Conduct

Clicking on the Senate caption below will bring up the YouTube story of Ann Garms (now deceased), who was also named in the following Senate Hansard as one of the five COT Cases who had to be 'stopped at all costs' from proving her case. The sabotage document Ann Garms discusses on YouTube that was withheld from her by the government-owned Telstra corporation, which cost her more than a million dollars in arbitration and appeal costs, is now disclosed here as File 1122 and 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132. It may be for the best that Ann appears not to have seen this Telstra FOI document before she died.  Had she seen it, she may well have won her appeal.

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 (Telstra’s Lawyers) 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—"

The statement made by Mr. White unequivocally asserts that Telstra had deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants with the intention of obstructing us from proving our claims against the company. This matter was also brought to the attention of the Senate Hansard on June 24th, 1997, during a discussion between Senator Kim Carr and Telstra's main arbitration defence Counsel regarding Alan Smith, who was also a TIO Council member. It is disconcerting that the same individual, Peter Gamble, who advised Mr. White to take this action, also made an oath that the testing at my business premises conformed to all of AUSTEL's specifications. However, Telstra's falsified SVT report clearly indicates that Peter's arbitration Telstra's Falsified SVT Report (SVT testing) did not comply with all of the government's mandatory specifications. The report is accessible through the following link: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report. The issue with Peter Gamble neglecting to disclose that he had to abandon the SVT process at my Cape Bridgewater business due to the faulty Ericsson testing equipment being utilized by Telstra at the exchange is also concerning. This caused me to forfeit the opportunity to demand Telstra, through the arbitrator, to re-test my three telephone service lines. Peter Gamble had supported his reporting to the arbitrator with two sworn statements affirming that his SVT process had met the government's mandatory requirements. Consequently, the arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, accepted Peter Gamble's statements and disregarded my claims that my telephone service lines were malfunctioning. Six years after the conclusion of my arbitration, the false SVT witness statements were still accepted as factual, and nobody had visited my business to re-test my service lines. This resulted in significant losses, and I was forced to sell my business in December 2001. The new owners were still reporting ongoing unaddressed telephone and faxing issues in September 2006, eleven years after Dr Hughes approved Peter Gamble's two sworn witness statements stating that there were no faults on my three service lines.

Despite my repeated requests during the arbitration. The fact that no one came to re-test the service lines, and six years later, I had to sell my business, has ruined my life and that of my partner Cathy. This situation is unacceptable, and it is disheartening to know that it continued to impact the new owners of the business years later. The fact that neither Telstra nor the TIO agreed to test the lines at any time after my arbitration is quite alarming. It was essential to ensure that such situations did not arise after the conclusion of my arbitration, but this was not the case. After my repeated requests during the arbitration, nobody came to re-test the service lines. Regrettably, six years later, I had to sell my business, which had a catastrophic impact on my life and that of my partner, Cathy. It's distressing to know that the new owners of the business were still feeling the impact of this situation six years after they purchased my business Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story. It's alarming that Telstra and the TIO took no action to test the lines after my arbitration. It was essential to prevent such situations from recurring after my arbitration, but unfortunately, this did not happen. It is unacceptable that the negligence of these organizations has left me and Cathy, as well as the new owners of my business, in this unfortunate position.

In 2008, Jenny and Darren Lewis faced financial difficulties after taking over my business. Their bankruptcy was a major setback, but I was determined to help them out. I provided them with Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report, along with supporting evidence, on several CDs. We intended to use these documents to appeal against the Australian Tax Office's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. Sadly, the documents never made it to the court, just like what had happened in 1994 when they went missing en route to the arbitrator. However, I urge you to consider the contents of these two reports. They highlight the flaws in Telstra's faulty and failing copper network at Cape Bridgewater. The reports demonstrate the inadequacy of two different tests conducted by Bell Canada International (BCI) in November 1993 and Telstra in September 1994. Despite the reports claiming that the testing had met the mandatory government standard, no actual testing took place as stated. Cathy, Jenny, and Darren have a compelling case against Telstra. We presented undeniable evidence that exposes the truth about Telstra's shoddy practices. These reports are crucial for anyone fighting against Telstra's deception, and we hope they can be useful in our pending documentary. 

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 a major concern for me, and I have spoken out about it on numerous occasions. In fact, I raised this issue in my letter to the Hon. David Hawker MP on October 29, 2001, where I explained 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. It is imperative that we 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 main 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,  [Telstra Senior Executive] 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?”

Regrettably, the same Telstra official who presided over my arbitration case on behalf of Telstra (the defendant) chose to withhold the freedom of information documents I had requested in May 1994. It was not until two weeks following the arbitrator's conclusion of my claim on 23 May 1995 that I was finally granted access to said documents. The untimely release of these documents, some twelve months after my request, has resulted in a disadvantageous effect on my unresolved arbitration claims concerning my ongoing telephone faults.

The Telstra Corporation's intelligence networks in Australia are alarming, as discussed in this Senate Hasnard, and it's crucial to consider who has the necessary expertise and government clearance to filter the raw information collected before cataloguing it for future use. It's essential to know how much confidential information was collected during my telephone conversations with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 regarding my Red Communist China episode and whether Telstra officials had confidence in this information. Furthermore, the complete privatisation of Telstra in 2005 raises important questions about which organisation in Australia was given the responsibility to archive the sensitive material Telstra had been gathering about their clients for decades. As concerned citizens, we must demand transparency and accountability from Telstra and the Australian government to ensure the protection of our privacy and civil liberties.

And as far as the altercation with the Sheriff and his group of henchmen (as discussed in the same Senate - Parliament of Australia) my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to my property to ensure I stayed on my knees. The Sheriff and his men were about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. During the altercation, I placed a wrestling hold 'Full Nelson' on the Sheriff and walked him out of my office. It is important to note that I did not throw any punches during the incident. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that the story had two sides.

Similar injustices were experienced during Sandra Wolfe's COT case in 1997. The government-endorsed mediation process subjected her to several injustices, including the execution of a warrant against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act. This event is documented on pages 82 to 88 of the Introduction File No/9. Without the intervention of interested parties, Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Senator Schacht addressed Telstra regarding this issue, 

“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.