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 (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—"

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.