Absent Justice

 

 

Most (maybe even all) of the COT Cases would indeed have been able to walk away from their businesses with sadness if they had lost that business through fire, flood, or other life tragedies. But losing a business because the government would not investigate valid claims of deliberate sabotage, gross negligence, and lies under oath telling the authorities there was nothing wrong with the COT Cases businesses when the government and Telstra knew otherwise has been the most challenging aspect for the COT Cases to live with.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. Instead of our very deficient telephone services being fixed as part of our government-endorsed arbitration process that became an uneven battle we could never win, they were NOT fixed as part of the process, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the claimants to mount their claims against Telstra. Crimes were committed against us, and our integrity was attacked and undermined. Our livelihoods were ruined, we lost millions of dollars, and our mental health declined, yet those who perpetrated the crimes are still in positions of power today. Our story is still actively being covered up.

The camp was certainly in a pristine location 

If only the phones had worked 

Six months after the conclusion of my arbitration process, I took the significant step of personally delivering crucial information to Mr. Ian Joblin. This information revealed that Telstra had knowingly provided him with misleading phone testing results. Mr. Joblin served as the clinical psychologist hired by Telstra to evaluate my mental state during the arbitration proceedings.

The data I presented showed that the phone testing results, which were allegedly conducted by Bell Canada International Inc. at the telephone exchanges servicing my business, were fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the findings indicated that not a single test call from the reported total of 15,590 calls, as claimed in the BCI report provided by Telstra, could have possibly been generated to my local Portland or Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange. This discrepancy raised serious questions about the validity of all testing that was supposedly performed.

During our conversation, Mr. Joblin conveyed to me that he had received the report from Freehill Hollingdale & Page when they commissioned him to travel to Portland for an in-person consultation. His demeanor indicated that he was deeply concerned upon realizing that he had encountered the questionable report prior to conducting his assessment of my mental state. This concern was palpable, especially when I alerted him to a critical issue: the witness statements submitted by Telstra to the arbitrator on December 12, 1994, were not signed by him. Instead, they had been signed solely by Wayne Maurice Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page.

The look of disbelief on Mr. Joblin's face was unmistakable, reflecting his shock at this revelation. It was at that moment he expressed his belief that the issues surrounding the BCI testing and the overall conduct of the arbitration process would continue to haunt me indefinitely, until these matters were properly addressed by all parties involved. His words struck a chord with me, highlighting the serious implications of the situation I faced.

 

ONLY the lawyer Wayne Maurice Condon signed it.  

Was anything added or removed?

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 (File GS-110 GS-CAV Exhibit 89 to 154(b))). It is important to note that this firm was responsible for providing Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist (see above), 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 in 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 critical 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 prior to 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 - Exhibits 589 to 647). He raised two crucial inquiries:

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin (clinical psychologist).

2...were there any changes made to the Joblin statement originally sent to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?" 

The fact that Maurice Wayne Condon, acting as Telstra's legal representative from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, signed the witness statement without securing the psychologist's signature raises 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.

These events illustrate a troubling narrative of systemic failures, conflicts of interest, and a lack of appropriate oversight that shaped the experiences of the COT cases. They highlight the need for transparency and accountability within this arbitration framework.

By sharing this menacing narrative on absentjustice.com, I aim to set a foreboding tone that reflects the complex and murky world of unthinkable crimes, ruthless individuals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who wield immense power over the legal profession in Australia. This approach clarifies the stakes involved and illustrates the extreme lengths some individuals will go to shield their interests and maintain their positions of power, as the following threats confirm.

Threats made during my arbitration 

Threats carried out and ignored by the arbitrator during arbitration  

On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:

“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)

When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.

Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-

“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”

Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.

However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways.

A particularly striking moment was recorded in the transcript of my second interview, specifically on page 12 at question 57. In this instance, an AFP representative remarked: "What intrigues me is your assurance to Mr. Rumble that you would not consult the AFP. As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.

Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.

Secondly, I uncovered that Mr. Rumble had a substantial influence over the arbitrator, resulting in the unauthorized early release of my arbitration interim claim materials. This premature revelation directly conflicted with the timeline stipulated in the arbitration agreement that both Telstra and I had formally signed. Specifically, Telstra gained access to my interim claim document five months earlier than what was permitted under the agreed-upon terms. This breach of protocol violated the integrity of the arbitration process and provided Telstra with an unfair advantage in their response to my claims.

According to the rules governing our arbitration process, Telstra was allocated one month to respond to my claim once it had been submitted in writing as my final claim. Furthermore, the arbitrator was only authorized to release my final claim to Telstra once it was officially confirmed to be complete. The five-month delay in submitting my claim in November 1994 was primarily attributable to Mr. Rumble's deliberate withholding of critical technical information. This information was essential for my consultant, George Close, to effectively demonstrate that the issues with my phone remained unresolved. Mr Rumble threatened to withhold this information because I was actively assisting the Australian Federal Police in investigating Telstra’s unlawful interception of my private phone conversations and faxes without a legal warrant.

As a result of these actions, I found myself constrained to a mere one month to formulate a comprehensive response to Telstra's defence. At the same time, they benefited from an extensive five-month preparation period to address my claim. This imbalance undermined the arbitration process's fairness and significantly impacted my ability to advocate effectively for my rights.

Had Mr Rumble unintentionally stumbled upon sensitive information in my interim claim documents related to my phone and interception issues—details that were shared exclusively with the AFP and that he was not legally entitled to access until my claim was certified complete? This raises an important question: Did the arbitrator fail to grasp the implications of providing such information, potentially undermining my case? Is this the underlying reason behind Mr. Rumble's aggressive stance in intimidating me concerning my willingness to assist the AFP in their ongoing investigations?

 

 

The current 2024 Corporate Secretary of Telstra, Sue Laver, has been actively concealing crucial information from the Senate Committee regarding the misleading evidence that Freehill Hollingdale & Page provided to Ian Joblin, who served as Telstra's arbitration psychologist. This situation arose prior to Joblin’s meeting with me in Portland, which was part of the arbitration process determined to evaluate my mental stability.

Sue Laver is acutely aware of the importance of the events that transpired 28 months after the conclusion of my arbitration, particularly during the Senate inquiry into Telstra on September 26, 1997. This inquiry specifically scrutinized the legitimacy of the tests conducted at Cape Bridgewater—the location of my business—by Bell Canada International Inc.

Phoney and flawed.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

On pages 23-8 of the letter, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) clearly provided Sue Laver (the current 2024 Telstra Corporate Secretary) with damning evidence. It shows that Telstra knowingly submitted false information to the Senate Committee on Notice while Ms Laver and Telstra were assuring the chair of the Senate legislation committee that there was nothing wrong with the BCI test conducted at Cape Bridgewater.

This false information was provided to the Senate regardless of whether the Senate requested it to be supplied on notice. Additionally, the two documents dated January 1998 (refer to (Scrooge - exhibit 62-Part One confirm that Telstra knew in January 1998 that the BCI information, later provided to the Senate in October 1998, had to have been false. It is concerning that no one within Telstra has been held accountable for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate on notice. Had Telstra not provided this false information to the Senate on notice and acknowledged the accuracy of my claims, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters in 1998, the same BCI matters I am now highlighting on absentjustice.com in 2024.

In response to the Senate's probing questions about these tests, Telstra presented false evidence. This information was deliberately crafted to mislead the Senate committee and hinder a proper investigation into my allegations regarding Telstra's reliance on this fundamentally flawed BCI as critical evidence in their defence strategy (Refer to  Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2). This strategy was crucial in supporting their position against my claims related to the Cape Bridgewater region, which was indeed under investigation by the appointed arbitrator.

Moreover, Telstra's actions extended beyond mere misrepresentation. They aimed to manipulate perceptions about my mental stability by providing deceptive information to a psychologist. This was a calculated effort to label me as mentally unstable despite the fact that my claims were grounded in legitimate grievances. My concerns were based on factual events and were neither baseless nor irrational; they reflected serious issues related to the conduct of Telstra and the implications of their arbitration process.

The arbitrator himself recognized the significance of the Bell Canada International (BCI) testing results, which he mentions in his findings at points 3.5 (a), (b) and (c). 

Sue Laver's actions over the past 27 years have not only compromised the integrity of the arbitration process but have also raised profound ethical concerns regarding how Telstra conducts its business and interacts with regulatory bodies. The repercussions of these actions have been deeply damaging, affecting my personal well-being and significantly undermining the public’s trust in Telstra as a reputable corporate entity.

 

Individuals outside Telstra and the Australian Establishment who provided false information to the Senate Committee risked charges of Contempt of the Senate, potentially leading to two years in prison. Remarkably, no Telstra member has faced such charges in the twenty-eight years since the incident. If Telstra had addressed the misleading BCI information in January or April 1998, after Sue Laver's notifications, I could have appealed my arbitration award. Their failure to acknowledge these inaccuracies denied me a fair reassessment of my case. Other COT Cases could have prompted arbitration administrators to thoroughly investigate the validity of the BCI tests used by Telstra, as flawed tests could have significantly affected arbitration outcomes.

 

Criminal deceit.

The Firm - John Grisham 

During the tumultuous period when all forms of deception and manipulation were transpiring, I found myself utterly exhausted, both mentally and physically, due to the relentless pressure applied by Denise McBurnie and the law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page. In the midst of this overwhelming fatigue, I couldn’t help but reflect on the ruthless legal firm portrayed in John Grisham's 1991 novel, *The Firm*, which seemed to mirror my own experiences of intimidation and subterfuge.

On April 14, 1994, Telstra issued a letter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) revealing that at least one employee had been involved in unlawfully intercepting my private telephone conversations without my consent. This acknowledgment raised serious ethical and legal concerns. My subsequent response, dated September 9, 1994, directly addressed the issue of this unauthorized interception, which had persisted over an extended and distressing period. Both these significant documents are now classified as "Protected AFP" material, indicating their sensitive nature.

Moreover, the official records from the Senate Hansard provide damning evidence of Telstra's troubling conduct. They detail not only the unauthorized surveillance but also the aggressive stand-over tactics and threats that Telstra employed against those involved in the COT cases. This situation is not just a personal grievance; it underscores a broader pattern of misconduct that demands immediate scrutiny and accountability.

Freehills remains one of Australia's most formidable law firms, with significant resources and expertise to influence legal outcomes. Furthermore, this oppressive strategy employed by Telstra is documented on page 5169 of Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, where it becomes clear that Telstra utilized the COT strategy against claimants like myself in the arbitration process. This information underscores the systemic issues within Telstra’s approach and the challenges those seeking justice face in their dealings with the company.

In the Senate Hansard records and within the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, there are documented conversations pertaining to the serious threats made against me. These documents, along with the records from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, unequivocally confirm that Telstra acted on those threats. Despite this clear evidence, neither the arbitrator overseeing my case nor the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) chose to address these significant concerns during my arbitration proceedings. This raises critical questions: Why has this unethical conduct been left unaddressed in the public eye? What accounts for the glaring absence of any mention of these threats in the arbitrator's final award? How is it that Telstra was allowed to engage in such threatening behaviour and commit various unlawful acts against the COT cases, both in the lead-up to our arbitration sessions and during the arbitration itself?

 

Forged and fabricated

Bogus and fraudulent,

How does one weave together a narrative so remarkable that it raises even the author’s eyebrows, prompting a detailed investigation of records before proceeding with the story? What strategies can we employ to unravel the intricate web of conspiracy that existed between an arbitrator, various governmental entities, and the defendants in this case? How can we illuminate the shocking reality that these defendants, during the arbitration process, intercepted and misappropriated confidential materials to fortify their defence while jeopardizing the claimants' chances for justice?

Furthermore, how prevalent is the issue of compromised arbitration processes across Australia? Are instances of electronic eavesdropping and breaches of confidentiality still commonplace in the realm of legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

A particularly alarming example surfaced in January 1999, when a thorough report was delivered to the government, confirming that Telstra Corporation—which stood as the defendant in these arbitration disputes—had been unlawfully intercepting confidential arbitration-related documents. The report detailed a troubling procedure where these unauthorized individuals not only accessed sensitive information. Still, it meticulously screened the hacked documents for relevant content before re-faxing them to their original destinations, thus obscuring the illegal activities. This critical report, attached here as evidence (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), raises profound questions about the integrity of the arbitration system in Australia and the extent to which such unethical practices may have infiltrated legitimate processes, casting a shadow over the pursuit of fair and just resolutions.

The Brotherhood

 

I received a call from the Victorian State Ombudsman's office informing me that they had read my paper on The Brotherhood—an organized group of professionals, including lawyers, police officers, accountants, and legal academics, who successfully infiltrated the arbitration system in Victoria. This revelation underscores the depth of corruption that plagued our legal framework.

It became apparent that the operational methods employed by the Brotherhood were controlling arbitrations and utilizing these proceedings to obscure unlawful activities committed by Telstra. The then-arbitrator, Dr. Hughes, notably disregarded this pervasive misconduct throughout most COT arbitration processes. Following his departure from this role, Dr Hughes joined a prominent legal firm representing Telstra in ongoing disputes. Notably, he had not addressed the significant systemic billing issues I had previously raised. Yet, he aligned himself with a firm formally denying the existence of such problems. This situation underscores a troubling pattern, as detailed within our COT narrative.

Additionally, the validity of the forenamed report issued by Scandrett & Associates in January 1999, presented to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999, has been regrettably unacknowledged. This report corroborated the interception of faxes during the COT arbitrations, involving both the arbitration advisors and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, which was assisting in our Freedom of Information requests. The evidence within this report also indicated that faxes sent to government ministers at Parliament House in Canberra, including communications directed to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, were similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Senator Helen Coonan, acting on behalf of the Australian Government, engaged in a significant and formal agreement with Senator Barnaby Joyce. This agreement is fundamental to the ten amendments the National Party Government committed to during Senator Joyce's tenure. Senator Joyce's critical vote in the Senate was instrumental in facilitating the passage of the privatization legislation for the final share of Telstra. In exchange for this support, the government has committed to addressing my claims regarding outstanding arbitration privacy issues. This includes the submission of false evidence by Telstra during the arbitration proceedings related to my claims in 1994 and 1995, as well as similar unresolved claims from the other thirteen COT Cases that were registered with Senator Joyce

However, after Senator Joyce fulfilled his critical role by casting that indispensable vote, Senator Coonan unexpectedly and controversially reneged on the commitment. This reversal undermined the agreement and left unresolved issues related to the 14 COT Cases hanging in the balance. These issues could have been settled a staggering eighteen years ago, in 2006.

On 15 September 2005, before Senator Coonan did a flip back on her agreement, Senator Barnaby Joyce, I received the following letter noting:- 

"Dear Mr Smith" 

“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”

“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”

“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)

Shady and unethical 

  

Unscrupulous - Venal 

Chapter 8 - The eighth remedy pursued

On 17 March 2006, I received a written communication from the office of the Minister for Communications, indicating that the government would investigate these critical issues (Refer to File 657 - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700). As shown in File 657, Senator Helen Coonan's government public servants assured me that, should evidence emerge demonstrating that Telstra had acted unlawfully during my arbitration, my findings would be referred to the appropriate governmental department. Following the submission of this pertinent evidence, I received a subsequent correspondence from the Senator on 17 May 2007 noting:

 "I have now made both formal and informal representations to Telstra on behalf of the CoTs. However, Telstra’s position remains that this is a matter that is most appropriately dealt with through a Court process. Telstra is not prepared to undertake an alternative means of pursuing this matter. I also appreciate the depth of feeling regarding the matter and suggest you consider whether any court proceedings may be your ultimate option". (Refer File 616-B - AS-CAV Exhibits 648-a to 700      

As the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, it was undeniably the responsibility of Senator Helen Coonan to launch a thorough and official inquiry into the alarming issue of Telstra’s intercepting of confidential documents. These documents originated not only from my office and residence but also from the offices of several Senators and even the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office during and after the COT arbitrations.

The situation raises profound and critical questions regarding the systemic breach of privacy and trust that has gone unaddressed for an alarmingly long time. It is particularly troubling that a private citizen felt compelled to initiate legal action against Telstra due to the interception of important documents meant to remain confidential. This incident draws attention to issues of accountability and oversight in handling sensitive information.

The gravity of this situation is accentuated by the fact that the Senate Estimates Committee had previously received advisory briefings indicating that some crucial faxes were intercepted during their transit from Parliament House. This interception occurred as these faxes left Parliament during the arbitration process that was supposed to resolve the underlying issues. Such high-level oversight raises significant concerns about why no actions were taken in response to these briefings, primarily when the government engaged the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in February 1994 to investigate these matters.

Doctored and falsified 

Rotten - tainted 

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28)

AUSTEL (the then government communications authority) wrote to Telstra during the early part of the COT arbitrations on 10 February 1994, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts, which note:?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

 

Deliciousness and wickedness 

Double-dealing duplicity 

Furthermore, the arbitrator assigned in April 1994 was tasked with examining the same issues. It is alarming that despite the involvement of two supposedly highly trained entities—the AFP and the appointed arbitrator—no documented findings were submitted regarding the severe breaches of privacy rights experienced by the COT Cases. This is particularly perplexing given that the arbitration process was designed to address these concerns and incorporate the findings from the AFP’s investigation.

Question 81 in the AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, clearly confirms that the AFP informed me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon, the General Manager of Consumer Affairs and government communications authority, provided evidence to the AFP indicating that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. It's baffling why the arbitrator did not acknowledge this crucial evidence in his official findings, especially after being presented with these AFP transcripts. The transcripts explicitly state, 

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

When the COT Cases formally requested an immediate and transparent investigation into the ramifications these fax interceptions had on the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process, which was intended to protect citizens' rights in government-endorsed arbitration, their calls went unanswered. This lack of action undermines the trust in these institutions and highlights a disturbing failure to protect the rights of individuals in a system meant to safeguard them.

Debauched, demoralized and broken 

Shadiness, venality, degeneration 

The Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 provide crucial insights into their observations regarding my communications with a bus company named O'Meara. In September 1992, I negotiated with O'Meara to arrange transportation for students and single club members travelling from Melbourne to my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater. A Telstra file note from that time includes a handwritten annotation in the top right-hand corner, where "Meara" is noted as the bus company I was interacting with. It is essential to highlight that my letter has no formal identification. I simultaneously dealt with four other bus companies during this period regarding the same transportation tender.

The document's significance, dated September 9, 1992, became apparent to the AFP when they later examined a separate fax document from October 29, 1993. This second document was processed ten months after the O'Meara negotiations concluded. The accompanying attachment to the October 29, 1993, Telstra fault record indicates that faxes exchanged between my office and the office of the COT spokesperson—designated as a test station by Telstra due to my reported issues with fax communications—were documented and retained by Telstra after going through a screening process. (Additional details can be found in the attached evidence labelled File 9-C - Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C).

Given these circumstances, the AFP began to speculate about the possibility that the faxes pertaining to the COT Cases arbitration, specifically those exchanged with their advisors and various government ministers, may have been intercepted through this fax screening device. This concern raises critical questions about the security and confidentiality of sensitive communications during a pivotal time in the arbitration process.

This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), the noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

A letter dated 2 March 1994 from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C) strongly indicates that Mr Penrose was grievously misled and deceived about the faxing problems discussed in the letter. Over the years, numerous individuals, including Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister at the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, have rigorously compared the four exhibits labelled (File No/9-C) with the interception evidence revealed in Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13. They emphatically assert that if Ian Row had not misled the AFP regarding the faxing problems, the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus avoiding any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

When these fax and phone interception issues were discussed in the presence of two Telstra executives, Steve Black and Ted Benjamin and two arbitration consultants, Sue Hodgkinson and John Rundell, with the transcripts of this oral arbitration showing Pia from the Legal Counsel overseeing my arbitration, Dr Gordon Hughes advised all parties including me if I submitted evidence to prove these privacy issues were genuine he would address them as part of my arbitration claim. Dr Hughes never commented anywhere in his 42-page findings that I had been subjected to this intrusion by Telstra. 

Dr. Hughes chose not to investigate my claims regarding the interception of arbitration-related faxes, along with those of other COT Cases who raised similar concerns. If he had initiated such an investigation, it would have revealed significant issues that I brought to the attention of the IAMA in 2009. Notably, the IAMA was supposed to pursue these matters but ultimately halted their investigation.

I must take the reader forward fourteen years to the following letter dated 30 July 2009. According to this letter dated 30 July 2009, from Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and ex-client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes (see Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest) wrote to Paul Crowley, CEO Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), attaching a statutory declaration (see" Burying The Evidence File 13-H and a copy of a previous letter dated 4 August 1998 from Mr Schorer to me, detailing a phone conversation Mr Schorer had with the arbitrator (during the arbitrations in 1994) regarding lost Telstra COT related faxes. During that conversation, the arbitrator explained, in some detail, that:

"Hunt & Hunt (The company's) Australian Head Office was located in Sydney, and (the company) is a member of an international association of law firms. Due to overseas time zone differences, at close of business, [the company's] Melbourne's incoming facsimiles are night switched to automatically divert to Hunt & Hunt Sydney office where someone is always on duty. There are occasions on the opening of the Melbourne office, the person responsible for cancelling the night switching of incoming faxes from the Melbourne office to the Sydney Office, has failed to cancel the automatic diversion of incoming facsimiles." Burying The Evidence File 13-H.

The fact that Dr Hughes did not officially disclose these faxing problems between his Sydney and Melbourne offices before he was appointed an arbitrator to seven arbitrations, all coordinated collectively over a twelve-month period, where COT claimants, two in Brisbane and five in Melbourne, often complained of the arbitrator's office not responding to faxes, is hinging on criminal negligence. 

In April 1994, a young Julian Assange alerted Graham Schorer, a spokesperson for the COT Cases, that he and two friends had gained unauthorized access to Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange in Melbourne. They discovered alarming evidence of illegal activities undermining the arbitration process we were involved in. This raises an important question: did the hackers uncover misconduct by the four arbitration professionals, Telstra, or both? Notably, the electronic surveillance that invaded the private and professional lives of the COT Cases continued for three years, while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the arbitrator ignored the evidence we provided. This scenario highlights Telstra's considerable influence over the AFP during a government-sanctioned arbitration designed to investigate such abuses. 

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

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:

1. 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;
2. 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”.
3. 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 time stamps. 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 [sic].

“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.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024

Senate Hansard records under the heading A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST dated 20 September 1995, shows a very emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussing the above type of injustices that we four COT claimants ( i.e. Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) suffered prior during and after our 'so-called' government endorsed arbitrations - (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest):

“...Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. 

“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions], in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding.

“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. 

“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …

"This is an arbitration process not only far exceeding the four-month period, but one which has become so legalistic that it has forced members to borrow hundreds of thousands just to take part in it. It has become a process far beyond the one represented when they agreed to enter into it, and one which professionals involved in the arbitration agree can never deliver as intended and never give them justice." 

"I regard it as a grave matter that a government instrumentality like Telstra can give assurances to Senate leaders that it will fast track a process and then turn it into an expensive legalistic process making a farce of the promise given to COT members and the unducement to go into arbitration. “Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”