Upon reviewing the Evidence Files, it becomes evident that the Telstra arbitrations were marred by bribery, corruption, and malfeasance. The meticulous compilation of these exhibits spanned several months, with the primary objective of narrating the COT story and establishing credibility among its audience. These files unequivocally demonstrate that government regulatory bodies operated in contradiction to the defendants during the aforementioned arbitrations, deliberately obscuring the truth regarding Telstra's deteriorating network under the auspices of government-endorsed proceedings.

The Evidence Files are provided free of charge; however, if you wish to acknowledge the dedication invested in producing these files and the publication "Absent Justice," your contribution is welcome at Transparency International. This organization is unrelenting in its pursuit of investigating corruption worldwide. 

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government 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. Examples one and two follow → Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct.

Months before the COT, four arbitrations were signed in April 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants had investigated my ongoing telephone problems and found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show that AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these same findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

. This action was taken because the government communications authority, AUSTEL (now called ACMA), was alarmed by Telstra's ceased investigation of my ongoing telephone faults unless I formally registered them in writing with Telstra's legal representatives, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, specifically Denise McBurnie. 

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” dated 10 September 1993 (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other COT Cases) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

The COT Case Strategy was designed to target me, my business, and three other COT case members—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—along with our respective businesses. Astonishingly, this strategy was set in motion before our arbitrations even began, more than nine months before the signing of our arbitration agreements in April 1994. The arbitration process was akin to a Kangaroo Court, clearly biased against us.

Moreover, Denise McBurnie and Telstra's threats implied that unless I registered my fault complaints in writing, they wouldn't investigate them, effectively rendering all my correspondence with Denise McBurnie under Legal Professional Privilege (LPP).

To add insult to injury, Freehill Hollindale & Page, also Telstra's arbitration lawyers, deliberately withheld this same crucial LPP technical documentation regarding my ongoing telephone problems from the arbitrator during my arbitration. This blatant disregard for fairness is appalling and has not been addressed thirty years after the event.    

On 29 October 1993, six months before COT spokesperson Graham Schorer and I signed our arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed to this fax testing process. Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. 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), Telstra 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)

On the 2nd of March 1994, a letter was transmitted from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C), which strongly suggests that Mr Penrose was significantly misled and deceived regarding the faxing issues detailed in the correspondence. I engaged in discussions about the unsuccessful testing process with Denise McBurnie. I communicated my assertions concerning two female single club patrons who participated in my holiday camp country getaway bushwalking, canoeing, and horse-riding program and reported receiving suggestive phone calls. It was made evident by these two female single club patrons that the information implying their single status could only have originated from me or via interception of my telephones and faxing service. Furthermore, I drew the attention of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to this matter. Notably, I obtained document evidence from file 1 through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request several years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues the same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me being of sound mind?

On 21 March 1997, twenty-two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to my arbitration), wrote to Telstra's Ted Benjamin (see File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin [clinical psychologist’s].

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

When Maurice Wayne Condon, Telstra's legal representative from Freehills, signed the witness statement submitted by Ian Joblin, Telstra's psychologist, he affirmed the presence of Ian Joblin's signature on the aforementioned statement. However, subsequent examination revealed the psychologist's absence on the document. This singular act constitutes perjury, as it attests to a falsehood knowingly. The engagement in such conduct by a legal representative during an arbitration borders on criminality.

This scenario underscores the significant influence wielded by Telstra's legal counsel within the Australian legal arbitration system. In the current context of 2024, I am awaiting a response from John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, concerning his inquiry to Ted Benjamin, who served as Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, on 21st March 1997 (Refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647).

My 3 February 1994 letter to the Hon 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 during my arbitration. Exhibit 10C in the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 exposes the undeniable fact that my letter to the Hon. Peter Costello's Federal Treasurer in the Australian Government on 2 November 1998 was intercepted, screened, and then redirected to his government office more than four years after the completion of my arbitration. This compelling evidence irrefutably vindicates my concerns expressed to Michael Lee MP in February 1994, leaving no doubt that my suspicions were indeed justified.

On 10 February 1994 seven days after having written to the Hon Michael Lee MP, John MacMahon, General Manager of AUSTEL (the Government Communications Authority) wrote to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, 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 dated 26 September 1994, 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. 

"... 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".

Despite being provided with the AFP transcripts and additional supporting evidence regarding the non-arrival of many of my claim documents at his office for assessment purposes, it is confounding why the arbitrator still concluded in his award that Telstra had acted appropriately during my arbitrations.

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 (File 773-a - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789).

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (File 773-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789, noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 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)

How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to such intrusive tactics? Is electronic eavesdropping and unauthorized tampering with confidential documentation still occurring during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

The challenges with fax transmissions prompted the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) to investigate my claims in July 2009, a decade and a half after the conclusion of my arbitration. After receiving testimony from a witness acquainted with the arbitrator and a statutory declaration affirming the arbitrator's knowledge of the non-receipt of multiple documents at his office during my arbitration (see Burying The Evidence File 13-H), the IAMA terminated their inquiries without reaching a verdict.

My correspondence with the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, and similar letters to his deputy, Wally Rothwell, is undeniable proof that at least 41 of my faxed arbitration claims documents were not included in the list of documents received by the arbitrator. These documents are crucial to my case.

Consider this: If you had invested over $300,000 in arbitration fees in 1994, wouldn't you be eager to understand why 41 sets of claim documents crucial to your case did not appear on the list of documents received by the arbitrator?

The text in Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued is currently being updated with newly acquired information. Meticulously researched concrete documents and evidence rigorously support each statement within these twelve volumes. Every pertinent remedy is meticulously and precisely edited to ensure the optimal presentation of truth. I firmly believe that readers of these twelve volumes will attain an unmistakable understanding of the truth I am unveiling. The reports will incontrovertibly demonstrate the collaboration of government bureaucrats and specific government agencies, including self-funded regulators, in permitting the Telstra Corporation to engage in illicit acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is irrefutable and will undoubtedly confirm the transgressions during the government-sanctioned Casualties of Telstra arbitrations.

Learn about the heinous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians, and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Bribery and corruption can happen anywhere: in business, government, the courts, the media, and civil society, as well as across all sectors, from health and education to infrastructure and sports. Corruption can involve anyone: politicians, government officials, public servants, businesspeople, or members of the public. Government corruption and horrifying crimes were committed during the COT arbitrations by the Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications corporation. 

The criminal offences referenced on this website have yet to be resolved.

https://shorturl.at/oLZWh, The recent CFMEU union corruption attack on Anthony Albanese by the kangaroo is alarming. Shane Dowling rightfully points out in the article that both sides of politics have failed to address this corruption for years. The following Kangaroo Court https://shorturl.at/Xn3G5 link shows that corruption in government circles is still as much alive as it was during the COT arbitrations, as shown on pages 5163 to 5169 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. Equally concerning is the lack of action against the Telstra Corporation, which had been siphoning off millions, possibly billions of dollars from the Australian government for years.

Why is the CFMEU union being singled out for scrutiny? Telstra's senior management and their entire board were also involved in corruption. In their case, they collectively collected millions of incorrectly accounted dollars extracted from customers due to systemic software billing problems but concealed this fact. Telstra's former CEO, Frank Blount, acknowledged this issue in his 2000 co/publication "Managing in Australia → https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran."

The deliberate concealment of vital information from the COT Cases for six years leading up to their government-endorsed arbitrations is unacceptable. Furthermore, the fact that this suppression persisted for seven years after the conclusion of those arbitrations is downright astonishing. Concealing information from a government by a government-owned corporation is a grave matter, and doing so from an arbitrator during a legalistic arbitration process is deeply troubling. The arbitration process was administered using a confidentiality agreement that was tampered with before the claimants signed it, preventing any discussion outside the arbitration process. It is stopping an investigation into these matters even now in 2024.

This situation sheds light on the corrupt nature of the arbitration system in Australia.