Contents                                                                                                                       

Chapter 1 No fault found                                                                                                

 Chapter 2 Casualties of Telstra                                                                                         

Chapter 3 -The Briefcase Saga                                                                                  

Chapter 4 -Towards a Settlement Proposal                                                       

Chapter 5 -  Sold out                                                                                                          

Chapter 6 - Arbitration                                                                                             

Chapter 7 -Telstra’s defence                                                                               

Chapter 8 - My Award                                                                                                         

Chapter 9 - Aftermath                                                                                                

Chapter 10 - And the faults continue                                                                   

Chapter 11 - Forbidden by law

Chapter 12 - Summing up the years -                    

 

You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting Transparency International Australia or Transparency International Canada. A donation to either will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact global democracy. 

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Uncover who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur!

Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition? 

 

 

How has Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), Australia's largest and most prominent legal firm, evaded scrutiny by the Senate for their troubling actions during the COT arbitrations? Official government records indicate that their involvement with the COT cases should have ceased after October 1993 → (point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2). Yet, despite this stipulation, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne was still appointed as the defense attorneys for Telstra in the majority of the COT cases, including my own. It raises alarming concerns—how could they be permitted to validate witness statements never signed by the actual witnesses?

In a troubling turn, Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), presented a fabricated Bell Canada International (BCI) report to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to read before Mr Joblin assessed my mental state. This misleading BCI document claimed that 15,590 test calls were successfully transmitted over four to five hours spanning five days, from November 4 to November 9, 1993, to my local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater. During my arbitration, this spurious information concerning my telephone claims was presented to Ian Joblin, who was part of Telstra's arbitration defence unit.

By utilizing these deceptive BCI tests, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne aimed to create the impression that Ian Joblin would conclude I must be suffering from paranoia regarding my alleged phone issues. They implied that anyone of sound mind would not assert they were experiencing phone problems when, according to the fabricated BCI report, the 15,590 test calls were supposedly transmitted without incident. This manipulation of information raises serious concerns about the integrity of their defence and the implications for my claims.

Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) employed the highly regarded CCS7 monitoring equipment to generate an astonishing number of calls. However, the nearest telephone exchange equipped to handle this advanced CCS7 technology was 112 kilometers from my business location. This raises the question: where did the staggering 15,590 test calls ultimately end up? As you delve into this story, you'll uncover a troubling detail — Telstra audaciously contaminated the collected TF200 telephone by pouring wet and sticky beer residue into it after those phones departed from the COT Cases businesses. Adding to this bizarre scenario, Telstra sought to label other COT Cases members as mentally unstable, as evidenced by my narrative. This corporation has remained unchanged; the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, holds the key to revealing the truth about the BCI (false test results) provided to Ian Joblin. All she needs to do to clarify matters is publicly dismiss my claims as frivolous in a media release, along with the evidence that my claims are false.

In 1997, during the government-endorsed mediation process, Sandra Wolfe, a third COT case, encountered significant injustices and documentation issues. Notably, a warrant was executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9), with the potential consequence of her institutionalization. Telstra and its legal representatives sought to exploit the Queensland Mental Health Act as a recourse against the COT Cases in the event of their inability to prevail through conventional means. Senator Chris Schacht diligently addressed this matter in the Senate, seeking clarification from Telstra by stating:

“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.” (page - 87)

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne 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.

As detailed throughout this website, absentjustice.com, Telstra controls Australia's arbitration and mediation process. Readers can freely download the evidence in my mini-stories while navigating the website, which leaves no doubt that my claims are valid.

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature being where it legally should be on the document as the law states it should be shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

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 (refer to File 596 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) asking: 

1...any explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the attestation of the witness statement of Ian Joblin .

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

The fact that Telstra's lawyer, Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature is unlawful enough; however, with that said, the fact John Pinnock, administrator to my arbitration as well as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has in 2025, still not provided Telstra's official response concerning this dreadful conduct by Mautice Wayne Condon of Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne shows how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia shows Senator Kim Carr asking Ted Benjamin, Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (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?”

The most alarming issue surrounding Telstra’s intelligence networks established across Australia is the critical question of who within the Telstra Corporation possesses the expertise and government clearance to filter the extensive raw information gathered appropriately. This information must be cataloged impartially for future use, yet the process and oversight remain unclear.

PLEASE NOTE: 

At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold, ‘Full Nelson’, on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became evident that this story had two sides.

Although Bell Canada did not respond to inquiries about the inaccuracies in their Cape Bridgewater BCI tests, the Canadian Government did respond, as illustrated in the following letter.

 

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

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 29 June 1995, the Canadian government appeared concerned that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now known as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), provided false Bell Canada International Inc. tests. These tests were meant for Mr Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to review before he travelled to Portland to assess my mental health during the arbitration.

The issue came to light on 23 May 1995, when a late Freedom of Information (FOI) release by Telstra’s Ted Benjamin revealed that Telstra had concealed this evidence since I requested it in May 1994, only to release it nearly a year later. Even the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who had previously supported Telstra's arbitration defence throughout my case, expressed concern. My appeal lawyers at Taits Solicitors in Warrnambool were also troubled by this development. They wrote to AUSTEL (the then-government communication authority (now operating under the banner of ACMA) seeking information regarding the Bell Canada International (BCI) and NEAT testing processes conducted at the Cape Bridgewater RCM in November 1993 - (AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See 185).

In response to their inquiry on 12 July 1995, Cliff Mathieson from AUSTEL wrote,

"The tests you refer to were neither arranged nor carried out by AUSTEL. Questions relating to the conduct of the test should be directed to those who conducted or claimed to have conducted them."

A storage letter to have been sent after Cliff Mathieson had already written eighteen months previous on 9 December 1993, before Telstra used the BCI report as Defence Material, advising Telstra to provide the “assessor(s)” of the COT processes with a copy of his letter regarding the BCI tests, which he declared did not go far enough. This letter was NOT provided to Dr Hughes (the arbitrator) or the COT Cases, as AUSTEL had directed, which makes Telstra’s use of the BCI Report even more unconscionable.

It is essential to highlight that critical information was not communicated to the Canadian Government or Tait Lawyers, who may have taken a different approach based on this knowledge, regarding the actions of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. This firm submitted misleading BCI tests, falsely claiming that 15,590 successful test calls had been directed to my local exchange, which services my business. These tests occurred at an entirely different telephone exchange, resulting in a substantial misrepresentation of the facts.

 

 

My name is Alan Smith. This is my story, as well as that of other business owners who have had significant issues with Telecom, now Telstra. We became known by the acronym COT—Casualties of Telecom.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (now privatised and known as Telstra). Telecom monopolised communications and allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. When sixteen small business owners faced significant communication challenges, they stepped forward to seek justice through arbitration with Telstra. Unfortunately, the arbitrations proved to be a mere facade: the appointed arbitrator allowed Telstra to minimize the claims of the sixteen and even permitted the carrier to dominate the process. Despite the serious offences committed by Telstra during these arbitrations, the Australian government struggled to hold them, or the other involved entities, accountable.

A government-endorsed arbitration process was set up for the business owners to rectify their communication problems and fix the faulty telephone services. However, it turned into an uneven battle between the COT cases and the government-backed Telecom, which we, the four claimants, could not win. Our ongoing telephone and fax problems were compounded as our costs and losses increased because our deficient services were not repaired, nor were our concerns directly addressed as they should have been.

Our integrity was attacked, business reputations undermined, and crimes committed against us to ruin our livelihoods as Telecom sought to avoid responsibility for their own ineptitude and mismanagement by directing blame onto these small businesses that had been severely disadvantaged and destroyed by the lack of communication services between business owners and potential clients.

We, the COT claimants, lost millions of dollars, our mental health declined, and our livelihoods collapsed in ruins.  Yet, those in government - the architects of this injustice, this corruption and who had perpetuated these crimes against ordinary citizens -  are still in positions of power today.  Our stories are still covered and buried in bureaucratic red tape.

These are our stories, which are significant today as the cover-up has continued to the present day. The stories reveal how, through technology development, large organisations have been allowed to disadvantage their clients, cover up corrupt operation practices and mismanagement, and avoid any responsibility for their failure to act in the interests of a client base or deliver the services they had promised. It is a story of vast government corruption, injustices, and criminal behaviour worthy of a Sicilian mafia organisation.

Six months before the arbitrations began, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, boldly requested access to our local telephone exchange logbooks under the Freedom of Information Act (1984 FOI Act). We were assured that the arbitrator would provide these logbooks once we signed our arbitration agreements. However, this crucial document was never made available to claimants.

The Adverse Findings issued by AUSTEL, see points 1 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, unequivocally demonstrate that the logbook referenced by the government to support its unfavourable conclusions about Telstra was sourced from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, which meticulously records telephone activity and technical performance, played a pivotal role in shaping the government’s stance, highlighting its importance as a critical piece of evidence in the ongoing scrutiny of Telstra’s operations.

Had the COT Cases been told before they signed their arbitration agreements that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures, I, for one, would have stayed in my Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) signed by Telstra on 18 November 1993 and the four COT Cases on 23 November 1993.  

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?

How can the arbitrator, who had no control over the arbitration proceedings, continue concealing the reasons for refusing access to the telephone exchange logbooks that would prove or disprove each COT Case assertion in their arbitration submissions? These logbooks were essential records during the COT arbitrations because they meticulously document every daily fault reported by businesses and residences relying on Telstra telephone exchanges across multiple locations under scrutiny in Australia. This information was crucial for evaluating the scope of the issues under investigation during the arbitration process and, therefore, understanding the impact on each affected party. The lack of transparency regarding this denial raises serious concerns about the integrity of the arbitration and the ability to effectively assess the reliability of the telecommunications services in question.

On November 11, 1994, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, sent a compelling letter to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra. In this letter, Whynack demanded a thorough explanation for the numerous requested Freedom of Information (FOI) documents categorized with specific data periods relevant to my claim. Instead of complicating Telstra's search process, they only needed to access the designated time frame. Among these sought-after documents was a crucial extract from Telstra's Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook, which spanned the significant months from June 1993 to March 1994 (Refer to File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47)

How can you effectively publish a detailed and truthful account of the troubling events that unfolded during various Australian government-endorsed arbitrations while avoiding the direct naming of the individuals involved? In our Stop Press section below, we have only mentioned the relevant government regulator, purposefully omitting the identities of the public servants who clandestinely shared privileged information with the government-owned telecommunications carrier—the defendant. These same officials also concealed crucial documentation from the claimants, who happened to be fellow Australian citizens.

What strategies can you employ to convey a narrative so astonishing that your editor insists on an increasing volume of evidence to substantiate your claims? She is steadfast in her requirement for undeniable proof, refusing to edit your seemingly implausible assertions without verification.

How do you unearth and illustrate the troubling fact that the defendants in the arbitration process—the telecommunications carrier once owned by the government—utilized equipment connected to their expansive network to intercept and manipulate faxed materials from your office? They stored these documents without your knowledge or consent, later redirecting them to their intended destinations. Were the defendants leveraging this intercepted information to fortify their defence in arbitration and, as a result, diminish the chances of the claimants?

What can be said about the extent of this hacking? How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to similar invasive tactics? Is this form of electronic eavesdropping—hacking into confidential documents—still a pervasive issue today in legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the arbitration claimants presented a compelling report to the Australian government, detailing how confidential, arbitration-related documents were surreptitiously and illegally intercepted before they could reach their designated destinations. In my situation, despite the arbitrator's secretary confirming that six of my faxed claim documents never made it to the arbitrator's office, I was left without the opportunity to resubmit this vital material for assessment. Records from my fax account verify that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.

Moreover, one of the two technical consultants who attested to the authenticity of their findings in that report on December 17, 2014, reached out to me, affirming: 

"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. Dual time stamps substantiated this on the faxes." (Refer to Front Page Part One File No/14)

 

After Helen Handbury carefully reviewed my initial draft of absentjustice.com, she and two insightful editors—one hailing from the vibrant landscapes of New Zealand and the other from the lively city of Melbourne—shared their thoughts. They noted that my writing captures the intricate narratives surrounding the collusion, deep-seated wrongdoing, and deceptive actions of various layers of accountants and government officials, ensuring that these critical issues are not overlooked.

The chronology of events I have meticulously compiled, which will eventually evolve into my finished manuscript, is currently accessible in draft format as I strive to refine and complete it Refer to Lies Deceit And Treachery. Each mini-story presented on the website is thoughtfully paired with evidence files, carefully curated to enhance the reader's understanding of the significance behind each piece of information presented and the supporting evidence enclosed. This approach is designed to illuminate the complexities of the narrative and underscore the importance of accountability in this ongoing journey.

 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I found myself grappling with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted in the image below. If this amount were indeed channeled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal to every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs just to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritize ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia 

When Helen Handbury visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These unethical activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The revenue in question should have rightfully been directed to the government and its citizens, benefiting the public at large. This situation is thoroughly documented in the Senate Hansard, which indicates that Rupert Murdoch likely had prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding News Corp and Foxtel. Specifically, when Telstra compensated these companies for failing to fulfill their commitment to complete the cable rollout within the agreed timeframe, it was apparent to all parties involved in this substantial $400 million deal that Telstra would not meet the deadline.

If we accept this premise, as the Senate appears to recognize, then it raises serious concerns. Why were the COT Cases—business owners who had been struggling for years due to pervasive and systemic telecommunications issues caused by Telstra—forced to bear the burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars in professional arbitration fees? They sought the assistance of an arbitrator to ensure that Telstra would finally address the ongoing phone problems that were detrimental to their businesses. If this scenario does not qualify as discrimination of the worst possible kind, then what does?

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia 

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline. 

 

 

In 1999, during a pivotal moment in my writing journey, I shared a draft of my story with Helen Handbury, the sister of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Upon reading it, she was taken aback by the shocking denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had been subjected to for far too long. Helen had visited my holiday camp twice, and her sincere concern echoed in her words when she said, “I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked.” Her frankness revealed her deep empathy for our plight.

A particular aspect of my narrative that Helen struggled to grasp was the overwhelming evidence I had meticulously gathered regarding the illegal fax-hacking that had infiltrated my life. This insidious activity continued until Helen’s second visit. In 1999, the global scandal concerning the News of the World and the issues surrounding her brother had not yet erupted into public consciousness. I later provided substantial evidence to the Australian Federal Police, revealing that illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations—of which I was an active claimant—began in 1994. The alarming information I disclosed to Helen indicated that this troubling fax hacking was still affecting my business premises in 1999, four years after my arbitration was meant to have resolved these grave matters.

It’s worth noting that 1999 represents when the world was still oblivious to the upcoming hacking scandal involving the News of the World. In my draft manuscript, which I provided Helen Handbury, was an attached letter to Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations), who secretly, in concert with Dr Hughes, allowed Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now rebranded as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne) to draft the arbitration agreement instead of an interdependent lawyer as the government and COT Cases were assured would be used. The government had already written to Telstra on 5 October 1993 (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2) that the government would be more than a little concerned if Freehill had any involvement in the arbitrations. Here was the administrator and arbitrator of the process, allowing Telstra to dictate how the process was to be conducted in the arbitration agreement.

The arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, sent this communication on May 12, 1995—just one day after he had critically evaluated my arbitration case. He determined that the agreement drafted by Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne, lacked credibility, yet he chose to proceed with its use. This decision underscores the troubling lack of democratic principles in the conduct of the COT Cases arbitrations, revealing a profound disregard for fairness and transparency in the process.

To say this set of circumstances upset Helen Handbury is an understatement. Helen was horrified.

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 .

“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:

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was 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.

One of the two technical consultants who verified the accuracy 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)

An accountant deeply involved with the COT Cases and a key constituent of The Hon. Peter Costello, Federal Treasurer, brought to light the substantial sums of money that Telstra employees reportedly embezzled from the public purse, as shown on pages 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

 

The Australian Federal Police were actively investigating this matter at the time. They also looked into my phone and fax interception issues; at the same time, they were examining Telstra's thieving from the government coffers. I confidently question whether the interception of my faxed letter to The Hon. Peter Costello was connected to this embezzlement. It raises an important point: is this why so many of my arbitration-related claim documents failed to reach the arbitrator's office?

The embezzlement of public funds by Telstra employees and the complicit board of directors, who knowingly allowed millions of dollars in erroneous customer charges to inflate Telstra's value during its privatization, constitutes fraud against unwitting shareholders. Shareholders were unaware that a significant portion of Telstra's profits came from overcharging its customers for over six years.

It is essential to draw connections between these two significant wars, as both had far-reaching consequences for the well-being of countless individuals, including many who never took up arms. The fallout from these conflicts has vividly illustrated the presence of government corruption, and this is why I believe it is crucial to link these historical events with the corruption issues that arose during the Telstra-endorsed arbitrations. This connection is not just about historical accountability; it is about recognizing patterns of behaviour that continue to affect governance and public trust, which are key points of the ongoing COT story.

Before we delve into our narrative, we invite visitors to carefully examine our Evidence File-1 and Evidence File-2. These meticulously compiled files contain extensive documentation that provides a solid foundation for our story and the other related COT narratives currently being developed.

Within these files, you will find a plethora of evidence that sheds light on the real-life experiences of twenty-one courageous Australians. These individuals faced significant challenges as they bravely stood up against the misconduct and oppressive practices of the Telstra Corporation, a struggle that spanned from 1988 to at least 2009.

Government Corruption and its many corrupt activities, including bribery, embezzlement, and abuse of power, have begun to permeate many courts and justice institutions worldwide. In jurisdictions where such corruption is commonplace, marginalized and vulnerable populations often find themselves with limited access to justice. Meanwhile, those who are wealthy and powerful exploit and manipulate entire justice systems for their benefit, often at the expense of the public good and fair legal processes, as I have shown below in both Chapter 7-Vietnam Vietcong and the Australia–East Timor spying scandal. 

The Secret State

On 26 September 2021, Bernard Collaery, Former Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory (under the heading) The Secret State, The Rule of Law & Whistleblowers, at point 7 of his 12-page paper, noted:

"On some significant issues the Australian Parliament has ceased to be a place of effective lawmaking by the people, for the people. It has become commonplace for Parliamentarians to see a marathon superannuated career out with ideals sacrificed for ambition."

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal, which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information to ensure the Liberal Coalition Government held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government stated that it was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.  

Here is further proof that the Australian government bureaucrats, when they deem it appropriate, use electronic equipment to gain an upper hand, as was the case discussed above and the COT arbitrations. We COT Cases never stood a chance against these secret government officials with no qualms about whom they harm.

Tragically, Helen passed away in 2004. Years later, I reflected on her initial encouragement and sent a draft of the original version of my book, "Absent Justice," to her husband, Geoff Handbury. I recalled my conversation with Helen and sought his guidance on the best way to present a copy of my book to Rupert Murdoch.

On October 17, 2012, I received a response from Mr. Handbury—a beautifully handwritten letter that showcased exquisite, old-fashioned penmanship, a rarity in today’s digital age. By then, he was 87 years old and was deeply respected for his philanthropic contributions to numerous vital projects in Victoria. However, with time, he felt he could no longer help. Nevertheless, I treasure how Rupert Murdoch’s sister recognized my “intriguing story” as one worth sharing with her brother, and I am profoundly grateful for her kind and encouraging remarks.

Before we progress further, it's essential to highlight the impactful statements made by Helen Hndbury regarding the plight of crime victims. She powerfully noted that irrespective of the type of crime involved, the assurance that someone genuinely cares and is ready to offer support can significantly aid a victim in their journey to healing. One of Helen's most formidable obstacles was the assistance I provided to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), alongside their hesitance to help Mr. when I sought their intervention. This unwillingness from the AFP and their protection of Telstra allowed the telecommunications giant to continue undermining the COT Cases even after the AFP had drawn their conclusions. Despite having clear evidence in their files that demonstrated Telstra's misuse of electronic technology to sabotage the arbitration claims related to persistent telephone issues, the complications surrounding these cases persisted for years, exacerbating the struggles of those affected. 

 

 

 

On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:

“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July.  I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.

The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.

One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.

Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.

During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.” 

After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.

Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies. 

Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being  fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.

I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time. 

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 -  AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )

Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:

“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 , 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.” 

“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.” (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1)

Senator Boswell’s statement that: “a point confirmed by professionals deeply involved in the arbitration process itself and by the TIO’s annual report, where conclusion is described as ‘if that is ever achievable’ shows, by the date of this Senate Hansard on 20 September 1995, the TIO had already condemned the arbitration process. So why did John Pinnock (the second administrator to the COT arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes, eight months later, conspire to mislead and deceive Laurie James, President of The Institute of Arbitrators Australia (refer Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter and Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter) concerning the truth of my claims, which were registered with the proper authority, i.e., the president of Institute of Arbitrators Australia?

The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG

In June 2009, I wrote to The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, the then-president of the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), about what had now become my eleventh remedy pursued. In his response to my letter, The Hon. Michael D Kirby AC, CMG, advised:

“In accordance with established procedure, I have referred the complaint to the Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee of the Institute.

“In due course, you will be informed following this reference.” (See Burying The Evidence File 13-A)

Within two days of receiving this letter, I received a telephone call from the CEO of the IAMA, who explained that the IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee would investigate these fresh allegations and notify me of their findings. I advised the CEO that in 1996 and again in 2001 and 2002, the IAMA began investigating similar complaints concerning the same arbitrator but returned my documents without bringing down a finding. The CEO confirmed this would not be the case now. I deduced, from the CEO’s tone, that he had read the damning evidence against the arbitrator that had prompted the president of the IAMA to send the above letter of 9 July 2009.

The "IAMA" page on absentjustice.com, Chapter 11—The eleventh remedy pursued, offers a detailed account of the concealment of claims made by arbitrators endorsed by the Australian government during 2009 and 2010. The IAMA Ethics and Professional Affairs Committee approached me and asked me to provide substantial proof of these flawed arbitrations. In response, I meticulously compiled and presented 23 comprehensive spiral-bound reports.

Unfortunately, the IAMA did not issue a ruling or return these crucial documents. As of 2025, they have still failed to return this critical evidence, keeping their actions secret.

The Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA) 

 

When Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators, initiated an investigation into my allegations against Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator who presided over my case, a troubling pattern of misconduct began to emerge. Dr Hughes failed to adhere to the established arbitration procedures and disregarded crucial new evidence indicating that Telstra had tampered with my telephone after I submitted it for evaluation as part of their defence. This oversight was not just negligence but a serious breach of trust.

Instead of admitting that I had been unfairly denied the right to appoint a forensic document researcher to scrutinize how Telstra arrived at their misleading conclusion—that my telephone was to blame for the ongoing issues—I found myself the target of a fabricated narrative. Dr. Hughes permitted the administrator to send a damaging letter to Laurie James, erroneously asserting that I had called the arbitrator's wife at 2:00 AM, right after the fresh evidence had surfaced the night before. This insinuation painted me as a person of questionable character. However, the truth is that I had telephoned Dr Hughes two minutes past 8:00 PM, eager to discuss the significant evidence that could potentially sway the arbitration's outcome in my favour. Dr Hughes was not home. My 28-second apology to Mrs James for the intuition was nothing but honourable.

In a disturbing display of influence, the Brotherhood convinced Laurie James, government officials, and various individuals within their network to suppress my evidence completely. It is alarming and disheartening that Dr. Hughes allowed his wife to be exploited in such a reprehensible manner, undermining the integrity of the arbitration process to which I had entrusted my case. (Refer to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter)

Delve further into this profoundly concerning issue of falsified technical reports submitted during the Casualties of Telstra (COT) arbitrations, a situation that has raised serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process. The disturbing acceptance of such unlawful conduct by the arbitrator—who appeared to endorse these misleading reports provided by Telstra—has profoundly influenced the overall narrative surrounding these proceedings. My experiences are intricately intertwined with the complex matters pertaining to Bell Canada International Inc. and the questionable testing allegedly conducted at Cape Bridgewater. This saga is poignantly documented in the compelling account titled "Confronting Despair," which details the significant implications of these actions.

The startling incident involving a sticky, wet beer substance that Telstra reportedly discovered after they collected my TF200 telephone from my holiday camp in Cape Bridgewater is compounding this already perplexing situation. This peculiar event occurred the day after I had been battling an out-of-control bushfire as a committed volunteer firefighter with the Country Fire Authority (CFA). During these fourteen hours, I was fully dedicated to operating our CFA fire truck, protecting lives and property. This leads one to ponder: who within Telstra could have surreptitiously introduced this 'sticky beer' into my TF200 telephone during my absence? Such glaring injustices drive my motivation to document my experiences and raise awareness of these critical issues on my platform, absentjustice.com.

 

Telstra was the worst of the worst 

Telstra's arbitration defence knew no bounds of common decency 

Perhaps even more troubling was the way Telstra's arbitration defence unit distorted the facts surrounding my inability to attend the testing of my TF200 telephone at my home on the morning of April 27, 1994. This meeting occurred just a day after I had valiantly battled an out-of-control fire for an exhausting 14 hours. In their file notes later submitted to the arbitrator, Telstra inaccurately stated that I had refused to allow them to test the phones simply because I was tired. They conveniently ignored the crucial information I provided to the fault response unit—that I had been engaged in a relentless fight against a raging fire the previous evening, from 6 PM to 9 AM the following morning. My weary and sore eyes made it nearly impossible for me to oversee such testing.

Our "Tampering with Evidence” page indicates that Telstra aimed to undermine my credibility by implying I was merely lethargic. After Telstra removed the phone from my premises, it was tampered with before even reaching their laboratories in Melbourne. Astonishingly, someone from Telstra poured beer into the device. In their arbitration defence report, Telstra absurdly claimed that this sticky beer was the root cause of the phone's persistent lock-up issues instead of attributing the problem to the faulty Cape Bridgewater network.

This underhanded act of sabotage, coupled with the intimidating threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration process, should have prompted a thorough investigation twenty-eight years ago. Despite my earnest efforts to uphold my civic responsibilities as an Australian citizen—by providing vital evidence to the Australian Federal Police and combating a devastating fire—I faced penalties in the arbitration process on both occasions.

These are the types of injustices that Telstra, aided by their government public servant overseers, have allowed to fester unchecked for nearly three decades. Such negligence has not only ravaged the lives of those involved in the COT Cases but also inflicted deep emotional scars on their loved ones.

I am compelled to seek clarity regarding the arbitrator's decision to disallow my forensic document researcher, Mr Westwood, from thoroughly investigating this significant aspect of Telstra's arbitration defence concerning the collection of my TF200 telephone. Additionally, I wish to understand the rationale behind the arbitrator permitting the administrator of my arbitration to compose a letter to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In this correspondence, my character was unjustly maligned by the false claim that I had telephoned the arbitrator's wife at 2:00 AM regarding my TF200 telephone.

This baseless insinuation has cast a shadow over my character, especially considering I did not make any such call during that hour.

When this letter was subsequently communicated to Dr Gordon Hughes, who had been misled by the erroneous assertions made by the administrator, I must ask whether he took the initiative to defend my reputation and clarify that I had not contacted his wife in the early hours of the morning. A straightforward and forthright letter from Dr. Hughes, unequivocally refuting the misleading allegations propagated by John Pinnock, who served as the arbitration administrator, could have significantly mitigated much of the pain and distress caused by the unauthorized introduction of this erroneous beer substance into my telephone, as well as by the deceptive claims regarding the alleged 2:00 AM phone call.

The treacherous conduct continued. 

 

Utterly shameful and profoundly disheartening: We must delve into the troubling actions and misconduct of specific public servants in Australia whose illegal activities have come to light. These individuals, entrusted with the responsibility of serving the public, have instead opted for behavior that undermines the very foundations of trust in our institutions. By examining the complex circumstances that fueled their lawbreaking—ranging from personal motivations to systemic issues—we can gain insight into the broader implications for society. The erosion of public trust is strikingly evident, as citizens grow more and more cautious of those wielding power. The growing skepticism stems from a pervasive sense of betrayal and disappointment in leaders who have failed to uphold their responsibilities. It is imperative to confront the glaring lack of accountability that persists, allowing these individuals to evade the serious consequences of their actions. This ongoing situation further intensifies the feelings of injustice among those who have bravely challenged these lawbreakers, who boldly present themselves as politicians advocating for the needs of the people, while their actions suggest otherwise.

 

In conjunction with her colleagues at the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA), the Honourable Senator Helen Coonan is facing serious allegations regarding the misuse of their authority during an independent review process. This review is primarily outlined in a critical document referred to as Exhibit AS 639. This document, formally titled "Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for the Minister's Office," was designed to serve as a guiding framework for evaluating various matters concerning COT case issues. These issues include historical arbitration disputes and troubling claims of fax interception. However, an alarming oversight must be noted: Exhibit AS 639 File  AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 lacks crucial details that are reportedly available on the official government website, raising questions about its comprehensiveness and authenticity.

Specifically regarding my arbitration process, this contentious document starkly contrasts the findings articulated in the report entitled AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings. Notably, AUSTEL chose to conceal these significant findings from the arbitration proceedings in 1994, only disclosing them to the public twelve years after my arbitration was concluded. This delay in transparency fundamentally undermines the integrity of the arbitration process and calls into question the motivations behind the government's actions.

Moreover, this government archive document has been strategically created to cloud the reassessment of COT claims in 2006. Its purpose seems to align with the interests of those determined to obscure the truth regarding these matters. Alarmingly, evidence suggests that some aspects of the Australian public service are actively shielding individuals who have defended Telstra and the arbitrators responsible for the adjudication of COT claims. This manipulation of government assessment tools and the dissemination of misleading information indicates a troubling disregard for the rule of law.

As this situation continues to unfold, it is becoming increasingly evident that the tactics employed by certain bureaucrats resemble spin-doctoring, designed to distort the perception of events and filter out the truth from government archives. This deliberate lack of transparency threatens the rule of law and poses a significant risk to the educational pursuits of both local and international students. These students lack a genuine understanding of Australia’s complex and sometimes contentious history, which is vital for fostering informed citizenship and global awareness. Such distortion's implications extend beyond individual cases, impacting the collective historical narrative that shapes our national identity.

THE BROTHERHOOD 1

 

Australia's arbitration system faced a profound crisis due to the clandestine operations of a Brotherhood that ran a Kangaroo Court from 1993 to at least 1998. This shadowy organization operated outside the bounds of recognized legal standards, with an arbitrator whose qualifications were never officially assessed. Instead, he was allowed to conduct his proceedings based on decisions that had already been predetermined long before the claimants affixed their signatures to arbitration agreements. Such practices ignited serious doubts regarding the integrity and fairness of the entire arbitration process.

The workings of this Kangaroo Court severely compromised the foundational principles of justice. For those involved, the arbitration framework, designed to ensure an impartial and equitable resolution of disputes, was utterly undermined. Decisions were made in advance, effectively rendering the legal process a mere formality devoid of genuine consideration for the claims presented.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, the administrator of these Kangaroo Courts told several Australian Senators that the arbitrator had "no control over these COT arbitrations," as they were conducted entirely outside of established arbitration procedures. Yet, despite this alarming revelation, no measures were taken to compensate the individuals whose lives were irrevocably altered by the unjust outcomes of this Kangaroo Court system.

The first four cases under the Customer Owned Telecommunications (COT) program included Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer, and me. In February 1994, we received assurances from two key figures involved in the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP): Dr. Gordon Hughes, the assessor, and Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing the entire FTSP process. They inspired us with the promise that by stepping away from the FTSP and embracing Telstra's preferred guidelines for the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), we would gain access to the crucial telephone logbooks from the exchanges that supported our businesses as part of the arbitration discovery process.

The prospect of obtaining these logbooks "under discovery" fueled our determination to pursue change, especially given our unsuccessful attempts to acquire them through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request during the FTSP assessment process.

Regrettably, despite our fervent hopes, the logbooks were never provided to any of the four COT cases, neither during the FTSP assessment phase nor throughout the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure that followed. This absence of vital documentation became a testament to our resilience in the face of challenges as we sought justice and resolution for our telecommunications issues. 

On November 11, 1994, I was entrenched in the complexities of an ongoing arbitration process that had already stretched into its eighth month. Throughout this extended period, the arbitrator had yet to request the crucial Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone logbook, which was a critical component of the discovery process we had all agreed upon. .As my frustration and desperation mounted, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, stepped in with a decisive action.

Recognizing the gravity of the situation, Mr. Wynack drafted a formal letter addressed to Frank Blount, the CEO of Telstra. This letter, also forwarded to Dr. Hughes and Warwick Smith, articulated my mounting frustrations and the urgency of my plight. It served as vital communication, shedding light on my pressing issues.

In his letter, Mr Wynack conveyed his serious apprehensions about the allegations I had raised. I had asserted that Telstra had deliberately concealed critical information from me in the documents provided under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This assertion wasn’t made lightly; I am convinced they deliberately withheld the logbook entries from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange. Other Telstra customers from Cape Bridgewater have been filing their complaints with local technicians, who must record the fault complaints they receive daily from residents into the logbook when completing their day. Telstra concealed my persistent telephone faults from the arbitrator by withholding this logbook from discovery.

Mr. Wynack's correspondence carried considerable weight as he underscored the seriousness of my claims to Mr. Blount, urging him to give immediate attention to this troubling matter. The stakes were high, and the need for resolution was more pressing than ever. (Refer to File 20 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47) in which Mr Wynack states: 

“I am notifying you of the details of the complaints made to the Ombudsman by Alan Smith;

• Telecom claimed that documents given to Telecom by Mr Smith in 1992 had been destroyed or lost.
• Telecom has lost or destroyed a number of files relating to his contacts with Telecom prior to 1991.
• Telecom unreasonably delaying providing access to many documents.
• Telecom unreasonably refused to provide the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Log Book associated with the RCM at Cape Bridgewater’ for the period 2 June 1993 to 6 March 1994″

 

The Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telephone Exchange Logbook

Why has the government concealed this injustice?

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who became the new administrator of the arbitrations, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the first four COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we four COT Cases were forced to abandon our Fast Track Settlement Proposals and sign our highly legalistic arbitration agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide under the tainted altered confidentiality agreement (see below) when that agreement did not mention that the arbitrator would have no control over the arbitration because the process would be conducted 'entirely' outside the agreed procedures?

Ironically, the arbitrator who played a central role in these questionable processes now holds a prestigious position as a principal in a leading Australian legal firm in Melbourne, raising further concerns about the implications of this dark chapter in the country's legal history.

As we grappled with these unresolved issues, it became increasingly apparent to us, the beleaguered COT cases, that a shadowy organization known as the Brotherhood was operating within Australia. Their motives seemed cloaked in secrecy, but their actions were unmistakably aimed at undermining our struggles. Despite our best efforts and the extensive evidence of ongoing phone problems—even after the conclusions of our arbitration proceedings—we found ourselves without the support we desperately needed. The battle we faced extended far beyond mere technical failures; it was deeply intertwined with systemic issues of accountability, transparency, and the quest for equitable treatment within the telecommunications landscape.

It is simply unacceptable that the government communications authority, AUSTEL—now ACMA—allowed me to incur over $300,000 in arbitration fees to prove a case against Telstra that AUSTEL had already established in March 1994, just six weeks before my arbitration commenced (Refer to points 2 to 212 of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings). 

Treacherous  

 

On 11 March 1999, Senator Kim Carr expressed heartfelt concern regarding the government's management of the COT arbitrations, as indicated in the accompanying Hansard link. In his remarks, he compassionately addressed the challenges faced by those involved, acknowledging the significant impact of the government's apparent lack of authority in navigating these difficult negotiations. Senator Carr emphasized the importance of adopting a more supportive and effective approach to ensure that all parties are treated with fairness and accountability throughout this complex process.

“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”

And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:

“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

I also brought this Brotherhood issue to light during my two Freedom of Information (FOI) appeal processes at the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) in 2008 (No V2008/1836) and 2011 (No 2010/4634) hearings, where the government communications authority ACMA was the respondent. On October 8, 2008, after a ten-month hearing, where I provided the AAT and ACMA with a 158-page report and 1,760 plus exhibits, along with 23 letters and attachments to the judge—a Senior Member of the AAT—turned to the two ACMA government lawyers who had attempted to suggest that I was a vexatious litigant who could not accept the rulings made by the government and Telstra regarding their non-supply of discovery documents during my nineteen-month settlement/arbitration process. The judge responded: "

 “Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

THE BROTHERHOOD 2

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers  → https://shorturl.at/d5HAi

The following document, referred to as (File 517AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541, is submitted as evidence supporting the existence of a Brotherhood in Australia during the COT arbitrations. This is illustrated by a witness statement dated August 10, 2006, provided to the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA). The statement was sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who later became a Principal Investigator. Mr. Direen courageously revealed that in 1999-2000, after leaving Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group with their investigations into the allegations of fraud related to the COT Telstra arbitrations.

I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group as a witness (refer to Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen's statement explained that,, based on what he observed that day and applying the knowledge he gained during his twelve years at Telstra, he did not doubt that the phones at Rod Kueris's address had beenhad possibly been interfered with.

A few weeks after Mr. Direen began assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly apparent that Detective Sergeant Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to highlight the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during the same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents related to the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to reach the Major Fraud Group's machine.

Parts of the same Bell Canada Information submitted by me to the Major Fraud Group was intercepted in 2000 while under investigation by the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police was again intercepted leaving Portland Post Office in December 2008, this time en route to the Federal Magistrates Court Melbourne and Chapter 5, Immoral—Hypocritical Conduct) sent by Darren and Jenny Lewis, the new owners of my business.

During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues, they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their interview surrounding the interception of my telecommunication services conversations and Telstra's submission of false information to the government.

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. 

 

A John Grisham blockbuster? 

 

A hell that rivals a John Grisham's novel.

The following five paragraphs provide essential background information that should be read before exploring absentjustice.com. This will help you better to understand the serious shortcomings of Australia’s arbitration system. Gaining this insight at the outset of our story regarding the COT will equip you to see the unethical practices embedded within the system, especially when it falls under the influence of influential individuals, as we will illustrate through the cases of those currently facing trial. In Australia, this network of individuals is often called the Brotherhood, which encapsulates their questionable dealings and the manipulation of justice for personal gain.

As shown on pages 5166 to 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. 

The following Senate Hansard record dates 25 June 1994 points 29, 30 and 31 page 5169 present a compelling narrative that sheds light on a troubling intersection of legal influence and corporate misconduct in Australia’s telecommunications sector. These records reveal that two of the country's most prominent legal firms, with their principal partners occupying key positions on the board of Telstra, were deeply entwined in the government-sanctioned arbitrations surrounding the Claimants of Telstra (COT) cases. It is within this complex framework that millions of dollars were misappropriated from Telstra, then a government-owned telecommunication provider responsible for ensuring the nation’s connectivity and communication needs.

In this challenging and often adversarial context, I found myself among the initial four COT cases, subjected to stringent requirements imposed by Telstra. I was mandated to meticulously document every fault and issue related to my telephone service in writing and submit these records to Denise McBurnie, a solicitor from Freehill Hollingdale & Page—one of the legal firms at the heart of the matter. This stipulation presented a daunting challenge: if I failed to comply, Telstra would categorically refuse to investigate or rectify my ongoing and persistent telephone problems. It is particularly alarming to note that Denise McBurnie was the architect of "The COT Strategy", a detailed plan discussed within the Senate Hansards. This legal strategy was wielded by Telstra as a tool to obstruct the release of vital evidence necessary for the COT cases, thereby significantly hampering our ability to substantiate our claims. McBurnie’s dual role in crafting and managing this strategy raises profound concerns regarding conflicts of interest, as she effectively operated on behalf of Telstra throughout these proceedings.

A particularly intriguing and perplexing question arises concerning the eventual release of Telstra's Portland Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange book. This document was promised to me upon my entry into the arbitration process, and its potential contents could have had far-reaching implications. It held the power to expose discrepancies in the narrative being presented to me—either indicating that McBurnie had misinformed me as a citizen entitled to trustworthy telephone service or suggesting that Telstra had manipulated McBurnie, thus undermining the credibility of their own legal representative.

Moreover, the Senate Hansard records illuminate another alarming component of "The COT Strategy", which explicitly targeted me and my business. This strategy was designed to thwart my ability to substantiate my claims—an act of deliberate harassment and intimidation during the arbitration process. It is distressing and ironic that such egregious actions have not been addressed publicly or brought to light, leaving me to navigate these turbulent waters largely alone.

The lack of proactive measures in addressing these issues may stem from the intertwined relationships that existed between the arbitrator and several lawyers involved in the COT arbitrations. Many of these individuals had either previously collaborated with or were affiliates of the aforementioned law firms. This relationship likely created a reluctance to challenge the established order, as these legal professionals appeared more motivated to preserve their ties and future opportunities with these influential firms, even at the cost of denying justice to those like myself whose livelihoods and businesses were jeopardized. This intricate interplay of personal and professional interests raises profound ethical questions about the integrity of the legal frameworks in place and underscores the urgent need for greater accountability and transparency in the arbitration process.

Corruption embedded in government-endorsed arbitrations

 

This investigation thoroughly examines the alarming realities that underpin severe criminal activities and the individuals orchestrating these acts. At the core of this inquiry lie unscrupulous politicians and lawyers who adeptly exploit Australia’s intricate legal and arbitration systems. With a calculated disregard for ethics, they manipulate these frameworks to advance their personal agendas, often at the expense of justice, fairness, and public trust.

We will meticulously identify these officials, revealing their significant and lasting influence—an influence that continues to reverberate three decades after their initial offences. This prolonged impact raises critical questions about the accountability and oversight mechanisms within the legal system. Additionally, this investigation will delve into the sophisticated and often insidious tactics employed by these individuals prior to arbitration proceedings, as Chapter 5, Fraudulent Conduct, shows. 

In a concerning and strategic manoeuvre, the arbitration agreements, intended initially to uphold the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process, were surreptitiously modified. These alterations, executed without the necessary disclosure to affected parties, compromised the fundamental principles of the agreements. Consequently, the confidentiality agreement that governed the three arbitration agreements should have been deemed null and void, as its protective intent was undermined. The covert nature of these modifications introduced substantial loopholes, enabling individuals with insider knowledge of various cases to exploit these weaknesses and manipulate the arbitration consultants, thereby threatening the impartiality and efficacy of the arbitration process.

This manipulation ultimately distorted the outcomes, benefiting those orchestrating the deceit. Shockingly, the arbitration consultants were complicit in this subterfuge and facilitated it by ensuring they remained insulated from accountability. They worked behind the scenes to exonerate these specialized consultants from any legal responsibility for their corrupt actions during the most pivotal arbitrations, mainly when compelling evidence against Telstra was evident.

Once these insidious changes were implemented, the three arbitration agreements signed by Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and me took on a new, troubling dimension. The previously established $250,000 liability caps were reinstated on twelve subsequent COT case arbitration agreements administered by the TIO office who had originally allowed the removal of our clauses. 

In a further troubling turn of events, the administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, representing the TIO, adamantly refused to provide my arbitration appeal lawyers and me with access to all pertinent communications—both from the TIO and within the arbitration sphere. This included crucial documentation from the government that had tacitly approved this discriminatory conduct, leaving us in the dark about the intricate web of deception at play.

I reiterate, had the arbitration $250.000 caps liability caps in clauses 25 and 26 of my arbitration agreement not been covertly removed after the COT lawyers had voted on the unchanged clauses, I could have sued the arbitration consultants for negligence; no arbitration records were provided to me, until after the statute of limitations period had expired. 

John Pinnock, Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …

“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)

I seek to thoroughly examine whether this individual approached the management of our three COT arbitrations in a manner that differs from his current facilitation practices. If such a distinction exists, he must acknowledge the critical importance of transparency in this context. He should be encouraged to come forward and explain why he was involved in the misconduct observed in Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues and Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete).

Moreover, I would like to emphasize the necessity of addressing a fundamental question: Are his strategies and tactics during the COT arbitrations involving Telstra in 1994 and 1995 reflective of the methodologies he employs in the arbitrations he conducts in Australia and Hong Kong today? This inquiry is essential not only for understanding his current practices but also for assessing their ethical implications.

Additionally, it is vital to consider whether the readers of our COT story in 2025 grasp the significance of revealing the events that occurred during the COT arbitrations. They must consider the compelling evidence on this website, supporting my claims and underscoring the need for accountability and transparency in these arbitration processes. This understanding is crucial for fostering a fair and just resolution to the issues at hand.

 

--------

Transparency International is a prominent German-registered association founded in 1993 by a group of former World Bank employees in Berlin. This organization operates with a clear mission: to confront and eradicate global corruption through effective civil society initiatives that promote transparency and accountability. Its work is essential in preventing the insidious criminal activities that stem from corrupt practices. In Australia, the situation has become increasingly alarming, as corruption has infiltrated government-owned corporations and public-funded agencies, adversely affecting the integrity of public servants. This environment of corruption has led to significant injustices, particularly evident in the plight of the COT Cases, who experienced devastating losses in their businesses. The involvement of compromised lawyers and arbitrators, whose actions favored the interests of the Telstra corporation at the expense of justice for the COT Cases, highlights a deeply troubling narrative that urgently needs to be brought to light. This story is not just about individual losses; it represents a systemic failure that demands recognition and action.

The twelve pages below this section are a new feature on our website. They were created in response to valuable feedback from many regular visitors. Over time, numerous individuals have expressed the need for a dedicated platform where they can freely share their personal stories and experiences, particularly those that highlight issues of injustice. This includes narratives like the Casualties of Telstra and other significant life experiences that many people have felt compelled to articulate but have struggled to find a suitable outlet for their voices.

To provide immediate engagement and enrich these pages, I have taken the initiative to include mini-stories on each of the twelve pages. These stories serve as placeholders and inspiration until our visitors make full-length submissions. By offering this initial content, I aim to create a welcoming and thought-provoking environment that encourages others to join the conversation and share their narratives.

Rather than following the common practice of requesting donations to cover operational costs, I have chosen to provide this small but meaningful service to our readers for a minimal financial commitment. This approach allows me to sustain the hosting of absentjustice.com but also enhances the community by offering a platform where visitors can actively participate and connect through storytelling. By fostering this environment, I hope to empower individuals to share their experiences and create a supportive space for dialogue and understanding.

We invite individuals from all countries to share their life stories. If you're ready to participate, don't hesitate to contact us through our Contact—Government Corruption page.

I look forward to hearing from you and reading the stories you would like to share!

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 this government owned asset.

In my case, the unresolved arbitration issues have significantly and adversely affected the lives of the new owners of my business. These challenges disrupted their operations and led to immense personal and financial stress. The consequences of the unaddressed matters are vividly detailed in Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5, Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct.

 

Discover the decisive reasons behind the covert exoneration of the technical and financial arbitration consultants from all liability in the COT arbitrations. 

An evil criminal act - Gaslighting at its worst. 

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous, corrupt politicians, and their evil-minded legal bureaucrats who can manipulate and control the arbitration and mediation justice system in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.

Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden—highlights numerous documented foreign and domestic bribery instances. The troubling occurrences surrounding the arbitration and mediation processes have become increasingly evident in the context of telecommunications regulation in Australia. These processes were facilitated by AUSTEL, the government authority responsible for telecommunications at the time, which has since been rebranded as ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority). 

During these proceedings, Telstra, a major telecommunications corporation that was government-owned at the time, along with their legal team specializing in arbitration, exerted significant pressure on AUSTEL/ACMA. This pressure culminated in the alteration of critical findings regarding ongoing COT-type telephone issues, which are complaints related to the quality and reliability of telephone services.

In AUSTEL's initial report to the COT arbitrator—an appointed official overseeing the dispute resolution process—and to the then Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, the authority highlighted a staggering 120,000 COT-type complaints being experienced by Australian citizens. This figure illustrated a widespread and serious problem affecting telecommunications services nationwide. However, under the influence of Telstra's legal team, this number was dramatically revised downward to a mere 50 or more reported complaints. (Refer to Open Letter File No/11) - Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

The implication of such a significant alteration raises serious ethical concerns. For a major corporation like Telstra to manage to coerce a government-funded regulatory body to change its findings to diminish the reported extent of the issues was not only a manipulation of facts but also an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the complaints raised. This manipulation effectively undermined the gravity of the COT claims that had been formally registered under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, invoking the Arbitration Act for dispute resolution. The actions taken during this process ultimately highlighted systemic issues within the telecommunications regulatory framework and called into question the integrity of the arbitration process itself.

This exploration has prompted a deeper examination of political corruption within our institutions. The stories shared on our platform serve as a powerful testament to the true crime and international fraud cases that have unfolded right under the noses of Australia's government regulators. These regulators had both the authority and the responsibility to intervene and address these issues but, regrettably, chose to ignore them, allowing corruption to thrive unchecked. We remain committed to bringing these injustices to light and ensuring accountability.

Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct 

 

The number you are ringing is not correct 

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

To further support my claims that Telstra already knew how severe my Ericsson Portland AXE telephone faults were, can best be viewed by reading Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (see Front Page Part Two 2-B), which states:

“Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years. Hence Telecom’s position of legal liability was covered by a number of different acts and regulations. … In my opinion Alan Smith’s case was not a good one to test Section 8 for any previous immunities – given his evidence and claims. I do not believe it would be in Telecom’s interest to have this case go to court.

“Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from a poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”

It is clear from the above that my claims and those of the other COT Cases regarding Ericsson were validated.

Moreover, it has been revealed that Ericsson was willing to sell its equipment to terrorist organizations. This alarming aspect of Ericsson's business practices did not deter Telstra; they continued to procure equipment from Ericsson, demonstrating a troubling disregard for the ethical implications of supporting a company that engages with entities that threaten global security and stability.

The statement in the image below raises severe concerns regarding widespread bribery and corruption associated with Ericsson. The situation is alarming, as the extent of these practices is so pervasive and the company's oversight mechanisms so weak that millions of dollars in payments made by Ericsson in regions of Iraq controlled by terrorist organizations cannot be adequately traced or accounted for.

Moreover, the Australian government or the administrators of the arbitrations have not disclosed to the COT Cases the financial details concerning the transaction between Lanes Telecommunications Pty Ltd—those serving as arbitration consultants—and Ericsson during the COT arbitrations. Notably, this period coincided with Lane's investigation into various claims against Ericsson. It is also crucial to point out that Lanes Telecommunications' actions raise significant legal and ethical questions, as it was illegal for them to provide Ericsson with COT claims against Ericsson. This claim material was obtained by Lane under strict confidentiality from the COT Cases for the strict purpose of an arbitration assessment only. 

When Lane supplied Ericsson with this information, it blatantly violated the trust placed in Lane by the COT Cases. This complex web of actions signals severe lapses in corporate governance and accountability within Ericsson and the broader implications for regulatory oversight.

Ericsson - Terrorism 

COT Cases arbitration rights violated 

Telstra, the principal defendant in the COT arbitrations, made a troubling choice to persist in installing and using Ericsson telephone equipment despite the arbitrator actively investigating it for its known faults. This decision is particularly concerning in light of the fact that numerous countries recognized the hazards associated with this equipment and took decisive action to remove or replace it within their own telecommunications systems (File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f).

Throughout my arbitration claim, which spanned seven years, nine different Telstra employees provided sworn witness statements to the arbitrator, each confirming that no faulty equipment had impacted my business operations during that entire period. I consistently informed both the arbitrator and the government in writing about the ongoing phone issues affecting my business throughout the arbitration process. Yet, the arbitrator overlooked these persistent Ericsson AXE problems. The non-addressing of these ongoing Ericsson phone problems raises serious questions about the integrity of the arbitration process and those who administered it.

Moreover, it has been revealed that Ericsson was willing to sell its equipment to terrorist organizations. This alarming aspect of Ericsson's business practices did not deter Telstra; they continued to procure equipment from Ericsson, demonstrating a troubling disregard for the ethical implications of supporting a company that engages with entities that threaten global security and stability.

Adding to the opacity of these proceedings, the arbitrator allowed Ericsson to acquire Lane Telecommunication Pty Ltd, the Australian company responsible for investigating the various claims associated with the faulty Ericsson equipment that adversely affected businesses involved in the COT cases. This unprecedented action—essentially allowing the purchase of a critical witness amidst the arbitration process—stirs grave concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. It starkly illustrates a troubling reality: the protection of Telstra and the ongoing use of defective Ericsson telephone equipment seem to have overshadowed any commitment to ethical standards or accountability within this process.

Between October 18, 1995, and October 4, 1997, I, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, the Director of Investigations for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, requested Telstra's arbitration file under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This file is significant as it would elucidate the individuals obstructing my efforts to substantiate my claims against the Ericsson telephone AXE exchange equipment used at the local Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange connected to the Cape Bridgewater switching device. Home Page File No/82 affirms that Mr Wynack expressed scepticism regarding Telstra's assertion that my arbitration file had been destroyed.

Furthermore, I sought a copy of the same arbitration file from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). Under the terms of the arbitration agreement, the TIO was required to receive all arbitration documents and maintain a copy for at least six years, extending until 2002. Retaining these records is critical for ensuring the integrity of the arbitration process and is not merely a procedural formality. John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:

 

 

Furthermore, the book addresses the pervasive corruption within government bureaucracy that has significantly impacted the COT arbitrations. It reveals how entities like the Institute of Arbitrators Mediators Australia (IAMA), as Chapter 11—The eleventh remedy pursued, have taken measures to obscure the evidence related to these crimes, highlighting the urgent need for reform. Join me in this journey to uncover the truth and advocate for a better legal system that prioritizes justice and equity for all.

I urge the politicians in Parliament House, Canberra, who have sat idly by for the past thirty years, to finally confront the situation's reality. They must understand the truth rather than rely solely on the narratives their government public servants have been providing for decades.

I invite you to engage with the unembellished truth behind these events. It may provoke you to pose important questions, such as how an arbitrator is able to conduct an arbitration without possessing adequate control over it, as will be demonstrated below. For the past thirty years, I have consistently sought clarity on what motivated an arbitrator to administer the COT arbitrations outside the established parameters of the arbitration procedures, a situation that has been conclusively proven to be fact, as shown below in Senate Hansard records.

As part of the Senate's investigation, they released their version detailing the circumstances surrounding five of the twenty-one Cases of Telecommunications (COT) whose arbitration claims had come under scrutiny. This subset of cases was utilized as a litmus test to determine the validity of the broader claims. The premise was straightforward: if the Freedom of Information (FOI) claims associated with these five arbitrations were validated, then the findings could be extrapolated to the remaining sixteen cases.

The investigation into these five specific cases commenced in June 1997 and concluded in March 1999. Throughout this period, the Senate found that the claims related to these five cases were indeed substantiated. This verification was crucial, as it held the potential to set a precedent for the other cases. However, it soon became painfully evident that the sixteen remaining cases, which had also been adversely affected by Telstra's unethical and unlawful practices during their arbitration processes, faced substantial hurdles:- An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The claimants faced considerable challenges in navigating the complexities associated with the evaluation of their arbitration and mediation claims in accordance with the outcomes of five significant test cases. The actions of the then-coalition government, which provided assistance to only five Australian citizens in obtaining justice, resulted in the exclusion of the remaining sixteen COT Cases. This selective approach created an impression that the coalition government could not withstand additional criticism regarding Telstra, particularly in the lead-up to the consideration of privatization legislation in the Senate. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was closely monitoring the disclosures made by the John Howard Coalition government in the Telstra sale prospectus, as indicated in the subsequent Senate statement:-Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring.

The lack of clarity and differentiation between the public and confidential reports left many affected parties confused and frustrated as they sought justice and equitable treatment of their claims. The Australian Review provides additional context and analysis for a more in-depth examination of these issues.

 

 

On 23 March 1999, with the culmination of the majority of COT (Customer-Owned Telecommunications) arbitrations, many businesses found themselves in dire straits due to the protracted disputes that had begun in February 1988. These lengthy conflicts stretched for years, during which critical issues remained unresolved, even after the arbitration and mediation processes had concluded. In total, twenty-one specific COT cases were involved, each contributing to the suffering of the impacted businesses.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

Significantly, even three years after most arbitrations concluded, six Senators acknowledged that we had been forced into arbitration without the necessary documents to support our claims. I encourage you to review the discussions found in the Senate Hansard for further details.

 

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard) 

 

The following exhibit, designated as Senate Evidence File No 12, documents that I have faced threats on two separate occasions: the first instance occurred on 16 August 2001, and the second on 6 December 2004. During these encounters, I was explicitly warned that if I chose to disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from 6 and 9 July 1998, the Senate would initiate contempt proceedings against me. This warning seems particularly unjust, given that these Hansard documents contain critical information that could have potentially swayed the outcome of sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals. These appeals highlight the discriminatory practices of the Coalition Government, which allowed the Senate Committee of Ten (COT) working party to evaluate only a select group of COT claims—specifically, the litmus test cases—while neglecting to review all twenty-one cases listed in the Senate's unresolved Freedom of Information (FOI) schedule. This oversight directly affects the claims of other individuals, as referenced in “An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens”

My motivation to bring these issues to light stems from my desire to expose the systemic discrimination perpetuated by the Coalition government led by John Howard. The government’s focus seemed singularly directed towards safeguarding the interests of Telstra Corporation, irrespective of the distress and damage inflicted upon the COT Cases over the years due to their legitimate complaints lodged with both Telstra and the government itself.

Furthermore, the situation is aggravated by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, which undertook an extensive two-year investigation into allegations of Telstra fraud against the COT Cases. They did not inadvertently provide me with the 6 and 9 July 1998 In Camera Hansard incriminating evidence against the Senate investigations, which only investigated five of the twenty-one COT Cases.

The investigation into the Major Fraud Group's concerns was abruptly terminated due to the political influence exerted by the John Howard government. This unexpected closure hindered crucial inquiries into significant irregularities. In light of this suppression, the Major Fraud Group determined that it was essential to share the confidential findings, which had been privileged by the Senate, with the police. This step was taken to aid their ongoing investigations, especially after Neil Jepson, the barrister representing the Major Fraud Group, appointed me to assist in these inquiries.

Both technical reports prepared by Canadian specialists exhibited significant fundamental flaws.

 

 

Both reports are undeniably flawed, even as we approach 2024. The question remains: why has the Australian government chosen not to investigate them?

I have yet to receive a written response from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI), despite bringing to their attention their role as the second Canadian telecommunications company involved in my arbitration. Their reporting was not only incomplete but fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, I spoke with Paul Howell of DMR Group Inc., who acknowledged that he never signed off on his findings after arriving in Australia to assess my claims, as he was not permitted to complete his work. However, I did receive a response from the Canadian government telecommunications minister's office on 7 July 1995, which notes:

"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."   

During this process, Ms Sue Owens, the lawyer advocating for the five litmus cases, notified the Victoria Police that I had compiled a comprehensive report containing evidence that had even prompted a response from the Canadian government. This report provided clear insights into a crucial issue: Telstra had utilized the technical consultants' report from Bell Canada International Inc. during the COT arbitrations. This report presented Telstra's telecommunications network as being in excellent condition even though the findings could not have been legitimately accomplished, as asserted in the document.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­Upon conducting a thorough examination of my findings regarding the BCI report Bell Canada International Fraud, I discovered significant flaws that warrant serious attention. The Major Fraud Group, after their own review, concurred with my conclusions, highlighting several critical weaknesses in the BCI report that raise substantial concerns about its overall integrity and reliability.

Given these identified flaws, Telstra should not have relied on this report as valid evidence during the COT arbitrations. These errors have severe implications, as they not only undermine the credibility of the report but also cast doubt on the fairness of the arbitration process itself.

Moreover, it is believed that the gravity of these errors contributed significantly to the government's decision to terminate the investigation. This premature closure prevented further examination of the issues at hand, effectively shielding Telstra from the accountability that might have been mandated had the investigation continued. If these discrepancies had been appropriately scrutinised, they could have posed a serious threat to the sale of Telstra, mainly because the ambiguities present in the report were not disclosed in the sale prospectus, which was of significant interest to Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring. This lack of transparency could have led to severe implications for the transaction and raised ethical questions regarding the entire process.

Where is justice being served by throwing me in jail for exposing the truth surrounding what the Senate found regarding Telstra's unethical conduct perpetrated against the COT Cases appears to conflict with the reason Australia has a senate. I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing these Australian In-Camera Senate Hansard of 6 and 9 July 1998, which the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me, thinking my releasing them publically would bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion. 

 

 

 

In fact, after one National Party Senator, Ron Boswell, verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, saying:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to those five litmus test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents initially concealed from those five. The eighteen million dollars those five received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases FOI issues. It was not. 

Unethical, corrupt and evil. 

Protecting a government-owned asset. 

Fourteen years after the conclusion of the first COT arbitration process—where I played a direct role—a deeply troubling revelation came to light. This revelation surfaced twelve years after the second administrator took over the arbitration proceedings. Both he and his predecessor had consistently denied the claimants their well-established legal right to discovery, showing a clear bias in favour of the defendant, Telstra, throughout all those arbitration cases.

The second appointed administrator, who also served as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), made a remarkable confession during an official Senate hearing on 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the TIO-administered arbitrations:

"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."

“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”. ( Prologue Evidence File No 22-D)

On the 21st of April 1994, when I affixed my signature to the government-endorsed arbitration agreement, I was unknowingly consenting to a process over which the arbitrator held no control, conducted entirely outside the agreed and accepted ambit of the arbitration procedures. I would not have executed the agreement if I had been privy to this critical information.

It became evident that the previous administrator had allowed these arbitrations to be conducted outside the established and mutually agreed-upon procedural framework, thereby undermining the rights of the claimants. Unfortunately, the second administrator followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, perpetuating a systemic failure to uphold fair arbitration practices.

In a shocking turn of events, despite these significant deficiencies and injustices, both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the arbitrator responsible for allowing these irregularities were bestowed with honors, specifically the prestigious 'Orders of Australia.' This egregious episode, which represents an immense injustice, served as the driving force behind my extensive document claims. These claims were thoroughly examined during a protracted ten-month hearing at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as well as during the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) hearings conducted in 2007 and 2008. The outcome of these hearings had the potential to address the significant grievances that arose from the arbitration processes and bring to light the true nature of the injustices that occurred.

The lack of oversight in this situation was particularly egregious, especially considering that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) faced no accountability regarding the significant denial of justice experienced by Telstra's victims, among whom were numerous small business owners. This unfortunate situation underscores that all stakeholders within the small business community were assured access to crucial documents necessary to substantiate their claims and effectively argue their cases. Despite these assurances, those promises have not been fulfilled, leaving many individuals feeling abandoned and without a clear path to recourse.

The Arbitrator 

The Administrator 

In stark contrast to the severity of these failings, both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the appointed arbitrator—notable for their inability to remedy the situation or provide adequate support to those affected—were awarded prestigious honours, including the 'Orders of Australia'. This troubling episode highlights not just individual misfortune but an overarching systemic injustice that has motivated my extensive efforts to present meticulously documented claims during a rigorous ten-month Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing.

When the AAT conducted an investigation into the issues surrounding my COT (Customer Owned Telecommunications) discovery documents, it was the government communications media authority that served as the respondent in my case. This authority has now been identified as the entity responsible for the concealment of the vital documents that were initially promised to me back in 1994. According to their original assurances, these documents were supposed to be provided if I agreed to enter their facilitated arbitration process. It is critical to emphasize that this government department later reneged on that promise, refusing to furnish the very documents they previously guaranteed I would receive by signing their arbitration agreement.

Throughout the additional hearings held in 2007 and 2008, my aim was to bring attention to the profound systemic failures inherent in the arbitration process. I sought to advocate vigorously for the rights of individuals who have been wronged by the COT arbitration system, highlighting the need for accountability and reform to prevent others from experiencing similar injustices in the future. My commitment to this cause remains steadfast as I continue to fight for those who deserve fairness and transparency in their dealings with telecommunications authorities.

During this extensive ten-month hearing at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) acted as the respondent in my case. Throughout these proceedings, it became apparent that the ACMA had concealed vital information the government had collected concerning my claims. This information was crucial to the resolution of my case, and had it been disclosed to me earlier during the government-endorsed arbitration process, it could have significantly impacted the outcome.

I took the initiative to compile and submit an exhaustive 158-page report for consideration by the AAT. This report was supported by over 1,760 individual exhibits and 23 letters and accompanying attachments that I had addressed to the ACMA board. The evidence I presented was substantial and irrefutable, demonstrating that Telstra had violated my human rights and those of approximately 120,000 other Australian citizens. These individuals had also been misled regarding the nature of the telecommunications services provided by Telstra Corporation, leading to widespread misinformation and injustice.

On 3 October 2008, after considering the complexities of this eight-month struggle, Senior AAT member Mr G. D. Friedman addressed me directly in open court (No V2008/1836). His remarks were made in the presence of several witnesses, including the two lawyers representing the government.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

Duty of care to a fellow citizen 

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.

Concerns about the arbitration process emerged almost immediately after we commenced it. Despite assurances that the necessary Telecom documents crucial for our case would be provided, six months passed without any documents being made available.

Seeking clarification, we asked the government whether signing the special arbitration agreement with Telstra indicated that Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for the theft of millions of dollars (possibly a billion dollars) from the public coffers as pages 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows. It seemed unreasonable to expect us to confront a corporation implicated in severe misconduct, especially when Telstra was also under investigation for unauthorized interception of the COT Cases’ phone conversations and faxes.

During the arbitration proceedings, the AFP interviewed all four members of the COT Cases at least once. I met with the AFP in February 1994, September 1994, and March 1995. Discussions from the March 1995 meeting were referenced during parliamentary proceedings related to the Telecommunications Interception Bill 1994, where I testified. I used documents available on absentjustice.com, and Superintendent Jeff Penrose allowed me to disclose information I shared with the AFP, which is also accessible there.

Adding to their woes, customers continued to experience persistent phone service problems that had not been effectively addressed as part of a government-endorsed remediation process. This oversight resulted in financial losses that escalated into hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, as businesses fought tirelessly against Telstra in an attempt to secure fair treatment and restore their communication services.

 

 

Individuals who have perpetrated egregious crimes surrounding the Casualties of Telstra (COT) continue to occupy significant positions of power in contemporary society, and the intricate details surrounding their actions remain actively concealed from public scrutiny. Focusing on these positions of authority is crucial, as they play a central role in the ongoing narrative.

While newcomers to absentjustice.com may regard the COT incidents as historical events relegated to government archives, the situation is far more complex. The narrative extends beyond the horrific injustices endured by the COT Cases thirty years ago, encompassing a broader examination of the systemic failures that allowed these injustices to occur. This account aims to expose the individuals and institutions involved in deliberately suppressing these crimes against us, shedding light on a past with significant implications for the present.

Specific individuals who played pivotal roles in this saga were permitted to alter crucial documents in ways that favoured Telstra, the defendant, in the arbitration process. Moreover, other parties allowed Telstra to tamper with critical evidence submitted during these legal proceedings. This group includes unethical lawyers and former attorneys who have, in select instances, ascended to influential positions within the government and judiciary, ultimately serving as judges. Behind the facade of their respectable appearances lies a network of collaboration that continues to uphold the interests of those appointed, including individuals who have received notable honours such as the Order of Australia.

The existence of over 2,000 distinct exhibits available for download on this website (refer to Evidence Files) is rooted in the need for transparency and accountability. It is essential to provide comprehensive substantiation for the numerous claims regarding those complicit in these severe injustices. While this narrative may appear incredulous to some, it must be articulated, especially given the elevated positions held by certain professionals in 2024. The ongoing efforts to expose these truths serve not only to rectify past wrongs but also to protect future generations from similar injustices. By amplifying this story, we aim to foster a culture of accountability within institutions that have historically perpetuated these abuses, i.e., Tampering with evidence.    

 

The holiday 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. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.

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?

 

STEVE BLACK - PAUL RUMBLE 

 

On 25 March 1994, Ms Philippa Smith wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, stating:

“It was unreasonable for Telecom to require the participants to make further assurances while Telecom was considering the Agreement and thereby denying the participants the opportunity to consider the rules that Telecom wished to have included in the Agreement.” (Home Page – Part One File No/2-B)

Ms Philppa Smith also stated on page 3 of this letter that Telstra's Steve Black had advised Mr Wynack (the Commonwealth Ombudsman Director of Investigations) that Telstra was vetting the supply of sensitive documents because I had previously released misused them, which had embarrassed Telstra. These documents I had supplied to the AFP exposed Telstra's listening in to my telephone conversations, intercepting my faxes, or both. 

In simple English, Telstra had been vetting the more relevant sensitive information so that the AFP and Arbitrator investigating my claims could not wholly prove those claims. How can the current 2024 government continue to ignore my evidence, as shown here on absentjustice.com? 

 

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?

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,  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 .

“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 , 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.” 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I'm grateful for her Helens comments. 

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  

When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to pass along my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed that he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices and the promises they rarely ever kept because I greatly respected her. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue that should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens.

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the specified deadline. My primary concern, however, does not revolve around the fulfilment of this compensation in the event of a missed deadline by Telstra. Instead, I am troubled by the failure to transparently address the persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration of April 7 and 8, 1994. Despite the prior validation of our claims by the government regulator and the substantial upfront arbitration fees paid by the COT Cases, our ongoing faults remained unremedied. This disparity underscores a concerning discrepancy in treatment between influential personalities like Rupert Murdoch and ordinary Australian citizens striving to maintain businesses reliant on a dependable phone service. This asymmetry serves to underscore the one-sided nature of the COT story.

An example of the corroded copper wire that the COT Cases and some 120,000 COT-type Australian citizens experienced after the COT Cases arbitrations 1.e.:> Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter. In my case, I refer to problems that the new owners of my business were experiencing after they purchased my business in December 2001, six years after the conclusion of my arbitration Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story

 

 

After learning about potential illegal phone hacking, the British government did not conceal the information. They were ready to take action against whoever was responsible for the misconduct. However, when Australian politicians discovered that individuals making COT claims were experiencing phone and fax hacking during a government-endorsed legal process, including illegal interference in the transmission of legal documents and Senate estimate committee hearing material, this information was intentionally hidden to the detriment of the claimants. In the UK, the government acted in the best interests of the victims whose lives were severely affected by the hacking. However, in Australia, the government handled the COT cases poorly, treating the claimants as criminals instead of addressing those who used Telstra's network to hack into their confidential legal documents.

The British Government

 

In 1999, while I was working on the first draft of Absent Justice, I shared it with Rupert Murdoch's sister, Helen Handbury. She was shocked by the clear denial of natural justice that I had experienced. After reading the draft, Helen visited my holiday camp twice and expressed her intention to have Rupert publish it. She believed he would be surprised by the content.

Although I appreciated her offer to have her brother, Rupert, publish my book, he was unlikely to become involved in my publication due to the history between her brother and Telstra (refer to point 10 page 5164 → SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia. This was especially true since my book criticized Telstra's poor workmanship and unlawful conduct towards me. Helen and her friends were impressed by the 1870 Church on my property, which I had turned into charming accommodation. This brought visitors back to my holiday camp year after year.

Helen was amazed by the evidence I had gathered, demonstrating how long I had been affected by illegal fax hacking. The evidence included threats by Telstra, which were eventually carried out by their associates when I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into phone and fax hacking into my private and business affairs (Refer to Senate Evidence File No 31) and Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1).

Of course, 1999 was before the hacking scandal linked to Rupert Murdoch and the News of the World saga.

Unfortunately, Helen died in 2004. Some years later, on 26 September 2012, I sent a draft of the original version of this manuscript to her husband, Geoff Handbury, and told him about my conversation with Helen. I asked whether he could suggest the best way for me to get a copy of the book to Rupert Murdoch.

On October 17, 2012, Mr. Handbury replied in a handwritten letter showcasing beautiful, old-fashioned penmanship. At the time, he was 87 years old, and despite being highly respected for his philanthropic support of various projects in Victoria, he regretfully couldn't assist me because too much time had passed. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the comments of the sister of the most prominent newspaper owner in the world, who believed that my "intriguing story" was one that her brother should publish.

Interestingly, on October 13, 1993, a Telstra auditor and his secretary visited Cape Bridgewater. By 2015, the auditor had risen to a very senior executive position within Telstra and is now on the board of Murdoch’s Foxtel. He remembers how shocked he and his secretary were when they saw the information I presented about my Telstra problems. They both commented that they could not believe how poorly Telstra had treated me over the previous five years. These five years were confirmed in a letter from AUSTEL dated June 9, 1993 (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212). The letter suggested that Telstra knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement in December 1992, which shocked them the most.

I included that letter from AUSTEL in the draft of Absent Justice that I provided to Helen Handbury, and I believe that was what prompted her to say I should get Rupert to publish it. The British Government pulled no punches about the ongoing saga now, in 2015, three years after it first went viral across the world. But in Australia, although the government knows that not only did many COT members have their phone lines illegally bugged during their arbitration with Telstra (and after my arbitration was over), but our faxes were ALSO being screened/intercepted by a secondary fax machine (in my case, for at least seven years before sent on to the intended destinations.

In Australia, the COTs have suffered too, just like those victims of the News of the World disaster in Britain; for instance, we couldn’t make a phone call or send a personal fax without being aware that somebody was probably listening in to those calls or intercepting those faxes., Scandrett and Associates prepared the Fax Interception Technical Report exhibit (Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), and Peter Hancock of Total Communications Victoria provided a sworn statement to 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 also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1, File No/2-A to 2-E, File No/3, File No/4, and Front Page Part One File No/5 that numerous documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator's office did not reach their intended destination.

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that the AUSTEL, the Government Communications Authority General Manager of Consumer Affairs (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?

"... 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".

However, regarding the validity of that report, Senator Boswell never contacted me regarding the outcome of the Senate estimate’s investigation or any other government investigation into this report, which is easily comparable to the News of the World hacking scandal.

The Federal government has not contacted me concerning this fax hacking/interception issue. Still, if such hacking had taken place in the halls of Britain’s parliament, it would have been even more significant than the News of the World Murdoch hacking fiasco that led to the 2011 shutting down of that newspaper, first circulated in 1847.

In Australia, though, during a government-endorsed arbitration process, with faxes travelling between claimants, their lawyers and advisors, various government officials, at least one senator and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office, the Telstra Corporation had so much power, even over the government-endorsed legal process, that it was able to cover up this hacking scandal.

On April 18, 1995, John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager, communicated with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Warwick Smith, and copied the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes and the arbitration Special Counsel, Peter Bartlett, to explain that unforeseen circumstances beyond their control had caused delays in their work (Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). These "forces at work" may have been the same "forces at work" Julian Assange warned Graham Schorer about in April 1994, a year earlier.

Is this why Warwick Smith and others would not investigate what the hackers had warned Graham Schorer about because to do so would have exposed the raping of aboriginal Childen in Senator Collin's office and other places where this rape occurred? 

George Close - COT Case Technical Consultant

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records that the fax was sent from Mr Close’s residential fax number at 17:54. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) contains the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the fax header does not include the correct business identification of the respective COT business, it indicates that a secondary fax machine intercepted those faxes and then redirected to the intended destination. This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, raising several important questions. It is worth considering whether government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra’s Fax Streaming centre, and if so, what could happen to the documents that go through that system without the government’s knowledge. This prompts the question of whether privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra's Fax Streaming process, meaning that private information may not be as secret as assumed.

Just to let you know, although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied several times), the poor quality does not diminish the fact that these exhibits, when viewed together, still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page (see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC—17:34). In simple terms, those with access to Telstra’s network were able to use ‘keywords’, so only specific faxes leaving Mr Close’s residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

When Geroge Close (the arbitration technical advisor to the COT Cases) visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after learning his Buderim (Queensland) residence and his office was the conduit (the central location) to where this screening of the advice he gave the COT Cases on what documents they needed to access from Telstra under FOI detailing why this technical information was needed to support their arbitration claims, I showed him Open Letter File No/12, File No/13, Front Page Part One File No/1,Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E, Front Page Part One File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on the COT Cases overall submissions to the arbitrator. Mr Close later sent me an email on 5 August 2011 to assist me in exposing what the Telstra Corporation had been able to do (and get away with) during the COT arbitrations to gain an advantage over all of the COT Cases claims before the arbitrator. His eyes were full of sadness, thinking it was his residence and office, and the advice was given to the COT Cases from it that had caused the COT Cases so much damage (see Front Page Part One File No/26).

“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.

“He had been shown fax’s  which had clear indication of change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.

“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.

“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred the offender(s) would be jailed.

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”

So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives.

 

Many of the documents were unreadable. 

Telstra was the CAT, and the COT Cases were the mouse.

In the case of Dr Gordon Hughes, the COT arbitrator, it is essential that he should have disclosed to the COT Cases and their legal representatives that he operated as an 'ungraded arbitrator' and achieved graded status only after the conclusion of my arbitration. Additionally, he should have informed the COT Cases and their legal representatives that his Sydney-based firm was examining the business affairs of the NSW (Sydney) arm of several Telstra employees. It is also important to note that he should have disclosed that the faxes intended for the COT Cases sent to his Melbourne office were rerouted to his Sydney office outside of standard business hours and during weekends.

When the arbitrator returned the claim documents we had submitted after our arbitrations, we were surprised to discover that many documents and reports were stapled together with unrelated material. Some of the papers even belonged to a different claimant. Despite reporting the issue to the arbitrator and arbitration administrator, John Pinnock, no investigation was conducted as our arbitrations had concluded.

This document mixing-up occurred one month into my arbitration after I received documents and reports from Telstra under Freedom of Information (FOI). In several instances, the FOI documents did not match the accompanying text and fax-header sheets. Realizing the seriousness of the issue, I sought intervention from Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police on May 14, 1994.

He encouraged me to provide evidence of this misconduct to the arbitrator and administrator through a statutory declaration, which I promptly did. Refer to File 76 and 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91. Despite providing the arbitrator and the administrator with a copy of Statutory Declaration File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), which had been given to the Federal Police, neither investigated the FOI document issue.

Concerning document 77 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91, Sue Harlow, Deputy (TIO) Ombudsman, was entrusted with evidence regarding 56 reports that had been tampered with to the extent that they were indecipherable. Notably, the issues relating to tampered arbitration documents from 1994 and 1995 remain uninvestigated as of 2024.

It is profoundly concerning that neither Dr. Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) nor Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) saw fit to investigate why Telstra was engaging in such questionable practices when supplying FOI documents. In my case (File 76 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91), I confirmed I found that '56 reports' fax header introduction pages' were stapled with information irrelevant to the attached content. This blatant disregard for proper document handling was unacceptable and warranted immediate attention. It received no response whatsoever.

-------------------- 

Welcome to absentjustice.com! This website is a dynamic platform continually evolving as more COT Cases become deceased and move to a better plcae where peace at last allows them to recover from a terrible ordeal that were forced into by some very unethical government bureaucrats. More documents have been received from Casualties of Telstra claimants since I was commissioned to write this story. These individuals, who merely sought to run telephone-dependent businesses, faced setbacks due to unreliable phone services. We are committed to spotlighting these injustices and providing a space for voices to be heard.

Until the late 1990s, the Australian government fully 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.

Explore the troubling landscape of serious crimes, unethical individuals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who exert influence over the arbitration system in Australia. The terms "shameful" and "hideous" are often employed to describe the judges who operate under political control, undermining the principles of justice. A strong network exists among Australia’s legal professionals, accounting firms, and the corrupt establishment, possessing the capability to significantly impact the lives of citizens. Absentjustice.com meticulously exposes the significant issues of deception, fraud, and corruption that are deeply embedded within the COT, highlighting the necessity for accountability and reform.

In the aftermath of the privatization of the Australian telecommunications sector, the government relinquished its ownership of the national telephone network and its primary communications carrier, Telecom, which is now recognized as Telstra. This significant shift led to a marked decline in the maintenance and quality of the network infrastructure. As a result, sixteen small business owners found themselves grappling with persistent communication failures that severely hindered their operations. In an effort to seek redress, they engaged in an arbitration process with Telstra. Unfortunately, this process was riddled with flaws that undermined its integrity. The arbitrator allowed Telstra to downplay the extent of claims and losses, thereby granting the company disproportionate influence over the proceedings. Despite clear instances of misconduct by Telstra, the Australian government has not taken steps to hold the company or any associated parties accountable for their actions.

Between November 1993 and April 1994, prior to finalizing the first four arbitration agreements, all four claimants made use of the Freedom of Information Act to request access to the telephone logbooks from each Telstra exchange that serviced their businesses. They were given assurances that these crucial logbooks would be available for review by the arbitrator once the agreements were signed. However, tragically, these documents were never produced for examination by either the arbitrator or the claimants. Now, three decades later, the continued withholding of these logbooks casts a long shadow over the proceedings, emphasizing an urgent need for accountability and transparency in this unresolved issue.

 

 

My name is Alan Smith. This is the story of my battle with a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government. This battle has twisted and turned since 1992 through elected governments, government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant, Telstra, or Telecom, as it was known when this story started. The quest for justice continues to this day. The following mini-reports and the attached evidence links which support those mini-narratives can be sourced here or in the base of our stories as we finalse each tale.  We hope to complete this task by the end of by the end of the year. With thousands upon thousands of government documents and legal reference files to collate and proofread has to be done so that the story cannot be refuted from any angle those who allowed these injustices to occur.  

Our story, how it currently stands, will progressively evolve, incorporating new evidence to create a thorough and compelling narrative. Starting this week, we will provide regular updates for Chapters 1 through 34, ensuring each segment is carefully finalized. Visitors have remarked on striking parallels between our content and alarming instances of criminal activity, such as fraud and corruption. These serious issues resonate with broader themes of moral decline and bribery. Certain politicians, often labelled opportunists, have sadly sacrificed their ethical integrity for personal gain. This disturbing trend has significantly influenced Australia’s legal landscape, particularly concerning the COT Cases arbitration and mediation processes of the 1990s that we aim to explore and expose.

How can we publish an accurate account of the events that unfolded during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without essential supporting evidence? We confront this issue head-on, a direct consequence of pervasive corruption within government bureaucracy. It is imperative to prove that public servants provided privileged information to the Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while deliberately concealing this documentation from the claimants—fellow Australian citizens. How do we convey an extraordinary narrative that even the author questions its validity until cross-referencing records? We must uncover the collusion between the arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpires), and the defendants.

Moreover, we must expose that Telstra, the defendants in these COT arbitrations, unlawfully intercepted faxed material leaving my office using equipment connected to their network. They retained this sensitive information without consent and redirected it to its intended destination. There is a strong likelihood that the defendants utilized this intercepted material to bolster their defence in arbitration, significantly harming the claimants. We must question how many additional Australian arbitration processes have been compromised by such actions. Is this electronic eavesdropping still occurring in legitimate Australian arbitrations today?

We have recently obtained the pivotal evidence that is essential to substantiate our long-standing claims regarding the telecommunications issues overlooked for three decades. While this evidence cannot be evaluated by an arbitrator or judge on absentjustice.com, we passionately encourage you, the reader, to delve into it yourself. This is your opportunity to assess whether our claims about the persistent telephone problems that drove us into arbitration truly disrupted our businesses and lives or if these challenges were mere fabrications.

In January 1999, the arbitration claimants delivered a groundbreaking report to the Australian Government. This report exposed the alarming reality that sensitive arbitration-related documents were improperly screened, preventing essential information from reaching the arbitrator, the claimants' advisors, and the Senators in Parliament House in Canberra. This disclosure was a crucial turning point in the early 1990s, as these Senators had aligned with the COT Cases group, which was navigating a government-sanctioned arbitration process. Will this critical report finally be unveiled to the public? The encouraging news is that it has been completely released on my website, absentjustice.com, and will soon be featured for download in my forthcoming book. This is your chance to engage with information that has the potential to transform the entire narrative surrounding these issues.

Had I access to this logbook during my arbitration appeal

I would have proven my phone problems were still ongoing.

 

Six months before the arbitrations commenced, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (1984) to access the telephone exchange logbooks from our local exchanges. We were informed that the logbook would be made available to the appointed arbitrator after signing our arbitration agreements. However, this logbook was never provided to any of the claimants.

This document was essential for the claimants to demonstrate to the arbitrator that their telephone issues remained unresolved. As a result, the arbitrator could dismiss a claim as settled until Telstra, the defendant in each case, could unequivocally prove that no further issues were affecting their telephone services.

In my particular case, even the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman sought access to this same logbook from the then-CEO of Telstra. Regrettably, the Ombudsman’s request yielded no response. If the Commonwealth Ombudsman, responsible for overseeing investigations for a fully funded government agency, struggled to obtain the most crucial documents from the entire arbitration process on my behalf, it raises serious questions about the prospects I or any of the other claimants had in substantiating our claims against Telstra.

On September 22, 1994, a critical transcript emerged from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office featuring AUSTEL, Bruce Matthews, and John McMahon representatives. During this session, Commonwealth Ombudsman officer John Wynack inquired about the release date of the AUSTEL report. (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, Mr. Matthews stated,

"The final report was released in April; I can’t recall the exact date, but it was April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received its copy then.”

The FOI ACMA release of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows that I only received my copy of the AUSTEL report in November 2007—thirteen years after Telstra obtained theirs in March 1994. AUSTEL's conduct represents a significant abuse of process. They allowed me to engage in arbitration and legal actions against Telstra while deliberately withholding crucial documents essential for supporting my claims. This situation is profoundly concerning.

Moreover, I incurred expenses exceeding $300,000 in arbitration fees as I sought to prove a case that the government had already substantiated against Telstra, relying on extracts from Telstra's Portland telephone exchange logbook. This is the same logbook that was denied to me during discovery. Consequently, AUSTEL has neglected its statutory responsibilities to me as a citizen of Australia, fully aware that without access to that logbook or the AUSTEL report, I could not adequately prove my claims—an outcome that ultimately materialized.

However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under Freedom of Information (FOI Act) from Telstra, a copy of their arbitration file, which would have shown who had been involved in stopping me at all cost in proving my claims and why only AUSTEL received a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater but not my arbitration team. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file. 

Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (where the Australian Government ACMA was the respondent) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Telstra installed Ericsson AXE telephone equipment right across Australia. Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008,  Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.

“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.

“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”

A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST  

Government Corruption - Gaslighting

 

Absentjustice.com boldly uncovers the deception, fraud, and corruption entrenched in the COT Cases. Checkout the gaslighting methods employed against the COT Cases, including the character assassination that occurred both during and after their arbitration. Understanding these strategies is essential for recognizing the challenges the individuals involved face.

Delve into the shocking, unresolved crimes inflicted on innocent Australian citizens during government-sanctioned arbitrations overseen by compromised officials with a single objective: victory at all costs. Witness how unscrupulous and well-compensated legal professionals orchestrated these events while Telstra officials manipulated the process from behind the scenes.

These lawyers exploited COT claimants, stripping them of their fundamental right to discovery through underhanded tactics rarely seen in arbitration.

Uncover the depths of government corruption, where public servants employed gaslighting techniques to obscure these egregious injustices against fellow Australians.

Investigate the crimes perpetrated against citizens forced into a rigged arbitration system. Learn who allowed these horrifying acts to flourish, undermining our justice system.

Examine the pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy that tainted the COT arbitrations. Discover the individuals responsible for these heinous crimes and their roles within Australia’s Establishment and Legal Framework, which permitted such profound injustices.

Despite these unresolved phone faults, which were instrumental in initiating the COT Cases, the arbitrator concluded all arbitration proceedings prematurely. The substantial issues raised during the COT arbitrations from 1994 to 1998 remained glaringly evident as late as April 2018, eighteen to twenty years later. The four exhibits Google links below this narrative serve as compelling evidence of these enduring challenges.

 

 

Six years after the arbitrator failed to compel Telstra to resolve my persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration from April 21, 1994, to May 11, 1995, I made the prudent decision to sell the business when it became evident that the telephone issues were systemic. The sale was conducted at land value only, as the enterprise had no remaining goodwill. The four legal firms and the four real estate offices were fully aware of the challenges I encountered, a sentiment echoed by many businesses in Portland, including the Portland Observer newspaper. This publication has supported my efforts for over a decade to resolve the ongoing issues with Telstra. Their assistance in my matters is comprehensively documented on my website and within the accompanying manuscript.

In December 2001, after working with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and still not seeing results, I sold the business to Darren and Jenny Lewis (Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).

On January 6, 2003, I received a letter from the Hon David Hawker MP, who had been advocating for a resolution to my ongoing telephone and faxing problems since 1992, wrote to me noting:

“Thank you for your correspondence received throughout December, 2002. Copies will be forwarded to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, along with the videotape, “Phone Wiring Details at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.”

On 28 January 2003, a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO officer) Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:

“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:

That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.

That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)

Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?

This is the same Tony Watson referred to in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (see It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1). Tony Watson states that my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I tried to send them. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines. This statement by Tony Watson does not match Telstra's billing records for those six faxes. 

The attached exhibits (see Front Page Part One File No/1) indicate that I was charged for allegedly not receiving faxes. Such misleading and deceptive statements from Tony Watson have significantly undermined the efforts of the COT Cases over nearly thirty years, during which they have contended with challenges created by individuals like him. It is pertinent to question why Telstra issued a charge for these six faxes if they did not reach the arbitrator's office. Furthermore, if the arbitrator's office did not receive these six arbitration claims documents, then who was the recipient? 

How dare Tony Watson threaten Darren Lewis not to speak with me when I lived next door to the holiday camp and remained there until 2019.  

The holiday camp I operated had historically relied on landline telephones as the sole means of communication, apart from incidental trade. Upon our initial appreciation for the property, we overlooked the obsolete telephone system prevalent at that time. Mobile network coverage was nonexistent during that period, and business transactions were not conducted via the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility that routed calls to the central telephone exchange 20 kilometres away in Portland. This facility, which had been in place for over 30 years, was designed for low-call-rate areas and was equipped with only eight lines to service 66 families, amounting to 132 adults and children.

Consequently, only four lines were available for the remaining 128 adults and their children. During peak periods—such as weekends and holidays—when visitor numbers surged at the seaside resort, the demand for telecommunication increased substantially, resulting in recurring line congestion.

After three and a half years of operating with this outdated infrastructure, Telstra finally installed a new system. Regrettably, they neglected to connect it to the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. This unacceptable oversight is further documented in a government report dated March 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which identifies issues from points 2 to 212. 

The findings in that report stem from the fault reports extracted from the Portland Telstra telephone exchange logbook. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, I was denied access to this logbook during my arbitration. By utilising that source, AUSTEL could only have reached such precise conclusions in the 69-page, 212-point report. 

As a writer, I aim to transport you back to the 1990s. While some may view that decade as a distant past, it was just thirty years ago, and Australia was significantly behind other Western nations in terms of telecommunications. In Chapter One, I pose a question: Have you ever had a complaint about your telephone account? Picture this — countless Australians grappled with the same frustrating issue for years. As you delve into our COT story, you’ll see how widespread this experience was and why it matters.

 

 

15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-

“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)

Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.  

To salvage something from this situation, Senator Joyce compromised with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA) to assess the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking involvement. However, after securing Senator Joyce’s vote, the government backtracked, insisting on using only their government-employed assessors instead of the independent assessor that had been promised.

Had I been allowed to use the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim material could have received a far more favourable assessment. The DCITA's reliance solely on their government archive information skewed the evaluation process dramatically. This misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA bureaucrats during the independent assessment, particularly their dependency on exhibit AS 639—entitled “Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers Office”—is a clear conflict of interest.

By neglecting AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. The failure to withhold this critical logbook from being discovered when it was legally requested not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1996 but (not having it for showing purposes) also prevented the government DCITA assessors in 2006 from accurately valuing the claims of those who chose to participate in the Senators Coonan and Joyce review process. 

--------