Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom, now privatized and known as Telstra. Telecom's monopoly on communications allowed the network to deteriorate into disrepair. Despite the significant cost to claimants to mount their claims against Telstra, the issues were not resolved through the government-endorsed arbitration process. Crimes were committed against us, our integrity was attacked, and our livelihoods were ruined, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars and a decline in our mental health. Shockingly, those who committed the crimes still hold positions of power today, and our story is actively being covered up: refer to Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered). 

The Casualties of Telstra stories began over three decades ago, raising questions about its relevance today. As the author, I wholeheartedly encourage you to delve into my account and the accompanying Evidence Files, which boast over two thousand items. This collection implicates esteemed Australian legal practitioners, former politicians, and public officials who have colluded over the past thirty years to cover up Telstra's widespread corruption. As a result, many individuals mistakenly attribute their financial difficulties, marital problems, and even family tragedies to supposed mismanagement when in reality, the responsibility lies elsewhere. The revelation of this truth has caused substantial trauma, exacerbating the already significant challenges of business failure, home loss, and depleted savings.

It is imperative for all readers of absentjustice.com to carefully review the concluding paragraph of this Home Page under the section titled "A Government Scandal." I have included the paragraph below in block form for your reference. Familiarizing oneself with this seven-line excerpt will provide insight into the undemocratic treatment by the Australian government of sixteen out of the twenty-one Casualties of Telstra claimants. This will serve as a foundational understanding before delving into the astonishing yet veracious true story.

Will I end up in Jail?  ​

 

 

 

The Story in Brief

The holiday camp was certainly in a pristine location 

If only we had a phone service comparable to our competitors 

In December 2001, due to persistent telephone issues negatively impacting my business operations, I regrettably had to sell the holiday camp 'freehold' solely for its land value to Darren and Jenny Lewis. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and Telstra declined to conduct formal diagnostics on my three telephone service lines, leaving the underlying ongoing telephone problems unaddressed. Problems that the government assured me before I invested more than $300,000 in arbitration fees would be fixed as part of the government-endorsed process. This circumstance left me with a profound sense of disappointment and disillusionment. 

On 4 September 2006, Darren Lewis provided the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a two-page statutory declaration noting:

“Letters from us to our local Federal Member of Parliament, the Hon David Hawker, Speaker in the House of Representatives, led to Telstra visiting our business to investigate these continuing problems.

“After Telstra rewired the business including disconnecting a Telstra installed faulty phone alarm bell, we were informed Telstra had found other problems and believed who ever had installed the wiring had done an unprofessional job.

“Internal Telstra documentation provided to me by Allan Smith confirmed Telstra themselves had done the wiring.

“Jenny and I noticed that although our incoming-call rate had more than doubled once this wiring had taken place Telstra was still unable to provide a satisfactory reason as to why we were still having problems. … (See Main Evidence File No 13)

 

Who stopped my evidence supporting the Lewis bankruptcy appeal from being viewed in the Magistrates Court? 

Where did my supporting evidence end up? 

In August 2009, the bailiff escorted Darren and Jenny Lewis from their Cape Bridgewater holiday camp residence. They had been officially declared bankrupt by the Federal Magistrates Court Melbourne (refer to Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct).

As you read on, you will observe that the poor telecommunications infrastructure, including the ailing copper wire network that Telstra had installed within its network, played a pivotal role. Telstra informed its management board and the government, which still owned the national telecom carrier, that the infrastructure cabling had a life expectancy of forty years when records in our Evidence Files show that the equipment had only a six-year life expectancy. 

In June 1994, I provided one of twenty-six similar folio A00253 documents to the government communications regulator and the arbitrator. I continued releasing similar documents from that period to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2008 and again in 2011. This Telstra Document FOI (folio A00253), dated 16 September 1993, is titled "Fibre Degradation," notes:

“Problems were experienced in the Mackay to Rockhampton leg of the optical fibre network in December ’93. Similar problems were found in the Katherine to Tenant Creek part of the network in April this year. The probable cause of the problem was only identified in late July, early August. In Telecom’s opinion the problem is due to an aculeate coating (CPC3) used on optical fibre supplied by Corning Inc (US). Optical fibre cable is supposed to have a 40 year workable life. If the MacKay & Katherine experience are [sic] repeated elsewhere in the network, in the northern part of Australia, the network is likely to develop attenuation problems within 2 or 3 years of installation. The network will have major QOS problems whilst the CPC3 delaminates from the optical fibre. There are no firm estimates on how long this may take. …

“Existing stocks of Corning cable will be used in low risk / low volume areas.” (See Bad Bureaucrats File No/16)

Thousands of Australian citizens over many years have been forced to take Telstra to court for not providing a telecommunications service Fit For Purpose.  It has been challenging to reconcile with the awareness that small business operators resorting to legal action against Telstra due to substandard service often faced defeat in court, leading to the demise of their enterprises, particularly those in rural Australia. It is disheartening to acknowledge the possibility that both the government and Telstra were mindful that these small business operators were justified in their grievances. Combatting a corporation presents its own set of difficulties, yet contending with government public servants who have shielded Telstra's deficient service exacerbates the distress, i.e. → Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter.

The following two Telstra documents are also relevant to the information in the briefcase inadvertently left at my business on 3 June 1993 by two Telstra senior technicians because they support my claims that the government and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman should have stopped Telstra from taking its customers to court, where billing disputes and poor workmanship were the basis for those court actions.

They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers  

“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)

The following three documents show how severe my telephone faults were, Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET (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. 

Children's lives could be at risk

Comments made from the Herald Sun newspaper dated 30 August 1993, confirm just how damaging some of these newspaper articles were to my already ailing business with statements like:

“The Royal Children’s Hospital has told a holiday camp operators in Portland that it cannot send chronically ill children there because of Telecom’s poor phone service. The hospital has banned trips after fears that the children’s lives could be at risk in a medical emergency if the telephone service to the Portland camp continued to malfunction”.

The centre’s stand follows letters from schools, community groups, companies and individuals who have complained about the phone service at Portland’s Cape Bridgewater Holiday camp.”

Youths from the Royal Children’s Centre for Adolescent Health, who were suffering from “chronic illnesses”, visited the camp earlier this year.   

Group leader Ms Louise Rolls said in a letter to the camp the faulty phones had endangered lives and the hospital would not return to the camp unless the phone service could be guaranteed” Arbitrator File No/90

After the Melbourne Children's Hospital recorded a near-death experience with me having to rush a sick child with cancer to the Portland Hospital 18 kilometres away from my holiday camp, Telstra finally decided to take my telephone faults seriously. None of the 35 children (all with cancer-related illnesses) had mobile phones, or the six or so nurses and carers. Mobile telephones could not operate successfully in Cape Bridgewater until 2004, eleven years after this event. My coin-operated gold phone was also plagued with phone problems, and it took several tries to ring out of the holiday camp. An ambulance arrived once we could ring through to the Hospital. 

However, since a child nearly died near the Children's Hospital, the Canteen Group (which supports teenagers with cancer) has not revisited my business. We were rightfully blacklisted. I would never have agreed to send my child to a school holiday camp if I had known how terrible the camp's phone system was. This issue was brought to the attention of my federal member of parliament, The Hon David Hawker MP, who tried to have the phone system at Cape Bridgewater investigated and resolved from 1992 to 2007. However, the issue was never resolved during my time at the camp from February 1987 to December 2001, nor was it fixed for the new business owners who purchased it in December 2001. By December 2008, the new camp owners, Jenny and Darren Lewis, were declared bankrupt by the Melbourne Federal Magistrates Court.

In light of the aforementioned, I have fast-forwarded thirty years, prompting a return to The Hon. David Hawker MP and his endeavours to engage Telstra and the government in resolving the persistent telephone issues, which captured Mr. Hawker's attention in the latter part of 1992

The Hon. David Hawker MP, my local Federal member of parliament, had been corresponding with me for some time, concerned that people in his electorate were being treated as second-class citizens. On 26 July 1993, Mr Hawker wrote:

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”(See Arbitrator File No/76)

On 18 August 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP again wrote to me, noting:

“Further to your conversations with my electorate staff last week and today I am enclosing a copy of the correspondence I have received from Mr Harvey Parker, Group Managing Director of Commercial and Consumer division of Telecom.

“I wrote to him outlining the problems of a number of Telecom customers in the Western Districts, including the extensive problems you have been experiencing.” (See Arbitrator File No/77 and Arbitrator File No/82)

On 9 December 1993, The Hon. David Hawker MP wrote to congratulate me for:

“your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”  (File 837 -  AS-CAV Exhibit 819 to 843)

This was very affirming, as was another letter dated 9 December 1993 from the Hon David Beddall MP, Minister for Communications, in the Labor Government, to Senator Michael Baume, Senator for New South Whales, which said:

“Let me say that the Government is most concerned at allegations that Telecom has not been maintaining telecommunications service quality at appropriate levels. I accept that in a number of cases, including Mr Smith’s there has been great personal and financial distress This is of great concern to me and a full investigation of the facts is clearly warranted.” (Arbitrator File No/82).

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government 

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Regrettably, the events predicted in 1816 by one of America's esteemed presidents unfolded during the COT arbitrations. The government permitted its officials to withhold pertinent evidence from the Casualties of Telstra arbitrator and the broader populace of Australia concerning the condition of Telstra's telecommunications network. The concealed report on my case (refer to AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that points 2 to 212) are compelling evidence of the government's obstruction. This obstruction ensured that the arbitrator presiding over my arbitration claims remained unaware of the genuine findings, which could have facilitated the resolution of persistent telephone issues that have adversely impacted my life and that of my partner, Cathy. 

Upon my request, Telstra and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman declined to conduct tests on my business lines. Subsequently, in December 2001, I sold my cherished holiday camp to Darren and Jenny Lewis for its land value only. Despite their diligent efforts to rectify the telephone issues inherited from the purchase, they were unable to realize their vision. Further details can be found in. Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story, and Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct   

 

> Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring <

I urge the reader to carefully consider the following two points extracted from a confidential report prepared by the government communications authority. This report was drafted subsequent to my retrieval of a portion of the contents of a briefcase inadvertently left at my premises by Telstra. Points 145 and 146 in this AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings were deliberately withheld from the arbitrator. AUSTEL (now ACMA) knew that including these points in my arbitration process would have necessitated the disclosure of the remaining 218 points from the report by the appointed arbitration consultants from Canada's DMR Group Inc. In their capacity as overseas investigators and technical advisors, overseeing the COT arbitrations could have potentially compelled the Australian government to suspend the privatization of Telstra until Telstra's network received a clean bill of health.

The adverse findings of AUSTEL on my claims, coupled with the contents of the Telstra briefcase left at my premises, indicate that AUSTEL Adverse Findings will likely be one of the most incriminating technical documents ever viewed by the visitors/readers on absentjustice.com. Had it been released as it should have been by the government communications authority thirty years ago, the privatization of Telstra would likely have been prevented. Consequently, my COT story critically assesses some of Australia’s public servants, attributing significant costs to Australia due to their unethical conduct towards its citizens. The concerns expressed by the US Securities Exchange refer to Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring, and the statements made in the Senate regarding the COT findings signify the US's suspicions about the COT Case claims.

The investigation conducted by the US Securities Exchange, dubbed the Pink Herring, reflects how concerned the US Securities Exchange was about the Telstra sale prospectus's reporting of the truth and the actual value of Telstra's technical infrastructure when the Australian government sold Telstra.

Between April 1990 and when I sold the holiday camp in December 2001,  I continued to sponsor underprivileged groups to stay there during the weeks partly (that became years) when the phone problems continued to beset the holiday camp. At least some money was coming into the business. Those wanting a cheap holiday persisted by telephoning repetitively regardless of being told the camp was no longer connected to Telstra's network. These groups wanted a holiday, and if they had to drive for hours to make a booking as Loreto College did (see below), then a drive they did.  

 

Sister Maureen Burke drove the three-hour drive to confirm the booking. 

 

The holiday Camp could sleep around 90 to 100 persons in fourteen cabins. I arranged sponsored food purchases through the generosity of several commercial food outlets, and these groups then just used the camp facilities — it didn’t cost me anything other than a small amount of electricity and gas. Around May 1992, I organised a charity week for kids from Ballarat and the South West, including Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland. This group was organised by Sister Maureen Burke IBVM, the Principal of Loreto College in Ballarat, and I am sure she would not be offended to know that I think of her as the ‘mother’ of the project.

Arrangements regarding food, transport, and any special needs the children might have had to be handled over the phone, and of course, Sister Burke had enormous problems making phone contact; calls were either ringing out, or she was getting a deadline or a message that the number she was ringing was not connected to the Telstra network. Sister Burke knew otherwise. On two occasions in 1992, after trying in vain all through one week, she drove the 3½ hours to make the final arrangements for those camps.

Just as she arrived at the Camp, Karen took a phone call from a furious man who wanted information about a singles weekend we were trying to set up. This caller was quite abusive. He couldn't understand why we were advertising a business but never answered the phone. Karen burst into tears. She had reached the end of her tolerance, and nothing I could say was any help. When Sister Burke appeared in the office, I decided absence was the better part of valour and removed myself, leaving the two women together. Much later, Sister Burke came out and told me she thought it probably best for both of us if Karen were to leave Cape Bridgewater. I felt numb. It was all happening again.

But it wasn't the same as it had been with Faye. Karen and I sat and talked. True, we would separate, but I assured her she would lose nothing because of her generosity and that I would do whatever was necessary to buy her out. We were both relieved at that. Karen rented a house in Portland, and we remained good friends, though, without her day-to-day assistance at the Camp, which had given me space to travel around, I had to drop my promotional tours.

Twelve months later, in March of 1993, Sister Karen Donnellon, also from Loreto College, tried to make contact via the Portland Ericsson telephone exchange to arrange an annual camp.   Sister Donnellon later wrote:

“During a one week period in March of this year I attempted to contact Mr Alan Smith at Bridgewater Camp.  In that time I tried many times to phone through.

Each time I dialled I was met with a line that was blank.  Even after several re-dials there was no response.  I then began to vary the times of calling but it made no difference.” File 231-B → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Some years later, I sent Sister Burke an early draft of my manuscript, Absent Justice My Story‘, concerning my valiant attempt to run a telephone-dependent business without a dependent phone service. Sister Burke wrote back,

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”  File 231-A → AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233

Loreto College was assisting children who had no link to the college 

 

Of course, Sister Maureen Burke and Sister Karen Donnellon persisted with their continuing battle to find a way to get a proper telephone connection for the holiday camp, partly because it was a low-cost holiday for all concerned but also because these incredible women were well aware that my business was continuing to exist, albeit ‘by the skin of its teeth, even though Telstra’s automated voice messages kept on telling prospective customers that the business did not exist or the callers simply reached a dreaded silence that appeared to indicate that the number they had called was attached to a ‘dead’ line. Either way, I lost the business that may have followed if only the callers could have successfully connected to my office via this dreaded Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.

A letter dated 6 April 1993, from Cathy Lindsey, Coordinator of the Haddon & District Community House Ballarat (Victoria) to the Editor of Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper,  read:

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.” Evidence File 10 B 

During this same period, 1992 and 1993, Cathy Lindsey, a professional associate of mine Cathy, signed a Statutory Declaration, dated 20 May 1994, explaining several sinister happenings when she attempted to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office (File 22 AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47).  This declaration leaves questions unanswered about who collected my mail and how they knew there was mail to be collected from the Ballarat Courier mail office.  On both occasions, when a third person collected this mail, I had previously telephoned Cathy, informing her that the Ballarat Courier had notified me that mail (addressed to me) was waiting to be picked up.

On pages 12 and 13 of the transcript from the AFP inquiry into my allegations that Telstra unlawfully intercepted my telephone conversations, the AFP state at Q59 (refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1:-

“And that, I mean that relates directly to the monitoring of your service where, where it would indicate that monitoring was taking place without your consent?” File 23-A Exhibit 1 to 47

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms that between Points 2 to 212, the government communication authority AUSTEL (now ACMA) investigated my ongoing telephone problems concerning my belief that hundreds if not possibly thousands of residents in Ballarat Victoria had problems like Loreto College in tying to telephone my business. It is clear from AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings that AUSTEL/ACMA found my claims were valid concerning Ballarat as the following point 115 notes:

“Some problems with incorrectly coded data seem to have existed for a considerable period of time. In July 1993 Mr Smith reported a problem with payphones dropping out on answer to calls made utilising his 008 number. Telecom diagnosed the problem as being to “Due to incorrect data in AXE 1004, CC-1. Fault repaired by Ballarat OSC 8/7/93, The original deadline for the data to be changed was June 14th 1991. Mr Smith’s complaint led to the identification of a problem which had existed for two years"

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

 

I provided the arbitrator with some of Alan Smith's billing information, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information request, to demonstrate that Alan Smith was also receiving threats from Telstra and their lawyers because, like me, he disputed the billing for calls he did not make. The other Alan Smith, who was also experiencing significant billing errors in the Cape Bridgewater Telstra service line, as shown in the attached letters, was receiving threats from a debt collector to settle the bill.

Even though Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, who discussed these billing issues with me in March 1994, was allowed to publish his co-produced book "Managing in Australia," https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran which acknowledges that the 1800 billing problem was a significant network fault (see File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), Australians were still being compelled to sign arbitration agreements, defend court actions, and pay for disputed billing accounts. This was despite the knowledge of Telstra's management, their entire board, their legal firm, and Telstra's CEO Frank Blount regarding the possibility that those Australians forced into legal actions might have been in the right. The fact that a book was published admitting how poor Telstra's network was highlights the undemocratic nature of the Telstra corporation.

The co-produced book by Frank Blount is extensively discussed in the correspondences dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann referred to below. These documents, particularly See File Ann Garms 104 Document, provide further substantiation of the significance of these correspondences, as the unresolved COT issues pertaining to them remain pertinent

 

Tampering with evidence to destroy the other party's credibility 

 

Numerous visitors to this website have likened it to an exposé of criminal activities, fraudulent practices, bribery, and corruption, as well as an embodiment of immorality, depravity, and unscrupulous evil conduct, exacerbated by Telstra's malevolence. This has resulted in the substantial detriment and, in numerous cases, the demise of multiple small business proprietors in Australia.

The Australian arbitration system is currently experiencing a decline, primarily attributed to fraudulent distortion of truth during the COT arbitrations, which the arbitrator permitted to persist. Despite the official presentation of evidence demonstrating Telstra's tampering with the claimant's telephone equipment after its departure from their premises, the arbitrator overlooked this crucial fact. How could wet and sticky beer remain a 'sticky wet substance' in the telephone casing for ten days before being tested at the laboratories? 

This misconduct resulted in the malfunctioning of the submitted equipment during testing at Telstra's laboratories, falsely incriminating the equipment instead of Telstra's telephone exchanges. Additionally, in my case, the arbitrator dismissed the request made by my forensic document researcher to conduct specialized testing on the phone. Further evidence of tampering with this particular phone can viewed by clicking on Tampering with evidence , 

Why were the second set of tests, which indicated the phone was dry, and the accompanying photos taken by laboratory staff demonstrating the phone's cleanliness upon arrival not presented during the arbitration process? The arbitrator declined to consider this newly emerged evidence, which came to light six months after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Who poured beer into my collected EXICOM telephone? 

 

Another disturbing side to this tampering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that I volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters show that during my arbitration, Telstra twisted why I could not be present to test my TF200 telephone at my premises during a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra.

CFA records 'the log book' shows I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.

Upon bringing to the attention of Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, the recent EXICOM evidence I acquired on 28th November 1995, which incontrovertibly substantiated the validity of my claims and exposed Telstra's perpetration of fraud, Mr James initiated an investigation. Regrettably, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, John Pinnock, who concurrently held the Australian Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman position, conveyed a false insinuation regarding my character to Laurie James in written correspondence. The intricate nature of this falsehood and the extent of deception are further elucidated in detail in Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter.

Worse than first thought 

 

Read about the bribery, corruption and horrendous crimes committed against small business operators who all had one thing in common: the only telecommunications provider in Australia supplied their telecommunications landline system. The board and senior management who controlled this telecommunications provider, known then back in the early nineties as Telecom (now called Telstra), knew the infrastructure was outdated and had for decades been under-maintained. On June 3, 1993, a Telstra briefcase was carelessly left at my premises. Instead of passively accepting the undermaintained telecommunications system, I seized the opportunity to copy half of its contents using my outdated all-in-one paper roll copier, which finally broke down.

Twenty kilometres from town, the shops were well and truly closed, and Telecom was now knocking on the door for what was rightly theirs. I had no choice but to return this briefcase to Telstra even though the contents had only been half-copied. Subsequently, I promptly shared the crucial material I copied with the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now named ACMA), providing irrefutable evidence of the system's gross deficiencies.

Regrettably, AUSTEL representatives violated legal and ethical obligations to the citizens of Australia and the Labor government by concealing the truth under pressure from Telstra's senior management and its board. As a consequence of our decision to allow AUSTEL to take over rather than publicly exposing the entirety of the information, my fellow COT Cases and I have incurred significant losses to our businesses and have had a profound impact on the well-being of our families.

The content of the briefcase showed Telstra's management was worse than evil 

Prior to proceeding further, it may be prudent to peruse the briefcase page on absentjustice.com for a comprehensive understanding. It is imperative for individuals opting to postpone visiting the briefcase saga page to comprehend the influence wielded by a minority of public servants in Australia. These public officials control the country's legal system and selectively advise the government. A cohort of influential Australian citizens manipulated an arbitration system established to investigate the COT case claims pertaining to ongoing telephone issues.

The selected arbitrator was an academic but did not hail from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. The Brotherhood chose to oversee the arbitrations with a specific objective. They aimed to solely adjudicate on the historic complaints outlined in the COT Case's arbitration submission, disregarding those still impacting their businesses. This was accomplished by modifying and eliminating previously agreed-upon clauses in the arbitration agreement, which had allowed the COT Cases to sue the arbitration consultants on the grounds of negligence. A pivotal aspect of our COT narrative is the modified Confidentiality Agreement, which impedes the investigation of my claims by the government and other parties interested in the COT story, as it contains a gag clause preventing scrutiny of the validity of my claims.

A Corporate Secretary without compassion 

 

And even more interesting, just like in the Pulp Fiction movie, what was in the briefcase? This briefcase also had alarming documents inside, making this COT story even more bizarre.

On 27 August 1993, Telstra’s corporate secretary wrote to me about the same ‘briefcase’ documents, noting:

“Although there is nothing in these documents to cause Telecom any concern in respect of your case, the documents remain Telecom’s property and therefore are confidential to us. …

“I would also ask that you do not make this material available to anyone else.” (See Open Letter File No/2)

Telstra’s FOI document, dated 23 August 1993, and labelled folio R09830 with the subject listed as The Briefcase, is alarming. This document, which was copied to Telstra’s corporate secretary, notes:

“Subsequently it was realised that the other papers could be significant and these were faxed to Craig Downing but appear not to have been supplied to Austel at this point.

“The loose papers on retrofit could be sensitive and copies of all papers have been sent to Ross Marshall.” (Arbitrator File No 62)

The sensitive papers referred to above, dated 23 August 1993, of which Telstra’s corporate secretary claimed, “nothing in these documents to cause Telecom any concern in respect of your case”, actually provided clear evidence that Telstra’s management concealed from me and AUSTEL (now ACMA), the actual state the network in Cape Bridgewater.

AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) at points 2 to 212 dated 4 March 1994, the government communications authority investigated the contents of this briefcase and excerpts from Telstra's Portland and Cape Bridgewater telephone change log book. The findings substantiated that my claims over six years were thoroughly validated.

 

Who hid the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook?

 

I am inquiring as to why I was not provided with a copy of AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings during the COT Cases' meetings in Melbourne, where discussions about the contents of this briefcase and the similar evidence uncovered under FOI were taking place. It is crucial to note that these claims were not isolated to our case but were found to be systemic across Australia. Had I been in possession of this report, the arbitrator would not have initiated a thirteen-month arbitration process to locate documents that AUSTEL had already identified.

Absentjustice-Introduction File 495, dated 22 September 1994, is a transcript from an oral interview at the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office with AUSTEL’s representatives Bruce Matthews and John McMahon. On page 7 of this manuscript, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s officer, John Wynack, asked:

"What was the date the report was issued, the AUSTEL report?" And Mr Matthews replied:

"The final report was April – I can’t remember the date in April, but April 1994. The draft report was produced in March 1994, and Telecom received their copy then."

The actions by AUSTEL of only providing a copy of their findings regarding Telstra's unethical conduct of supplying false information to me during my 11 December 1992 settlement proposal as well as AUSTEL continued investigations into my claims up to the date of AUSTEL's findings in March 1994 was an abuse of process especially when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without supplying me a copy of this same report supplied to Telstra. Worse, to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia. 

 

legal abuse or legal bullying

 

When individuals exploit the law or legal threats to coerce and intimidate others, it gives rise to legal abuse or legal bullying. This form of deceitful behaviour often emanates from public officials in Australia. Even in 2021 and 2022, Scott Morrison persisted in engaging in reprehensible and treacherous misconduct, including legal abuse or legal bullying, while in government. This misconduct is the subject of a Royal Commission investigation, which has rendered adverse findings against several public officials → https://shorturl.at/puclZ. 

Unconscionable conduct, false accusations, and hypocritical attacks undermined Australia's arbitration system of justice. Explore the bribery, corruption, and egregious crimes perpetrated against a cohort of small business owners who shared a common reliance on the sole telecommunications provider in Australia for their landline systems.

Four important letters 

 

Ann Garms' YouTube video (Casulaualty of Telstra story) is not expected to have widespread viral viewership; however, individuals who engage with its content may find it beneficial to retain a copy for future reference. Ann, who passed away in July 2018, persisted in her efforts to be heard, as evidenced by her four letters dated → 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document). These letters only touch the surface of how degrading, unethical, and unlawful conduct by Senator Collins, who was heavily involved in the COT issues, contributed to the COT Cases not receiving a properly administered arbitration. These letters also reveal how Telstra's CEO Frank Blount withheld vital evidence from the COT Cases and the arbitrator concerning how deficient the Telstra telecommunication network was and is linked to Ann Garm's video below. 

As a matter of interest, Mathias Cormann, who received some of Ann's correspondence, officially assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France, on 1 June 2021. 

The video presents a compelling perspective on Ann's approach to arbitration regarding the alleged unethical conduct of Deloitte when representing Telstra in Ann's arbitration, and it resonates with the adverse experiences reported by other COT cases. Furthermore, during my arbitration, Deloitte, acting on behalf of Telstra, erroneously asserted that they had conducted tests on my telephone lines, finding no irregularities with the service, contrary to the divergent covert account provided by government communications regulators at points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms the government investigated my ongoing telephone problems finding my claims against Telstra validated. 

One does not require extraordinary insight to comprehend that had the arbitrator been provided with AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, inclusive of AUSTEL's acknowledgement in their findings that Telstra was withholding requested documents/records from the government concerning the extent of my persistent telephone issues, the awarded compensation for my financial business losses would have been significantly higher than the amount determined solely based on my submission. In light of the Australian government's inability to compel Telstra, an Australian-owned corporation, to disclose information related to my ongoing telephone problems, it is evident that my prospects for obtaining such crucial information in support of the ongoing telecommunications challenges were bleak. This is further detailed in points 43, 48, 71, 140 and 160 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

It has been documented in government Hansard that organized criminal conduct permeated various levels within Telstra for years prior to the collective efforts of the Casualties of Telstra (comprising myself, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer) to prompt a Senate investigation into this illicit activity. Our group of four COT Cases was later joined by an additional twelve small business owners who were similarly affected by persistent telephone issues that Telstra could not locate and/or rectify, resulting in substantial business losses.

The official Senate Hansard indicates the possible misappropriation of funds belonging to the government and, consequently, the Australian citizens who were still shareholders in Telstra, amounting to a figure possibly exceeding a billion dollars. Given the substantial value of a billion dollars thirty years ago, our narrative gains added significance when juxtaposed with my manuscript, its accompanying Evidence Files, Ann Garms's video, and pages 5165 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

On July 3, 2023, I composed an 'Open Letter' addressing the current Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, regarding my concerns about the government's proposal to grant additional powers to the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA). In the letter, I outlined the potential negative implications of bestowing ACMA with these supplementary powers, supported by evidence from absentjustice.com. The proposed expansion of powers aimed to enable ACMA to address deceptive news reporting, the dissemination of false information, and misleading journalistic practices.

The content on absentjustice.com reveals that in 1994, during its tenure as AUSTEL, ACMA withheld information from the Labor Government about approximately 120,000 COT-type Telstra customers experiencing similar phone faults to those encountered by the COT Cases. Instead of disclosing the extent of the telecommunications issues in Australia to the minister and the public, AUSTEL released a report indicating only 50 or more complaints from COT-type Telstra customers. This was done after Telstra pressured AUSTEL to alter their findings. Telstra was the defendant in my arbitration.

As of September 2024, the government has not publicly announced granting ACMA additional powers. My request for the government to review the website absentjustice.com may have influenced the decision not to grant ACMA these extra powers. Therefore, it is imperative to review my Open Letter dated July 3, 2023  (Refer to Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered)) and watch Ann Garms' video.

 

Criminal Conduct 1

Leading up to my arbitration 

Forty-one faxed arbitration-related documents did not arrive at their intended destination. 

On 29 October 1993, two weeks before Casualties of Telstra (COT spokesperson), Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I signed our two Fast Track Settlement Proposals (FTSP), Telstra (the defendants), the then assessor and administrator to the (FTSP) forced the four claimants including me to abandon and sign Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994. We asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes, and all parties agreed.

In October 1993, there were suspicions that Ann Garms', Graham Schorer's, and my business lines were being bugged. Even though there was no concrete evidence at the time, Ann, with her extensive network of influential contacts, including politicians, had received information suggesting sabotage of her business and that of Brian Grey, Compass Airways.

The statement on this Telstra File 1122 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132:

Customer - 'TIVOLI THEATER RESTAURANT' Line 1 NDT NRR SUSPECT SABOTAGE ?????--LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR SUPER SLEUTH SHERLOCK KELLY ???????. 

This document shows even Telstra officials thought Ann's business had been sabotaged. File 1123 - AS-CAV 1103 to 1132 should be read in conjunction with File 1122 and file Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C because it looks like Telstra is implementing a strategy similar to the one used by Freehill Hollingdale & Page (Telstra's Arbitration Layers) who singled the 'Tivoli Theatre Restaurant/Ann Garm and my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp /Alan Smith and Graham Schorer, Golden Messenger one of the other two COT businesses.

I am sure Detective Superintendent Sergeant Jeff Penrose of the AFP would recall that on September 26, 1994, I presented five pages of evidence indicating that eighty-one incoming calls registered in Telstra's Portland telephone exchange appeared in the Call Line Identification system CCAS data. Still, the testing equipment data installed at Cape Bridgewater showed they were not connected to my service lines. This occurred over a two-month period. Then, the AFP acknowledged that in another COT Case, a massage owner was losing calls to a rival massage parlour. This comparison did not surprise the AFP.

I still have records of these eighty-one lost calls, which I also provided to Darren Kearney, a government representative who visited my business on December 19, 1995. Thus, business sabotage by a minority group within Telstra was not new to the COT Cases. Although this information was presented to the arbitrator, he failed to provide a written finding, either for or against.

Two weeks before all parties agreed to this fax testing process, Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra's technicians were testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), they made the following statement:

‘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)

Faxes screened by the defendants?

 

 

The internal investigators at Telstra failed to disclose to these technicians that I was under electronic surveillance as one of four COT Cases after two Telstra technicians mistakenly left a briefcase at my premises on 3 June 1993. If the contents had fallen into the wrong hands, it could have exposed the Australian government to the fact that Telstra had been deceiving it for years about the actual state of the Telstra copper wire network. As you delve into the COT story, you will see the lasting impact of standing up against a government-owned corporation on your life and that of your immediate family. 

By July/August 1993, I had provided AUSTEL with most of the information I had copied from a briefcase belonging to the government that still owned Telstra. AUSTEL, the communications regulator, was becoming concerned about Telstra's approach to our complaints, particularly their continuous use of outside solicitors. In October 1993, while the regulator was negotiating a commercial settlement proposal for the COT members with Telstra, AUSTEL, the regulator's chairman Robin Davey, made it clear to Telstra's commercial division that the regulator would not be happy if Telstra's solicitors were used in future COT matters. However, Telstra ignored this request and insisted that I register my phone complaints in writing through their nominated solicitor, Denise McBurnie from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, even though I would soon be in litigation with Telstra.

Telecommunications Interception Amendment Bill 1994

 

During the arbitration on 21 March 1995, along with three other COT Cases—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and a witness from Ballarat (Victoria)—was summoned to testify regarding our telecommunications's interception during a Senate debate at Parliament House Canberra. This Senate meeting was to amend the "Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1994."

All four of us, including myself, were diagnosed with psychological stress disorder (PSD) due to the unauthorized monitoring of our private and business telephone conversations by Telstra and its employees without proper authorization from law enforcement agencies. The witness from Ballarat, whose identity I choose to withhold, shared a distressing account of the adverse impact on his life as a counsellor for gay men and the lives of his clients after discovering that their private discussions concerning their sexual orientation were no longer confidential.

 I also presented evidence showing that Telstra commented on my business arrangements when I would be away from my office, and my secretary would leave the office at a different time from when I was at the holiday camp. These written recordings that I had provided the Australian Federal Police also showed Telstra had written the name of a bus company I was tending their work for my holiday camp weekend trips. My private telephone conversations are detailed, such as when my son telephoned me from his mother's residence and vice versa. Notably, seven senators, including Cooney, Spindler, Ellison, Evans, Vanstone, McKiernan, and O'Chee, were present during the discussion of the "Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1994."

The Ballarat witness mentioned above (who I have chosen not to name) provided a deeply troubling testimony during the Senate hearing, both on and off the record. I have made the decision not to disclose the individual's identity. However, I have written a short letter to my current representative in Ballarat, The Hon. Catherine King, who also serves as Australia's Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, that I will provide the name of this Ballarat person to the minister if she so requires. The minister possesses the means to identify the individual through government records. This pertains to the events of 21 March 1995, specifically the discussion of the Interception Amendment Bill.

Criminal Conduct 2

Faults in the network

On 3 June 1990, during the period Telstra was telling me they had not found any problems (faults in their network) that were still affecting the viability of my businesses, The Australian (newspaper) printed an article under the heading: Telecom ‘spying’ on its employees, which supports pages 1 to 6 of the AFP transcripts (see Senate Evidence File No/ 44 Part 1 and File No/45 Part). The newspaper article states:

“She said the accusations were contained in a statement by a former member of Telecom’s Protective Services branch.

“Senator Jenkins said the man claimed:

• He and other Telecom employees and private investigators hired by Telecom did secret surveillance on hundreds of compensation recipients. …
• He had been directed by his superior to use whatever methods to get the desired results, even when it was obvious the claimant was genuinely injured.
• Claimants have had a ‘C.CASS run’ on their homes, which is a procedure where a computer can print out all numbers dialled on a home phone.” (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)

Democrat Senator Jean Jenkins told the Senate last week Telecom's activities included bugging workers' homes. …

In February 1994, the AFP visited my business at Cape Bridgewater to discuss my claims that I had recently received FOI documents suggesting Telstra had been monitoring my telephone conversations. The AFP was concerned that Telstra had written the names of various people and businesses I had called on CCAS data records, which collated all incoming and outgoing calls to my business (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No 20). The hand-written notes in the right-hand column of this CCAS data include, against dates, the names of people I telephoned and faxed, e.g., 31 January 1994, GM (Golden Messenger), AUSTEL and the Ombudsman. In one instance, the name Faye Smith appeared on several Telstra documents when I phoned my ex-wife. The writing up of my ex-wife's name on Telstra documentation reflects Senator Jenkin's statements above regarding Telstra's secret surveillance of their employees in 1990 because Telstra used similar tactics in January 1994 while in a litigation process with me.

How did Telstra acquire this information?

 

In my initial meeting with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in February 1994, I provided Superintendent Detective Sergeant Jeff Penrose with authentic Australian newspaper articles. These articles contained concrete evidence that AUSTEL and the AFP had uncovered unauthorized monitoring, recording, and documentation of my telephone conversations dating back to September 1992.

 I established a country get-away club for over forties singles in 1991, focusing on outdoor activities like canoeing, horse riding, caving, and bushwalking. However, club members were subjected to unwelcome, suggestive phone calls, suggesting a breach of our privacy. These calls obtained sensitive information, such as their age and relationship status, from our booking arrangements and the over-forties single information I had shared with interested individuals requesting details about our three-night, four-day adventure country getaways.

Additionally, I informed the AFP about my two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia, one in April 1993 and another in April 1994. These incidents raise serious concerns about privacy and security.

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (AS 773-b), noting:

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

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

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, then the AFP could have prevented Telstra from intercepting the relevant arbitration documents in March 1994, thus preventing any damage to the COT arbitration claims. 

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".

Intrusion into the lives of the COT Cases 

 

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 page 15 of The Most Dangerous Man in the World, written in 2011 by ABC’s Four Corners journalist Andrew Fowler, Mr Fowler notes that Julian Assange was one of those who hacked into Telstra’s Lonsdale Street telephone exchange computer system in the centre of Melbourne. The covert AUSTEL draft report (see ) concerning my telephone problems and faults refers to this same exchange where, for some seven months, Telstra forgot to program in the 055 267 telephone prefix for the Portland/Cape Bridgewater exchange.

Page 21 in the 26 November 1996 Telstra Arbitration Briefing Document for Graham (Golden Messenger) also refers to problems at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange, stating the issues affected the service lines into Golden Messenger over an extended period. So what did Julian Assange and his friends find at the Lonsdale Street telephone exchange that prompted them to telephone Graham?

My statement to the TIO in my 20 October 1995 letter that “This phrase has now come home to roost” (File GS 537- GS-CAV 522 to 580) reflected that I believed the advice Graham received from these hackers – that Telstra and others associated with the COT arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT cases – was the truth.

Graham's statutory declaration regarding these hackers, which I provided to Victorian Attorney-General Hon. Robert Clark in 2011, includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices …

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Hacked Arbitration related documents  

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), confirms arbitration-related faxes were intercepted (screened) before being redirected on to their intended destination and states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena [sic].

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the 9 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)

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show 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.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

George Close - a man of integrity 

 

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: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54, which was Mr Close's residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock, showing that they both agree that if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on 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. Since we constantly hear politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra's Fax Streaming centre? Even if those government offices have officially organised the fax streaming arrangement, what could happen to the documents that go through that system without the government's knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material 'leaks' out of Parliament House through Telstra similarly? Is it that Telstra's Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private?

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.

How many other arbitration and legal processes is this interception of the legal documentation being hacked by the opposing side, screened, and copied before sending it to its intended destination? The advantage of knowing the other side's weaknesses and strengths is endless. And this all happened in Australia. I firmly believe that, up to the day George Close passed away, he had never gotten over the fact that Telstra had used his residence and office to the detriment of his clients.

 

Senators Chris Schacht and Kim Carr were fully cognizant of Telstra's victory in the COT Cases and the extent to which Telstra meticulously documented my business activities. This included their knowledge of my travel plans to Melbourne, the duration of my stay, and even the exact time my secretary left while I was away weeks before I travelled to Melbourne in August 1994 during my arbitration. 

During the same period, Cathy Ezard, my partner of thirty years, was a professional associate who had visited my business with a social club from Ballarat. Cathy later signed a statutory declaration dated 20 May 1994 detailing several disturbing incidents when she tried to collect mail on my behalf from the Ballarat Courier Newspaper office Exhibit 22 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 ). This declaration raises serious questions about who collected my mail and how they were aware of its availability at the Ballarat Courier mail office. When a third party retrieved this mail, I had previously informed Cathy that the Ballarat Courier had notified me about the mail awaiting pickup.

Unauthorised interception of my telecommunication services  

 

Pages 12 and 13 of a transcript from the Australian Federal Police inquiry into my allegations of unauthorized interception of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes (Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) state Question-59:

"And that directly relates to the monitoring of your service, indicating that surveillance was taking place without your consent."

On 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith: 

Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …

Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.

Senator CARR – “Mr Ward,  [Telstra Senior Executive] we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”

The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use?  How much in confidence information concerning the telephone conversations I had with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser is held by Telstra officials?

More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this sensitive material that Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?

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 obvious that this story had two sides.

Similar injustices were experienced in the COT case of Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:

“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)

Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?: Sandra had also been in contact with the Ballarat witness, as mentioned earlier, who gave evidence to the Senate concerning his counselling of gay men, similar to counselling that Sandra Wolf provided to those who had been molested as children. These unresolved privacy issues were still worrying some Senators, who appeared to be concerned there was a link between Senator Bob Collins's paedophile activities (refer to rb.gy/dsvidd) in his Parliament House Canberra office and the interception of the COT Cases telephone conversations. 

Between July 2005 and September 2024, I assisted Sandra Wolfe (with moral support) with her Telstra FOI / Mental Health Act unresolved issues. 

Criminal Conduct 3

“COT Case Strategy” 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (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. 

In the four-minute video below, I discuss a legal document called “The COT Strategy” prepared by Telstra’s arbitration lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. The document targeted four businesses, including mine, and attempted to prevent us from accessing Freedom of Information (FOI) documents through legal professional privilege. This hindered my ability to prove that my telephone faults were ongoing and still affecting my business.

The document named the owners of the four businesses and targeted them on 10 September 1993, even though the arbitration didn't begin until April 1994. No relevant FOI document was released to the four claimants, highlighting the injustice faced by newcomers to the legal process of arbitration in Australia.

What I did not know, when I was first threatened by Telstra in July 1993 and again by Denise McBurnie in September 1993, that if I did not register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie, then Telstra would NOT investigate my ongoing fault complaints is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all proof that I genuinely did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business.  

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults to these lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, to have Telstra investigate them almost sent me insane. Instead of keeping this fault evidence, I provided it to Telstra, believing this would assist them in locating the problems my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process meant I had to retrieve from Telstra the exact documentation I had previously provided to this legal firm under Freedom of Information. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but Telstra and their lawyers were now withholding it from you.

Upon review, the Senate committee discovered that on June 24, 1997, Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White was directed by Telstra management to cease the COT Cases at any cost. This directive was issued while White evaluated the technical information requested by the COT claimants under the Freedom of Information Act. This revelation came to light a day prior to the unveiling of the "COT Case Strategy" by the Senate committee and is documented on pages 36 to 39 of the Senate—Parliament of Australia. as follows:

Mr White -- "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."

Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

Senator Schacht also asked Mr White --"Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble, Peter Riddle".

Senator SCHACHT—"Who"?

Mr White—"Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the induction process—"

Mr. White's statement unequivocally asserts that Telstra deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants to obstruct our ability to prove our claims against Telstra.

One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from  Telstra's Falsified SVT Report hat the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

AUSTEL (the Government Communications Authority) issued a communication marked 23-E - Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G on 11 October 1994, directed to Peter Gamble. A second correspondence, labelled exhibit 23-F Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G, was dispatched to Telstra's Steve Black on 16 November 1994 and similarly copied to Peter Gamble. These two government letters asked Telstra what they intended to do regarding the severely substandard arbitration Service Verification testing conducted at my establishment.

Criminal Conduct 4

Living with these crimes for thirty years has taken its toll.

 

Exhibit 23-G of the Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G, unambiguously indicates that on December 12, 1994, Peter Gamble made a sworn statement to the arbitrator, asserting that his SVT process carried out at my premises surpassed the government's expectations, despite being mindful of its falsity. Affixing a signature to a sworn statement in the context of legal proceedings, with the awareness of its falsehood, constitutes a perversion of the course of justice.

The Peter Gamble witness statement fails to acknowledge that eight other Telstra employees provided witness statements for the Telstra arbitration defence, knowing that those statements were fundamentally flawed. Despite this, the statements were still submitted to the arbitration process and accepted by the arbitrator as factual. The arbitrator relied on these witness statements to conclude that my business was no longer experiencing ongoing telephone faults. However, evidence from absentjustice.com proves that my business continued to experience significant faults for eleven years after the arbitration was completed.

Following a meeting with two AUSTEL representatives at Parliament House Canberra on 21 March 1995, I was advised to bring to the arbitrator's attention the deficient SVT process at my establishment, allowing the arbitrator to compel a repetition of these tests, this time under the supervision of an arbitration technical consultant.

These AUSTEL representatives expressed surprise at the arbitrator's allowance of the original SVT process within the arbitration proceedings without the supervision of an independent arbitration consultant during the extraordinary testing. Notably, the entire arbitration process was instigated in response to the COT case claims concerning the inadequate Telstra equipment. It is worth noting that, in most instances, Telstra continued to operate the flawed Ericsson AXE equipment.

On April 6, 1995, David Reid and Telstra's Peter Gamble visited Cape Bridgewater to conduct tests on three separate telephone service lines connected to the faulty Ericsson AXE telephone exchange in Portland, which was the subject of my arbitration. However, they refused to conduct any type of testing. Shortly after this incident, David Reid, the proprietor of Lane Telecommunications and the appointed technical consultant to the arbitrator, was bought out by Ericsson during the COT arbitrations (refer to Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden)

A judas kiss 

Maureen Gillan, the initial party in the four COT Cases, executed her arbitration agreement on April 8, 1994. This agreement was endorsed by Senator Richard Alston, Senator Ron Boswell, and our legal representatives as the definitive and binding arrangement for the remaining claimants. The agreement permitted the claimant to take legal action against the special counsel to the arbitrations and the arbitrator's consultants for any negligence in their roles in the arbitration process (refer to Part 2—Chapter 5 Fraudulent Conduct).

However, the remaining three COT Cases—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I—were forced, under duress, to sign the altered arbitration agreement after Maureen Gillan, the aforementioned senators, and our legal representatives had reviewed the unaltered document with the understanding that it would be the agreement used for the remaining claimants as well.

In essence, Dr Gordon Hughes, who currently serves as the Principal of a distinguished legal firm in Melbourne, presided over an arbitration process that resulted in one of the four COT Cases being permitted to bring suit against the legal counsel and arbitration consultants for negligence. Meanwhile, the altered agreements precluded the remaining three cases from pursuing legal action against the same legal counsel and arbitration consultants.

Furthermore, this altered confidentiality agreement is still being used to impede an investigation into the conduct of the arbitration process.

Even Telstra's principal arbitration defence liaison officer, Steve Black, expressed concern about removing liability caps in a letter to the arbitrator before the claimants signed the agreement (exhibit 54-E - Open letter File No 54-A). It will be apparent to visitors of this website that the arbitration consultants took full advantage of not being sued for their wrongful acts in favour of Telstra's arbitration defence, as shown in the following link - Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete.

Despite Dr Gordon Hughes advising the administrator of the arbitration process that the arbitration agreement used in my case was not credible and should be revised, it was still used to the detriment of my claim (Open Letter File No 55-A). For a more detailed explanation of the deficiencies in my arbitration agreement, you can click on Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter.

Criminal Conduct 5

Systemic corruption within the government bureaucracy  

 

On March 25, 1994, I, Ms. Philippa Smith, Commonwealth Ombudsman, wrote to Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, clearly stating that Telstra had been meticulously scrutinizing FOI documents requested by COT Cases Ann Garms and Alan Smith. This was in response to my disclosure of sensitive information to the media. 

It is important to note that Telstra failed to disclose to the Commonwealth Ombudsman I released sensitive documents to the Australian Federal Police to aid their investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interceptions of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxed documents.  Ms Philippa then stated that Telstra informed Mr Wynack, Director of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, that Telstra expected the vetting of the documents to take only a couple of days. (See 2-B - page 3  Home Page – Part One File No/2-B).

The correspondence from Ms. Smith, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, validates that Telstra examined sensitive freedom of information documents before they were disseminated to the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, as elaborated below, the correspondence neglects to elucidate Telstra's course of action regarding the sensitive information in instances where it was detrimental to Telstra and government officials.

Telstra is run by 'thugs in suits' 

 

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) was actively investigating the paedophile activities of Senator Bob Collins and unauthorized telephone and fax interception issues involving Telstra. As part of the COT Cases AFP investigation, we received a clear directive that if we discovered any Freedom of Information (FOI) documents suggesting paedophile activities by other parliament members, aside from those committed by Senator Collins, we were obligated to provide these documents to the AFP. It was emphasized that such documents should not be released to the public, as we were officially collaborating with the AFP in their investigations. 

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts prepared during my arbitration on 26 September 1994 by the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon (Government bureaucrat) had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period as their statement to shows, i.e.;  

"... 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".

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29, 1994, details Senator Ron Boswell's inquiry to Telstra's legal directorate regarding withholding my 'Freedom of Information' documents during arbitration, stating: 

“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?” Senate Evidence File No 31)

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

Forced to proceed with arbitration

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.

“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 [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”  

The following six senators formally recorded how they believed Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations. Where were Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith when this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was carried out?  

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

It is crucial to emphasize to all parties reading this account that the COT Cases agreed to the arbitration process because the Australian government, along with several senators, prominent lawyers, and the Canberra media, were officially advised by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (who was the administrator of the proposed arbitrations) that the COT Cases arbitrations would be conducted under the Arbitration Procedure (the Act). Furthermore, we were informed that Telstra and the government would provide the documents we requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

To substantiate this understanding, John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, formally communicated to the Government and provided testimony to a Senate Estimate Committee on September 26, 1997, after the completion of most arbitrations that:  

"...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) 

I reiterate that it's concerning how the COT Cases were burdened with the financial responsibility for arbitration fees to resolve their ongoing telephone problems. They were essentially left with the choice of funding an arbitration to compel Telstra to fix these problems or operating their businesses at a significant disadvantage due to unresolved telecommunication issues. 

Criminal Conduct 6

Infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable. 

 

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.” 

Forty-five of Australia's prestigious law firms on retainer.

 

The initial Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (ex-lawyer) assumed the administrator role in the commercial assessment processes and exerted pressure on the COT Cases. This coercion led to abandoning the operational and executed Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP) in favour of Telstra's highly legalistic arbitration rules, which incorporated a specific confidentiality clause not present in the FTSP Commercial Assessment Process. The threat of discontinuing the administration of the ongoing commercial assessment process, previously endorsed by Telstra and the Australian Government, dealt a severe blow to the claimants. Unbeknownst to the COT claimants, it was subsequently disclosed that Warwick Smith had permitted Telstra's legal representatives to devise this new highly legalistic agreement, benefiting Telstra to the detriment of the COT Cases.

Graft, malfeasance, and nepotism  

 

The documented evidence indicates that Telstra's CEO and the entire board foresaw millions of dollars being unlawfully withdrawn from government funds. These funds were utilized to exert control over 45 prominent legal firms, thereby obstructing ordinary citizens with claims against Telstra from pursuing legal remedies. This crucial information is publicly available on absentjustice.com, shedding light on pervasive unethical practices and erroneously billed accounts.

Senator Mark Bishop's denouncement of Telstra's utilization of these 45 prominent legal firms against ordinary Australian citizens and small business operators, who had lodged complaints solely regarding inadequate service, is accessible at parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11. His condemnation of this unjust practice underscores the enormity of a government-owned entity, Telstra, employing public funds in opposition to the public interest, constituting an abuse of power. The enduring absence of an investigation into this scandalous matter is noteworthy.

Intimidation, legal abuse, and bullying 

$24 million of moneys being used to crush these people 

On March 11, 1999, after Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith utilized heavy-handed tactics to handle the COT Cases, their arbitrations were concluded, with less than 11 per cent of the claims being met. Senator Kim Carr criticized the handling of the COT arbitrations, as evidenced in the following Hansard link shows:

Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:

“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)

Telstra's misuse of public funds, which should have gone to the Australian government instead of paying yearly retainers to 45 leading legal firms, is concerning. Moreover, during the COT arbitrations, they spent an additional $24 million to suppress sixteen Australian small business operators, hindering their efforts to prove events over two decades. This also affected around 120,000 similar COT cases, where individuals were fighting Telstra for a reassessment of their wrongly billed accounts. Senator Kim Carr's statement about the $24 million is deeply troubling for COT cases. 

Senator Chris Schacht was even more vocal

 

Who had the authority in Australia to convince the senator to investigate and grant damages to only five of the twenty-one COT Cases with unresolved FOI issues?

“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.

The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)

Welcomed news for five COTs, but not for the remaining sixteen COT cases discarded by the senate refer to: An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

Criminal Conduct 7

Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns to Victoria

 

On July 25, 2002, Senator Len Harris travelled from Cairns in Queensland. This trip took more than seven hours to meet four other COTs and me in Melbourne and ensure that our discrimination claims against the Commonwealth were thoroughly investigated. He was appalled that 16 Australian citizens were so severely discriminated against by the then-coalition government, despite a Senate estimates committee working party being established to investigate all 21 COT-type claims against Telstra.

He was stunned by how I had collated this evidence into a bound submission. Senator Harris read Senator Alan Eggleston’s August 9, 2001, letter warning me that if I disclosed the in-camera Hansard records — supporting my claims that 16 Australian citizens were discriminated against in the most deplorable manner — then I would be held in contempt of the Senate and risk jail. Senator Harris was distraught.

At a press conference the next day, Senator Harris aimed questions at the chief of staff to the Hon. Senator Richard Alston, Minister for Communications. He asked:

“Through the following questions, the media event will address serious issues related to Telstra’s unlawful withholding of documents from claimants, during litigation.

Why didn’t the present government correctly address Telstra’s serious and unlawful conduct of withholding discovery and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) documents before the T2 float?

Why has the Federal government allowed five Australians (from a list of twenty-one) to be granted access to some of the Telstra discovery documents they needed to support their claims against Telstra, but denied the same rights to the other sixteen?

Why has the Federal Government ignored clear evidence that Telstra withheld many documents from a claimant during litigation?

Why has the Federal Government ignored evidence that, among those documents Telstra did supply, many were altered or delivered with sections illegally blanked out?” (See Senate Evidence File No 56)

The LNP government knew that not only the litmus test cases should receive their requested documents, but so should the other 16. These Hansards, only three days apart, confirm that the Telstra Corporation acted illegally against all 21 citizens. However, the government only sanctioned Telstra to compensate for the litmus cases, not the remaining 16. The litmus cases also received 150,000 or more previously withheld discovery documents ((see Senate Evidence File No/11), which allowed them to appeal their arbitration process. However, the remaining 16 who didn't receive their withheld documents could not appeal.

The following exhibit, Senate Evidence File No 12, shows that I was threatened twice, once on 16 August 2001 and again on 6 December 2004, that if I disclosed the 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate would charge me with contempt of the Senate, even though these Hansards could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

Senator Chris Schacht made the following statement during a Senate committee hearing on July 9, 1998, in Parliament House, Canberra:

"would be an injustice for those remaining 16"

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. 

Will I go to jail in 2024 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens? I believe the current Labor government, if they were to ask me to provide a government-appointed representative to view these two In-Cameral Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998, that representative would advise the Anothony Albenise government they are morally obliged to pay compensation as former Labor Senator Chris Schacht stated should have been the case in 1998. Sadly, at least three of those sixteen have since died. 

Will I go to jail?

 

A Government Scandal 

One of the prominent controversies in Australian politics during the past decade revolved around a government initiative to implement roof insulation in all Australian households. Regrettably, the program was inadequately planned and rushed without thorough research. In 2009, the then-Labor government proceeded without providing proper training or accreditation for the installers, thus enabling unqualified individuals to undertake the task. Consequently, three untrained Australians succumbed to electric shocks, as nails were inadvertently driven through electrical wiring, and a fourth individual perished from heat exhaustion while working in a confined space under a hot roof.

In May 2014, Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister at the time, was summoned to appear before a Royal Commission investigating the roof 'pink batts' insulation disaster https://shorturl.at/a0wa2. The Federal Coalition Government granted him access to documents previously classified as ‘privileged and confidential government information’ to substantiate his testimony. Conversely, I have never been allowed to utilize such ‘privileged and confidential’ government documents to substantiate my claims that sixteen fellow Australians were knowingly subjected to discrimination by their government.

This instance underscores the disparate treatment in Australia, where former Prime Ministers and other influential figures can leverage parliamentary privileged information to serve their interests, possibly to obfuscate their inadequate management from scrutiny (as in the case of Mr Rudd and his involvement in the insulation fiasco). In contrast, the legal standards for ordinary Australian citizens, irrespective of mistreatment by powerful entities or unqualified arbitrators, appear substantially different.

Why was I not permitted to use the 'In Camera Senator Hansard' from 6 and 9 July 1998 to open an appeal for the remaining 16 COT cases subjected to egregious discrimination? (Refer to An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens).

The provision of support and legal assistance to Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, in his negligence case during a Royal Commission, stemming from his inadequate oversight of the Pink Batts project without proper scrutiny, raises discrimination concerns. Additionally, the government's threat of holding me in contempt of the senate when I sought to utilize similar powers to access privileged government documents to bolster my case raises apprehensions regarding the democratic integrity of Australia. The utilization of the In-Camera-Senate-Hansard dated 6th and 9th July to substantiate the COT FOI investigations by the senate, where only 5 out of the twenty-one COT Cases claims were investigated, could potentially have influenced the outcome in support of my claims and provided an opportunity for all sixteen COT Cases to have their FOI claims examined by the Senate Committee COT working party of 1997 and 1999.