PLEASE NOTE

In the context of my government-facilitated arbitration process, the telecommunications company Telstra, serving as the defendant, submitted five reports that exhibit significant flaws upon closer examination. The purpose of these documents was to convince the arbitrator that my telephone-dependent business, the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, was no longer plagued by persistent issues related to telephone and fax services. The reports in question include the

1. Coopers & Lybrand Report;
2. Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater Addendum Report;
3. TF 200 EXICOM Sticky Beer in the Telephone Report;
4. Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp Service Verification Report;
5. AUSTEL's COT Cases Report.

These reports have been thoroughly analyzed and discussed on absentjustice.com, where I have provided detailed insights into their shortcomings. It is critical to note that all five reports contain substantial inaccuracies and fail to disclose essential facts that negatively impacted the COT Cases leading up to the arbitration proceedings.

On this homepage, I have included a brief analysis of the Bell Canada International Inc. Report and the Sticky Beer in the TF 200 EXICOM Report. This overview provides readers with foundational knowledge, enabling them to determine whether they wish to delve deeper into the complex issues surrounding Telstra Corporation's corrupt practices and the high-ranking officials in Australia who support such misconduct.

 If the Australian government had expressed the same level of concern as the Canadian government regarding the serious issues surrounding Telstra, which was wholly owned by the Australian government at the time, a critical opportunity to address these problems were losted. Bell Canada was already aware of these inaccuracies, and by permitting this fraudulent information to go unchallenged, the Australian government undermined the integrity of the arbitrations it had previously endorsed. This failure to act exacerbated the trauma experienced by the COT Cases—a situation that has persisted since 1994. For Telstra and its legal representatives, Freehills Hollingdale & Page (now operating as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne), to present a fabricated Bell Canada International (BCI) report to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, to read before Mr Joblin assessed my mental state. This misleading BCI document claimed that 15,590 test calls were successfully transmitted over four to five hours spanning five days, from November 4 to November 9, 1993, to my local telephone exchange at Cape Bridgewater. During my arbitration, this spurious information concerning my telephone claims was presented to Ian Joblin, who was part of Telstra's arbitration defence unit.

By utilizing these deceptive BCI tests, Freehills Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne created the impression to all reading Telstra's arbitration defence including Ian Joblin I must be suffering from paranoia regarding my alleged phone issues. They implied that anyone of sound mind would not assert they were experiencing phone problems when, according to the fabricated BCI report, the 15,590 test calls were supposedly transmitted without incident.

The manipulation of factual information raises significant concerns that merit serious attention. A particularly troubling aspect of this complex situation involves Maurice Wayne Condon, an attorney associated with the prestigious law firm Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne. Mr. Condon submitted the final witness statement concerning my mental health, yet he did so without acquiring the essential signature from Ian Joblin, which is a vital requirement for legal documentation. Despite Mr. Condon's assertion that Mr. Joblin had indeed signed the document, this claim constitutes a clear violation of established legal protocols and ethical standards.

This grave matter has been subjected to scrutiny by John Pinnock, the administrator responsible for overseeing my arbitration proceedings. Remarkably, this oversight has persisted for an alarming twenty-eight years, during which time there has been a conspicuous lack of response, even though Mr. Pinnock’s office had been the officially appointed administrator for my government-endorsed arbitration initiated in 1994/95. Compounding this issue is the disturbing fact that the arbitrator opted to conceal this incident, paralleling his previous actions regarding two additional bogus arbitration defense reports submitted by Telstra. These reports, which were presented under oath as authentic, have since been conclusively determined to have been fraudulently prepared, in a manner strikingly similar to the infamous Bell Canada International Inc. Report. 

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

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

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

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

Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) employed the highly regarded CCS7 monitoring equipment to generate an astonishing number of calls. However, the nearest telephone exchange equipped to handle this advanced CCS7 technology was 112 kilometers from my business location. This raises the question: where did the staggering 15,590 test calls ultimately end up? As you delve into this story, you'll uncover a troubling detail — Telstra audaciously contaminated the collected TF200 telephone by pouring wet and sticky beer residue into it after those phones departed from the COT Cases businesses. Adding to this bizarre scenario, Telstra sought to label other COT Cases members as mentally unstable, as evidenced by my narrative.

My efforts to bring this significant discrepancy to the government's attention came two months after the conclusion of my arbitration, but I was met with indifference. The government's lack of interest in contacting BCI in Canada was disheartening. Instead, the Canadian Government recommended that I write directly to Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) from Australia for guidance and support, leaving me feeling heartened that someone cared.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

The Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

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

Clicking/hovering over the second Canadian flag image just above will bring up a report and the AS-002 BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46) and why it was so crucial for me to highlight how serious it was for Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) not just to submit false information during my arbitration but to conceal the truth from the Senate back in 1997, which has this falshood between Telstra and Bell Canada International Inc never taken place and when it did allow the Senate to pave the way for me to ammend my arbitration claims and or appeal it has cost me and my partner Cathy twenty-eight years of our life trying to prove our case.

Thank you for taking the time to delve into this important chapter of my story. By exploring the BCI section below, you can uncover vital information that contributes to our mission for justice. I encourage you to share this website (absentjustice.com) with your friends, family, and even media outlets in your country. Your efforts can significantly amplify our reach and impact. Each person you inform helps us gather momentum in our pursuit of the truth, making a profound difference in this journey we are undertaking together.

During the arbitration process, two of Telstra's most esteemed senior technical experts played a pivotal role, providing invaluable guidance and insight. They highlighted a crucial limitation regarding the Portland exchange, the facility responsible for routing all communications to Cape Bridgewater. Specifically, they pointed out that the Portland exchange cannot support CCS7 monitoring equipment, which is essential for conducting comprehensive call testing. This significant detail is thoroughly documented in two witness statements, both signed under oath. The first statement, authored by Christopher James Doody on 12 December 1994 (Exhibit 12), and the second by David John Stockdale on 8 December 1994 (Exhibit 11, AS-002 BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46).

These two witness statements were created to serve as an overall guide for the arbitrator's technical consultant. They provide crucial information about the type of telephone exchange to which my business was connected before and during my arbitration. It raises doubts about whether either witness fully understood the significance of their sworn statements regarding the CCS7 equipment, as such a misunderstanding could undermine Telstra's defense; otherwise, those CCS7 statements would not have been used.

While the two witness statements present significant challenges, the subsequent letter from Gearld A. Kealey of Bell Canada to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, dated August 11, 1995, introduces further complications.

In this correspondence (refer to Exhibit 8-BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46,, Mr. Kealey discusses the testing conducted by Bell Canada in Portland. He asserts, "I also reviewed my personal travel log to verify the times and dates of my movements from Melbourne to Portland." This statement pertains to a specific set of tests and specifies the time and day of the alleged testing. However, it fails to address the critical issue that testing and the additional four days outlined in the BCI report could not have occurred as suggested regarding the CCS7.

Mr. Kealey's reference to his travel log concerning his journey to Portland is equally noteworthy. One must consider the rationale behind documenting this journey, especially given that the nearest telephone exchanges that accommodate the CCS7 equipment are situated in Warrnambool, which is located 112 kilometers from Portland, as indicated in both witness statements.

Exhibit 36 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46, dated August 10, 1995, from Gerald Kearney in Canada, reminds Telstra of his prior correspondence (refer to Exhibit 8 above, which details his log and visits to Portland).

Notably, this letter from Gerald Kealey to John Armstrong at Telstra Exhibits 36 - BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is not printed on official Bell Canada International letterhead or logo. Although the Senate Committee, in October 1997, received Mr. Kealey's letter referencing his logbook. It is reasonable to conclude that the Senate ceased its investigation after receiving Kealey's letter, which appeared to provide sufficient evidence to dismiss my claims against one of Canada’s largest telecommunications companies as unfounded.

ABSENT JUSTICE  Tampering with evidence.

On April 26, 1994, I contacted AUSTEL’s Cliff Mathieson, a dedicated public servant at the government communications regulatory department, to discuss a persistent hang-up fault I had been experiencing on my phone line. Mr. Mathieson proposed that we conduct a series of diagnostic tests to investigate the issue further. He instructed me to hang up the phone and audibly count from one to ten while he listened on the other end. During our first test, he confirmed that he could hear me count clearly up to ten without any interruptions. Encouraged by this, he suggested we extend the counting to see if my voice would still transmit properly. He continued to hear me without difficulty as referred to in FOI folio R37911, which states:

“This T200 is an EXICOM and the other T200  is an ALCATEL, we thought that this may be a design ‘fault???’ with the EXICOM so Ross tried a new EXICOM from his car and it worked perfectly, that is, released the line immediately on hanging up. We decided to leave the new EXICOM and the old phone was marked and tagged…” (see File No 1-C).

Next, Mr. Mathieson recommended I swap the malfunctioning phone with another one to see if the issue persisted. After making the switch, we repeated the counting test, and the results were the same: my voice came through clearly. It became increasingly evident to both of us that the fault lay not with the phone but somewhere deeper within the Telstra network infrastructure. Mr. Mathieson advised me to escalate this matter, suggesting that, given my current arbitration status, I should inform Peter Gamble, Telstra’s chief engineer, about the fault.

Complicating matters, Lindsay White, a Telstra whistleblower, had publicly named Peter Gamble during a Senate estimates committee hearing, warning that he had taken a stance to prevent the first group of COT five claimants—including myself—from substantiating our claims by any means necessary (see Senate Hansard ERC&A 36, Front Page Part One File No/23, dated June 24, 1997) which notes: that Lindsay White advised the Senate Committee that Peter Gamble had told him the Five COT Cases naming me as on of the five: "had to be stopped at all costs" from proving our claims against Telstra.

Unaware of these clandestine orders to stifle our five COT cases, I reconnected the phones to their original lines and called Mr. Gamble. I chose not to mention that Mr. Mathieson and I had already conducted tests with two phones on the relevant lines. During our conversation, Mr. Gamble and I performed similar tests on the line in question. He assured me he would arrange for a technician to collect the phone for testing the next day.

According to FOI document K00941, dated March 26, 1994, someone—whose name was redacted—believed this frustrating lock-up fault stemmed from an issue in the RCM exchange located at Cape Bridgewater (see Tampering With Evidence File No 1-A to 1-C). Furthermore, a separate document, dated the day of our tests with Mr. Mathieson and Mr. Gamble, indicated that Mr. Gamble suspected the problem arose due to excessive heat and moisture within the telephone exchange (see File No-B).

Another disturbing aspect of Telstra's tampering with arbitration evidence is that I had volunteered with the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this tampering occurred. The following chapters illustrate how, during my arbitration, Telstra misrepresented my inability to be present to test my TF200 telephone at my premises during a scheduled meeting on the morning of April 27, 1994. In their file notes later submitted to the arbitrator, Telstra stated that I refused to allow them to test the phones because I was tired. However, they did not mention that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours, nor did they note that my sore eyes made it impossible for me to observe the testing by Telstra. I had been battling the fire the previous evening from 6 PM until 9 AM the following morning.

Our "Tampering With Evidence" page clearly shows that Telstra not only aimed to discredit me by implying I was too tired to have my TF200 phone tested but also tampered with the phone after removing it. Someone had poured beer into the phone upon its arrival at Telstra's laboratories. In their defense report for the arbitration, Telstra then claimed that the sticky residue from the beer was the cause of the problems, rather than issues with the Cape Bridgewater network. This malicious act and the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration indicate that my claims should have been thoroughly investigated long ago. Despite fulfilling my civic duties as an Australian citizen—providing vital evidence to the AFP and fighting raging fires—I was penalized during arbitration in both instances.

Another point is how I could have spilled beer into my telephone. Telstra's documentation states that when I had been fighting an out-of-control fire, I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fellow firefighters if I had been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story will give the reader a sense of the appalling conduct that we, the COT Cases, had to endure from Telstra while we fought for a reliable phone service.

When I submitted a statutory declaration to the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel, prepared by Paul Westwood, a forensic document specialist, it was indicated that he would test the collected TF200 and Telstra's notes to determine how they concluded that my alleged drinking habits caused my phone faults rather than issues with the EXICOM TF200. However, both the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel refused my request for an investigation into Telstra's actions, because, like the submission of the known fundamentally flawed Bell Canada International Inc. report, fraud had played a significant role in preparing the TF200 report.

During the second interview conducted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at my business premises on September 26, 1994, the investigators presented me with 93 probing questions as part of their extensive investigation into the serious bugging issues outlined in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1). These inquiries delved deeply into matters concerning the interception of my private telecommunications conversations and allegations regarding Telstra's submission of misleading information to the government.

I shared with the AFP that John McMahon, an official from AUSTEL, had informed me about critical documents he had uncovered, which unequivocally confirmed that my phone conversations had been subjected to unauthorized monitoring over an extensive period. Notably, in question 81 of the AFP transcripts (refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), the AFP disclosed compelling evidence suggesting that John McMahon from AUSTEL had provided corroborative information, backing the assertion that my telephones had been bugged.

This pivotal question serves as confirmation that the AFP made me aware of the significant evidence supplied by John McMahon, who held the position of General Manager of Consumer Affairs and represented the government communications authority. It is particularly perplexing that the arbitrator overlooked this vital evidence in his official findings, especially considering the extensive AFP transcripts provided to him. These transcripts articulate, “...does identify that you were live monitored for some time. See, we're quite satisfied that there are other references to it," underscoring the serious nature of the allegations and the significance of the information that was ignored.

In February 1994, I received a crucial communication from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding a highly sensitive matter. I was tasked with the intricate process of meticulously differentiating between the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 and those submitted by various educational institutions and organizations during the 1990s that had also expressed discontent with my services. This distinction was not merely administrative; it was imperative for the ongoing investigation, as the AFP disclosed that Telstra—Australia’s leading telecommunications provider—had been systematically recording the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of my single club members over an extended period. These records were carefully maintained within Telstra's internal files and had become the focal point of a complex investigation.

Following this alarming revelation, the AFP strongly recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider suspending the COT arbitration proceedings. However, in a surprising move, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The significance of the AFP's recommendation highlighted the urgent need for a thorough inquiry into how Telstra, as a significant player in the telecommunications sector, obtained such detailed insights regarding my telephone communications. The investigation sought to trace caller identities and their geographical locations, frequently originating from unexpected regions that seemed entirely unrelated to my business operations.

 

Threats made during my arbitration 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

This strategy was in place before we signed our arbitration agreements. 

Stop the COT Cases at all costs.

Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Schacht - "Who".

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

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their 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 that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.

Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s 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,   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 Telstra's intelligence networks 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 is impartially catalogued for future use?  How much confidential 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 apparent that this story had two sides.

I invite you to continue exploring this introduction to absentjustice.com.

Chapter 1

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens

Chapter 2

Betrayal deceit disinformation duplicity falsehood fraud hypocrisy lying mendacity treachery and trickery. This sums up the COT government endorsed arbitrations.

Chapter 3

Ending bribery corruption means holding the powerful to account and closing down the systems that allows bribery, illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the enablers of corruption to thrive.

Chapter 4

Learn about government corruption and the dirty deeds used by the government to cover up these horrendous injustices committed against 16 Australian citizens. Government corruption within the public service affected most if not all of the COT arbitrations. 

Chapter 5

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust.

Chapter 6

Anti-corruption policies need to be used in anti-corruption reforms and strategy. Corruption metrics and corruption risk assessment is good governance

Chapter 7

Bribery and Corruption happens in the shadows, often with the help of professional enablers such as bankers, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents, opaque financial systems and anonymous shell companies that allow corruption schemes to flourish and the corrupt to launder their wealth.

Chapter 8

Corrupt practices in government and the results of those corrupt practices become problematic enough – but when that corruption becomes systemic in more than one operation, it becomes cancer that endangers the welfare of the world's democracy.

Chapter 9

Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens who are left without guidance are the feel of purpose. Bribery and Corruption is cancer that destroys economic growth and prosperity. 

Chapter 10

The horrendous, unaddressed crimes perpetrated against the COT Cases during government-endorsed arbitrations administered by the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman have never been investigated. 

Chapter 11

This type of skulduggery is treachery, a Judas kiss with dirty dealing and betrayal. This is dirty pool and crookedness and dishonest. This conduct fester’s corruption. It is as bad, if not worse than double-dealing and cheating those who trust you.&a

Chapter 12

Absentjustice.com - the website that triggered the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption, it stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.

The evidence within this Fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) indicates that at least one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was intercepted (screened-viewed) by secondary fax machine connected to Telstra's telecommunications infrastricture, i.e.,

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

The actions taken by Telstra during a government-endorsed arbitration process, as well as during investigations by the Australian Federal Police between 1994 and 1995 and the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group from late 1998 to 2001, are undeniably severe. It is both alarming and unacceptable that there has been no movement toward legal repercussions for these actions by Telstra employees. This highlights a troubling lack of accountability and transparency, casting doubt on the integrity of the systems meant to protect small businesses and uphold the rule of law.

In March and April 2006, I presented several examples of intercepted documents from the COT arbitrations to the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications. One notable example included a document addressed to the Hon. Peter Costello, our former Australian Federal Treasurer. The Senator responded to me on 17 May 2007,

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

It was unequivocally Senator Helen Coonan’s responsibility, as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to initiate a thorough and official inquiry into the matter of Telstra's continuous interception of confidential documents that were being sent from my office and my residence, as well as from the offices of several Senators and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office. This issue was particularly critical during and following the COT arbitrations, where sensitive information was exchanged.

The gravity of this situation raises critical questions: Why was it considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be compelled to take legal action against Telstra for unlawfully intercepting documents leaving and arriving at Parliament House in Canberra during a government-endorsed arbitration process? Furthermore, why was Telstra intercepting (screening) my faxes to government ministers three years after the conclusion of my arbitration?

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.

Delve into the alarming and often disturbing realms of horrendous crimes, duplicitous criminals, corrupt politicians, and the lawyers who maintain a tight grip on the legal profession in Australia. Descriptors such as shameful, hideous, and treacherous vividly encapsulate these evil wrongdoers' nature and the impact of their actions.

Unravel the complex web of foreign bribery and insidious corrupt practices, including manipulating arbitration processes through bribed witnesses who shield the truth from the public eye. This narrative encompasses egregious acts of kleptocracy, deceitful foreign corruption programs and the troubling involvement of international consultants whose fraudulent reporting has enabled the unjust privatization of government assets—assets that were ill-suited for sale in the first place.