Concealing the truth
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearings (respondents ACMA) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Ericsson AXE Freedom of Information applications to ACMA (the then government communications regulator) should be provided free of charge, in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Ericsson AXE installed equipment right across Australia. Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008, Mr G D Friedman considered this AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in an open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
During my second AAT hearing (No 2010/4634), Mr Friedman stated:
“Mr Smith still believes that there are many unanswered questions by the regulatory authorities or by Telstra that he wishes to pursue and he believes these documents will show that his unhappiness with the way he has been treated personally also will flow to other areas such as it will expose the practices by Telstra and regulatory bodies which affects not only him but other people throughout Australia.
“Mr Smith said today that he had concerns about the equipment used in cabling done at Cape Bridgewater back in the 1990s. He said that it should – the equipment or some of the equipment should have a life of up to 40 years but, in fact, because of the terrain and the wet surfaces and other things down there the wrong equipment was used.”
During this second AAT hearing in May 2011, I again raised the telephone problems that had affected my business from before my arbitration to 1995, stressing that the arbitrator had failed to investigate or address most of those problems, and therefore allowed them to continue for a further 11 years after the end of the arbitration. Since that second AAT hearing, and as a result of Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout, which began in mid-2011 and is still continuing today, numerous faults, just like those that I raised during my arbitration and both AAT hearings, have been found; this can be confirmed by a simple internet search for “Australia NBN”.
The matters discussed on this website absentjustice.com are said according to my interpretation of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 1-A to 10-B
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 23-H to 30-A
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 30-B
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibit 31-A to 46-E
Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 46-F to 62.
Download Attachments
A copy of Telstra’s arbitration briefing paper dated 12 December 1994 was used as part of Telstra’s defence of my arbitration claims. According to this document, Telstra’s Tony Watson claimed that my faxes didn’t reach the arbitrator’s office at Hunt & Hunt (614 8730 and 614 2189) on 23rd May 1994 because, according to the receptionist at Hunt & Hunt, both fax service lines were busy at the time. Mr Watson concluded: ‘that Hunt & Hunt was probably busy at the time when Smith attempted to send his facsimile and the incident was not the result of a network problem (reference document 4.10). Also attached here is a copy of Telstra fax account for the 23 May 1994, showing quite clearly that the seven faxes I sent that day did transmit to Hunt & Hunt’s 03614 8730 fax number, and I was therefore charged accordingly. I originally only phoned Hunt & Hunt to explain that through no fault of his own my fax line had disconnected after each page had been sent. The receptionist then told me that none of his faxes had arrived at all, which is a different story, to that recorded by Mr Watson (and my Telstra Fax account). Where are these missing claim documents that both the arbitrator’s secretary and Telstra agree were never received at the arbitrators office?
Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E
After a number of complaints to John Pinnock (TIO) concerning the arbitrators reluctance to investigate by complaints that the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International tests were impracticable I received a letter dated 28 June 1995, from Mr Pinnock stating, “...Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further.” (See Front Page File No/2-A) However, our Front Page File No/2-B, shows that, when my letter of 24th January 1995, was returned to me three months after my arbitration was concluded. The fax footprint on pages 1 and 2 (24-01-1995 15:12 FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP TO 036148730) indicates it was received at the arbitrator’s fax machine (number 036148730). So why did the TIO advise me his office records did not show that I send this most relevant letter? Was this information actually provided to the arbitrator?
On 26 June 1996, I wrote John Pinnock (TIO) concerning proof that at least four arbitration documents had been concealed from the arbitrator during my arbitration’. When this letter was later returned from the TIO, it also had a hand-written note stating: "...These are quite serious allegations, we need to respond to specific letters Smith says weren’t forwarded or received and provide answers on each". It is now 2017, and I have still NOT received an answer from the TIO, as to why these four relevant letters were concealed from the arbitration process.
THREE LETTERS: One of those letter dated 24, July 1998, from me to Wally Rothwell, Deputy TIO states "...Another chronological list of faxes have been lost in transit to Dr Hughes is enclosed. It is also important to note that the wording on all three faxed pages of this 24 July 1998 letter (confirms that my business identification FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP was removed from these three documents during transit and replaced with the wording Fax from 0355 267230 as that described in the Scandrett & Associates report of 7 January 1999, to Senator Ron Boswell (See Open Letter File No/12 and 13)) advising him that a third party and/or parties were intercepting COT Cases documents before redirecting them onto their intended destination.
On the 12 July, 1998 I wrote to the Deputy TIO stating “...Attachment 2: A list of 43 faxes which I sent to between 21/9/94 and 6/3/95 (during my arbitration) Some of these faxes included multiple pages of attachments. This list has been compiled from Telstra's billing records for my fax line to 036148730 which is office but none of these faxes are included in the document titled "Smith FOI Data Base" Please now take Attachment 1 and compare it to Attachment 2. This comparison clearly shows that the 43 faxed claim documents (and their attachments) listed on Attachment 2, which were taken from my Telstra account over an 8 month period and which were faxed to , are not included in the 11 page document at Attachment 1”. ATTENTION absentjustice.com - readers: what is exhibit at File/5 shows is that some 43 faxes did not arrive at their intended destination. I have not seen these 43 sets of claim documents again.
Telstra whistleblower Lindsay White, stated to Senator O'Chee: "...In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's area - there were five complainants. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer, My induction briefing was we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened". Senator O'Chee: - "...What stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what"? Lindsay White:- "...The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all cost"?
Front Page Part One File No/7- [p 1]
Can We Fix The Can (customer access network) corroded copper wire network that continued to destroy telephone dependent businesses while Telstra senior executives looked on
Front Page Part Two File No/7- [P 2]
Can We Fix The Can (customer access network) corroded copper wire network that continued to destroy telephone dependent businesses while Telstra senior executives looked on
"I understand there is a new tariff filing to be lodged today with new performance parameters one which commits"to 98% call completion at the individual customer level. Given my experience with customer disputes and this is a cause for concern. We will not meet this figure in many exchanges around Australia particularly in country areas".
Front Page Part One File No/10
“...Both the Deputy Ombudsman and I were of the view that it was not a claim which was suitable to be submitted to the Arbitration process which Telstra has established. I m even more strongly of the view today, in part my position has hardened because of the many problems and deficiencies in the Arbitration process”.
Front Page Part One File No/11
My telephone account, for the day the AFP visited my premises on 26 September 1994, shows I telephoned Dr Hughes’ office at 6.22 pm and spoke for 5:31 minutes. I am certain this telephone call prompted Dr Hughes to convene this arbitration hearing for 11 October 1994. I made this call because of the advice the AFP gave me regarding the security of the names, addresses and phone numbers of the female single club members. The next day, I briefly discussed these security issues with Dr Hughes’ secretary, Caroline Friend, telling her I would send the less sensitive material by Australia Post. This telephone call was at 8.58 am on 27 September 1994 and I spoke for 2:18 minutes. The two phone calls are clearly documented on my Telstra telephone account
Front Page Part One File No/12
Mr Kearney’s report, from the information I provided him on 19 December 1995 (see below), confirms Telstra incorrectly charged me for telephone calls for more than two years, both before and during my arbitration. Between June 1993 and December 1995, I provided AUSTEL with copies of Telstra System CCAS data, showinh that Telstra had a systemic billing problem in their network. Over this period, AUSTEL wrote to Telstra on numerous occasions regarding my claims. One letter, dated 4 October 1994, demanded answers (see Arbitrator File No/114) and another letter, dated 2 August 1996, show AUSTEL was very concerned as it appeared this systemic billing problem still existed within Telstra’s network (see Arbitrator File No 115). Will the Australian public ever know how much extra revenue Telstra made during the period in which this systemic billing problem existed in their network?
Front Page Part One File No/13
AUSTEL has been asked by the COT Cases to facilitate their agreeing with Telecom the terms on the proposal they put to it on how their claims against it may be settled.
Front Page Part One File No/14
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception report (see Front Page Part One File No/14), 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.” It is also clear from our Front Page Part One File Nos 1 to 5, that numerous documents faxed from my office to Dr Hughes' office did not reach their intended destination.
Front Page Part One File/No15-A
This covering letter dated 12 January 1998, from COT Cases Spokesperson Graham Schorer to Telstra's Sue Laver, shows Telstra submitted false Bell Canada International Cape Bridgewater tests to the Senate (On Notice). Ms Laver, in my opinion should have acted upon this evidence in 1998. (see below - File 15/B
Front Page Part One File/No 15-B
This exhibit is part two of the covering letter to Telstra’s Sue Laver as discussed above in File No 15/A. This covering letter is important because had the content of this letter been investigated by Telstra in January 1998, they would have discovered the following. Bell Canada International stated clearly, in their Cape Bridgewater Report of 10 November 1993, that all of their 13,590 test calls into Cape Bridgewater were captured through the CCS7 monitoring equipment and calls into Cape Bridgewater were of world-class standard. However, in December 1994, two Telstra's senior technicians advised Telstra's arbitration defence that the nearest telephone exchange that could facilitate the CCS7 minoring equipment was at the Warrnambool exchange, 117 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater. Had Telstra reviewed their previous submission to the Senate on October 1997 after having received this covering 12 January 1998 letter to Sue Laver, this false information provided to the Senate would have been addressed by the Senate in 1998. Sue Laver, if she so wishes, can contact the current Senate secretary and alert that office to this terrible situation regarding these false, submitted BCI Cape Bridgewater test results.
Front Page Part One File Nos/16-A to 16-J
"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 .”
Front Page Part One File Nos/17-A to 17-B
Exhibit File No/17-B are two ELMI tapes for the date of 13 October 1992 showing two calls were connected to my business at 13:29:13 hours (close to 1.00 PM) and 15.00.50 hours (close to 3.00 PM) approximately the time quoted on exhibit File/No17-A. It is therefore clear an ELMI WAS connected at the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange other wise the tapes retrieved from my premised File/No 17-B could not have activated on its own. There has to be two machines i.e. a sister machine for the other two work. Regardless of this fact we have two ELMI tapes show this fault monitoring machine was connected. Why did this local technician advise management something he knew had to have been false because he was the nominated person in charge of my case.
Front Page Part One File No/18-A to 18-C
PLEASE NOTE: In File No/18-A, I have masked the name of the ex-Portland Telstra employee, who admitted to listening into my telephone conversations without my knowledge or consent, as I am not on a vendetta campaign to destroy his credibility locally. I only raise these interception issues as part of my quest to have these still unresolved privacy issues addressed by the current government. File No/18-B shows Telstra wrote to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on 17 October 1994 and agreed it would address the voice monitoring of my telephone conversations as part of its arbitration defence of my claims. File/No18-C contains pages 7 and 8 from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) transcript of their interview with me on 26 September 1994 when I also raised the issue of the same Portland technician advising me there were many people involved in my matters and implying he was not the only person listening into my conversations. I have since located documents, which the AFP now holds, confirming a bell would ring at the Portland exchange whenever a call came into my business. This allowed whoever was at the exchange to listen in on my conversations. Many of those conversations were from clients of my singles club, both male and female.
Front Page Part Two File No/19-A to 19-D
Telstra FOI documents folio C04007 and C04008 state: "Legal position - Mr Smith's service problems were network related and spanned a period of 3-4 years" and "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 poor grad e of network performance over a period of several years"
Front Page Part One File No/20-A to 20-B
File No/20-A is a letter dated 9 April 1994 from Telstra's Steve Black to AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey stating: "...In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of "some hundreds" of COT-type customers";...
Front Page Part One File No/21-A and 21-B
16 November 1994: AUSTEL wrote to the Telstra arbitration liaison officer under the heading Service Verification Test Issues, outlining their concerns regarding the deficiencies in the testing process conducted at the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp (see Main Evidence File No/2). Telstra’s CCAS data for the day (29 September 1994) testing took place at my premises confirms that not one of the incoming tests connected to any of my three business lines met the regulator’s mandatory requirements. Even though AUSTEL expressed serious Front Page Part One File No/22
One particular Telstra document FOI C04006 (AS 5) titled Telecom Secret, there is a reference to “... Legal position – Mr Smith’s service problems…” being “…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 immunities – given his evidence and claims” and, on document C04008, there is another reference – “Overall, Mr Smith’s telephone service had suffered from poor grade of network performance over a period of several years; with some difficulty to detect exchange problems in the last 8 months.”
Front Page Part One File No/23
Senator O'Cheer to Telstra whisleblower Lindsay White: - "...What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs -- or what".? -- Lindsay White - "...The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all cost".
Front Page Part One File No/25-B is a letter from Darren and Jenny Lewis to the Australian Magistrates Federal Court in December 2008.
Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B
The two letters from AUSTEL to Telstra dated 11 October 1994 and 16 November 1994 confirm Telstra did not conduct the specified mandatory Service Verification Tests at my premises.
Front Page Part One File No/26: This email from George Close, technical consultant for the first four COT cases, advises me that he contacted Senator Ron Boswell in the late 1990s to confirm faxes he had seen had been intercepted.
Front Page Part One File No/27
These four transcripts taken from my oral arbitration hearing confirm the arbitrator was assisting the Telstra Corporation in badgering me into exposing what the AFP had so far uncovered concerning their current investigations into Telstra's unauthorized interception of the telephone and facsimiles.
Front Page Part One File No/28
This letter from the TIO Special Counsel to COT Spokesperson dated 24 November 1994 at point 16 states: "...All issues were discussed at a meeting on 20 April at which Robin Davey was also present."... . It is important to note here that Robin Davey was AUSTEL's Chairman at the time he attended the 20 April, 1994 pre-arbitration. We have attached this letter here as supporting evidence that Mr Davey was involved in the arbitration process prior to it commencing.
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 1
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 2
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 3
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 4
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 5
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 6
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 7
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File 8
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 9
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 10
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 11
Mr Smith of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp. one of the original COT Cases', reported a significant level of faults when serviced by the analogue ARK exchange at Cape Bridgewater".
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 12
Conclusive proof that my claim advisor Garry Ellicott, Ex- Senior Detective Sergeant (Queensland Police Force) also Ex- National Crime Investigator submitted proof as well as made statements to the arbitrator confirming I had lost a very viable education project for my business at Cape Bridgewater due to the on-going phone problems.
False Witness Statement File No 13-A to 13-B
Telstra's false witness statement dated 12 December 1994.
False Witness Statement File No 14
8 locally terminated calls from any source at the one time could be handled from the Cape Bridgewater RAX. Why then did this Telstra employee state under oath the RAX could handle 90 customers
Cape Bridgewater Chronology of Events File No 16-A to 16-C Sanitized Government Communications Regulatory Cape Bridgewater COT Cases Report
Manipulating The Regulator File 1
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct File 3
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct File 4-A to 4-L
Stop These People At All Cost
COT - Sunday Program
False Witness Statement No 7
Psychologist File 1-A to 1-C
Legal Structured Path File 1-A to 1-D
FOI incorrect charging File 3
False Witness Statement Fle 15-A to 15-N
False Witness Statement File No 17-A to 17-D
" I note that the examples given by Alan Smith at the meeting spanned the period of the Arbitration and after the conclusion of the Arbitration"
False Witness Statement File No 16-A to 16-B
In the official 30 April 1995 findings of the arbitration technical consultants (DMR & Lane), at point 2.3 regarding this RVA problem (see False Witness Statement File No 16-A), is stated, “Some Calls Wrongly Directed to Recorded Voice Announcement (RVA) for 16 Days, March 1992.” In the arbitrator’s award, on page-32 and for the same RVA fault, he states, “were directed for at least 16 days and possibly longer”. Had 'Joker Three' told the truth – that these problems were present for a lot longer than what was suggested – and had AUSTEL released all of its adverse findings against Telstra into the arbitration process (see AUSTEL's Adverse Findings), then the arbitrator’s award would have been substantially higher than it was.
False Witness Statement File No 3-A to 3-D
“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,”
Manipulating The Regulator File 2-A to 2-B
Manipulating the Regulator 3-A to 3-C
© 2021Absent Justice
