My first book, *Absent Justice*, is the inaugural instalment in a trilogy that addresses the corrupt practices that have infiltrated the Australian societal framework. This work is available Order Now—It's Free, ensuring accessibility for all readers. It is the culmination of extensive research and meticulous evidence compilation, presenting a compelling narrative that tackles significant issues related to justice and equity within Australia’s arbitration and mediation systems. Should you recognize the importance of the research and evidence underpinning this narrative, I would greatly appreciate your consideration of donating to Transparency International Australia. Your support can play a crucial role in fostering transparency and accountability.
Learn about horrendous crimes and unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians and the lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers.
In a kleptocracy, a small group of corrupt politicians operates with alarming boldness, using a variety of clandestine tactics to amass wealth at the expense of the nation they are supposed to serve. They engage in bribery and kickbacks, forging intimate alliances with lobbyists and powerful corporations who provide them with lucrative favors. These leaders shamelessly redirect state funds into their personal coffers, enriching themselves, their families, and their close associates, effectively treating public resources as their personal piggy bank.
Moreover, many of these kleptocrats anticipate scrutiny by tax authorities, cleverly exporting significant portions of their ill-gotten profits to foreign lands. This preemptive move reveals a deep-seated mistrust of the system they exploit. The practices they employ are not only shameful but also reflect a treacherous disregard for justice, steeped in unscrupulous behavior that fosters deep bias and nepotism. Collectively, these tactics form a disturbingly effective arsenal that enables them to rob their nations blind, leaving the public to bear the consequences of their greed. (Refer to Senate Hansard pages: 5163 to 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.
Call for Justice
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government maintained ownership of the country's telephone network and the primary communications carrier, Telecom, which has since been privatized and rebranded as Telstra. During this period, Telecom's monopoly on communications ended, leading to a gradual decline in the quality and reliability of the network; neglect and mismanagement resulted in the system falling into a state of disrepair.
When six small business owners grappling with grave communication issues sought recourse through arbitration with Telstra, they faced an uphill battle. The process was deeply flawed: The appointed arbitrator permitted Telstra to downplay the severity of the sixteen claims and losses and allowed the company to exert undue influence over the arbitration proceedings. Disturbingly, Telstra engaged in serious misconduct during the arbitrations. Yet, the Australian government chose not to hold Telstra or the other parties implicated in this dubious process accountable for their actions.
Six months before the arbitration hearings, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking access to the telephone logbook from our local Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. Upon signing our arbitration agreements, we were assured that this critical logbook would be made available to the arbitrator. However, to our dismay, this vital document was never provided to any claimants.
This logbook held the key to validating our claims. It contained essential data demonstrating to the arbitrator that our telephone problems were ongoing and unresolved. If we had been granted access, the arbitrator could have dismissed the claims as complete only after Telstra, the defendant in all these arbitrations, conclusively proved that there were no lingering issues connected to their Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges.
In my pursuit of justice, I wasn't alone in this struggle. The Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman, a respected figurehead of a well-funded government agency, also attempted to obtain this same AXE logbook from Telstra's CEO. Unfortunately, his efforts were met with silence, as his office never received any response whatsoever. Suppose the Commonwealth Ombudsman, despite his authority and resources, could not access my case's most relevant documents in the whole arbitration process. What hope did I or any other claimants truly have of substantiating our claims against Telstra?
The transcripts from my two Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) hearings, where the government was the responding party through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), reveal my persistent stance that both of my FOI applications to ACMA should be granted free of charge due to their significance to the public interest. This request encompassed all the information that Telstra and AUSTEL had deliberately withheld during my government-endorsed arbitration process, which included the illusive Portland/Cape Bridgewater Telstra telephone exchange logbooks.
Senior AAT member (judge) Mr G.D. Friedman presided over these hearings, and it has become increasingly clear that he remained unaware that both the Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) and ACMA grounded their defence of my claims on an inaccurate and sanitized version of the public AUSTEL COT report released in April 1994. This edited document failed to reflect the actual and significantly adverse findings that AUSTEL had originally reached concerning Telstra's dealings with me, which are detailed in the report.
The AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings dated March 1994 makes it abundantly clear that AUSTEL (now recognized as ACMA) allegedly abused the process. They allowed me to initiate arbitration and legal proceedings against Telstra while neglecting to provide the vital documentation necessary to substantiate my claims. This oversight is particularly troubling, considering I invested over $300,000 in arbitration fees, attempting to prove a case that AUSTEL/ACMA had already established against Telstra. This case was founded on critical evidence obtained from Telstra’s Portland telephone exchange logbook. Despite its significance, AUSTEL/ACMA failed to furnish me with this crucial logbook during my arbitration proceedings and two hearings at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2008 and 2011. This lack of transparency and support not only jeopardized my position but also raised serious questions about the integrity of the entire process.
Furthermore, during my first AAT hearing (No. V2008/1836), Mr. Friedman made the following statement:
“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.
By delineating the twelve chapters from the more extensive narratives, we can better emphasize the critical importance of the statements presented in those specific segments. This approach allows for a more precise examination of the key themes and issues. The COT story, in particular, serves as a profound commentary on the shortcomings and complexities of the justice system in Australia, revealing both systemic flaws and the personal impact these have on individuals involved in legal disputes.
Not Fit For Purpose
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.
The Under Belly Of Telstra
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.
In addition to the initial introduction to our COT narrative, it's crucial to emphasize the pivotal role of the Telstra telephone exchange logbook. This essential document was systematically concealed from the COT Cases during their arbitration proceedings, despite assurances that it would be made available upon our agreement to participate in government-endorsed arbitration and mediation processes.
Once I thoroughly established that Telstra had resorted to fraudulent activities throughout the arbitration of the COT Cases, four individuals—Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowerman—approached me with a request. They asked if I could relay my findings to their barrister, Sue Owens, who had already submitted allegations of fraud against Telstra to the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. My evidence was compelling, and it reached a point where even the Canadian Government recommended that I communicate with Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) to clarify my assertions. I highlighted that Telstra had improperly cited the BCI report as part of its defence despite the serious flaws inherent in that document.
I diligently followed through on this advice. Within a week of discussing the BCI report with Mr. Neil Jepson, who represented the Major Fraud Group, I was invited to contribute part-time to their investigations of two additional reports. The findings I later documented, as outlined on my website absentjustice.com, revealed that Telstra had misused three separate technical reports provided to them on December 12, 1994: the BCI report mentioned above, Tampering with Evidence, Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2, and Telstra's Falsified SVT Report.
These three reports were presented as legitimate evidence in support of their defence during my arbitration claim. It is particularly noteworthy that the current Corporate Secretary, Sue Laver, was aware that all three of these reports were fundamentally flawed.
Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File, 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 comprise a witness statement dated August 10, 2006. This statement was submitted to the DCITA and authored by Ann Garms. It was formally sworn by Des Direen, a former Senior Protective Officer at Telstra, who eventually became Principal Investigator. Mr Direen has demonstrated considerable bravery by revealing that, in the years 1999 and 2000, after he departed from Telstra, he played a crucial role in assisting the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group—particularly Rod Kueris—in their investigations into the allegations of fraud associated with COT. I was subsequently called upon to participate in this investigation as a witness. This role underscores the seriousness of the claims being addressed (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens
Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that:
“From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with".
Within a few weeks of Mr Direen assisting the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this, he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate
“… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.
These two witness statements of 8 and 10 August 2006 released in full as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) confirm how Telstra and their corporate employees bullied and harassed a fully trained senior police officer to breaking point during his official investigations into the COT Cases claims.
It will be on record, within the archives of the Major Fraud Group, that both Mr Neil Jepson and three officers with whom I had worked and lunched were able to confirm that at least two sets of documents I had faxed from my residence to Mr Jepson's office facsimile service line 0395266614 (see File 800B in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 never arrived at his office. This is despite my fax journal showing it had connected to that number 0395266614. It is also on record at the Major Fraud Group that on one of my visits to Melbourne, my apartment had been entered, and certain documents in my bedside drawer had been shifted around in a manila folder where there was chalk dust, which I placed in my folder in said drawer which contained the folder.
Document File 643 in Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 is a letter written by a previous resident of Cape Bridgewater who, after viewing the Sunday Television program now attached to this website as a YouTube video (see Price Waterhouse Coopers Deloitte), explained that he had been contacted by the Major Fraud Group concerning a Telstra employee by the name of Anderson. He noted the police would not elaborate on what they were investigating, and I will not do so here. I have only attached this letter as confirmation that the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group were concerned about my claims.
It is of utmost importance for me to share the witness statement provided by Mr Des Direen, as it vividly highlights the troubling dynamics at play during the investigations conducted by Victoria Police into my claims and those of the four other COT cases. This statement reveals how Telstra managed to exert pressure and intimidate a Victorian Police officer during a formal inquiry between 1999 and 2001. This blatant disregard for the authority of law enforcement came six years after Telstra had already subjected me to a campaign of bullying and intimidation while I was collaborating with the Australian Federal Police during my arbitration process. As I reflect on 2024, I find it disheartening that both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the government have opted not to pursue an investigation into these threats that became a reality, leaving me with a profound sense of unease and a lack of resolution at the age of 80.
Threats made during my arbitration
Threats carried out and ignored by the arbitrator during arbitration
On July 4, 1994, amidst the complexities of my arbitration proceedings, I confronted serious threats articulated by Paul Rumble, a Telstra's arbitration defence team representative. Disturbingly, he had been covertly furnished with some of my interim claims documents by the arbitrator—a breach of protocol that occurred an entire month before the arbitrator was legally obligated to share such information. Given the gravity of the situation, my response needed to be exceptionally meticulous. I poured considerable effort into crafting this detailed letter, carefully choosing every word. In this correspondence, I made it unequivocally clear:
“I gave you my word on Friday night that I would not go running off to the Federal Police etc, I shall honour this statement, and wait for your response to the following questions I ask of Telecom below.” (File 85 - AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91)
When drafting this letter, my determination was unwavering; I had no plans to submit any additional Freedom of Information (FOI) documents to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This decision was significantly influenced by a recent, tense phone call I received from Steve Black, another arbitration liaison officer at Telstra. During this conversation, Black issued a stern warning: should I fail to comply with the directions he and Mr Rumble gave, I would jeopardize my access to crucial documents pertaining to ongoing problems I was experiencing with my telephone service.
Page 12 of the AFP transcript of my second interview (Refer to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1) shows Questions 54 to 58, the AFP stating:-
“The thing that I’m intrigued by is the statement here that you’ve given Mr Rumble your word that you would not go running off to the Federal Police etcetera.”
Essentially, I understood that there were two potential outcomes: either I would obtain documents that could substantiate my claims, or I would be left without any documentation that could impact the arbitrator's decisions regarding my case.
However, a pivotal development occurred when the AFP returned to Cape Bridgewater on September 26, 1994. During this visit, they began to pose probing questions regarding my correspondence with Paul Rumble, demonstrating a sense of urgency in their inquiries. They indicated that if I chose not to cooperate with their investigation, their focus would shift entirely to the unresolved telephone interception issues central to the COT Cases, which they claimed assisted the AFP in various ways. I was alarmed by these statements and contacted Senator Ron Boswell, National Party 'Whip' in the Senate.
As a result of this situation, I contacted Senator Ron Boswell, who subsequently brought these threats to the Senate. This statement underscored the serious nature of the claims I was dealing with and the potential ramifications of my interactions with Telstra.
On page 180, ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra’s legal directorate:
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about this withholding of relevant documents is this - no one in the TIO office or government has ever investigated the disastrous impact the withholding of documents had had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the government (at the time, Telstra was a government-owned entity) should have initiated an investigation into why an Australian citizen, who had assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations, was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts provide a comprehensive account establishing Paul Rumble as a significant figure linked to the threats I have encountered. This conclusion is based on two critical and interrelated factors that merit further elaboration.
Firstly, Mr. Rumble actively obstructed the provision of essential arbitration discovery documents, which the government was legally obligated to provide under the Freedom of Information Act. This obligation was contingent on my signing an agreement to participate in a government-endorsed arbitration process. By imposing this condition, Mr Rumble undermined a legally established protocol, effectively manipulating the process for his benefit and jeopardizing my legal rights.
During the investigation by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group into the alleged fraudulent conduct by Telstra during and after the COT arbitrations, the Scandrett & Associates report was delivered to Senator Ron Boswell on 7 January 1999. This report confirmed that faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations (refer to Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13). Furthermore, one of the two technical consultants who verified the validity of this fax interception report reached out to me via email on 17 December 2014, emphasizing the importance of these findings
“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)
The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
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 Telstra employees have not considered legal repercussions for these actions. 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 July 2005, eleven years after the initial four government-endorsed arbitration agreements were signed, members of 14 COT met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. During this meeting, each member shared their story, and the Senator became visibly emotional as several COT Cases revealed that our arbitration-related faxes were being screened through Telstra's telecommunications network. This screening occurred before the faxes reached their intended recipients, which included several government ministers, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, our arbitration technical advisors, George Close and Associates, and the arbitrator. Sometimes, the faxes did not arrive at their intended locations.
The government agreed to address these privacy concerns in response to these revelations.
On 15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce wrote to me:
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.
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 of those examples was 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). 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)
Senator Helen Coonan bore a crucial responsibility as the Minister for Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts. She was expected to initiate a comprehensive and official inquiry into Telstra's alarming practice of intercepting confidential documents over many years, particularly during and after the contentious COT dispute. This issue is particularly significant due to the sensitive information exchanged throughout this protracted saga, which involved numerous stakeholders and complex negotiations.
On May 12, 1995, a significant development occurred when the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes, concluded my arbitration process. He characterized the arbitration agreement, drafted without the knowledge of the four COT claimants, their legal representatives, or at least two Senators by the defendants, Telstra, as lacking credibility. Notably, despite this assessment, he employed the agreement in his deliberation regarding my claim. In correspondence addressed to Warwick Smith, the administrator overseeing my case, Dr. Hughes stated that the arbitration agreement utilized in my arbitration required amendments for the three remaining COT cases. Consequently, the other claimants—Ann Garm, Maureen Gilland, and Graham Schorer—were granted an extension of thirteen months to revise and resubmit their claims while also addressing Telstra’s defence.
This particular correspondence is of great significance to my situation, as it was faxed to Warwick Smith but intercepted before it could reach my home and office, leaving me in a precarious position. (Please refer to the fax interception markings at the top of the May 12, 1995 letter included below as Example 1.)
Senator Coonan’s letter to me, dated May 17, 2007, would be almost laughable without its profound implications. Yet, the continued assertions within the letter are utterly disgraceful, especially from someone in a high-ranking government position.
The severity of this situation raises essential and troubling questions: How could it be considered acceptable for an Australian citizen to be forced into legal action against Telstra for illegally intercepting confidential documents? These documents were meant for the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office and Parliament House in Canberra, as well as the residence and office of George Close & Associates. The latter firm represented at least six COT Cases during a government-sanctioned arbitration process and continued to face issues even after the arbitrations had concluded. This troubling pattern suggests a flagrant disregard for legal and ethical standards that must be addressed.
Example 1
Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:
Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:
- The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
- The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
- The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from", followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible.
Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.
The fax imprint across each of the documents and letters provided to two well-recognised technical telecommunications specialists both made sworn statements that the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) was all captured by a secondary fax machine, the report states:
“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .
“They show that
- the header strip of various faxes is being altered
- the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”
There exists a pertinent issue regarding the letter dated 12 May 1995. The fax markings on this document indicate that it was intercepted, as evidenced by the Scandrett & Associates report (see (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13). This suggests that the letter from Dr. Gordon Hughes was screened by a secondary fax machine connected to Telstra's network. Therefore, my analysis concerning the 12 May 1995 letter remains valid.
If the markings on the letter do not pertain to its interception while in transit to my residence and office, it raises the question: to whom was this letter ultimately delivered after screening? It is also critical to inquire why Dr. Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith did not send the faxed letter to my office during my designated appeal period. Notably, the three other claimants were granted an additional thirteen months to submit their claims. At the same time, I was bound by a significantly shorter timeframe despite all four of us having signed the same arbitration agreement in April 1994.
If the allowance of thirteen additional months for three claimants to submit their claims and respond to a defence—while denying the same opportunity to another claimant under the same agreement—does not constitute a severe form of discrimination, then what would?
