The Briefcase

 

The Briefcase 

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

 

After filing numerous complaints, Telstra's investigators finally arrived at Cape Bridgewater on June 3, 1993. Despite not resolving the issue, two senior technicians from Melbourne offered me a lift when I found myself stranded. They left a briefcase behind, which contained a file labelled "SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER." This file revealed that Telstra knew about faults in their network when they settled with me in December 1992 but did not disclose this information.

The Briefcase Saga was about to unfold.

Aladdin

On the evening of June 3, 1993, I transferred several briefcase documents to Graham Schorer, the designated COT Case spokesperson, for conveyance to AUSTEL. Due to persistent fax transmission difficulties resulting in incomplete data reception at Mr Schorer's office, it was mutually resolved that he would secure an appointment with AUSTEL to present the undersized and blank pages transmitted to his office. Subsequently, I orally apprised AUSTEL of my observations on the implications of certain briefcase documents the following day. Thereafter, I initiated contact with the local Telstra office, prompting the dispatch of a technician to retrieve the briefcase.

 

The briefcase affair and the Arbitrator's award

 

Shortly after Telstra had left the briefcase at my premises, I received a copy of a letter dated 9 June 1993 from AUSTEL/ACMA). This letter confirms that AUSTEL was concerned that Telstra misled and deceived me during my settlement. The evidence I found in the briefcase completely differed from the information I had provided in writing before the 11 December 1992 settlement. It is also clear that, for reasons I am unaware of, the arbitrator hearing my case ignored the evidence from the briefcase affair provided to him in November 1994. On page one, paragraphs four and five, when referring to my allegations that Telstra withheld this information from me on 11th December 1992, this letter states:

“Further he claims that the Telecom documents [found in the briefcase] contain network investigation findings which are distinctly different from the advice which Telecom has given to the customers concerned.”

“In summary, these allegations, if true, would suggest that in the context of the settlement Mr Smith was provided with a misleading description of the situation as the basis for making his decision. They would also suggest that the other complainants identified in the folders have knowingly been provided with inaccurate information.”

“I ask for your urgent comment on these allegations. You are asked to immediately provide AUSTEL with a copy of all the documentation which was apparently inadvertently left at Mr Smith’s premises for its inspection. …”

“In light of Mr Smith’s claims of continuing service difficulties, I will be seeking to determine with you a mechanism which will allow an objective measurement of any such difficulties to be made.” 

23rd August 1993:  A Telstra internal email discussing The Briefcase (FOI R09830) states:-

“The files on Smith and Dawson have been provided to Austel via Craig Downing of Regulatory at the request of Austel following a meeting with Austel on the issue.  The other papers were not requested and not provided. …”

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

“The loose papers on retrofit could be sensitive and copies of all papers have been sent to Ross Marshall.” (File 37-A - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 )

Please note: In the Arbitrator’s award, dated 11th May 1995, the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, states:-

“The claimant has not asserted that the settlement reached was inadequate, unreasonable or unfair and there is no basis in fact or law for setting aside or avoiding the settlement reached by Telecom and the claimant in respect of all claims prior to 11th December 1992.

In making an award of compensation, it is necessary for me to take into account the amount paid by Telecom to the claimant by way of settlement on 11th December 1992. Particulars of this payment are set out in part 3.3(a) of these reasons. I have taken this payment into account.”

My response to Telstra’s Arbitration Defence of 12 December 1994 shows the settlement process, engineered by Ms Pittard on 11 December 1992, was administered deceptively.  To further support my allegations that Telstra misled him during the settlement of 11 December 1992, I provided Dr Hughes with a list of FOI documents, including an AUSTEL letter stating if Telstra withheld fault documentation from me during his settlement, then they misled him. AUSTEL previously withheld fault documents – C04006, C04007 and C04008 (File 5 - AS-CAV Exhibit 1 to 47 ).

In my reply to Telstra’s arbitration defence on this deceptive conduct, I stated, on p2:-

“I would submit that for Ms Pittard as General Manager of Telecom Commercial Victoria/Tasmania to take these actions and execute these actions is one of negligence and a breach of statutory duty”

and on p4:-

“Mr Arbitrator you would find that Telecom has been negligent in their dealings with my phone service and the actions of Ms Pittard in refusing me historical fault information prior to the settlement was not only negligent, misleading anddeceptive, it was also unconscionable conduct.”

Why did Dr. Hughes say I did not complain about the settlement process when I documented how unreasonable and unfair it had been?

Back to the briefcase

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

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

I would also ask that you do not make this material available to anyone else.” 

The word ‘alarming’ is used in this briefcase document because the second appointed TIO later told the Senate Estimates Committee that COT/TIO-administered arbitration issues were openly discussed at regular monthly TIO Council meetings, which suggests that they would have been discussed at monthly TIO Board meetings too. In other words, Telstra having their corporate secretary attend monthly TIO Board meetings when COT case arbitration matters were discussed (such as this briefcase saga) was extremely beneficial unless you were the claimant. It was clear from the briefcase information that Telstra was concealing just how bad their rural network was from the government.

Following receiving this letter and my two trips to Melbourne, where all expenses, including accommodation and meals, were covered by the government, I began receiving threats from Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page. Freehill insisted that unless I documented my phone complaints to Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page in writing, Telstra would not make any efforts to resolve the phone issues I had reported as detrimental to my business.

Once the following records and mini-chapters are incorporated into our COT "The Briefcase narrative, which uses forty per cent (40%) of the evidence already contained in Evidence Files, which was originally hand-delivered to the relevant members of the Liberal Coalition government in the third week of February 2006, by the Hon David Hawker MP, Speaker in the House of Representatives the government will be unable to deny their awareness of the full extent of my evidence.

 

-----------------

 

PLEASE NOTE: the webpage "The Briefcase" is still being edited as of 20 July 2024.

 

------------------

 

Australian Senate Hansard, Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating: 

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

Who in the public sector failed to inform the US Securities Exchange that a minimum of eleven per cent (11%) of Telstra's base value was wrongly calculated due to the incorrect charging of its Australian Telstra landline telecommunications network (refer to Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring)? It's vital to note that most of Telstra's Ericsson AXE-installed telephone exchanges across Australia also experienced an incoming call loss rate of between 15% and 50% per cent. When coupled with Telstra's average eleven per cent (11%) of incorrect charging of their customers' telephone accounts, a comprehensive picture emerges, bringing to light more reasons for my absentjustice.com claims

Chapter 1 Fraudulent Conduct Falsified Reporting 

Chapter 1

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (1)

I think it's essential to digress here and go back to 3 June 1993. Two Telstra technical consultants inadvertently left a briefcase in my office. I found that Aladdin had left behind his treasures: the Ericsson Briefcase Saga was about to unfold. Telstra had knowingly misled and deceived me during my first settlement on 11 December 1992 (See Front Page Part Two 2-B).

The briefcase was not locked, and I opened it to find out it belonged to Mr Macintosh. There was no phone number, so I had to wait for business hours the next day to track him down. But what there was in the briefcase was a file titled 'SMITH, CAPE BRIDGEWATER' - AXE - problems ongoing - this has been a significant AXE problem. After five gruelling years fighting the evasive monolith of Telstra, being told various lies along the way, here was possibly the truth from an inside perspective.

The first thing that rang bells was a document which revealed Telstra knew that the Ericsson AXE RVA fault they recorded in March 1992 had lasted for at least eight months — not the three weeks that was the basis of their settlement pay-out. Dated 24/7/92, with my phone number in the top right corner, the document referred to my complaint that people ringing my number over 8 months received a 'service disconnected' message telling the caller my line was 'not connected'. The final sentence reads: 'Network investigation should have been brought in as fault has gone on for 8 months'.

I copied about one-third of this briefcase before my copying machine died. The following day, after Telstra returned and picked up the briefcase, that information was sent to AUSTEL, the government communications regulator. 

One-third of the documents that I managed to copy contained enough information to convince AUSTEL that Ericsson and Telstra were fully aware that the AXE Ericsson lock-up faults were a problem worldwide, affecting 15 to 50 per cent of all calls generated through this AXE exchange equipment. The fault locked up the system and affected the billing software. 

Thousands upon thousands of Telstra customers Australia-wide had been wrongly billed since the installation of this Ericsson AXE equipment, which, in my case, had been installed in August 1991, with the problems still apparent in 2002. Other countries worldwide were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f ), and Australia was still denying to the arbitrator there was ever a problem with that equipment. Telstra told lies to minimise their liability to the COT Cases. (Files 6 to 9 AXE Evidence File 1 to 9)

Was this the real reason the Australian government allowed Ericsson to purchase Lane during the government-endorsed COT arbitration while the arbitrations were still in progress?

When the COT arbitration documents were submitted into arbitration, it proved that this Ericsson AXE lock-up call loss rate was between 15% and 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f clearly shows. AUSTEL then instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL's Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra's Group General Manager (who was also Telstra's main arbitration defence liaison officer), suggesting he alter that finding of 120,000 COT-type complaints to show a hundred. If fact when the public AUSTEL COT Cases report was launched on 13 April 1994, it states AUSTEL located up-wards of 50 or more COT-type complaints being experienced around Australia. 

In my case, none of the relevant arbitration claims raised against Ericsson, whose official arbitration records numbered A56132, were investigated, including my Telstra's Falsified SVT Report. Why did Lane ignore this evidence against Ericsson?  

Even worse was when my arbitration claim documents were returned to me after the conclusion of the arbitration NONE of my Ericsson technical data was amongst the returned material.

I believe the Australian government should answer the following questions: How long was Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd in contact with Ericsson, the major supplier of telecommunication equipment to Telstra before Ericsson purchased Lanes? Is there a link between Lanes ignoring my Ericsson AXE claim documents and Ericsson's purchase of Lane during the COT arbitration process?

Is there a sinister link between the government communications media regulator ACMA denying me access to the Ericsson AXE documentation that I lawfully tried to gain access to during my two government Administrative Appeal Tribunal hearings in 2008 and 2011 (see Chapter 9—The ninth remedy pursued and  Chapter 12—The twelfth remedy pursued)? 

The latest 2019/2020 5G Ericsson partnership with Telstra is relevant to all Australian Telstra subscribers; however, it is also relevant that the same subscribers visit my website, absentjustice.com, where you can see that my claims against Telstra and Ericsson are valid.

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issue the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson on 19 December 2019 and what the Australian media reported:

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business".(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Ericsson, which the US Department of Justice has accused of bribery and corruption, is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator. As for bribery in the case against Telstra, Senate Hansard, dated 27 February 1998, shows Telstra paid kickbacks and bribes to several Australian politicians and government bureaucrats.

We must use the Ericsson link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against Telstra and whether Ericsson should have been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the period Lane was the officially appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra including the Ericsson manufactured telephone equipment installed in the telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses.

No one, not even the Commonwealth Ombudsman, could locate the arbitration file, which I was entitled to receive under the arbitration discovery process or FOI. This file was prepared when the COT Cases were challenging Ericsson's faulty AXE telephone exchange, suggesting that Julian Assange and his friends were right when they said this Arbitration File was crucial to the COT cases' claims. 

Chapter 2

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

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

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

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

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

It is also essential to draw your attention to the statement made by the arbitrator in his award at point 7.14 (a) where he states:

"In making an award of compensation, it is necessary for ne to take intio account the amount paid by Telecom to the claimant by way of settlement on 11 December 1992. Particulars of this payment are set out in part 3.3 of these reasons. I have taken this payment into consideration."

At point 3.3 in his award, the arbitrator noted:

"the claimant has no entitlement to compensation in respect of the period to 11 December 1992 because of a settlement reached on that day, pursuant to which the claimant was paid $80,000.00 and provided with a 008 telephone service and a $5,000.00 credit towards 008 charges. The settlement was made with a denial of liability in full and final resolution of all claims to that case."

It is clear from Chapter 5 below that Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) should have investigated why Telstra lied to me in writing during my settlement of 11 December 1992 concerning the known faulty Ericsson AXE equipment, which was still affecting the viability of my business in December 1992 settlement as (Telecom Secret folio document C04008 shows were the case as well as again lying to me and the arbitration process in 1994/95 concerning the same Ericsson AXE fault. 

I reiterate the arbitrator ignored the truth about the ongoing Ericsson AXE Portland telephone exchange problems before and during 1992 and again during my arbitration in 1994/95.   

When the COT Cases exposed this Ericsson AXE call loss rate to AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) AUSTEL (now ACMA) instigated an investigation into these AXE exchange faults and uncovered some 120,000 COT-type complaints were being experienced around Australia. Exhibit (Introduction File No/8-A to 8-C), shows AUSTEL’s Chairman Robin Davey received a letter from Telstra’s Group General Manager, suggesting he alter that finding:

For example, at point 4 on page 3, Telstra writes:

“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with Cot-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request.  The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120,000.

However, at point 2 on page 1 of Telstra’s letter 9 April 1994, Telstra writes:

“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers”.

The fact that on this occasion, on 9 April 1994, Telstra (the defendants) were able to pressure the Government Regulator to change their original findings in the formal April 1994 AUSTEL COT Case report is alarming, to say the least. Worse, when AUSTEL released it into the public domain, the report states that AUSTEL only uncovered 50 or more COT-type complaints.

50 COT-type customer AXE complaints compared to 120,000 COT-type customer AXE complaints is one hell of a lie told by the government to its citizens who voted it into power.

Perhaps, when the government (Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) assessors saw how damning the downplaying by AUSTEL of the COT-type complaints, they buried the evidence in 2006, just as AUSTEL (the government regulator) did twelve years previously. 

Because the faulty Ericsson AXE telephone equipment played such an important part in both my 1994 arbitration procedure and the 2006 DCITA independent government assessment process, I have introduced it here, along with the selling off of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd (the arbitration technical unit) to Ericsson, the very corporation it had been commissioned to investigate during the COT arbitrations.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations were concluded, John Pinnock (the second administrator of the COT arbitrations), advised a Senate committee (see pages 96 and 99 Senate – Parliament of Australia) that:

“Lane Telecommunications, which is one part of the technical component of the resource unit, has withdrawn from the process as a result of a conflict or perceived conflict of interest after being purchased from Pacific Star by Ericsson Australia, the major supplier of equipment to Telstra, including equipment whose performance is central to some of the claims.”

John Pinnock also wrote his concerns to William Hunt, lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT Spokesperson) and Ann Garms, two of the other four main COT Cases (which I was one of the four) on 16 July 1997 stating, that.

“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.

“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…

“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.

“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …

“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall [sic] be determined.” (GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323 - See GS-CAV 296-A)

In September 1997, when the government and Senate became aware of the many deficiencies in the arbitration process, including Ericsson had been allowed to purchase Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, they allowed both Graham Schorer and Ann Garms to amend their claims. Maureen Gillan (now deceased) and I were never allowed the same chance to amend our claims. In my case, John Pinnock was still investigating my complaints of ongoing Ericsson AXE billing problems up to February 1999. (see File 261 and 262 (AS CAV Exhibit 234 to 281.

Even with these Ericsson AXE issues still being viewed four years after the completion of my arbitration, was I given the same permission to amend my claim because Lane never made a finding on my ongoing Ericsson arbitration faults in their arbitration report? 

It is, therefore, important I jump forward 24 to the current day and introduce the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson, on 19 December 2019 (see https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

Purchasing all of Lane Telecommunications' COT-related arbitration files (during the COT arbitrations) was a most significant coup for both Telstra and Ericsson because all of the arbitration technical information Lane had acquired as a witness during the COT arbitrations, which was stored in Lane's computer system as well as in hard copy records, belonged to Ericsson once they owned Lane.

What the Australian government appears not to have considered when they allowed Lane to be sold off during our government endorsed arbitrations is that Lane had signed a Confidentiality Arbitration Agreement in which each of the COT claimants also signed agreeing under no circumstances, they would disclose to a third party any information they obtained during the COT arbitrations. And here Lane is the main arbitration witness allowed to sell that confidential acquired information to Ericsson, who Lane had been assigned to investigate.

Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment (2)

Chapter 3

Ericsson AXE logbook 

It is on record that when Lane, together with Telstra, and I visited the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater unmanned switching exchange on 6 April 1995, both Lane and Telstra would not allow me to view the Portland Ericsson AXE log book. I must attach the following link here. Although dated 1996, all Ericsson exchanges had their logbooks (see page 20 > http://www.wedophones.com/Manuals/EricssonNotInService/AXE%20Operation%20And%20Maint%. It is also on record that the arbitrator would not access this logbook under the arbitration discovery process. Even the Commonwealth Ombudsman (during my arbitration) tried to acquire this same logbook using my FOI applications but was unsuccessful. 

We must link the purchase of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd by Ericsson to the 24 June 1997 Senate Hansard pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia because the Peter Gamble mentioned in the following Senate Hansard is the same Peter Gamble who acknowledges the Ericsson AXE equipment was being removed or had been removed from telephone exchanges across the world. He was the same Peter Gamble who caused such pain and suffering to me and my partner when he submitted his Telstra's Falsified SVT Report to the arbitrator. This statement in Senate – Parliament of Australia must be emphasised because it clearly shows the Senate was told I and the other four named COT Cases were never meant to prove our arbitration claims. No investigation as to why us five Australian citizens were so badly victimised during an official government endorsed arbitration process has still not been investigated: I again reiterate: an ex-Telstra employee turned Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, stated to a Senate Estimates Committee that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, 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 Schacht also asked Mr White – “Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said ‘stopped at all costs”

Mr White – “Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Riddle. That was the introduction process. (See Front Page Part One File No/6)

From Mr White’s statement, I reiterate that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all cost’ from proving their my against Telstra’. The named Peter Gamble in this Senate Hansard is the same Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his arbitration witness statement to the arbitrator that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications when it is clear from Arbitrator File No/110 that Telstra’s own Customer Call Analysis System (CCAS) data for 29 September 1994 show NONE of the mandatorily required 20-tests calls to each of my service lines 055 267 267, 055 267230 and 055 267260 were generated into my business and held open for the required period of 120-seconds for each completed call. In simple words, the SVT process at my business was not carried out according to the government communications regulatory mandatory specifications (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

Telstra is fully aware that this named Peter Gamble (on page 38 of this Hansard) received advice from AUSTEL, on 11 October and 16 November 1994, regarding the Ericsson AXE / RCM Service Verification Tests (SVT) being grossly deficient. AUSTEL demanded Telstra advise what it intended doing about this deficiency see Front Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B

In response to AUSTEL’s 11 October and 16 November 1994 letter, this Peter Gamble replied in his own letter dated 28 November 1994 letter stating:

“As agreed at one of our recent meetings and as confirmed in your letter of 16th November 1994, attached please find the detailed Call Delivery Test information for the following customers. …

“This information is supplied to Austel on a strict Telecom-in-Confidence basis for use in their Service Verification Test Review only and not for any other purpose. The information is not to be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Telecom.” (Arbitrator File No/98)

By what legal authority could Peter Gamble insist what the government regulator could or could not disclose to a third party, in this case, a claimant whose business was about to be destroyed because Peter Gamble had not conducted the agreed to Service Verification Tests process at my premises using only the Ericsson faulty testing equipment instead of the agreed-to more updated SVT testing device (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report)?

It is most important we link the above wrongdoings by various government bureaucrats to the following episode where, on 2 February 1995, AUSTEL (the Government Communications Regulator) public servants decided to withhold their true findings from the then-Minister for Communications, Michael Lee MP, regarding the deficient arbitration Service Verification Tests (SVT) conducted at my Cape Bridgewater business on 29 September 1994 (see Open Letter File No/23 and Open Letter File No/23) AUSTEL notes:

“Service Verification Tests have been compiled for seven customers. Reports have been completed and forwarded to six of the customers, and the seventh report is in preparation. All six of the telephone services subjected to the Service Verification Tests have met or exceeded the requirements established”.

This statement on page 23 of this AUSTEL COT Cases report does not coincide with the advice AUSTEL gave Telstra on 11 October and 16 November 1994 concerning the deficient SVT testing by this elusive ‘Peter Gamble’.  (see Front Page Part One File/No 24-A to 24-B).

We will never know what action the Hon. Michael Lee MP might have taken in 1994 had the government bureaucrats advised the Minister that the SVT testing at my Cape Bridgewater business had not occurred according to mandatory government communications regulatory specifications. On 12 December 1994, as part of Telstra’s arbitration defence, it was stated under oath to the arbitrator that all three of the service lines tested at my holiday camp on 29 September 1994 had exceeded all of AUSTEL’s specifications. However, the person who made this statement (Peter Gamble) could not get the SVT monitoring device to work with its sister device installed at the Cape Bridgewater unmanned roadside exchange.

It is clear from the arbitrators’ technical findings in his award that he believed Peter Gamble's version, AUSTEL’s regarding the SVT events, and NOT my arbitration response. Bad Bureaucrats /Chapter One through to Chapter Four clearly shows that Telstra not conducting the government regulatory mandatory SVT process at my business, allowed my ongoing telephone problems to continue for years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Chapter 4

Government regulator acts in concert with the agency they are investigating

In simple terms, when AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) acted in concert with ‘Peter Gamble’ to cover up his deficient SVT arbitration testing, they, too, perverted the course of justice and severely disadvantaged me as a claimant in my arbitration process.

Please note, this is the same Peter Gamble that Absent Justice Part (1)  shows was aware that the Ericsson AXE equipment being used during my arbitration at the Portland telephone exchange and the Cape Bridgewater switching facilitator suffered from line lock-up problems with a (call loss) as discussed in our Home page was between 15% and 50% (see Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E). Yet, he still lied under oath concerning his SVT testing process at my business (see Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report).

This was the same ‘Peter Gamble’ who received an apology from one of Australia’s richest billionaire families and who, back in 2001/02, owned an Australian television station that actually broadcast a documentary about some of the COT case allegations against this same ‘Peter Gamble’.

As part of the process of making that documentary, and after spending two days filming at my premises in Cape Bridgewater, the producer of the show commented, in front of several witnesses, that he believed that they ‘had the story of the century and, also at the end of the shoot, even the cameraman, who had told us that he had spent sixteen years looking down a lens’, explained that he believed that this account of how a falsified report had been deliberately used to change the course of a legal arbitration process, was ‘absolute dynamite’.  And remember, this was an apparently ‘official’ report, produced by the same ‘Peter Gamble’.

Eventually, however, the record of my story was replaced by a documentary about another member of COT.  This story, however, did not contain the detailed, documented evidence that my story had provided. It did not have any of the exhibits that are now freely available on our website at Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report and Telstra’s Falsified SVT Report.  These website sections include numerous documents, none of which can be refuted.

Worst of all is when Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd visited my business on 6 April 1995, instead of DMR Group Canada Inc, who was the official designated arbitrator (Principal Technical Consultant) together with Peter Gamble representing Telstra, refused to conduct any testing of my three service lines which were trunked (routed) through Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange

Who had the power over the arbitrator and administrator to switch which arbitration technical consultant would visit the Portland AXE exchange and my Cape Bridgewater business? Who had the authority to disallow any testing of my three service lines after AUSTEL warned Telstra their arbitration SVT Testing at my premises had failed to meet the mandatory government requirements?

All Lane had to do was a test on just one of my three service lines, and they would have uncovered the Ericsson AXE exchange was still suffering from ongoing faults. Or had Ericsson and Telstra already advised Lane of the magic golden carrot they were about to be awarded if they ignored the several problems within Telstra's Ericsson exchange equipment? 

Telstra continued to believe they were above the law by continuing to use known faulty Ericsson manufactured AXE telephone exchanges that other countries around the world were removing or had removed from their telephone exchanges as Misleading Deceptive Conduct File No 4-D and 4-E)  and Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f show. The government regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) became aware of this serious matter after a Telstra owned briefcase had been inadvertently left at my business premises. I was still trying to access the Ericsson AXE  report through ACMA and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as late October 2008 Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued and  Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued), more than fifteen years after the arbitrator declined to access the Ericsson AXE information under the arbitration discovery process.  

The seriousness of these ongoing Ericsson AXE problems can be viewed by clicking on AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) at points 10 to 212.

Please go to Chapter 1 Fraudulent Conduct Falsified Reporting

 

PLEASE NOTE: Chapters 6 to 28 are still being edited as of 20 July 2024.