Chapter Four - The Seventh Damning Letter
Important evidence from my accountant, Derek Ryan of DMR Corporate, emerged in late November 1995, five months after Dr Hughes prematurely issued my award on May 11, 1995. After receiving this new information through the Freedom of Information (FOI) request and reviewing it, Derek Ryan recommended that I contact Dr. Hughes to discuss the recently obtained evidence from Telstra. Dr. Hughes requested this information on my behalf during the arbitration process in March 1995. Unfortunately, Telstra did not release this information to Dr. Hughes during the discovery phase, nor did they provide it to me under the FOI Act. Additionally, John Rundell's letter dated February 17, 1996, addressed to John Pinnock, acknowledges that a private investigator interviewed John Rundell. (Prologue Evidence File No/8-E).
I received previously requested FOI documents on 28 November 1995, which included raw data, photographs, and laboratory graphs that I had not encountered during my arbitration proceedings. This material is significant because it directly relates to a TF200 EXICOM, which is essential to note as I owned two of these devices, leading to confusion and complications in the situation at hand.
The technical evidence reveals that someone at Telstra tampered with the phone by blackening the attached pad and smearing a dark substance over its surface. This is alarming, especially considering that the photograph I possessed, taken at the time the phone was collected, clearly showed it to be clean and free of any grime or contaminants.
In addition, I found two test documents that indicated Telstra's actions regarding the phone. They demonstrated that when beer and Coca-Cola were poured into the device at different intervals, the phone malfunctioned and locked up. However, what is particularly troubling is Telstra's wording in a sequence document. It noted that after applying either Coke or a wet beer substance, laboratory tests revealed that the phone returned to a dry state within 48 hours.
This timeline suggests that when Telstra collected my phone on April 27, 1994, and did not conduct any tests until May 10, 1994, any foreign substances discovered inside the phone must have been introduced after it had left my premises. This evidence raises questions about the integrity of the handling process and casts a shadow on Telstra's practices regarding the equipment they manage. The implications of this evidence are severe, as they call into question the reliability of their actions and the accountability of their procedures.
The original laboratory tests conducted by Telstra, which had been withheld from both Dr. Hughes and myself in March 1995, were finally obtained through the FOI process from Telstra on November 28, 1995. This documentation provided evidence that Telstra had misrepresented its position in the arbitration; however, it arrived too late for me to substantiate my ongoing claims regarding telephone issues.
Such circumstances prompted my call to Dr. Hughes at 8:00 a.m.; I was on the verge of significant developments in my case, yet I learned that Dr. Hughes was overseas.
The following day, I informed Mr. Pinnock about our conversation and provided him with evidence demonstrating Telstra's fraudulent practices. My website comprehensively articulates the details of my claims, which I assert are valid and worthy of consideration.
Mr. Pinnock's correspondence to Mr. James, dated February 27, 1996, was subsequently shared with Dr. Hughes. This communication suggests that Dr. Hughes knew Mr. Pinnock may have misrepresented my character to Mr. James. Had Mr. James been accurately informed, the past twenty-eight years could have unfolded considerably more positively and constructively. The experiences associated with the COT Cases have suffered partly due to Dr. Hughes’s reluctance to conduct arbitrations under the established procedures.
Before I disclose below, my alleged telephone call to the arbitrator's wife at 2 am one morning was nothing but total fabrication so that my complaints to the Institute of Arbitrators Australia would not investigate my claims against Dr Hughes (the arbitrator to my arbitration). It is quite possible that neither Dr Hughes nor John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) wanted the two December 1995 letters my accountant Derek Ryan wrote to Senator Richard Alston and Mr Pinnock discovered (re to Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete). Had Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia (AAT), seen these two letters, they might have shown more truth to my claims raised with the AAT than just my claims. Reading those two letters, dated 6 December and 20 December 1995, shows Dr Hughes did have questions about his allowing only part of the financial findings on my claim to be valued rather than the whole claim.
On 27 February 1996, John Pinnock wrote to Laurie James (see point 4 above), attacking my credibility. The TIO deliberately misinformed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am one morning:
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
PLEASE NOTE:
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests in his letter to Laurie James, why did he not produce my letter?
Who advised the TIO that I telephoned at approximately 2 am? The telephone account for the evening in question (also in Arbitrator File No /49) confirms I called at 8.02 pm. It is terrible to see the lies told regarding the time I made this telephone call, but it is perhaps even worse to discover that my reason for calling was concealed from Mr James. I phoned the arbitrator to alert him I had, that day – 28 November 1995 – received vital arbitration documents that I should have received during my arbitration, and these documents definitively proved Telstra's TF200 EXICOM arbitration defence report was manufactured to pervert the course of justice.
It was exciting to read that Telstra staff proved beer could not have stayed wet and sticky for 14 days – the time between the TF200 EXICOM leaving my premises and arriving at their laboratory. It was already evening, but I rang the arbitrator's home number in the heat of the moment. His wife answered and told me he was overseas and not due home for some days.
Upon reflection, I found myself caught off guard by the situation. My fervour had prevented me from anticipating that the arbitrator might not respond to my call. I had presumed that the arbitrator had discussed the rumours circulating in Parliament House regarding his use of a non-credible arbitration agreement that Telstra's lawyers had secretly drafted to favour Telstra's arbitration defence at the expense of the COT Cases' ability to obtain documents. There were also rumours that Dr Hughes would allow the resource unit to be exonerated from all liability. I believed this covert agreement would become a significant issue at the time. My initial response was to inform Gordon, upon his return, that John Rundell had called, said good night, and hung up, as evidenced by the billing account showing a call lasting only 28 seconds.
The following day, I contacted John Pinnock to pass on the evidence that had recently come to light and to inform him of the previous night's events. I presumed that Dr Hughes had discussed the unfavourable and one-sided arbitration agreement that he was compelled to use and had written to Warwick Smith on May 12th, 1995, condemning the agreement as not credible. Despite his reservations, he nonetheless used it to undermine my award. Dr. Hughes subsequently altered the agreement, granting the other COT Cases more than thirteen months longer than he had allowed me to access my documents from Telstra.
I surmised that if Dr Hughes's wife had known who was calling, she might have been apprehensive that I was calling to accuse the arbitrator. Therefore, I impetuously provided her with another name, that of the FHCA project manager, John Rundell, with whom I knew the arbitrator was acquainted. Later, I notified the TIO of my discovery and attempted to contact the arbitrator to relay the news. I also explained that I had provided the name of the arbitration project manager to the arbitrator's wife instead of my own to avoid causing her alarm. I inquired about the TIO's intentions regarding the evidence I had uncovered, namely that Telstra had falsified the beer in the phone store. The TIO responded unequivocally that my arbitration had concluded, and he had no intention of involving his office in any further investigations. He advised me to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria if I wished to pursue it further.
If I had indeed written to the TIO, as he suggests in his letter to Laurie James, why did he not produce my letter? The reason, of course, is that I never wrote such a letter. The TIO's letter to Laurie James is as disingenuous as claiming that I wrote such a letter, as it was copied to the arbitrator.
Undoubtedly, the arbitrator would have discussed my phone call with his wife and learned that I had called at 8:02 p.m. and had been unfailingly polite and respectful throughout our conversation.
It is also alarming, to say the least, that Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and John Pinnock (the administrator of the arbitration) allowed Dr Hughes’ wife’s name to be used to stop Laurie James (the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia) from uncovering Telstra’s conjured TF200 report (refer to Tampering With Evidence).
I doubt, even now, 20-plus years after the event, Dr Hughes’ wife knows he used her to stop a transparent investigation by Laurie James (then president of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia) into why her husband and John Pinnock (the second TIO) would not investigate the fresh TF200 EXICOM evidence that arrived on 28 November 1995, confirming that 11 months previously Telstra fraudulently manufactured their TF200 EXICOM arbitration report. I am sure Mrs Hughes would be alarmed that John Pinnock deceived Mr James by advising me that I telephoned Dr Hughes at 2.00 am when no such letter existed. John Pinnock’s letter, dated 27 February 1996, was also copied to her husband. Why did Dr. Hughes allow such a letter to be sent when he must have known I did not telephone his wife at 2.00 am? I telephoned at 8:02 pm to tell Dr Hughes what this fresh evidence finally revealed (see Tampering With Evidence).
This tampering with evidence, after it left my premises, raises a most important question: why has the Australian government not advised the Telstra board that Telstra have both a legal and moral obligation to rectify these as a matter of public interest because this tampering with evidence, during a litigation process, was committed when the Australian Government and its people owned the Telstra Corporation.
It is bad enough to have to live with the knowledge that the Arbitration Resource Unit and the Arbitrator failed to investigate my complaints of the multiple, ongoing telephone problems that continued to haunt my struggling business throughout my arbitration process. Still, the situation becomes even worse when you consider what was to come when John Pinnock (the new administrator of the process), who also held the role of TIO, advised Australian politicians that all of the problems I was still complaining about had been fixed during the arbitration, even though Mr Pinnock (the new TIO) were still receiving correspondence from Telstra, thirty-three months after my arbitration had ended, claiming that it ‘appeared’ as though the problems had continued to occur after the so-called ‘end’ of my arbitration. What this does highlight, however, is a clear indication of how corrupt the whole COT arbitration process was: it had been designed, from the very beginning, to cover up Telstra’s bad workmanship, regardless of the cost, and the cost of that cover-up was the destruction of anyone who was prepared to stand up and raise legitimate complaints, with the Government, concerning Telstra, on any level.
Let us look again at this 27 February 1996 letter from Mr Pinnock and the tampering with evidence issue, namely, the TF200.
The marked Telstra FOI documents folio A64535 to A64562 (see Tampering With Evidence File No/5), are clear evidence that Telstra did do two separate TF200 tests on my collected phone two weeks apart. FOI folio A64535 confirms with this handwritten Telstra laboratory file note, dated 26 May 1994, that when wet beer was poured into a TF200 phone, the wet substance dried up within 48 hours. The air vents within the telephone itself allowed for the beer to escape. In other words, how could my TF200, collected on 27 April 1994, have been wet inside the phone on 10 May 1994 when it was tested at Telstra’s laboratories?
It has been brought to the attention of the undersigned that Telstra, a telecommunications company, tampered with evidence during an arbitration process. The undersigned had previously volunteered for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA) for many years before this incident came to light. During the arbitration process, Telstra deliberately misled the arbitrator by twisting the reason as to why the undersigned was unable to test their TF200 telephone at their premises during a scheduled meeting on 27 April 1994. Telstra had recorded in their file notes, which were later submitted to the arbitrator, that the undersigned had refused to allow them to test the phones due to feelings of fatigue. However, Telstra failed to mention that the undersigned had informed the fault response unit that they had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours and that their sore eyes made it impossible to observe the testing.
It is evident from the Tampering With Evidence page that Telstra set out to discredit the undersigned by implying that they were too tired to have their TF200 phone tested and, after the phone was removed, someone from Telstra poured beer into it before it arrived at the Melbourne laboratories. Telstra then alleged that sticky beer was the cause of the phone's ongoing lock-up problems rather than an issue with the Cape Bridgewater network. These actions and the threats the undersigned received from Telstra during the arbitration process demonstrate that their claims should have been investigated years ago. Despite the undersigned carrying out their civic duties as an Australian citizen, providing vital evidence to the AFP and fighting out-of-control fires, they were still penalised during the arbitration process.
It is worth noting that the undersigned could not have spilt beer into their telephone, as Telstra had claimed, given that they had been fighting a fire. They would not have been drinking beer while driving the CFA truck or assisting their colleagues. This part of the undersigned's story highlights the unprofessional conduct that COT Cases endured from Telstra as they fought for a reliable phone service. When the undersigned provided the arbitrator and the arbitration Special Counsel with a statutory declaration prepared by Paul Westwood's forensic documents specialist, both refused the undersigned's request to investigate Telstra's report on the grounds of fraud.
A second look at Telstra’s doctored technical report, i.e.,
After a claimant has provided it to an arbitration process, this sort of tampering with evidence must really be one of the worst crimes a defendant (in this case, the Telstra corporation) could commit against an Australian citizen. So why, when evidence of this tampering was provided – more than two decades ago (see Open Letter File Nos/36, 37 and File No/38) to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, the chair of the TIO counsel, The Hon Tony Staley, the chair of the Telstra board, David Hoare and Telstra’s then-CEO Ziggy Switkowski AO – was it not investigated immediately? After all, it was Telstra’s internal investigations after the initial report that uncovered this unlawful conduct during my arbitration. However, that didn’t stop Ziggy Switkowski from accepting an Order of Australia award in 2014 despite sitting on this crime for more than two decades ago years. Ziggy Switkowski, the new Telstra CEO, and chair have a moral and legal obligation to investigate the criminal misconduct committed by previous employees during my litigation with Telstra.
The conclusion of Telstra’s original arbitration TF200 defence report, prepared and signed off by Telstra, states:
“The cause of the fault condition has been confirmed by Telecom Research to be due to the presence of a foreign substance possibly beer inside the telephone case which directly caused the incorrect operation of the telephone membrane hookswitch. When the hookswitch was removed from the foreign substance, the telephone operated correctly.
“The state of the telephone when received suggested that the telephone was not well cared for by the customer.
“If the customer had reported the liquid spillage when it occurred the telephone would have been replaced under standard maintenance procedures with no resultant loss of business.”
A drop of silicon
Telstra eventually sold two containers of T200s as scrap to Liberty USA Pty Ltd, who in turn moisture proofed the phones with silicon and resold them to Poland. The person who secured the lucrative deal to sell these faulty TF200s was John Tuczynski, managing director of Liberty Australia Pty Ltd, who was also an ex-Polish national, like Mr Switkowski.
Mr Tuczynski’s method, using silicon on TF200 hookswitches to moisture-proof the phones, was a technique Telstra did not know. This could have saved the corporation a lot of money and EXICOM customers years of heartache. Remember, the Australian government and its citizens owned the Telstra Corporation at this time, but instead of looking for a solution to fix the EXICOM problem, Telstra decided it was easier and cheaper to tamper with the TF200s and blame the customer for any faults.
Had John Pinnock not written this letter to Laurie James on 27 February 1996, and had Dr Hughes stopped this letter, which he knew was false, from being supplied to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators, all my arbitration unresolved issues would have been seen in a different light, as they have been these past two decades.
Could there have been another reason Dr Hughes did not want the Institute of Arbitrators investigating my matters Dr Hughes was aware at early as 23 May 1994, that my arbitration-related faxes were not arriving at his office, but he did not allow me to have these lost claim documents re-submitted when I was able to prove this had happened:
