Rupert Murdoch Telstra Scandal and Helen Handbury Sub Story. The website that triggered `the deeper exploration into the world of political corruption stands shoulder to shoulder with any true crime story.

 

History – Casualties of Telecom (COT)

I am Alan Smith; this is my story and that of other business owners who have had significant issues with Telecom, now Telstra. We became known by the acronym COT – Casualties of Telecom.

Until the late 1990s, Telecom was the name of the Australian government’s telephone network and communication carrier. Telecom was privatised at the end of the last century and became Telstra. Under its government auspices, Telecom held a monopoly on communications, but their mismanagement on all levels let the network fall into disrepair and resulted in grossly deficient service to customers who depended on Telecom to run their businesses and provide customer services.

A government-endorsed arbitration process was set up for the business owners to rectify their communication problems and fix the faulty telephone services. However, it turned into an uneven battle between the COT cases and the government-backed Telecom, which we, the four claimants, could not win. Our ongoing telephone and fax problems were compounded as our costs and losses increased because our deficient services were not repaired, nor were our concerns directly addressed as they should have been.

Our personal integrity was attacked, business reputations undermined, and crimes were committed against us in order to ruin our livelihoods as Telecom sought to avoid responsibility for their own ineptitude and mismanagement by directing blame onto these small businesses that had been severely disadvantaged and destroyed by the lack of communication services between business owners and potential clients.

We, the COT claimants, lost millions of dollars, our mental health declined, and our livelihoods collapsed in ruins.  Yet, those in government - the architects of this injustice, this corruption and who had perpetuated these crimes against ordinary citizens -  are still in positions of power today.  Our stories are still being covered up and actively buried in bureaucratic red tape.

These are our stories which are of major significance today as the cover up has continued to the present day.  The stories reveal how through the development of technology, large organisations have been allowed to disadvantage their clients, cover up corrupt operation practices and mismanagement, as well as avoid any responsibility for their failure to act in the interests of a client base or deliver the services they had promised. It is a story of vast government corruption, injustices, and criminal behaviour worthy of a Sicilian mafia organisation.

 

TODAY

Over the past seven years, I have compiled a website and manuscript in which all main events, as quoted on the website, and details recorded in the manuscript are supported by copies of the original documents (confirmation data) linked in the text.

Click on these links and you will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit document and be able to follow the related file numbers discussed on our various pages that validate the claims made. Without these original documents, most people will struggle to believe that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) claimants actually lived through these appalling events. 

The website and book detail true accounts of actual events and personal experiences during my arbitration and is the true record of events which differs from those that are recorded in government archives concerning the COT story one which you may already be aware of it. 

We were a group of small Australian business owners who had blindly put their faith and trust in a minority group of Australian bureaucrats. These very persons,  we later discovered, had secretly worked with the government-owned telecommunications carrier Telecom (now Telstra Corporation) to deliberately conceal from its customers and the arbitrator, just how deficient the telephone system in Australia really was in the 1990s. Two separate Canadian telecommunication consultants were flown from Canada to Australia to investigate our four claims - one in October 1993, the other in April 1995, also became involved in concealing how badly Australia’s telephone network was.   The following link on this website gives details on that aspect of corrupt practices at the time: Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report.

INTRODUCTION 

In my Introduction to the website, I have used the 23 May 2021 Herald Sun article "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats by Petra Credlin – Barrister, Solicitor and one time Chief of Staff to a former Australian Prime Minister The Hon Tony Abbott to support my claims that the government needs to investigate why certain bureaucrats with AUSTEL (now ACMA) concealed their true findings with regard to their investigations into my ongoing phone problems.  and not the findings provided to the then Minister Michael Lee MP and the arbitrator.  

On 23 May 2021, Peta Credlin, now a high-profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article, in the Herald Sun newspaper, under the heading:  "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats" need to take orders and not take charge”, which noted:

“Now that the Prime Minister is considering a wider public service reshuffle in the wake of the foreign affairs department's head, Finances Adamson, becoming the next governor of South Australia, it's time to scrutinise the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.

Outside of the Canberra bubble, almost no one knows their names. But take it from me, these people matter.

When ministers turn over with bewildering rapidity, or are not ‘take charge’ types, department secretaries, and the deputy secretaries below them, can easily become the de facto government of our country.  

Since the start of 2013, across Labor and now Liberal governments, we’ve had five prime ministers, five treasurers, five attorneys-general, seven defence ministers, six education ministers, four health ministers and six trade Mrevealsinisters.”

I found this article very relevant to matters raised by the COT Cases and their dealings with 'the faceless bureaucrats who are often more powerful in practice than the elected politicians.'  Peta Credlin has hit the nail squarely on the head in this article. I not only can relate to the information she reveals, but I can also link it to the many bureaucrats and politicians I have met since this debacle began – i.e., that is before, during and after my government-endorsed arbitration (see absentjustice.com).  These people have continued to ignore the evidence now attached to this website.

I have, therefore, decided to use Peta Credlin's article to open this post using the word ‘democracy’ to spearhead this story:

The website and book are true accounts (not those recorded in government archives concerning the COT story one, which you may be aware of). A group of small Australian business owners blindly put their faith and trust in a minority group of Australian bureaucrats who, we later discovered, had secretly worked with the then government-owned telecommunications carrier (the Telstra Corporation) to conceal deliberately, from its customers and the arbitrator, just how bad the telephone system really was in Australia, back in the1990s. Two separate Canadian telecommunication consultants flew from Canada to Australia to investigate our four claims one in October 1993              

It was during those arbitrations that three young computer hackers, later confirmed as Julian Assange contacted the COT spokesperson to advise him they had hacked into Telstra’s telecommunications network and uncovered how we, the arbitration claimants, were being crucified by those conducting the arbitrations, and did we want copies of this evidence (see Julian - Assange Hacking

We declined the offer on the grounds we thought it might be a set up by Telstra or the government, unaware that the hackers were telling us the truth.

Read about our dealings with:

1.    Espionage and spying, including the use of electronic surveillance equipment, to gain an illegal advantage over litigants during court proceedings and private negotiations. See Chapter 4 – Government spying/Scandrett & Associates facsimile interception report, Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13.

2.    Unaddressed threats carried out by the Telstra Corporation against the COT Cases during their arbitrations. See Senate Evidence File No 31

3.    Withholding important discovery documents in an arbitration procedure: Absent Justice Part 2 – Chapter 14 – Was it legal or illegal?

4.    Tampering with evidence in the arbitration: Tampering with Evidence).

5.    Relying on defence documents that are known to be flawed: Telstra’s falsified SVT Report and Telstra's falsified BCI Report.

6.    AUSTEL (for the government) concealed vital evidence from the arbitration process that would have won my case: AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 2 to 212.

7.    The arbitrator ordered the removal of vital evidence from two reports: Refer to Chapter 1 – The collusion continues and Chapter 2 – Inaccurate and Incomplete

8.    Organized crime via the Telstra network, i.e. telephone calls and faxed documents intended for one business being redirected to another with the proceeds of that directed information earning the criminals involved millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains Refer to Chapter 4 - Government spying and Australian Federal Police Investigations

9.    Fraud allegations against Telstra during the COT arbitrations were registered with the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police by Barrister Sue Owens, only to be squashed under pressure by the Australian government (see following transcripts Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

Four COT Cases, Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova and Graham Schorer, who had registered their fraud complaints against Telstra with Barrister Sue Owens, who took those complaints to the Major Fraud Group Victoria police, are discussed below.

BCI and SVT reports - Section One

IMAGE ONE 

This phone saga began in late 1987 when my wife Faye (of twenty years) and I bought a holiday camp accommodation business perched high above Cape Bridgewater, near Portland on the southwest coast in country Victoria. The Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp had been run as a school camp, and our intention was broaden its appeal and to turn it into a venue for social clubs and family groups, as well as schools.

A business such as this at the time was a phone-dependent concern.  The phone was the preferred access for potential and existing customers to contact us for bookings. Our big mistake when we fell in love with the place, was failing to examine the reliability of the telephone and communication systems for customer service. In the days before internet, there was no mobile coverage and business was not done via the web or by email.  The business was connected to a phone exchange installed more than 30 years before and designed specifically for ‘low-call-rate’ areas. This antiquated, unstaffed telephone exchange had only eight (8) lines to service (66 families), equating to 132 adults plus children, so if four of those adults or their teenage children were dialling out of Cape Bridgewater or were taking a call into their residence in Cape Bridgewater, that left only four free lines for the remaining 128 adults and their children. 

In blissful ignorance, we went ahead with the sale of our home in Melbourne, and I took early retirement benefits to raise the money to invest in what we expected to be a new and exciting venture.

Yes, that's right. My wife and I had a 'holiday camp' business to run and phone service that was, at best, unreliable and, at worst, just not there. Of course, we lost business, as the following government findings show. 

Other independent businesspeople similarly affected by poor telecommunications have joined me on my journey. We are known as the Casualties of Telecom, or the COT cases. All we wanted and still want is for Telecom/Telstra to admit to our various problems we had due to their poor service and to fix them, and then pay compensation for our losses.  A working phone is essential to business operations for contact with customers. Is it too much to ask for a government owned telecommunications provider to give the required service for those dependent on such to run a profitable business?

We initially asked for a full Senate investigation into Telecom in general and these issues of lack of service. We were offered, as an alternative, an arbitration process. It seemed like a good way to resolve the problem, so we accepted this alternative. At this early stage, we honestly expected that the technical problems that prevented our phones from working would be resolved.

Unfortunately, our expectations of a fair process were not met. Suspicions that something was amiss about the arbitration process started almost immediately. We had been promised that the Telecom documents we needed to make our case would be made available to us if we entered an arbitration process. Despite that promise, they have never been made available, and until today, we still do not have access to those documents. We were further troubled when we discovered during the arbitration process, that our fax lines were being illegally tapped. 

Records and their transcripts from Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, their second interview with me on 26 September 1994, show that the AFP found Telstra had been listening into my business and private telephone conversations without gaining a magistrates court order or written authorization.

And so, my battle against Telstra, the government communications regulator and arbitrator, began. On the way, I have received some compensation for business losses and many assurances that the problems are now resolved. It was not resolved on the day I sold the business six years after the arbitrator had ignored my evidence, and subsequently the phone problems had worsened. The new owners have suffered a similar fate to me (see Chapter 4, The New Owners Tell Their Story.)

An example of the type of corroded copper network > Worst of the worst: Photos of Australia’s copper network | Delimiter

IMAGE TWO

 

In the world of political and media misinformation that is attached to the NBN, there is one important issue that hasn’t been fully addressed – “Does Australia’s copper network meet the original mandatory government regulatory requirements?”

 If this question is answered honestly, it would directly affect billions of dollars in Commonwealth spending.

23 June 2015: If the arbitrator appointed to assess my arbitration claims had correctly investigated ALL my submitted evidence, he would have had to value my claim as an ongoing problem; NOT a past problem as his final award shows. It is clear from the following link dated > Unions raise doubts over Telstra's copper network; workers using ... that when reading in conjunction with “Can We Fix The Can” which was released in March 1994, these faults in copper-wire network  have been in existence for more than 24 years.

Cape Bridgewater Switching Device. 

The were four lines into Cape Bridgewater and four lines out for 132 plus residents to connect to the outside world.   

To further support my claims that there were only eight lines to service the 132+ residents of the Cape Bridgewater region, I tried to access documents under FOI to challenge Telstra. Telstra concealed those documents during my first settlement in December 1992 and later during my arbitration process 1994.  

When they finally arrived, those documents confirmed Telstra had knowingly lied under oath in nine of the December 1994 witness statements attesting ‘there had never been any phone problems of significance that would have affected my service from 1988 to 1999” even though the following three documents received in 1995  (refer to Folios C04006, C04007 and C04008, headed TELECOM SECRET  Front Page Part Two 2-B) which state:

“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.”

These actions by AUSTEL allowed me to commence arbitration proceedings against Telstra without providing me with the same evidence they had provided Telstra, which I needed to prove my claim was an abuse of process. What was worse was the fact that the government regulator allowed me to spend more than three hundred thousand dollars in arbitration fees trying to prove something which they had already established against Telstra for breaching their statutory obligation towards me as an Australian citizen.  

Two Alan Smiths (not related) living in Cape Bridgewater.

IMAGE THREE

No one apparently investigated whether the other Alan Smith living in Discovery Bay area of Cape Bridgewater had received some of my arbitration mail?

I submitted some of Alan Smith's billing information which I had received under FOI to explain to the arbitrator that this Alan Smith was also receiving threats from Telstra and their lawyers, because he like me, refuted the billing accounts for calls he did not make. The whole of Cape Bridgewater Exchange was a mess concerning the phone problems before and during my arbitration.     

The following "COT Case Strategy" (discussed below Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) confirms Telstra made threats that if I did not register my phone complaints in writing with their lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, then Telstra would not investigate my phone complaints which in most cases, then became a billing complaint. In this case, Telstra's billing software could not determine if the line had jammed. This meant the phone would lock up the phone service. The billing software could not determine whether this was a fault or whether someone on the line was talking for a long time. 

AUSTEL (the communications regulator) will acknowledge that this locking fault existed from 1992 until at least 1997. The Telstra corporation made millions upon millions of dollars of revenue while these locking-up faults existed. I also provided this evidence to Professor Alan Fels of Australian Consumer Affairs. I was called back into that office when the then ACA, now ACCC, realised what a minefield I had uncovered.

However, Blowing the Whistle in Australia is costly. It is still costing the COT Cases their health and well-being even today in 2023. Telstra's CEO Frank Blount, who discussed these billing issues with me in March 1994, was allowed to publish his co/produced book Managing in Australia, - https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran which admits the 1800 billing problem was major network fault (see File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

Yet Frank Blount, the most important man in Telstra at the time of my arbitration, still allowed Telstra to submit NINE witness statements attesting to my claims as totally unfounded, when he knew otherwise.

The other Alan Smith, who was also suffering major billing faults in the Cape Bridgewater Telstra service line, as the two letters show in the above image, was receiving threats from a debt collector to pay up. If you look closely at these two threatening letters, you will see the fax imprint of Freehill Hollingdale & Page was the same Freehill Hollongdale & Page who Telstra forced me to write to each time, I had a telephone problem—the same Freehill's who was Telstra's arbitration lawyers to the COT arbitrations and the authors of the "COT Case Strategy" - Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C.

 

After the arbitrator would not allow his arbitration technical advisors DMR & Lane to investigate or diagnose the reason for these ongoing billing faults (refer to Chapter 1 - The collusion continued and therefore, these were not addressed - 200 plus documented fault complaints.  AUSTEL (the government communications regulator) allowed Telstra to covertly address these billing issues on 16 October 1995 (Five Months) after the completion of my arbitration without advising me of this secret arrangement, which meant I was not allowed my legal arbitration right of reply.

On 19 December 1995, when AUSTEL realized that Telstra had once again mislead and deceived the government concerning my billing evidence, Darren Kearney from AUSTEL came to Cape Bridgewater and collected five lever arch volumes of the previous unaddressed billing evidence.  Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) would not allow DMR & Lane to assess it. 

It is a major concern, that from the many documents in the absentjustice.com downloaded evidence files, Darren Kearney from AUSTEL prepared his own report using my collected evidence and this supported my arbitration claims as correct. And yet, the government still has not compensated me correctly.  The arbitrator would have had to have done this, if he had allowed DMR & Lane their official arbitration request.   

I reiterate, Blowing the Whistle in Australia is a costly process.    

Newcomers to our story may wonder why we begin by showing what Karina Barrymore, a journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, wrote on 3 August 1996 concerning what she thought about whistle blowers. Had the government truly listened to the COT whistle blowers in 1995 and 1996 regarding their telephone faults, which were supposed to have been fixed during their government-endorsed Telstra arbitrations, perhaps the long-running NBN blowout would have not gone billions of dollars over budget. Sadly, Karina Barrymore’s statement below, is right on target:

“Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It’s insightful how the words used to describe a whistle blower are so negative. 

“Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government.

“So why aren’t we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives.

“These ‘truth tellers’ are shunned and rejected. Telling the truth often means they lose their jobs, their reputations are deliberately trashed, their finances suffer, their mental health fails and all these factors flow on to damage their family, social and professional relationships.

“The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job.”

Karina Barrymore’s statement is right on target.  When we compare Karina Barrymore's statement with the statement above by Peta Credlin under the heading "Beware The Pen Pusher Power - Bureaucrats",  both these talented journalists are discussing the same Australian Establishment, which includes ex-government ministers, as well ex-senior members of two government regulators. 

This Establishment included the COT arbitrator Gordon Hughes who was an academic; not the graded arbitrator Telstra promised would be provided, if the COT cases abandoned their already signed and operating commercial assessment process. The person who gave these assurances was Warwick Smith, the first appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. 

Dr Gordon Hughes -the arbitrator, and Warwick Smith - the arbitration administrator acted with the defendants (Telstra) and used Telstra's drafted arbitration agreement. This was in place of an agreed upon independently drafted arbitration agreement. NONE of the corporate leaders, (the Australian Establishment) which included our regulators, nor our government ministers have had the courage to investigate why the defendants were allowed to dictate to Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith how the COT arbitrations would be conducted. Set out below (in my COT story) is only one of many examples where Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, acted in a manner not befitting an arbitrator and/or an administrator.

We are telling this part of our COT story first, in the hope that the reader will be compelled to go to the next part of our story.

 

Criminal Conduct Example 1

“COT Case Strategy” 

 

IMAGE FOUR 

As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) the purpose of which was to instruct their client Telstra on how they could conceal damaging technical information from four businesses (which included mine) under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me and my named business and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements. 

It is paramount you understand the significance of page 5169 at point 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia which note: 

29. Whether Telstra was active behind-the-scenes in preventing a proper investigation by the police is not known. What is known is that, at the time, Telstra had representatives of two law firms on its Board—Mr Peter Redlich, a Senior Partner in Holding Redlich, who had been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991 and Ms Elizabeth Nosworthy, a partner in Freehill Hollingdale & Page who had also been appointed for 5 years from 2 December 1991.  

One of the notes to and forming part of Telstra’s financial statements for the 1993- 94 financial year, indicates that during the year the two law firms supplied legal advice to Telstra totalling $2.7 million, an increase of almost 100 per cent over the previous year. Part of the advice from Freehill Hollingdale & Page was a strategy for "managing" the "Casualties of Telecom" (COT) cases.

30. The Freehill Hollingdale & Page strategy was set out in an issues paper of 11 pages, under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1993 to a Telstra Corporate Solicitor, Mr Ian Row from FH&P lawyer, Ms Denise McBurnie (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). 

 The letter, headed "COT case strategy" and marked "Confidential," stated: "As requested I now attach the issues paper which we have prepared in relation to Telecom’s management of ‘COT’ cases and customer complaints of that kind. The paper has been prepared by us together with input from Duesburys, drawing on our experience with a number of ‘COT’ cases. . . ."

31. The lawyer’s strategy was set out under four heads: "Profile of a ‘COT’ case" (based on the particulars of four businesses and their principals, named in the paper); "Problems and difficulties with ‘COT’ cases"; "Recommendations for the management of ‘COT’ cases; and "Referral of ‘COT’ cases to independent advisors and experts". The strategy was in essence, that no-one should make any admissions and, lawyers should be involved in any dispute that may arise, from beginning to end. "There are numerous advantages to involving independent legal advisers and other experts at an early stage of a claim," wrote Ms McBride . Eleven purported advantages were listed.

Back then, Mr Redlich was, in most people's eyes, one of the finest lawyers that Australia had ever known. He was also a stalwart within the Labor Party, a one-time friend of two Australian Prime Ministers (Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke) and a long-time friend of Mark Dreyfus - Australia’s current Attorney General at the time.  Thus against someone very highly qualified and with so many well connected “friends”,  who would be the slightest bit interested in listening to my perspective? His views carried the full weight of legal expertise and well-placed political connections.

And remember, the COT strategy was designed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page when Elizabeth Holsworthy (a partner at Freehill's) was also a member of the Telstra Board, along with Mr Redlich.  The whole aim of the ‘COT Strategy’ was stop us - the legitimate claimants against Telstra, from having any chance of winning our claims.  Would our claims would have even the smallest chance of being heard under these circumstances?

While I am not condemning either Mr Redlich or Ms Holsworthy for any personal wrongdoing as Telstra Board members and, indeed, I don’t believe that either of them could have possibly condoned such a strategy, what I am asking is how any ordinary person could ever get past Telstra's powerful Board?  In comparison to these so-called highly qualified, revered Aussie citizens, I am just a one-time Ships’ Cook who purchased a holiday camp with a very unreliable phone service.

The fabricated BCI report (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report and BCI Telstra’s M.D.C Exhibits 1 to 46 is relevant because it was provided by Telstra's arbitration defence lawyers to Ian Joblin a forensic psychologist, who was assigned by Freehill Hollingdale & Page to assess my mental state during my arbitration. It is clearly linked to statements made in the following page 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia where it is apparent that Telstra had clearly adopted the Freehill Hollingdale & Page - COT Case Strategy during the COT arbitrations which had been spuriously prepared by Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page. 

I was unaware that when I first had to register my telephone problems in writing with Denise McBurnie before Telstra would investigate those faults, is that this "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers. It was done to conceal all proof that I had ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of my business. 

This continual writing up of individual telephone faults, to these lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, in order to have Telstra investigate them was time consuming, repetitive and unnecessary to the point of insanity. Instead of keeping records of this fault evidence, I was providing it to Telstra believing this would assist them in locating the problems which my business was experiencing. 

I was unaware I would later need this evidence for an arbitration process. This arbitration process made it necessary to retrieve back, from Telstra under Freedom of Information, the very same documentation I had previously provided to their legal firm. Imagine the frustration of knowing that you had already provided the evidence supporting your case, but it was now being withheld from you by Telstra and their lawyers.

If this wasn’t soul-destroying enough, imagine learning that lawyer, with who you were being forced to register your phone complaints, had devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C). instructing their client Telstra how Telstra could conceal this same type of technical information from me and other COT cases under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. (see also page 5169  SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia.

It was not of Mr Joblin's hand.

IMAGE FIVE

It bore no signature of the psychologist.

As shown in government records, the government assured the COT Cases (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2), Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues.  The same legal firm which when they provided Ian Joblin, clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, it was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehill's. The signature of the psychologist was missing.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had originally written about me, being that I was of sound mind?

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

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

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

It is now 2024; I have yet to see a copy of the advice that John Pinnock was officially entitled to receive from Telstra regarding this unsigned arbitration witness statement.

The fact that Telstra's lawyer Maurice Wayne Condon, of Freehills’s, signed the witness statement without the psychologist signing it, indicates how much power Telstra lawyers have over the legal system of arbitration in Australia.

What has shocked most people who have read several other witness statements submitted by Telstra in various other COT Cases arbitration processes, including mine, is the following: although the senate was advised that signatures had also been fudged in other cases or altered as in mine - changing or altering a medically diagnosed condition to suggest I was mentally disturbed - is hinging on more than just criminal conduct. For Maurice Wayne Condon to have attested to seeing a signature on an arbitration witness statement prepared by Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist, when Ian Joblin’s signature did not appear on this affirmation, is further proof the COT story must be investigated.  

What has since shocked a number of Senators, including Senator Barnaby Joyce, was that the lawyer from Freehill Hollingdale & Page whose signature was on the unsigned witness statement was from the same law firm whose "COT Case Strategy" was a set up by Telstra and their lawyers to hide all relevant technical proof that the COT Cases truly did have ongoing telephone problems affecting the viability of their businesses. 

 

IMAGE SIX

Who highjacked the BCI and SVT Reports? 

Major Fraud Group Victoria Police 

Cape Bridgewater holiday camp BCI and SVT documentation embedded in our COT story shows that during my arbitration, regardless of fax footprints appearing on arbitration related documents faxed from my office to the arbitrator’s office, these documents were highjacked or somehow never received enroute. In other words, they were stolen. A letter from John Pinnock (the second appointed administrator to the arbitrations) has acknowledged letters with these fax footprints did not arrive in time for the arbitrator’s official response.   

The 24 January 1995 letter was faxed to the arbitrators’ office. Is there a connection between the loss of my faxed arbitration documents and the TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter stating that his office has  no record on my 24 January 1995 letter requesting a copy of the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada information to be provided from Telstra through the arbitration process. This letter was received by the arbitrator. (see Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E).

Why did the TIO advise me that records in his office did not record receiving my 24 January 1995 letter i.e., “Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further,” When my letter was returned to me eight years after the conclusion of my arbitration, the fax footprint on that letter indicates that it had been received by the arbitrator’s fax machine. 

This small ambiguity intrigued both Sue Owns Barrister and Mr Neil Jepson Barrister and thus supported my claims that both the BCI and SVT reports, which vanished during my arbitration, were the reason I was asked to prepare similar records of those that had been lost, which I did over a three month period.

During these three months, when I was preparing the new BCI and SVT, a fax interception report dated 7 January 1999 was designed by Scandrett & Associates (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which confirmed faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this fax interception report when he learned I was writing my COT story 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." (Front Page Part One File No/14)

It is clear from Front Page Part One File No/1, on 23 May 1994, six faxed claim documents from my office to the arbitrator's office have yet to reach their intended destination. Why, then, did Telstra still charge me for these non-connected faxes? When I asked the administrator if I could resubmit these non-received claim documents, which were a significant part of my overall claim, I was denied that request. This was although it was clear these documents were not the only claim documents to not reach the process for assessment.

An assessment process that cost me well over $300.000.00 in arbitration fees, and yet I was still denied my right to have this important material assessed on their merit o support my claim.

In one of two draft reports prepared by me titled Telstra's Falsified SVT Report between late 1998 through to the first week of March 1999, at the request of Mr Neil Jepson, I refer to exhibit 23-G Govt/Telstra/SVT Report Exhibits 11 to 23-G).

This exhibit is a signed witness statement prepared by a Telstra arbitration technical engineer who is claiming that his service verification testing of my telephone service lines at my Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, (the subject matter under review by an arbitrator), met all of the government's mandatory requirements when the government had already written to him on 8 October 1994 and to Telstra's arbitration liaison office on 16 November 1994 stating entirely the opposite stopped the arbitrator from investigating my claims that my telephone problems were still affecting my business endeavours .

What is so alarming about the BCI and SVT reports, which also alarmed the Major Fraud Group is they proved fraud had taken place during my arbitration. What further shocked the Mr Jepson of the Major Fraud Group is that they were illegally withheld from the arbitrator hearing my case. What the Major Fraud Group did not know in 1999 and 2000 during their investigations into the BCI and SVT reports is that they were to be highjacked stolen on the route to the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2008, eight years later i.e., for a third time.

Those two reports prepared by me were not the only reports that interested the Major Fraud Group Victora Police - see TF200 report below.

Tampering with evidence

A click with your mouse/cursor on the various images displayed below will take you to a further story of deception and wrongdoing during the Australian government-endorsed arbitrations

IMAGE SEVEN

It is this man's misleading and deceptive statements made under oath and what has since been reported about him by one of Telstra's own technical arbitration consultants to a Senate Committee hearing (see pages 36 and 38 See Front Page Part One File No/6) that has prompted me to continue to expose what the Telstra corporation has been prepared to do to the lives of good honest Australian citizens who only wanted a reliable phone service in which to operate their business compared to their fellow competitors. Even though the YouTube video attached to Chapter 5, Bad Bureaucrats, is of poor quality, it still does not take away the fact that Nine small business operators known as the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) were prepared to go live on national television along with an ex-senior government bureaucrat and a then sitting Senator placing their integrity on the line all calling Telstra a corporate thug. 

Watching only a part of this Television programme will be enough to convince most readers of this website, absent justice, that there is more truth to my side of the COT story than that eight Telstra employees wrote in their arbitration witness statements to the arbitrator hearing my case.

When Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister from the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, read the draft of my second requested report titled Telstra's Falsified BCI Report and my evidence Telstra had tampered with evidence after it had left my business (see Tampering With Evidence) is the reason why I was seconded to help the Major Fraud Group with their eighteen-month investigation into claims by Barrister Sue Owens that Telstra had committed fraud against those four claimants namely, Ann Garms, Ralph Bova, Ross Plowman and Graham Schorer.   

IMAGE EIGHT 

The Ericsson List

Is there a link between the information in The Ericsson List, prepared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) regarding Ericsson, the investigation into their questionable conduct on many levels concerning their international business ethics and their involvement during the COT arbitrations where Ericsson's telecom equipment was the subject matter under investigation by the Australian government appointed arbitrator. 

The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by John Pinnock, the official administrator of the arbitrations, to William Hunt, lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) after several arbitrations had been concluded where no findings by the arbitrator were made concerning the ongoing telephone problems still being experienced by the COT Cases whose businesses were still connected to the Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges. In my case, my arbitration was concluded on 11 May 1995. Yet, Ericsson AXE problems continued to affect my business, as John Pinnock was fully aware of when he wrote the following statement:

“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 be determined.” (See File 296-A - GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

When Mr Pinnock wrote the above letter, he and his Deputy Ombudsman Wally Rothwell were writing to Telstra and me concerning my complaints of ongoing Ericsson unaddressed phone problems. The Sunday Small Business television crew read those letters during the period they supported the COT Cases between 1996 and 2001 (see attached YouTube video Chapter 5 Bad Bureaucrats).

On 20 August 1997, my lawyers Michael Brereton & Co Melbourne, faxed a three-page letter to Senator Ron Boswell in his parliament house office Canberra detailing where the arbitration process had failed me and that the telephone exchanges had not been tested as they should have (see File 231-C Exhibit AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233). I was in Senator Ron Boswell's office when this fax came through and provided both the Senator and his son Steven proof that even though Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd was at my premises on 6 April 1995 to test my service lines in the company of Telstra's Peter Gamble, he refused to do so as did Peter Gamble. The first tests that Peter Gamble had done in the company of two witnesses on 29 September 1994 failed. This failure was acknowledged by AUSTEL, the government communications regulator, in their letter to Mr Gamble on 8 October 1994 and in a subsequent letter to Testra's Steve Black on 16 November 1994 (copied to Pater Gamble) asking what Telstra intended to do about this failed arbitration service verification testing process.     

 

Refusal to test my phone service. 

IMAGE NINE

It is important we 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)

It is clear from Mr White’s statement 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 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, 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)?

Why was there no finding by the COT arbitrator that Telstra's use of the Ericsson AXE equipment that other countries worldwide were removing or had removed it from their exchanges (see File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f). Why did the arbitrator ignor there was an ongoing problem at the COT Cases businesses where the Ericsson equipment was still being used?  Evidence File 1 to 9 show the call losses where the Ericsson AXE equipment was being used was between 15% and 50%.

Had Peter Gamble and David Reid (Lane Telecommunication) carried out out the agreed tests at the Ericsson AXE exchange to my business they would have and found my claims of ongoing telephone faults valid (refer to Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).

 

Ericsson should not have been allowed to purchase Lane while Lane was investigating Ericsson.

IMAGE TEN

Therefore, it is important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019, as recorded in the Australian media

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/)

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

Ericsson who 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. 

It is important we 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 official 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.

I again ask the Australian governemnt, why was Ericsson a Swedish multination telecom giant allowed to puchase a small telecommunications consultancy company like Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during an Australian government endosred arbitration process where Lane was investigation the COT Cases claims against Ericsson? The company whose equipment was being investigated by an Australian arbitrator?

 

MY YOUTUBE VIDEO 

It is clear from the above YouTube video that I dammed the sale of Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd to Ericsson, who Lane was investigating on behalf of the government and the COT Cases. To have sold themselves to Ericsson the way they did before the arbitrations were complete is one situation that Lane should have even considered if they were a genuinely ethical company. But to have sold themselves without documenting in their reports to the arbitrator concerning the significant faults with the Ericsson equipment, which other countries had dammed shows that the COT Cases claims of fowl play are a valid claim against the Commonwealth for having allowed this to happen during a government-endorsed arbitration.

The following google link "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry.." shows that the COT Cases were right to demand answers to why Ericsson was allowed to purchase the main arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment which was the subject matter under investigation during the COT arbitrations.  Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were treated so badly when Ericsson was able to nobble Lane?

I took the false Bell Canada International Inc Cape Bridgewater testing results to Telstra, the Government Communications Regulator, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Bell Canada International Inc (in Canada), as well as Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who provided these fundamentally flawed test results to Ian Joblin Telstra's arbitration clinical psychologist before Mr Joblin viewed my mental health. No one would make a written comment on these flawed Cape Bridgewater BCI tests.

Although Mr Joblin did seem unnerved when I showed him evidence that these 13,560 test calls could not have been generated into the Portland or Cape Bridgewater exchanges that serviced my business, Mr Joblin gave me the impression he would raise my concerns about the BCI report to Telstra.

 

A letter from the Canadian Minister for Telecommunications 

IMAGE ELEVEN

Most appropriate course of action

I have never received a written response from BCI, but the Canadian government ministers’ office wrote back on 7 July 1995, noting:

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

It was this unsigned witness statement discussed above (see File 596 AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) and the fact I proved to the Major Fraud Group Barrister Mr Neil Jepson, the BCI tests were impracticable is what set the following BCI and Major Fraud Group into wanting to also prove my claims.

The following two transcripts (Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) - Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) are various discussions with lawyers, The Telstra Corporation, the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) spokesperson, a Senator and a negotiator who later became a Senator are an essential part of our COT story and should be downloaded by all who read my story because reading those transcripts at your leisure it will help you understand our story.

For example:

Reading (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) will assist you in understanding why lawyer Sue Owens represented COT Cases Ann Garms, Ross Plowman, Ralph Bova and Graham Schorer in their fraud allegations against Telstra. (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) shows Lawyer Sue Owens discussing with William Hunt Graham Schorer’s Lawyer and Mr Schorer why Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, had seconded me to assist the Major Fraud Group in their investigation of the possibility that fraud had taken place during and after the COT Cases arbitrations between 1994 and 1999.

It is clear from (Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)) that because I had prepared two technical reports, which I passed onto the Major Fraud Group showing where Telstra had committed fraud during COT arbitrations that it was acknowledged by many that I might be smarter than most people in the arbitration process thought. The draft findings in those two reports are now enclosed here as Telstra's Falsified SVT Report and Telstra's Falsified BCI Report. I also supplied two smaller submissions to Mr Neil Jepson confirming the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now called ACMA) had knowingly mislead and deceived thousands upon thousands of Australian citizens, the government, and the COT arbitrator about the integrity of Telstra’s telecommunications system Australia-wide. It was the smaller of these two mini reports (tiled Ericsson AXE faults) and the fact that the government regulator had misled and deceived the COT arbitrator, as well as the COT Cases themselves, when AUSTEL released their report (into the public domain) in April 1994 saying only 50 or more COT-type phone problems were being experienced around Australia when AUSTEL's reporting to Telstra showed at least 120,000 COT type phone faults, were being experienced around Australia that troubled Mr Neil Jepson because this was a fraud on a 'grand scale' far beyond the four cases now before the Major Fraud Group Victoria police. 

The findings concerning the 120,000 COT Cases type phone problems being reduced by the government in their April 1994 report to the people of Australia stating there were 50 or more COT-type complaints can be viewed by clicking on Unprecedented Government Corruption and Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

So, please download those two transcripts to understand this complex story better. I have provided two more sets of transcripts to the office of the Australian prime minister, which is more sensitive than those attached here and could be detrimental to innocent Australians who were not involved in any wrongdoings.

The Australian Prime Minister's office has not acted upon the contents of any of the transcripts provided. 

I have, however, been threatened by the Chair of the Senate (see below) that if I disclose in public In-Camera Hansard records dated 6 and 9 July 1998 which the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police provided me, believing these Hansards would assist all of the twenty-one COT Cases in resolving their outstanding claims against Telstra and not just five of the COT Cases claims investigated by the Senate, I will be charged in contempt of the Senate which carries a two-year jail term

 

A further mini report

 Re: clauses 24, 25 and 26 provided to Mr Jepson shocked officers within the Major Fraud Group.   

IMAGE THIRTEEN

The fax imprint on the final arbitration agreement dated 19 April 1994 was already signed by the first of the four COT Cases - Maureen Gillan, when it was faxed by the arbitrator's secretary to the lawyers for the other three COT cases. It showed clauses 24, 25 and 26  all attached. Who removed clauses 25 and 26 , and also altered clause 24 when it was submitted on 21 April 1994, as the agreement signed by Maureen Gillan?

The three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and Alan Smith (me), were told that if we did not accept these late changes, there would be no arbitration.  This meant we would have to undertake legal proceedings against the government to challenge it, as  Telstra was still owned by the government when these threats were made.  

Removing the original clauses 25 and 26, altering clause 24, and the threats that followed troubled Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria police.

Four months after the conclusion of my arbitration, the arbitrator's Secretary provided me with three arbitration reports which the arbitrator had not released during the arbitration process. Someone had coached the arbitrator on what he should or should not say in his final award on my claim (see Chapter 9 - The ninth remedy pursued). 

Someone also pressured him to remove the $250,000.00 liability caps in the arbitration agreement to exonerate his financial and technical consultants. This removal from the arbitration agreement disallowed the COT Cases to sue the arbitration consultants (see Chapter 2 / Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct),

In 2001, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police, and I were called to the Supreme Court of Victoria as two witnesses assisting lawyer Sue Owens. While waiting to give evidence at this hearing, Mr Jepson stated that replacing the $250,000.00 liability clauses on the remaining twelve other COT arbitration agreements and the fact that I was not informed of this fact, now gave me grounds to appeal the conduct on my arbitration.

COT Case, Ann Garms, unaware of the replacement of the $250,000,00 liability caps, had already spent well over $600,000,00 in her appeal but lost that appeal. By this time, with my award having been eaten up by arbitration fees and debts paid and still with a $150,000.00 mortgage, I could not finance an appeal.

Only those who have suffered abuse through the corruptness of the Australian arbitration system can understand that living with so much distortion of truth through this process, how it destroys your well-being. You cannot put your head on a pillow at night; the anger and frustration does not leave you. To think that a hacker (more than likely Julian Assange) predicted what would happen to us if we did not have the documents to prove what Telstra and others had in store for us during our arbitrations, is an added burden. 

On 26 September 1997, after the conclusion of most of the arbitration process,  the newly appointed administrator to those arbitrations advised a Senate Estimates Committee, that:

"Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures."

There is no amendment attached to any agreement, signed by the above-mentioned COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures – and neither was it stated that the arbitrator would have no control over the process because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures."

How can an independant arbitrator have no control over an arbitration because he was condcuting it "entirely outside of the agreed ambit of the procedures?" The following exhibit Senate Evidence File No 12) shows I have been threatened twice, once in 16 August 2001 and again in 6 December 2004, that if I disclose these 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camera Hansards, the Senate will have me charged with contempt of the Senate, even though those documents could well have won sixteen arbitration and mediation appeals (see An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.)

Is there any justification to throw me in jail for exposing what Julian Assange tried to reveal to the COT Cases in 1994?  Look what happened to Mr Assange when he exposed what was happening in Iraq? I certainly do not want to end up in jail for exposing the Australian In-Chamber Senate Hansard of 6^th  and 9^th  July 1998 which the Victorian Police Major Fraud Group supplied to me thinking that my releasing them publicly may bring about an appeal for the remaining sixteen COT Cases the government has discriminated against in the most deplorable fashion. 

Go To Jail

 IMAGE FOURTEEN

In fact, after one National Party senator Ron Boswell verbally attacked a very senior Telstra arbitration officer, stating, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” he then apologised to the chair of the Senate committee, stating:

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to the 16 COT cases, whatever you have settled". However, the John Howard NLP government sanctioned only punitive damages to be paid to the five 'litmus' test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents, initially these had been concealed from those five cases.

It has since been suggested that the eighteen million dollars that those five 'litmus' test cases received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT FOI cases. It was not. 

Worse still is the following fact;  a $500.000.00 payment was paid,  apart from the eighteen million dollars, to a well named Queensland Charity Company which was never on the Senate A or B list Schedule list of 21 unresolved COT cases.  The Queensland Charity Company was not considered a COT Case at all. Transcripts from a meeting attesting to this secret payment which was agreed to by at least one Senator, a later to be appointed Senator, was provided to The Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia, by me. It showed how Telstra, the lawyer assisting the five 'litmus' test COT Cases and the then sitting Senator, never questioned this secret payment to this Queensland Charity Company.

My name and fifteen other COT Cases names appear on the Schedule B list, (see Arbitrator File No 67) but there is no  sighting of the Endeavour Foundation. Will I go to jail in 2023 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens under the guise of being charged In-Contempt of the Senate?

What is clear about the Senate's involvement in assisting the COT five in accessing their 150,000 plus documents received collectively between them, is it allowed that five access to a technical consultant appointed by the investigative Senate Committee working team, which included the Commonwealth Omudsman's office to value the relevance of the 150,000 FOI documents an advantage not supplied to the remaining unresolved sixteen COT Cases?

What is if this was not discriminative towards the sixteen remaining COT Cases, i.e., free access to a technical unit? Arbitration documents held by several people associated with my arbitration have records concerning my technical consultant George Close, which cost me $25,000.00, plus his travelling and accommodation fees. It took me three years to pay off George Close, who did not charge interest fees, which was a godsend. My forensic accountant Derek Ryan allowed me the same three years to pay off the $51,000.00 for his reporting. However, pressure was applied to me by my claim advisers to pay the $52.000.00 they charged me in professional arbitration fees.  

 

Also regarding Beacombe Printers and Occasional Secretarial Services, I notched up well over $30,000.oo in professional fees, which took me eighteen months to pay off these two accounts. This has been hard to swallow.   

 

The fact remains that the remaining COT Cases and I received only thirty per cent of our arbitration costs, whereas the five 'litmus' COT Cases were awarded 18 million dollars in punitive damages, which was paid to them apart from all the technical assistance they received from the Senate between June 1997 and April 1999. Perhaps there is a stronger word in the legal sense than discrimination which is apparent against the sixteen of us the remaining COT Cases. The term penalised is perhaps better for daring to stand up against Telstra and their government minders.

 

Telstra - Contempt of the Senate

 

 IMAGE FIFTEEN

In October 1997, during the Senate FOI investigation, when Telstra provided documents pertaining to the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate, 'On Notice', Telstra and John Pinnock (the administrator to my arbitration) already knew that documentation was false but still no one has ever brought Telstra to account for that, even though their actions were In-Contempt of the Senate.

On 12 January 1998, (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided to the Senate) during the same Senate session of the estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver -Telstra’s current 2023 Corporate Secretary) with a number of documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:

“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report are fabricated or falsified.”

On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the Chair of the Senate legislation Committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice, in October 1997, was false.  (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence). 

Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is in In-contempt of the Senate. No one yet, within Telstra, has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate; the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters originally used by Telstra as arbitration defence documents for my claim, aware that the submission to the arbitration was false. 

And yet it is I, a claimant in the COT arbitrations, who the Chair of the Senate threatens to charge with In-Contempt of the Senate proceedings for exposing the truth. Telstra gets off scot-free and unpenalized, despite lying under oath during a government-endorsed arbitration, and in addition,  lying to a sitting Senate Estimates Committee.

Why doesn't the current 2023 Telstra Corporate Secretary Sue Laver come clean and own up on behalf of Telstra that my claims surrounding the Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada International Inc report are valid?

Threats Made 

 IMAGE SIXTEEN

Threats Carried Out 

Threats were made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into these phone and fax hacking issues.  Refer page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, which 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.

This harassment by Telstra and their internal security division continued for years.  No one in government or the arbitration process would investigate the devastation these threats, harassment combined with corporate thuggery, had on the lives of the COT Case members.

After Sue Owens, Barrister for four of the COT Cases (but not mine) had lodged fraud complaints with the Victoria Major Fraud Group in late 1998, I received a telephone call from Neil Jepson Barrister for the Major Fraud Group asking if would I assist the Victoria Police in their investigation into the cases raised by Sue Owens. Mr Jepson had heard I had compiled two reports of my own regarding Telstra's fraudulent conduct against me during my arbitration.  As well, I was in possession of evidence which confirmed the arbitrator and his arbitration unit had assisted Telstra by minimizing my losses which had resulted from their failure to provide adequate service.  They did not disclose evidence of this to Laurie James in January 1996; when as President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, he started a preliminary investigation into my claims. 

I agreed to come to Melbourne with all expenses paid by COT spokesperson Graham Schorer (owner of Golden Messenger Couriers) to provide my three reports with exhibits which supported those reports addressed to me, to Neil Jepson the barrister for the Victorian Major Fraud Group. 

The COT Cases were not paranoid.

An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens

 IMAGE SEVENTEEN

Witness statements - 8 and 10 August 2006.

After I provided the contents of (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling the evidence for their investigations. I complied and during two separate visits to Melbourne, I spent two full days at the Major Fraud Group’s St. Kilda Road offices. This is important to the litmus tests cases issue, because the Major Fraud Group was stunned at the evidence and how I was able to prove Telstra definitely perverted the course of justice, on two occasions. Namely by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case.

Both statements are discussed on our Absentjustice Preface page AFP Evidence File No 13. Members of the current government were provided with copies of these witness statements, without redactions. Sadly, the information in these two witness statements, to date, has not been acted upon.

As previously discussed in Chapter 1 - Major Fraud Group – Victoria police File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the DCITA) by Ann Garms, and sworn out by Des Direen ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, who eventually reached Principal Investigator status.  Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, in particular Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations.  I was called into that investigation as a witness. (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 having assisted 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 were provided to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) Australian government by Ann Garms, COT Case member after discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce (now in 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia).  Because no one has come forward to explain their position in these matters,  all information that might assist the sixteen COT Cases (those who are left; many have since deceased) all documents will be provided without deletions. The witness statements of 8 and 10 August 2006 also released in full as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789). 

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, both Mr Neil Jepson and three officers with whom I had worked and lunched with,  were able to confirm that at least two sets of documents I had faxed from my residence to Mr Jepson's office fascsimile 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 Chapter 5 - Bad Bureaucrats) which explained that he had been contacted by the Major Fraud Group with regard to 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.

However, I will disclose here that after the arbitrator and his technical arbitration resource unit ignored my ongoing 008/1800 billing faults, the government communications regulator AUSTEL allowed Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer to my arbitration - Steve Black to address these unaddressed ongoing arbitration billing faults in secret on 16 October 1995. This was five months after the completion of my arbitration process without the arbitrator.   I did have a legal right under the arbitration agreement to challenge Telstra's late submission to the Government. (see Absent Justice Part 2 - Chapter 14 - Was it Legal or Illegal?)

What was so troubling about the address of legal documents without the claimant and arbitrator being present is that Telstra's previous arbitration defence liaison officer Steve Black resubmitted Mr Andersons original arbitration witness statement dated 12 December 1994, to support Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission to AUSTEL. He was aware Mr Anderson's 12 December 1994 witness statement had false and misleading statements in it concerning the Cape Bridgewater telecommunications network.

This is why the Major Fraud Group was so interested in Mr Anderson. Using witness statements twice - aware some of the statements in it were false, was why the government communications regulator sent a representative Darren Kearney to my business on 19 December 1995 (a twelve hour drive there and back) to collect my unaddressed arbitration claim evidence which proved that the billing faults Telstra state were non-existent were still affecting my business.   

Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) shows Barrister Sue Owens explaining why the Major Fraud Group Barrister Neil Jepson seconded me into assisting the fraud group's investigations into the four claims registered by Barrister Owen's concerning alleged fraud by Telstra. Page 11 shows Sue Owens stating I am "extremely intelligent" and that the police also thought the same concerning my reporting, i.e., the reason why I was asked to assist with their fraud investigations.  

It was the immense pressure applied to the Major Fraud Group by the Liberal National Party government that stopped the Victoria Police from proceeding with their investigations. 

Telstra's admission has never been acted on.

 

 IMAGE EIGHTEEN

Why was I disallowed my legal right of reply to Telstra's 16 October 1995 submission? A submission that does not match the findings of Telstra's CEO on pages 132 and 133 in his publication Managing in Australia (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127).

The above link confirms Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO, after leaving Telstra in 1999, he co-published a manuscript in the same year entitled, Managing in Australia. On pages 132 and 133, the author exposed the problems Telstra was hiding from its 1800 customers:

• “Blount was shocked, but his anxiety level continued to rise when he discovered this wasn’t an isolated problem. 
• The picture that emerged made it crystal clear that performance was sub-standard.” (See File 122-i - CAV Exhibit 92 to 127)

Frank Blount's Managing Australia https://www.qbd.com.au › managing-in-australia › fran can be purchased online. 

After the release of Frank Blount's Managing in Australia in 2000, the government regulator AUSTEL should have demanded an explanation from the Telstra board to  explain why Telstra misled AUSTEL on 16 October 1995, when they secretly addressed my arbitration billing documents.  

Both Frank Blount and the Telstra board were aware the billing faults were national problems and that my claims concerning those problems were ongoing genuine billing faults.

Had the arbitrator been aware of these facts, plus the fact that these faults were still affecting my business, he would have been obliged to enter these findings in his award. This would have allowed him to add a provision in that previous award to allow  for an extra payment to be made to me once the phone problems had been rectified. 

Frank Blount, Telstra’s CEO Apart from the failed government-endorsed COT arbitrations, I have tried every possible legal option available to me in Australia, i.e. by registering my COT complaints with twelve government and non-government agencies from 1995 to 2014.  Proof of this long battle to have these unresolved issues dealt with effectively is attached to this website which I am currently editing. It is titled Chapter 1 - The first Remedy pursued in November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy sought. 

As a single operator aged 79 years, the editing of these twelve chapters has taken considerably longer than I had hoped; however, browsing these twelve Chapters and some of the 1,600 plus exhibits attached to absentjustice.com, which support the statements made should convince the devil that the Telstra Corporation has a lot to answer for.