Discrimination
The issues raised on absentjustice.com have been characterized by counterfeit, bogus, fraudulent, forged, fabricated, sham, and spurious. These descriptions illustrate a troubling landscape marked by deceitful practices and extortion.
HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch
I'm grateful for her Helens comments.
When Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch's sister, visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com, she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia
Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.
It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline. My primary concern, however, does not revolve around the fulfilment of this compensation in the event of a missed deadline by Telstra. Instead, I am troubled by the failure to transparently address the persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration of April 7 and 8, 1994. Despite the prior validation of our claims by the government regulator and the substantial upfront arbitration fees paid by the COT Cases, our ongoing faults remained unremedied. This disparity underscores a concerning discrepancy in treatment between influential personalities like Rupert Murdoch and ordinary Australian citizens striving to maintain businesses reliant on dependable phone services. This asymmetry serves to underscore the one-sided nature of the COT story.
The Rupert Murdoch and Helen Handbury page is crucial because it directly follows the logbook issues outlined on our Home page. Helen became particularly intrigued by one crucial document: the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook. This logbook, revealed during my arbitration under the discovery process, could have significantly altered the arbitrator's perception of my claims regarding ongoing telephone issues in late March and April 1995. This was just before he issued his award on May 11, 1995, without addressing the persistent phone problems.
She was dismayed when I presented Helen with Dr. Hughes' award, which stated that no phone problems existed after July 1994. The logbook would have offered evidence to the contrary, highlighting a troubling oversight. This resonated with her, as she too experienced phone difficulties when attempting to make bookings during our communications in 1998 and 1999.
The critical point for the reader to understand is the following logbook issues, which are similar to what Helen Handbury would have read from my draft notes concerning the importance of the logbook.
Six months before the arbitrations commenced, four of the sixteen claimants, including myself, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (1984) to access the telephone exchange logbooks from our local exchanges. We were informed that the logbook would be made available to the appointed arbitrator after signing our arbitration agreements. However, this logbook was never provided to any of the claimants.
This document was essential for the claimants to demonstrate to the arbitrator that their telephone issues remained unresolved. As a result, the arbitrator could dismiss a claim as settled until Telstra, the defendant in each case, could unequivocally prove that no further issues were affecting their telephone services.
In my particular case, even the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman sought access to this same logbook from the then-CEO of Telstra. Regrettably, the Ombudsman’s request yielded no response. Suppose the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who oversees investigations for a fully funded government agency, could not obtain the most pertinent documents within the entire arbitration process on my behalf. What prospects did I or any of the other claimants possess in substantiating our claims against Telstra?
Having devoted twenty-eight years to the British Australian Merchant Navy, I have gained a profound understanding of the importance of meticulously maintained records within the ship's logbook. These records document the daily operations of the vessel and the activities of the crew, serving as a critical resource not only for the current voyage but also for future reference.
This understanding prompted me to advise the COT Cases to request access to their local telephone exchange logbook. Should their request be denied, I recommend pursuing access through the arbitrator and, if necessary, escalating the matter to the Commonwealth.
The content of this logbook is fundamental to the resolution of their cases, as it contains a comprehensive record of every fault complaint submitted by Telstra customers.
It is imperative to highlight that the logbook from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange was not provided to me, the arbitrator, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman (see File 114 - AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127), which raises significant concerns regarding why was it not provided? What was Telstra afarid of it exposing?
Had I access to this logbook during my arbitration appeal
I would have proven my phone problems were still ongoing.
However, between 18 October 1995 and 4 October 1997, with the assistance of Mr John Wynack, Director of Investigations on behalf of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I sought, under Freedom of Information (FOI Act) from Telstra, a copy of their arbitration file, which would have shown who had been involved in altering clause 24 and removing clauses 25 and 26 in my arbitration agreement. This information would have shown when AUSTEL received a copy of the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook. Home Page File No/82 confirms Mr Wynack did not believe Telstra’s claim that it destroyed the file.
I tried to obtain a copy of the arbitration file the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) held. As the process administrator, the TIO is unequivocally required to retain all documents relevant to the arbitration. This includes my formal request to the arbitrator, in which I insisted on accessing the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook and all correspondence exchanged among the involved parties while drafting the arbitration rules. Obtaining this information was essential for my appeal attorneys at Law Partners of Melbourne, who were poised to leverage the negligent actions of DMR and Lane from Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory. It is critical to highlight that both individuals submitted incomplete reports to the arbitration process while misrepresenting them as final.
John Pinnock’s letter of 10 January 1996, in response to my request for these arbitration records, states:
“I refer to your letter of 31 December 1996 in which you seek to access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. …
“I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office.” (See Open Letter File No 57-C)
Transcripts from my Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearing (where the Australian Government ACMA was the respondent) on 3 October 2008 (No V2008/1836) show I maintained my Freedom of Information applications to ACMA should be provided free of charge in the public interest, because of the extent of the problems within the Telstra installed Ericsson AXE telephone equipment right across Australia. Telstra and ACMA were still withholding from me this Ericsson data in 2008, Mr G D Friedman considered these AAT hearings and, on 3 October 2008, stated to me in open court in full view of two government ACMA lawyers.
“Let me just say, I don’t consider you, personally, to be frivolous or vexatious – far from it.
“I suppose all that remains for me to say, Mr Smith, is that you obviously are very tenacious and persistent in pursuing the – not this matter before me, but the whole – the whole question of what you see as a grave injustice, and I can only applaud people who have persistence and the determination to see things through when they believe it’s important enough.”
A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
I believe you are taking the 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 not of Mr Joblin's hand.
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) that Freehill Holingdale & Page would have no further involvement in the COT issues. The same legal firm that provided Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist's witness statement to the arbitrator, was only signed by Maurice Wayne Condon of Freehill's. The psychologist's signature was missing.
Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me because 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 (the arbitrator) compared to the signed statement?"
It is 2024, and 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, signed the witness statement without the psychologist's signature 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 different 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.
If I had been given access to this logbook during my arbitration, the resulting evidence would have substantiated my assertion that Telstra lacks trustworthiness. The continued ambiguity surrounding this matter has permitted the use of misleading information during the Senate investigation. Knowingly submitting false information to the Senate "On Notice" constitutes Contempt of the Senate, a chargeable offence that may result in a two-year imprisonment if proven. The logbook would still serve as evidence today if it were made available.
Government Corruption - Gaslighting
Absentjustice.com boldly uncovers the deception, fraud, and corruption entrenched in the COT Cases. Check out the gaslighting methods employed against the COT Cases, including the character assassination that occurred both during and after their arbitration. Understanding these strategies is essential for recognizing the challenges the individuals involved face.
Delve into the shocking, unresolved crimes inflicted on innocent Australian citizens during government-sanctioned arbitrations overseen by compromised officials with a single objective: victory at all costs. Witness how unscrupulous and well-compensated legal professionals orchestrated these events while Telstra officials manipulated the process from behind the scenes.
These lawyers exploited COT claimants, stripping them of their fundamental right to discovery through underhanded tactics rarely seen in arbitration.
Uncover the depths of government corruption, where public servants employed gaslighting techniques to obscure these egregious injustices against fellow Australians.
Investigate the crimes perpetrated against citizens forced into a rigged arbitration system. Learn who allowed these horrifying acts to flourish, undermining our justice system.
Examine the pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy that tainted the COT arbitrations. Discover the individuals responsible for these heinous crimes and their roles within Australia’s Establishment and Legal Framework, which permitted such profound injustices.
Despite these unresolved phone faults, which were instrumental in initiating the COT Cases, the arbitrator concluded all arbitration proceedings prematurely. The substantial issues raised during the COT arbitrations from 1994 to 1998 remained glaringly evident as late as April 2018, eighteen to twenty years later. The four exhibits Google links presented below this narrative serve as compelling evidence of these enduring challenges.
Six years after the arbitrator failed to compel Telstra to resolve my persistent telephone issues during the government-endorsed arbitration from April 21, 1994, to May 11, 1995, I made the prudent decision to sell the business when it became evident that the telephone issues were systemic. The sale was conducted at land value only, as the enterprise had no remaining goodwill. The four legal firms and the four real estate offices were fully aware of the challenges I encountered, a sentiment echoed by many businesses in Portland, including the Portland Observer newspaper. This publication has supported my efforts for over a decade to resolve the ongoing issues with Telstra. Their assistance in my matters is comprehensively documented on my website and within the accompanying manuscript.
BCI and SVT reports - Section One
Who highjacked the BCI and SVT Reports
In December 2001, after working with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and still not seeing results, I sold the business to Darren and Jenny Lewis (Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story).
On January 6, 2003, I received a letter from the Hon David Hawker MP, who had been advocating for a resolution to my ongoing telephone and faxing problems since 1992, wrote to me noting:
“Thank you for your correspondence received throughout December, 2002. Copies will be forwarded to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, along with the videotape, “Phone Wiring Details at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp.”
On 28 January 2003, a letter from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO officer) Gillian McKenzie to Telstra states:
“Mr & Mrs Lewis claim in their correspondence attached:
That they purchased the Cape Bridgewater Coastal Camp in December 2001, but since that time have experienced a number of issues in relation to their telephone service, many of which remain unresolved.
That a Telstra technician ‘Mr Tony Watson’ is currently assigned to his case, but appears unwilling to discuss the issues with Mr Lewis due to his contact with the previous camp owner, Mr Alan Smith.” (See Home-Page File No/76 and D-Lewis File 1-I)
Was there a more sinister motive involved in Telstra’s technician refusing to help Darren Lewis with the ongoing phone/fax problems that, nine years before, Telstra and the arbitrator assigned to my case failed to investigate transparently? Why was this Telstra technician still holding a grudge against me in 2002/3 because of something my 1994/95 arbitration should have addressed – i.e., the ongoing phone and facsimile problems that this same Telstra technician was refusing to help Mr Lewis with, nine years later?
This is the same Tony Watson referred to in Telstra's B004 arbitration defence report (see It is also clear from Front Page Part One File No/1). Tony Watson states that my faxes did not reach the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 because the arbitrator's fax lines were busy when I tried to send them. Therefore, there were no faults on the lines. This statement by Tony Watson does not match Telstra's billing records for those six faxes.
The attached exhibits (see Front Page Part One File No/1) indicate that I was charged for allegedly not receiving faxes. Such misleading and deceptive statements from Tony Watson have significantly undermined the efforts of the COT Cases over nearly thirty years, during which they have contended with challenges created by individuals like him. It is pertinent to question why Telstra issued a charge for these six faxes if they did not reach the arbitrator's office. Furthermore, if the arbitrator's office did not receive these six arbitration claims documents, then who was the recipient?
How dare Tony Watson threaten Darren Lewis not to speak with me when I lived next door to the holiday camp and remained there until 2019.
The holiday camp I operated had historically relied on landline telephones as the sole means of communication, apart from incidental trade. Upon our initial appreciation for the property, we overlooked the obsolete telephone system prevalent at that time. During that period, mobile network coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted via the Internet or email. The camp was connected to a roadside switching facility that routed calls to the central telephone exchange located 20 kilometres away in Portland. This facility, which had been in place for over 30 years, was designed for low-call-rate areas and was equipped with only eight lines to service 66 families, amounting to 132 adults and children.
Consequently, only four lines were available for the remaining 128 adults and their children. During peak periods—such as weekends and holidays—when visitor numbers surged at the seaside resort, the demand for telecommunication increased substantially, resulting in recurring line congestion.
After three and a half years of operating with this outdated infrastructure, Telstra finally installed a new system. Regrettably, they neglected to connect it to the central telephone exchange in Portland for an additional twenty months. This unacceptable oversight is further documented in a government report dated March 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, which identifies issues from points 2 to 212.
The findings in that report stem from the fault reports extracted from the Portland Telstra telephone exchange logbook. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, I was denied access to this logbook during my arbitration. AUSTEL could only have reached such precise conclusions in the 69-page, 212-point report by utilizing that source.
Before the agreement was entered into
In July 2005, eleven years after the first four government-endorsed arbitration agreements had been signed, 14 COT members met with Senator Barnaby Joyce in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia), and each provided him with their stories. The Senator visibly became very emotional during this meeting when several of the COT Cases provided clear proof our arbitration-related faxes were being screened via Telstra's telecommunications network en route to the arbitrator and our advisors before being redirected to their intended destination. However, the Senator appeared to be even angrier when COT case Ann Garms and I explained the resultant effect of not having the logbook of the Fortitude Valley telephone exchange, which serviced Ann's business and the Portland/Cape Bridgewater logbook of the exchange that serviced my business.
Simply put, Telstra knew how strong or weak each of the COT case claims was before they defended them. This upset the Senator and his political advisor. I provided the Senator with proof that some faxed documents en route to the arbitrator were not redirected to the arbitrator's office, meaning these claim documents were never assessed at all. I also raised with the Senator on the telephone after this meeting that, in my case, Telstra had admitted to the Australian Federal Police that local Telstra technicians had been intercepting my telephone conversations, which they had recorded and entered in a fault log. I assume this fault log, which was not provided to the arbitrator or me during the arbitration, would have been mentioned in the Portland/Cape Bridgewater log book.
It was the withholding of the telephone exchange Logbooks from the Telstra exchanges that serviced the COT Cases business, including the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which most of the COT Cases believe prompted Senator Joyce to ensure we COT Cases finally get the justice that was denied us during the COT arbitrations. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce is still a very prominent member of the National Party government.
After this meeting, Senator Joyce made a historic agreement with the Australian government. If the government agreed to appoint an independent assessor to investigate these 14 COT cases, then the Senator would provide his one crucial vote needed by the government to pass the Telstra privatisation legislation in the Senate.
15 September 2005, Senator Barnaby Joyce writes to me:-
“As a result of my thorough review of the relevant Telstra sale legislation, I proposed a number of amendments which were delivered to Minister Coonan. In addition to my requests, I sought from the Minister closure of any compensatory commitments given by the Minister or Telstra and outstanding legal issues. …”
“I am pleased to inform you that the Minister has agreed there needs to be finality of outstanding COT cases and related disputes. The Minister has advised she will appoint an independent assessor to review the status of outstanding claims and provided a basis for these to be resolved.”
“I would like you to understand that I could only have achieved this positive outcome on your behalf if I voted for the Telstra privatisation legislation.” (Senate Evidence File No 20)
Once Senator Joyce had cast that crucial vote, however (the one vote that was hanging in the balance), and had, therefore, made history for the Telstra Corporation and the Liberal-National Coalition Government, Senator Coonan reneged on her promise with a decisive back-flip, as many of the letters collected on this website so clearly shows.
To salvage something from this situation, Senator Joyce compromised with the Department of Communications, Information Technology, and the Arts (DCITA) to assess the claims of the 14 Casualties of Telstra (COTs) seeking involvement. However, after securing Senator Joyce’s vote, the government backtracked, insisting on using only their government-employed assessors instead of the independent assessor that had been promised.
Had I been allowed to use the AUSTEL Adverse Finding from the Portland/Cape Bridgewater Logbook, my 2006 government arbitration review claim material could have received a far more favourable assessment. The DCITA's reliance solely on their government archive information skewed the evaluation process dramatically. This misuse of authority by The Hon. Senator Helen Coonan and the DCITA bureaucrats during the independent assessment, particularly their dependency on exhibit AS 639—entitled “Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts – Casualties of Telstra (COT) Background and Information for Ministers Office”—. No extracts from the telephone exchanges were recorded in this DCITA archive document.
By neglecting AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, which confirms that government public servants who investigated my ongoing telephone problems found my claims against Telstra validated. The failure to withhold this critical logbook from being discovered when it was legally requested not only obstructed an impartial arbitration assessment of the COT case arbitrations from 1994 to 1996 but (not having it for showing purposes) also prevented the government DCITA assessors in 2006 from accurately valuing the claims of those who chose to participate in the Senators Coonan and Joyce review process.
