Terms & Conditions

 

My telecommunications saga began in late 1987 when my wife Faye and I bought a holiday camp accommodation business perched high above Cape Bridgewater, near Portland on the southwest coast of country Victoria. 

The holiday camp depended heavily on landline phones as the sole mode of communication apart from passing trade. When we first discovered this hidden gem, we overlooked the outdated telephone system. Back then, there was no mobile coverage, and conducting business through the Internet or email was not an option. The camp was linked to a roadside switching facility, which was then connected to the central telephone exchange in Portland, 20 kilometres away. This facility, installed over 30 years before we purchased it, was intended for low-call-rate areas and had only eight lines to accommodate 66 families comprising 132 adults and children. As a result, if four lines were in use at any given time, only four free lines were left for the remaining 128 adults and children.

After three and a half years of working with this outdated switching device, Telstra finally installed a new system. However, they neglected to program it through the central telephone exchange in Portland for another eighteen months (as point 153 in the government AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings) shows. This unacceptable workmanship did not end there, as points 2 to 212 in this government report confirm.

After enduring persistent telephone issues for six years, I willingly engaged in an arbitration process endorsed by the government communications authority AUSTEL in April 1994. Surprisingly, I later discovered that certain vital documents, specifically C04006, C04007, and C04008, were deliberately concealed from me during the arbitration. These documents, identified as TELECOM SECRET Exhibit Front Page Part Two 2-B, prove that Telstra was fully aware of the severity of my telephone problems. Despite this knowledge, nine Telstra employees committed perjury by submitting false arbitration Witness Statements under oath, denying the existence of the phone problems and the statements made in these three C04006, C04007, and C04008 documents noting: 

“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.”

AUSTEL only provided Telstra with a copy of their document in March 1994 and did not release my copy until 19 November 2007, a full twelve years after the completion of my arbitration. The actions by AUSTEL constitute a clear abuse of process. Allowing me to commence arbitration and legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was utterly unacceptable. Furthermore, to have allowed me to spend over $300,000 in arbitration fees trying to prove something the government had already established against Telstra was an outright abuse of process. AUSTEL not only failed to fulfil its statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia but also demonstrated a severe disregard for fairness and justice.

 

Call for Justice 

 

Absent Justice is a website that triggered a comprehensive investigation into political corruption and is on par with legitimate true crime resources. Detailed explicitly between "Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993 and Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued" is the fraudulent submissions of corrupt evidence and the use of threats, misleading tactics, and deceptive conduct by government officials, actions that should not be tolerated in any country, let alone Australia. This resource sheds light on how foreign bribery, corrupt practices, kleptocracy, and foreign corruption programs have pervaded the Australian legal arbitration system. It also addresses the substantial challenges posed by international fraud against the government.

I have made sure to emphasize the China and North Vietnam Australian wheat saga, which vividly illustrates the callous disregard of certain Australian public servants for the lives of Australian soldiers in Vietnam. Additionally, I firmly highlighted the sale of an arbitration witness, Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd, to Ericsson during a government-endorsed arbitration. It was imperative to incorporate this evidence in our introduction to underline the prevailing indifference exhibited by these public servants over the years. Without delving into this compelling background, many readers would struggle to comprehend the extent of their apathy.

Fraudulent Reporting

• Deceptive news reporting
• False information dissemination
• Misleading journalism practices

 

 

On January 28, 2003, a correspondence from Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman officer Gillian McKenzie was directed to Telstra. Prior to this, the TIO had overseen my arbitration eight years earlier. The necessity to divest my business in December 2001 arose due to the TIO and Telstra’s reluctance to investigate my persistent telephone issues, which were initially brought to Telstra's attention in 1988 and persisted until December 2001, six years after the conclusion of my 1994/95 arbitration, which was meant to address these issues. After selling my business, Darren and Jenny Lewis inherited these unresolved problems. In the letter as mentioned above addressed to Telstra, TIO officer Ms McKenzie explicitly conveyed:

“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.”   Home-Page File No/76

Why did the Telstra technician refuse to assist Darren Lewis with the persistent phone and fax issues? Could there be a darker agenda at play related to unresolved matters from my 1994/95 arbitration case that neither Telstra nor the assigned arbitrator thoroughly investigated? It is baffling that the same Telstra technician held a grudge against me in 2002/3 over issues that should have been addressed in the arbitration, and now, eight years later, he is unwilling to help Mr Lewis with the same problems.

In Front Page Part One File No/1, it is clearly stated that Telstra's billing service shows that all six of my outgoing faxes to the arbitrator's office on 23 May 1994 during my arbitration were billed to me as having been received. In Telstra's arbitration sworn statement B004, Tony Watson from Telstra claimed that the six faxes never arrived due to the arbitrator's facsimile machine being busy when they were being sent.

However, I find it puzzling that Telstra charged me for these never-received faxes. Furthermore, I have amassed evidence showing that 41 similar arbitration documents failed to reach the arbitrator's office for assessment. Despite this evidence, Tony Watson continued to downplay these unaddressed arbitration issues eight years after the event.

 

 

After reviewing both Open Letter File No/41/Part-One and File No/41 Part-Two, it's clear that the exhibits and evidence attached to the report provided by both the Hon David Hawker MP and me to Senator Richard Alston, who then passed it on to his staff manager Paul Fletcher for investigation.

If Mr. Fletcher had taken the initiative to investigate this report in June 1996, which he discusses in his 4 September 1996 letter Open Letter File No/41/Part-One, the numerous issues I highlighted on absentjustice.com would have been addressed and resolved in 1996. I made it clear to Mr Fletcher that I had presented evidence to Senator Richard Alston as far back as 3 June 1993, confirming that the faulty AXE equipment installed by Ericsson in Telstra's telephone exchanges across Australia was causing widespread disruption to Telstra's customers. This significant problem was regrettably overlooked during my arbitration and for more than a decade past that arbitration process (refer (Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f).

 

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

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

I emphasized to Mr. Fletcher that Senator Alston had already brought attention to the ongoing issues with Ericsson AXE systems in a Senate Committee hearing on 25 February 1994, well before these issues were considered in arbitration. I urged Mr. Fletcher to remind Senator Alston of these crucial facts. Suppose these matters had been diligently investigated when I raised them with Mr. Fletcher. That scenario could have prevented the arbitration process from enabling Ericsson to acquire Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd during the COT arbitrations. The decision-makers should have mandated the arbitrator and Lane to confront the persistent Ericsson AXE telephone exchange faults and other malfunctioning Ericsson testing equipment issues during the COT arbitrations prior to concluding any additional arbitration with Lane. Regrettably, the arbitrator failed to comprehensively investigate these persistent Ericsson AXE exchange problems.

The Hon. Paul Fletcher MP was the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities, and the Arts in the 2022 Morrison government. My then Federal Member of Parliament, The Hon. Dan Tehan MP, asked him to review my unresolved COT issues. However, Paul Fletcher declined to investigate.

 

 

Our web pages feature compelling evidence in Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden and Chapter 6 - US Securities Exchange - pink herring. These chapters shed light on the US Department of Justice's keen interest in telecommunications giant Ericsson. Ericsson has been a significant telecommunications equipment supplier to Telstra for many years. Ericsson was allegedly involved in trading with international terrorists. Additionally, Ericsson, the same company with alleged ties to global terrorism, managed to infiltrate the Australian Arbitration system and even purchased the main technical witness used in the COT arbitrations. During the proceedings of the COT arbitrations, it is pertinent to observe that the Australian Lane Telecommunications company divested its business to Ericsson. This divestiture took place while Lane was actively engaged in the official examination of Ericsson's telecommunications equipment. The COT Cases contended before the arbitrator that said equipment had given rise to most of their telecommunications challenges, which were concurrently subject to investigation by the COT arbitrator.

It is evident from the statement "Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over  ... https://www.icij.org › investigations › ericsson-list › angry," issued by investigators from the US Department of Justice examining Ericsson's business practices, that the COT Cases were justified in seeking clarification on Ericsson's involvement in the procurement of the primary arbitration technical witness investigating their claims against Ericsson's telephone equipment. 

During a crucial Senate Committee hearing at Parliament House Canberra on 24 June 1997, a significant revelation emerged from ex-Telstra employee turned whistleblower Lindsay White. Under oath, White disclosed details about Telstra's concealment of telecommunications equipment, including Ericsson equipment, from the COT Cases 1997. In a compelling testimony, White emphasized the critical nature of the technical information requested by the COT claimants under FOI. This pivotal testimony can be found on pages 36 to 38 of the Senate - Parliament of Australia where Mr White 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 O’Chee then asked Mr White -- "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"

Mr White responded by saying -- "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".

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, Peter Riddle".

Senator Schacht -- "Who".

Mr White -- "Mr Peter Gamble and a subordinate of his, Peter Ridlle. That was the induction process-" 

From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same  Peter Gamble who swore under oath, in his 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 Falsified SVT Report that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications. In fact, the then government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) had dammed the SVT testing at my business premises as grossly deficient and had demanded Telstra rectify this testing. 

In October 1994, my partner Cathy and I informed the arbitrator through sworn statutory declarations that Peter Gamble had to halt his SVT testing process due to a malfunction in the Ericsson testing unit connected to the Cape Bridgewater switching exchange. During my arbitration on 6 April 1995, Peter Gamble and David Read from Telstra, the senior partner to Lane (the arbitration company that Ericsson later purchased during the arbitrations), deliberately refused to test my three service lines during their official arbitration visit to my Cape Bridgewater business. This visit included viewing and testing the Ericsson equipment used by Telstra, which formed the crux of my arbitration claims against Telstra before the arbitrator.

The proof of Ericsson's involvement with international terrorists can be viewed by clicking the following Google link. 

 

 

Upon reviewing the Evidence Files, it becomes evident that the Telstra arbitrations were marred by bribery, corruption, and malfeasance. The meticulous compilation of these exhibits spanned several months, with the primary objective of narrating the COT story and establishing credibility among its audience. These files unequivocally demonstrate that government regulatory bodies operated in contradiction to the defendants during the aforementioned arbitrations, deliberately obscuring the truth regarding Telstra's deteriorating network under the auspices of government-endorsed proceedings.

 

 

In light of the current focus on government and union corruption in Australia and worldwide, reflecting on a pivotal moment in 1967 is essential. At that time, as a young man driven by passion and having narrowly escaped peril in Communist China, I felt compelled to confront the corruption that seemed to be impacting our young soldiers in North Vietnam. I raised my concerns then, and they are just as relevant today.

It is imperative to emphasize that a substantial shipment of Australian grain was transacted to communist China at a subsidised rate per bushel. Consequently, it can be contended that the Australian government subsidized the detriment of Australian, New Zealand, and USA troops in North Vietnam, despite the avowed intent of China and North Vietnam to dismantle our three nations (refer to Chapter 7 Vietnam Vietcong).

Evidently, North Vietnam sought to accomplish this within the confines of the North Vietnamese jungles, conceivably having consumed a bowl of Australian-subsidized wheat. The excerpt from a report compiled by Australia's Kim Beasly MP on September 4, 1965, delineates only a fraction of this lamentable episode. This is the message I endeavoured to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minister of Australia, during my telephone conversations with him in April 1993 and April 1994 pertaining to Australia's wheat transactions. My initial correspondence on this matter was directed to him on September 18, 1967, during his tenure as Minister for the Army.

Who in the Australian public sector (public servants) was involved in negotiating this trade deal with Communist China during the Vietnam War? Who would have been aware of the possibility that Australian-supplied wheat to China might end up in the bellies of the Vietcong guerrilla

 

 

This Hansard https://shorturl.at/ovEW5 shows Dr Patterson (minister in opposition) asking Mr Aldermann, Primary Industry Minister. 

"What guarantees has the Australian Government that Australian wheat being sent to mainland China is not forwarding China [sic] to North Vietnam 

Mr Adermann, on behalf of the Liberal and Country Party government that had authorised this three-year wheat deal to China - answered Dr Patterson as follows:

:The Australian Government does not exercise control over the ultimate destination of goods purchased by foreign buyers"

I can only assume that Mr Alderman did not have a sibling fighting in North Vietnam when he made that statement on behalf of the Australian government.     

 

The Ann Garms YouTube video about the COT Cases is quite long, but viewing it's worth your time. This video highlights the shocking corruption within Australia's arbitration process during the COT Cases. If you're sceptical, watch the first few minutes — you'll be itching to download it. This video uncovers the truth about how Telstra manipulated the arbitration system, leaving the COT Cases unable to address their ongoing telephone problems. The confidentiality clauses in the arbitration agreement prevented further investigations, leading to the downfall of those who chose arbitration.

 

 

Imagine dealing with a dysfunctional mobile phone and computer system daily, rendering you unreachable by telephone or email. This was the daily struggle for the COT Cases, including myself, in the 1990s. If you want an eye-opening experience, navigate to the link labelled "Price Waterhouse Coopers 1," individuals will access a video presentation that will prompt a reevaluation of the integrity of the parties responsible for overseeing the COT arbitrations. This will, in turn, engender a strong desire to view the testimonies of nine additional COT Cases that were broadcast on national television a quarter of a century ago. The narratives presented in these testimonies depict lives that were detrimentally impacted by the demonstrable misconduct of the Telstra Corporation and the professionals charged with administering the COT arbitrations.

During the second Australian Federal Police interview at my business on 26 September 1994, as they were investigating Telstra's bugging issues, they asked me 93 questions. You can see in Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, evidence from page 12 of these transcripts, that I raised the former Australian prime minister's concerns. Our discussions, which occurred twice over twelve months, had been documented in Telstra's file memos. When I requested the discussion text under FOI, it had been redacted (removed from the document before it was released under FOI).

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. Why did the arbitrator not award me in his official findings concerning this evidence after he was supplied with these AFP transcripts?

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

Upon reviewing the transcripts, it is evident that I was under significant duress during a prolonged interview with the AFP. Prior to this interview, we obtained two substantial document storage boxes through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Telstra, which exposed the compromised privacy of my club members' information.  

During the interview, it became apparent that not only had my business suffered from inadequate phone service but also that Telstra employees were disseminating my business information within the corporation. For instance, I learned that Telstra knew the names and addresses of coach companies with which I had competed for contracts and subsequently lost them. The disclosure that the local Telstra telephone exchange was divulging my phone and fax information to an individual named Micky compounded the stress during the AFP interview.

This disquieting revelation also raised concerns about potential redactions made by Telstra in the FOI documents provided. The unsettling nature of these findings prompted the attention of the AFP. 

 

What information was removed from the Malcolm Fraser FOI released document 

The AFP believed Telstra was deleting evidence at my expense 

Below is the Sun Herald newspaper article I discussed with the APP.

“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.

“Mr Fraser’s request follows the release of a damning government report this week which criticised Telecom for recording conversations without customer permission.

“Mr Fraser said Mr Alan Smith, of the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp near Portland, phoned him early last year seeking advice on a long-running dispute with Telecom which Mr Fraser could not help.” 

Challenging the government-endorsed arbitrations continue
 

 

Since my 1994/95 arbitration and the government review process of 2006, I have participated in two Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) hearings, in which the government regulator ACMA was the respondent. Each hearing necessitated extensive preparation over several months. The initial hearing transpired between February and October 2008, while the subsequent hearing occurred from October 2010 to May 2011.

During these legal proceedings, I sought the release of Freedom of Information documents from the (ACMA) to substantiate my 1994 arbitration claim against the government-owned Telstra Corporation. These documents were integral in elucidating the detrimental impact of persistent telephone issues on the viability of my business during that period. Despite presenting evidence in both AAT hearings that the necessary fault information from Telstra's local Portland/Cape Bridgewater telephone exchange logbook existed, the most pertinent document was not furnished during my 1994 arbitration or as a result of these two AAT hearings. Regrettably, I remain without this crucial information.

In the AAT hearing on October 3, 2008 (No V2008/1836), the senior member, Mr. GA Friedman, acting on behalf of the government, explicitly recognized the crucial nature of my request. In front of two government lawyers representing the ACMA and several witnesses, he openly stated:

 “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.”

 

During the arbitration period from March 1994 to November 1994, John Wynack, the Director of Investigations at the Commonwealth Ombudsman office, diligently endeavoured to acquire essential ongoing fault information from the telephone exchange logbook of Telstra Portland/Cape Bridgewater as File 114 -(AS-CAV Exhibit 92 to 127) shows). This information was imperative in substantiating claims made during the arbitration concerning persisting telephone faults but was deliberately withheld.

Following the conclusion of the arbitration, John Wynack, acting on my behalf between 1995 and 1997 Home Page File No/82, pursued the same withheld logbook and arbitration file information to aid in the appeal of the arbitration process. The basis for the appeal centred on the deliberate concealment of vital information from the arbitration files during the process.

Astonishingly, in 2024, this logbook and arbitration file information is still obscured by those seeking it. Other information that appeared to have been of some relevance when it arrived was that any numbering system was heavily censored and unreadable. We COT Cases were ducks sitting on a wall being picked off one at a time until we either had heart attacks, gave up, or even worse. 

As shown in the sworn witness statement by Telstra's Principal Security Officer Des Direen dated 10/08/2006, he describes in Points 20, 21 and 22 that when he visited the Telstra telephone exchange in Portland, Victoria, while investigating phone interception claims, he was unable to obtain the Portland telephone exchange logbook. 

Point 20: - "Finally, I would like to say this while I was working at Telstra and it would have been the early nineties I had cause to travel ro Portland in western Victoria in relation to a complaint involving suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange." 

Point 21: - “As part of my investigation, I first attended at the exchange to speak to staff and check the exchange log book which was a record of all visitors to the exchange and a record of work conducted by the technical officers.”

Point 22: - “When I attended at the exchange, I found that the log book was missing and could not be located. I was informed at the time by local staff that a customer from the Cape Bridgewater are south of Portland was also complaining about his phone service and that the log book could have been removed as part of that investigation. I was not told about this complaint prior to travelling to Portland and when I made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne I was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra. I later found out that the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

In March 1994 AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, it was confirmed that government officials obtained internal information about the faults on my telephone line. This included details about how these faults affected other Portland and Cape Bridgewater customers. Government representatives visited the exchanges and my business prior to my arbitration and discovered these findings. To make such damning conclusions about Telstra, AUSTEL representatives would have had to access the Portland and Cape Bridgewater logbook, which validates my claims. It's glaringly apparent that if the arbitrator had been provided Telstra's logbook when I requested it, the compensation for my financial losses would have been significantly higher than what was awarded.

In January 2018, my partner, Cathy, was with me for my first appointment with our local doctor after I had survived a heart attack and double bypass surgery.  Although the doctor was very sympathetic to my situation (and knows my COT story), he couldn’t help but ask:  “Why am I not surprised?”

As I write this, it is now June 2018, and still, every time I go back to finalise various parts of our website at absentjustice.com, I have to re-read all the complex details that make up the whole, true, terrible story; my anxiety levels instantly begin to rise alarmingly. The situation worsens, though, because I also find I am just stuck; I seem unable to find the right words to finish this dreadful story.  It seems that, no matter what I do, I can’t find a way to adequately explain this disaster that we have all struggled with for so many years. One part of the problem is that none of the COT cases – all honest Australian citizens – should ever have been forced into a situation that would eventually leave us all dealing with so many still-unaddressed crimes.   

 

Our Arbitration Agreement was altered to protect the arbitration consultants. 

 

Uncover the deep-seated corruption within the Australian government and the egregious crimes committed under the watch of Australian public servants. Delve into the deceitful and illicit actions of politicians and their connected lawyers, some of whom continue to practice law in Australia and overseas. Expose the overlooked unethical conduct of Telstra before, during, and after government-endorsed arbitrations and the neglect of arbitrators to address major telephone faults that inflicted widespread harm on small businesses nationwide. These injustices demand our attention. Rally behind the remaining COT Cases who fearlessly confronted the government, demanding accountability from Telstra for its failing network following privatization. Question the government's ongoing funding of Telstra Corporation after it transitions to a public company. The persisting impact of unresolved telephone issues on the businesses of the COT cases, even twelve years post-arbitration, underscores the enduring repercussions of their initial involvement in the arbitration process.

Months before the COT, four arbitrations were signed in April 1994, AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, dated March 1994, confirms between Points 2 to 212, the government public servants had investigated my ongoing telephone problems and found my claims against Telstra validated. One does not have to be a genius to understand that had the arbitrator been provided AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, his award on my financial business losses would have been substantially higher than he awarded on a claim that did not have a comprehensive log over the six-year period which AUSTEL used in which to derive at their findings as AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings shows.   

Government records (see Absentjustice-Introduction File 495 to 551) show that AUSTEL's adverse findings were provided to Telstra (the defendants) one month before Telstra and I signed our arbitration agreement. I did not get a copy of these findings until 23 November 2007, 12 years after the conclusion of my arbitration, which was outside the statute of limitations for me to use those government findings to appeal the arbitrator's award.

AUSTEL's actions were an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents to support my claim. One condemnation, but to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process.

The Brotherhood

How can one publish a truthful account of the events that have transpired during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without providing the necessary exhibits to support these facts? This need arises from the extensive corruption within the government bureaucracy. How can an author convincingly demonstrate that government public servants shared privileged information with the then-Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier, the defendants, while concealing the same documentation from the claimants, their fellow Australian citizens?

How can a narrative so incredible that even the author questions its authenticity until consulting their records be effectively communicated? How can collusion be brought to light between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpire), and the defendants? Furthermore, how can the revelation that the defendants, in an arbitration process, utilized network-connected equipment to screen, store, and redirect faxed material from your office without your knowledge or consent be effectively exposed? The Telstra Corporation exploited this screened material to bolster their arbitration defence, to the detriment of the claimants.

How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to such intrusive tactics? Is electronic eavesdropping and unauthorized tampering with confidential documentation still occurring during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

The Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12) andFile No/13) show that someone accessing Telstra's network was screening information in the faxed documents before refaxing them to their intended destination. Even in 2024, this report leaves no doubt that faxes sent to politicians had been intercepted before arriving at government ministers' offices. In my case, only the first page arrived at The Hon. Peter Costello's office on 2 November 1998 (see Exhibit 10C - File No/13). At that time, Costello was the Federal Treasurer and was interested in my case.

 

Fighting on two fronts 

Many of those within the Establishment said that it was unconstitutional to force the COT cases into an arbitration process with Telstra while the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were still investigating Telstra for alleged phone and fax hacking of the COT cases’ businesses, and it was acknowledged that it was an unworkable process.  This didn’t stop the arbitrations, however, but it does raise several important questions:

1. How could two separate investigations into Telstra for allegedly unlawful conduct be undertaken by two organisations simultaneously, i.e., an arbitrator and the AFP? As far as we can find, this situation is unheard of in any other Western democracy.
2. While all the COT cases attempted to keep their small businesses going while their arbitrations continued, how could they be expected to submit a complex submission to an arbitrator while assisting the AFP with their investigations?
3. Who decided that this situation would be allowed to continue?

Not only was it grossly undemocratic for these small-business people to be put into such a situation, but these two investigations (the one run by the AFP and the arbitrations themselves) were being run concurrently. While these two investigations were being run concurrently, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was also investigating Telstra for acting unlawfully and outside of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act, 1984), for NOT supplying the COT cases with our promised FOI documents we needed to support our claims. That investigation started before the COTs signed their arbitrations and continued for five years.

How have many other Australian arbitration processes been subjected to this type of hacking? Is electronic eavesdropping and hacking into in-confidence documentation still happening today during legitimate Australian arbitration?

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: On 15 February 1994, during my settlement /arbitration process, Senator Richard Alston (Shadow Minister for Communications) put many questions to the Senate Estimates Committee, On Notice, to be answered by Telstra. These are the questions most pertinent to the COT claimants (see Main Evidence File No/29 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE):

1. Could you guarantee that no Parliamentarians who have had dealings with ‘COT’ members have had their phone conversations bugged or taped by Telstra?
2. Who authorised this taping of ‘COT’ members’ phone conversations and how many and which Telstra employees were involved in either making the voice recordings, transcribing the recordings or analysing the tapes?
3. On what basis is Telstra denying copies of tapes to those customers which it has admitted to taping?
4. (A) How many customers has Telstra recorded as having had their phone conversations taped without knowledge or consent since 1990? (B) Of these, how many were customers who had compensation claims, including ex Telecom employees, against Telecom?
5. Why did Telecom breach its own privacy guide-lines and how will it ensure that the revised guidelines will not be open to similar breaches or abuses?
6. Could you explain why a large amount of documents accessed by customers under FOI have a large amount of information deleted, including the names of Telecom employees who wrote and received memos and documents?
7. How many customers who have alleged that Telecom has tapped or bugged their phones without their consent or knowledge are the Australian Federal Police currently investigating?

The response to Question 5 (see Main Evidence File No/29) notes, “…These matters are currently being investigated by the AFP and AUSTEL, and by Telecom;"

It would be inappropriate for Telecom to make any further comments at this stage about possible breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act while the matter is before the Federal Police. However, the Minister will be making a full statement in the near future on action taken to date to remedy apparent procedural problems within Telecom”.

Telstra’s claim (when referring to Question 5 On Notice) that it would be inappropriate for them to comment on these phone interception issues whilst the AFP was still investigating these matters is, in itself, the typical and expected comment that Telstra lawyers would have ensured that Telstra would make, under those circumstances.  No other form of interception investigation by any other authority should have taken place whilst the AFP was still investigating these breaches of privacy issues because that might well have undermined the AFP process.

 

 

My 3 February 1994 letter to the Hon Michael Lee, Minister for Communications (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A) and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted during my arbitration. Exhibit 10C in the Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 exposes the undeniable fact that my letter to the Hon. Peter Costello's Federal Treasurer in the Australian Government on 2 November 1998 was intercepted, screened, and then redirected to his government office more than four years after the completion of my arbitration. This compelling evidence irrefutably vindicates my concerns expressed to Michael Lee MP in February 1994, leaving no doubt that my suspicions were indeed justified.

On 10 February 1994 seven days after having written to the Hon Michael Lee MP, John MacMahon, General Manager of AUSTEL (the Government Communications Authority) wrote to Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, Steve Black, stating:

“Yesterday we were called upon by officers of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the taping of the telephone services of COT Cases.

“Given the investigation now being conducted by that agency and the responsibilities imposed on AUSTEL by section 47 of the Telecommunications Act 1991, the nine tapes previously supplied by Telecom to AUSTEL were made available for the attention of the Commissioner of Police.” (See Illegal Interception File No/3)

Question 81 in the following AFP transcripts dated 26 September 1994, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, confirms that the AFP told me that AUSTEL's John MacMahon had supplied the AFP evidence that my phones had been bugged over an extended period. 

"... does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. See we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

Despite being provided with the AFP transcripts and additional supporting evidence regarding the non-arrival of many of my claim documents at his office for assessment purposes, it is confounding why the arbitrator still concluded in his award that Telstra had acted appropriately during my arbitrations.

An internal government memo, dated 25 February 1994, confirms that the minister advised me that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would investigate my illegal phone/fax interception allegations (File 773-a - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789).

On 3 March 1994, this article appeared in the Portland Observer newspaper (File 773-b - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789, noting:

“Federal Police officers are investigating allegations of possible illegal activity on the part of Telecom Australia.

Officers from the Federal Police visited Portland last week and interviewed Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp proprietor, Alan Smith, who is one of the four original members of COT (Casualties of Telecom).”

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of Scandrett & Associates report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13 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)

How many other Australian arbitration processes have fallen victim to such intrusive tactics? Is electronic eavesdropping and unauthorized tampering with confidential documentation still occurring during legitimate Australian arbitrations? 

The challenges with fax transmissions prompted the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) to investigate my claims in July 2009, a decade and a half after the conclusion of my arbitration. After receiving testimony from a witness acquainted with the arbitrator and a statutory declaration affirming the arbitrator's knowledge of the non-receipt of multiple documents at his office during my arbitration (see Burying The Evidence File 13-H), the IAMA terminated their inquiries without reaching a verdict.

 

 

My correspondence with the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, and similar letters to his deputy, Wally Rothwell, is undeniable proof that at least 41 of my faxed arbitration claims documents were not included in the list of documents received by the arbitrator. These documents are crucial to my case.

Consider this: If you had invested over $300,000 in arbitration fees in 1994, wouldn't you be eager to understand why 41 sets of claim documents crucial to your case did not appear on the list of documents received by the arbitrator?

The text in Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued is currently being updated with newly acquired information. Meticulously researched concrete documents and evidence rigorously support each statement within these twelve volumes. Every pertinent remedy is meticulously and precisely edited to ensure the optimal presentation of truth. I firmly believe that readers of these twelve volumes will attain an unmistakable understanding of the truth I am unveiling. The reports will incontrovertibly demonstrate the collaboration of government bureaucrats and specific government agencies, including self-funded regulators, in permitting the Telstra Corporation to engage in illicit acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is irrefutable and will undoubtedly confirm the transgressions during the government-sanctioned Casualties of Telstra arbitrations.

Learn about the heinous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians, and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Bribery and corruption can happen anywhere: in business, government, the courts, the media, and civil society, as well as across all sectors, from health and education to infrastructure and sports. Corruption can involve anyone: politicians, government officials, public servants, businesspeople, or members of the public. Government corruption and horrifying crimes were committed during the COT arbitrations by the Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications corporation. 

The criminal offences referenced on this website have yet to be resolved.

The AFP process was significantly undermined by the Melbourne Brotherhood, a group of influential individuals including high-profile lawyers, police officers, financial consultants, and journalists. This group could intervene and stop the arbitration process, exerting control over the legal arbitration process in Australia. Senator Ron Boswell's statement, dated 20 September 1995, under the headline A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST (See Senate Hansard Evidence File No-1), highlights the deep-rooted influence of the brotherhood within Australia's legal system.

 

 

On June 24, 1997, three months before John Pinnock advised the Senator, the arbitrator had lost control over the arbitration proceedings due to them being conducted outside of the agreed arbitration procedures that the government had established, page 5169 in SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, shows  Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” dated 10 September 1993 (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other COT Cases) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged. 

The COT Case Strategy was designed to target me, my business, and three other COT case members—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—along with our respective businesses. Astonishingly, this strategy was set in motion before our arbitrations even began, more than nine months before the signing of our arbitration agreements in April 1994. The arbitration process was akin to a Kangaroo Court, clearly biased against us.

Moreover, Denise McBurnie and Telstra's threats implied that unless I registered my fault complaints in writing, they wouldn't investigate them, effectively rendering all my correspondence with Denise McBurnie under Legal Professional Privilege (LPP).

To add insult to injury, Freehill Hollindale & Page, also Telstra's arbitration lawyers, deliberately withheld this same crucial LPP technical documentation regarding my ongoing telephone problems from the arbitrator during my arbitration. This blatant disregard for fairness is appalling and has not been addressed thirty years after the event.    

On 29 October 1993, six months before COT spokesperson Graham Schorer and I signed our arbitration agreements on 21 April 1994, we asked all parties if we could have our fax lines checked for security purposes. All parties agreed to this fax testing process. Graham Schorer, at his Melbourne Golden Messenger Courier Service, and I, at my business, Cape Bridgewater holiday camp, had had problems sending faxes between our respective offices. This Telstra internal FOI document, K01489, confirms that while Telstra was testing my Mitsubishi fax machine (using the COT spokesperson's office as the testing base), Telstra noted:

‘During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine some alarming patterns of behaviour was noted”. This document further goes on to state: “…Even on calls that were tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group fax rules. Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t’

During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3) The Mitsubishi fax machine remained in the locked up state for a further 2 minutes after the call had terminated, eventually advancing the page out of the machine. (See See AFP Evidence File No 9)

On the 2nd of March 1994, a letter was transmitted from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitor, Ian Row, to Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose of the Australian Federal Police (refer to Home Page Part-One File No/9-A to 9-C), which strongly suggests that Mr Penrose was significantly misled and deceived regarding the faxing issues detailed in the correspondence. I engaged in discussions about the unsuccessful testing process with Denise McBurnie. I communicated my assertions concerning two female single club patrons who participated in my holiday camp country getaway bushwalking, canoeing, and horse-riding program and reported receiving suggestive phone calls. It was made evident by these two female single club patrons that the information implying their single status could only have originated from me or via interception of my telephones and faxing service. Furthermore, I drew the attention of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to this matter. Notably, I obtained document evidence from file 1 through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request several years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

 

 

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. It bore no signature of the psychologist.

Did Maurice Wayne Condon remove or alter any reference to what Ian Joblin had initially written about me being 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 [clinical psychologist’s].

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

When Maurice Wayne Condon, Telstra's legal representative from Freehills, signed the witness statement submitted by Ian Joblin, Telstra's psychologist, he affirmed the presence of Ian Joblin's signature on the aforementioned statement. However, subsequent examination revealed the psychologist's absence on the document. This singular act constitutes perjury, as it attests to a falsehood knowingly. The engagement in such conduct by a legal representative during an arbitration borders on criminality.

This scenario underscores the significant influence wielded by Telstra's legal counsel within the Australian legal arbitration system. In the current context of 2024, I am awaiting a response from John Pinnock, the administrator of my arbitration, concerning his inquiry to Ted Benjamin, who served as Telstra's arbitration liaison officer, on 21st March 1997 (Refer to File 596 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647).

 

 

My correspondence with the second appointed administrator of my arbitration, John Pinnock, and similar letters to his deputy, Wally Rothwell, are undeniable proof that at least 41 of my faxed arbitration claims documents (most related to Portland AXE Ericsson exchange) were not included in the list of documents received by the arbitrator. These documents are crucial to my case.

Consider this: If you had invested over $300,000 in arbitration fees in 1994, wouldn't you be eager to understand why 41 sets of claim documents crucial to your case did not appear on the list of documents received by the arbitrator?

The text in Chapter 1 - First Remedy pursued November 1993 to Chapter 12 - The twelfth remedy pursued is currently being updated with newly acquired information. Meticulously researched concrete documents and evidence rigorously support each statement within these twelve volumes. Every pertinent remedy is meticulously and precisely edited to ensure the optimal presentation of truth. I firmly believe that readers of these twelve volumes will attain an unmistakable understanding of the truth I am unveiling. The reports will incontrovertibly demonstrate the collaboration of government bureaucrats and specific government agencies, including self-funded regulators, in permitting the Telstra Corporation to engage in illicit acts during the COT arbitrations. The evidence presented in these volumes is irrefutable and will undoubtedly confirm the transgressions during the government-sanctioned Casualties of Telstra arbitrations.

Learn about the heinous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, corrupt politicians, and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Bribery and corruption can happen anywhere: in business, government, the courts, the media, and civil society, as well as across all sectors, from health and education to infrastructure and sports. Corruption can involve anyone: politicians, government officials, public servants, businesspeople, or members of the public. Government corruption and horrifying crimes were committed during the COT arbitrations by the Telstra Corporation, Australia's largest telecommunications corporation. 

The criminal offences referenced on this website have yet to be resolved.

 

 

The deliberate concealment of vital information from the COT Cases for six years leading up to their government-endorsed arbitrations is unacceptable. Furthermore, the fact that this suppression persisted for seven years after the conclusion of those arbitrations is downright astonishing. Concealing information from a government by a government-owned corporation is a grave matter, and doing so from an arbitrator during a legalistic arbitration process is deeply troubling. The arbitration process was administered using a confidentiality agreement that was tampered with before the claimants signed it, preventing any discussion outside the arbitration process. It is stopping an investigation into these matters even now in 2024.

This situation sheds light on the corrupt nature of the arbitration system in Australia.

As I began writing this section of the COT story based on the edited version of the chronology of events originally documented by arbitration secretary Rhonda in 2028, it became increasingly clear that many of the issues encountered in the COT cases stemmed from either negligence or intentional wrongdoing by various government agencies. Therefore, we are citing page 3 of the Australian Herald Sun newspaper dated 22 December 2008, specifically the article "Bad Bureaucrats," as evidence that government officials have not consistently acted in the best interests of Australia.

“Hundreds of federal public servants were sacked, demoted or fined in the past year for serious misconduct. Investigations into more than 1000 bureaucrats uncovered bad behaviour such as theft, identity fraud, prying into file, leaking secrets. About 50 were found to have made improper use of inside information or their power and authority for the benefit of themselves, family and friends“

On 23 May 2021, Peta Credlin, Barrister, Solicitor and onetime Chief of Staff to The Hon. Tony Abbott (Prime Minister of Australia), now a high-profile Australian media guru and TV host, wrote a fascinating article in the same 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 Ministers.”