absentjustice.com
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government owned Australia's telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems (I was the founding member of the four), they were offered a commercial assessment process by the Federal government, which endorsed the process. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise tclaimant'st's claims and losses, but the arbitrator also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet, up to this day, the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have been unable to hold Telstra, or the other entities involved in these crimes, accountable.
The Arbitraitor?
Dr Gordon Hughes, Warwick Smith - Order of Australia
Discover the shocking truth of the corruption that pervaded the Australian government bureaucracy during the COT arbitrations. Unveil the identities of those responsible for these heinous crimes and learn where they currently stand in the Establishment and the legal system in 2024. It is simply outrageous that the same Establishment granted awards to both the arbitrator, Dr. Gordon Hughes and the administrator of the identical arbitrations, Warwick Smith, despite the condemnation from six senators who found against Telstra and these two individuals for forcing the COT Cases into arbitration without having received the necessary documents to support their claim fully. Moreover, it is absolutely unacceptable that Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith were still awarded the Order of Australia. This raises the question: how far can corruption go within the Establishment?
Forced members to proceed with arbitration.?
On March 23, 1999, the Australian Financial Review conducted a thorough investigation into the conduct of twenty-one arbitration and mediation processes, including my own, which had been finalized almost five years prior. The findings of their investigation prompted the Senate Estimates Committee to issue a statement.
“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”??
It's essential to remember that Telstra was the defendant in the COT arbitrations, and they could not have coerced the COT Cases into arbitration without providing the necessary documents unless both the arbitrator and administrator had agreed to this forceful tactic. It's imperative to remember that justice should always be impartial, and all parties involved should have equal opportunities to present their case. Therefore, ensuring that such tactics are not used in legal proceedings. It is clear from the Senate findings this was not the case. So why were Dr Hughes and Warwick Smith awarded these honours? It was a slap in the face of justice, especially when John Pinnock, the second TIO to be appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, on?26 September 1997?(two years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine)?alerted a Senate Estimates Committee?([document|62])?that:??
"...In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures—and I was not a party to that, but I know enough about it to be able to say this—the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act."
The following?six senators?formally recorded how they believed that Telstra had?'acted as a law unto themselves'?throughout the COT arbitrations; however, where were?Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith when?this disgraceful conduct towards the COT Cases was being carried out???
[link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0023;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Eggleston], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0023;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Sen Alan?–?Bishop], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0023;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Sen Mark?–?Boswell], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0026;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Sen Ronald?–?Carr], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0026;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Sen Kim?–?Schacht], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0027;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0025%22|Sen Chris], [link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0028;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0026%22|Alston] and?[link|https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0028;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1999-03-11%2F0026%22|Sen Richard])?. ??
Our website has uncovered critical issues related to political corruption, tampering with evidence, kleptocrats, and other related topics such as corruption, bribery, crime, exploitation, extortion, fraud, graft, misconduct, and nepotism. Through our investigations, we have brought to light shocking stories, including the COT Cases, failed Telstra arbitration and mediation processes, and how the international telecommunications giant Ericsson assisted in corrupting Telstra in Australia to thwart the course of justice. Furthermore, we have uncovered that the Australian-owned Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd arbitration consultant, initially appointed by the government-endorsed arbitration process, was purchased by Ericsson to investigate whether it was their telephone equipment causing the many phone problems being experienced around Australia. Our investigations are crucial in bringing these corrupt practices to light and holding those responsible accountable. We are making significant progress in our investigation into the Telstra Ericsson fiasco and are heading in the right direction to have the government value our claims. Our efforts are making a difference, and we will continue to expose these unlawful practices to bring justice to those affected?→?Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden.
[image|207]
The British Post Office scandal uncovered concrete evidence of corruption within the government-owned utility. It is alarming how the Post Office attempted to cover up illegal activities within its government-run system, similar to what Telstra and the Australian government have done Mr Bates vs The Post Office-Absent Justice.?Our investigations play a critical role in exposing these corrupt practices and holding those accountable for their actions.
The involvement of Alan Bates and his Post Office subcontractors in uncovering these unlawful practices by the British Post Office has become a national scandal, and we demand swift and decisive action to bring them to justice. Click here?to watch the Australian television?Channel 7?trailer for?‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’,?which went to air in Australia in February 2024. The latest update on that terrible story is on the following YouTube link:?https://youtu.be/MyhjuR5g1Mc.
On the other hand, we assert that our website, absentjustice.com, is making significant progress in our investigation into the Telstra Ericsson fiasco → File 296-Aand 298?- [document|1400].?However, we are yet to receive the government's full recognition of our claims, which is disappointing and unacceptable.
It is clear from the following Google link:?"Angry shareholders sanction Ericsson chiefs over Iraq?...?https://www.icij.org???investigations ? ericsson-list ? angry.."?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.
It is concerning that the Australian government has not investigated why Ericsson was able to purchase Lane, the principal arbitration technical consultant appointed to investigate Ericsson's telephone exchange equipment. Additionally, Lane has not yet returned all of the COT Cases' claim documents, which were provided to Lane by the COT Cases during their respective arbitrations. These issues raise questions about the arbitration process's impartiality and the outcome's fairness.
Therefore,?it is?important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the?US Department?of Justice?raised against?Ericsson?on 19 December 2019 as recorded in the Australian media, i.e.;?
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.
[image|200]
Stop the COT Cases at all costs.
The day before the Senate committee uncovered this?COT Case Strategy,?they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 39?Senate - Parliament of Australia?from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, 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."
The statement made by Mr. White is an unequivocal assertion that Telstra had deliberately targeted me and four other COT claimants to obstruct us from proving our claims against the company. This matter was also brought to the attention of the Senate Hansard on June 24th, 1997, during a discussion between Senator Kim Carr and Telstra's leading arbitration defence Counsel regarding Alan Smith, a TIO Council member. It is disconcerting that the same individual, Peter Gamble, who advised Mr. White to take this action, also swore that the testing at my business premises conformed to all of AUSTEL's specifications. However, Telstra's falsified SVT report indicates that Peter's arbitration Telstra's Falsified SVT Report (SVT testing) did not comply with all of the government's mandatory specifications. The report is accessible through the following link: Telstra's Falsified BCI Report. The issue with Peter Gamble neglecting to disclose that he had to abandon the SVT process at my Cape Bridgewater business due to the faulty Ericsson testing equipment being utilized by Telstra at the exchange is also concerning.
Do you use your intelligence networks in these CoT cases?
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages?76?and?77?-?Senate - Parliament of Australia?Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s main arbitration defence Counsel Subject -?Alan Smith:?
Senator CARR –?“In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
The issue of intelligence networks established by Telstra in Australia is a cause for alarm. It is unclear who within the Telstra Corporation has the right expertise and government clearance to filter the raw information collected before it is impartially catalogued for future use. It raises questions about the confidentiality of telephone conversations held with former Australian Prime Minister in April 1993 and April 1994 regarding Telstra officials holding sensitive material related to the Red Communist China episode. Furthermore, it is concerning to note that after Telstra's full privatisation in 2005, it is unclear which organisation in Australia was tasked with archiving the sensitive material collected by Telstra over several decades.
PLEASE NOTE:
On the day of my altercation, as mentioned in the 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost their patience. They had taken the extreme measure of sending the Sheriff to my property. He was there to remove the catering equipment that I needed to keep my business running. During the altercation, I did not resort to physical violence. Instead, I used a wrestling hold, specifically the 'Full Nelson, ' to escort the Sheriff out of my office. All charges were eventually dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when they realized that there was another side to the story.
Starting on page 5163 of the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, it is revealed that Telstra employees have fraudulently taken millions of dollars from Telstra shareholders, including the government and Australian citizens who owned Telstra then. The pressure applied by Senators Alston and Boswell led to a Senate investigation into the phone fiascos of the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases, which was one of the reasons Telstra agreed to settle the COT cases in a proposed Fast Track Settlement Proposal signed by Telstra and the four claimants in November 1993. This was because Telstra could not afford further investigation into its operations, as this unethical behaviour was not limited to just NSW.
Many people threatened the COT cases as their persistence in gaining fully functional phone systems was about to expose other unethical behaviour at Telstra, including at the management level. Shockingly, the Telstra CEO and board were aware of the millions of dollars being unlawfully taken from the government coffers, as stated on page 5163 of the SENATE official Hansard. Furthermore, it is believed that the figures ran into billions.
"COT Case Strategy"
In this same official SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, on page 5169, it was revealed that Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, had prepared a legal document titled "COT Case Strategy" (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C), which instructed Telstra to conceal technical information from four businesses, including me, using Legal Professional Privilege as a pretext, even though the information was not privileged. This same law firm had previously threatened me, along with Telstra, that if I did not register my complaints in writing with Denise MsBurnie of Freehill's, Telstra would not take my phone complaints seriously. Despite this "COT Case Strategy" being exposed, the COT Cases were not allowed to amend our arbitration claims.
It is unbelievable that the COT cases received no recognition from either the government or Telstra for their stand for honesty and truth. Instead, they were labelled as vexatious litigants, and their lives were ruined.
It is important to acknowledge the fact that the concerns of COT members regarding the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman (TIO) forcing them into arbitration with Telstra while Telstra was under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for unauthorised interception of COT cases' telephone conversations were completely ignored. This undemocratic move was further aggravated by the fact that the TIO and arbitrator had secretly agreed with Telstra to use their drafted arbitration agreement and NOT the independent deal the government had assured would be used to assess the COT members' matters.
Despite the arbitrator's letter to the TIO advising that the arbitration agreement was not credible enough to use in the arbitrations, it was still used, and the letter was concealed from the claimants during their designated appeal processes. It is clear that there were forces at work derailing the arbitrations, and both the arbitrator and the TIO ignored the written advice they received. During the same designated appeal process, the arbitration project manager's letter to the TIO was also concealed from the claimants.
The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Telstra engaged in unconscionable conduct towards the COT cases. Despite Telstra's admission to intercepting telephone conversations, employing stand-over tactics, and issuing threats, the corporation faced no consequences during the arbitration process. This is unacceptable. The Senate Hansard, AFP transcripts, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's records provide compelling evidence that confirms Telstra's wrongdoings. Yet, neither the arbitrator nor the TIO took any action to address these issues. It is highly concerning that a corporation could take control over arbitrations in a government-endorsed process and engage in such egregious acts without facing any repercussions. The COT cases made significant contributions to the people of Australia, and it is disheartening that their concerns were not adequately addressed. It is crucial that we hold Telstra accountable for its actions and administer appropriate justice.
Infringe upon the civil liberties.
On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, File 658 -?[document|1446]?Senator Kim Carr wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
The publication "Absent Justice" and the corresponding website "absentjustice.com" present a comprehensive account of the campaign against the COT Cases. As the author, I believe the circumstances that led to the sale of my business and residence were not of my own doing but rather the result of external forces beyond my control. The evidence in my publication and website provides undeniable proof of the injustice the remaining sixteen COT Cases experienced. It is essential that the COT story and the evidence presented in my publication and website receive the attention they deserve, and those responsible for the campaign against the COT Cases should be held accountable.
My story serves as a testament to the need for transparency and accountability in business and public life.
Obtain a complimentary e-book of "Absent Justice" from a reputable publishing company. Merely hover over the cover page below to acquire your copy.
[image|192]?<?Absent Justice?is accessible with just one click!
It is the only system which conceals evidence?
The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia does not try to find the truth. It is the only system which conceals evidence?
absentjustice.com boldly exposes the rampant corruption within the government bureaucracy during the COT arbitrations, leaving no stone unturned. It also fearlessly uncovers the identities of the culprits responsible for these despicable crimes and their current positions within the government. The arbitration and mediation processes endorsed by the Australian government were marred by misconduct in public office, revealing a deeply ingrained culture of systemic corruption.?It is a clear violation of the law that none of the arbitrations was conducted according to the agreed ambit of the Arbitration Act. Despite this rule not being adhered to by the arbitration, the government chose to turn a blind eye and shield the arbitrator and his arbitration consultants, who were secretly exonerated from all liability for their negligent acts perpetrated against various nominated COT Cases, namely Ann Garms, Graham Schorer and me. (Refer to Part 2 → Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct.
The COT cases that Telstra's lawyer, Denise Mc Burnie, from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, singled out in her "COT Case Strategy" (Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) clearly show the company's unethical behaviour. It named our four businesses and actual names who must not receive our requested freedom of information documents, violating our legal rights. The "COT Case Strategy" was implemented to ensure that the arbitrator had no control over the arbitrations, as has since been confirmed in Senate Hansard. This allowed Telstra to have complete control over the outcome of the arbitrations.
It's no wonder that all four COT Cases' lives were ruined once we signed our government-endorsed arbitrations. The stress and trauma caused by this failed arbitration process led to the deaths of Maureen Gillan and Ann Garms. Graham Schorer is now suffering from dementia, and I had a heart attack in November 2017, spending a month in the hospital. The Telstra monster and those who allowed this monster to control our arbitrations have devastated our lives, and we are not the only ones.
The YouTube video attached as Video Two → Price Waterhouse Coopers 1 (although of poor quality, having been shown many times) confirms how eight other COT cases lost their businesses and much of their lives fighting against this terrible Telstra monster. It's time for Telstra and the government who endorsed these failed arbitrations to take responsibility for its actions and make things right for all those who have suffered.
During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues, they asked me 93?questions as the?Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1?transcripts from their interview show where all questions surrounding the interception of my telecommunication services conversations were discussed including the single club questioning.
My holiday camp was losing revenue due to ongoing telephone problems, and the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, bush-walking, canoeing, and horse-riding (over-forties-social-club) were also part of the revenue being lost due to my ongoing telephone problems. Telstra had separately recorded the names and phone numbers of various female Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp members, and the AFP was investigating how Telstra had obtained this information when it had only been sent by fax or discussed over the telephone. Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the information, the defendants should have disclosed how they obtained it. As of 2024, Telstra has been allowed not to disclose how they knew so much about my business and private matters.
The potential?Over Forties Single Club?patrons’ testimonials are also referred to in the AUSTEL (government communications regulator) investigation into my business losses they note in?[document|1659], at?Point?85?in their report of 3 March 1994:
“As Mr Smith points out, the RVA message had the potential to severely damage his business. An important point in relation to the possible financial impact of the RVA message on the Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp service is the camp’s dependence on group bookings. In June 1992 the camp tariffs ranged from?$1500 to $6000?per week, so the loss of even one booking because of the RVA problem could mean a substantial financial loss.”??p33, point 85,?[document|84])
I also demonstrated to AUSTEL when their representatives visited my venue that singles club customers would regularly buy souvenirs before they left: purchasing printed Cape Bridgewater t-shirts, sweatshirts, postcards, headscarves and crafted driftwood plant arrangements. Schoolchildren didn’t have that sort of money and typically only bought postcards. FHCA ignored all the income I lost from lost singles-club bookings, i.e., the profit I made on the souvenirs?and the $120 to $165 tariff per person for these customers.
It is interesting to note from?Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete?that NONE of my singles club's lost revenue due to my ongoing proven telephone faults was ever recorded by Dr Hughes (arbitrator) or Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (arbitration financial unit) in their final Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp findings.?Nor?were the phone and fax hacking privacy issues recorded in Dr Hughes's findings. The threats I had received from Telstra's lawyers, Freehill Hollingdale & Page Telstra's lawyers, and Telstra's central arbitration liaison officers Steve Black and Paul Rumble?were also concealed from Dr Hughes's award.?
Threats were made by Telstra's Steve Black and Paul Rumble.?
Two rabid dogs?
These threats were carried out.?
Page?180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated November 29 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate why were my FOI documents being withheld from me during my arbitration:
“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 [document|786])
As I have reiterated throughout this website, the threats against me during the arbitration proceedings came to fruition, and the withholding of pertinent documents is deeply concerning. Regrettably, neither the?Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO)?nor the?government?has investigated the detrimental impact of this malpractice on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Despite assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the illicit interception of phone conversations and arbitration-related faxes, they never came to my aid.
When Geroge Close (the arbitration?technical advisor to the COT Cases)?visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after learning his Buderim (Queensland) residence and his?office was the conduit (the central location) to where this screening of the advice he gave the COT Cases on what documents they needed to access from Telstra under FOI detailing why this technical information was needed to support their individual arbitration claims, I showed him?[document|795],?[document|796],?[document|797],[document|798],?[document|799]?and?[document|800], we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on the COT Cases?overall submissions to the arbitrator.?His eyes were full of sadness, thinking it was his residence and office, and the advice was given to the COT Cases from it that had caused the?COT Cases so much damage.
Mr Close later sent me an email?on 5 August 2011?([document|801])?to assist me in exposing what the Telstra?Corporation had been able to do (and get away with) during the COT arbitrations to gain an advantage over all of the COT Cases claims before the arbitrator noting.
“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.
So far, no one in Australia has even been brought to account, let alone jailed, for the terrible invasion of the COT cases’ private and business lives.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated?12 May 1995?([document|778]) is the same as the fax imprint described in the?January 1999?Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell ([document|767]?and?[document|768]), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report 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.”?([document|779])
It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647?(see?AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647)?that Telstra admitted in writing?to the Australian Federal Police on 14?April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but?only?when a particular officer was on duty.?
Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024.
Six months after the conclusion of my arbitration. when the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Laurie James, became aware that Telstra had controlled the arbitration procedures and not the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, he asked me to supply evidence of this fact, which I did.?However, when Dr Hughes learned about this intervention, he and the newly appointed administrator to my arbitration, John Pinnock, embarked on a campaign to discredit my character. The proof of this can be found in Chapters two to four. The fact that Dr Hughes allowed his wife's name to be used, stating I telephoned her at 2 am one morning while Dr Hughes was away on business and no such call was made at that time. No written apology was sent to Laurie James as those chapters show.??
Australian Federal Police
It is an undeniable fact that senior officers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office alerted COT spokesperson Graham Schorer, in the company of Ann Garms, another Telstra casualty, that Telstra was acting unlawfully by intercepting the COT Cases faxes before and during their arbitrations and also breaching the Freedom of Information Act (FOI 1987) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sections 7 and 12. Despite bringing these unlawful acts to the attention of Dr Gordon Hughes (the arbitrator) and Warwick Smith (the arbitration administrator), both advised we should do our best under the circumstances and that the conduct of the process would be part of the arbitrator's findings. However, Telstra's conduct in such matters was not included in the arbitrator's findings, indicating the injustice served to the COT Cases.
Six months after the conclusion of my arbitration, it was found out that Telstra had controlled the arbitration procedures and not the arbitrator, Dr Hughes, which was brought to the notice of the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, Laurie James. However, instead of taking action against the wrongdoers, Dr Hughes and the newly appointed administrator, John Pinnock, began a campaign to discredit my character when they learned about this intervention. This fact is well-documented in Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete?to Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter. It is appalling that Dr Hughes allowed his wife's name to be used to state that I telephoned her at 2 am one morning while he was away on business, even though no such call was made at this ungodly hour. I am yet to receive a copy of a written apology from Dr Hughes and John Pinnock to Laurie James for misleading and deceiving him regarding this matter. This misleading and deceptive conduct appears to have thwarted Lauire James's investigations into my valid claims.
On 26 September 1997, John Pinnock, the second TIO to be appointed to oversee the COT arbitrations, alerted a Senate Estimates Committee ([document|62])?that:?
“… Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process because it was a process conducted entirely outside of the ambit of the arbitration procedures”.??
One question remains unanswered on 27 February 1996, when John Pinncock?wrote?to Laurie James, attacking my credibility and deliberately misinforming?Mr James that:? "Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr HughesHughes'phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00 am) and spoke to Dr HughesHughes' impersonating a member of the Resource Unit."?page",?[document|108]).
Why didn't Mr Pinnock provide Laurie James with a copy of my letter making this statement? The answer is simple: I never wrote any such letter to Mr Pinnock.
In the arbitration process, this collision between the arbitrator and the first appointed administrator, Warwick Smith, continued to fester the process with evil doings, as our final conclusion to our COT story shows.
On?11?November 1994,?John Wynack, Commonwealth Ombudsman Office, wrote to Telstra’s CEO Frank Blount, noting:
“At the request of?Ms Geary (Telstra),?I am notifying you of the details of the complaints made to the Ombudsman by Alan Smith;
I reiterate that the Australian Federal Police and the arbitrator were never provided with the documentation that the Commonwealth Ombudsman officially requested in the above letter or under the designated arbitration discovery process.?
I also took the initiative to inform the Melbourne Collingwood CEPU Telstra employees' union rooms and two Union officials, Peter Aberheart and Ian Cooper, that the COT Cases were seeking answers from the Board of Management of Telstra and that we were not attacking their rank-and-file technicians. Furthermore, I was very concerned that my private discussions with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser about my experiences in Communist China had been leaked to the Portland telephone exchange, which was connected to my business. The evidence provided by the AFP confirmed that a device had been set up in the exchange for this purpose. I want to emphasize how serious I was about Telstra's arbitration officials having deleted my discussions with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser.
I strongly believe that the deleted discussion material was provided to Telstra's lawyer, Wayne Morris Condon from Freehill Hollingdale & Page, who signed off Telstra's arbitration witness statement of their clinical psychologist, Ian Jobln, without allowing Mr Joblin to sign it (refer below).
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. It bore no signature of the psychologist.
During my original meeting with Ian Joblin in September 1994, I raised with him that my stress levels were high, that I had discussed this with Mr Barnard, a fellow psychologist in Melbourne, and my local Portland psychologist who was treating me for my China flashbacks which again had surfaced after being placed under Telstra that all my registered phone complaints had to be in writing with Denise McBurnie of Freehill Hollingdale & Page?who was treating me as if I was the enemy instead of a person trying to run a telephone dependent business which did not have a reliable phone service.?
My Joblin was adamant he would mention in his findings to Freehill Hollingdale & Page that it was not a proper and fit way for Telstra to treat me and that Telstra's methods of assisting me needed to be reviewed.?
I wonder if Maurice Wayne Condon removed or changed any reference to Ian Joplin's original writing, where he stated that I was of sound mind but suffering PSD due to the anger of being partly responsible for supplying wheat to North Vietnam. At the same time, Australia's soldiers were being killed and maimed by the North Vietnamese. When I informed Mr Joblin about the redaction of my conversation with The Hon Malcolm Fraser by Telstra, which included a detailed account of the atrocities I witnessed in China, he was sympathetic to my distress as I had to endure the memory of these horrific events.
I would like to know if Mr Joblin's signed witness statement mentioned my PSD and if it was removed. Is this why only Wayne Morris Condon's signature, who employed him, was on the witness statement when it was submitted to arbitration by Freehill Hollingdale & Page on behalf of Telstra?
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?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].
It is unacceptable that, despite spending over $300,000 in arbitration fees, I, as the claimant, have not been provided with Telstra's response regarding the changes made to Ian Joblin's witness statement, as requested by John Pinnock. This clearly demonstrates that Australia's arbitration system of justice is only meant for the powerful elite and not for the common citizens.
In 1994/95, I went through arbitration proceedings. During that time, I shared with the Australian Federal Police a collection of newspaper articles that featured two separate telephone conversations with The Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who had previously served as the Prime Minister of Australia. Page 12 of the transcripts from my interview with the AFP's Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 reveals that the AFP and I discussed my conversation and correspondence on September 18, 1967, after my return from China.
“FORMER prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday demanded Telecom explain why his name appears in a restricted internal memo.
I'm curious to know why someone at Telstra Corporation needed to document my phone call with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
[image|144]
My China story is an essential part of my COT story. It is a story of Telstra gaining access to my phone conversations and using this information to threaten me. Even after my wife left the holiday camp, the?China?Flashbacks continued throughout my arbitration to haunt me.?
Back in 1967, when I returned from?China, I was interviewed by a journalist in Sydney. The journalist advised me that my story had been blocked and that I would be a marked man by supporters of Bob Menzies, Australia's prime minister at the time, who was known for his?hatred?of the communist Seamans Union of Australia. The downloaded evidence files show the extent of the injustice I faced through this ordeal. I had no option but to include my?China?story in my COT story to provide a comprehensive picture of the many unlawful happenings against me and other COT cases. The many threats, lies, and mistreatment I faced were unacceptable. I hope my story will warn others who may think arbitration is?their answer to an expensive court case.
As a concerned citizen, I had previously alerted the then-Minister of the Army, Malcolm Fraser, about?China's?redeployment of Australian wheat to?North Vietnam?in 1967. The wheat was used to feed?North Vietnamese?soldiers who were at war with?Australia, New Zealand,?and the?USA. However, despite my warning, Australia continued to sell wheat to?China,?as shown in?Chapter 7- Vietnam-Vietcong.
Australia knowingly sold wheat to?China, aware?China?was redeploying it?to?North Vietnam?while?North Vietnam?soldiers were killing and maiming?Australian,?New Zealand?and?USA troops?fighting in?North Vietnam.?I ask every?visitor?to this website to read footnotes 82 to 89?of the paper?FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, prepared by Tianxiao Zhu.?
?[image|198]In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam.?One of them said,?“I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.”?83?(my emphasis).?The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.”84
The following three?statements taken from a report prepared by?Australia's Kim Beasly MP?on?4 September 1965?(father of Australia's?former Minister of Defence Kim Beasly)?only tell part of this?tragic episode?concerning what I wanted to convey to Malcolm Fraser, former?Prime Minister of Australia?when I telephoned him in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning Australia's wheat deals which I originally wrote to him about on?18 September 1967?as Minister for the Army.
Vol. 87 No. 4462 (4 Sep 1965) - National Library of Australia?https://nla.gov.au?? nla.obj-702601569?
"The Department of External Affairs has recently published an "Information Handbook entitled "Studies on Vietnam".? It established the fact that the Vietcong are equipped with Chinese arms and ammunition"
The underlying inquiry is to ascertain the government's rationale for deliberately deceiving the general public and jeopardising the country's troops whose lives were being lost in the conflict in?North Vietnam.??Murdered for Mao: The killings China 'forgot'
Until the late 1990s, the Australian government wholly owned Australia’s telephone network and the communications carrier, Telecom (today privatised and called Telstra). Telecom held the monopoly on communications and let the network deteriorate into disrepair. When four small business owners had severe communication problems, they went into arbitration with Telstra. The arbitrations were a sham: the appointed arbitrator not only allowed Telstra to minimise the casualties of Telstra (COT) members’ claims and losses but also bowed down to Telstra and let the carrier run the arbitrations. Telstra committed serious crimes during the arbitrations, yet the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police have not held Telstra, or the other entities involved in this deceit, accountable.?
My name is Alan Smith, and I have been fighting against a telecommunications giant and the Australian Government since February 1988. My battle has spanned various government departments, regulatory bodies, the judiciary, and the Australian telecommunications giant Telstra (formerly known as Telecom). Despite all of the challenges I have faced, I have remained steadfast in my quest for justice. After reading my story and watching the videos on this website, you will be moved to support me in producing a documentary that exposes the truth. This documentary will shed light on how financial professionals, forensic accountants, and high-ranking lawyers turned arbitrators were swayed into committing criminal acts or allowed such acts to be perpetrated against a group of small business operators.
Please join me and the other Telstra casualties in our fight for justice. Together, we can produce a powerful documentary that exposes the truth and hold those responsible for their actions accountable. I can be contacted by leaving a message on → Contact - Government Corruption.
As a senior advisor to the Australian government, independent politician Andrew Wilkie stood up against the misinformation being spread by the John Howard Australian government about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He strongly believed Australia should not go to war based on mere hearsay. Despite this, Australia went ahead with the invasion of Iraq without any concrete evidence of the alleged weapons of mass destruction. https://shorturl.at/bctGK
Andrew Wilkie took a bold step and left his position in government to prove that the claims were false. Since then, he has served the people of Australia with great dedication as an independent politician in Hobart, Tasmania, far surpassing his potential as a government bureaucrat. Andrew Wilkie's unwavering commitment to truth and justice is a remarkable example of how one person can make a difference and inspire others to do the same.
It is important to note that the Australian Liberal National Party government was willing to go to war in Iraq based on false information, regardless of the consequences. The government chose to ignore the fact that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and initiated a war that resulted in the loss of countless lives. If you keep reading my story, you will see that back in the 1960s, the same Liberal-Country Party government was willing to sell wheat to communist China despite knowing that China was sending some of this wheat to North Vietnam. This occurred while Australian, New Zealand, and USA soldiers were fighting and dying in the jungles of Vietnam Chapter 7- Vietnam - Vietcong
The government's priority was not the welfare of its citizens but rather its own interests. The conduct of the Liberal-National Party government in these two examples shows a lack of honesty and integrity towards its citizens. I have used these shocking incidents in my story to illustrate how unethical some public servants of the Liberal National Party can be when dealing with ordinary Australian citizens. This type of behaviour has left sixteen casualties of Telstra in a state of limbo for more than two decades, as the stories of the casualties of Telstra demonstrate COT cases that have suffered significant injustice An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.
Our tireless efforts to expose their actions have revealed that the government has broken its commitment to us. We were promised a resolution for our unresolved non-supply of FOI documents, similar to the five litmus test cases once validated by the Senate—which did happen. This validates our statements and holds the government accountable for its?negligence.
During a visit to my business,?Telstra officials left an open briefcase on my premises.?Was this done intentionally? Were Telstra technicians hoping for me to uncover the true extent of the appalling Telstra telecommunications network? The?Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), known as AUSTEL, saw the briefcase's contents and confirmed that my?claims were valid.?They praised my persistence in achieving a reliable telephone service for the whole region of my holiday camp?in?Portland,?South West Victoria?Manipulating the Regulator.
I have irrefutable evidence that points 2 to 212 in [document|1659] were deliberately withheld from the arbitration process, confirming that the government validated my claims. It baffles me why the government allowed me to spend over $300,000 in arbitration fees for thirteen months to prove something they had already validated in March 1994, just six weeks before my arbitration commenced.??
The government and media lauded me and the other three COT Cases (two of whom have since passed away, and one of whom has dementia) for our dedication and hard work. We agreed to cease our campaign for the Senate to investigate the matter in exchange for the government's promise to ensure that Telstra would address ongoing telephone problems as part of a government-endorsed arbitration process. The government must uphold its end of the bargain and address the issues the remaining sixteen COT cases face.
The Australian government's endorsement of an arbitration process?should have solved the ongoing telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases. Sadly, the government's written assurance that the specialized?service verification testing?during the arbitration would solve the problem was not fulfilled. Despite their best efforts, the COT cases were left with no resolution, and it is a tragedy that the government-endorsed process failed to address their ongoing telephone issues.
The COT Cases' struggle is not just a story; it's a reality that resulted in the bankruptcy of many businesses, including mine. It's an injustice that the new owners, Jenny and Daren Lewis, had to face after investing all their life savings in the company I sold them for land value. The federal court ordered them off the property, and their bankruptcy was the final blow.?Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story
My story is not unique. It's one of twenty-one stories on absentjustice.com that show how government officials failed to help the COT Cases. The Senate reviewed five cases to determine if the government's actions were justified, with the remaining sixteen COT Cases left without a resolution. It's not too late for the government to make things right for all twenty-one COT Cases and show that they care about justice for all Australians.