The whole truth and nothing but the truth

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

―?Maya Angelou

Absentjustice is a work in progress, last edited?June?2023.

Corruption in Arbitration?

Please note: this page is also relevant to?Chapter 5 - US Department of Justice vs Ericsson of Sweden?page, which discusses the selling off of?Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd?to?Ericsson.

The following letter, dated 16 July 1997, was written by?John Pinnock, the official administrator of the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) arbitrations to William Hunt, lawyer to Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson). Dr Gordon Hughes (the COT?arbitrator),?unbeknown to the rest of the COT Cases, had been both a business advisor to Graham Schorer as well as his legal advisor in a previous Federal Court action against Telstra from 1990 to 1993,?which he was now the arbitrator to in 1994 (see?Chapter 3 - Conflict of Interest).?In this?16?July 1997 letter to William Hunt,?Mr Pinnock notes?that.

“Lane is presently involved in arbitrations between Telstra and Bova, Dawson, Plowman and Schorer. The change of ownership of Lane is of concern in relation to Lane’s ongoing role in these arbitrations.

“The first area of concern is that some of the equipment under examination in the arbitrations is provided by Ericsson.…

“The second area of concern is that Ericsson has a pecuniary interest in Telstra. Ericsson makes a large percentage of its equipment sales to Telstra which is one of its major clients.

“It is my view that Ericsson’s ownership of Lane puts Lane in a position of potential conflict of interest should it continue to act as Technical Advisor to the Resource Unit. …

“The effect of a potential conflict of interest is that Lane should cease to act as the Technical Advisor with effect from a date shall [sic] be determined.”?(See?File 296-A?-?GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)

So as a previous client of the arbitrator Dr Hughes, Graham Schorer had by now been granted?more than two years longer to prepare his arbitration claim?than?had been provided by the other three COT Cases, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and me. All?four COT Cases, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and I had?been denied our promised arbitration documents. Yet, Graham Schorer had more than two years longer than anyone else in which to prepare his claim and answer Telstra's defence of that claim.???

In?fact, on 24 July 1997, John Pinnock wrote a second letter?concerning the?same Lane Telecommunications conflict of interest, disallowing Ann Garms the right to have a re-hearing of?her arbitration claim on the grounds Lane had previously been the technical consultants assigned to her case (?File 298?-?GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323)?

Telstra's arbitration defence unit stated to the COT arbitrator in?several COT arbitrations, including mine,?that Telstra had found no significant faults with the?Ericsson telephone equipment?they used in their telephone exchanges?was a lie of immense proportion.?This lie denied all COT Cases a proper assessment of their arbitration claims where Telstra had used?Ericsson equipment?as the following YouTube video notes.

Therefore,?it is?important to introduce here the bribery and corruption issue the?US Department?of Justice?raised against?Ericsson?on 19 December 2019, as discussed in the Australian media, and I quote:

"One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business".?(https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)

The US Department of Justice has accused Ericsson of bribery and corruption.?Ericsson?is the same company whose telecommunication equipment was under investigation by the COT arbitrator.?

It is important we use the?Ericsson?link above as part of my ongoing attempt to have the Australian government impartially investigate my claims against?Telstra?and whether?Ericsson?should have been allowed to purchase?Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd?during the period?Lane?was the official appointed arbitration technical consultant assigned to the COT arbitrator who himself had been assigned to value the COT cases claims against Telstra including the?Ericsson?manufactured telephone equipment?installed in the telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses.

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.?Why hasn't the Australian government called for answers as to why the COT Cases were treated so badly when Ericsson was able to nobble Lane?

I again ask the Australian government why Ericsson was?allowed?to purchase?Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd?during an Australian government-endorsed arbitration process.

The Ericsson List

It is clear from the information in?The?Ericsson List, prepared by the?International Consortium of Investigative Journalists?(ICIJ)?that?Ericsson?has been questioned on many levels concerning their international business ethics. Now that it has been exposed by the -?US Department?of Justice?- and?by?(ICIJ).

Terrorist?activities in?ISIS-held Iraq?by Telstra's major telecommunications supplier?Ericsson?whose telephone equipment was under investigation during the COT arbitrations,?were allowed to purchase?the arbitration?technical expert. Hence, as the?evidence collected by that expert?became the property of?Ericsson, i.e. all that collected technical information against Ericsson's faulty telephone equipment?was never exposed in writing as part of the arbitrator's findings.?Refer also to (File 296-A?-?GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323).??(File 296-B?-?GS-CAV Exhibit 258 to 323) confirms the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Warwick Smith (who was also the administrator of the COT arbitrations) advised me in writing on 9 March 1995 that?Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd?would only assist Paul Howell of DMR Group Canada and that DMR would be the principal technical expert when assessing my claim.?John Rundell, the?Arbitration Project Manager, on?18 April 1995,?advised Warwick Smith, the arbitrator and Warwick Smith's legal counsel that:?

?“Any technical report prepared in draft by Lanes will be signed off and appear on the letter of DMR Inc.”?(see?Prologue Evidence File No 22-A)?

That statement shows that John Rundell (who now operates two arbitration centres, one in Melbourne and the other in Hong Kong) was prepared to deceive me and the other COT Cases as to who prepared the technical findings provided to the arbitrator Dr Gordon Hughes. I could not challenge that conduct during my designated arbitration?appeal process because John Rundell was one of the consultants who was covertly exonerated from liability during the period of my arbitration. Refer to?Chapter 2?-?Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct

It will be evident to most, if not all, of?those reading?Chapter 1 - The collusion continues?and?Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete?and the various other similar chapters?on this website that?Lane?did do all of the evaluation of my arbitration claim and while doing so did not make any finding on the ongoing telephone faults still being experienced by my business via the?Portland Ericsson telephone?exchange.?

NONE of my?Ericsson?ongoing telephone faults, which were part of my arbitration claim material, was discussed in writing by?Lane?or, for that matter, by DMR Group Inc,'s who was flown from Montreal, Canada, to Australia (twelve days after)?Lane Telecommunications Pty Ltd?from (Dulwich, South Australia) who had already assessed my claims.??

PLEASE NOTE:

I have used the two above?Ericsson?media exposes as a testament that I do have a valid case in regards to asking the Australian government to investigate why my ongoing telephone and facsimile problems continued after the conclusion of my arbitration, which made no mention of my ongoing telephone problems via the?Ericsson AXE exchange?at Portland?being resolved. As the following?link shows, those problems continued for a further eleven years after to conclusion of my arbitration. Refer to?Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story?and?Chapter 5 Immoral - hypocritical conduct.