We began compiling these Casualties of Telstra (COT) databases and reports back in 2007. To date we have completed eight separate reports relating to my own experience as well as Graham’s experience as the Casualties of Telstra spokesperson (COT Cases for short) in our joint battle for justice. Graham has always been reluctant to document his own case due to unwittingly signing a Deed of Release with Telstra in 1999, as a final conclusion to his case. At the time he signed this Deed, he was unaware that the Government Communications Regulator AUSTEL (now the Australian Communications Media Authority) (ACMA) had compiled a different set of facts pertaining to his case than what was provided to the relevant Minister for Communication on 13 April, 1994. Had he been aware of those findings, which confirmed that he had a case against the Telstra Corporation for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Trade Practice Act, he would never had settled with Telstra in April 1999. This damning evidence supplied to me under the Freedom of Information Act (on Graham’s behalf) was not released until October 2008 by the current regulator ACMA.
We have also collated thousands upon thousands of evidential documents in support of each of those eight reports. To enable us to be positively sure of our facts, we also began a separate profile database to keep track of all the people we believe were important to our cases. We have recorded at least ten lines, and sometimes three-quarters of a page of information for each person and supported that information with at least one FOI or other document related to each individual we researched. That profile database now includes 171 individuals. We have decided to detail this research and record-keeping as testament to the amount of work that has gone into preparing our two websites absentjustice.com and justicecommand.com (not operating as such). Although we originally planned to produce only one website we quickly found that the details are easier to follow if they are sorted into two separate websites, because each of those individual topics discussed in the two websites have been spread out over many years. The topics we have chosen include, among others, the general deception and corruption that contaminated our TIO administered arbitrations; the illegal interception of many documents legally submitted to the arbitration by the claimants; the details of documents that were lodged with the arbitration but never addressed or referred to in the awards; and documents that were apparently somehow lost in the fax system and therefore never reached the arbitrator. Taken together, these topics all contributed to the end result – an entirely undemocratic arbitration and mediation process.
It is clear from this chronology of events that there needs to be a proper and transparent investigation into my claims.