1. 1. Why were the COT claimants told that the arbitrator was fully qualified and
properly graded when he was not?
2. Why weren’t the claimants told that, during their arbitrations, the arbitrator
sat for his grading certificate but failed the exams that would have allowed
him to be registered as a graded arbitrator?
3. Why did the arbitrator refuse to allow his Technical Unit the extra weeks they
requested, in which to complete their investigations, then remove that
request from the Unit’s 30 April 1995 report and resubmit it, still dated 30
April 1995, as the final report?
4. Why did the Ombudsman allow the Arbitration Resource Unit to write to the
Chairman of the Australian Securities Commission, claiming that all my
claim documents had been properly assessed, when the Ombudsman and the
Resource Unit knew this was not the case at all?
5. Why did the arbitrator advise the Institute of Arbitrators Australia that he and
his Arbitration Resource Unit had assessed all of the 24,000 discovery
documents that Telstra had delivered to me, too late for me to use, even
though that same Resource Unit HAD ALREADY TOLD the Ombudsman
that this was not the case at all?
6. Why did the arbitrator advise the President of the Institute of Arbitrators
Australia about these lies when he himself had refused to accept my mini-
submission of 4 May 1995, which I had collated from these 24,000 late-
delivered documents?
7. Was there a more sinister reason behind Telstra’s decision to wait until after
they had submitted their defence of my claims before delivering those
24,000 discovery documents?
8.Why didn't the arbitrator advise the Institute that, during my arbitration,
Telstra had threatened that I would not be provided with any more discovery
documents if I continued to assist the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in
their investigations into why Telstra had been illegally intercepting telephone
conversations?
9. Was the late delivery of these 24,000 discovery documents a payback by
Telstra because I had continued to assist the AFP with their investigations?
10. When Telstra’s threats were made public on 29 November 1994, at a Senate
Estimates Committee hearing during my arbitration, why was my arbitration
not immediately put on hold until after Telstra had been made to explain
those threats?
11. On 18 April 1995, the Arbitration Resource Unit officially advised the
Ombudsman, the arbitrator and the Ombudsman’s Special Counsel that
there were ‘forces at work’ that were ‘derailing the arbitration processes’.
Why were the claimants not given copies of this letter, either during their
arbitrations or during their designated arbitration appeal periods?
12. If the arbitrator had conducted my arbitration under the agreed ambit of the
Commercial Arbitration Act, why would he see a need for the TIO to blacken

2. my character by writing to the President of the (IAA) advising that "...Mr
Smith has admitted to me in writing that late last year he rang
(the arbitrators) home phone number (apparently in the middle of
the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to (to the
arbitrator's) wife, when I wrote no such letter? -
13. Why hasn't the Australian Government asked the TIO to produce this
letter?
14. Why would any truly trustworthy arbitrator allow his wife's name to be used,
wrongly, in a letter (copied to him) that was written by the TIO to discredit
my character with the sole aim OF stopping the AAT from investigating my
claims against the arbitrator?
15. Does the arbitrator’s wife know that, back on 27 February 1996, her
husband allowed her integrity to be brought into question, as part of an
attempt to stop my valid claims from being transparently investigated? -
Home Evidence File No/3.
16. Why did the TIO-appointed arbitration technical unit’s report dated 30 April
1995 state that "A comprehensive log of Mr Smith's complaints does not
appear to exist" (Arbitrator File Nos/29 and 30) when it is clear that my
claim advisors, Garry Ellicott and Barry O'Sullivan (now Senator Barry
O'Sullivan), clearly submitted a detailed, chronological list of all the
complaints I had lodged, starting from when I first took over the business,
and that list can still be seen on pages 11, 12 and 22 of their reply (on my
behalf) to Telstra's Interrogatories (see Arbitrator File No/91)?
17. Why did the TIO-appointed Arbitration Resource Unit write to the new TIO,
on 15 November 1995 (see Arbitrator File No/34A), six months after my
arbitration was over, stating that the billing issues I had raised in my claim
were not addressed as part of the arbitration because they were not
submitted until April 1995, when their own letter dated 2 August 1996, to the
arbitrator and copied to the TIO, confirms that the Resource Unit was
actually discussing them in December 1994?
18. Why did the Arbitration Project Manager also state, in his 15 November 1995
letter regarding these unaddressed billing issues (see Arbitrator File No/
34A), that: "As no further progress was likely to be made on these
matters, the formal version of the Technical Evaluation Report
did not leave the billing issues open", when both the draft and final
versions of the Technical Evaluation Report (see Arbitrator File No/34B)
prove beyond all doubt that these ongoing, unaddressed billing faults WERE
left "open"?
19. Why would the arbitrator, who is a qualified lawyer and is currently
recognised internationally as a specialist in his field, and two different TIOs
who are also most respected in their chosen professions, and the dreaded
Arbitration Project Manager, all allow this dreadful saga to begin, in the first
place, let alone allow it to continue unchallenged for so long?
20.Who, during my arbitration, authorised the concealment of my
'comprehensive log of fault complaints' from being addressed by the

3. arbitration technical consultants? (Refer Arbitrator File (download)
Nos/29 and 30 Chapter Ten Arbitrator Part- Two);
21. and so the list goes on............;
22.and so the list goes on.........;
Food For Thought
My official arbitration request to the arbitrator on the 23 January 1995, which is
directly related to both the impracticable Cape Bridgewater Bell Canada
International Inc. tests (see Main Evidence File No/1) and the next request I
made to the COT arbitrator, the following day, on 24 January 1995 (Home
Evidence File No/5), when I asked for a copy of the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada
information to be provided from Telstra through the arbitrator. This letter is then
referred to in a letter dated 28 June 1995, to me from the TIO which noted that “
Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further,…”,
(Home Evidence File No/4), even though, when my letter of 24 January 1995
was returned to me three months after my arbitration was concluded, the fax
footprint on page 2 (24-01-1995 15:12 FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP TO
036148730) indicates that it was received at the arbitrator’s fax machine (number
036148730).
So why did the TIO advise me that records in his office, show that I didn’t send this
24 January 1995 letter? If the arbitrator had followed up on my requests for the
Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada test information from Telstra, and Telstra had
supplied the information I was legally entitled to have through the arbitration
process, then I could have proved, as I have now, done in our Main Evidence File
No/1, that Bell Canada International could not possibly have generated the alleged
13,500 tests calls through the Tekelec CCS7 Monitoring (testing) System that Bell
Canada and Telstra alleged was installed at the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange,
specifically to filter those incoming tests calls because.
Renowned Telecommunications expert ex-29 year Telstra technician Brian Hodge
Btech, (Electronics) MBA prepared a report dated 27 July 2007 (see Main
Evidence File No/3) in which he notes at point 5.2. Common Channel Signalling
No 7 DOES NOT appear at Cape Bridgewater RSM. As no switching, analysis, or
billing take place CCS& is not required. AS the CCS network transits the call through
the network no CCS7 link existed from Warrnambool to Portland at this time (e.g.
1993/94).