Chapter Six - US Securities Exchange - pink herring

Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries. Corruption involves duplicity and reduces levels of morality and trust

Australian Senate Hansard, see Senate – Parliament of Australia page 125 records Senator Schacht stating:

I ask Telstra: a document that has been colloquially called the ‘pink herring’, that was filed with the US Securities Exchange recently, focused on the adverse publicity of the CoT cases. The document was prepared as part of the privatisation and so on. It focuses more on the effect of the publicity on Telstra, apparently than on the materiality of any sums of money which may ultimately be paid. Will the Australian prospectus for the Telstra sale give a more detailed assessment of the financial effect of the CoT cases on Telstra?

The John Howard government only allowed the 5 litmus tests COT cases out of the 21 Cases to be resolved as part of the Senate Committee investigations had he allowed the other sixteen COT Cases; this would have affected the Telstra sale prospectus. So, the Howard government hung out to dry the other sixteen COT Cases so that any compensation paid to them would not affect the sale prospectus.

The following two links Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) and Major Fraud Group Transcript (2) on page 4 of Transcript (1) shows Senator Ron Boswell, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson), Bruce Akehurst (Telstra), Mr Anthony Honner (another COT case) and Barry O’Sullivan (negotiator) and later Senator Barry O'Sullivan discussing why the government did not allow my arbitration matters to be viewed by the Senate investigation into the five litmus COT test cases. To have investigated my phone and fax hacking matters along with the other remaining 15 COT Cases similar complaints would have impeded the privatisation of Telstra.

A fair resolution of those sixteen COT cases has never been resolved, as can be seen by clicking onto An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens.

The Australian government did not want to have to answer questions by the US Securities Exchange regarding the prospectus and the 'pink herring' document that had been filed.

Absent Justice - Bernard Collaery

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT and George Close and Helen Handbury (Rupert Murdoch sister) side of our story is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information in order to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government have stated they were unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

Using the Australia–East Timor spying scandal as an example which can readily be checked by googling the words Australia–East Timor Spying - Witness K Bernard Collaery we can compare this spying scandal with what Telstra did during several government-endorsed COT arbitrations when the Telstra corporation was then still owned by the Australian government.

What appears not to have been considered in the most recent Witness K and Bernard Collaery phone-bugging scandal (see abc.net.au court-document-witness is that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) provided conclusive proof to the John Howard government that someone within the Telstra Corporation, who had access to Telstra’s network, authorised the interception (screening) of COT-related arbitration faxes. Between January 1994 and January 1999, Telstra was the defendant in our government-endorsed arbitration process. The following exhibit Front Page Part One File No/14 shows that a secondary fax machine was installed into Telstra's network over an extended period. The Australian government declined to investigate these matters in 1999, which allowed Telstra to continue to intercept my faxing service lines up until at least December 2001 more than six years after the end of my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration.

Between September and October 2002, after having been briefed by George Close, my previous arbitration technical advisor I provided Senator Len Haris evidence supporting: the pair gain system which formed much of Telstra's existing network making thousands of dead cable pairs to subscribers' phones had not been replaced regardless of the COT Cases exposing these deficiencies to the arbitrator in 1994 (see Bad Bureaucrats File No/11 – Part One and File No/11 – Part Two).

At a press conference, on 14 November 2002 Senator Len Harris advised the media that all was not right with the selling off of the remaining Telstra network noting:

“The urgency of the Government to unload Telstra is the realisation that it needs a huge injection of capital expenditure just to remain operational.

“In other words, sell the whole shooting bag before it rains and let someone else worry about fixing it. …

Faulty materials such as Hi Gel 3M 442 that has corroded copper joints;
Contractors cutting corners with cable installation; …
Failure by senior personnel to recognise the magnitude of the impending networks implosion …

As shown throughout this website, George Close had been the technical consultant for several of the COT cases during their arbitrations as well as mine. When Geroge visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater after I showed him Open Letter File No/12, File No/13, Front Page Part One File No/1,Front Page Part One File No/2-A to 2-E, Front Page Part One File No/4 and Front Page Part One File No/5, we discussed the effect of these intercepted/hacked faxes on my overall submission to the arbitrator. Mr Close later sent me an email, on 5 August 2011, to assist me with breaking open this terrible denial of justice to the COT cases (see Front Page Part One File No/26).

Senator Ron Boswell gave me valuable support during my arbitration, and he attempted to find out why Telstra was allowed to threaten me and why, when those threats became a reality, no one from the arbitration process, including Warwick Smith (the administrator of my arbitration) and Dr Hughes (the so-called arbitrator) did anything. It was because of Senator Ron Boswell’s decent nature that George emailed the following statement:

“I recall a discussion with Senator Ron Boswell during the late 90’s.

“He had been shown fax’s [sic] which had clear indication of change in the headers, indicating interruption in transmission by a third party or parties.

“He questioned whether it was possible that faxes to and from senators could be interrupted, read or copies.

“My response in the affirmative brought about an expression of extreme anger. Stating that if it could be proven that it occurred the offender(s) would be jailed.

“If required I am prepared to re-state this on an affidavit.”

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 phone-hacking scandal in the UK which I have discussed in the Hacking- Julian Assange link, and the criminal charges laid against various former employees of the Murdoch-owned News of the World newspaper were, in fact, themselves now ‘News of the World’ and it had been shown that this hacking had been an ongoing secret since at least 2005. So why did it take six years to explode into world news? Our Main Evidence File No/7 and 8 and the unedited version of my Chronology of Events which I provided to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in September, 2014 and an accompanying CD, show that the phone and fax lines of various COT claimants have been subjected to hacking since at least since 1993 and although I have been able to prove that, in my case at least, the service lines to both my private residence and my business, both lines, have been subjected to hacking up to at least 2002, and yet no-one will investigate this hacking and no-one will investigate the mail that both my partner Cathy and I proved at the time went ‘astray’ without explanation, even though I was first alerted to my Telstra-related mail being lost as far back as 1994 and, as Chapters forty-nine and sixty-three show in my unedited Chronology of Events, mail associated with my 1994 arbitration was still being lost or tampered with at least up to December 2008, more than fourteen years after this hacking/interception issues were supposed to have been addressed as part of my arbitration.

Exhibit AS 492-A file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E is a letter dated 26 August 1998 from George Close to the new Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The fax header records: Fax from: — 61 74 453198 — 17:54 which was Mr Close’s residential fax number. Our Main Evidence File (see Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13), is the technical findings of both Scandrett & Associates and Peter Hancock showing that they both agree that, if the wording Fax from: followed by the numbers of the various COT faxes does not also include the correct business identification of the respective COT business then that indicates that those faxes were intercepted by a secondary fax machine and then redirected on to the intended destination.

This intercepted letter from Mr Close was copied to the offices of twelve different Government Ministers in Parliament House Canberra, which then raises a number of very important questions. Since we constantly hear about politicians questioning how information has been leaked from the party room, could this be because even Government offices in Parliament House are also routed through Telstra’s Fax Streaming centre? Even if the Fax Streaming arrangement has been officially organised by those Government offices, what could be happening to the documents that go through that system, without the Government’s knowledge? Could it be that privileged, in-confidence material ‘leaks’ out of Parliament house through Telstra in this same way? Could it be that Telstra’s Fax Streaming process means that, around the country, private is not so private at all?

PLEASE NOTE: although the George Close exhibits are of poor quality (having been copied a number of times) the poor quality does not take away the truth that these exhibits when viewed together still prove our claims.

Exhibit AS 492-B file AS-CAV 488-A to 494-E, which is a report faxed by Mr Close on 16 April 1998, has the correct identification across the top of the page see 61-74-453198 — GEORGE CLOSE & ASSOC — 17:34. In simple terms, those with access to Telstra’s network were able to use ‘keywords’ so only certain faxes leaving Mr Close’s residence were intercepted. I have used these two examples because they were both sent at approximately the same time in the afternoon, although months apart.

ACMA Australian Government

My fax identification on the first fax dated 8th May 2001, to Ms Kirsten Musgrove FOI Coordinator Australian Communications Authority (ACA now ACMA) and two-page accompanying letter see exhibit AS 514 file AS-CAV 495 to 541 reads: 18-5-2001 – 11:33 – FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP to 0262195499 P.01, is my correct fax identification. The fax identification on the copy of my letter dated 4th July 2001, to Tony Shaw, Chairman of the ACA after it had been faxed to Mr Shaw’s Canberra office exhibit AS 515 file AS-CAV 495 to 541 on 5th July 2001, reads: Fax from: 055 267 230 – 05/07/01 – 04:41, is incorrect because the FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP identification has been removed;

My telephone/fax account exhibit AS 516 file AS-CAV 495 to 541 lists Exhibit (AS 515) as having transmitted successfully to Tony Shaw’s Canberra office, 0262195200 at 04:42 am. The 4:44 minute transmission time shown on (AS 516), confirms (AS 515) were faxed from my private residence 03 55 267265.

Who within the Telstra Corporation has the authorisation to intercept faxes leaving my private residence (seven years after my arbitration)?

Exhibits AS 494-C, AS 494-D and AS 494-E clearly show that Telstra technicians experienced major problems when they attempted to test my fax machine in conjunction with a fax machine installed at Graham Schorer’s (COT spokesperson’s) office. It is important to highlight Exhibit AS 494-A because according to the arbitration agreement, all of my claim documents should have automatically been returned to me within six weeks after the arbitrator had handed down his findings. When this didn’t happen, I arranged to collect the documents myself and then drove to Melbourne to pick them up. When I got back to Cape Bridgewater I discovered that more than half of my original faxed claim documents were missing from the arbitrators official arbitration received schedule documents.

A comparison of Telstra’s official schedule of documents received with the dated fax accounts and the letters and documents that I had been faxing to the arbitrator during the whole duration of my arbitration has been documented in Exhibit (AS 789). This Exhibit shows there were some forty-one sets of documents that although they were faxed to the arbitrator’s office those documents were not forwarded on to Telstra’s defence.

The hand-written note in the top left corner of AS 494-C states: “Stored in Fax Stream”, confirming that faxes intercepted via Telstra’s testing process are stored in Telstra’s Fax Stream centre so the document can be read, at any time, by anyone with access to that centre. In other words, this storage system shows other types of documents (not just test faxes) that can be intercepted in the same way and then stored in Telstra’s fax Stream centre so the document can be read, at any time by anyone with access to that centre.

The Scandrett & Associates report proves that numerous COT arbitration documents were definitely intercepted, including faxes travelling to and from Parliament House, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office and various COT cases premises, including my business. (AS 494-C) also shows that intercepted faxes were, perhaps still are, stored wherever it is that Telstra’s fax stream documents were/are stored. This means, in turn, that Telstra, the defendant in the COT arbitrations, had free access to in-confidence documents that the claimants believed they were only sending to their accountants, lawyers and/or technical advisors that the claimants might not have wanted to be disclosed to the defendants at the time.

If the Senate Estimates Committee had been provided with this evidence COT faxes were stored in a facility for assessment purposes, together with the George Close/Fax Stream interception evidence (AS 492-A above), all of the COT arbitrations would have been considered null and void and Telstra would have been ordered to compensate all of the COT Cases for all of their costs, both up to that time and while a new arbitration process was being set up to ensure the COT Cases received their discovery documents. This screening of COT Cases arbitration documents by someone with access to Telstra’s network has also been discussed in the various chapters on absentjustice.com forty and whether the Australian Government should have investigated this privacy under Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights when they were first raised during the various COT Cases arbitrations.

Was this fax interception committed to preventing the COT Cases claims of ongoing telephone problems from being investigated by the arbitrator and the government communications regulator?

Had the arbitrator and the COT claimants been aware before they signed their individual arbitration agreements that such a device would be secretly screening arbitration-related documents during the process they were involved with, there would never have been an arbitration because Telstra would have had an advantage over every single claimant's claims they were defending. Arbitrations are supposed to be transparent and beyond reproach. The COT case arbitrations were nothing but a sham to protect a government-owned asset.

As recently as March 2018, compensation was being paid out in Britain to the victims of this hacking scandal see Mirror Group settles phone-hacking claims with undisclosed damages). All of those victims are entitled to compensation because their lives will never be the same again. The uneasy feeling whenever they pick up the phone as they wonder ‘Is someone else listening in?’, ‘Does someone else now know that I am going away for the weekend?’ Those memories for those British victims will never go away. I know.

Absent Justice - Unresolved Privacy Issues

Between June 2011 and June 2012, I sent a number of letters to the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, regarding the prolonged, unauthorised interception of Graham Schorer’s and my faxes during and after our arbitrations. Three replies (dated 12 October 2011, 23 March 2012 and 2 July 2012) are in Main Evidence File No 10. Each response, all headed Interception of facsimiles, stipulated that the Department of Justice cannot investigate interception of faxes, even though I provided documented proof of:

The interception of faxes exchanged between lawyers and their clients while they were involved in Supreme Court proceedings;
The interception of faxes to and from the arbitrator while the other COT claimants and I were involved in a federal government-endorsed arbitration;
Telstra’s admission to the Australian Federal Police that Telstra intercepted my telephone conversations.

On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:

“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.

Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?

The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally.

“In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct under taken [sic] by Telstra against the COT Cases.”

(See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/2)

I also wrote to the Hon Robert Clark on 20 June 2012, to remind him that his office was already in receipt of a 7 July 2011 statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer. This statutory declaration discusses the three young computer hackers who phoned Graham during the COT arbitrations of 1994 to warn him. They had discovered that Telstra and others associated with the arbitrations were ‘acting unlawfully’ towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:

“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.

“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his [sic] Melbourne and Sydney offices…

“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.

“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …

“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)

Absent Justice - AFP

It is also important to note that just prior, in March 1994, Mr Schorer’s office was broken into. I was also assisting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with their investigations into my claims of fax interceptions. Hacking-Julian Assange File No 52 contains a letter from Telstra’s internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the transmission fax testing process. The rest of the file shows Telstra did experience major problems when testing my facsimile machine when it was tested in conjunction with a facsimile machine installed at Graham’s office.

It is important to highlight how skilfully Mr Row did not disclose to the AFP the problems Telstra had experienced when sending and receiving faxes between my machine and Graham’s fax machine.

Although the following 22 April 1994 fax issue is addressed above, it relates directly to AUSTEL only receiving three blank pages, even though AUSTEL’s fax report shows these pages took between 1min 20sec to 2min 40sec to transmit. (See Hacking-Julian Assange File No/34-A and File No/34-B)

None of those three blank pages had my fax identification displayed at the top of the received documents nor the time and date that they were sent. However, they all had a single, small square in the top right corner of the page, each with a number inside it.

Even if blank sheets of paper are faxed mistakenly instead of printed documents, they will still arrive with the sender’s identity, the date and the time the document was sent. As I later proved to the arbitrator, these blank documents did not include any sender identification. The arbitrator however, for reasons known only to him, never investigated this apparent interception of my arbitration claim documents – clearly an invasion of my privacy – just as he didn’t investigate the threats and harassment from senior Telstra executives that I was subjected to throughout my arbitration.

The 22 April 1994 fax issue also relates directly to a fax issue on 29 June 1998, four years after my arbitration, which was supposed to address these faxing problems. My solicitor, Mr William Hunt, sent me copies of two documents that I had faxed from my office, but which had arrived at Mr Hunt’s office as blank sheets of paper except for this strange numbering system, again inside a small square in the top right corner of the page. Mr Hunt also sent a copy of his fax journal for that day (see Hacking – Julian Assange File No /48 and File No/49) confirming their arrival in his office, just as AUSTEL had also done, just one day into my arbitration.

Absent Justice - My Story

Is there a connection between the loss of my faxed arbitration documents and the TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter stating that his office has no record of my 24 January 1995 letter to the arbitrator requesting him to seek various documents from Telstra under the discovery process? My 24 January 1995 letter requesting a copy of the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada information to be provided from Telstra through the arbitration process was received (see Home Evidence File No 5).Are the lost claim-related faxes issues part of the collusion that festered during our arbitrations when the TIO covertly agreed along with the defendants (Telstra) that the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit would be given the power to decide what documents were released into the arbitration process? (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590)

Why did the TIO advise me that records in his office did not record receiving my 24 January 1995 letter? “Our file does not indicate that you took the matter any further,” (see Home Evidence File No 4). When my letter was returned to me, the fax footprint indicates it was received at the arbitrator’s fax machine. The TIO’s 28 June 1995 letter is possibly one of our most damning pieces of evidence, showing that “forces at work” were able to conceal essential arbitration material from being addressed during my arbitration process.

If the arbitrator had acted on my requests for the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada test information, which I was legally entitled to have, I could have proved (as I have in Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report ‘masked identities‘) Bell Canada International could not possibly generate the alleged 13,500 test calls through a Tekelec CCS7 system that they and Telstra stated was installed at the Cape Bridgewater RCM exchange. There was no equipment in place at the Bridgewater exchange to facilitate such tests. The nearest Telstra exchange that could facilitate a Tekelec CCS7 monitoring system in November 1993 was the Warrnambool exchange, which is 112 kilometres from Cape Bridgewater. The TIO and Commonwealth Ombudsman records will confirm I requested the BCI information on at least four occasions.

It is serious enough that an Australian corporation knowingly provided false answers to questions on notice during a Senate committee hearing, however, consider: if the TIO is telling the truth that the arbitrator did NOT receive my 24 January 1995 BCI letter, then who did? And why do the markings on this document show that it arrived at its intended destination? My own BCI report in Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report ‘masked identities‘ shows Telstra even went as far as knowingly providing false Cape Bridgewater information to the Senate in October 1994. As a result, the Senate estimates committee did not investigate the fundamentally flawed BCI Cape Bridgewater report.

Absent Justice - Tricks of Injustice

In April 1995, more tricks of injustice were unearthed when a Telstra official arrived at the camp on 6 April 1995 and we collected a representative from the new technical unit from the airport. The three of us inspected the exchanges at Cape Bridgewater and Portland and held discussions with the local technician. As mentioned elsewhere, during this visit, I attempted to raise the incorrect billing issues. However, according to the technical unit people, the arbitrator had instructed them not to assess any new claim material. Naturally, I was most irate. This was a complete turn-around by the arbitrator, who had assured me if I discovered any new information among FOI documents that I received late, that information could be presented to the technical resource unit when they visited the camp. I had burned the midnight oil night after night to have my evidence prepared before the technical team arrived. This new information further supported my allegations. I managed to have the TIO consultant look at one document while the Telstra official was still present. This was a copy of part of my 1800 call account. I asked how I could be charged on 13 January 1995 for a 9.49-minute call at 11.50 am, and then for a 42-second call at 11.57 am? It is certainly not possible to have two calls overlapping on the same line at the same time.

This caught the attention of the technical TIO consultant and I was able to offer further examples of incorrect charging on this 1800 account, on 10 and 11 January. This account showed calls from my home number to the camp number. According to my diary notes, both those calls registered an engaged signal, but both were charged as having connected. And again, on 13 January, there were similar examples of more incorrect charging. Incorrect charging ran rampant through Telstra, as my account showed.

Neither the Telstra official nor the technical unit personnel was prepared to comment on this evidence at the time. During their visit, I was assured the matter would be taken up and addressed as part of the arbitration process. The Telstra and technical representatives left shortly after this – together. This was, of course, in direct breach of the rules of the arbitration. What transpired between these two parties? The answer to that question is probably only known to those two parties concerned. (And the arbitrator perhaps?)

I kept reminding Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) what these hackers had stated: i.e., we were being got at by our own people (or words to that effect). Here we were months after these two telephone conversations with the hackers and it appeared they had been spot on from the very beginning. As our Prologue/Chapters, One to four shows, the arbitration resource unit was certainly not independent or impartial.

Both resource units were now preparing their reports. I had a sense of foreboding (which proved to be correct) that the very people who were supposed to protect the COT members were betraying us. I felt crucified by the very person who should have been delivering justice, the arbitrator. He failed to investigate why my fax and my phones continued to create problems and now I was convinced that the arbitration process was purely a sham, initiated only to silence me through the provision of some sort of minimum award payment.

If the new technical unit had been aware of the deficient verification testing and the fact that Telstra was relying on false BCI test results to support the efficiency of their network into Cape Bridgewater, they would have demanded that the arbitrator ask Telstra the true extend of the faults in the network.

If the arbitrator had been aware, at this point, that Telstra was relying on deficient test results and an impracticable BCI test report to support their defence of my claims, he was legally bound to ask Telstra for an explanation.

Covert recordings of this document, which my advisors Garry Ellicott and Barry O’Sullivan raised in my arbitration claim, confirmed that the government communications regulator allowed Telstra to secretly address the billing issues outside of the legal arena of my arbitration (see Arbitrator File/No 29 & 30 and Main Evidence File No 23 Part-1 and23 Part 2). I could not legally challenge Telstra’s grossly inaccurate response to these billing issues, because Garry, Barry and I knew nothing about this clandestine operation.

On 16 October 1995, five months after my arbitration was declared finished, AUSTEL (the government regulator) took charge of this secret deal with Telstra. This covert investigation was illegal because my arbitration was supposed to have been administered according to the ambit of the Arbitration (Commercial) Act 1984, which means that no officially registered claim or defence material can be investigated unless the appointed arbitrator has notified both sides, to allow the normal right of reply. Addressing legally submitted defence and/or claim material in secret, without disclosure and allowing the right of reply, is forbidden in most Western democracies except, obviously, in Australia, when the defendant is the Telstra Corporation.

Although the following 22nd April 1994 fax issue has been addressed above, it is directly related to AUSTEL only having received three blank pages, even though they appear on AUSTEL’s fax report as having taken between 1.20 seconds to 2.40 seconds to transmit. (Hacking-Julian Assange File No/19)

None of those three blank pages had my fax identification displayed at the top of the received documents or the time and date that they had been sent. However, they all had a single, small square in the top right corner of the page, each with a number inside it.

This 2nd April 1994 fax issue is also directly related to the fax issue on 29th June 1998, four years after my arbitration, which was supposed to have addressed these faxing problems. My solicitor Mr William Hunt, sent me copies of two documents that I had faxed from my office, but which had arrived at Mr Hunt’s office as blank sheets of paper except for this strange numbering system, again inside a small square in the top right corner of the page. Mr Hunt also sent a copy of his fax journal for the 29th June 1998, the day he received these blank sheets of paper, thereby confirming their arrival in his office, just as AUSTEL had also done, just one day into my Arbitration on 22 April 1994, four years previous.

Even if blank sheets of paper are mistakenly faxed instead of printed documents, they will still arrive with the sender’s identity, the date and the time the document was sent. As I later proved to the arbitrator, these blank documents did not include any such sender identification. The arbitrator, however, for reasons known only to him, never investigated this apparent interception of my arbitration claim documents – clearly an invasion of my privacy – just as he didn’t investigate the constant threats and harassment from senior Telstra’s executives, which I was subjected to throughout my arbitration.

Absent Justice - My Story

Are the lost faxes (claim-related document) issues part of the collusion that festered itself in our arbitrations when the TIO covertly agreed along with the defendants (Telstra) that the TIO-appointed arbitration resource unit would be given the power to decide what documents were released into the arbitration process. (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590). In simple words, is the not received relevant 24th January 1995 letter to Dr Hughes (which could have changed the whole outcome of my arbitration had he seen it), hidden in the same place where many of the COT Cases relevant faxed documents ended up? Are these intercepted faxes stored in a room, forgotten and waiting to be destroyed, if they have not already been destroyed.

Julian Assange and his young friends had to be mentioned in our COT story because what was revealed to us in 1994, was still happening to the COT’s in 1999, as we continued to battle the elements.

The fact that Mr Pinnock’s statements covered the promises given to all of the COT Cases concerning their promised arbitration document and not just the five ‘litmus test cases’ being investigated by the Senate Committee concerned many people aware of the plight of the COT Cases. In late 1998, Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister for the then Major Fraud Group seconded me as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the five litmus tests cases referred to here on this An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens page. Mr Jepson discussed when he and I were seconded to give evidence in the Supreme Court of Victoria by Sue Owens in 2002.

Faxes were intercepted seven years after my arbitration was concluded.

My fax identification on the first fax dated 8th May 2001, to Ms Kirsten Musgrove FOI Coordinator Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and two-page accompanying letter see exhibit AS 514 file AS-CAV 495 to 541 reads: 18-5-2001 – 11:33 – FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP to 0262195499 P.01, is my correct fax identification. The fax identification on the copy of my letter dated 4th July 2001, to Tony Shaw, Chairman of the ACA after it had been faxed to Mr Shaw’s Canberra office exhibit AS 515 file AS-CAV 495 to 541 on 5th July 2001, reads: Fax from: 055 267 230 – 05/07/01 – 04:41, is incorrect because the FROM CAPE BRIDGE HDAY CAMP identification has been removed;

Back on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate – Parliament of Australia/from an ex-Telstra employee and then-Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which had been requested by the COT claimants, he advised the Committee that:

“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.” (See Front Page Part One File No/6)

It is clear from Mr White’s statement he not only identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs from proving my claim all five of the named COT Cases by Lindsey White were all clients of George Close & Associates, the technical officer assessing the relevance of those five arbitration claims. The fact that it has since been proven that someone with access to Telstra's telephone network attaching a secondary fax machine linked to George Closes' office and residence (see next Chapter 7 below) so that COT related arbitration faxes were screened in and out of Mr Closes' business and residence shows Telstra used this fax hacking as another alternative to stop the COT Cases at all cost from proving their arbitration claims.

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 6

Major Fraud Group

During 1998/99, the Major Fraud Group Victoria Police asked me to supply any evidence I had of Telstra committing fraud to support its defence during my 1994/95 arbitration. It was common knowledge in government circles that Telstra, indeed, used fraud in defence documents, as well as submitted false information to the Senate in September and October 1997, concerning this same fraud. As I did during my 1994 arbitration, when I assisted the Australia Federal Police during its investigation into Telstra’s unethical conduct towards me (see Senate Evidence File No 31), I agreed to assist the Victoria Police in their 1998 investigations into similar acts of misconduct towards fellow Australian citizens.

It is important to raise the Victorian Major Fraud Group’s police involvement in the COT cases’ matters (as well as a number of parties associated with the Major Fraud Group), as it is clearly linked to our An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens page. I was not one of the four COT cases’ litmus group, who, through Sue Owens (barrister) lodged complaints against Telstra with the Major Fraud Group in 1999. I was seconded some months later as a witness. The litmus COT cases provided my evidence of Telstra committing fraud against me, during my arbitration to the Senate estimates committee during their FOI investigations. Despite this, the chair of the Senate estimates committee discarded my evidence (even though it had been provided On Notice to Senator Ron Boswell).

It was this discarded evidence the Major Fraud Group asked me to supply at the request of their barrister, Neil Jepson.

After I provided the contents of (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over two separate visits to Melbourne spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group’s St. Kilda Road offices. This is important to the litmus tests cases issue because the Major Fraud Group was stunned at the evidence and how I was able to prove Telstra definitely perverted the course of justice, on two occasions, by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case.

I ask you to consider two witness statements, dated 8 and 10 August 2006, referring to the 1999 and 2001 Major Fraud Group investigations: one statement was prepared by a government public servant/ex-police officer and the other by an ex very-senior Telstra protective officer (later promoted to the principal investigator), which I received during this official 6 September 2006 government meeting which the Hon David Hawker Speaker in the House of Representatives suggested I raise my concerns about the relentless harassment my partner Cathy and I had experienced since I had assisted the Australian Federal Police in 1994 and the Victoria police Major Fraud Group from 1999 to 2001.

Both statements are discussed on our Absentjustice Preface page AFP Evidence File No 13. Members of the current government were provided with copies of these witness statements, without redactions. Sadly, the information in these two witness statements, to date, has not been acted upon.

8 and 10 August 2006: Exhibit AS 517 File AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts DCITA) by Ann Garms one of the original four COT Cases, and sworn out by Des Direen ex- Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status. Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, in particular Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations. I was called into that investigation as a witness in a similar manner to when the Australian Federal Police asked me to assist them (see above and Australian Federal Police Investigations. See also An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens ).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with". Within a few weeks of Mr Direen having assisted the Major Fraud Group with their investigations, it became apparent that Mr Kueris was very distressed. Both Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson, as a complainant and me, as a witness, reported to Mr Kueris and Mr Jepson that we believed we were also under surveillance during those investigations.

Exhibit AS 517 is also a witness statement dated 8 August 2006, prepared by Bob Hynninen, Public Servant (Australian Taxation Office) formerly Detective Sergeant of the Victoria police. At point 3 in this statement Mr Hynninen notes:

"I can recall that during the period 2000/200, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".

One particularly alarming event was the intimidation of Detective Sergeant Rod Keuris, who was part of the Australian Major Fraud Group. Sadly, this man left the force – his career – shortly after. File 517 in https://www.absentjustice.com/download.php... shows two statutory declarations: one by an ex-Telstra senior protective officer; the other from Bob Hynninen, another COT case. Both statements describe the anguish experienced by this senior detective sergeant who was investigating alleged fraud within Telstra during the COT arbitrations and the fears he had after being subjected to intimidation.

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen's witness statement he states while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate: “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange” but, when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that it was being handled by another area of Telstra” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

Consider: if this feeling of being got at by the Telstra Corporation can reduce a fully trained senior police officer to this condition, just think how this continual and unaddressed harassment by Telstra officials left the COT cases during and after their government-endorsed arbitrations (for example, exhibit 501 in https://www.absentjustice.com/download.php...). No COTs were ever offered counseling or apologised to by the government, which, remember, still owned Telstra when this harassment certainly in my case began in an official government endorsed arbitration and during an Australian Federal Police investigation and continued well past the Major Fraud Group investigations of 1998 and 2001 as well as the Senate investigations between 26 September 1997 and March 1999 - Senators Speak Out

It is well discussed in the west about Chinese and Russian breaches of the civilian's human rights but little is discussed concerning how Australian citizens are treated once they have challenged the government bureaucratic system which gives the bureaucrats more power than their elected ministers.

My partner Cathy and I have had 26-years stolen from us because we thought assisting the Australian Federal Police and Victoria Police were our civil duty.

This George Close fax interception saga continues in Chapter 7 below.

Download Attachments

Next Page ⟶

Contact Absent Justice

Chapter Six - US Securities Exchange - pink herring

Download Attachments

Read Alan's book

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us

Chapter Six - US Securities Exchange - pink herring

Download Attachments

Read Alan's book

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com? Contact Us

Would you like your story told on absentjustice.com?
Contact Us