Hacked Julian Assange - Politician 'sold out their country'

My 3 February 1994 letter to Michael Lee, Minister for Communications Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A and a subsequent letter from Fay Holthuyzen, assistant to the minister (see Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B), to Telstra’s corporate secretary, show that I was concerned that my faxes were being illegally intercepted. I provided Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A to Grant Cambell, unaware he was a senior Telstra official.

Exhibit, File 71 AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91 from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO), confirms that a visit to the TIO's office occurred on 14 May 1994, two days before the note was created. I requested a witness from the TIO office to accompany me to examine several altered documents. Some of these documents had been censored, while others were attached to fax "covering header sheets" that did not match the text they covered.

Despite the TIO's role as an administrator to my arbitration, the Deputy TIO, Sue Harlow, refused to send anyone back with the claimant to investigate why Telstra was blatantly breaching the rules of discovery and the FOI Act. Later, I found evidence of these alterations and provided it to Sue Harlow. It should be noted that the TIO Warwick Smith had covertly seconded a Telstra senior official, Grant Campbell (Part 2  Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration), to assist the TIO's office in deflecting serious telephone faults that were being registered by the COT Cases during the early stages of their arbitrations. It should also be noted when reading (Part 2, Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration) that Grant Campbell was signing off his letters to Telstra concerning my arbitration faxing problems as the TIO Warwick Smith, including lying about to Telstra in File 585-B - AS-CAV Exhibits 542-a to 588 dated 9 February 1004. 

What is so alarming about Grant Campbell and Warwick Smith sharing the same office and signing off COT-related arbitration documents is having two administrators to an arbitration. However, only one of them was officially assigned to read the COT arbitration documents, which is still a grave matter because Warwick Smith is currently involved in banking, where confidentiality is a priority. Allowing someone to sign off a legal document on your behalf suggests Warwick Smith knew nothing about what Grant Campbell was providing Telstra (the defendants in my arbitration) and what he was not. Perhaps some of the lost faxes that the AFP were investigating on my behalf had been deliberately lost by Grant CampbelL  

The cohabitation of Grant Campbell and Warwick Smith, who both affixed their signatures to documents pertaining to arbitration, is a matter of great concern. The participation of two individuals in the administration of an arbitration process raises questions about its fairness. Moreover, only one of them was officially assigned to review the arbitration documents. This is a serious issue because Warwick Smith is currently involved in banking and may possess confidential information. The act of authorizing someone to sign a legal document on one's behalf suggests that Warwick Smith may have been unaware of the extent of Grant Campbell's provision of information to Telstra, the defendants in my arbitration case. There is a possibility that some of the lost faxes, which the AFP was investigating on my behalf, were intentionally lost by Grant Campbell. This raises significant doubts regarding the integrity of the arbitration process.

 

Grant Campbell - the man with two hats

Lies and deception 

 

An internal Telstra email dated 10 November 1993 TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that the TIO Warwick Smith provided confidential government-discussed COT Case settlement information to four of Telstra's most senior executives. Many people in government today believe providing this confidential information to Telstra was the cornerstone that stopped a proper transparent settlement process and turned it into a highly legalistic arbitration process that failed the COT arbitrations.

The exhibits left as evidence confirm that redacting had occurred and that text information concerning the claimant's discussions with Malcolm Fraser had been redacted. The claimant then contacted the Australian Federal Police and discussed the matter with Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose on 14 May 1994. Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose suggested I submit a statutory declaration attesting to what I had observed. When Detective Superintendent Jeff Penrose visited the claimant's premises four months later, on 26 September 1994, the privacy of the claimant's arbitration-related documents, including the Malcolm Fraser issues, was discussed.

The Australian Federal Police have yet to provide me with the results of their investigation, which concluded in March 1995.

It is unacceptable that the Australian government agreed to endorse a legally binding arbitration agreement that the President of the Australian Institute of Arbitrators did not independently draft. The fact that the agreement was drafted by lawyers for the defendants in the arbitration is unacceptable, especially when the carrier was the defendant in the arbitration. The government's refusal to investigate why the agreement included a clause designed by the defendant's lawyers that severely limited the time claimants could access discovery documents they needed to support their claim directly from the defendants is unacceptable.

In summary, the Australian government must protect our justice system from any attempts to undermine it. In most Western democracies, the government demands severe penalties for those who interfere with justice and transparency. Why has the Australian government not investigated these lost claim documents? 

It is essential to publish an accurate report of events during Australian government-endorsed arbitrations. The pervasive corruption within the government bureaucracy is unacceptable, and transparency is critical to preventing further corruption. It is imperative to demonstrate that government public servants who provided privileged information to the then-Australian government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) while concealing the same documentation from the claimants must face the full extent of the law.