Check out the Kangaroo Court system of justice which Australia's system of arbitration is administered as exposed on Bribery and Corruption Part 1 and Bribery Bribery and Corruption 2. Learn how this deceptive conduct undermines the credibility of ligitmate complaints.

A kangaroo court (see Kangaroo court - Wikipedia) is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.

A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. This could be because of the biases of the decision-maker, or because the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").

The statement made on Kangaroo court - Wikipedia "...that a kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun",  is exactly what happened during the various Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) arbitrations i.e. the arbitrator and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) collaborated with the defendants (Telstra) to conceal relevant information from being investigated.

oOo

The Kangaroo Court link https://rb.gy/0ybs5 has been added here as an example that the Julian Assange saga should end now, in Australia, where he first reported corruption and wrong doing by a then government owned Telstra Corporation.

In April 1994, Julian Assange provided a very important link for the COT cases, but we did not know this during our arbitrations.

He thought it was his duty to expose corruption during a governeent endorsed arbitration 

A young man (a boy) with a Conscience: Hackers for Justice

Julian Assange provided a very important link for the COT cases, but we did not know this during our arbitrations.

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General the Hon Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers had discovered Telstra and others associated with our 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)

The following 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 fax-testing process. The rest of the file shows Telstra did experience major problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with Graham Schorer’s office fax machine. 

Julian Assange was right on target when he stated: we COT Cases were under electronic surveillance as Evidence - Australian Federal Police Investigations shows.  

On 17 December 2014, one of two technical consultants attesting to the validity of the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates fax-interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) emailed me stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

That a secondary fax machine was installed in Telstra’s network during the COT arbitration process is another reason why this illegal interception of legal in-confidence documents should have been investigated during our arbitrations, when these illegal acts of screening our arbitration related documents to the arbitrator and our arbitration advisors was first discovered by the hackers.

Had these ilegal acts been investigated by the administrator and arbitration assigned to our arbitrations most if not all of the outcomes of the various COT Cases arbitrations would have read different to what they now read in the arbitrators findings (his award) on each of the claimants claims. Therefore, exposing this side of the Julian Assange saga does form a major part of the COT story.

The following Kangaroo Court  https://shorturl.at/hBJ69 has been used here because it will allow our absentjustice.com readers to understand government corruption in Australia better. This type of corruption which ruined the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, administered COT Cases arbitrations between 1993 and 1998. Then twelve years later, this same government corruption continued during the government Casualties of Telstra (COT) Department of Information Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) assessment process in 2006.

Telling our story and linking it with accounts currently being exposed on Kangaroo Court is a further testament that open and transparent reporting is a matter of public interest and is why I chose to use the Kangaroo Court here to show the COT story is not old news but current news.

The following Kangaroo Court  https://shorturl.at/hBJ69 has been used here because it will allow our absentjustice.com readers to understand government corruption in Australia better. This type of corruption which ruined the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, administered COT Cases arbitrations between 1993 and 1998. The government COT Department of Information Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) assessment process in 2006 is a further testament that open and transparent reporting is a matter of public interest and is why I am using Kangaroo Court here.