Julian Assange - Absent Justice

COPY - Home page dated 24/02/2024

Absent Justice | Exposing bribery and corruption. Bureaucratic nemesis

Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Learn who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit today in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur. Learn about the political corruption that has allowed governmental employees to act in an official capacity for personal gain or to assist others in government to acquire financial gain.

As you scroll down this page, click on the following images to learn more about our true story.

A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General, Hon. Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers discovered that Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations acted unlawfully towards the COT group. In three of the original four COT Cases, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I tried to obtain information as to the identities of the hackers after we contacted the arbitration administrator Warwick Smith (who was also the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman), detailing to him what the hackers had told Mr Schorer concerning the unlawful way in which our arbitrations were proceeding.

We received no information from Warwick Smith, even though our arbitrations cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in. The cost of my process, which commenced on 23 November 1993 and was finalized on 11 May 1995 without the arbitrator making a finding on the ongoing billing problems affecting my 008/1800 free call customer service, was over $300.000.00, which was the amount the arbitrator awarded me.

If the hackers were Julian Assange and his mates, then his predictions to Graham Schoer (COT spokesperson) were spot on.

Telstra and their lawyers had legally abused all four COT Cases over seven years or more when the hackers approached Mr Schorer. I think a most reasonably minded person would conclude that Warwick Smith, as administrator to our arbitration, should have, at least if his investigations into what the hackers had said were baseless, his notes on this should have been made available to the four clients and the arbitrator. There were no notes on this fact or consideration given to the four COT Cases when John Rundell, the TIO appointed Arbitration Project Manager, wrote to Warwick Smith on 18 April 1995 (twelve months after the hackers had contacted Mr Schorer) telling Warwick Smith there were 'forces at work Prologue Evidence File No 22-A' that was derailing the arbitration process.

This letter was concealed from the COT Cases during our designated appeal processes.

What should have been made known to us COT Cases before we signed our settlement/arbitration agreements is that Warwick Smith provided confidential in-house government parliament house part room information to Telstra's hierarchy TIO Evidence File No 3-A to assist Telstra win their defence of our claims.

This arbitration agreement (rules) was used during the COT arbitrations. So when we COT Cases approached Warwick Smith about what the hackers had told us about being forced into an arbitration process, aware we would not be getting the documents we would be requesting or words to this effect, the hackers had been spot on.

There had to have been a reason why Warwick Smith (administrator of our arbitrations) would not supply us with COT Case information concerning these hackers after they had been caught. Graham’s statutory declaration (Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3) 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.” Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3

Documents on this website contain 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 that Telstra experienced significant problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with Graham Schorer's office fax machine. This was during the period that Senator Bob Collins was involved in raping children in parliament house Canberra and was under investigation for these acts when he committed suicide.

If the hackers were Julian Assange and his friends, then he and his friends were right on target: we COT Cases were under electronic surveillance, as discussed by me and the AFP in their Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their interview surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations and arbitration-related faxes.

(Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-A - Hacking-Julian Assange File No/27-B - Hacking-Julian Assange File No/28 - Illegal Interception File No/3

On pages 14 and 15 of Andrew Fowler's (ABC investigative journalist) novel 'The Most Dangerous Man in the World', when talking about Julian Assange in Melbourne having hacked into Telstra's Melbourne Lonsdale telephone exchange (this Metro telephone exchange routed 50% of all my business from Melbourne) and Ken Day of the Australian Federal Police Computer Crime Investigation Unit who had been tipped off about the activities of The International Subversives.

What Andrew Fowler did not note in his book is that during this precise time, the AFP was investigating the stealing of millions upon millions of dollars of public money from the government coffers (Refer to pages 5163 to 5169 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia) which was linked to the poor state of Telstra's telecommunications network which had deteriorated due fault maintenance work not being done on a daily bases (sheer neglect) working weekends on fault finding and repairing double and triple time for work that should have been done per regular working hours. This was where the millions upon millions of dollars had gone.

Also shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia, Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled "COT Case Strategy" (refer to Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me Graham Schorer and two other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.

When Julian Assange telephoned Graham Schorer about this "COT Case Strategy" and the many other unethical practices that Julian Assange and his two friends had found, it was Graham Schorer who told Julian Assange that the AFP were working with the COT Case because Telstra had set up electronic surveillance networks through their telephone exchanges and that the AFP was now investigating why the COT Case businesses were subjected to this massive surveillance operation. The AFP was freely advised by the COT Cases of these hackers, including what the hackers had told the COT Cases Julian Assange had uncovered, i.e., Telstra's unethical conduct was being used against Telstra's customers; the AFP was not just tipped off, they were told what Julian Assange had uncovered was a Matter of Public Interest - for all Australians.

Even though we COT Cases had done the right thing (by the book legally) and reported to the police and administrator to our arbitrations that we had not accepted the documents the hackers wanted us to have, documents that the Commonwealth Ombudsman Philippa Smith and Ms Smith's Director of investigations John Wynack has been trying to access in the legal arena since December 1993, Warwick Smith (the administrator of the arbitrations) and Dr Gordon Hughes (his appointed arbitrator) still forced us COT Cases to sign our arbitrations agreements on 21 April 1994, without the necessary documents we needed to support our claims.

In simple terms, operating correctly and transparently cost us COT Cases dearly. If we had been in Communist China or Russia, you might have expected the Government to return to their word. But when the Australian Government promised eleven Senators, the Canberra Parliament House Press Gallery, three legal firms, and the COT Claimants themselves all of the necessary documents that the COT Cases needed to prove their phone problems were still ongoing, this backflip by the Government, the administrator of the arbitrations and the arbitrator was an unthinkable act.

Many senators and legal experts said the arbitration process should be put on hold until all those documents are released. Everyone in Parliament House had previously praised the COT Cases for our stand that all Australians should have reliable phone service. We all fell flat on our backs when Telstra and its thuggery once again ruled Australia's legal system as it had been for decades.

By 26 September 1994, Telstra, for the second time in two months, had threatened me on two occasions concerning releasing this time of FOI information to the AFP. These were the forces at work that the hackers had warned Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) about in April 1994 when they telephoned him.

Threats carried out

Threats were also made against me by Telstra arbitration officials because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their investigations into how Telstra had been able to document so much of my private life over several years and to what advantage this unauthorized interception of my telephone phone conversation and screening of my faxes to the arbitrator and my legal counsel before those faxes were redirected on to those destinations. This unlawful conduct continued until at least 24 December 2001, six years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

Page 180 ERC&A, from the official Australian Senate Hansard, dated 29 November 1994, reports Senator Ron Boswell asking Telstra's legal directorate these same types of questions:

“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”

After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:

“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)

Thus, the threats became a reality. What is so appalling about the withholding of relevant documents is that no one in the TIO office or Government has ever investigated the disastrous impact this had on my overall submission to the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the Government (who at the time wholly owned Telstra) should have investigated why an Australian citizen who assisted the AFP in their investigations into unlawful interception of telephone conversations was so severely disadvantaged during a civil arbitration.

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 undertaken by Telstra against the COT Cases.” AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817

I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office had already received Graham Schorer's 7 July 2011 statutory declaration. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report, Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13, which leaves no doubt that the hackers were correct regarding this electronic surveillance.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, 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)

When the hackers stated that the Graham Schorer we COT Cases were under electronic or mass surveillance, and this was relayed back to me by Mr Schorer, I knew just how serious this was because the AFP had already interviewed me in February 1994, where I provided conclusive evidence showing Telstra knew about specific contracts I was tendering for as way back in August 1992, which did not transpire. This particular document is discussed in the 93 questions asked by the AFP again, this time on 26 September 1994, Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts.

So when Julian Assange started to make considerable noise about this mass electronic surveillance, I provided conclusive evidence to two government Attorney Generals, one State and the other Federal, showing that highly legal confidential Supreme Court documents discussing a case being heard by an appeal judge in the Victorian Supreme Court of Victoria were covertly screened using Telstra's fax screening process before that document was provided to the Appeal Judge, Defense and plaintiff.

The above Scandrett & Associates fax interception report, i.e. Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13, shows this mass surveillance, which has concerned Julian Assange for years, has been used in the Australian Court and Arbitration System for several years as absentjustice.com shows.

When Geroge Close & Associates Pty Ltd (the arbitration technical advisor to the COT Cases) visited my residence in Cape Bridgewater in 2011 after learning his Buderim (Queensland) residence and his office was the conduit (the central location) to where this screening of the advice he gave the COT Cases on what documents they needed to access from Telstra under FOI, 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 the COT Cases overall submissions to the arbitrator.

Mr Close later sent me an email on 5 August 2011 to assist me in exposing what the Telstra Corporation had been able to do (and get away with) during the COT arbitrations to gain an advantage over all of the COT Cases claims before the arbitrator Front Page Part One File No/26).

“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. What Julian Assange and Bernard Collaery have shown in their quest to expose what this massive use of electronic surveillance is doing to the justice system worldwide is real, as is my evidence on absentjustice.com.

On 23 March 1999 (see above), almost five years after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, the Australian Financial Review (newspaper) reported on the conclusion of the Senate estimates committee hearing into why the COT Cases were forced into a government-endorsed arbitration without the necessary documents they needed to support their claims wholly.

“A Senate working party delivered a damning report into the COT dispute. The report focused on the difficulties encountered by COT members as they sought to obtain documents from Telstra. The report found Telstra had deliberately withheld important network documents and/or provided them too late and forced members to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information,” Senator Eggleston said. “They [Telstra] have defied the Senate working party. Their conduct is to act as a law unto themselves.”

The following six senators all formally record how they believed that Telstra had 'acted as a law unto themselves' throughout the COT arbitrations; however, due to the time between when Julian Assange exposed what he did in April 1994 and what the Senate found in March 1999, only five of the twenty-one COT Cases received the punitive damages awarded by the Senate as An Injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens. This was discrimination by the Australian Government of the worst possible kind.

Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – Boswell, Sen Ronald – Carr, Sen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris, Alston and Sen Richard)

Infringe upon the civil liberties.

Most Disturbing And Unacceptable

On 27 January 1999, after having also read my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, the same manuscript I provided Helen Handbury in 1999 (refer to Rupert Murdoch - Hacked Documents), Senator Kim Carr wrote:

“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”

What has never been answered in twenty-eight years by either two telecommunication industry ombudsmen (both as administrators to the COT arbitrations) as well (as a Victorian Attorney General and a Federal Attorney General) is who the hackers were. Indeed, the COT Cases had a right to know during their highly legalistic arbitration process in which the Government had endorsed who the hackers were that told us COT Cases we would only be able to prove our claims if we viewed the documents that were on offer.

These claims by the hackers mirror the allegations made by the same six senators (above) who spent two years investigating Telstra's unethical conduct towards the COT Cases and publicly made the statement they did five years after the hackers uncovered the same thing. Had the arbitration administrator transparently investigated this matter when raised by the COT cases, our lives would not have been ruined the way they have.

Not only were the COT cases forced "to proceed with arbitration without the necessary information," it had already been established by the government communications regulator AUSTEL (now ACMA) that in my case, my claims had been validated on 2/3 March 1994 referred to Chapter 1 Fraudulent Conduct Falsified Reporting points 2 to 212 in AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings.

The actions by AUSTEL were an abuse of process when they allowed me to commence arbitration/legal proceedings against Telstra without the necessary documents I needed to support my claim was one condemnation, but to have allowed me to spend more than $300.000.00 in arbitration fees trying to prove something that the Government had already established against Telstra was an abuse of process. AUSTEL (now ACMA) breached their statutory obligation towards me as a citizen of Australia.

It was also discovered by AUSTEL (now ACMA) see Open letter to Prime Minister (Recovered) that after investigating the COT Cases Ericsson AXE telephone exchange fault complaints, AUSTEL (now ACMA found more than 120,000 Telstra customers were experiencing COT-type faults, including the free call 008/1800 customers who were being forced to pay for incorrectly calculated accounts which Telstra knew was due to a systemic billing software problem within their network. Chapter 1 - Can We Fix The CAN.

What AUSTEL (now ACMA) did not state in their April 1994 formal COT Cases Report was that the Chairman of AUSTEL/ACMA, Robin Davey, on 8 and 9 April 1994, received two letters from Telstra's arbitration liaison officer Steve Black telling Robin Davey not to report that AUSTEL found that 120,000 Telstra customers were experiencing COT-type complaints Open Letter File No/11.

Point 2.71 in AUSTEL's April 1994 formal COT Cases Report provided to the COT arbitrator and the broader Australian community notes: "...the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom's original estimate of 50".

For a government regulator to reduce their findings from 120.000 COT-type complaints to read just 50 or more COT-type customer complaints is one hell of a lie told to the COT arbitrator and Australia's citizens.

A Telstra minute, dated 2 July 1992, concerning the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment states:

“Our local technicians believe that Mr Smith is correct in raising complaints about incoming callers to his number receiving a Recorded Voice Announcement saying that the number is disconnected.

“They believe that it is a problem that is occurring in increasing numbers as more and more customers are connected to AXE.” (See False Witness Statement File No 3-A)

The author of this Ericsson AXE document also signed an arbitration witness statement dated 12 December 1994, which told a completely different story to what he knew about the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. In his witness statement, he states, "I had perceived problems," and then tells the arbitrator under oath he had not "observed any deficiencies in the service provided by Telstra".

This same Telstra witness, along with eight other individual Telstra arbitration witnesses, was aware that this Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange equipment not only had a call loss rate from 15% to 50%, as File 10-B Evidence File No/10-A to 10-f shows, but it was also for this reason that countries around the world were removing or had removed it from their exchanges because the fault also caused major billing problems in the network.

Therefore, it is essential to introduce here the bribery and corruption issues the US Department of Justice raised against Ericsson of Sweden on 19 December 2019 as recorded in the Australian media, i.e.;

One of Telstra's key partners in the building out of their 5G network in Australia is set to fork out over $1.4 billion after the US Department of Justice accused them of bribery and corruption on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

Sweden's telecoms giant Ericsson has agreed to pay more than $1.4 billion following an extensive investigation which saw the Telstra-linked Company 'admitting to a years-long campaign of corruption in five countries to solidify its grip on telecommunications business. (https://www.channelnews.com.au/key-telstra-5g-partner-admits-to-bribery-corruption/)