WikiLeak exposing the truth
Julian Assange - Hacking / Chapter 3 - Hacked documents
Corruption, misleading and deceptive conduct plagued the COT with the government's sanctions, which endorsed the arbitrations. Learn the names of those who participated in these horrendous crimes that equally corrupted arbitrators who covered up these atrocities
A Man with a Conscience:
My story on absentjustice.com and fresh evidence I disclose on this website demonstrates how both the official arbitrator and equally official administrator of several government-endorsed arbitrations knowingly lied to and deliberately misled a group of Australian small-business owners who were legitimate claimants against the then-government-owned Australian telecommunications carrier, Telstra. We claimants all believed we were signing an official agreement that had been drafted completely independently of Telstra, when, in fact, Telstra’s own lawyers (Telstra’s arbitration defence lawyers) had drafted it! Factoring in that the arbitrator and administrator have since both received the Order of Australia is thought provoking, to say the least.
Australian Federal Police Investigations-1, Chapter 4 Government spying, Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration and Chapter 5 Fraudulent conduct show the type of evidence I’m relying on and allows readers to assess the depth of corruption and unlawful conduct that is not fully displayed on the website yet.
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 This call was to my unpublished direct number.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)
Documents on this website 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: we COT Cases were under electronic surveillance as Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their interview surrounding the interception of 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 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 was already in receipt of the 7 July 2011 statutory declaration from Graham Schorer. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report fax intercption report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were absolutely correct concerning this electronic surveillance.
One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this the Scandrett & Associates report 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)
If the question is: “Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes that was committed by public officials, more than twenty-six years ago?”, then surely the answer must be “Yes”, particularly if those crimes affected the lives of other Australian citizens.
