Chapter 3 - Hacked documents
In April 1994, Julian Assange provided a very important link for the COT cases, but we did not know this during our arbitrations.
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.
Find more on the arbitrator and administrator’s collusive acts on Chapter 1 - The collusion continues / Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete
The information on Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman / Chapter 9 - Read about our dealings with and Taking on the Establishment is a draft of what I am working with, to help me collate from the hundred-thousand COT Case exhibits on file.
Unprecedented Government Corruption / Chapter 4 - Government spying and Australian Federal Police Investigations 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 This call was to my unpublished direct number.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)
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: we COT Cases were under electronic surveillance as the evidence on 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 were first discovered by the hackers.
