As detailed on absentjustice.com, we have meticulously broken down this intricate story into sections to provide a clearer understanding. A web of individuals and organizations, including government officials, an arbitrator, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and the defendants (Telstra), are intricately involved in this collusion and perversion of justice. Since many of the issues we discuss are interconnected, various headings apply to multiple topics throughout our narrative. 

To avoid redundancy in each webpage, the "Hacking - Julian Assange" section unfolds starting in mid-1994, delving into the troubling details of how the COT arbitrations were managed—often incompetently—beginning with the events leading up to the arbitration process that year.

Early in our arbitration journey, Graham Schorer, the designated spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT), received two startling phone calls just days apart from young individuals. They revealed that they were aware of our ongoing arbitration with Telstra and felt compelled to alert him to their findings after successfully infiltrating Telstra’s email network. During their hacking endeavours, they discovered documents indicating that specific individuals, closely associated with our arbitration and with Telstra, were engaging in unlawful activities directed against us. In both instances, they offered to send us this potentially damaging evidence.

Graham and I discussed the implications of the first call extensively. Although the prospects of obtaining such information were enticing, we ultimately chose to decline the second offer. We were apprehensive that this could be a trap set by Telstra; accepting potentially valuable evidence could risk having our arbitrations declared null and void—especially if it involved documents that the corporation had intentionally altered.

Since those events, authors Andrew Fowler and Suelette Dreyfus have published insightful books referencing Julian Assange’s infiltration of Telstra’s Lonsdale Telephone Exchange in Melbourne. This pivotal point directly impacted both Graham’s business and mine. In hindsight, it appears we may have made a critical error by refusing that generous offer. Had we accepted the evidence at the time, we might have garnered a significant advantage against Telstra and potentially changed the course of our unfolding narrative. Still, perhaps our paths would not have converged in this way 20 years later.

Graham’s detailed statutory declaration addressing these two 1994 phone calls is discussed further on the site. Nevertheless, several interconnected issues addressed elsewhere—including fax and telephone hacking, the submission of falsified materials to the arbitration, and persistent harassment—also hold relevance here. Australian Federal Police transcripts (found in (Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1), bolster my assertion that during my 1992 settlement negotiations with Telecom/Telstra and throughout 1994 (amid my government-endorsed arbitration), the telephone services at Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp were being monitored in real-time, with my business effectively under surveillance. This assertion was further corroborated in 1999 (refer to http://Open Letter File Nos/12 and 13).

**A Matter of Importance**

When I initially began assembling absentjustice.com in January 2015, my primary goal was to illuminate the harrowing story of the COT group as clearly as possible, sharing not only my perspective but also that of my fellow COT members. We thought it essential for the public to understand that none of us is acting out of a desire for revenge, despite the profound damage we have suffered due to our dealings with Telstra. Many of us have experienced devastating losses in our businesses, and the telecommunications issues that precipitated our arbitration are, for the most part, still prevalent today.

As the name of our website implies, our pursuit is solely for justice. In executing this goal, and given our inherent empathy, we decided to redact (often referred to as ‘masking’) the names of the individuals who, during our arbitration with Telstra, knowingly engaged in a multitude of crimes against us. From the very beginning of our quest for the justice our arbitrations failed to deliver, we have left the door wide open for those individuals to step forward and clarify their roles in our plights. However, disappointingly, none have come forward; not a single person has attempted to justify their actions or explain their contributions to our ordeal.

The Collusion begins

In a 10 February 1994 letter, John MacMahon, AUSTEL’s general manager of consumer affairs, acknowledges receipt of nine audio tapes from Telstra and states that these tapes, related to the “taping of the telephone services of COT Cases”, were passed on to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The Federal Court did not issue a warrant for this taping, and no warrants were issued in the Australian states where the tapings occurred. This taping was carried out illegally. And, it was carried out during a legal resolution process that involved the COT members.

Despite these investigations, the AFP did not officially provide findings of Telstra’s surveillance or monitoring activities to the victims of those crimes. Today, Telstra has still not been held accountable, not even for those illegal tapings during my arbitration process with Telstra. If the AFP or the government had pursued these questions, I would not be still searching for answers today.

The AFP interviewed me about this matter on many occasions in 1994. Although they could not show me the documents and tapes AUSTEL had given them, they were taking my problems with Telstra and my arbitration seriously. In one interview, I showed them an FOI document that shows the writer knew where a caller usually rang from even though, on this occasion, the caller was phoning from a different number, “somewhere in Adelaide”. The police were concerned that a caller was identifiable even when calling from a different number. In their meeting transcripts, the AFP states, 

“You were live monitored for a period of time. So we’re quite satisfied that there are other references to it.” (See Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1). 

Even though I supplied these 26 September 1994 transcripts to the arbitrator, he made no finding concerning them.