Criminal intent: is what Julian Assange was trying to tell us? Telstra and their minders had from the very beginning before the arbitrations even connected. Criminal intent meant nothing to these people, as Tampering with Evidence clearly shows.
Learn how Criminal intent was a significant component of a “conventional” crime that involved a conscious decision by three leading arbitrators to pervert the course of justice, intentionally causing one party to injure or be deprived of natural justice.
Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another. It is one of three categories of “men's rea,” the basis for establishing guilt in a criminal case. Multiple shades of criminal intent may be applied in situations ranging from outright premeditation to spontaneous action. This happened during the COT arbitrations when the arbitrator ignored the truth concerning who drafted the arbitration agreement used in the first four arbitrations.
It is possible to establish criminal intent even when a crime is not premeditated. Individuals who commit a crime spontaneously may still understand that their actions will cause harm to another party and contravene existing criminal law. In other words, an individual that takes or withholds action with the knowledge that such behaviour will lead to the commission of a crime can be said to possess criminal intent. This happened during the COT arbitrations.
When Telstra and their lawyers targeted the first four COT Cases (which included me) so that we four would never receive our legally requested FOI documents was criminal intent.
As an example of how bad the telephone service was in my part of Cape Bridgewater back in the late 1990s, it was not uncommon while driving our Country Fire Authority (CFA) fire truck to lose pager and mobile phone coverage while fighting a fire. On one particular day, while backburning at Cape Bridgewater, the fire chief who was some 7 kilometres away had no idea where I and another crew member Ricky was or what area we had doused hot-spots i.e., smouldering logs and roots.
Unprecedented deception at its bests
Another disturbing side to this tampering with arbitration evidence by Telstra is that for many years before this tampering took place, I was a volunteer for the Cape Bridgewater Country Fire Authority (CFA). The following chapters show that during my arbitration Telstra twisted the reason I could not be present for the testing of my TF200 telephone at my premises on a scheduled meeting on the morning of 27 April 1994. Telstra only reported in their file notes (later submitted to the arbitrator) that I refused to allow Telstra to test the phones because I was tired. There was no mention in these file notes that I advised the fault response unit that I had been fighting an out-of-control fire for 14 hours or that my sore eyes made it impossible to observe such testing by Telstra. I fought the fire the previous evening from 6 pm to 9 am the following morning.
The other twist to this part of my story is, how could I have spilt beer into my telephone, as Telstra's arbitration defence documents stated when I had been fighting an out of control fire? I certainly would not have been driving the CFA truck or assisting my fire buddies had I been drinking beer. Reading this part of my story on Bad Bureaucrast - Tampering of Evidence will give the reader some idea of the dreadful conduct that we COT Cases had to put up with from Telstra as we battled for a reliable phone service.
It is also clear from the Tampering of Evidence page that not only did Telstra set out to discredit me by implying I was too tired to have my TF200 phone tested, after Telstra removed the phone, it was tampered with before it arrived at Telstra’s Melbourne laboratories: someone from Telstra poured beer into the phone. Telstra then alleged, in its arbitration defence report, that sticky beer was the cause of the phone’s ongoing lock-up problems, not the Cape Bridgewater network. This one wicked deed, along with the threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration, is a testament that my claims should have been investigated years ago. So, even though I carried out my civic duties as an Australian citizen, over and beyond by supplying vital evidence to the AFP, as well as fighting out-of-control fires, I was still penalised on both those occasions during my arbitration.
This story could easily be your story: I know, because this nightmare was my nightmare and is still my night may twenty-years after I was forced to sell my business in December 2001, because nether the TIO or Telstra would test my phone service according to the governments mandatory Service Verification Testing (SVT) specifications (see Telstra's Falsified SVT Report). as they were supposed to have done in 1994/95, as part of my government-endorsed arbitration.
While It will be pretty clear to most, if not all, those who view Tampering of Evidence and read File 634 to 638 - AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that they will form their own opinions that Telstra committed one of the worse possible attacks against my character insinuating that alcohol played a big part in my financial losses and not Telstra telephone network. The fact that Dr Hughes (the Arbitrator) would not allow me the right to call a forensic investigator to view and give a professional opinion of this arbitration defence report again suggests Dr Hughes was acting in concert with Telstra to minimize their liability towards me.
