Chapter Ten - Julian Assange - Hacking

Government Corruption. Corruption in public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has spuriously over more than two decades, has perverted the course of justice. 

In Australia, brave whistleblowers play an essential role in revealing the hidden unlawful activities that plague various sectors. These individuals demonstrate remarkable courage, often putting their personal safety and professional careers on the line to expose wrongdoing, particularly when it involves the alarming manipulation of court evidence. The gravity of this issue calls for immediate reforms to the existing whistleblower protection laws. By instituting stronger safeguards, society can encourage more individuals to step forward, thereby ensuring that the legal framework remains just and equitable for all citizens.

Tampering with evidence during litigation is not just a minor infraction; it is a serious offense that fundamentally jeopardizes the integrity of our legal system. Such acts of manipulation disrupt the core principles of justice and fairness that courts and arbitration processes depend upon to deliver accurate and equitable judgments. This deceitful behavior compromises the pursuit of truth and significantly erodes public trust in the judicial framework, leaving a lasting impact on societal beliefs about justice.

Moreover, many incidents of evidence tampering are intricately woven into complex financial networks and faceless shell companies. These shadowy entities often function as hidden conduits for corrupt practices, allowing those in positions of power to engage in illicit activities while shrouding their actions in obscurity. The intricate web of these financial schemes enables public officials to conceal grave offenses, highlighting an urgent and pressing need for increased transparency and accountability within the legal process. The interconnectedness of these operations calls for a collective response to safeguard the very foundations of justice and integrity in our society.

We must also include in our Hacking-Julian Assange page what Karina Barrymore, a journalist at the Melbourne Herald Sun, wrote on 3 August 2016 concerning what she thought about whistleblowers. Had the government genuinely listened to the COT whistleblowers in 1995 and 1996 regarding their telephone faults, which were supposed to have been fixed during their government-endorsed Telstra arbitrations, perhaps the long-running NBN blowout would not have gone billions of dollars over budget. Sadly, Karina Barrymore’s statement below is right on target:

“Dobber, Snitch, Rat, Squealer. It’s insightful how the words used to describe a whistleblower are so negative. 

“Yet being honest and speaking the truth is supposed to be cornerstone of our society. A cornerstone of our families, communities, corporate world and government.

“So why aren’t we applauding and raising up these people, instead of shutting them down and ruining their lives.

“These ‘truth tellers’ are shunned and rejected. Telling the truth often means they lose their jobs, their reputations are deliberately trashed, their finances suffer, their mental health fails and all these factors flow on to damage their family, social and professional relationships.

“The whistleblowers have done their job, spoken the truth, suffered the consequences, lived the hardship and financial burden. But our corporate leaders, our regulators, our governments have not done their job.”

Karina Barrymore’s statement accurately reflects the situation because the Australian Establishment—comprising former government ministers and senior members of two government regulatory bodies—knows that Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator in my case, and Warwick Smith, the administrator for the same process, collaborated with the defendants. They used a drafted arbitration agreement that was not the one we had mutually agreed upon.

None of the corporate leaders, regulators, or government ministers have dared to investigate this matter. Below is just one of many examples illustrating how Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith behaved in ways unbefitting their roles as arbitrators and administrators. We are sharing this part of our COT story first, hoping readers will be compelled to continue to the next part of our narrative.

It is well documented that I continued complaining about phone and fax problems throughout and after my arbitration. I also complained to local technicians about the phone alarm system and associated wiring installed by Telstra during ELMI monitoring of my service lines in 1991-1992.

During a site visit on 6 April 1995, the arbitration technical consultant, Telstra’s chief engineer and I inspected the exchanges at Cape Bridgewater and Portland and met with the local technician (who denied a local farm agent also had problems with his phone, although the FOI documents exposed the agent’s complaint records).

With the technical team in Cape Bridgewater, I asked the TIO-appointed arbitration technical consultant and Telstra’s engineer to examine the wiring issues and some of the evidence I had proving incorrect billing on all my phone lines. The arbitration technical consultant clarified that the arbitrator had ordered him not to assess any new evidence or claim material during his site visits. (The arbitrator later confirmed these orders in a letter to the president of the Institute of Arbitrators dated 17 February 1996.)

Naturally, I was irate because most of this late FOI documentation was received on 23 December 1994 and early 1995, which had originally been requested in December 1993. This was a complete turn-around by the arbitrator, who had assured me that if I discovered any new information among late received FOI documents, it could be presented to the technical resource unit when they came to the camp. I had burned the midnight oil night after night to prepare this evidence before the technical team arrived. It was clear that all this new information would further support my allegations of ongoing problems. I was so angry. I managed to have the arbitration technical consultant look at one document while the Telstra official was still there. This was a copy of part of my 1800 call account. How, I asked, could I be charged for a 9.49-minute call on 13 January 1995 at 11.50 am and then for a 42-second call at 11.57 am? It is certainly not possible to have two calls overlapping on the same line simultaneously.

As my telephone account showed, incorrect charging was rampant through Telstra’s 008/1800 network. Neither Telstra’s engineer nor the TIO consultant were prepared to comment on this evidence, although I was assured that the matter would be addressed as part of the arbitration.

Both left shortly after this. Of particular note, they travelled to and from my premises together, jeopardising ethical transparency. What private conversations took place between these two? The answer to that question is probably only known to the participants (and perhaps the arbitrator).

By the end of April 1995 (see below), the resource units were now preparing their reports, and I had a gut feeling that the COT members had been deceived. I felt as if I had been crucified by the arbitrator, who was supposed to be delivering justice. He had not once investigated my questions regarding why my faxes and phones continued to create so many problems. By this time, Telstra’s SVT had given the Cape Bridgewater network the green light even though AUSTEL had condemned the testing as grossly deficient (refer Main Evidence File No/2). I was now convinced that the arbitration was just a sham, instigated with the single aim of ‘shutting me up’ by providing a finding that favoured Telstra. I was soon to find out how right I was.

Next Page ⟶