Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - a lost chance

 

Before I proceed further with this Senate matter, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation involving the Telstra arbitration officer, who became the target of Senator Ron Boswell's intense frustration and anger. This particular individual was not merely a senior executive at Telstra; he also held an influential position as a member of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO Council). This council was crucial in managing the COT arbitrations, which are intended to ensure fair treatment for customers.

What raises serious ethical concerns is the fact that this Telstra executive violated his fiduciary duties by sharing confidential information discussed in TIO Council meetings with his superiors at Telstra. Such information was strictly classified and meant to be kept within the confines of the council, highlighting a severe breach of trust that undermined the integrity of the arbitration process.

Moreover, during a significant Senate debate that took place on September 26, 1997, this same Telstra arbitration officer made a startling admission. He revealed that he had participated in numerous TIO Council meetings where the trajectory and progress of the COT arbitrations were regularly discussed. At this pivotal hearing—which sought to investigate the questionable treatment of the COT arbitrations—he openly admitted that he failed to disclose his conflict of interest while attending these meetings. This lack of transparency questioned the legitimacy of the arbitration process and raised serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

In the context of Senator Ron Boswell’s impactful statements, which resulted in our organization having to issue a public apology, it is important to grasp the events leading to his remarks. On November 29, 1994, amid the unfolding events of my arbitration case, Senator Boswell boldly took a stand and demanded answers from Telstra's legal Directorate. His inquiries were pointed and direct: he wanted to understand why Telstra had resorted to issuing threats against me. Specifically, if I did not cease my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police in their ongoing investigation into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and essential fax documents related to my arbitration claim, they would cut off access to the critical documents that I needed to support my case.

This intimidation tactic not only affected my ability to present a robust arbitration claim but also raised alarm bells about Telstra’s commitment to ethical business practices and the protection of consumer rights. Given this complex web of actions and motivations, it becomes increasingly clear why Senators Chris Schacht and Ron Boswell expressed such strong sentiments during this tumultuous period; their frustrations were rooted in a system they believed was being manipulated and compromised.

Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police investigation 

 

This chapter explores the significant errors that came to light during the five Senate Estimates committee investigations tied to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, particularly focusing on the flawed Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) testing process. Deficiencies marked this process and, in my experience, proved to be impractical.

From 1994 until at least 2011, Graham Schorer, the spokesperson for the COT Cases, consistently maintained a compelling belief. He recalled an unsettling interaction when he received a phone call from computer hackers in April 1994. During this conversation, they suggested that Telstra was engaged in unlawful conduct. Among these hackers, one prominent individual—whom we now suspect to be Julian Assange—used the term “report” when they discussed certain documents and emails. They tantalizingly offered to provide copies of these materials, claiming they would substantiate their accusations against Telstra’s unlawful behaviour toward us.

This prompts an important question: Did the BCI Cape Bridgwater tests, referenced by Julian Assange, provide evidence of Telstra’s illicit actions? Neil Jepson, a barrister representing the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, has stated unequivocally that this report was false. He contended that for Telstra to utilize it as part of their defence strategy in arbitration—specifically, by presenting it to Ian Joblin, a clinical psychologist—was inappropriate. This occurred just before Joblin met with me, inquiring if my concerns regarding ongoing telephone issues stemmed from paranoia.

When we discussed these hackers with Neil Jepson, Julian Assange had not yet emerged as a significant figure in the public eye. Nonetheless, the BCI reports were paramount to the Major Fraud Group’s investigation, which is why Victoria Police sought my assistance in their fraud inquiry into Telstra's activities.

During this period, all members involved in the COT cases were willing to remain patient, convinced that the investigation into the litmus cases would eventually influence the other 16 cases listed on Senate Schedule B. However, as the investigation progressed, none of the 16 COT cases were updated about its status. John Wynack, the director of investigations who was aiding the Senate chair with the litmus cases, was simultaneously examining my FOI issues. He demanded that Telstra provide the documents I had requested initially in my FOI submission dated October 18, 1995.

While the litmus test cases garnered an impressive volume of approximately 150,000 FOI documents through the Senate Estimates Committee investigation, I found myself in a frustrating position: I received not a single document. Wynack's own records from March 11 and 13, 1997, reveal that he did not accept Telstra's claim that they had destroyed the arbitration file essential for my ongoing appeal process.

This troubling situation was precisely the kind of misconduct that Julian Assange attempted to warn us about about the COT cases, yet we failed to heed his advice. Had we taken his warnings seriously, our lives might have avoided the detrimental impacts we have endured.

The remaining COT cases, bearing names on the Senate Schedule B, similarly sought FOI documents from Telstra amid their own arbitration and mediation efforts, just as the litmus test cases had. The Senate was well aware of this situation, so a litmus test framework was instituted. The litmus test cases are enumerated on Senate Schedule A, while Schedule B lists the other 16 cases. If the litmus test cases established that Telstra had improperly withheld essential documents during their arbitration processes, the remaining 16 cases would have been poised to receive an equivalent outcome.

Nevertheless, the treatment of the Australian litmus cases starkly contrasted with that of the 16 other Australian citizens who faced dismissal. The rationale for this disparate treatment is clear: it stemmed from political dynamics and the passage of time. It took nearly two years, involving the concerted efforts of numerous senators, to obtain the necessary documents for the five litmus cases. Some observers believe that the looming privatization of Telstra may have played a significant role in the dismissive attitude toward the remaining 16 cases. This situation represents a grave instance of discrimination against these 16 Australian citizens, highlighting systemic failures that continue to resonate today.

Litmus Tests

 

The coalition LNP government should have fully acknowledged its profound constitutional and ethical obligation to represent and serve all citizens without prejudice rather than disproportionately favouring those individuals with established government influence. It is paramount for all relevant parties, including the COT Cases, to be treated with the utmost fairness and equity under the law. Regrettably, this fundamental principle was not upheld when the government denied the remaining 16 citizens access to the same comprehensive legal remedies and justice measures afforded to the five litmus test cases.

This failure is particularly alarming given the multiple warnings and advisories received by the government concerning the grave injustices that Julian Assange later brought to light. These warnings unfolded over an extended period from June 1997 to September 1999. The injustices initially highlighted by Assange during his discussions with COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer in 1994 are substantiated by meticulous records found in the Senate Hansard dated June 24 and 25, 1997. These official documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Refer to  (1) Senate - Parliament of Australia and:- (2) SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

The coalition LNP government should have fully acknowledged its profound constitutional and ethical obligation to represent and serve all citizens without prejudice rather than disproportionately favouring those individuals with established government influence. It is paramount for all relevant parties, including the COT Cases, to be treated with the utmost fairness and equity under the law. Regrettably, this fundamental principle was not upheld when the government denied the remaining 16 citizens access to the same comprehensive legal remedies and justice measures afforded to the five litmus test cases.

This situation is particularly concerning in light of the numerous warnings and advisories the government received regarding the grave injustices affecting three computer hackers—presumed to be Julian Assange since there has been no official confirmation from the government. Their communication emerged in April 1994, as the first four COT arbitrations began. During this crucial period, all four parties executed their arbitration agreements: Maureen Gillan signed on April 8, 1994, while Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, and I followed suit on April 21, 1994.

Over the years, various authoritative sources issued warnings, neglecting to take decisive action. These included the hackers, the Australian Federal Police in 1995, and the Quest Private Detective Agency in Melbourne in January 1996. The Senate and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman raised concerns in 1997, and the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police joined in alerting the public in 1998. The Senate reiterated these warnings in 1999, followed by an essential message from ex-senior principal Telstra Protective Officer Des Direen in August 2006. Finally, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal weighed in as well. This alarming sequence of warnings unfolded over many years.

These documents serve as crucial evidence, demonstrating the government's awareness of the legal ramifications associated with its actions and decisions. Furthermore, the LNP government was acutely aware that the litmus test cases were not the only individuals entitled to receive the critical documents pertinent to their legal cases; the other 16 citizens equally deserved such access, which is an essential aspect of justice.

The Senate Hansard records issued within three days distinctly confirm that Telstra Corporation engaged in unlawful practices against all 21 citizens involved. Despite this compelling evidence, the government inexplicably authorized financial compensation solely for the litmus test cases, thereby systematically excluding the other 16 individuals who were also victims of this injustice. The litmus test cases, consequently, benefitted from access to over 150,000 previously withheld discovery documents, which played a crucial role in enabling them to appeal the outcomes of their arbitration processes. In stark contrast, the remaining 16 citizens were left without the necessary documentation, rendering them powerless to pursue legal recourse or appeal.

Moreover, compelling evidence from Senate Evidence File No. 12 indicates that I have faced direct threats on two separate occasions—first on August 16, 2001, and again on December 6, 2004. During these tense moments, I was expressly warned that should I disclose the In-Camera Hansard records from July 6 and July 9, 1998, I would face serious charges of contempt against the Senate. This warning is particularly vexing, given that these records contain vital information that could facilitate successful arbitration and mediation appeals for the 16 citizens who were unjustly deprived of legal redress.

This troubling situation raises a critical question: Where is the justice in threatening imprisonment against individuals striving to expose the truth regarding unethical conduct directed at the COT Cases? Such actions appear to starkly contradict the core values and responsibilities that underpin the very purpose of the Senate in Australia. I am concerned about the potential repercussions of publicly disclosing these In-Camera Senate Hansard records from July 6 and 9, 1998. These records were provided to me by the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, which believed that the dissemination of this information could catalyze an appeal on behalf of the remaining sixteen COT Cases. Regrettably, these individuals have endured treatment that is not only unjust but also demands unequivocal recognition and corrective action to address the inequities they have faced.

 

 

 

An intense confrontation in a heated Senate committee meeting unfolded when National Party Senator Ron Boswell unleashed a fiery critique towards a senior officer involved in the Telstra arbitration process. With palpable frustration, he exclaimed, “You are really a disgrace, the whole lot of you,” his voice resonating throughout the chamber. The remarks cast a shadow over the already tense atmosphere as Telstra's conduct regarding the COT Cases took centre stage.

 However, the gravity of his words quickly caught the attention of the committee chair, prompting a swift intervention. Under scrutiny and recognizing the need for decorum in such a serious forum, Senator Boswell was compelled to offer an apology. Turning to the chairperson more measuredly, he declared, “Madam, I withdraw that remark.” This moment of accountability underscored the importance of respectful dialogue in legislative discussions and illuminated the ongoing challenges surrounding Telstra’s treatment of COT Cases, a matter of significant public interest.

“Madam, I withdraw that, but I do say this: this has got a unity ticket going right through this parliament. This has united every person in this parliament – something that no-one else has ever had the ability to do – and Telstra has done it magnificently. They have got the Labor Party, they have got the National Party, they have got the Liberal Party, they have got the Democrats and they have got the Greens – all united in a singular distrust of Telstra. You have achieved a miracle.”

A Labor Party Senator, Chris Schacht, even made it more apparent to the same Telstra arbitration officer that if Telstra were to award compensation only to the five 'litmus' COT test cases and not the other still unresolved issues, then this act "would be an injustice to those remaining 16". However, the John Howard National Liber Part NLP government sanctioned punitive damages to those five litmus test cases, plus the release of more than 150,000 Freedom of Information documents initially concealed from those five COT Cases during their government-endorsed arbitration of 1994 to 1998. The eighteen million dollars those five received between them should have been split equally between all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases FOI issues. It was not. 

Will I go to jail in 2024 for revealing this gross discriminative act by an Australian government against sixteen fellow citizens? I believe the current Labor government, if they were to ask me to provide a government-appointed representative to view these two In-Cameral Hansards of 6 and 9 July 1998, that representative would advise the Anothony Albenise government they are morally obliged to pay compensation as former Labor Senator Chris Schacht stated should have been the case in 1998. Sadly, at least three of those sixteen have since died. 

Before I proceed further with this Senate matter, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation involving the Telstra arbitration officer, who became the target of Senator Ron Boswell's intense frustration and anger. This particular individual was not merely a senior executive at Telstra; he also held an influential position as a Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO Council) member. This council was crucial in managing the COT arbitrations intended to ensure fair treatment for customers.

What raises serious ethical concerns is that this Telstra executive violated his fiduciary duties by sharing confidential information discussed in TIO Council meetings with his superiors at Telstra. Such information was strictly classified and meant to be kept within the confines of the council, highlighting a severe breach of trust that undermined the integrity of the arbitration process.

Moreover, during a significant Senate debate on September 26, 1997, this same Telstra arbitration officer made a startling admission. He revealed that he had participated in numerous TIO Council meetings where the trajectory and progress of the COT arbitrations were regularly discussed. At this pivotal hearing—which sought to investigate the questionable treatment of the COT arbitrations—he openly admitted that he failed to disclose his conflict of interest while attending these meetings. This lack of transparency questioned the legitimacy of the arbitration process and raised serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

In the context of Senator Ron Boswell’s impactful statements, which resulted in our organization issuing a public apology, it is important to grasp the events leading to his remarks. On November 29, 1994, amid the unfolding events of my arbitration case, Senator Boswell boldly took a stand and demanded answers from Telstra's legal Directorate. His inquiries were pointed and direct: he wanted to understand why Telstra had resorted to issuing threats against me. Specifically, if I did not cease my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police in their ongoing investigation into Telstra's unauthorized interception of my private telephone conversations and essential fax documents related to my arbitration claim, they would cut off access to the critical documents that I needed to support my case. 

The correspondence addressed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman reveals a troubling injustice that has affected the remaining 16 Australian citizens involved in the Change of Tenancy (COT) claims. Notably, this correspondence includes input from several technical experts appointed via a Senate working party tasked with evaluating the relevance of Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that the ‘Five Litmus COT claimants’ requested during the Senate investigation.

A significant document among these communications is a comprehensive 14-page letter from Qyncom IT & T Business Consultants Pty Ltd, based in Victoria. This letter was directed to Mr. John Wynack, the working party chair (as referenced in Senate Evidence File No 13A & 13B).

This letter and numerous others submitted to the Commonwealth Ombudsman reveal that the ‘Five Litmus COT claimants’ were afforded considerable advantages. They received free, qualified technical support from independent consultants appointed by the government, which greatly assisted them throughout the lengthy sixteen-month investigation into FOI requests, which the Liberal Government enforced.

In stark contrast, the remaining 16 claimants, also noted on the Senate Schedule as having unresolved COT issues, were systematically denied access to these same levels of assistance and expertise. This glaring discrepancy raises serious concerns about fairness and equity. If this situation does not constitute one of the worst forms of discrimination, what indeed does?

 

 

Senate Schedule A and B list

 

It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the possibility that additional factors—potentially a second or even a third reason—contributed to the denial of compensation for the remaining cases linked to 16 COT. These cases, which have experienced unfavourable outcomes, stand in contrast to those awarded compensation in the litmus test cases. A detailed analysis of the reasons for these discrepancies could yield significant insights that might illuminate the underlying issues.

Furthermore, it is crucial to anticipate the types of inquiries that the larger cohort of 21 claimants may raise once the sale prospectus is finalized. Addressing a subset of the outstanding arbitration claims that have remained unresolved for four years, before the preparation of the prospectus, would not only provide clarity regarding the overall claim situation but also bolster the integrity and credibility of the claims process. Presenting a record with fewer unresolved issues will undoubtedly enhance the perceived fairness of the proceedings compared to a scenario in which 21 arbitration claims remain outstanding.

The depth of this matter is magnified by the fact that 16 claimants are still waiting for the relevant discovery documents. These documents are essential as stipulated under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which was agreed upon as part of the procedural stipulations before initiating the arbitration proceedings. This agreement mandated that the administrator provide these crucial documents to support the claimants in substantiating their cases (refer to Arbitrator File No/71 for details).

It is also essential to highlight the government's awareness of Telstra's ongoing refusal to fulfil its obligation to provide the necessary documents throughout the litmus test process, which has continued even four years later. On October 23, 1997, the office of Senator Schacht, serving as the Shadow Minister for Communications, transmitted a fax to Senator Ron Boswell containing the proposed terms of reference for a Senate working party. This group was explicitly assigned to investigate the FOI issues relevant to the COT arbitration cases. The document not only outlines the findings but also delineates two extensive lists of unresolved COT cases that require further investigation concerning their respective FOI issues. Notably, my name appears on Schedule B of that document (see Arbitrator File No 67).

By consistently refusing to provide the 16 COT cases with the discovery documents initially requested four years ago, Telstra has undeniably acted contrary to the principles of the rule of law. This refusal is particularly concerning because these 16 claimants have not received any assistance from law enforcement, arbitrators, or government officials. As a direct result of this inaction, they have been denied access to critical documents needed for their claims. This alarming situation has been documented on absentjustice.com, highlighting the urgent need for accountability, transparency, and justice.

150,000 FOI Documents 

The 150.000 late provided FOI documents to the five litmus test cases mentioned above were not historic in the case of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer; the forty-four large storage boxes that I received from Graham’s office in 2006 when I started to investigate these issues on behalf of Graham/Golden messenger I did not see any relevant Leopard or Ericsson Data for the exchanges that Graham’s Golden Messenger Courier Services were routed through. Between the end of 2006 and 2017, I have worked continually on some eight significant projects on behalf of Graham/Golden, who had commissioned me to investigate evidence they had received which showed Telstra had been aware before Graham’s arbitration process that Telstra had knowingly misled both Graham/Golden and the COT arbitrator concerning Graham/Golden 1994 to 1999 arbitration process.

Since that period, I have collated and written five major reports plus two separate manuscripts (not yet completed) so that Graham/Golden can submit this material to the government as a testament; there needs to be a Royal Commission Investigation into the COT arbitration process. During my first Administerial Appeals Tribunal FOI oral hearing in October 2008, the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) was the respondent; Graham Schorer advised the AAT under oath during cross-examination by ACMA lawyers that once my investigation on behalf of Golden was complete and the evidence collated and reported on was bound into submission, those reports would be provided to the government.

Since that 2008 AAT hearing, I have viewed numerous COT Case Telstra-related documents, which support Graham/Golden's claim that even though members of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman office (who were the administrators of the COT arbitrations) had been aware before the COT Cases went into arbitration that the historic Telstra fault data that would be needed by the COT Cases to support their claims had already been destroyed (see TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C), this knowledge was never broadcast to the government, which had endorsed the COT arbitrations.

This release of 150,000 non-historic fault data documents, NOT the requested historical data, which the five ‘litmus’ test cases requested, shows that the compensation the five litmus cases received was partly associated with Telstra's inability to provide those five cases with the documents they should have received during their arbitrations.

The fact that none of the sixteen COT Cases were also on the Senate Schedule B list as unresolved COT FOI Cases is further testament to the government's discrimination against us in COT sixteen.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING 

In the cases of Ann Garms and Graham Schorer, none were historic of the 150,000 FOI documents that were provided to the five ‘litmus-test cases (see Senate Evidence File No 11 proof 150,000 FOI documents) but which, as recorded above, arrived too late for them to use.  Seventy per cent (70%) of the 150,000 documents provided to the COT Cases during this ‘litmus test case fiasco were couriered to the offices of Golden Messenger. These are the documents that, in late 2006, were sent down to my business by Graham/Golden in two separate deliveries. When I first started to investigate these issues for Graham, I did not find any Leopard Data for the exchanges that Graham’s Golden Messenger Courier Services was routed through anywhere among the eleven large storage boxes that I received from Graham’s office in 2006, so it is pretty clear from the three emails attached to TIO Evidence File No 7-A to 7-C), are the truth, i.e. Telstra did not keep historic Leopard fault data longer than twelve to thirteen months.  The release of those 150,000 non-historic fault data documents, but none of the requested historic data that the five ‘litmus-test cases requested, shows that the compensation that those five ‘litmus-test cases received was partly associated with Telstra being unable to provide the documents that those COTs should have received during their arbitrations.

What has been possibly the hardest thing to live with concerning that 70% of the 150,000 documents I finally received in 2006 from Graham/Golden is that they are only related to Graham/Golden. However, even though the 90,000 or so documents I received from Graham/Golden were minus historical fault data, that material, combined with other later material from another source, shows the COT Cases were never meant to win their case. 

When I commenced preparing an injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens in 2017, I still had not received the FOI documents that the TIO and AUSTEL (government communications authority) promised I would receive if I signed my government-endorsed arbitration process. 

I again note that NONE of the other sixteen COT Cases received any compensation (even though they were also on the Senate Schedule B list as unresolved COT FOI Cases) further proves that the Government discriminated against the sixteen remaining COTs.

I have made some changes to the following segment on Sunday, 3 December 2023, to support issues raised on our Home page. 

It is essential to visit the 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements.

The Major Fraud Group was stunned by this evidence and my ability to prove that Telstra and the government perverted the course of justice by concealing the truth from the arbitration process. 

Both statements are discussed on our Absentjustice Preface page AFP Evidence File No 13. Current government members were provided copies of these witness statements without redactions. Sadly, the information in these two witness statements has not been acted upon to date.

As discussed in Chapter 2 - Julian Assange - Hacking - we did not listen → File 517 AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 is Witness Statement dated 10 August 2006 (provided to the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts (DCITA) sworn out by Des Direen, ex-Telstra Senior Protective Officer, eventually reaching Principal Investigator status.  Mr Direen has been brave enough to reveal that, in 1999 / 2000, after he left Telstra, he assisted the Victoria Police Major Fraud Group, particularly Rod Kueris, with their investigations into the COT fraud allegations.  I was also seconded by the Major Fraud Group into that investigation as a witness   (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (2)).

Points 12 to 18 in Mr Direen’s statement explained that “From what (he) observed on this day, and applying the knowledge that (he) gained during (his) twelve years at Telstra, (he had) no doubt in (his) mind that the phones at Rod KUERIS’s home address were possibly interfered with". 

Within a few weeks of Mr. Direen's involvement in assisting the Major Fraud Group with their ongoing investigations, it became increasingly evident that Detective Sergeant Mr. Rod Kueris was experiencing significant distress regarding the situation. I feel compelled to bring attention to the issue involving Mr. Kueris, mainly because, during that same Major Fraud Group investigation led by Victoria Police, I was in the process of faxing critical documents regarding the falsified Bell Canada International Inc. report, which I had modified for Mr. Neil Jepson's office. It is essential to note that had I not promptly contacted Mr Jepson immediately after sending these faxes, neither of us would have been informed that the documents had been intercepted and had failed to arrive at the Major Fraud Group's fax machine.

To address this alarming situation, a survey leaflet was distributed to all police officers within the Major Fraud Group office. This leaflet specifically inquired if any officer had inadvertently collected my documents related to the Bell Canada International report. Regrettably, none of the officers came forward that day to acknowledge any error in collecting the documents, which raises serious concerns about handling sensitive information.

Additionally, I must express my alarm regarding the information recorded on the home page of absentjustice.com. This page discusses similar documents from Bell Canada International Inc. (BCI) that I had compiled into a comprehensive report. I then provided this report to the new owners of my business to assist them in their 2008 bankruptcy case presented in the Federal Magistrates Court. It is essential to highlight that I modified this report, yet it was hijacked en route to the court.

A particularly troubling aspect of this situation involves the Australia Post representative who accepted two sealed registered packages containing these critical documents. Each package cost $28.00 to send. However, when they were received at the court, only my cover letter from Darren Lewis was attached, along with a two-page letter detailing the contents' significance. This circumstance strongly suggests that the package must have been unlawfully opened after it left the Portland Post Office, and this was certainly the case after Darren Lewis had already paid the registration fee.

In summary, the Bell Canada International Inc. Cape Bridgewater Report was effectively stolen on three distinct occasions. The first incident occurred during my arbitration process when it was unlawfully removed en route to the arbitrator. The second instance involved the interception of the documents on their way to Mr. Neil Jepson's office, who serves as the barrister for the Major Fraud Group. The final theft transpired when sending these documents to the Federal Magistrates Court.

I am referencing two witness statements from File 766 (AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789) to substantiate my claims. These statements illustrate that a police officer while attempting to engage with the Telstra Corporation, found himself at a loss. The COT Cases, too, faced significant difficulties as they were forced into arbitration with Telstra, a powerful entity. Both the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations expressed fear of abandoning the negotiations, primarily due to Telstra’s considerable influence over the legal system in Australia. I urge you to read and consider the implications of the following two witness statements, as they provide essential context to this troubling situation.

I am using the following witness two witness statements File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789), because they prove a police officer, when dealing with the Telstra Corporation, was left floundering as were the COT Cases when they were forced into arbitration with the same monster who the arbitrator and administrator of the COT arbitrations were afeared to abandon the COT arbitrations because of the power and influence Telstra has over the legal system in Australia. Pleased read the following two witness statements.      

"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.

Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down.Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".  

Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases”.

These two witness statements were provided to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) Australian government by Ann Garms, COT Case member, after discussions with Senator Barnaby Joyce (in 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia).  Because no one has come forward to explain their position in these matters, all information that might assist the sixteen COT Cases (those who are left, many have since died), all documents will be provided without deletions. 8 and 10 August 2006 witness statements were also released as File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789). 

Before concluding the reading of our Casualties of Telstra story, we suggest you click on the following legal research paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817646 where you will find there are others, not just the COT cases, who see loopholes in the justice given out by some of the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman staff. In many cases, these ombudsmen have not even been registered lawyers or judges and yet the Australian Establishment gives them the right to decide legal issues, which have – in many cases, as our story shows – ruined the lives of those who participated in the arbitrations.

Exposing the truth meant I faced a possible jail term

To add yet another alarming set of circumstances to this unbelievable story, I need to take the reader back to 1999, when the Victoria police Major Fraud Group seconded me as a witness in their attempt to prove Telstra had committed fraud against five of the twenty-one COT Cases during their arbitrations (see namely Ann Garms, Graham Schorer, Ralph Bova, and Ross Plowman.

It was common knowledge amongst the five COT Cases (who were being assisted by the Senate to access their previously withheld arbitration documents from Telstra) that Telstra had used two separate technical reports to support their arbitration defence of the COT Cases claims knowing then to be both fundamentally flawed.

By 1999, using some of the late-released Telstra FOI documents regarding the five COT Cases, I could prove that Telstra had twice perverted the course of justice during my arbitration.

The current 2024 Telstra corporate secretary, Sue Laver, has refused my request to provide the Senate and administrators of the COT arbitrations with the same evidence she received in January and April 1998. This evidence proves that Telstra knowingly used one of those fundamentally flawed arbitration reports, the Cape Bridgewater BCI report, as arbitration defence documents.

This was the Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report that Mr Neil Jepson, Barrister of the Major Fraud Group, worked with me on during 1999 and 2000, declaring my reporting as factual.

Between 1998 and 2000, I worked alongside Mr Neil Jepson and assisted three other Victoria Police Investigators over three three-day periods. After working with the two male and one female officer, I knew I had, years before, chosen the wrong career—I wished I had joined the Victoria police force. These three officers were dedicated to their craft.

After the Federal Government put the Major Fraud Group under political pressure to abandon the COT claims of fraud against Telstra, I met two senior Victorian police officers who apologized for what they realized was indeed an ordeal for me: my failed arbitration and the failed Victoria Police investigation. I was provided with a small A4 storage box, taped shut. They advised me my four larger boxes of evidence would be couriered to my designated location. I asked if this small package could be included, as I preferred not to carry it away. The look in the eyes of the police officer in charge was stern and direct, and when he stated, “NO, you take this box with you now,” I didn’t argue!

This box contained some startling documents I had not seen before that would shock most people, even today. Two of those documents were two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, which indicated that their predecessors had allowed only five of the twenty-one legitimate COT claimants to have access to discovery documents and had also organized compensation for those five COT Cases (18 million dollars between them) in hush money. All of that was accomplished so that the Telstra Corporation could be privatized. 

The Government believed that having the Senate investigate sixteen COT Case complaints would take years, as it had when the five litmus cases were assessed. So, the sixteen names on the Senate schedule list as still unresolved issues were destroyed.

Now, if I am wrong, and that is not the case, then why were the remaining sixteen COT claimants all denied access to any of the privileges that the five ‘litmus test cases’ had been granted, and why did a letter from the Senate Estimates Committee Chair advises the police that the two In-camera Hansard records, dated 6 and 9 July 1998, must not be provided to anyone outside of the Major Fraud Group. 

I believe the Major Fraud Group released these two 6 and 9 July 1998 In-Camara Hansards to assist the remaining sixteen COT Cases in appealing to the government for a similar settlement. 

It might be hard to believe, but back in August 2001 and again in December 2004, the Australian Government threatened, in writing (see Senate Evidence File No 12), to charge me with contempt of the Senate if I was ever to disclose these in-camera Hansard records, even though those documents could well have won our cases if the COT claimants had appealed against the arbitration process. Where is the justice in that?

 

Telstra - Contempt of the Senate

In October 1997, when Telstra provided the Cape Bridgewater/Bell Canada International Inc (BCI) report in response to questions raised by the Senate on notice, Telstra already knew it was false. However, no one has ever held Telstra accountable for its actions, even though its actions were in contempt of the Senate.

On 12 January 1998 (three months after this false Cape Bridgewtare BCI testing information had been provided to the Senate), during the same Senate estimates committee investigations into COT FOI issues, Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson provided Sue Laver (Telstra’s 2020 Corporate Secretary with a number of documents. On page 12 of his letter, Graham states:

“Enclosed are the 168 listings extracted from Telstra’s Directory of Network Products and Network Operations, plus CoT’s written explanation, which alleges to prove that parts of the November 1993 Bell Canada International Report is fabricated or falsified.”

On pages 23-8 of this letter, and using the Cape Bridgewater statistics material, Graham provided clear evidence to Sue Laver and the chair of the Senate legislation committee that the information Telstra provided to questions raised by the Senate on notice in October 1997, was false (see Scrooge – exhibit 62-Part One – Sue Laver BCI evidence and Scrooge – exhibit 48-Part Two – Sue Laver BCI Evidence). Knowingly providing false information to the Senate is in contempt of the Senate. No one within Telstra has been brought to account for supplying false Cape Bridgewater BCI results to the Senate. Had Telstra not supplied this false information to the Senate, the Senate would have addressed all the BCI matters I now raise on absentjustice.com concerning my ongoing telephone problems in 1997

This evidence which I formulated into my own prepared Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report which is also discussed on our my-story/introduction/Introduction page was one of the documents along with the Tampering With Evidence – TF200 that Neil Jepson thought could assist me in winning my arbitration appeal. It is also evident from the statements made (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (1) by Sue Owens Barrister, who assisted Mr Neil Jepson in the Major Fraud Group investigations, that my evidence had been compiled most professionally.

I reiterate it is important to raise the Victorian Major Fraud Group’s police involvement in the COT cases’ matters (as well as several parties associated with the Major Fraud Group), as it is linked to our An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens page. I was not one of the four COT cases’ litmus group, who, through Sue Owens (barrister) lodged complaints against Telstra with the Major Fraud Group in 1999. I was seconded some months later as a witness. The litmus COT cases provided my evidence of Telstra committing fraud against me, during my arbitration to the Senate estimates committee during their FOI investigations.

After I provided the contents of (see Telstra’s Falsified BCI Report to Neil Jepson, the Major Fraud Group asked me to assist them in compiling this evidence for their investigations. I did this over two separate visits to Melbourne, spending two full days at the Major Fraud Group’s St. Kilda Road offices. This is important to the litmus tests cases issue because the Major Fraud Group was stunned at the evidence and how I proved Telstra perverted the course of justice twice by submitting false evidence to Dr Hughes, the arbitrator appointed to my case.

In late 1998, the Major Fraud Group asked me to supply this discarded evidence at the request of their barrister, Neil Jepson.

In 2024, Sue Laver will be Telstra's current corporate secretary and a member of the Telstra board. It is well documented in Evidence-Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman - Chapter 2 Devious and Savage that during my Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) administered arbitration process, the TIO allowed Telstra Corporate Secretary Jim Holmes to attend monthly TIO board meetings. Minutes of those meetings (see File 48-B -AS-CAV Exhibit 48-A to 91 show Jim Holmes attended all the monthly meetings (but one) from December 1993 to June 1994, during the period of my Fast Track Settlement Proposal, which in January 1994 became my Fast Track Arbitration Procedure signed on 21 April 1994. 

Next Page ⟶