Julian Assange - Hacking TIO Chapter 3
Corruption in government, including non-government self-regulators, undermines the credibility of that government. It erodes the trust of its citizens.
Open Letter File No/56-A to 56-D show Telstra’s Grant Campbell was associated with my settlement/arbitration in the very early days. This facsimile cover sheet (File No/56-A) from Mr Campbell to Warwick Smith concerning Allan [sic] Smith – Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp, and the expression of interest by Ferrier Hodgson, discuss my ongoing phone and faxing problems. Three fax machines were installed on my fax line 055 267230 which was routed through the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. Documentation I provided AUSTEL (the then government communications regulator) on 4 June 1993, confirmed Telstra knew they had a national network problem in their Ericsson AXE telephone exchange. Between June 1993 and 1996, this became a talking point between Telstra, AUSTEL, the four COT Cases and the Shadow Minister for Communications Senator Richard Alston who on my behalf raised the AXE telephone fault in the Senator on 24 February 1994. The faulty Ericsson AXE equipment was also the subject matter before the then Assessor Dr Gordon Hughes in January 1994 and again in April 1994 when he became the COT arbitrator.
I must digress from 6 December 2004 to when the settlement/arbitration process was being considered. TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 during that period. This document TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms Warwick Smith (one of the four arbitration professionals) was providing government party-room discussed privileged information to Telstra's most senior executives.
Between January and February 1993, I alerted the government and Grant Campbell at the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman office of my belief my faxes were being tampered with.
At NO time did Grant Campbell or Warwick Smith warn the COT Cases that the TIO office had seconded Grant Campbell from Telstra (the defendants in our arbitration) to have first access to our settlement/arbitration claim material. Had I known this, I would not have provided Mr Campbell with my early 008 billing claim and lost facsimile submission claim material, which I advised him was spearheading my Fast Track Settlement Proposal claim.
After my arbitration, these 008 my FTSP settlement/arbitration billing submission and the lost faxing issues were never returned to me from the TIO office.
How can the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Arbitrator File No 60). So AUSTEL and the government cannot say they never knew about the severity of this national telecommunications network problem.
On 7 and 8 April 1994, nine COT Cases met with AUSTEL representatives in AUSTEL's Queens Road MELBOURNE premises in a security mode lock-up gathering to discuss the extent of telephone problems the COT Cases had uncovered over a twelve-month period. One of the main topics raised over this two-day period was the ongoing Ericsson AXE lock up problems that were affecting Telstra's telephone exchanges which serviced the COT Cases businesses. It had already been established by AUSTEL and the COT Cases during a Queensland telephone survey that an estimated 100.000 plus phone services were being affected by bad service from Telstra. I was taken aside at this 7 and 8 April 1994 AUSTEL meeting by John McMahon AUSTEL's General Manager of Consumer Affairs and asked would I channel any FOI documents I might receive under FOI during my Fast Track Settlement Process to AUSTEL that suggested there was also lock-up problems affecting my 008/1880. My 008/1800 service was trunked (routed) through the Portland Ericsson AXE telephone exchange.
Documents on this website show I continued to assist AUSTEL regarding the Ericsson AXE and 008/1800 billing problems throughout my arbitration and for a further six months after my arbitration.
When AUSTEL learned that the arbitrator had not addressed the Ericsson AXE billing faults, they contacted me asking would I provide this non addressed Ericsson billing data to the government for assessment purposes. Unaware that the government was only using my evidence for their purposes and purpose only, I supplied six spiral-bound volumes of evidence consisting of over 3000 documents thinking this would also resolve these non-addressed arbitration issues. It did not, as the website here shows.
On 19 December 1995, seven months after my arbitration, Darren Kearney, a representative from AUSTEL drove down to my business a five hour-and-half trip both ways to collect this evidence. Documents on this website show AUSTEL agreed in their February 1996 mini-report prepared using my unaddressed arbitration Ericsson AXE faults that I had been right all along concerning that these should have been addressed arbitration billing problems.
And now we go back to the concealment by AUSTEL of what they knew during this 7 and 8 April 1994 COT Cases in-confidence meeting as well as what they knew just prior to the COT Cases arbitrations.
What The following letters, dated 8 and 9 April 1994, to AUSTEL’s chair from Telstra’s group general manager, suggests AUSTEL was far from truly independent, but rather could be manipulated to alter their official findings in their COT reports, just as Telstra requests in many of the points in this first letter. For example, Telstra writes:
“The Report, when commenting on the number of customers with COT-type problems, refers to a research study undertaken by Telecom at Austel’s request. The Report extrapolates from those results and infers that the number of customers so affected could be as high as 120 000. …
And the next day:
“In relation to point 4, you have agreed to withdraw the reference in the Report to the potential existence of 120,000 COT-type customers and replace it with a reference to the potential existence of “some hundreds” of COT-type customers” (See Open Letter File No/11)
Point 2.71 in AUSTEL’s April 1994 formal report notes:
“the number of Telecom customers experiencing COT type service difficulties and faults is substantially higher than Telecom’s original estimate of 50”.
The fact that Telstra (the defendants) was able to pressure the government regulator to change its original findings in the formal 13 April 1994 AUSTEL report is deeply disturbing. The 120,000 other customers – ordinary Australian citizens who were experiencing COT-type problems – are not referred to in the Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) report (see Senate Evidence File No 28), although this was used by them to determine the validity of the COT claims.
False information from Grant Campbell
When these documents came to light, they confirmed Grant Campbell was officially signing off correspondence on behalf of Warwick Smith, including official FTSP correspondence.
I reiterate, neither Warwick Smith nor anyone from the TIO’s office, ever informed me that Grant Campbell was temporarily seconded from Telstra to Warwick Smith’s office, where the TIO gave him the power to scrutinise my claim material. And, without any checks by anyone, including Dr Gordon Hughes (then appointed assessor) or Ferrier Hodgson Corporate Advisory (the resource unit). Like Telstra council and board members Ted Benjamin, Chris Vonwiller and Jim Holmes, Grant Campbell had free range at the TIO office and was allowed to formally classify my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone and fax problems as ‘new’ problems and therefore not connected to my FTSP claim, despite Warwick Smith and Mr Campbell being fully aware, at the time, that this was not the case.
Open Letter File No/56-E to 56-G record my ongoing Ericsson AXE telephone and faxing problems from at least October 1993. These documents were supplied to Warwick Smith as the official administrator, on 27 January 1994, to forward to Dr Gordon Hughes, Mr Peter Bartlett and Mr John Rundell. An interim claim dated 27 January 1994 is available at Open letter File No/46-A
I continue to demand answers as to why Dr Hughes and John Rundell never addressed this first part of my FTSP claim and, as of January 2017, I have not received advice as to why it was not discussed in the arbitrator’s written findings. Are we to presume that, like many of my unaddressed claim documents, this information never reached the assessor/arbitrator because Telstra’s Grant Campbell and the arbitration resource unit had first access to which documents would be submitted to the arbitrator (in a secret deal arrangement entered into by Telstra, Warwick Smith and the arbitration resource unit)?
FOI documents were provided to Australian Liberal/National Party executives, including the previous prime minister, Tony Abbott. These documents prove I was not told Mr Campbell was seconded from Telstra during my FTSP: I believed Mr Campbell was a TIO employee. I did not know that, when I presented him with various E008/1800 billing FTSP claim exhibits, proving Telstra had a national network 008/1800 billing problem, at the same time they had a national Ericsson AXE telephone exchange problem I was helping the defence and severely damaging my claim.
These same FOI documents also show that, after Mr Campbell returned to Telstra, he began addressing the same 008/1800 billing problems he previously assessed in connection to my case while wearing his TIO hat, only now he was making those assessments while wearing his Telstra hat in relation to another COT claimant business Solar Mesh from Brisbane, Queensland.
To have allowed the defendant access to the opposing side’s claim material, before the claimant decided which information to submit to the assessor and/or arbitrator and which to keep back in order to answer the defendant’s defence, was highly undemocratic conduct: how can a Western democracy allow this to happen?
In most Western democracies, if such conduct during a litigation process is brought to the attention of the authorities, then those responsible for that conduct and those who allowed it to flourish, are held accountable for the damage they caused. The TIO’s office and Telstra have never assisted me to resolve this issue, and this confirms what I say on absentjustice.com: there is one law in Australia for the bureaucrats and another for the man on the street. Grant Campbell signed a letter to Telstra, dated 9 February 1994, while wearing his TIO hat and on behalf of Warwick Smith. Regarding my loss of fax capacity, he states:
“I spoke with Alan Smith on 9th instant following on the 8th instant [sic].
“He has agreed that this is a new matter and whilst it may be indicating some ongoing problems, it is not a matter that relates directly to the preparation of his material to be presented to the Assessor.” (See Open Letter File No/56-B)
This comment however does not correlate with the many problems I continued to experience and record, throughout my FTSP, nor the 31 January 1994 account for my dedicated fax line that I provided to Grant Campbell. And, as far as Mr Campbell stating that I “agreed that this is a new matter” and that “it is not a matter that relates directly to the preparation of [my] material to be presented to the Assessor”, this was a blatant lie. I asked Mr Campbell to ensure Warwick Smith was supplied with my evidence confirming numerous people, including my accountant and lawyer (see Open Letter File No/56-D to E), we're still unable to send faxes to assist me with the preparation of my claim before the assessor Dr Gordon Hughes.
I have grave doubts as to whether that faxing evidence was provided to Warwick Smith, who had he received it, would have been duty-bound to provide it to Dr Hughes. The fact that my records of these Ericsson AXE faxing problems, as well as 008/1800 evidence material, were not supplied back to me after my arbitration was finalised when the arbitrator was duty-bound to return evidence under clause 6 of the arbitration agreement, suggests Grant Campbell never forwarded my Ericsson AXE FTSP claim to Warwick Smith.
Telstra's own documents tell the story
The following example shows a Portland Telstra technician, whom I have named Joker Seven (see Absentjustice Brief Summary Part 1 experienced major problems during his official fax-testing process of my service on 29 October 1993. Why would I tell Grant Campbell in February 1994 “…that this is a new matter” when the following document shows the problem was in existence in October 1993 i.e;
“During testing the Mitsubishi fax machine, some alarming patterns of behaviour were noted, these affecting both transmission and reception. Even on calls that were not tampered with the fax machine displayed signs of locking up and behaving in a manner not in accordance with the relevant CCITT Group 3 fax rules.
… Even if the page was sent upside down the time and date and company name should have still appeared on the top of the page, it wasn’t. During a received call the machine failed to respond at the end of the page even though it had received the entire page (sample #3).” (See False Witness Statement No 7-A)
Open Letter File No/56-F is a letter, dated 25 February 1994, from the minister for communications’ office, detailing the ongoing telephone and faxing problems I was experiencing. My interim letter of claim, dated 27 January 1994, addressed to Dr Hughes, Warwick Smith, Peter Bartlett and John Rundell (see Open letter File No/46-A) had a 37-page report attached to it showing massive ongoing faxing problems beginning in January 1993, at the latest.
I gave two pages of data from Telstra’s Call Charge Analysis System (CCAS) Grant Campbell and Warwick Smith. These printouts (see Open Letter File No/56-H) are particularly interesting because a handwritten list on them indicates Telstra secretly monitored and recorded people I spoke to on the phone or faxed in connection to my FTSP.
Not so amazing is the fact that none of the information I document above, concerning the loss of faxing capacity, is mentioned anywhere in Dr Hughes’ award or the DMR and Lane reporting, which suggests that Telstra’s Grant Campbell thought it important to misinform all interested parties concerning my settlement/arbitration faults in order to minimise Telstra’s liability.
Open Letter File No/56-C shows my faxing problems were still continuing in October 1993. This also contradicts Mr Campbell’s statement, on 9 February 1994 (see Open Letter File No/56-B), that I advised him these faxing faults were new problems.
Open Letter File No/56-G is a Telstra two-page internal memo, dated 3 March 1995, for the attention of D Campbell, T Benjamin, S Black and G Campbell. Ted Benjamin and Steve Black were, in March 1995, Telstra’s arbitration liaison officers to my arbitration and Grant Campbell was well situated in Telstra’s arbitration unit. Doug Campbell was Telstra’s group general manager of operations, possibly the worst of Telstra’s “dirty tricks departments” (so named in the Senate Hansard of 26 September 1997). All four employees were firmly involved in my arbitration. How is it possible that Warwick Smith allowed Grant Campbell anywhere near my claim documents? My FTSP claim documents that were originally addressed to Dr Hughes, Peter Bartlett, Warwick Smith and John Rundell (see Open letter File No/46-A) have never been returned to me.
Telstra FOI documents show that, after Mr Campbell returned to Telstra, he began addressing the same type of problems he had previously assessed in connection to my case while wearing his TIO hat, only now he was making those assessments while wearing his Telstra hat in relation to another COT claimant from Brisbane, Queensland.
Not only did Warwick Smith allow Grant Campbell access to my claim material, but he then allowed his own resource unit to also have first access to Telstra arbitration procedural information, in a secret deal concocted with the defendants, which allowed the resource unit to decide what documents THEY believed the arbitrator should see and which should be discarded (AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647 - See AS-CAV 590 Chapter Six to Chapter Nine). This is why the other COT cases and I are still fighting for our right to a fair, properly conducted, transparent, arbitration process.
We have raised the issue of this Grant Campbell fax capacity issue here because Dr Hughes’ technical Resource Unit never provided me with the results of their investigations into the lost faxes, even though it cost me close to $300,000.00 to participate in the arbitration process; and even though clause 11 in the official Arbitration Agreement notes: ‘The Arbitrator’s reasons will be set out in full in writing and referred to in the Arbitrators award, the lost fax issues were not referred to: ‘in full in writing’ in the Arbitrators award. Or were my complaints that because I assisted the Australian Federal Police with their own investigations into Telstra’s unauthorized interception into my telephone conversations and faxes to and from my office (see Senate Evidence File No 31)
Like Grant Campbell, Warwick Smith and his appointed Arbitration Technical Resource Unit they appear to have misunderstood the significance of the Ericsson AXE faulty telephone exchange faults which was also a two-fold problem contributing to the already 008/1800 software problem because they failed to alert Dr Hughes that the 008/1800 service I used was actually routed through my main Ericsson AXE service which the 055 267 267 service, the line that one of the two faulty EXICOM phones was connected to – the phone that was prone to lock-up after each terminated call. The Ericsson AXE telephone exchanges had a similar lockup problem.
In other words, when the arbitration Resource Unit advised John Pinnock (TIO) on 15 November 1995, and Dr Hughes on 2 August 1996 (Open letter File No/45-A to 45-I), that my 008/1800 billing claims were not addressed, they were also admitted to not investigating or addressing my main Ericsson AXE service line 055 267 267 and fax line 055 267230.
In simple terms, Telstra's Grant Campbell was deflecting from the Fast Track Settlement Process (which in April 1994 became the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure) that my business had a two-fold locking up problem which Telstra had been unable to determine which lockup fault was affecting my 008/1800 service. Was my fault reporting associated with the known 008/1800 software problem (all 008/1800 trunked through the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange) or was the locking up fault on my fax line a known problem with EXICOM TF200 touchphones or was it the known lockup fault which was a problem identified by Ericsson in their AXE equipment?
Or was there a more sinister motive behind the decision to ignore my billing claims, the same 008/1800 billing faults that Telstra’s Grant Campbell was investigating while working with the TIO (on secondment from Telstra) and then working on again, later, after he went back to Telstra to work alongside TIO Council Member Ted Benjamin?
Did Ted Benjamin’s relationship with Telstra and the TIO Council have anything to do with his later relationship with Grant Campbell? There appears to be NO doubt that this particular issue – of Grant Campbell addressing 008/1800 problems on behalf of the TIO and then on behalf of Telstra, all during my arbitration – created a massive conflict of interest.
Could it be that, when I told Mr Campbell that he needed all the documents related to his earlier settlement, from before December 1992, so he could show how undemocratic this 1992 settlement process was, that Mr Campbell then passed that information straight on to Telstra, thereby effectively alerting Telstra to which documents they could ‘lose’ because it was relevant to my case? It is also interesting to connect this issue to a letter written on 11 November 1994, to Telstra from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, asking why the earlier settlement material that I had requested under FOI had still not been supplied to him.
The TIO’s June 1994 annual report has no record of Mr Campbell working in the TIO office during the period he was signing off letters for Warwick Smith. This suggests he was on the defendant’s payroll when he gave out this false information concerning my phone and fax services.
Next Page ⟶
