WikiLeaks exposing the truth
He thought it was his duty to expose corruption during a government-endorsed arbitration.
A young man (a boy) with a Conscience.
Julian Assange provided a vital link for the COT cases, but we did not know this during our arbitrations.
A statutory declaration prepared by Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) on 7 July 2011 was provided to the Victorian Attorney-General, Hon. Robert Clark. This statutory declaration discusses three young computer hackers who phoned Graham to warn him during the 1994 COT arbitrations. The hackers discovered that Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations acted unlawfully towards the COT group. Graham’s statutory declaration includes the following statements:
“After I signed the arbitration agreement on 21st April 1994 I received a phone call after business hours when I was working back late in the office. This call was to my unpublished direct number.
“The young man on the other end asked for me by name. When I had confirmed I was the named person, he stated that he and his two friends had gained internal access to Telstra’s records, internal emails, memos, faxes, etc. He stated that he did not like what they had uncovered. He suggested that I should talk to Frank Blount directly. He offered to give me his direct lines in the his Melbourne and Sydney offices …
“The caller tried to stress that it was Telstra’s conduct towards me and the other COT members that they were trying to bring to our attention.
“I queried whether he knew that Telstra had a Protective Services department, whose task was to maintain the security of the network. They laughed, and said that yes they did, as they were watching them (Telstra) looking for them (the hackers). …
“After this call, I spoke to Alan Smith about the matter. We agreed that while the offer was tempting we decided we should only obtain our arbitration documents through the designated process agreed to before we signed the agreement.” (See Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3)
On the covering page of a joint 10-page letter dated 11 July 2011 to the Hon Robert McClelland, federal attorney-general and the Hon Robert Clark, Victorian attorney-general, I note:
“In 1994 three young computer hackers telephoned Graham Schorer, the official Spokesperson for the Casualties of Telstra (COT) in relation to their Telstra arbitrations.
- Was Jullian Assange one of these hackers?
- The hackers believed they had found evidence that Telstra was acting illegally.
- In other words, we were fools not to have accepted this arbitration file when it was offered to us by the hackers who conveyed to Graham Schorer a sense of the enormity of the deception and misconduct undertaken by Telstra against the COT Cases.” (AS-CAV Exhibit 790 to 818 Exhibit 817)
I also wrote to Hon. Robert Clark on 20 June 2012 to remind him that his office was already in receipt of a 7 July 2011 statutory declaration from Graham Schorer. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were right on target concerning this electronic surveillance being carried out by Telstra on the COT Cases.
If the hackers were Julian Assange, then Julian Assange carried out a duty to expose what he thought was a crime. Significant law enforcement agencies and the media have been asking the Australian public to disclose incidents which they believe are crimes because doing so is in the public interest. When I exposed similar crimes to the Australian Federal Police - Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1, I was penalised for it when Telstra carried out their threats.
Threats Made
Threats Carried Out
I faced intimidation from Telstra arbitration officials as a direct consequence of my cooperation with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) regarding their investigations into significant phone and fax hacking incidents. During a meeting involving Graham Schorer, who serves as the spokesperson for the Customers of Telstra (COT) Cases, and Ann Garms, we delved into the troubling discussions the hackers had previously shared with Graham. These discussions centred on the electronic surveillance allegedly being conducted by Telstra on matters related to the COT Cases.
Following a troubling incident where my faxes did not arrive at their intended recipients, I alerted Senator Ron Boswell. This was particularly concerning because it echoed the hackers' previous discussions with Graham Schorer. When I brought this matter to the attention of Telstra, their response was alarming; they issued threats, cautioning that if I persisted in bringing these issues up with the Australian Federal Police, all future Freedom of Information (FOI) requests I submitted would be disregarded entirely. This blatant intimidation tactic did not go unnoticed and prompted anger from Senator Boswell.
Furthermore, on 29 November 1994, during an official session of the Australian Senate, Senator Ron Boswell posed critical questions to Telstra’s legal directorate regarding these unfolding events and the concerning implications surrounding the hacking and surveillance practices linked to Telstra.
“Why did Telecom advise the Commonwealth Ombudsman that Telecom withheld FOI documents from Alan Smith because Alan Smith provided Telecom FOI documents to the Australian Federal Police during their investigation?”
After receiving a hollow response from Telstra, which the senator, the AFP and I all knew was utterly false, the senator states:
“…Why would Telecom withhold vital documents from the AFP? Also, why would Telecom penalise COT members for providing documents to the AFP which substantiate that Telecom had conducted unauthorised interceptions of COT members’ communications and subsequently dealt in the intercepted information by providing that information to Telecom’s external legal advisers and others?” (See Senate Evidence File No 31)
The threats I encountered ultimately became a troubling reality. A significant concern regarding the withholding of essential documents is that no individual within the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) office or any government entity has ever conducted a thorough investigation into the damaging effects this withholding had on my overall submission to the arbitrator.
At the time of the arbitration, Telstra was a government-owned corporation, which means that both the arbitrator and the government should have been particularly vigilant about ensuring a fair process. It raises questions as to why an Australian citizen, who had collaborated with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in their investigation into the unlawful interception of my private telephone conversations, faced such severe disadvantages throughout the civil arbitration process.
To illustrate this point, the transcripts from the AFP's second interview with me, conducted on 26 September 1994, explicitly address the threats I experienced. These details can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. The lack of inquiry into these matters not only undermines the integrity of the arbitration process but also highlights a serious failure to protect the rights of an individual who attempted to assist law enforcement in addressing serious misconduct.
Next Page ⟶
