My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.

Hacking Julian Assange

“Anyone who wants to tackle corruption must be willing to go all the way. There are no shortcuts.” — Oby Ezekwesili.

Last edited November 2021.

Absent Justice - Don+39t shoot the messenger

It is also important we 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 truly 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 have not 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 is right on target because the Australian Establishment, which includes ex-government ministers as well ex-senior members of two government regulators, are aware Dr Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator to my arbitration, and Warwick Smith, administrator to the same process acted in concert with the defendants and used their drafted arbitration agreement instead of the agreed totally independently drafted arbitration agreement. NONE of the corporate leaders, neither our regulators nor our government ministers have had the courage to investigate this matter. Set out below is only one of many examples where Dr Gordon Hughes and Warwick Smith, acted in a manner not befitting an arbitrator and/or an administrator. We are telling this part of our COT story first, in the hope that the reader will be compelled to go to the next part of our story.

If the question is: Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes that was committed by public officials, more than twenty-four years ago?”then surely the answer must be “Yes”, particularly if those crimes affected the lives of other citizens.

I can only assume Julian Assange [if he was the hacker] believed it was his duty to disclose what he and his friends had uncovered when they hacked into Telstra's Lonsdale telephone exchange concerning the forces at work that was assisting Telstra in their attempt to discredit the COT Cases claims which certainly in my case by 4 March 1994, had secretly found my claims to be true as (see AUSTEL’s Adverse Findings, at points 10, to 212) shows. The type of evidence the hackers said they could provide COT Cases with were in the form of emails and faxes.

As stated through this website we thought this offer might be a setup orchestrated to catch us COT Cases accessing documents outside of the agreed arbitration process, so we declined the offer to be provided with those documents.

What was not disclosed to the COT Cases during their respective arbitrations or their designated arbitration appeal processes is the three main administers to these arbitrations i.e.; the arbitration, administrator and legal counsel received confirmation from John Rundell, the then Arbitration Project Manager, on 18 April 1995, advising them that: “It is unfortunate that there have been forces at work collectively beyond our reasonable control that have delayed us in undertaking our work.” (see Prologue Evidence File No 22-A). Why didn't these four main arbitration gurus link these "forces at work" as the same possible  "forces at work" that Graham Schorer (COT spokesperson) and I had warned them what the hackers had reported?. 

If they were not the same "forces at work", then there had to be two lots of "forces at work" that (see Senate Committee investigations of 1997 to 1999 which shoes 23 Australian Senators were kept informed concerning there was no democracy applied to the COT Cases arbitrations. 

Out of those twenty-three, the following six individual Senators all made official statements dated 6 March 1999 (See > Eggleston, Sen Alan – Bishop, Sen Mark – BoswellSen Ronald – CarrSen Kim – Schacht, Sen Chris and Alston,Sen Richard) which all formally record how those six senators believed that Telstra had ‘acted as a law unto themselves’ throughout all of the COT arbitrations.

Furthermore, In-Camera Hansard records that were withheld under government privilege, but which I have discussed in evidence/government-communications-regulator-austelacma/An injustice to the remaining 16 Australian citizens, show that a number of other Senators thought the same. Then we have one of two Telstra executives who, without being named by the Senate, were both criticised by the Senate committee because of their gross unethical conduct during the committee’s investigations:  both have gone on to bigger and better things because one is now a most senior Telstra executive while the other operates a Dispute Resolution Centre in Melbourne.

It is therefore quite clear, from both official Government and Senators’ records, that the whole COT process has been seriously condemned by people who knew exactly what they were talking about, and that these two Telstra people in particular, both heavily involved in those same COT processes in the past, are now earning a very good living with one handling government and private disputes and the other working as a most senior Telstra executive.  This would be worrying enough on its own but to add that both the administrator and the arbitrator to those same COT arbitrations have since been awarded Order of Australia medals, suggest fairly clearly that there is – still – something seriously wrong with Australia’s entire arbitration/dispute resolution process.  Forcing citizens of any country into arbitration without the necessary documents they required to at least support some of their claims is grossly undemocratic but for this to have happened in Australia purports to be highly democratic is why my claims on need to be investigated.

The four COT claimants Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and (me) were never told about any of these so-called “forces at work” during our arbitrations or during our designated arbitration appeal processes. And nor were we ever warned that, under the nose of the TIO, the TIO’s legal advisor and the Arbitrator, these un-named “forces at work” were allowed to infiltrate and manipulate the arbitration process wherever and whenever they desired, but always with the aim of helping Telstra to defeat the COT claimants. And yet, Julian Assange and his mates (who had nothing to do with our arbitrations whatsoever) were willing to provide the COT four claimants with the evidence that these "forces at work" did exist when the arbitrator, administrator and his legal counsel along with John Rundell were prepared to conceal what they knew concerning these "forces at work".

If Dr Gordon Hughes, (the arbitrator) Warwick Smith (the administrator to the arbitrations) Peter Bartlett (legal counsel to the arbitrations) including John Rundell had sent a copy of his letter to the four COT cases, as he should have, all four of us could have approached the Federal Government at once because, with Mr Rundell’s letter as evidence, we would certainly have had a very reasonable chance of being granted the rights to have all four processes reviewed and amended, at the very least.  And don’t forget, it was the Federal Government who had originally endorsed those first four Fast Track Arbitration Procedures.

Absent Justice - 12 Remedies Persued - 2

Let me be clear regarding Julian Assange (if it was Julian Assange) who contacted the COT Cases during our arbitration, intercepting private and business telephone conversations and/or hacking into information faxed through Telstra's network was something the governments did in the 1990s as the Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report Open Letter File No/12, and File No/13) shows. As discussed throughout the Australian Federal Police Investigations the AFP found against the Telstra Corporation for this unauthorised bugging of my telephone conversations over an extended period (see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1. 

It is now In 2021, and the Australian Federal Police AFP has still not disclosed to me why Telstra senior management has not been brought to account for authorising this intrusion into my business and private life regardless of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It is most important we raise the statement made in a Telstra internal email that is discussed on our Home page noting:

"The sensitive papers referred to above dated 23 August 1993, of which Telstra’s corporate secretary claimed, “nothing in these documents to cause Telecom any concern in respect of your case”, actually provided clear evidence that Telstra’s management including their corporate secretary Jim Holmes, concealed from me and the government just how bad the Ericsson AXE telephone exchange equipment was".

Why this statement is so important is because during a meeting with AUSTEL (the then Australian government communications regulator now called ACMA) AUSTEL's General Manager of Consumer Affairs discussed some very sensitive documents which he stated words to the effect "...they, meaning AUSTEL, had to literally force Telstra under threat of cancelling their telecommunications licence if they did not corporate with the Australian Federal Police investigations into my evidence received by both the government and me that Telstra had been intercepting my telephone conversations between me and several patrons of my "Over 40s Single Club" which was another branch of my holiday camp and convention centre. Telstra had actually written private telephone numbers of several single women members of my singles club on Telstra documentation as well as the dates I would be away from my business visiting those single clubs. (see Australian Federal Police Investigations).

It was during one of these meetings with AUSTEl's John McMahon in and around March 1994, that John McMahon informed me by mistake AUSTEL had uncovered documents that showed my business had been live monitored from at least the middle of June 1993, after the 3 June 1993, when Telstra technicians had left their elusive briefcase exposing the severe telephone problems within Telstra's network. As the documents, which AUSTEL had received, were in confidence documents Mr McMahon apologized that AUSTEL could not provide them to me while the AFP was investigating my claims. 

During the second Australian Federal Police interview with me at my business on 26 September 1994, while they were investigating these bugging issues they asked me 93 questions see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations. I told the AFP that John McMahon had told me of the documents AUSTEL had uncovered confirmed beyond all doubt that my phone conversations had been bugged over a period of time.

Question 81 in these AFP transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 the AFP asked me:

AFP  "Did John McMahon ever describe the document that he'd spoken to you where it had been identified to him about live monitoring?

Answer. "No, no never".

AFP: "Okay. That, that document that you, that you might be referring to, or John McMahon may be referring to we do have a copy of it".  

Answer: "Right"

AFP: "However, because it's been provided to us by Telecom, I'm, I won't show it to you".

Answer: "You can't yeah I understand".

AFP: "But it does identify the fact that, that you were live monitored for a period of time. Se we're quite satisfied that, there are other references to it".

When Julian Assange [the hackers] told COT Cases spokesperson Graham Schorer there were forces at work during our arbitration that were acting illegally against us could well have been what the AFP and AUSTEL uncovered but were able to stop it as the Scandrett & Associates Pty Ltd report document|730][the hackers], and File No/13) shows. This invasion into the COT Cases private and business lives continued for a further three years after the AFP found no evidence such activities had taken place. I assume the AFP forgot their admission in the following transcripts Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 that they had evidence Telstra had been bugging my telephone conversations.

It is clear from exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994, that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2021

Absent Justice - Bernard Collaery

Perhaps the best way to expose this part of the COT is to use the Australia–East Timor spying scandal which began in 2004 when an electronic covert listening device was clandestinely planted in a room adjacent to East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to covertly obtain information in order to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. The East Timor government have stated they were unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia.

Using the Australia–East Timor spying scandal as an example which can readily be checked by googling the words Australia–East Timor Spying - Witness K Bernard Collaery we can compare this spying scandal with what Telstra did during several government-endorsed COT arbitrations when the Telstra corporation was then still owned by the Australian government. 

What appears not to have been considered in the most recent Witness K and Bernard Collaery phone-bugging scandal (see court-document-witness is that the Casualties of Telstra (COT) provided conclusive proof to the John Howard government that someone within the Telstra Corporation, who had access to Telstra’s network, authorised the interception (screening) of COT-related arbitration faxes. Between January 1994 and January 1999, Telstra was the defendant in our government-endorsed arbitration process. The following exhibit Front Page Part One File No/14 shows that a secondary fax machine was installed into Telstra's network over an extended period. The Australian government declined to investigate these matters in 1999, which allowed Telstra to continue to intercept my faxing service lines up until at least December 2001 more than six years after the end of my 1994/95 government-endorsed arbitration.  

For the Australian government to have sanctioned the listening into Australia and East Timor oil reserve negotiations is a crime all of its own according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is still being played out in the courts today but for the same government to continue to ignore that this same type of hacking into the COT Cases private and business lives which destroyed those lives and the lives of the COT's families is inconceivable.

Please click on to Chapter 1 - WikiLeak exposing the truth

Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan’s new book
‘Absent Justice’

In Alan Smith’s new book he shows us the twisting path of government arbitration,
the ways it can go wrong and how to make sure it doesn’t go wrong for you...

It's free - double click on the front cover of the book.

All of the main events as quoted in this unbelievable true crime story are supported by copies of the original freedom of Information documents linked in the text.

Clicking on these links with your cursor will automatically open a PDF of the exhibit/evidence that a crime was committed. Using this method and following the various file numbers discussed in our various pages, you will verify our story. Without those documents, most people would really struggle to believe that public officials and their lawyers committed the illegal offences they did.

Using the acquired evidence the way we have is possibly a world first.


Quote Icon

“A number of people seem to be experiencing some or all of the problems which you have outlined to me. …

“I trust that your meeting tomorrow with Senators Alston and Boswell is a profitable one.”

Hon David Hawker MP

“Only I know from personal experience that your story is true, otherwise I would find it difficult to believe. I was amazed and impressed with the thorough, detailed work you have done in your efforts to find justice”

Sister Burke

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“…the very large number of persons that had been forced into an arbitration process and have been obliged to settle as a result of the sheer weight that Telstra has brought to bear on them as a consequence where they have faced financial ruin if they did not settle…”

Senator Carr

“…your persistence to bring about improvements to Telecom’s country services. I regret that it was at such a high personal cost.”

The Hon David Hawker MP

“I am writing in reference to your article in last Friday’s Herald-Sun (2nd April 1993) about phone difficulties experienced by businesses.

I wish to confirm that I have had problems trying to contact Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp over the past 2 years.

I also experienced problems while trying to organise our family camp for September this year. On numerous occasions I have rung from both this business number 053 424 675 and also my home number and received no response – a dead line.

I rang around the end of February (1993) and twice was subjected to a piercing noise similar to a fax. I reported this incident to Telstra who got the same noise when testing.”

Cathy Lindsey

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

– Edmund Burke