My Bag

Your bag is currently empty.


WikiLeak exposing the truth


A Man with a Conscience:

My story on demonstrates how the official arbitrator and equally official administrator of several government-endorsed arbitrations knowingly lied to and deliberately misled a group of Australian small-business owners who were legitimate claimants against the then-government-owned Australian telecommunications carrier, Telstra. We claimants all believed we were signing an official agreement that had been drafted ultimately independently of Telstra when, in fact, Telstra's lawyers had drafted it to the detriment of the claimants! The rules in the agreement did not allow sufficient time in the agreement for the production of documents, obtaining further particulars and the preparation of the technical reports. Something the arbitrator himself agreed had made the deal not credible, but he still used it in my arbitration, allowing for the other claimants that followed more than thirteen months longer than he allowed me. I've attached the arbitrator's letter dated 12 May 1995 to the administrator. Factoring that the arbitrator and administrator have since both received the Order of Australia is thought-provoking. 


Absent Justice - Julian Assagne

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 had discovered Telstra and others associated with our arbitrations were acting unlawfully towards the COT group. In three of the original four COT Cases, Graham Schorer, Ann Garms, and I tried to obtain information as to the identities of the hackers after we contacted the arbitration administrator Warwick Smith (who was also the Telecommunication Industry Ombudsman), detailing to him what the hackers had told Mr Schorer concerning the unlawful way in which our arbitrations were proceeding. 

We received no information from Warwick Smith, regardless of the fact that our arbitrations cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to proceed. The cost of my settlement, which commenced on 23 November 1993 and then became the arbitration process on 21 April 1994 and was finalized on 11 May 1995, without the arbitrator making a finding on the ongoing billing problems affecting my 008/1800 free call customer service which Telstra disconnected in December 1997, because they could not locate the fault causes for my wrongly billed accounts telephone. The cost to me personally for this eighteen-month debacle was over $300.000.00.  

Simply put, take on a government-owned organization as Telstra was then, and you have no chance of receiving justice. If the hackers were Julian Assange and his mates, then his predictions to Graham Schoer (COT spokesperson) were spot on. Therefore, as a participant in this highly legalistic arbitration procedure, Warwick Smith should have brought the four COT Cases together. Maureen Gillan lived in Queensland and was mentally stressed because of her telephone problems. I had a power of attorney, Amanda Davis (ex-government General Manager of Affairs AUSTEL), who gave me the authority to act for Maureen in situations where her client had been subjected to further abuse.

Telstra and their lawyers had legally abused all four COT Cases over seven years or more when the hackers approached Mr Schorer. I think a most reasonably minded person would conclude that Warwick Smith, as administrator to our arbitration, should have, at least if his investigations into what the hackers had said were baseless, his notes on this should have been made official. There were no notes on this fact or consideration given to the four COT Cases when John Rundell, the TIO appointed Arbitration Project Manager, wrote to Warwick Smith on 18 April 1995 (twelve months after the hackers had contacted Mr Schorer) telling Warwick Smith there were 'forces at work Prologue Evidence File No 22-A' that had derailed the arbitration process. 

What was also not made known to us COT Cases before we signed our 23 Settlement assessment processes, which were turned into an arbitration process by Warwick Smith and Telstra, is that Warwick Smith was providing in-house government parliament house part room confidential information to Telstra's hierarchy TIO Evidence File No 3-A which may have been enough information for Telstra to turn our settlement process into an arbitration agreement their lawyers had drafted. Chapter 1- Prior to Arbitration 

This arbitration agreement (rules) was used during the COT arbitrations. So when we COT Cases approached Warwick Smith about what the hackers had told us about being forced into an arbitration process, aware we would not be getting the documents we would be requesting or words to this effect, the hackers had been spot on. 

There had to have been a reason why Warwick Smith (administrator to our arbitrations) would not supply us COT Case with information concerning these hackers after they had been caught. Graham’s statutory declaration (Hacking – Julian Assange File No/3includes 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 [sic] 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)

Documents on this website contain a letter from Telstra's internal corporate solicitor to an AFP detective superintendent, misinforming the AFP concerning the fax-testing process. The rest of the file shows Telstra did experience significant problems when testing my facsimile machine in conjunction with Graham Schorer's office fax machine. This was during the period that Senator Bob Collins was involved in raping children in parliament house Canberra and was under investigation for these acts when he committed suicide. 

If the hackers were Julian Assange, then he and his friends were right on target: we COT Cases were under electronic surveillance as Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1 transcripts from their interview surrounding the interception of my telephone conversations.  

Absent Justice - Don+39t shoot the messenger

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 the 7 July 2011 statutory declaration from Graham Schorer. I also approached other government authorities and provided the Scandrett & Associates fax interception report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which leaves no doubt that the hackers were correct concerning this electronic surveillance.

One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this Scandrett & Associates fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

If the question is: "Should a citizen be responsible for exposing crimes committed by public officials more than twenty-six years ago?" then surely the answer must be "Yes", mainly if those crimes affected the lives of other Australian citizens.

Next Page ⟶
Absent Justice Ebook

Read Alan's book

How can one publish a true account of what happened during various Australian Government-endorsed arbitrations without attaching exhibits to support the facts, as we have been forced to do due to the rampant corruption within the government bureaucracy? How can the author prove that government public servants fed privileged information to the then Australian Government-owned telecommunications carrier (the defendants) but also concealed the same documentation from the claimants, their fellow Australian citizens?

Additionally, how can one tell a story so unbelievable that even the author doubts the authenticity of what they are writing until they check their records before continuing with the story? How can one expose collusion between an arbitrator, various appointed government watchdogs (umpire), and the defendants? How can one also expose that the defendants in an arbitration process (the once government-owned telecommunications carrier) used equipment connected to their network to screen faxed material leaving your office? 

Moreover, how can one expose that the defendant's advisors stored the screened material without the author's knowledge or consent before redirecting it to its intended destination, where, in some cases, the more relevant information was never forwarded? The defendants (the Telstra Corporation) were using this screened material to benefit their arbitration defence to the detriment of the claimants.

Quote Icon

“…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

“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

“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

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

Hon David Hawker

“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

“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

Were you denied justice in arbitration?

Would you like your story told on
 Contact Us