Truthbook.Social

3 yrs

The existence of this website [a]www.expendable.tv[/a] proves that, against this type of background, the acquisition of conclusive evidential proof is not sufficient. The data obtained and published by The Expendable Project has been censored, maligned and misrepresented by a media which has invested exclusively in fictitious trivia and false conspiracy theories, whilst pandering to the worst instincts of a largely inured population.
Throughout, the establishment, inclusive of the judiciary, had no stomach for the implications of what was revealed by this material. The closed ranks embraced not only subsequent generations of politicians, but a range of institutions and organs of state. Cultural prejudice and social entrenchment also ensured that those parties masquerading as the purveyors of civil and human rights remained silent and acquiescent.
Whilst this case is unique in some respects, common strands pervade many others. Indeed, during its investigation The Expendable Project was furnished with evidence relating to a number of them. Direct approaches to Australian authorities, and offers to forward the information, were simply ignored.
This is Australia's dirty little secret. It remains an unambiguous and ongoing measure of its diminished moral standing and lost integrity.
The Expendable Project remains the most extensive FOI based investigation in the history of Australian journalism.
SOURCE INFORMATION AND PRIMARY EVIDENCE
Most of the material presented on this website was sourced through formal requests made under the *Freedom of Information Act (FOI) *of 1982. The use of this legislation yields copies of ‘official’ data: correspondence, transcripts, emails, records, documents, and a vast array of other information types. For any given subject, when requests are submitted across all relevant departments and agencies, the returns provide an unambiguous and clear picture of events and decision making.
In the case of Schapelle Corby, requests were submitted over a lengthy period, of five or six years. They were submitted on behalf of Schapelle Corby herself, so that her own personal data could be returned. Others were later submitted from relevant third parties, and through different individual citizens, in order to avoid target awareness of the huge investigative exercise which was underway.
After initial submissions and returns, follow-ups and appeals were undertaken, to seek and obtain further information. For every government department and agency at all relevant to the Schapelle Corby case, one or more such requests were pursued to their ultimate outcome. Supplementary requests were also submitted, again by different individuals, to obtain data pertaining to indirectly related aspects which might yield complementary background data.
The comprehensive and carefully executed project plan embraced the heart of the establishment, and included the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General’s Department, the ACMA, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the AFP, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Transport and Regional Services, the ACLEI, the Prime Minister’s & Cabinet Office, the OAIC, the Australian Crime Commission, the ABC, and a multitude of other institutions and agencies.
Eventually, a number of departments did recognize that this exercise was in process. It is a self-evident fact that the evidence obtained during the early years was substantially more complete and less censored than that obtained in recent years. It is a self-evident fact that pursuance of the requests became increasingly difficult, with prolonged delays and intentional blockages becoming frequent.
In one infamous case, a request was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), with Australia’s top security officer telling the court that disclosure of the data would create a serious impasse with the United States of America, and place the provision of “security intelligence and threat warnings” to Australia at risk. The censorship of this particular FOI request alone cost the taxpayer over $1 million in processing, legal, and other fees.
In addition, a significant volume of information was collected from a variety of non-governmental sources, as evidence was accumulated which might help to enhance the picture already painted by the now enormous FOI cache. These included direct interviews, audio and video recordings, legal records, and Internet meta-data, with researchers visiting locations as diverse as London and Bangkok.
Overall, this operation almost certainly constituted the largest and most wide-scale exercise of FOI based information gathering ever to have been undertaken within the Commonwealth of Australia.
To read the thousands of freedom of information documents which prove #Schapelle 100% innocent go here [a][a]www.expendable.tv[/a][/a] #Australia so corrupt