Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Schapelle Corby - Pinning Down "Tom" The Criminal Scumbag: A Formal Freedom of Information Request

A formal freedom of information request to:

The Australian Federal Police
The New South Wales Police
The Attorney General

Re: The "Memorandum of Understanding," legally required as per this excerpt of the 1994 Witness Protection Act, in relation to Tom's acceptance into the Witness Protection Programme, as also described in this news article

But digressing for just a moment, I also note (as per that last linked article), that "Tom" the QANTAS baggage handler (and cannabis trafficking abuser of the flying public), was also an expert in setting up Swiss bank accounts to launder drug money . . . (I wonder if this unique skill was a key selection criteria for his employment?) . . . Quote:
"Not only was he involved in the importation and subsequent sale of $30 million worth of cocaine, he also set up Swiss bank accounts for syndicate members to launder millions of dollars worth of drug proceeds."
So I'm (also), very much looking forward to a response to this FOI request, in relation to "Tom's" Government-sponsored trip to Switzerland.

So can I please have:

1. A copy of the above mentioned "Memorandum of Understanding," which (I assume), would also explain (to the community at large), how a violent criminal who did not fully disclose his offences was given the hugely expensive privilege of witness protection, as also discussed here.

2. All formal investigations and correspondence relating to Tom appearing on national television in 2011, and claiming he committed perjury in 2006 . . . as per this quote . . .
"Further, I believe "Tom" should be charged with perjury - because he either lied to the court in March 2006, or he lied to Channel 10 in 2011 (frame 0.57 to 1.28). Which was it?"
Because I (and most other reasonable people), would assume appearing on national television, and admitting to a criminal act, contravenes the conditions of his inclusion in the programme? At least, that's what it says here (Section 9 - points 2 a (i) and 2 b).

I also believe that due to the stench surrounding this transaction, it's very much in the public interest for this information to be released, especially given this man's violent history and potential to re-offend - and it can be done in a way that does not compromise "Tom's" present whereabouts and identity. Though when "Tom" voluntarily appears on national television, one has to wonder why other people are "Protecting" him at great public expense, when the "Gentleman" himself is so blatantly cavalier.

Regards, Kim