It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How low can it go?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:03 AM
In many cases people ask well how High does it realy go, But i want to know how low does a conspiracy go, can it go to (forgive me I'm Canadian) can it go to the provinvial level or mabe even the manucipal level? or does it stay in the highest most rafters of the federal government?
what do you guys think?

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:34 AM
I'm guessing you're talking 'conspiracy' in general (?)

Where I live (Australia) is can begin so low it's virtually underground, and can very swiftly wend its way through dreary public-service channels until it ends up at State governmental levels. From there, it continues through the corrupt State Ombudsman and onto the allegedly 'most high' and 'independent' body, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (which in fact is a private company set up to work on behalf of the State government).

And it's corruption all the way. 'Lost' documents, false testimony, corrupt 'adjudication' and 'investigation', etc.

Add to this disgusting and foul mix a supposed Opposition Party which actually remainsinvisible and uncontactable -- and WHEN contacted and provided evidence, this 'Opposition' party REFUSES to do ANYthing that might possible incriminate or embarrass the corrupt governing party.

Then top it off with the world's most monopolistic, corrupt media which refuses to utter one word about proven, demonstrated corruption and chooses instead to drone on night after night about botched plastic surgery and diet-shakes in alleged 'current affairs' programmes.

*IF* a complainant perseveres regardless, he/she may well be hit by a car or die in a freak house fire or be otherwise silenced.

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:39 AM
you would think the lower ends of the government would be left in the dark for fear of leaks.

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:13 AM
I'm not sure we're speaking of the same thing.

In my post above, I was referring to general conspiracy, as when (in this instance) a minor public servant ( ' A' ) engages in corrupt activity, related to either the workplace or his private life.

If 'A' fears his corrupt activities may subject him to legal or other penalty, he seeks the cooperation of his lowly public-service peers. Most of them began working for government departments at 13 or 14 and have risen (like the proverbial cream and #e) to senior levels, simply by virtue of turning up day after day for 35 years. In order to protect themselves and/or their career against legal or other penalty, the by now small group of minor-level public servants assist 'A' by corrupting process AND the legislation they're paid to uphold.

If the complainant still refuses to capitulate, the corrupt group will then seek the cooperation of more senior public servants.

All the way through, they are shredding incriminating documents, falsifying others, conspiring left and right within departments and in the private sector, etc. It's amazing how many lawyers will assist in government corruption, in expectation the favour will later be rewarded in some form or other.

Finally, the matter may come to the attention of departmental heads and/or the Minister of the Department in question, at which point it is deemed 'clever and prudent ' to engage in outright corruption via means of corruptly held 'tribunals', or via the engagement of slime solicitors who in turn will schedule 'mediation', 'adjudication' etc. They then fail to attend and claim the complainant has made a 'mistake' regarding the date. The complainant will be informed that due to his 'failure' to attend, the department was compelled to hand down a decision that found against the complainant and against which the complainant may not appeal. Big Ha Ha all round.

Should the complainant take the matter to Opposition MPs, the MP in question will invariably talk up a storm ...... and do nothing.

Usually, the complainant has provided the MP with all possible documentation and proof --- which the MP will swiftly make available to the corrupt government department in question (again, ' I scratch your back and ... )

Should the complainant take the matter to the media, the scandal will be simply ignored, again and again.

If in desperation the complainant takes this convoluted mess of evidence to the State Ombudsman's Office, his submission will be returned to him, stamped with the Ombudsman's seal and accompanied by a letter advising the complainant that the Ombudsman has --- after (laugh) consideration -- decided the corrupt department has no case to answer. Most Ombudsman drones are seeded by the very government departments they will be required to 'investigate' under the auspices of the Ombudsman.

Exhausted, the complainant may add the Ombudsmans' corruption to the rest and send the lot to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Again, his submission will be returned to him with the advice the Commission has decided the corrupt government department has no case to answer. (The ICAC is in fact a private organisation that pretends to investigate the government that pays it).

And that's the end of the road.

Little croooks enjoy privileged position within monolithic, corrupt government departments who claim the right and power to 'investigate' themselves and find themselves 'innocent'.

People have killed themselves because of situations such as described above.

Nothing happens to the guilty and the victims of this sort of corruption simply moulder in their graves as life goes on as usual above them.

For numerous examples of the situation in Australia (government inaction/involvement in pedophilia, murder, embezzlement, etc) see Gaiaguys website. It's an eye-opener !

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 06:58 PM
well I can see but you would think the information of the coruption would be atempted to be with held from anyone lower then the corruption it's self.

top topics

log in