NSW LEAK (2)
With the State election under way, I have decided to include information to help voters decide which party candidate they will give their vote.
As the polls show labor will not be returned to power, it stands to reason the opposition will, but are they more worthy to vote for, or not.
In March 1993, when the Office of the Ombudsman sent me copies of reports, statements, records of interview and all other related documents including a copy of the Police final investigation report.
I discovered from these documents that two-days after a local police officer took my statement and the details of cheques I alleged my business partner had forged, from the report this officer submitted in defense of the complaints I made concerning the conduct of the criminal investigation. He reported the defendant having phoned him at home and to let him know that he knew all about the complaints I made and the criminal investigation that had been commenced.
Later in the same report the same officer reported the defendant had again phoned him at home and to let him know he knew all about the Officer having obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home.
This information could only have been passed to the defendant by another local police officer, whether out of friendship or for money, no investigation has ever been commenced to establish the identity of this Officer, whose acts perverted the course of justice, and this fact is a reflection of the whole police and ombudsman investigation of the complaints I made, which the investigating Officer took down in detail in May 1992 and it was not until September 1992, five months later the investigation of my complaints commenced.
The next document I reviewed was a copy of the record of interview the investigating officer conducted, during which he was to question the officer, whose criminal investigation had failed to follow proper police investigating procedures.
Completing the review of this record of interview I found no evidence of any of the complaints I made, did the investigating officer investigate? I then read his final report addressed to the District Commander, reporting he could find no evidence to support the complaints made.
The next step was to pass the file to Internal Affairs for an internal review of the conduct of the police investigation of alleged police misconduct and the reviewing officer reported finding nothing to report and later added he believed the investigation of my complaints had been carried out in a satisfactory manner.
The investigation file was then sent to the Office of the Ombudsman copies of which the Ombudsman sent me, included a copy of the results of the external review prepared on behalf of the Ombudsman failed to report to the Ombudsman finding no evidence of the Police having investigated any complaint made.
In the report (Provisional Statement) that was prepared for the Ombudsman it was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention that a witness to a complaint made had not been interviewed by the Police.
Finding a new Commissioner of the PIC had been appointed, in February 2007 I made complaints, which dated back to 1992-3, which since that time both the Police and the Ombudsman have continued to falsely claim all the complaints I made had been fully investigated and no further action would be taken.
In March 2007 the PIC wrote to tell me that they had made a decision not to investigate but if I signed a consent form the PIC would request the Police investigate the complaints and the Ombudsman oversight the Police investigation.
In correspondence dated the 20th March 2007 PIC Barcode 7335333 Ref: No. 362/82 the PIC wrote to both the Police and to the Ombudsman stating:
I hereby refer the attached category one complaints to the Commissioner of Police and to dealt with in accordance with Part 8A of the Police Service Act 1990. The material was notified to this Commission be a member of the Public.
Details of the complaint are contained in the attached documents (barcodes 6936094 – 6936129). The complaint alleges. Lied during proceedings / in statement / on affidavit / failure to investigate (internal investigation) improper interference in an investigation by another officer involving the name of the officer I complained about and the name of the investigating officer who carried out the internal investigation.
A copy of this same information and the same date; containing the same barcode was received by the Office of the Ombudsman.
To this day the request made by the Police Integrity Commission to the Police to investigate and to the Ombudsman to oversight has never commenced. I put this down to the PIC in the last part of there correspondence, where the PIC informed both the Police and the Ombudsman of the fact: that this Commission does not require a final report in relation to the investigation of this matter.
The fact that no investigation commenced, both the police and the Ombudsman after receiving the request together and after considering the fact the PIC did not require a final report made the decision these two authorities in 1993 made, to not investigate the evidence of the misconduct both these authorities in 1992-3 were responsible for covering up police helping a criminal (my ex business partner) to not go to prison.
On the 22nd March 2010 I wrote to both the Premier and to the Leader of the opposition raising and supporting these past issues. A copy of the correspondence I attached to the relevant documents I have copied for a voter’s information and consideration.
The Premier NSW Reg. Post 510761316017
Leader of the NSW Opposition. Reg. Post 510761319018
Mr. B. O' Farrell MLA.
Dear Minister Keneally and Mr. O ' Farrell.
The object of my preparing and submitting to you both the information this submission contains. I have, to prove too you both, the irrefutable evidence of Police corruption I discovered in 1993 I first became a victim of; two days after a local detective had obtained from me a statement on the 21st August 1990, and on that day commenced to investigate evidence of my business partner having forged my signature too cheques of our business partnership.
It was from a copy of a police report the Office of the Ombudsman sent me I discovered the information to prove. Within two days of taking my statement, information relating to the criminal investigation, which only a police officer could have obtained was disclosed to my partner, and which he used to phone the investigating officer at his home.
During this conversation with the defendant, the Officer confirms he noted on a piece of paper my partner confessing to having forged my signature to cheques of our business partnership.
Four weeks after the defendant first phoned the investigating Officer, the defendant again phoned the Officer investigating my partner and during this conversation, the Officer learned that his criminal investigation had been further compromised; when further confidential information concerning the fact a warrant had been obtained to search my partners home, had been disclosed to the defendant.
What else this report confirms is this Officer during both phone conversations and when later interviewing this defendant, failed to have the defendant disclose the name of the Officer who had "tipped him off".
Before I reviewed a copy of this report. The officer investigating on behalf of the Ombudsman the complaints, which on the 10th March 1992 I made to the Ombudsman
This Officer on the 3rd September 1992 reviewed the parts of this report, which I allege proved a police officer disclosed information in a criminal matter, did not when interviewing the officer concerned, question why he took no action to have identified the person who by disclosing information in a criminal matter had compromised the criminal investigation?
The investigating officer also had the power to interview my partner and ask the same question, but for obvious reasons chose not too.
This report was next the subject of an internal review carried out by an Officer attached to police Internal Affairs, whose report confirms he to chose not to report the fact no action had been taken by either officer to determine the identity of the person who, during a criminal investigation twice disclosed to the defendant.
This report was next externally reviewed by one of the Ombudsman's own investigators, and on page two of this report (provisional statement) made no mention of the first phone contact the defendant made with the investigating officer, but did note the second phone contact the defendant made with the investigating officer, where the fact a warrant had been obtained to search the defendants home.
It is obvious from the fact that it was not suggested to the Ombudsman that a recommendation be made to the Police to investigate who on two occasions during a criminal investigation disclosed confidential police information to the defendant?
You will both find the documents that contain evidence to prove (a) information was disclosed to the defendant relating too a criminal investigation, and (b) that no action was taken by the police nor by the Ombudsman too determine the identity of whoever it was disclosed information in a criminal matter, contains the bar code of the Police Integrity Commission, confirming that this commission has also reviewed this report, which information documents contain confirms, when dealing with this complaint the PIC failed to exercise its duty of care, when it failed to comply with s. 15 of the PIC Act, and any request the PIC made to have the Police and Ombudsman to investigate. For very obvious reasons the PIC knew the Police and the Ombudsman would not investigate.
This date I have personally placed the very same evidence, which every authority has deliberately overlooked before both yourself Ms Keneally and before Mr. O ' Farrell.
You will find I have included a list of questions that can be put to the Police the Ombudsman and the PIC and need documents to provide the answers.
Or you can arrange a meeting where yourself and Mr. O' Farrell can attend at which I can place before the Ombudsman the Commissioner of Police and the PIC certain documents, the information they contain, will beyond all reasonable doubt, confirm to you both how all three investigative authorities have, in my case, worked together to defeat the evidence of police corruption supporting the complaints I first made to the Ombudsman in March 1992.
Ms Keneally and Mr. O' Farrell I am providing you with the opportunity to do the right thing and to exercise your duty of care, to ensure I no longer remain a victim of what appears to be state sponsored acts of corruption.
If you each decide to ignore the evidence I have placed before you. You will leave me no choice but to use the same evidence this submission contains too commence a private prosecution; the results of which I believe will ultimately reflect badly upon the parliamentary positions you hold, your integrity/honesty and your political careers.
Therefore I urge you to seriously consider the information this submission contains, which reflects not only how my complaints were never investigated, (and by doing so the police allowed a criminal to avoid prosecution and conviction), but how all complaints in NSW about Police are probably not investigated.
After reviewing the information this submission contains. When forwarding a copy of this submission onto the Ombudsman, the police Commissioner, and the Commissioner of the PIC; a list of questions need to be attached, an example of which I have attached to the end of my submission.
To this list I have also attached a copy of the Ombudsman's policy statement, and similar information published by both the Police and the PIC, the contents of this submission confirm none of these authorities have complied with their advertised mission and values.
Your actions will determine how victims such as myself, will now, and in the future be dealt with.
I await your responses.
This is where I have found both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition having so much in common, when it comes to allegations and evidence of police corruption they both act dumb and blind.
On the 25th January 2011 I again wrote to the Leader of the opposition and included copies of the correspondence the PIC sent both the Police and the Ombudsman in 2007, which today the investigation of complaints the PIC requested the Police and the Ombudsman has never commenced, and to which Mr. O ‘ Farrell did not respond.
Mr. O ' Farrell,
In relation to the correspondence dated the 20th March 2007 the Police Integrity Commission attached to 35 documents containing the barcodes 6936094 - 6936129.
The contents of these 35 documents contained the information/evidence necessary to support complaints that date back to 1992-3; evidence which members of the NSW Police Force and the Office of the Ombudsman both failed to report to Police internal Affairs and to the Ombudsman.
Since writing to you, it has been drawn to my attention that the decision the PIC made to pass the investigations back to the police and to the Ombudsman to investigate their own would be a conflict of interest.
It was within the jurisdiction of the PIC to investigate the Police who in 1992-3 covered up the evidence of police corruption and the member of the Ombudsman's staff who failed to report the deficiencies there was evidence of with the police investigation to the Ombudsman, the PIC should have passed this matter to the ICAC for investigation.
It is within your power to write to both the Commissioner of police and to the Ombudsman and attach copies of the correspondence the PIC sent to which it attached 35 documents containing evidence to support complaints that date back to 1992-3 and ask both the Commissioner and the Ombudsman to explain why the investigation requested by the Commissioner of the PIC has never commenced.
I believe you also need to write to the Commissioner of the PIC and have him explain his reasons for failing to exercise his publicly funded duty of care, which I allege the Commissioner did, when he failed to have both the Police and the Ombudsman file a final report, evidence of both not being held to account.
Mr. O ' Farrell, I submitted to the Wood Royal Commission a report prepared by a NSW accredited criminal law specialist from copies of the very same reports, statements, records of interviews and other related documents a police report had been prepared and a similar report prepared for the Ombudsman.
When this report prepared by this NSW accredited criminal law specialist prepared, is compared with the report prepared by the Police and for the Ombudsman.
It confirms just how much evidence of police corruption had not been reported to the Commander of Internal Affairs or to the Ombudsman.
This fact had to become very evident to the Royal Commission, and the Commissions response was to claim to me regrettably it did not have the resources to investigate.
Mr. O ' Farrell, the Royal Commission had the power to pass the investigation to the Commander of Internal Affairs along with a request an investigation be carried out and a final report prepared for the Royal Commission.
When this Commission failed to exercise its publicly funded duty of care and pass the evidence to be investigated to Internal Affairs, I knew then that this Commission was a "claytons" royal commission the commission you have into police corruption, the parliament did not want to have.
Sir, you have until Friday the 28th to notify me of what immediate action you will take. If I receive no contact I will continue to post this and other information on the Internet. (Which I have and can be found by activating the following link) http://www.nswleak.com you also have my email address.
Signed Robert Lee.
When again I did not receive a response, I emailed every backbench member of the Liberal National Party and attached a copy of the above correspondence and copies of the PIC correspondence to both the Police and to the Ombudsman.
Whether or not collectively or separately each member raised with their leaders the issues I raised I do not know, I do know not one of the members I emailed replied to my email.
I have copied to this page a copy of the email I sent Mr. J. Ajaka MLC, who I discovered has a legal background and every other backbench member to show just how serious matters were.
My name is Robert Lee in 1990 I became a victim of Police corruption, which for the past 20 years I have been fighting unsuccessfully, Owing to the deliberate failure of the following publicly funded authorities to exercise their duty of care. Police, Police Internal Affairs, the Office of the Ombudsman the Wood Royal Commission, the Police Integrity Commission and the ICAC.
To support not allegations but accusations under oath I have made there are two reports prepared by two accredited criminal law specialists, whose reports when compared with reports prepared by public investigative authorities, proves just how much evidence of corruption both the police and the Office of the Ombudsman deliberately covered up from investigation.
Other public authorities I have raised my concerns with are members of the labor party and Premiers past, Bob Carr, M. lemma, N Rees and present Ms Kineally.
On the other side of the political fence I have contacted shadow ministers and the leader of the opposition both Mr. Brogden and Mr. B. O ' Farrell who like their opposites chose to ignore the very serious issues that has for the past 20 years affected my quality of life.
The last correspondence I sent Mr. O' Farrell I have attached to this email. Confirms in February 2007 I placed before the PIC the evidence there was to prove in 1992-3 how much police misconduct there was, which at the time, to protect the officers involved both the Police and the Ombudsman covered up from investigation.
I also attached to the correspondence copies of two letters, one of which I have also attached contained the same information the PIC sent to the Ombudsman.
Confirms on the 20th March 2007 the PIC attached to this correspondence copies of 35 documents containing the information dating to support allegations of police lied during court proceedings, in statements on affidavit, and evidence to support failure to investigate (internal investigation) which a copy of the record of interview confirms not one single complaint did the police investigate.
Then there is the evidence to prove on two occasions during a criminal investigation, confidential police information, which included the fact that a warrant had been obtained to search the defendants home, had been disclosed to the defendant, the PIC classified as improper interference in an investigation conducted by another officer.
To this day no investigation has been commenced and I put this down to the PIC confirming to both the Police and to the Ombudsman it did not require to receive a final report in relation to the investigation of this matter.
It has to be obvious that both the Police and the Ombudsman discussed with each other the correspondence they received and came to the decision not to investigate.
Which brings me to the second system used by the ombudsman to defeat any evidence of police corruption and the tool to do so was first deceptively provided by elected members of the ALP in 1983, with the insertion of legislation into the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act 1978, which was inconsistent with legislation the 1974 Ombudsman Act contained.
The legislation deceitfully inserted into the PRAM Act 1978,indicated that the Ombudsman may make the conduct to which the complaint relates the subject of investigation under the Ombudsman Act 1974.
Consider that legislation in the face of legislation the Ombudsman Act has contained from the day it was first established, for clause 13 of the Schedule/1 part of the Ombudsman Act 1974 confirmed: The Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act may not investigate the conduct of a police officer.
So what has existed since 1983 are two pieces of legislation, with one piece saying the Ombudsman may investigate the conduct of a police officer under the Ombudsman Act and another current piece of legislation confirming the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act cannot investigate the conduct of a police officer, and what the Ombudsman has failed to disclose to me is how he could, and at the same time, comply with both pieces of legislation, a fact not one Ombudsman has raised with the Premier the Minister responsible for operation of the Office of the Ombudsman.
There is ample evidence to prove the insertion of inconsistent legislation into a police act, was deceitfully carried gut and doing so the parliament was misled, as again it was in 1993 and again in 1998, and in 1993 the results of the Ombudsman using inconsistent legislation made the evidence supporting my complaints inadmissible.
Having already raised this matter with Mr. O ' Farrell, and he having chosen to do nothing to correct the matter of inconsistent legislation. I can come to only two conclusions that Mr. O ' Farrell was aware of there was inconsistent legislation and its use, or Mr. O ' Farrell just does not care.
In October 2000 4 Corners put to air their findings concerning the background of just one police officer and over 20 years a file of over 4000 pages contained a record of every complaint made against this Officer, and what else 4 Corners reported, is every complaint had been dismissed by the police and by the Ombudsman, and I will leave it up to the individual to determine whether it was coincidence or inconsistent legislation, which resulted in every complaint being dismissed?
I allege whether or not every member of the parliament is aware of this legislative fact, the fact is I allege the only purpose for creating inconsistent legislation, was to pervert the course of justice, which is a criminal offence and members of the parliament can if after learning of the fact will, if they take no correcting action, become accessories after the fact.
One of the LNP's policy statements claim The NSW LNP will make government more honest and ethical. Restore accountability to government, by giving people a say on issues that affect their lives.
In March 2010 (page 149 - 150) I wrote to both the Premier and to the Premier requesting a meeting at which they both could attend and the Commissioner for police and the Ombudsman would also be asked to attend.
At such a meeting a lot of the documents I can upload onto the Internet I could place before both the Commissioner and the Ombudsman for both to justify why they ignored evidence and the findings of two accredited criminal law specialists?
The Premier did not reply and Mr. O' Farrell asked me (page 156) to let him know if I received any response from Labor, which I confirmed I did not.
In response to the attached correspondence, Mr. O ' Farrell sent me a copy of page 156. So far Mr. O ' Farrell has proved to me that he is not fit to represent any part of the community of NSW nor to become the next Premier of NSW.
What else the LNP is professing the NSW LNP believes, is honesty and integrity in government at all levels is essential to delivering the services and the administration the community expects. So far Mr. O ' Farrell has proved to me he does not practice what he preaches, and I seriously question Mr. O ' Farrell has the credentials necessary to become the next Premier of NSW.
I believe it would be better for the members of the NSW LNP to raise the issue of corruption before the next election, and I am giving each member the opportunity to do the right thing.
For if not I will carry out the promise I made to Mr. O ' Farrell in my last correspondence of publishing on the Internet the same documents containing the same information which since 1993 every publicly funded authority has turned a blind eye, which you can find by activating http7/www.nswleak.com who I suggest after reviewing the 186 pages of documents and text that a meeting with Mr. O ' Farrell and Mr. Stoner is arranged, and questions asked as to why Mr. O ' Farrell has ignored these issues and others I have raised, the same issues I later raised with the President of the NSW Liberal party and the NSW National State Director Mr. Ben Franklin, both of which did not reply.
Enough is enough if after 48 hrs of having sent this email, I have not collectively been contacted to confirm where each member stands I will keep the promise I made to Mr. O ' Farrell member and advertise where my website can be found and I am sincerely hoping that I do not have to, but I will if I have not received any assurance that my complaints are given top priority and officers that have never been charged, are charged. In fact it has been pointed out to me that the information I will if necessary publish, supports a Royal Commission to investigate the conduct of many publicly funded NSW investigative authorities.
The other matter that needs to be settled is in 1994 the first accredited criminal law specialist quantified my financial losses caused by police misconduct at $427,495.00 which has been compounding since 1994 and then there is my claim for compensation for personal damages that will also need to be addressed.
Dear Mr. Ajaka,
By now I believe you would have reviewed the contents of my email of the 22nd I sent to every bank bench members of the NSW Liberal and National party. Sir I will leave it up to you to advise me no later than 1.00 pm tomorrow of the assurances I requested.
If by that time I have not received an email I will accept that to be the response of every member of the LNP backbenches, and that I am free to advertise, where on the internet I have posted documents for the voting community of NSW to judge for themselves, if myself and many thousands of others in NSW have been the victim of the same corruption I have been a victim of these past 20 years.
I await your reply
Subject: Fw: Negligence of the NSW Parliament to protect victims of police corruption.
Dear MR. Ajaka
It appears like your leader you to do not care there are victims of police corruption, with the police protected by the very agencies that are supposed to protect the people from corrupt police. I have kept my promise to Mr. O ' Farrell and have uploaded information which over the past 20 years every publicly funded state investigate authority has turned a blind eye to. Go to http://www.nswleak.com and you will find all 186 pages I have posted.
I received no reply to the first email, or the second. In my book such unconscionable conduct is not the conduct members of the NSW parliament should be using before a state election, proof that when it comes to decide the party of the people, it is the party they support.
I hope the conduct of public authorities on top of police corruption gives voters food for thought
Signed Robert Lee