Open Letter to Mr. Kevin Rudd Member of the ALP

Mr. Kevin Rudd
Member of the ALP
2. 8. 13

Dear Sir,
As I show in correspondence dated July 8 2013 you recently called for a Federal intervention into the NSW Branch of the ALP. You also stated any corruption found will not be swept under the carpet, and any finding of adverse conduct will see that member expelled from the Labor Party.

The letter I addressed to you I attached to a brief of information to support an area of corruption in NSW I first became a victim of, I have found to be state sponsored, and the reasons why I am publishing this and one other related letter, which I also sent by registered post dated April 4 2007, is because the legislative issues I raised with you to prove to you what your colleagues in NSW had done by creating in the area of NSW Law, under which complaints are made about police and investigated by the Ombudsman, who since 1983 I have established has never had any statutory authority to investigate under the Ombudsman Act 1974 any complaint made under a Police Act.

I fully understand why in 2007 you chose to ignore the evidence I placed before you, because to take any action, would have been detrimental to Labor winning the 2007 Federal election.

You have on TV claimed to be disgusted with the corruption unearthed by the ICAC, will let me tell you how disgusted I am with your conduct, to turn a blind eye to the corruption I am a victim of, and to do anything about it now, would affect seriously affect Federal Labor.

You will read I stated in my correspondence of April 4 2007 that the information I placed before you then would test your integrity and honesty, which time confirms you failed. When both yourself and Mr Dastyari together have failed to reply, history is repeating itself, and what this proves Mr. Rudd that you can talk the talk, but when it comes to corruption in the ALP, you cannot walk the walk.

I hope by publishing both letters, that I shame you into taking the necessary and appropriate action .

Yours Faithfully

Robert Lee


P. O. Box 9470 Reg Post 514127706016
QLD 4350
8. 7. 13

Mr. K. Rudd
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

C. C: Mr. S. Dastyari Secretary of the NSW Branch of the ALP. Reg Post 514127705019

Regards: “Criminal use of NSW legislation”

Dear Sir,
I welcome your intervention into the conduct of elected members of the NSW Branch of the ALP and as a victim of corruption for which elected members of the ALP I can prove to be responsible. I have edited and cut and pasted from your letter to the NSW ALP secretary Mr. Sam Dastyari and others, section 1 “Zero Tolerance of corruption”, and in particular the last two paragraphs to be part of the rules, and add to this, your word that no corruption will be swept under the carpet.

The vast majority of Labor members are ethical, principled and motivated by a
genuine desire to improve the lives of the people around them and deliver a fair and
equitable Australia.

In the name of these Labor members we must send a clear message that corruption
will not be tolerated.

A zero tolerance approach must be formalised under the rules of the NSW Branch.
the NSW Branch must impose new rules so that any person with an adverse finding
of corruption is immediately expelled from the Labor Party, and anyone with a past
finding of corruption is prohibited from joining the party.

Further the rules must ensure that anyone being investigated for improper conduct can
be suspended from the party, where that investigation is bringing the party into disrepute.

It has been said, corruption in a democratic country, island or state cannot exist without the support of the ruling party and the opposition, and this is the situation I can prove for 30 years has been the case in NSW.

For up to now the corruption I have been a victim of and I believe there are many more including one person in particular, Ms Roseanne Catt, who spent 10 years in prison for a crime she did not commit, and I know to be a victim of the same corruption I am. Hopefully, whoever is appointed to carry out the investigation of alleged corruption and abuse of public trust in NSW, will investigate supported allegations I have made for years and either no one replies, or if they do to hide the truth, tell lies.

In October 2000 4 Corners put to air the results of an investigation into the Fire Insurance Business in QLD and in particular one fire insurance investigator, who previously had been employed as a Police Officer with the NSW Police.

Reviewing both the complaints and the evidence supporting complaints made about this Police Officer when stationed at Taree, 4 Corners found:
The complaints lodged back in Taree by Errol Taylor and his friend Ms Roaseanne Catt were still
Dragging on
Despite the mounting evidence against Thomas, their complaints were one by one being dismissed by the Ombudsman and the Police.

Add the above complaints made to a file 4 Corners found to be over 4000 pages thick contained a record of every complaint made about this Police Officer;

By this time Police Internal Affairs had a file on Thomas that would grow to more than
4000 pages a file 60cm thick.

And what was no coincidence are the results of the Ombudsman’s investigation of this Officer in 1985, was no different to previous complaints made, showing all complaints made had been dismissed by the Police and by the Ombudsman.

When you informed the public and members of your party that a Federal Intervention will be made into the NSW Branch of the ALP. After 20 years of fighting to obtain the justice that had been denied to me, I was preparing information to send to Ms Pauline Hanson and One Nation, who I believe would welcome the chance to use this information to support why Ms Hanson should be elected.

It depends on what decision you make and how to deal with the information this day I have submitted to you as the PM and to Mr. Dastyari the Secretary of the NSW Branch of the ALP. If after seven days from receipt of the material I will send by registered post I have not been contacted to acknowledge receipt of the material in support of a Federal Intervention and what action will be taken, and to not sweep anything under the carpet. I will forward a copy to Ms Hanson.

Mr. Rudd this is not a threat it is a promise. A threat is when someone sends, as they recently did to me and I took a photo of a bullet in my letterbox, I regard to be a threat to my person, which I hope you disagree with.

I await your response and the response of Ms Dastyari.

Yours Faithfully

Robert Lee


P. O. Box 6398 Reg. Post RD51818716
QLD 4350.
18. 4. 07

Mr. Kevin Rudd MP
Leader of the ALP Federal Opposition.
P. O. Box 476A
Morningside QLD 4170.

Subject: Bad Legislation

Dear Sir,
Ever since the IR legislation became law, both your self and Mr. Beazley before you regarded such legislation as unfair and un-Australian, so much so Mr. Beazley made it very plain as far as he was concerned if he became the next Prime Minister he would repeal the IR legislation.

As a victim I have an issue with bad legislation, which elected members of the NSW Labor Party in 1983 had the parliamentary council draft and when it became law this legislation with the assistance of the NSW Ombudsman, ensured two police officers I was a victim of their acts of misconduct, to go free.

In principal I see no difference to the IR legislation and the bad legislation I drew to the attention of your deputy Ms Gillard last December and which ever since then, the evidence I placed before her, which the elected members of the NSW ALP are responsible. Ms Gillard has ignored the consequences this bad legislation since 1983 had had upon any member of the community of NSW who has complained to the Ombudsman about Police Misconduct.

Mr. Rudd, like your deputy you are a paid up member of the Australian Labor Party and as such, I am going to bring to your attention as I previously did to your deputy, this “Bad Legislation”, which in principal is similar to the IR Laws but with one notable difference, the IR laws do not pervert the course of justice, which the legislation members of the ALP elected to become the government under Neville Wran the ALP Premier of NSW does.

Mr. Rudd I have included for your perusal a copy of the correspondence and attachments I sent Ms Gillard by registered post RD26017065 on the 11th December 2006, which it appears Ms Gillard consigned to her waste paper basket.

I have also included in two parts, the history of the legislation and the amendments to the legislation concerned elected members of the ALP in NSW passed in 1983 and in part two after repealing in 1998, legislation part of which for the past twenty years required the Ombudsman to review and “must” (Attachment A) report to the Commissioner any deficiencies found with the conduct of a police investigation of alleged police misconduct.

Which upon receipt of that report under the Act prior to 1998 the Commissioner was obligated to cause a further investigation, in order to remedy the deficiencies referred to in the Ombudsman’s report.

Under the Premiership of Mr. Bob Carr this all changed as can be seen by the wording of section 153 of the new 1998 Police Service Act. No longer is the Ombudsman empowered by the Act to report to the Commissioner of Police any deficiencies a review of the conduct of a police investigation finds.

Instead, after 1998, if any deficiencies with a police investigation of police misconduct is found by the Ombudsman. Under the previous 20-year legislation the Ombudsman had to report any deficiencies to the Commissioner, and upon receipt of such a report, the Commissioner must cause the deficiencies in the report to be investigated.

Under the new 1998 legislation, the Ombudsman may request the Commissioner to cause a further investigation of the complaint, which if the Ombudsman makes such a request, the legislation confirms the Commissioner may, but is not obliged to cause a further investigation to be conducted.

Since 1998 the Ombudsman can legally ignore and not report any deficiencies found with the conduct of a police investigation of alleged police misconduct, and if by chance the Ombudsman based on deficiencies found with a police investigation requests the Commissioner to further investigate.

Under this new legislation the Commissioner may carry out the request the Ombudsman made, but legally is not under any legislative obligation to do so.

Mr. Rudd here is evidence of legislation Bob Carr in 1998 was responsible for, which both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of Police can “legally” use to dismiss any complaint made against a member of the NSW Police force, and in 1998 went so far, as to abolish the Police Tribunal.

Sir the issue I have raised since I discovered it in 2001 is the fact there are two pieces of legislation drafted and assented into NSW Law by elected members of the ALP seriously affects the functions of the NSW Ombudsman.

(a) Under a section of a police act since 1983 states, the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act can make the conduct of a police officer the subject of ombudsman investigation.

(b) Since 1974 under section 13 of the Schedule division of the Ombudsman Act, the conduct of a police
officer has been excluded from being investigated under the Ombudsman Act.

You do not have to be a Rhode scholar to determine in this area of NSW law there is an error/contradiction, which seriously affects any incriminating evidence, the Ombudsman discovers during an investigation carried out under a section of a police act.

Mr. Rudd in NSW there is an authority called the NSW law Reform Commission and to this Commission I placed the two pieces of legislation, which directly conflict with each other before this Commission expecting this Commission to recognize the fact that s. 13 of schedule 1 can nullify the results of any investigation into the conduct of a police officer the ombudsman conducts under a section of the Police Act 1990.

Attachment B is a copy of the reply, which I did not expect; but which confirmed to me, in the interests of the NSW Labor Government the NSW law reform commission advised me; it did not consider there are matters of substance that the Law Reform Commission should examine in any further detail.

To do so would confirm the fact that for many years there has been an error in a certain area of law, under which, complaints about police are dealt with by the Ombudsman, and this fact I allege the LRC covered up.

Sir any investigation the Ombudsman carries out under a section of a police act that claims the Ombudsman can do so under the Ombudsman Act 1974, this same act since 1974 has defined the legislative fact the Ombudsman act does not provide the ombudsman with any power/authority to investigate the conduct of a police officer, and this has been a legislative fact since 1974, and the only way the Ombudsman could legally investigate the conduct of a Police Officer under the Ombudsman Act, is if the parliament repealed s. 13 of Schedule 1.

At anytime during the past 24 years s. 13 could have been repealed, and there is only one reason why it was not, for to do so any indictable evidence the Ombudsman discovered, the police could not claim was inadmissible.

Sir, I am speaking from my own experience. In a letter the Ombudsman confirmed to me that he had carried out an investigation under s. 16 of the Ombudsman act and the evidence he found, he determined sustained the complaint I had made to the Ombudsman.

In a further letter the Ombudsman confirmed he had received a submission from the police advising the Ombudsman the police did would not accept his sustained findings or recommendations. The Ombudsman did not include in his letter the reasons the police gave.

The Ombudsman advised me that under the Act he could refer the disagreement to the Police Tribunal but as he had no financial resources to spare, he regrettably informed me he would have to close the file, which automatically dismissed the complaint.

I later discovered nine days before explaining to me this Office had no financial resources to take any further action. This Office received re-current funding of 4.28 million dollars, from which it claimed to me it could not spare $5.00 to post to the Police Tribunal for consideration, the evidence upon which the Ombudsman based his sustained findings.

Mr. Rudd not only did I become a victim of bad legislation, I also became a victim of lies told to me by the Ombudsman.

I believe the legislation I refer to, which was first drafted and assented into law in 1983 by elected members of the ALP. They did primarily not to protect police officers as such, but to protect the funding of police from claims of compensation made by victims of such misconduct.

Mr. Rudd here is evidence of legislation Bob Carr in 1998 was responsible for, which both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of Police can “legally” use to dismiss any complaint made against a member of the NSW Police force, and in 1998 went so far, as to abolish the Police Tribunal.

Mr. Rudd, your deputy has already confirmed to me she is a hypocrite, where the IR laws are concerned she will take whatever action is necessary if elected to repeal such laws. But she chose to ignore the fact that members of her own party are not acting in the interests of the community, and doing so are supporting legislation which in essence perverts the course of justice.

I watched and listened to what you will do about the IR laws if you become the new Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr. Rudd what I have so far placed before you is a test of your integrity and credibility. I have made you and your deputy fully aware what elected members of your party in NSW are supporting is criminal and not in the interests of any voters in NSW.

To take action against the IR laws, and take no action to have the NSW branch of your party correct the area of NSW law I have brought to your attention before the next Federal Election, will only serve to prove you are not fit to hold the position of Prime Minister.

Sir as a result of the bad legislation I have these past years been a victim of, I hold all members of the NSW Division of the ALP responsible, for not only the legislation I am a victim of, but also the many other victims like myself who over the past 24 years are victims of the same bad legislation.

The information I attached to the correspondence I sent Ms Gillard confirms the Ombudsman is aware there is a contradiction in the law, and has turned a blind eye to this fact. Who else has turned a blind eye is the Minister responsible for the Ombudsman and his Office, Mr. Iemma the Premier of NSW.

Mr. Rudd if a Royal Commission was convened or even a senate inquiry, I can place before either evidence that the present NSW Government, along with the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of Police over the past 24 years have been a part of a system, which has used state legislation to pervert the course of justice.

Sir you have a decision to make, whether to protect your NSW colleagues and do nothing, or to act in the interests of justice, if within 14 days from now I have not received any word from you regarding the serious issues I have raised. I will forward a complete copy of what you have received by registered post RD51818716 to the appropriate Federal Minister for his perusal and consideration.

Yours faithfully

Robert Lee.

P. S.

I have decided to include information published by Ms I. Moss to show after she became the Ombudsman she set out to explain under the Ombudsman Act what the functions and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman are.

You will find Ms Moss explains Schedule 1 of the Act limits the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, by excluding the conduct of certain specified public authorities, which at the time, and still does today. Section 13 of Schedule 1 excludes the conduct of a police officer from investigation.