It has been said: Corruption in any democratic country, island, state of territory, can only exist with the support of every member of the ruling and opposition parties, and in the state of NSW and in relation to complaints about police I have found this to be so true.
It took me ten years to discover how publicly funded authorities and each publicly funded investigative authority are able to defeat evidence of police corruption, which effectively ended any automatic claim of compensation from being made by victim of police corruption.
Part of my investigations of legislation under which complaints about police are investigated, I discovered in 1983 a certain piece of legislation had been secretly and deceptively inserted into the 1978 Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Act, I allege the reasons why such legislation was secretly and deceptively created, because it was known that this particular piece of legislation was inconsistent with legislation the Ombudsman Act has contained from the day it was assented.
I can find only one reason why legislation inconsistent with legislation the Ombudsman Act contained, was inserted into the PRAM Act 1978?
The legislation, which in 1983 was inserted into the 1978 PRAM Act, indicated the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act could investigate the conduct of a complaint made about a police officer. In July 1993 the Ombudsman advised me that he had pursuant to s.16 of the Ombudsman act re-investigated a complaint the initial police investigation had not investigated, resulted in a statement having been taken from a witness corroborating the complaint made.
Based upon this evidence the Ombudsman reported to the Police Service solicitor that he had determined the complaint to be sustained, and made recommendations as to what action should be taken. The response the service solicitor prepared the Ombudsman received on the 25th August 1993, but did not disclose in the final report the contents of the police response to the Ombudsman’s sustained findings.
This information the Assist Ombudsman disclosed 12 months later on the 11th July 1994, confirming the police had rejected the Ombudsman’s findings on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove the officers investigated had done anything wrong.
It was from information Ms Moss published under the heading of “Functions and Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman”. I discovered: The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman was limited by the exclusion of the conduct of public authorities as specified by Schedule 1 of the Act.
This information led me to immediately recall the Ombudsman having carried out under s.16 of the Ombudsman Act the conduct of a complaint I made against two police officers, and I now know why the Police rejected the Ombudsman’s sustained findings, and why the Ombudsman made a discretionary decision to take no further action, is because the Ombudsman did not tell me the reasons why the Police claimed there was no evidence to prove two police officers had committed any wrongdoing, is because the service solicitor was correct.
For I allege the service solicitor drew the Ombudsman’s attention to clause 13 of the Schedule, pointing out, despite what a piece of police legislation incorrectly indicated, having no jurisdiction under the Ombudsman act to investigate the conduct of a police officer made the evidence (given in a statement by a witness) upon which the Ombudsman based his sustained finding inadmissible.
Just as Wikileak was set up to disclose government secrets, I decided to copy Mr. Assange and set up NSWLEAK.COM. I have posted on the Internet 186 pages of documents containing the information necessary to confirm how on three occasions, in 1983, 1993, and 1998 legislation was tampered with secretly and deceptively, with just one purpose in mind to pervert the investigation of any evidence of police corruption.
I allege when a parliament is as corrupt as the NSW parliament obviously is, who is worthy of honestly representing the community of NSW? This is a decision every voter has to decide, and what I am doing in the public interest, is helping a
voter to decide.