TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONDUCT COMMISSION – the imprimatur to this complaint is

within the email attachments from the Ombudsman

NB THIS EMAIL SUBMISSION HAS NOT BEEN SENT TO ANYONE ELSE – IS PRIVATE AND
CONFIDENTIAL
My name is Charles H. Norville of 21 Crosby Crescent, Killarney Vale, NSW 2261 and
I have a complaint against the NSW Police Investigation E67840074 and the neglect
of the Ombudsman’s Office.

1. The Police E67840074 –“CH Norville Police Statement Stat Dec 150218” attached
(conducted Feb- Mar 2018) investigation which also encompasses fault by other
watchdog and legal bodies. The crux of the complaint of a crime is that after
many years of complaining to the Ombudsman and others finally there was an
overwhelming number of criminal assaults and 2010 Task Force SIME
investigated many such assaults as mine;
2. The point is that my Workers Comp lawyers in 1995 knew of the probability of
the crime and did not report it to Police. It appears that the Police consider now
that I should have reported to Police the crime in 1981 (instead of 1995 and
2010) – The number of Fire Brigades assaults investigated were around 50. In
short if it was a crime in 2010 why is it not a crime in 1995 when those in power
that could be believed as the media and whistleblowers were believed in 2010?
a. My initial singular complaint to the Police in 2010 was rebuked (RE
Ombudsman 2010) so in all likelihood my single complaints as currently
now above 2018 would have received the same dispatch in 1981;
3. At least 3 lawyers present in 1995 and one other who had better access to Police
reporting procedure to be believed. But these lawyers who know what a crime
looks like decide otherwise to carry on with Workers Comp litigation that would
have been unnecessary, because without doubt the Fire Brigades would have
been required to support me;
4. The scenario of the non-reporting of the crime by Officers of the Supreme Court
ie the total compliment of Workers Comp Lawyers, conspired with the criminally
complicit Fire Brigades to retire me for the term of my natural life – the process
then become one of civil litigation under 1916 Superannuation Act S48-52.;
5. So Police consider that I should have reported the crime in 1981 even when it
took until 2010 to investigate at the behest of the media and myself and 50 other
firefighters serving and non-serving under Task Force SIME to investigate
decades of ritualistic atrocities that would have also harmed the family members
of firefighters;
6. If I had reported the crime in 1981 to Police, I would have lost my job and in fact
I would have walked away and gone back to the metal trades – which in
hindsight I should done;
7. However when I reported the crime in 1995 I lost my job. I have had to pay for
a crime committed by others when Workers Comp solicitors clearly could have cut
their costs and reported what was a highly suspected crime to Police. Instead I
was retired in lieu of dismissal thus with Lawyers deceiving the Workers Comp
Jurisdiction;
8. What is particularly despicable is that if Workers Comp lawyers by reporting their
concerns to Police would have initiated a more proximitous investigation thereby
saving the ritual atrocities against firefighters and their families between 1995
and 2010;
9. I have attempted numerous civil litigations in my own shoes for what now has
been expressed as a form of persona non grata by the legal industry. This is
because lawyer fraternity cannot be involved in what would clearly reveal the
wrong doing by the 1995 lawyers;
10. NB At around the same time of the E67840074 19 Feb 2018 submission to Police
an award for Victims Compensation is made to me for the 1981 assault which is
received on Mar 12 2018. I consider the 2nd reassessment a denovo from Victims
Services (VS) Compensation (VC);
11. Victims Services offers a quick compensatory solution for victims and a cost
benefit solution to criminal justice system that is being overwhelmed. Never the
less it is a legislative relief for victims, to which I am glad to attest to;
12. On 24 Feb 2018 I received a phone call from DSC Matt Attenborough dismissing
my complaint E67840074; I pursued this with the Ombudsman and other
matters, via Ombudsman Officer Howard as well as the Ombudsman’s own
negligence of account at least two decades;
13. The Ombudsman Office also must have also known what a crime looked like and
believing in the continuous white washing of their responsibilities together with
numerous other NSW Government Departments decide it is a civil matter for me
to vainly pursue as has been the case re para 9.

I have attached various documentation which includes:

*“CH Norville Police Statement Stat Dec 150218” re -Police E67840074 – this
declaration given to Police 19 Feb 2018 references non-compliance 2nd VS/DoJ
review “reassessment” dated 5th Mar 2018 which was subsequently received 12th Mar
2018. However the “reassessment” does not change the inference of criminal
activity stated in the declaration.

*“FW: Your complaint to the NSW Ombudsman [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]” re – is

the forwarding of Ombudsman Email to Victims Services account to return by
registered mail a cheque that DoJ accounts had lost and then mysteriously
found. The email has the attached response from Ombudsman, email dated 7 June
2018;

*”Ombudsman non formalising of sexual assault 221001 re Ombudsman:

C/2001/7725 &7727 – Re Mr Y Piga 22 Oct 2001; R/01/234;

*”Reports by Charles H Norville to Australian Training Ministers Attorneys General 26

Sept 2016”- https://www.scribd.com/document/336801798/Reports-by-Charles-H-Norville-
toAustralian-Training-Ministers-Attorney-Generals-26-Sept-2016

*”VICTIMS SERVICES REVIEW OF DECISION 170483D – CH Norville” 1st review and

is also contained in the 2nd review vis update -NSW Justice Department review of
economic losses – 28112017 [the 2nd review is a large file that cannot be attached
https://www.scribd.com/document/365735319/updated-NSW-JusticeDepartment-Review-of-
Economic-Losses-28112017

DISCUSSION on The Rule Of Law:

1. I am inspired by Rule Of Law reference by The Hon JJ Spigelman AC Chief
Justice of NSW: The Rule of Law Institute of Australia – Judicial Reflections
on the Rule of Law 13 May 2011,– interview by Malcolm Stewart Vice Chair
RLIA: “The Rule of Law to me serves two principle purposes. Firstly it
requires a society which places a high value on individual autonomy and it
also requires a society which has a high level of social order to which it in
turn contributes both in terms of preserving autonomy and contributing
(to) the social order”;
2. So I understand that accountabilities are essential in a society of high
social order in upholding the rights of individuals – the Common Law
considers a balance of personal rights with social duties;
3. I understand that the NSW Police are overwhelmed by the amount of
substantive criminal activity that is subject of prescribed technology
interventions. Individual criminal events that have numerous perpetrators
compromises the legal process simply by cost benefit analysis. Police are
under resourced and are forced to seek the jurisdiction of the Coroners
Court to solve murders Re Joseph Tainter The Collapse Of Complex
Societies reveals that complex societies create inefficiencies that are not
beneficial to social order and progress.

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The basis of my complaint against the Ombudsman is their maladministration of the
above events as I have described (amongst other things) but to also avoidance of
culpability under their jurisdiction.
EPISODE A: report by Ombudsman Officer Howard re C/2018/2087 attachment:
QUOTE “Your previous complaint to the NSW Ombudsman”
“On 24 May 2018 you made reference to a previous complaint with this office. You
wrote:
…It appears that same procedure by Ombudsman for you to contact. I have
attached the refuting by Bruce Barbour the NSW Ombudsman 7 Nov 2001 that there
was ever a crime committed against me the follow up of the VS established a crime I
then report a further crime to.” (this is in reference to Bruce Barbour’s support of
Ombudsman Officer Mr Y Piga 22 Oct 2001).

“This matter is considerably dated as such I will not comment on Mr Barbour’s

previous correspondence.” END QUOTE

EPISODE B: The matter which I consider is relevantly dated Ombudsman:

C/2013/6251 Investigation Officer Patrick Trieu 5 Sept 2013. “Reports by
Charles H Norville to Australian Training Ministers & Attorney Generals 26 Sept 2016”
https://www.scribd.com/document/336801798/Reports-by-Charles-H-Norville-toAustralian-
Training-Ministers-Attorney-Generals-26-Sept-2016 which is attached and at para 54-58
of 2nd report

At para 54-58 of 2nd report QUOTE: THE OMBUDSMAN under the care of Bruce
Barbour & others
Ombudsman: C/2001/7725 &7727 – Re Mr Y Piga 22 Oct 2001; R/01/234
– Re Bruce
Barbour, Ombudsman 7 Oct 2001.
54.Mr Barbour states inter alia: “I have read My Piga’s decision and other material on
file”
This refers to the “26 page Chronology” and the retirement which the Ombudsman
see nothing wrong with. Senior Investigation Officer Piga states “…except in those
rare cases where the opinion is clearly so unreasonable that no reasonable person
would have given it. I do not believe this office is in a position to make that decision
in
this instance …” so that the Ombudsman has no problem with the criminal assault
either.
Ombudsman: C/2013/6251 Investigation Officer Patrick Trieu 5 Sept 2013
55.In 2013 the process of dealing with the VRC via Napier Keen the Police having
done
their investigation 2010, I send once more to the Ombudsman – but prior to the
official
outcome decision by VRC viz 11 Aug 2014, once again the “26 page Chronology” and
following email detail sent 22 Aug 2013:
56.The following attachments in the email
The following attachments
 26 page chronology ref Bastardisation @ page 19 “...in order of responsibility”;
o @ page 22 ~ 9.9.87; 2.10.87 re reporting bastardisation to Chief Officer Bill Reay;
Personnel Office Alan Grunsell; Union Secretary John Slade;
 Treating psychiatrist Dr Mark Howard – ref 26 page ‘summary’ @ para 4;
 Treating psychologist Dr Marlowe – ref Bastardisation @ para 2;
 GIO psychiatrist Milton re bastardisation @ 11;
 Ombudsman 221001 (C/2001/7725 & 7727) re 26 page chronology @ para 2nd
page
57.The response by the Ombudsman Investigation Officer 5 Sept 2013 Ref
C/2013/6251
officer Patrick Trieu states inter alia “While I note your allegations about being
victimised, harassed or discriminated against, I cannot find any clear evidence of
wrong administrative conduct on the part of a NSW government agency that
warrants
any action by this office.”
58.INTERIM CONCLUSION: Quite apart from the specific bias, these people deal
with the
law they must know what a crime looks like. Lawyers steer clear of litigants of this
nature, like myself, knowing that the of Coventry has displaced the Rule Of
Law. …….END QUOTE

CONCLUSION (OF ALL MATERIAL DOCUMENTS):

A: Police task Force SIME 2010 was inspired by media and whistleblowers, and the
Police were informed and conducted their investigations. The report (E67840074) &
included links shows that at the time of discovery in 1995 there were at least three
lawyers and another legally trained individual that observed my 1981 account, I
consider this to be ample to inspire affidavits to Police by lawyers and a pulling back
from the Workers Comp Jurisdiction, an adversarial gravy train – an honest
disclosure would be a legal inspiration under the Rule Of Law.

B: The Ombudsman Office has acted with duplicitous avoidance by having the
substantive issues of my submissions at hand. 1. Dismissing my complaints against
them and other Government Departments and in particular stating without statutory
reason using proscribed ‘out of time’ provision vis as “matter is considerably
 dated”. 2. Acting with proscribed maladministration of their duty function with the
available relevantly dated correspondences at hand. The evidence shows that the
NSW Ombudsman Office has used adversarial avoidance to find reasons not to seek
the truth.

C: The Ombudsman and a host of other Government departments could have

provided an easy solution within the framework of their statutory duty and
obligations under for instance the 1916 Superannuation Act S48-52. The legal
fraternity quite often seems sociopathic in its lying adversarial approach – the legal
fraternity consider sour appraisal of my situation, as there is simply no gravy train of
proforma law for them to easily fill in, and some in their conceit have actually stated,
in pathetic honesty they cannot sue other lawyers, yet this is not my intention.

D: The system of Westminster Law is used in a prescribed adversarial methodology,

which includes the contesting by serial lying lawyers that undermines the Rule Of
Law of an individual’s right to fairness and equity – Victims Services Legislation
partially compensates but cannot restore a victims access to a lost livelihood. On
this point age and past history vetting by a multi-billion dollar employment industry
endorsed by Government, manifests unequal access to employment and regardless
of my civil litigation I was sentenced to be retired for the term of my natural life for
crimes committed by others and denied re-employment under the 1916
Superannuation Act S48-52. I have no equal employment access despite the costly
skill base I obtained from tax payer subsidised TAFE.

E: My retirement in lieu of dismissal 1995 was an induced ambush against a good

and loyal statutory informant who acted with duty function to protect life and
property eg submission to Emergency Services Minister, Ombudsman, ICAC,
Coroner’s Court, OPM on the vocational corruption of the NSW Fire Brigades 1991 &
1995.

F: By using the duplicity of Superannuation Act 1916 and Workers Comp Law which
has sole jurisdiction over injured workers – my retirement maintained somewhat
allusive rights to civil litigation and the restored function re Superannuation Act 1916
S48-52 was eliminated. The Ombudsman Office and now Police, (who now are
forced to seek the jurisdiction of the Coroners Court to solve murders) know full well
that the legal industry would continue with their illicit fraternity. Lawyers protect the
guilty on an insalubrious gravy train, with the help of over complex courts systems.
Re Evan Whitton on Westminster system and adversarial law.

G: This is, I consider my last ‘port of call’ within the NSW Government and Judicial
encumbrances. If there are any anomalies please inform me so as I can rectify
issues in order to sanction this exit ASAP.

This concludes my submission faithfully.

Signed

Charles H Norville
21 Crosby crescent
Killarney Vale, NSW 2261 … mob
Fr 22nd June 2018
TO THIS DATE MONDAY 10TH DEC 2018 IS A STONE WALLING BY POLICE TO
INVESTIGATE A CRIME AND WE ARE NOT LIKELY TO GET MAIN STREAM MEDIA TO
FOLLOW-UP ON THEIR DISCOVERY IN 2010 THAT WAS 15 YEAR DELAY BY WORKERS
COMP SOLICITORS
THE MP WAS AWARE OF THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF NOT REPORTING A CRIME BY
WORKERS COMP SOLICITORS THAT CULMINATED INTO MY REMOVAL FROM
EMPLOYMENT AND THE CONTINUED ASSAULTS AGAINST FIREMEN & TORMENT OF
THEIR FAMILIES – NO LAW FIRM WILL STAND UP TO THIS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
WRONG AND THE ABOVE STATE MP KNOWS IT – THE EXPOSURE OF THIS TO THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CONFIRMS A JUSTICE OF CRIMINALS A SEEDY
UNDERWORLD OF HIT & MISS & OCCASIONED PROSECUTIONS. THE SYSTEM WON’T
ALLOW SCRUTINY AND THAT’S HOW IT IS.
Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act
2016
As at 24 May 2018

See also:
Government Sector Finance Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Bill 2018

Long Title
An Act to constitute the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and to define its functions; to
repeal the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 and amend Part 8A of the Police Act 1990 and the
Ombudsman Act 1974; and for other purposes.

The Newspaper article below Daily Telegraph 31 August 2018 – bottom of

second column ….the Minister (of Police Tony Grant) told him (the Law
Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) Commissioner) not to hire staff
from the former Police Integrity Commission …..

An analogy of the LECC, same horse different jockey. The Public Sector is
absolutely riddled with Freemasonry clique and this includes the Judiciary.
Below article “Law and disorder in war on ex-judge”
https://www.scribd.com/doc/50667440/NSW-Fire-Brigades-Training-ST-DD-1991-
1995
The above link report NSW Fire Brigades Training ST-DD 1991 - sent to FB & Police
Minister Pickering, ICAC, Ombudsman, Coroner, OPM the below article within on
page 66….. THERE ARE MANY REPORTS LISTED IN SCRIBD ON FIRE BRIGADES
CORRUPTION AND NEGLIGENCE

THE FOLLOWING JURY SUMMONS WAS ALSO QUITE CONTROVERSIAL 1ST EVER WAS
30 MAY 2018 AND THIS WAS ANNULLED THE 2ND JURY SUMMONS WAS 24 JULY 2018
AND THIS RESULTED IN IDENTICAL NUMBERS SO BOTH SERVED ON THE JURY AS “A”
& “B” I WAS SELECTED “A” BY THE JUDGE IN THE PAEDOPHILE CASE WHICH I FOUND
VERY DISTURBING AND WITH ANOMALIES WHICH I QUERIED TO THE JUDGE IN 3
LETTERS I HAVE ATTACHED No 3 LETTER TO REPORT 29TH AUG 2018, A BREACH IN THE
COURT RULES AFTER WHICH THE JURY WAS DISMISSED BEFORE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL
NOTE …………………………………….. Juror 828-20A DATE: 29 Aug 2018
1. Your Honour I am Jury member 828-20A and I have valued your instructions and
directions throughout this trial re NOTE 24 Aug 2018 & NOTE 28 Aug 2018 as
indeed all members of the Jury, bar one member.

2. The NOTES that I have given to His Honour have been carefully understood by
all member of our Jury, bar one member. This one member had made up his
mind last week without consideration to any evidence presented by either the
Crown nor the Defence stated that the accused was “innocent” and that there
should have never been a prosecution of the accused and blaming the Police.

3. This recalcitrant member’s incoherent ramblings stated “prima facie” evidence

were needed to be superior evidence. I can only deduce this as him meaning
“forensic” – hence some curious outlier questions on Tue 28 Aug 2018 on
“forensic” evidence that only His Honour was lawfully able to instruct on.

4. This recalcitrant Jury member on two occasions did not take his evidence clip
board to the Court Room, previously stating in the morning that by the end of
the week we would all see things his way. There were other intimidations to
members.

5. The NOTES were submitted with genuine interest to understand Court and Law
procedures. I felt the recalcitrant Jury member was beyond all reason of
understanding of the duty required of him under the Law.

6. Jurors are not meant to be subject to this charade. The accused is permitted to
due process of a fair trial. Alleged victims and witnesses are entitled to respect
and an efficient Court system. Some witnesses have serious health issues. I
clearly realise the inconvenience this must cause to all Judicial Officers.

7. I made every attempt to understand what to do and it has been personally

upsetting, but I remain under His Honour’s instructions and directions. I have
submitted to His Honour this form in type without discussion with neither the
Jury members nor the Jury foreperson as I consider this may be a matter of
contempt of Court. I am, I consider still under oath in my home in raising this
issue in type.

8. I conclude however this consequence of charade has affirmed the resolve of the
bone fide Jury members, having been thoroughly drenched in His Honours
instructions and directions on finding the facts, that must be deduced from a
collective of various accounts of evidence not simply the prima facie of this and
that.
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE OFFENDING JUROR (ABOVE) WHICH MAKES A
MOCKERY OF THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THIS JUROR, A MALE, WOULD RECEIVE THE
SAME LETTER BELOW TO SERVE AGAIN – THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A CHARADE.
ON THE 31 AUG 2018 2 DAYS AFTER THE JURY WAS DISMISSED A NEW LAW IS PASSED
TO PREVENT THE ALLEGED OLDER PERPETRATOR FROM ANY LENIENCY OUTCOME OF
GUILTY – THIS IM SURE WOULD GIVE SOME CONFIDENCE BACK TO THE VICTIMS
THAT WOULD HAVE TO REPEAT THEIR EVIDENCE IN THE RETRIAL

THIS CONCLUDES THIS SUBMISSION – PEOPLE WILL NOT AGREE THAT I SHOULD STILL ATTEMPT TO ACCESS
EMPLOYMENT IN ELECTROTECHNOLOGY AS WAS MY BIRTHRIGHT – COMMON LAW STATES OTHERWISE.
EMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA IS A GRAVY TRAIN AFFAIR OF MULTI BILLION DOLLAR EMPLOYMENT AGENCY
INDUSTRY. REPORTED IN THE FEDERAL SENATE BY ONE NATION IS THAT THERE ARE 1.4 MILLION VISA
HOLDERS THAT ARE INTERTWINED INTO AUSTRALIA’S EMPLOYMENT.

IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO IMPLICATE CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS INTO THIS DEBACLE, THE NEED FOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND BS RESPONSE IS TOTALLY FUTILE GIVEN THAT THE POSTAL RECEIPTS BARE
WITNESS TO THESE NEGLIGENT INSTITUTIONS.

THE EMAIL SENT TO BELOW: Workers Comp Solicitors knew of a crime and did not report it in a timely
manner in 1995 and instead I the author was punished for a crime committed by others through enforced
retirement. The non-reporting of the crime in 1995 culminated in further acts of assaults until The Daily
Telegraph in Sydney through investigation in 2010 some 15 years later reported these assaults against some
50 firemen - the link to this report will be sent to institutions of NSW Minister for Emergency for Police &
Emergency Services; The Australian Law Reform Commission; Editor The Daily Telegraph; The Law Society of
NSW...... sent by email and post edited for the responses if any.

Signed - Charles Norville