Liberal Party ‘Branch-Stacker’ Attorney General Refuses To Reply?

 

New Dimensions To The Martinreyes Perjury Case: A ‘Threat’ From The Director Of Public Prosecutions And The Neil Chidiac Case That Produces A Hiatus In A State Conspiracy

 

Dr. Jim Saleam October 26 2013

____________________________________________

 

 

As the article on this website concerning the suppression of evidence in one of  my criminal trails shows, I battle deliberate state blindness and an almost wilful  intention on the part of prosecutorial authorities not to right a wrong (see: The Suppression Of Evidence: A Letter To The Attorney General Of New South Wales).

 

This current item must be read in conjunction with that item.

 

The Attorney General received an application from me by way of letter and supporting argument and documents on New Year’s Eve 2011. While notifications have been received that the matters raised are under consideration, no formal reply has issued. It was for no little reason that I published my application to the Attorney-General as a public document. The case is a disgrace. Failure to correct error compounds the wrong. It should be public information.

 

Whilst it may be the position that the Attorney-General acts through the advice of the Crown Solicitor’s Office and is not himself personally responsible for any deficiency on their part, he does take overall responsibility for the administration of justice.

 

In truth, I have little faith in the current Attorney General to render my application full justice. Mr. Greg Smith is a member of the so-called Liberal Party ‘right’ faction and has in the past specialized in the practise of branch-stacking. More than that. This Liberal Party faction has a relationship with me personally and with Australian nationalism generally – over several decades. It is less than a friendly relationship. I reasonably anticipate bias on the part of the Attorney-General. I would go further. Mr. Smith is a personal friend of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Lloyd Babb, who he appointed to the position. Mr. Babb now also features in this story.

 

Not long after I published my application to the Attorney-General as a public document, I received two letters from Mr. Babb dated February 14 2002 and March 5 2012. Mr. Babb took umbrage at my naming of Nanette Williams, now a Senior Crown Prosecutor, in respect of possible suppression of evidence in1988 when she was a young solicitor. He said: “Any such allegation is without foundation”. He claimed “legal professional privilege” in respect of the matters raised.

 

Mr. Babb asked me to remove the material on the Internet that mentioned Nanette Williams. I interpreted the comment, in the contest of the curt letters, a threat of sorts that some action may be taken against me. No action has been as of this date. Mr. Babb may fairly appreciate that I would welcome any action in criminal defamation.

 

I am pleased that Mr. Babb is confident that Ms. Williams is guiltless. Yet, if Ms. Williams is without blame, then how did the matters raised in my application occur? How could it be that material which demeaned the credibility of a state witness not be sighted by the (then) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions office (SPP), not be assessed and not be turned over to my lawyers on the appeal? Given Ms. Williams had carriage of my perjury complaints against the witness Catalina Martinreyes and acted as an instructing solicitor for the Crown Advocate on the appeal, did she consider the material without substance? Did someone tell her that it was of no account? Did someone take carriage of the new material and misdirect it?

 

As my application to the Attorney-General shows, the material at issue, if accessed by him and assessed fairly, demolishes the credibility of Martinreyes finally and absolutely. It would also so that my appeal miscarried because the material was withheld by persons in the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions office.

 

However, it seems that Mr. Babb also has no particular concern over this aspect of the complaint and blandly dismisses it. He said that he did not intend to enter into further correspondence about my complaint involving possible behaviour by Ms. Williams. Indeed, such rectitude! Is he even concerned that I may make the suggestions I do because material exists to impugn criminal verdicts but which remains concealed from my view/

 

Why can I be so certain that the Solicitor of Public Prosecutions did sight the Martinreyes material?

 

The reason is simple. At the same time as I say the SPP received the relevant information, it received other crucial material covering another case whose boundaries crossed over into mine. For two fundamental failures in communication to have occurred inside an office dedicated to successful (sic) outcomes in two prosecutions - beggars disbelief.

 

I reproduce here a letter forwarded by me to the Attorney-General in 2013.

 

_______

 

January 7 2013

 

Dr. James Saleam

P.O. Box N291

Grosvenor Place 1220

02 9559 2070

 

Hon Mr. Greg Smith SC MLA

Attorney General of New South Wales

GPO Box 6

Sydney 2001

 

Re: Matter No. 12/000175

 

 

I must raise a matter which may be of importance to my application currently before you.

 

As you may be aware, representations are soon to be made to you in respect of the 1989 drug conspiracy conviction of Neil Chidiac.

 

The Chidiac case and my case share in common, the identity – George Norman Kassis (Kassas).

 

It is my understanding of the Chidiac case that it will be alleged that Mr. Kassis was the true principal of the case, that he was also an agent of the Australian Federal Police, that he operated with corrupt police and assisted them in the creation of false evidence and that his identity and role was suppressed from the Chidiac trial for improper purposes and that this may itself constitute a serious miscarriage of justice.

 

From my case material now in front of you, it is the situation that Mr. Kassis was the father of only one of Catalina Martinreyes’s children contrary to as she swore, that he did not give her a fox fur jacket supposedly stolen in the robbery, that he thought she was of Spanish nationality and that I had had dealings with Mr. Kassis in 1988 whilst I was on appeal. Mr. Kassis thence made certain statements for me which I provided to the Solicitor of Public Prosecutions in respect of my perjury complaints against Martinreyes.

 

A remarkable hiatus presents itself. It would seem that while the case against Chidiac was being prepared for trial, I was advancing Kassis’s name about as a potential witness against a state witness from my trial.

 

I would submit to you that it would be a remarkable administrative failure for no one in the Crown Solicitor’s Office to have linked the two matters.

 

I must now submit to you that serious misconduct must have occurred at this point.

 

The decision must have been reached such that I was not to learn of any Kassis link with the Chidiac case and that the Chidiac defence was not to learn of any other circumstances that may involve Mr. Kassis.

 

I cannot say to you how my matter might have impacted upon Chidiac, but it is fairly clear to me that the credibility of Martinreyes may have been undermined via her link with a major drug identity. Such a matter would certainly have been pursued on the appeal.

 

I would submit to you that Nannette Williams now of the Crown Prosecutors’ Office may be the logical person to consider as having some knowledge of these issues, given she had the carriage of the perjury complaints.

 

I regret raising this matter at such a late stage of your present investigation. It simply cannot be avoided given the future action intended by Mr. Chidiac.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

James Saleam

 

__________

 

 

I understand that the Chidiac case grinds on. The evidence against him has essentially collapsed but still justice is frustrated. I have no doubt that the end of the Chidiac case will recoil upon the credibility of Martinreyes in my case. I have no doubt that Mr. Chidiac’s case in 1988 was impacted upon by the attempt of the SPP to conceal the impact of Kassis’s involvement in my matter. I can understand why the circular nature of all this upsets the adversarialists in the present DPP and the Crown Solicitor’s office in New South Wales.

 

I would say to my readers that sooner or later the credibility of Martinreyes must be exploded. Howsoever that happens and regardless of how long it takes, the convictions against me must  fall. Yet, I have no faith that those who deal with me deal honestly. They continue to delay and to fudge.

 

The struggle continues.