 |
If you have a claim against Saba Hanania, Saba Lawyers or Saba El Hanania you will need to contact OLSC before July 3, 2020. Follow this link: Fidelity Fund - Current notices | The Law Society of NSW
Tuesday, 19 May 2020
Saba El-Hanania Lawyers Fidelity Fund - Current notices | The Law Society of NSW
If you have a claim against Saba Hanania, Saba Lawyers or Saba El Hanania you will need to contact OLSC before July 3, 2020. Follow this link: Fidelity Fund - Current notices | The Law Society of NSW
Saturday, 2 May 2020
False Allegations made by Roselyn Singh Ends Up With A High Court Ruling Against NSW Police
Police cannot arrest individuals without intending to charge them, High Court rules following false allegations made by Roselyn Singh to NSW Police.
"Some" NSW Police are either very lazy or are just plain incompetent and there is a lot more to this story than indicated in the High Court Ruling article link below.
When a known fraud, already with a very similar complaint against them for making false allegations causing an investigation of a local doctor can walk into the very same Police Command and make another set of false allegations causing an investigation and the issuing of an AVO and the matter ends up in the highest court in Australia you know our system of law is very broken.
There are very many similar cases of falsely obtained DVO/AVO's, usually sort by women in the family court. In this case an AVO sort on false evidence was an attempt to stop articles appearing all over social media and other press about a fraud by the name of Roselyn Singh.
There are literally pages of content about this fraud by various writers and publishers including Datatheft.
The constable who took the complaint from Singh did not bother to check the "NO ID CALLS" she showed as evidence of harassment, the email address (or the IP address) she set up and used to send herself harassing emails, the times and dates given as evidence of harassment or to even check a previous fraud report she was alerted to that was with detectives in her own command.
"Some" NSW Police are either very lazy or are just plain incompetent and there is a lot more to this story than indicated in the High Court Ruling article link below.
When a known fraud, already with a very similar complaint against them for making false allegations causing an investigation of a local doctor can walk into the very same Police Command and make another set of false allegations causing an investigation and the issuing of an AVO and the matter ends up in the highest court in Australia you know our system of law is very broken.
There are very many similar cases of falsely obtained DVO/AVO's, usually sort by women in the family court. In this case an AVO sort on false evidence was an attempt to stop articles appearing all over social media and other press about a fraud by the name of Roselyn Singh.
 |
| Roselyn Singh's false accusations to Police end up in the High Court |
There are literally pages of content about this fraud by various writers and publishers including Datatheft.
The constable who took the complaint from Singh did not bother to check the "NO ID CALLS" she showed as evidence of harassment, the email address (or the IP address) she set up and used to send herself harassing emails, the times and dates given as evidence of harassment or to even check a previous fraud report she was alerted to that was with detectives in her own command.
In that report was the very same email address and stolen identity Singh had set up to make false allegations against a Sydney doctor. A cursory glance at that report would have at least raised a red flag. A simple phone call to the detective handling the identity theft case against Singh could have avoided the huge expense of this absolute farce ending up in the High Court.
A check on the private calls - origin phone number, which Police have "immediate" access to would have at the very least raised some suspicion to the veracity of Roselyn Singh's false claims. Aided by business partner John Frisken (also a 'person of interest' in the report mentioned above) and elephant tears while giving her false statement Singh was able to get a Police issued AVO. Singh then provided false evidence to show a breach of the AVO and succeeded in getting her victim arrested and charged.
In the evidence that set off a series of court cases all the way to the High Court Singh had claimed she received phone calls and an email however it went into her junk folder. She said she found it after being alerted to it by one of her employees. Police naturally asked her to produce this email. She didn't, because she couldn't, there was no email sent to her for it to land in the junk mail in the first instance yet Police continued to pursue a conviction. And again Police did not check the origin number of the harassing calls on a private number she claimed to receive in breach of the AVO. On Singh's word they proceeded with an arrest with absolutely no validated evidence.
Police also lied in the courts when indicating Singh's victim had said he was interstate. Upon ringing Police after a neighbour had alerted him Police were looking for him he stated, to the "woman" constable who he was put through to when asked where he was, "I am camping with my family at Calmsley Hill City Farm" to which came the reply, "come to the Day Street Police Station immediately or we'll send Police to arrest you". He arrived at Day Street Police Station at around 5pm that afternoon.
Remember these actions, including being previously arrested at his home at 8am on Bathurst race day by three squad cars and 6 uniformed Police were done on the insistence of a Senior Police officer without a single shred of validated evidence. The 6 uniformed Police knocked on every door in his block of units asking for him by name before knocking on his door! Why?
Is our legal system broken or do we just have a whole bunch of very incompetent power hungry self serving wallopers keen to get a few notches on their belt. This whole mess started because a woman constable "refused" to check the validity of serious accusations made by a known fraud. How do we know she "refused" to look more closely?
A complaint about the matter was made directly with the Police Commissioner. The matter should then have been independently considered however that didn't happen. The matter was handed back to the very same constable who took the false complaint from Singh. She then rang the victim of Singh's false claims and told him she was proceeding with the complaint. When asked was she going to at least look at the fraud report that had been with Detectives for over 6 months about Singh's false allegations against the Sydney doctor using a stolen identity, she said "no" and hung up.
Who paid for this injustice to reach the High Court? You the tax payer!!
Is Singh going to be investigated for making false claims causing an investigation? At time of publishing the answer is a resounding "No". There has been no response to any communications with Sydney City PAC about Singh.
Writing to the NSW Police Commissioner to seek an explanation as to why a false allegation case that reached the High Court does not require at the very least an investigation into Singh's role in the matter and why there was no "independant enquiry" following a complaint about the constable instigating an AVO on totally unveriffed evidence that turned out to be absolutely false . . . . . . is a complete waste of time!!
A check on the private calls - origin phone number, which Police have "immediate" access to would have at the very least raised some suspicion to the veracity of Roselyn Singh's false claims. Aided by business partner John Frisken (also a 'person of interest' in the report mentioned above) and elephant tears while giving her false statement Singh was able to get a Police issued AVO. Singh then provided false evidence to show a breach of the AVO and succeeded in getting her victim arrested and charged.
In the evidence that set off a series of court cases all the way to the High Court Singh had claimed she received phone calls and an email however it went into her junk folder. She said she found it after being alerted to it by one of her employees. Police naturally asked her to produce this email. She didn't, because she couldn't, there was no email sent to her for it to land in the junk mail in the first instance yet Police continued to pursue a conviction. And again Police did not check the origin number of the harassing calls on a private number she claimed to receive in breach of the AVO. On Singh's word they proceeded with an arrest with absolutely no validated evidence.
Police also lied in the courts when indicating Singh's victim had said he was interstate. Upon ringing Police after a neighbour had alerted him Police were looking for him he stated, to the "woman" constable who he was put through to when asked where he was, "I am camping with my family at Calmsley Hill City Farm" to which came the reply, "come to the Day Street Police Station immediately or we'll send Police to arrest you". He arrived at Day Street Police Station at around 5pm that afternoon.
Remember these actions, including being previously arrested at his home at 8am on Bathurst race day by three squad cars and 6 uniformed Police were done on the insistence of a Senior Police officer without a single shred of validated evidence. The 6 uniformed Police knocked on every door in his block of units asking for him by name before knocking on his door! Why?
Is our legal system broken or do we just have a whole bunch of very incompetent power hungry self serving wallopers keen to get a few notches on their belt. This whole mess started because a woman constable "refused" to check the validity of serious accusations made by a known fraud. How do we know she "refused" to look more closely?
A complaint about the matter was made directly with the Police Commissioner. The matter should then have been independently considered however that didn't happen. The matter was handed back to the very same constable who took the false complaint from Singh. She then rang the victim of Singh's false claims and told him she was proceeding with the complaint. When asked was she going to at least look at the fraud report that had been with Detectives for over 6 months about Singh's false allegations against the Sydney doctor using a stolen identity, she said "no" and hung up.
Who paid for this injustice to reach the High Court? You the tax payer!!
Is Singh going to be investigated for making false claims causing an investigation? At time of publishing the answer is a resounding "No". There has been no response to any communications with Sydney City PAC about Singh.
Writing to the NSW Police Commissioner to seek an explanation as to why a false allegation case that reached the High Court does not require at the very least an investigation into Singh's role in the matter and why there was no "independant enquiry" following a complaint about the constable instigating an AVO on totally unveriffed evidence that turned out to be absolutely false . . . . . . is a complete waste of time!!
Singh has been ripping off small business owners for years, has numerous complaints against her with ASIC and NSW Health yet it appears she remains completely immune to any form of investigation. The investigation by Sydney Detectives about her false accusations against a Sydney Doctor didn't even make it out of the filing cabinet. The Detective in charge retired and so apparently did the file.
The High Court Ruling on This Case can be found here: Police Cannot Arrest Individuals Without Intending to Charge Them, High Court Rules
It appears Dr Roslyn Singh PhD, MBA, B.Coms (hons) - false credentials has some kind of immunity from investigation let alone prosecution by any authority. One day we'll find out why!!
"A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years."
Roselyn Singh has lifted her fraud game to new heights. With business partners Dr Mirza Salman Baig and John Frisken Singh attempted to rip off the NSW Govt. for over $45,000,000.00. Read more here
If you have a story about Roselyn Singh or any of her many alias's and company's contact us via the submit your story link above.
The Roselyn Singh File
The High Court Ruling on This Case can be found here: Police Cannot Arrest Individuals Without Intending to Charge Them, High Court Rules
It appears Dr Roslyn Singh PhD, MBA, B.Coms (hons) - false credentials has some kind of immunity from investigation let alone prosecution by any authority. One day we'll find out why!!
"A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years."
Roselyn Singh has lifted her fraud game to new heights. With business partners Dr Mirza Salman Baig and John Frisken Singh attempted to rip off the NSW Govt. for over $45,000,000.00. Read more here
If you have a story about Roselyn Singh or any of her many alias's and company's contact us via the submit your story link above.
The Roselyn Singh File
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)