Friday, April 23, 2010
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
5th Floor, Kings Building
533 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 6211 3600 Facsimile: (08) 9325 2743
Email: general@lpbwa.com Atten: Ms. Miranda Breisch
Dear Sir
THE LEGAL PRACTTICE BOARD PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY CONTACTING JUSTICE EM HEENAN ON 20.4.2010 IN MY EXPARTE APPLICATION IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
I refer to the above matter and would like to state as follows:
a) I was present at the proceedings before His Honour Justice Heenan at Court room 13.1 at the Level 13 of the Supreme Court of Perth at No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
b) During the course of this ex-parte application for certiorari Orders, the learned Justice Heenan made an about-turn of his previous decision and dismissed my application irrationally which is directly caused by the telephone call made by the Legal Practice Board to him on 20.4.2010.
c) The reason why I am stating that Justice Heenan made an about-turn in his decision stems from the fact that he on the 6.4.2010 issued an order that I serve all the relevant papers on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC do respond to my ex-parte Application within 10 days which Order was not complied with by the LPCC by the latest date 17.4.2010.
d) It is illogical for Justice Heenan to issue an order which was not complied with by the LPCC and a subsequent telephone call by the Legal Practice Board had thereby compromised his judicial independence and had thereby stopped him from executing his duties as a judicial officer.
h) The same state of affairs exist with regard to the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 87 of 2009 which caused an about-turn in his decision and changed his mind with regard to the due compliance of Orders already issued by him to the LPCC to respond to my Response for the malicious and improper persecution of me on the res judicata issues of facts and law in VR87 of 2009.
i) Judicial Officers are not usually so inconsistent as to issue Orders and then subsequently be found to be reneging on their decision for the due compliance of those Orders without any reasons or explanations being tendered by the other party; and disregarding me as an ex-parte applicant by not giving me any due notifications but causing the judicial officer to be less than independent.
j) It is a well-known law that judicial officers and any other party who interferes with the course of justice or who perverts the course of justice is committing a criminal offence and should be appropriately dealt with by citing him or them for contempt of court. It looks like some parties are immune from the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the court
k) I do not understand that the sole salient feature that run through the whole fabric of my case with the regulator of the legal profession has always been avoided by the Board and the judicial officers: namely, the existence of a Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the real Board to exercise an invalid authority to sanction me for no wrongs with a secret agenda to protect its own cronies who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public with impunity.
l) As long as this salient issue is not been logically and legally determined by the contending parties, this issue remains a source of contention that can be taken up at any level of the legal system in Australia. I may have been to the High Court of Australia in P.36 of 2009 in my Special Application for Leave to Appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.2010 but that does not mean that I can no longer bring up this issue for determination again on that this salient issue can never be barred by the principle of res judicata. It is clear that Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 avoid the determination of this issue. It is also clear that Justice Chaney can never get down into the arena of conflict by conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further frivolous and vexatious remedy of professional misconduct upon issues of facts and law which is already res judicata.
m) The failure of the LPCC to comply with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 means that the LPCC is continuing to harbour criminals and wrong doers who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public but is keen to avoid the Supreme Court from finding out the truths and to help it to dispense fair justice to me.
n) I have asked His Honour Justice Chaney or the LPCC to help Justice to explain why he is taking the sides of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 in my two letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 but the answers are not forthcoming. I have also requested for the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Chaney that was made in my absence in an ambushed judgment on 4.11.2009 and a directions hearing on 16.2.2009 in VR87 of 2009 but they have not been acceded to.
o) The failure of any judicial officer or any party to the proceedings to answer any pertinent questions relating to the issues of the matter before it as an impartial tribunal tends towards the irrefutable conclusion that it is admitting to the truth of those allegations that is implicit in those questions aimed at producing transparency of proceedings.
In view of the above, I would like to Notify the real Board of the real regulator of the Legal Profession to interfere in good faith, to solve this longstanding matter so as to avoid the issue of the persecuting malice or he bad faith of the Pseudo Board from being denied in a court of law without full reason and explanations.
The LPCC is a Statutory authority empowered with a legal authority to investigate the wrong doings of the Pseudo Board and its refusal to respond to Justice Heenan’s Order is an indication that it is continuing to be in dereliction of its statutory duties.
The real Legal Practice Board through the help of the Attorney General its chairperson should therefore intervene in the legal proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 by setting aright the wrongs done by the LPCC to request the Supreme Court to review the decision of Justice Heenan by another Justice of the Supreme Court instead of allowing me to appeal it in CACV 41 of 2010, which will involve unnecessary resources.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee Fax: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845 Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman; Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Ombudsman Western Australia Fax: 08 9325 1107 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
Level 12 44 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
The Hon Christian Porter MLA
Department of the Attorney General
Level 12, Westralia Square,
141 St Georges Terrace, PERTH 6000 GPO Box F317, PERTH 6841 Phone: (08) 9264 1600
No comments:
Post a Comment