THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.
And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS WITH ANNEXURES
LIST OF ANNEXURES
No Label Date of Document Particulars of Document Page
I to V EXPARTE MANDAMUS ORDERS APPLICATION 29.4.2010 APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY AND JUSTICE HEENAN TO COMPEL THEM TO DO THEIR DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE i to v
1 NNC-1 31.3.2010 Email from Mr. Stephen Sommerville as the Associate to Justice Heenan requiring me to read from the Asterisked Case Law relevant extracts of the common law pertaining to my Application in CIV 1019 of 2010. 1
2 NNC-2-1 to NNC-2-4 2.4.2010 Email letter from Applicant to the Associate of Justice Heenan enclosing the Amended List of Authorities in 3 pages which contains the Asterisked Case law from which counsel is required to read the relevant extract for the trial judge in 4 pages. 2-5
3 NNC-3-1 to NNC-3-16 6.4.2010 Transcript of proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 which indicates that Justice Heenan decided to issue orders for the LPCC to respond to my claims in my Application for Certiorari Orders against the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia 6-21
4.
NNC-3A-1 to NNC-3A-2 7.4.2010 Orders of the Justice Heenan issued pursuant to the hearing of CIV 1019 of 2019 at 10.30 am on 6.4.2010 that the Applicant serve all documents filed with the Supreme Court for that case on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC to respond to the Applicant’s claim within 10 days, i.e. by the latest 17.4.2010 which did not occur, in two pages. 22-24
5. NNC-3B 7.4.2010 Cover Letter to the LPCC duly receipted by the LPCC, copied to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT in VR 87 of 2009 and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CIV 1019 of 2010, indicating that the Applicant had complied with the Orders of Justice Heenan issued on 7.4.2010 as indicated in document 4 above. 25
6. NNC-3C 7.4.2010 Facscimile letter from Applicant to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT in VR 87 of 2009 copied to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court in CIV 1019 of 2019 and the LPCC keeping it up to date with the current state of affairs of the two cases: namely the malicious res judicata proceedings in SAT in VR 87 of 2009 and the Certiorari Orders Application in CIV 1019 of 2018 to quash and review Justice Chaney’s decision in VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. 26.
7 NNC-4-1 to NNC-4-3 17.4.2010 Chronology of Events for hearing before Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 detailing the history and tribulations which my Applicaion for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 has to go through the process of court in three pages. 22-24
8 NNC-5-1 to NNC-5-11
21.4.2010 Justice Heenan did not allow me to read from the extracts of asterisked case law in my Amended List of Authorities and I resorted to provide him with a copy of those extracts in 11 pages. 25-35
9 NNC-5A-1 to NNC-5A- 21.4.2010 Copy of transcript of the proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2019 that transpired at 10.30 am which did not include the draft judgement or the extempore judgment delivered by His Honour at the same time, in 4 pages. 36-39
10 NNC-6-1 to NNC-6-2 23.4.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to the Legal Practice Board copied to LPCC, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA, the Ombudsman of Western Australia and the Attorney General of Western Australia complaining about the perversion of the course of justice of the Legal Practice Board in contacting Justice Heenan secretly on 20.4.2010 thus influencing his about turn decision on 21.4.2010 thus comprising his independence as the trial judge in CIV 1019 of 2010 in 2 pages. 40-41
11
NNC-7-1 to NNC-7-2 23.4.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to the Crime Corruption Commissioner concerning the existence of the Pseudo Full Board, the President of SAT involvement in persecuting the Applicant for the common-law debarred Further Remedy of a non-existent professional misconduct and the falsifications of the Court Records by David Taylor Lawyers in CIV 1131 of 2006 which was misinterpreted by Justice Chaney, in 3 pages. 42-44
12 NNC-8 22.4.2010 Applicant’s appealed against the decision of Justice Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders to the Court of Appeal of the High Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. 45
13 NNC-9-1 to NNC-9-3 26.4.2010 Email of the President of the Unity Party of Western Australia Mr. Eddie Hwang to the Crime Corruption Commissioner Len Roberts-Smith QC and to the Attorney General of WA Mr. Christian Porter regarding the secret communication of the Legal Practice Board which caused a reversal (on 21.4.2010) of the decision of Justice Heenan given on 6.4.2010, in 3 pages. 46-48
14 NNC-10-1 to NNC-10-3 27.4.2010 Email correspondence between the Associate of Justice Heenan and the Applicant regarding the Applicant’s request for the draft judgment (or extempore judgment) delivered by Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 at 10.30 am on 21.4.2010 which is the about-turn decision caused by the perversion of justice of the Legal Practice Board referred to above, in 3 pages. These correspondence indicate that Justice Heenan had unreasonably refused to release the draft judgment but instead is preparing another reason judgment which is an after-the-event justification for his compromised draft judgment.
I, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, Barrister & Solicitor, No. 387, Alexander Drive, Dianella WA 6059, having been duly sworn, say on oath the following:
1. I am filing this Affidavit in support of my NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION dated the same day for the purpose of my making an Application before a Judge in Chambers and if rejected by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA for registration THEN in accordance with Order 67 r.5 (3) and (4) of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) which requires me to obtain leave from a Judge of Supreme Court in Chambers, which I now do, if it were necessary for me to do so.
2. The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct.
3. I firmly believe that this Notice of Originating Motion is not an abuse of process of court, nor is it a frivolous or vexatious proceedings in accordance with Order 67 r.1 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 WA .2009, as follows:
“If any writ, process, motion, application or commission, which is presented for filing, issue or sealing appears to the Registrar to be an abuse of the process of the Court or a frivolous or vexatious proceeding, the Registrar shall refuse to file or issue such writ, process, motion, application or commission without the leave of a Judge or a Master first had and obtained by the party seeking to file or issue it”.
4. This Application for Mandamus Orders is neither frivolous nor vexatious as the evidence before this Honourable Court in CIV 1019 of 2010 and in this Application will show that this Application has a reasonable chance of succeeding, and it would not bring hardship on both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan to defend my claim that the Pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia is unreasonably curbing my independent legal practice as a lawyer for the purpose of protecting its cronies who are members of the legal profession who has been reasonably found to have been and are still ravaging, plundering and pillaging innocent members of the public by abusing their powers as legal professionals. This is a public interests issue which this Honourable Court should protect. The evidence for these issue has already been made available to this Honourable Court in the many cases, both decided and undecided e.g. CIV 1131 of 2006 and CACV 107 of 2008, CIV 1764 of 2009 and CIV 1903 of 2008 and the many cases of Dr. Kheng Su Chan.
5. I refer to Document No.1, 2, 8 and 9 in the table above which requires me to present my case orally by quoting the relevant extracts of the judgment which could advance my case. I was disallowed this by the learned Justice Heenan who refused me to hear me on them and therefore he denied me natural justice on the 21.4.2010 (See Annexed documents as indicated above). But for this remissness on the part of His Honour, my Application for Certiorari might not have been dismissed by him.
6. In document 9 which is a transcript of the proceedings on 21.4.2010 before Justice Heenan, you will find that there is a sudden about-turn in the attitude of that learned Justice. This is most likely to have come about as a result of the Legal Practice Board seeking to influence him and thereby compromised his independence as a member of the judiciary contrary to mandatory requirements of a Supreme Court Judge in accordance with his Oath of Office. This is a criminal offence by the Legal Practice Board in perverting the course of justice and the stake is very high here as the Pseudo Full Board is scrambling for cover as a result of my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010.
7. If I were to contrast the attitude of Justice Heenan as exhibited by him in the transcript of proceedings in Document 3 and the Orders he issued in Document 4, you will find that the starkness of the change of attitude of Justice Heenan. This is the evidence of the about-turn decision of Justice Heenan which is exhibited in the transcript of the proceedings on 21.4.2010 in document 9.
8. If one were to look at document No. 5 one will find that the Applicant had duly complied with Justice Heenan’s Order issued on 6.4.2010 as indicated in document No.4.
9. Document 6 will show that the Applicant updated SAT and the LPCC with the proceedings for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 but there is some resistance as to why Justice Chaney is refusing to provide the copies of the transcript of the proceedings before His Honour in the absence of the Applicant in VR 87 of 2006 on two separate occasions i.e on 4.11.2009 when the ambushed res judicata judgment was accomplished and on 16.2.2010 when the Applicant was away in Sydney and was not able to attend the directions hearing by phone from Sydney. There is a suspicion that things might have transpired in the absence of the Applicant which might provide evidence of a conspiracy between Justice Chaney and the LPCC. Justice Chaney in the evidentiary materials already provided and filed with CIV 1019 of 2010 is reasonably found to have descended in to the arena of conflict in VR 87 of 2009 and have taken the sides of the LPCC when there is no justifications for doing so and he has not responded to my letters to him dated the 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 containing 30 questions. His refusal to answer them gives rise to as rebuttable presumption in law that he has admitted them to be the truth.
10. In Document No.7, the Applicant describes in details the various tumultuous events that he had to stumble through in seeking to file his Application for Certiorari Orders that finally emerged as CIV 1019 of 2009 that came for hearing before Justice Heenan. There were many obstructions on the way that he had to contend with right from 30.11.2009 through 14.4.2010.
11. Document 10 indicates that the Applicant is incensed by the injustice before the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that the course of justice had been perverted by the Legal Practice Board ringing His Honour to communicate with him secretly but overtly on the pretext that the LPCC is not going to answer the Applicant’s claim on the live and pertinent and never res judicata issues concerning the indisputable existence of a Pseudo Full Board that was working against the public interests because they have cronies to protect and the best solution for them was to “put the Applicant down” so that he could no longer practice law to right the injustices that have been occurring in Western Australia. His letter and various other letters to both the LPCC and the Board including his letters to Justice Chaney dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 as indicated above have never been answered. Justice Heenan is refusing to accept the proposition that if the LPCC or the LPB refused to answer pertinent questions relating to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board, then there is a rebuttable presumption in law that the accusations leveled by the Applicant is true unless proven otherwise.
12. Document 11 is the letter written by the Applicant to the Crime Corruption Commission to right this wrong and they are looking into the issue of whether there is a criminal conspiracy between Justice Chaney and LPCC in allowing the frivolous and vexatious persecution of the Applicant in VR87 of 2009 the common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY for non-existent professional misconduct of the Applicant.
13. Document 12 shows that the Applicant appealed the about-turn and compromised decision of the Justice Heenan delivered extempore on 21.4.2010 but His Honour refused to release a copy of that draft judgment to the Applicant upon his request. His Honour is preferring to prepare a new one to replace his draft judgment which is riddled with inconsistencies, which he intends to publish at a later date. These extraordinary efforts of the learned Justice Heenan is presumably an after-the-event thought by him to fit his revised judgment into the niche by replacing the draft judgment and converting it into a reasoned judgment but the picture that will emerge at a later date that the revised judgment is a “doctored” one produced to suit the particular purpose. Truth must be seen to prevail.
14. Document 13 documents the irate attitude of the President of the Unity Party of WA at the sad state of affairs of the legal system prevailing in this State. This document seeks an explanation from the relevant governmental authorities of this State.
15. Document 14 shows the email correspondence between the Associate of Justice Heenan and the Applicant who is keen to lay his hands on a copy of the draft or extempore judgment of His Honour. There is a final indication that the draft judgment as requested by the Applicant for the purpose of appealing his case in CIV 1019 of 2019 is not forthcoming. This shows that there is no transparency in the apparent perversion of Justice by the Legal Practice Board acting through the learned Justice Heenan who did not intend to do his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office.
SWORN by the Deponent at Perth ]
In the State of Western Australia ]
This 29th day of April, 2010 ]……………………………………………..
Before me:
…………………………………..
Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme
Court for Taking Affidavit
No comments:
Post a Comment