Saturday, September 17, 2011

LETTER TO REGISTRAR ELDRED FROM BOTH MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN REGARDING THE LISTING OF THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE THE ERRORS OF LAW ON THE COURT RECORDS IN CACV 107 OF 2008


NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92757440 Mobile: 0421642735

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
87, William Street.,
HERNE HILL WA 6056
Phone & Fax: 08 92961555

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Court of Appeal Registrar
Atten: Associate to Registrar Eldred Ms. Maria Santos-Bond
Supreme Court of WA, Court of Appeal
Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street,
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 94215335
Fax: 94215471
Ref: CACV 107 of 2008


Dear Sirs

CACV 107 OF 2008: Chin v Hall & Anor; ERRORS OF LAW APPARENT ON COURT REECORDS IN CACV 107 OF 2008 AND CIV1775 of 200.
SAT VR 87 of 2009; VR 158 of 2011: FALSIFICATIONS OF COURET RECORDS IN CIV 1131 OF 2006 BY DAVID TAYLOR SOLICITOR

Reference your separate letters dated 15th day of September, 2011 to both of us, we would like to state that our applications dated 15th day of July, 2011 respectively do contain the focused issue of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 (the issue).

The issue is neither res judicata nor an abuse of process, on the following grounds:
a)      The parties who are directly affected by it are ourselves and we have been denied natural justice by the trial judge and the appeal judge in the various fora.
b)     There has never been a statement of reasons that bears directly on the issue.
c)      The issue is neither frivolous nor vexatious because it is relevant to our claim and and our rights and it does not contain any falsehoods.
d)      We are not abusing the process of court because we are NOT seeking to re-litigate the issue nor are we making collateral attacks on the decisions of the various fora.
e)      The decisions of the various fora have been manipulated by the fraud of interested parties who had misled the court to make defective decisions. Fraud must be unraveled.

There is therefore, a travesty of justice (or the error of law apparent on the court records in CACV 107 of 2008 and CIV 1775 of 2008 in the judgment of Owen JA) in terms of the following (the error of law):
1       The decision was made not in accordance with the law.
2       There are no manifestations of impartiality of the trial or the appeal judges.
3       There is no statement of reason that relates to the focused issue of the falsifications of court records by both David Taylor and Registrar Powell acting in cahoots with each other (the focused issue).
4       The focused issue revolves around the impartial findings of the following facts in the various fora which have never been made by any trial judge or any appeal judge in the following terms (the facts of the focused issue):
4.1.            Invoice No. 201702 dated 10.2006 contains the words Personal Cheque which is a fiction or an after thought of David Taylor and Registrar Powell (the false receipt).
4.2.            The false receipt caused the falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 16.2.2006 by David Taylor (the falsifications of court records).
4.3.            The Personal cheque has never been proven by the party who has obligations under the law to prove its existence, namely David Taylor or Registrar Powell.
4.4.            The existence of the personal cheque was avoided by Registrar Powell who refused to provide the bank statement showing that the personal cheque of $654.00 was indeed paid into the Registry of the Supreme Court on 10.2.2006 (the avoidance).
4.5.            The avoidance was made by Registrar Powell in his response letter to Mr. Chin dated 4.6.2006.
4.6.            Invoice No. 202483 dated 16.2.2006 is the only invoice that was issued by the Registry of the Supreme Court on that date and on no other date (the real receipt of the court fees of $654.20).
4.7.            The real receipt of the court fees was made by David Taylor on 16.2.2006 with a credit card and there is the missing word Personal cheque on it.
4.8.            The learned Registrar Powell’s letter dated 11.6.2009 is an attempt by him to cover up the facts of the focused issue by introducing the false notion of the false receipt.  This is an abuse of powers of a public officer in the person of a judicial officer who traded his favours in exchange for personal gain (the corrupt act of Registrar Powell).
4.9.            The corrupt act of Registrar Powell is backed up by circumstantial evidence of malicious intent:
4.10.           Registrar Powell made a costs order of $300.00 against Mr. Chin for not being present in court in CIV 1131 of 2006 knowing that the latter was not the legal representative of Nancy Hall on the ground of the falsification of the court records (the $300.00 null costs order).
4.11.           David Taylor instituted the proceedings in the Magistrates Court in Midland to claim the $300.00 null costs order against Mr. Chin by paying the court fees of $399.00 and getting Maurice Law to pay for it.  If Maurice did this voluntarily, he would not have to pay this court fees on account of the fact that he is a Centrelink Pensioner. Nobody would pay more money to get less money unless this is a fraud on the court (David Taylor goaded Mr. Law against Mr. Chin).
4.12.           David Taylor goaded Mr. Law against Mr. Chin in order to stop Mr. Chin from complaining the falsifications of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006.
4.13.           The falsifications of the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 caused Mr. Chin to lose his status as an independent lawyer.
4.14.           Mr. Chin alerted David Taylor that Jenkins J Order dated 20.1.2006 was not complied with by the latter on the 15.2.2006 and this caused the falsifications of the court records (the alert).
4.15.           Registrar Powell taxed the null costs orders of Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law and manifested an intention for them to be maliciously enforced despite his having been warned that he is the judge in his own cause.
4.16.           Mr. Law was invoiced electronically by David Taylor only on 15.2.2006 after the alert on 15.2.2006 for the payment of court fees of $654.00 only and not $654.20 cents.  Nobody would stop a Writ for 20 cents unless the bigger amount was not paid at all (the genuine mistake of paying 20 cents short on 16.2.2006).
4.17.           The genuine mistake of paying 20 cents short on 16.2.2006 was capitalized by Registrar Powell to make the fake story of the falsifications of court records by David Taylor as an after-thought, sound true and not far-fetched.    

The LPCC did not make the correct decision affecting the focused issue as a result of the complaint of Mr. Law.  Therefore, Mr. Law has lodged an application before the State Administrative Tribunal to litigate the focused issue in VR158 of 2008 since the 13.9.2011.  It is therefore best for both of us to await the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal before we request you to list this matter for leave before a Judge in Chambers pursuant to Order 67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971.

The court can do no wrong.  If there is an error of law, it must be removed by the court. The inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of WA must be invoked to remove the error of law.  It is the duty of court to point the right procedure for the removal of the error of law.  No one is above the law. A complaint has been to the Chief Justice to check on the error of law.  The WA Major Fraud Squad has decided to refer this error of law to the Chief Justice.  Only after the Chief Justice has done his job, can the Major Fraud of WA Police come back to do their tasks to investigate this matter further.

Ms. Le Miere for the LPCC has on 13.9.2011 been dealing with Mr. Law in a dishonest manner before Justice Chaney in VR158 of 2011 by showing that the LPCC is not independent of David Taylor.  She also on previous occasions before His Honour Judge Sharp had been been unwilling to do her duties honestly in the name of justice.  The learned Ms. Le Miere has yet to answer the questions which Mr. Chin posed to her in his letteer dated  8.4.2011.   It is in the best interests of justice that Ms. Le Miere is not involved in this matter in future proceedings in either VR 158 of 2011 or VR 87 of 2009.  If she is there, we anticipate mischief. 


Yours faithfully


NICHOLAS N CHIN ………………………………………………………………


MAURICE FREDERICK LAW …………………………………………………..


Copy to:
1) The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: (08) 9461 2299
Fax:  08 9461 2265
Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com

2) The Chief Executive Officer
State Administrative Tribunal
12 St. George’s Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Fax: 93255099
Atten: Mr. Allen & Associate to Deputy President Judge Sharp
Ref: VR158 of 2011 and VR 87 of 2011


3) The Chief Justice of WA Wayne Martin
Chief Justice Chambers
Supreme Court of WA
Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street,
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 08 94215337
Fax: 08 9221 3833

4) Sergeant Kearns Gangin
Major Fraud Squad of WA Police
Level 7, East Point Plaza
233 Adelaide Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 08-9220700
Fax: 08 9225 4489

5) The Hon. Justice Michael John Murray
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5400
E-mail - Associate.Justice.Murray@justice.wa.gov.au
Ref: CIV 1689 of 2011

6) The Hon. Justice Ralph Lloyd Simmonds
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5349
E-mail - Associate.Justice.Simmonds@justice.wa.gov.au
Ref: CIV 2157 of 2011

7) Messrs. Chris Stokes & Associates
Solicitors for Plaintiff in CIV 2157 of 2011
Level 1, 459 Hay St, PERTH, WA, 6000
Phone: (08) 9421 1300
Email: cstokes@stokesandassociates.com.au,
Ref: CIV 2157 of 2011.

No comments:

Post a Comment