Maurice Frederick Law
87, William
Street
PO Box: 399, MIDLAND , WA
Phone: 08 92961555
Email: moza35@bigpond.com
14th October, 2011
Ms. C Campbell
Associate to Deputy President Sharp
State Administrative Tribunal
4th Floor, 12th St. PERTH
Phone: (08) 9219 3111
Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Dear Ms. Campbell
LAW V LPCC & TAYLOR
VR158 OF 2011
Further to Order No.2 made by His Honour Judge
Sharp on 4th October, 2011, please find enclosed for filing my
written submissions in relation to the question of leave.
Yours faithfully
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
c.c. to:
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
By email: "Legal Profession Complaints
Committee" lpcc@lpbwa.com
David Taylor Solicitors
By Facsimile: 08 9371 5233
The Major Fraud Squad
Sergeant Gangin
WA Police Department
Email: fraud.desk@police.wa.gov.au
The
Associate to the Chief Justice of Western
Australia
Chief Justice Chambers
Supreme Court of WA.
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
VR 158 of 2011: Law v Legal Profession
Complaints Committee
Legal Profession Act,
2008 Section 428 (1)
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
……………………………………………….APPLICANT
LPCC & David Taylor
Prepared by:
Phone: 08 92961555
Maurice Frederick Law
Email:
moza35@bigpond.com
87, William Street ,
PO BOX: 399 MIDLAND
WA 6936. Dated and filed
the 14th day of October, 2011.
INDEX PAGE
NUMBERS
WRITTEN
SUBMISSION BY APPLICANT PURSUANT TO ORDER 2 OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF SAT, HIS
HONOUR JUDGE SHARP DATED 4.10.2011
Your Honour
LEAVE
IS NOT REQUIRD FOR COMPLAINT NOS. 5, 6 AND 7
1. This
submission is made with reference to Complaint No. 5, 6 and 7 in the Schedule
dated 7.10.2011 of the LPCC made pursuant to Order 1 of Judge Sharp dated
4.10.2011 which requires Leave (the Contents of Issues).
2. The issues for this submission is therefore
only confined to the issue of leave in so far as it affects items of complaint
Nos. 5, 6 and & 7 of the schedule only (the Issues No.).
3. The scope of the issues pertain to the individual
elements of s. 435(2) read together with s. 410(1)(e) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (the Act), in terms of the following (the Elements
of Scope):
a) trivial, unreasonable, vexatious or
frivolous;
b) in so far as it affects s.410(1)(e) of the Act,
the complainant does not have or did not
have, a direct personal interest.
Schedule
of Submission
No.
|
Contents of issues
|
Issues
No.
|
Elements
of Scope
|
||||
Trivial[1]
|
Unreasonable[2]
|
Direct personal interest
|
|||||
1
|
David Taylor advised Mr. Law to complain to
LPCC against Mr. Chin without any adequate or proper basis for doing so.
|
5
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
2
|
David Taylor misled Mr. Law as to the date of
filing the Writ of Summons.
|
6
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
David Taylor swore an affidavit containing a
false statement with regard to the filing of the Writ of Summons.
|
7
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Issue
No. 5: David Taylor advised Mr. Law to complain against Mr. Chin
5.1. This complaint is not
trivial on the following grounds:
5.1.1. Mr. Law acted on this
advice by proceeding with Midland Magistrates Court CA No. 2474 of 2006 and
this harmed Mr.Chin’s reputation and caused him distress (harm to Mr. Chin).
5.1.2. Mr. Law realized that
Mr. Taylor’s advice to the former is harsh, unreasonable and unjust to Mr. Chin.
Therefore, the former refrained from causing Mr. Chin further harm by settling
this matter with Mr. Chin through Magistrate Nicholls (refrained from causing
harm to Mr. Chin).
5.1.3. Mr. Law refrained from
causing harm to Mr. Chin but Mr. Taylor had already paid for the court fees of
$399.00 to the Midland Magistrates Court in Case No. 2475 of 2006 and told Mr.
Law that he got the Powell Cost Order from Registrar Powell for Mr. Law to work
on (the advice of Mr. Taylor).
5.1.3. However, the advice of
Taylor
5.1.4. Mr. Taylor harbours
malicious intentions against Mr. Chin as a result of the false costs order and
wanted to get rid of Mr. Chin as solicitor for Ms. Nancy Hall by getting Mr.
Law to complain to the LPCC against Mr. Chin. When this failed, Mr. Taylor was
reasonably found to be abandoning his duties to Mr. Law and over-charging him
for irrelevant work (malicious intent of Mr. Taylor).
5.1.5. Mr. Taylor was
instructed by Mr. Law to enforce the DCA 2509 of 2002 dated 10.2.2002 delivered
by His Honour DC Judge Groves (the default judgment).
5.1.6. Mr. Taylor knew at all
material times that Mrs. Audrey Hall was defrauding Ms. Nancy Hall with an
inflated false claim of $2.3m using a sham mortgage which is purported to have
priority over the default judgment debt of Mr. Law (Audrey’s fraud).
5.1.7. Mr. Law knew that
Audrey’s fraud must be unraveled before he could be successful in enforcing the
default judgment but he connived at Audrey’s fraud to the detriment of Mr. Law.
In the meantime, he was defrauding Mr. Law of legal fees amounting to $41k and gratis
building jobs done for him amounting to $10k as already explained in the filed
documents (Taylor
5.1.8. The Taylor Taylor
5.1.9. Taylor ’s
fraud and Taylor ’s further fraud could have been
avoided if he had complied with the instructions of Mr. Law with regard to
Audrey’s Fraud because Mr. C.P. Stokes as the solicitor for Mrs. Gannaway (Nancy
5.2. This complaint is not
unreasonable because it is honest, not rash, nor harsh nor unjust to Mr. Taylor
based on the above grounds.
5.3. This complaint is not
frivolous, vexatious or scandalous, because the above grounds are relevant to
the issue at hand.
5.4. This complaint has a
direct bearing on the personal interests of Mr. Law in that he suffered a
detriment caused by Mr. Taylor on the above grounds.
Issue No.6. : David Taylor misled Mr. Law as to the filing of Writ of Summons:
6.1. This complaint is
not trivial on the following grounds:
6.1.1. The falsehood
that the Writ was filed on 10.2.2006 caused harm not only to Mr. Law but also
to Mr. Chin
6.1.1.1: the harm to Mr. Law is that he is being in
jeopardy of having committed a crime for falsifying the court records in CIV
1131 of 2006 and that he shall lose his defence to his caveats on Nancy’s two
properties once Mr. Chin is able to prove his case (the harm to Mr. Law).
6.1.1.2: the harm to Mr.
Chin is that his reputation is ruined and that he is being deprived of his
independent status as a lawyer and that his emoluments as the salvour solicitor
for Nancy
6.2. This complaint is
not unreasonable on the grounds as stated in Issue No.5.
6.3. This complaint is
not frivolous and vexatious on the grounds as stated in Issue No.5.
6.4. This complaint has
a direct bearing on Mr. Law’s personal interest on the grounds as stated in
Issue No. 5.
Issue No.7: David Taylor swore a false Affidavit re: the filing of Writ of Summons.
7.1. This complaint is
not trivial on the following grounds:
7.1.1. The grounds of
harm caused by Mr. Taylor to both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law as indicated in Issue
No.5 and 6 above.
7.1.2. Mr. Taylor also caused
harm to Nancy Hall; a victim who is vulnerable by virtue of her being mentally
impaired or she is a person who has been diagnosed with a history of having
suffered from mental impairments.
7.1.3. Mr. Taylor knew
at all material times of Audrey’s fraud, of the Taylor ’s
fraud and of the Taylor
7.1.4. By swearing the
affidavit, Mr. Taylor conspired with Registrar Powell to create the fiction of
a personal cheque in Annexure DGT14 (found at page 48 of the Yellow Appeal Book
in CACV 107 of 2008) that purportedly accompanies the deposit of the Writ of
Summons on 10.2.2006 at the Supreme Court Registry for the purpose of faking
compliance with the Order of Jenkins J in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 that the Writ
was filed and served on 10.2.2006 instead of 16.2.2006 (the fiction).
7.1.5. The fiction would
have been legitimate but for the tell-tale sign of a white lie by Mr. Taylor in
DGT14 which contradicts the letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 written
by the latter in response to an inquiry by Mr. Chin for the purpose of covering
up the fiction; that is the fresh evidence in CACV 107 of 2008 and is contained
at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book (the cover-up letter).
7.1.6.The cover-up
letter reveals the tell tale sign of the fiction because Registrar Powell
refused to provide both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law the bank statement indicating that
fiction of the personal cheque is not a figment of the imagination of both
Registrar Powell and Mr. Taylor. Registrar Powell is the one who asserts the
falsehood in the cover up letter and he therefore must prove that the falsehood
is the truth. He can do this by showing
the bank statement confirming that the fiction of the personal indeed was
indeed en-cashed by the Supreme Court or he must provide the reason why it was
not so en-cashed. The tell-tale sign bears directly on the 20 cents which was
already paid on 10.2.2006 by the fiction of the personal cheque which has again
to be paid the second time by credit card by Mr. Taylor on 16.2.2006. The letter of denial by Registrar Powell
dated 4.6.2009 found at page 131 of the Yellow Appeal Book shows up the white
lie (the white lie of Mr. Taylor and Registrar Powell).
7.1.7 A copy of the records
of the Supreme Court of WA Registry is found at http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DhqW1lO-VEA/Tf8WXhXu-bI/AAAAAAAAAPU/JGZHub-6HM/s1600/invoice+for+%252465420.jpg.
(the records).
7.1.8. The records are
in two Invoices: Invoice No. 201702 dated 10.2.2006 and Invoice No. 202483
dated 16.2.2006 (the two invoices).
7.1.9. Of the two
invoices, the first invoice is the fake Invoice and the second invoice is the
real Invoice. The fake invoice indicates that:
7.1.9.1. $0.00 was paid
for CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006.
7.1.9.2. the two sums of
$654.00 (paid with a fictitious cheque) and the 20 cents paid with cash
(purportedly on 16.2.2006) was entered as one lump sum or as one item (the two
sums);
7.1.9.3. the two sums
were entered in error (the error);
7.1.9.4. the error is
with reference to the court fees for CIV 1131 of 2006 received by the Supreme
Court Registry on 16.2.2006 in the Real Invoice bearing Invoice No.202483 (the Real
Invoice).
7.1.10. On the other
hand, the Real Invoice indicates:
7.1.10.1. Receipt
No.1442 is for the cash of 20 cents.
7.1.10.2. Receipt No.
1441 is for $654.00 paid by way of credit card.
7.1.10.3. Both Receipts
indicated above is for the payment of court fees in CIV1131 of 2006;
7.1.10.4. Both Receipts
is dated 16.2.2006.
7.1.10.5. No payments were
ever received by the Supreme Court Registry for CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006
but only on 16.2.2006.
7.1.10.5. Real Invoice
contradicts the assertion of Registrar Powell in his cover up letter which the
learned Registrar had refused to prove in Registrar Powell’s letter of denial.
7.1.10.6. Real Invoice
is the only conclusive evidence that David Taylor’s Affidavit sworn and dated
29.3.2007 in CIV 1131 of 2006 is perjurious in nature.
7.1.11. But for the white lie of Mr. Taylor and
Registrar Powell, the decision of Master Sanderson (with due respect to him) in
CIV 1775 of 2008 or AUDREY FRANCIS HALL as executrix of the estate of KENNETH
DUNCAN HALL -v- CHIN [2008] WASC 255, giving priority to Audrey’s
sham mortgage would not exist (the Sanderson priority).
7.1.12. The Sanderson priority caused the
Sanderson voidable costs order against both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin (the voidable
Sanderson costs Order).
7.1.13 Registrar Powell was given notice that
His Honour should not be taxing the voidable Sanderson Cost Order as it is his
own cause, but it was ignored and this caused the unlawful execution by the
Court Sheriff and therefore the unlawful harassment of both Mr. Law and Mr.
Chin. A complaint to the State Attorney General had stopped the unlawful
execution (the unlawful harassment was stopped).
7.1.15. Similarly, the decision of the Court of
Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 also would not exist. It also caused the unlawful harassment which
was stopped. This is the error of law apparent on the court records and must be
removed and the fraud must be unraveled. Both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin have made separate
applications dated 15.7.2011 for the effacement of the errors of law apparent on
the court records that was caused by the Audrey’s fraud, the Taylor’s fraud and
the Taylor’s further fraud (The courts must set its records straight).
7.2. This complaint is
not unreasonable because it is not absurd, nor harsh nor unjust on Mr. Taylor
upon the ground that the courts must set its records straight and other
foregoing grounds.
7.3. The complaint is
not frivolous nor vexatious nor scandalous because it is relevant and is based
upon the truths as indicated in the foregoing grounds.
7.4. This complaint has
a direct bearing on the interests of Mr. Law based on the harm that was caused
to both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law and also upon the other foregoing grounds.
CONCLUSION:
Mr. Law has a few
questions which are troubling him and they are also casting doubts upon the
minds of the members of the public.
These troubling questions are with regard to the true functions of the
LPCC as a public body whose duty is to discipline lawyers without fear and
favour and they must do so without being biased and prejudiced against poor
innocent victims of lawyers like Mr. Law
and many others:
1. Why are there manifestations of partialities of the LPCC
in favour of Mr. Taylor and against Mr. Law in the following terms:
1.1. Why is David Taylor not being questioned, queried and
investigated as a result of the LPCC having received complaints from Mr. Law?
1.2. Why is David Taylor not putting in his defence evidence
of the payment of court fees on 10.2.2006 in CIV1131 of 2006 which would either
prove his innocence or his fraudulent intention?
1.3. Why is David Taylor being visibly seen by Mr. Law to
be protected against or is immune from the complaints?
1.4. Why is the LPCC saying only at this late stage that
Mr. Taylor could probably be guilty of only unprofessional conduct and not professional
misconduct?
1.5. Why is the LPCC blind to the recklessly deceptive and fraudulent
professional misconduct of Mr. Taylor?
1.6. Why the LPCC is only biased in favour of Mr. Taylor by
its avoiding the truth in that the latter harbours malicious intent towards his
own client and is reasonably found to have committed acts, which clearly show
that he is advancing his own private interests over the interests of his own
client, Mr. Law?
1.7. Why is the LPCC blind to the fact that Mr. Taylor is
taking Mr. Law for a “nut” for he has already taken me for a ride by deceiving me
some $60k which includes his threat to sue me for more than $10k of supposedly
unpaid bills. On top of that he has
fraudulently obtained free building works from me that is worth a lot of
money. In all, for the said $60k he has
done “bloody nothing”?
1.8. Why is the LPCC blind to the fact that Mr. Taylor was
issuing threats and was reasonably seen to be behaving aggressively towards me?
1.9. Why is the LPCC not looking at his abandonment of his
duties toward me as his client when he has two clearly defined portfolios,
namely the enforcement of the DCA2509 of 2002 default judgment and the defence
of my caveats in CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 and No.2?
Signature of
Mr. MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
[1]
Merriam-Webster dictionary meaning of trivial: of little worth or importance, commonplace
or ordinary or concerned with trivia; in the context of defamation law, the
defence of triviality means that it does not cost harm to the plaintiff.
[3]
Merriam-Webster dictionary meaning of vexatious: causing vexation
: DISTRESSING
<vexatious delays> b : intended to harass vexatious
lawsuit>. The legal meaning in
legislation means: proceedings that are
an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal or there is an intention to
harass or annoy or to cause delay or detriment or a wrongful purpose or is
without reasonable ground.
[4] Merriam-Webster meaning of frivolity: of little weight or
importance, having no sound basis
(as in fact or law), lacking in seriousness and unbecoming levity or seeming
frivolity or unsteadiness. In legal
parlance, the three words: scandalous,
frivolous and vexatious are
always lumped together to mean: the intention of annoying or embarrassing the
person against whom they are brought; brought for collateral purposes, and not
for the purpose of having the court adjudicate on the issues to which they give
rise; irrespective of the motive of the litigant, the action is so obviously
untenable or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless. Broadly speaking, anything that is relevant
to the issue at hand is therefore: neither frivolous, nor vexatious nor
scandalous.
No comments:
Post a Comment