Wednesday, January 18, 2012

MY LETTERS TO ASSOCIATE OF JUSTICE MURRAY AND STATE SOLICITOR DATED 11.1.2012 AND 17.2.2012


Nicholas Ni Kok Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law)
Office: 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA   6059, AUSTRALIA. Contact:  ph: +6189275 7440; fax: +618 92757440; mobile: 0421642735; emails: nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin@msn.com; Skype: nicholasnchin2885


Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.  
Your Ref: SSO 3289-10

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The State Solicitor for Western Australia
141 St. Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Atten: Ms. Kah Yee Loh, Solicitor. 
Fax: 08 9264 1670    BY FACSIMILE

Registrar Chambers
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Stirling Gardens
Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sir

CIV 1689 OF 2011: PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR V NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
CIV 3427 OF 2011: CHIN V THIES & ANOTHER

I refer to my letter to the State Solicitor, copied to Principal Registrar, the Associate of Justice Murray and the Executive Officer of SAT dated 20.12.2011 regarding the first mentioned matter (My Letter).  

I also refer to the letter of the State Solicitor dated 11th January, 2011 regarding the first mentioned matter and the attached orders for extraction (the State Solicitor’s letter).

In response to the State Solicitor’s letter and the first subject matter, I would like to state the following:

1)             As per the rationale given in My Letter, the attached Orders in the State Solicitor’s Letter should not be perfected by extraction.
2)             The reason is that Justice Murray’s judgment is a “purported” decision pursuant to the High Court “Kirk” decision; it is therefore null and void on the ground of His Honour’s jurisdictional errors.
3)             His Honour has a continuing obligation to discharge his obligations until the Murray’s Jurisdictional Errors and the Murray’s Errors of Law Apparent on the Court Records are abrogated (the Murray’s Errors).
4)             I understand that Justice Murray has now retired but this does not mean that His Honour is functus ex-officio; or that the Murray’s Errors should remain on the court records for posterity.  The Supreme Court has a continuing obligation to expunge those Murray Errors.
5)             In respect of the second subject matter, I have filed an Exparte Application in CIV3427 of 2011 by way of Originating Motion for Declarative Orders for the Errors of Law Apparent on the Court Records and the Jurisdictional Errors of the various judges respectively affecting my dispute with Mr. Timothy Robin Thies (The Various Judges Errors). 
6)             The Declarative Orders for the Various Judges Errors cannot be objected to by the opposing parties or by any interested party and will have to be based on the court records pursuant to s.25(6) of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 (the Act).  Where areas of dispute are in doubt they need to be reserved for a Court of Appeal Judge or for a New Trial in accordance with the facts of the case and the applicable law pursuant to ss.43 and 59 of  the Act..  This is made possible by virtue of the fact that there is only common law in Australia.
6)             As already explained in the second subject matter and My Letter, I wish to put you on NOTICE that I am not proceeding with CIV1981 of 2010 as I understand it cannot be proceeded with based upon the common law principle that a Supreme Court Judge do not have prerogative writ powers over another Supreme Court of the same rank and it would be an abuse of process for me to proceed with it. As a consequence, I am acceding to Justice Murray’s Order that CIV1981 of 2010 be stayed despite its being a purported decision.  But I shall be using the evidentiary materials in the CIV 1981 Application for My Application.   
7)             At this stage I do not see the need for me to make a similar application to cover the first subject matter as almost all of it are being substantially covered by My Application dated 19th day of December, 2011 which incidentally precede the date of Justice Murray’s judgment dated 10th day of January, 2012.
8)             As for the costs orders of the first subject matter, they are purported Orders only that have no force of law as already explained in My Letter.   
 

Yours faithfully


NICHOLAS N CHIN

 Nicholas Ni Kok Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law)
Office: 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA   6059, AUSTRALIA. Contact:  ph: +6189275 7440; fax: +618 92757440; mobile: 0421642735; emails: nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin@msn.com; Skype: nicholasnchin2885

Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.  
Your Ref: SSO 3289-10

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Associate to the Hon. Justice Michael John Murray
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5400      
E-mail - 
Associate.Justice.Murray@justice.wa.gov.au
Your Ref: CIV1689/11

The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Spring Garden, Barrack Street, Perth WA 6000
Your Ref: CIV1689/11
Fax: 08- 9221 4436    BY FACSIMILE

The Executive Officer
State Administrative Tribunal
Fourth Floor, 12 St. Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 9219 3111
Fax: 9325 5099
Atten: Associate to Deputy President of SAT Judge Sharp
Your VR87 of 2009  BY FACSIMILE

The State Solicitor for Western Australia
141 St. Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Atten: Ms. Kah Yee Loh, Solicitor. 
Fax: 08 9264 1670    BY FACSIMILE

The Attorney General of Western Australia
The Honourable Christian Porter MLC
Email: "minister.porter"

Dear Sir

CIV 1689 OF 2011: THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT V CHIN [2012] WASC 7

I refer to the above judgment of His Honour Justice Murray delivered on 10th day of January, 2011.  
I would like to state as follows:

1)             I understood that His Honour Justice Heenan first decided in CIV 1877 of 2010 and CIV 1981 of 2010 that a Supreme Court Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia does not have the jurisdiction to exercise Prerogative Writ powers upon fellow judges of the same rank for the first time.  But those are inchoate decisions that have the effect of adjourning the two cases sini die which, however, were marred by the about-turn decision of His Honour in CIV 1019 of 2010.  Therefore, I was never afforded the opportunity to become aware of the Unavailability of the Prerogative Writs Approach for the purpose of reviewing a Supreme Court Judge decision (the Unavailability of the Prerogative Writ Approach).
2)             By virtue of the my becoming aware of the Unavailability of the Prerogative Writ Approach through His Honour Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 where there was a clear explanation of this principle for the first time, I cannot therefore be blamed and be adjudged as a Vexatious Litigant by His Honour Justice Murray.   The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that all the other Supreme Court Judges (with due respect to them) evaded the four issues before them and never made any pronouncements concerning them in their various and varied judgments (the Four Issues).  
3)             The four issues that have never been decided before by all or any of the Justices in the past and there are therefore never res judicata, and consequently, I was never barred by the principles of res judicata to have them re-adjudicated.  They are in terms of the following (the Non-Res Judicata Issues):  
3.1. The malice of the LPCC in taking away my independence as a lawyer for no professional misconduct and this matter is currently before the Deputy President of SAT, His Honour Judge Sharp;   
3.2. My alleged false allegations against solicitor Timothy Robin Thies for pillaging and plundering his client, which have been proven true and is currently before the Court in CIV3427 of 2011;
3.3. My alleged false allegations against solicitor David Taylor for the falsifications of court records, which have also been proven true and is currently before the Court in an Application about to be lodged with the Supreme Court soon;
3.4. The Justice Steytler Consent Judgment entered into between the regulator of the legal profession in WA and myself in CACV43 of 2007 on 26.9.2007 eliminating the phantom professional knowledge deficiency syndrome of Her Honour Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006.

4)                   The Non-Res Judicata Issues are public interest issues in terms of the following (the Public Interests Issue):
4.1.     Lawyers must be properly regulated so that they cannot be seen to be plundering and pillaging their own clients and as a result advancing their own personal interest over their client’s interests as in the case of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies;
4.2.     Lawyers must be properly regulated so that they cannot be seen to be falsifying court records to the effect of committing criminal offences like perjury and falsifications of court records with impunity;
4.3.     The regulator of the legal profession must not be seen to be practicing cronyism or paying deference to their friends for the purpose of reducing the independence of the Bar thereby reducing the efficiency of the judicial system in Western Australia.  Just as the Judiciary needs to be independent, so there must exists the corresponding independence of the Bar so that the Integrity Aspects of the Judicial System in WA is being maintained.
4.4.     Jurisdictional Errors of Judges must be reduced as much as possible and Errors of Laws apparent on the Court Records must be eliminated so as to raise public confidence in our judicial system. 
5.         The State Solicitor as the solicitor of the State Government and being the Department of the Attorney General of Western Australia has a duty to promote better governance for Western Australia.  In this instance, it is acting as the solicitor of the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The latter being a public officer has a duty to ensure that the justice system of WA is promoting the public interest and not the private interests of certain private individuals or some vested interests.   As such, it looks as though there is a highly improper exercise of discretion for His Honour Justice Murray to order costs for the prevailing party in CIV 1689 of 2011.

6.        I therefore appeal to the Attorney General of WA not to interfere with the independence of the judiciary but to promote the Integrity Aspects of our Judicial system as His Honour Justice Murray might have unwittingly betray its weakness.   The aspired Integrity Aspects of our Judicial System of WA is in accord with the similar aspirations of His Honour Justice James Spigelman AC, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW as expressed in his lecture entitled:  JURISDICTION AND INTEGRITY: THE SECOND LECTURE IN THE 2004 NATIONAL LECTURE SERIES FOR THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 5 AUGUST 2004 available at the website: http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_spigelman050804 (the Jurisdictional Error of Justice Murray).

7.         I know His Honour Justice Murray is a conscientious judge but he does commit jurisdictional errors which renders his decision as a purported one only (with due respect).  Accordingly, His Honour has a continuing obligation to review his decision as he is still not ex functus officio.  Although the judgment of His Honour is near perfect, yet  I apologize to His Honour for trying to be too perfect.  As far as I see, the constituent elements of  His Honour’s Jurisdictional Errors would seem to be:   
o        the denial of procedural fairness to me by not taking into account my arguments and letters to all disputing parties that were before the court,
o        the identification of the wrong issues,
o        the asking of wrong questions;
o        ignoring relevant materials;
o        relying on irrelevant materials,
o        the making erroneous findings of facts or law;
o        the reaching of mistaken conclusions of facts or law;
o        the determination of critical facts where there is no evidence;
o        the making of irrational and illogical reasoning in the fact finding process;
o        the misapprehension of the law;



Yours faithfully


NICHOLAS N CHIN


3 comments:

  1. This Malicious Prosecution resulting in Mr. Chin being declared a Vexatious Litigant is based on frivolous grounds. The Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Murray in CIV 1689 OF 2011 IS being enumerated in the table as located at:

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/judicial-review-for-justice-murray.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/judicial-review-for-justice-murray.html

    ReplyDelete