MAURICE LAW as the authorized legal representative of
SPUNTER PTY LTD
Mob:0402
002 797
Email: Moza35@bigpond.com
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Honourable Michael Mischin MLC
Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General
Level 21, Governor Stirling Tower
197, St. Georges Terrace
Phone: +61892228800
Fax: +61892228801
Dear Sirs
Your Reference: 35-18300/6: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OF SAT , JUSITCE CHANEY
IN VR 158 OF 2011
I refer to the above matter and your response letter to me dated
30.5.2012 bearing the above reference.
Please note that this is not a matter of judicial independence which
you as the executive branch of the government cannot interfere. It affects the
integrity aspects of our judiciary in that the Judge (Justice Chaney) is not
being honest and did not deal with the matter in accordance with the law. This
has got to do with the dereliction of duties of His Honour Justice Chaney, in
the following terms:
1) On 24.2.2012, the
decision of LAW and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS
COMMITTEE [2012] WASAT 36
was made in VR158 of 2012 by Justice Chaney refusing me grant me leave to
review complaint 5, 6 and 7 which are as follows [see page 23 of my Affidavit
in Application for Judicial Review in CIV 1397 of 2012
dated 7.3.2012 (the Affidavit)]:
(5). David Taylor advised Mr. Law to
complain against Mr. Chin without proper basis.
(6). David Taylor misled Mr. Law as to date
of filing of Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006.
(7). David Taylor swore an affidavit
containing a false statement with regard to the filing of the Writ of Summons.
2) Justice Chaney refused to recognize the
fact that Receipt No.202483 purported issued by the Supreme Court dated
19.5.2009 is a false receipt (found at page 49 of the Affidavit). That false receipt is created by Registrar
Powell to back up his contention in his letter dated 11.6.2009 found at page
136 of the Yellow Appeal Book in CACV 107 of 2009 for the dishonest purpose of
backing up the lie of David Taylor that the court fees for Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 was
paid by him using his credit card on 16.2.2006, when this has never been done.
The impugned court fees was never paid on 10.2.2006, never paid again on
16.2.2006 and never paid again on 19.5.2006.
3) Justice Chaney in VR158 of 2011 agreed in
the transcript at page 9 (“you can come and see them if necessary take a
copy so deal with tribunal, he will simply lodge them here”), to provide me
with the bank statement I requested for in my Subpoena to David Taylor dated
15.11.2011 in his Order dated 15.11.2011.
4) David Taylor responded to that Subpoena
on 29.11.2011. On 30.11.2009, I was
allowed by Jacqui to look at only one crucial document i.e. the bank statement
for the crucial transaction said that the court fees of $654.20 was paid by
cheque into the bank account and was withdrawn the same day on 19.5.2009 and
deposited into a credit card account. This
event never happened on 10.2.2006 or 16.2.2006 (The 2009 Bank Entries).
5) The 2009 Bank Entries was the single
document shown to me by Ms. Jacqui and I had there and then asked for a copy
but was refused (Maurice Law was refused the 2009 Bank Entries).
6) Subsequently, I kept asking for it by
phone and there were people going for holidays and I was told rudely to shut up
and not to challenge the tribunal.
Jacqui told me this. This made me
so confused that I could not do anything I decided to write to SAT on 5.12.2011
seeking for the 2009 Bank Entries. By that time I am convinced that the
impugned court fees were never paid at all and so until today the CIV 1131 of 2006 is
not valid in law (the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 was
never issued).
7) By 13.2.2011, SAT provided me
with the REPLACED DOCUMENTS. They consists of five pages. The 2009 Bank Entries
is missing.
In view of the above circumstances, I want the Attorney General of WA
as the elected representative of the people to make sure that the judiciary is
not going to kill me as it had killed Nancy Hall in the past and is killing
many other people whom I know. The
justice system is not right because of the dishonesty of the judges like
Justice Chaney himself. I have tried and
tried very hard not to offend any one, but this is impossible. I am now being left in a lurch by the
government of Western Australia who are not protecting the interests of its
people and causing a lot of people untold miseries by the miscarriages of
justice deliberately by the judges to protect their own friends and
cronies. This is not happening to me
alone but is happening to many West Australians. I am losing my home, my only
assets for which I have worked hard for.
Why is this happening? Look at
pages 39 to 43 of the Affidavit.
Yours truly,
M. Law
The Chief Justice of Western Australia
The Hon. Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin
Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel (08) 9421 5337
E-mail - Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel (08) 9421 5337
E-mail - Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Barrack Street
Fax: (08) 9221
4436
1)WHERE IS THAT SINGLE PIECE OF DOCUMENT (ACCORDING TO MAURICE LAW) OR THE MISSING BANK STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY DAVID TAYLOR TO THE TRIBUNAL ON 29.11.2011 IN VR158 OF 2011 THAT BECAME THE SUBJECT MATTER OF JUSTICE CHANEY'S DECISION IN [2012] WASAT 36 (THAT SINGLE PIECE OF DOCUMENT)?
ReplyDelete2) THAT SINGLE PIECE OF DOCUMENT WAS SHOWN TO MR. MAURICE LAW BY MS. JACQUI OF SAT ON 30.11.2011.
3. ACCORDING TO MAURICE LAW, WHY DID MS. JACQUI TOLD MR. LAW TO SHUT UP AND NOT TO GO AGAINST SAT WITH REFERENCE TO THIS SINGLE PIECE OF DOCUMENT THAT WENT MISSING?
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM, donna chapman insanitydc@gmail.com> wrote:
ReplyDeleteNicholas I tried to post this on your blog but for some reason it did not post. So here is my comment
The question to ask is are we entled to a fair hearing. It is without doubt that there has been no impartiality to either party and is proven with irrefutable evidence to the judiciary that the invoice number does not match in numerical sequence for a date David Taylor said it was paid, nor do the bank statements prove that the money allegedly paid to the supreme court remained the ownership of the supreme court. So the argument would be a
matter of not if the money w as actually paid, but maybe if it was paid then why was it refunded? Maybe the reconciliation of banking accounts of the supreme court need to be viewed. Frankly I would personally be ordering an inquiry from the crimes and corruption commission.
Nicholas N Chin
6:41 PM (8 minutes ago)
to donna, moza35
Donna: I would suggest that you please do as an Australian Citizen. From our past experience, Maurice and I had tried to approach the Crime Corruption Commission and they had refused to investigate this matter. Please get in touch with the CCC for us.
Nicholas N Chin
6:45 PM (4 minutes ago)
to phill, moza35
The Deputy Sheriff came to see Maurice and myself separately. Maurice was not able to explain the situation to the Deputy Sheriff Mr. Steffens. When he came to me, I explained to him the concept of the aliquot liability of his corporate body and that he and his wife was not liable. Then Mr. Steffens took the cue from then on and no longer dare to come and disturb Maurice any longer. Maurice was on the verge of being intimidated to yield again for the second time. The first time, he yielded. No more the second time.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM, phill wood wrote:
ReplyDelete"FEAR & FORCE" is all they have to apply to us.
If we rebut this then they have nothing more in their bag of tricks.
We must not let them get away with anything and must fight till the very end.
Don't think for 1 minute that they have won guys, as remedy is not far away.
Make sure your paperwork is correct and in on time, and make them answer your question point to point.
Good luck
1) INVOICE NO. 202483 DATED 19.5.2009 WAS CREATED THREE YEARS LATER BY SOMEONE AT THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AFTER THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF IMPUGNED COURT FEES IN CIV 1131 OF 2006 WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON 16.2.2006 TO VALIDATE THAT WRIT OF SUMMONS.
ReplyDelete2) THE WRIT OF SUMMONS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN DUE COMPLIANCE BY DAVID TAYLOR AS SOLICITOR FOR SPUNTER PTY LTD TO THE ORDERS OF JUSTICE JENKINS IN CIV 1142 OF 2005.
3) THE FACT THAT JUSTICE JENKINS ORDER WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH CAUSED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE TO SPUNTER PTY LTD AS WELL AS TO MAURICE AS DIRECTOR OF THAT CORPORATE BODY, NANCY CLOONAN HALL AS THE EQUITY OF HER PROPERTY WERE UNLAWFULLY CLOGGED UP AND DETRIMENT TO NANCY'S SOLICITOR THE APPLICANT NICHOLAS N CHIN AS HIS REPUTATION WAS TARNISHED AND THERE WAS IMPROPER RESTRICTION ON HIS RIGHT TO PRACTISE LAW.
4) THE NON-COMPLIANCE HAD CAUSED IMPROPER COSTS ORDERS TO BE MADE AGAINST SPUNTER PTY LTD IN CIV2509 OF 2002, AND AGAINST NICHOLAS N CHIN ALONE IN CACV107 OF 2008 AND AGAINST BOTH OF THEM IN CIV 2157 OF 2011.
THE MISSING ONE PAGE STATEMENT REFUSED BY JUSTICE CHANEY OF SAT TO MAURICE IN VR158 OF 2011- EXPLAINED
ReplyDeleteNicholas N Chin
8:14 PM (1 minute ago)
to phill, insanitydc, moza35, Pauline, paul, Rogerio, axissrepparts,bevan, htestoni, Russell, Eddie, Nirvana, Kirsty, uwe, bcc: Roger,bcc: info, bcc: WILLIAMS
Hi Phil and Donna and Maurice:
1. Just look at the Invoice obtained by Maurice in sometime in 2010 from the Supreme Court at paragraph No.9 below. This Invoice is generated by the Supreme Court bearing No. 202483 and dated 19.5.2009.
2. This Invoice was created on 19.5.2009 to validate the false payment of court fees alleged to have been paid by credit card on 16.2.2006 by David Taylor (three years before that).
3. This is because Maurice and I were writing letters in about May or June, 2009 to Registrar Powell requesting for the bank statement indicating that the court fees for CIV1131 of 2006 was paid on 16.2.2006. We relied upon the response letter of the learned Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 indicating that when my learned friend David Taylor was supposed to have lodged a cheque for $654.00 on 10.2.2006 while lodging the Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 on that same day, they (Registrar Powell and Mr. Taylor) then realised that it was 20 cents short (the cheque).
4. We have been asking for the cheque and the proof of payment made into the court but with no result. Suddenly, Registrar Powell got the brain wave that because it was 20 cents short so they had to call David Taylor to come back. He was then supposed to have come back six days latter and made that payment into court with a credit card on 16.2006. But the question remains: where is the bank statement showing this? THIS IS THE FICTION, we are trying to solve (The brain wave).
5. This brain wave is indicated in Registrar Powell's letter to me dated 11.6.2006 which is found at page 136 of my Yellow Appeal Book CACV107 of 2008. This brain wave happened some three years later to remedy the defect of non payment of court fees in CIV1131 of 2006 that was supposed to have occurred on 16.2.2006 (some three years earlier). Then we have David Taylor swearing an Affidavit dated 29.3.2007 showing the false receipts that the payment was made on 16.2.2006 (the false receipts).
6. Finally when Maurice checked with the Supreme Court sometime in 2010, he found this Invoice No.202483 dated 19.5.2009 that backdates and validates the non-payment of $654.20 that was supposed to be made by credit card by Mr. Taylor on 16.2.2006. We were clueless of this until SAT refused to give the promised missing "Details of the Bank Entries" dated 20.5.2009 (which shows that $654.20 was paid into the supreme court bank account on 19.5.2009 and this entry was taken off it on the same day) and shown to Maurice on 30.11.2011 by Jacqui of SAT, in the form of SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT (The SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT).
(TO BE CONTINUED BELOW)
7. When Maurice got the subpoena dated 7.11.2011 into SAT in VR158 of 2011 , President Chaney had on 15.11.2011 promised to give him a copy of the bank statement due to be lodged by Mr. Taylor on 29.11.2011. When Maurice asked Jacqui for that SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT from Jacqui on 30.11.2011. Since then, Maurice had been quarrelling for the Single Page Document and for several months he was refused it until mid-February, 2012 when SAT replaced it with FIVE PAGES(Maurice's Quarrel with SAT).
ReplyDelete8. THE SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT is missing and SAT have refused to produce it. But instead SAT replaced it with some FIVE PAGES that relates to transactions happening in 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006. These Five pages do not show any direct payment of the missing court fees into the supreme court account on either 10.2.2006 or 16.2.2006. What they do show are the following facts:
8.1 A $654.00 was taken out by using a cheque No. 000774 from Mr.
Taylor's Bank West Trust Account No.059323-9 on 20.2.2006 as recorded by Statement No.147 at page 1.
8.2. A $654.00 payment was paid into Mr. Taylor's Bank West Credit Card Account No.4564810788001511 on 20.2.2006 as recorded in Statement dated 17.2.2006 to 17.3.2006.
8.3. There are two false Invoices allegedly issued by the Supreme Court bearing:
8.3.1. No. 201702 dated 10.2.2006 acknowledging the receipt of of
personal cheque for $654.00 without any corroborating evidence of any bank statement entries.
8.3.2. Invoice No. 202483 dated 16.2.2006 recording receipt No. 1441 for $654.00 payment made by credit card and receipt No. 1442 for 20 cents by cash.
8.4 The $654.00 was made three times:
8.4.1. with a personal cheque on 10.2.2006,
8.4.2. twice with a credit card on 16.2.2006;
8.4.3. by using the trust account cheque on 20.2.2006.
5) The Subpoena issued by Maurice ask for the bank statement
signifying the payment of the court fees to the court either on
10.2.2006 or 16.2.2006. Mr. Taylor was not able to comply with the Orders of the Subpoena.
9. The SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT TALLIES WITH THIS INVOICE DISPLAYED AT MY BLOGSPOT AT:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2040717887384744899#editor/target=post;postID=2297949331544001740
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN