Saturday, December 29, 2012

JIM MACLEOD AND ALYN ROULE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MONACO AFFAIR


Jim MacLeod
8:00 PM (23 hours ago)
to Alynme
Thanks Alyn
Your diligent…. Keep up the good work
This is a question I pass on to Nick in the hope he can answer us both
The idea of the current discussion is several fold
a)      Give and gain clarification / feedback
b)       Enable and empower whatever options may exist
c)        Get to the root issues of what may have taken place
d)       And a raft of other questions that I too am working on Alyn

Thanks for the assistance and the swift feedback
Cheers (J

Over to you Nicholas for a further response – we can paste it up to blog later

From: Alyn Roule [mailto:roulereport@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2012 2:07 PM
To: Jim MacLeod
Subject: Re: JG = Chin

Hello Jim,
Is The Following the correct view ??

Under Chronology on Just Grounds

Part 25 = "Fitness to Practice" = Mr Monaco complaint re -; Misuse of intemperate Language contained in "Letter of Demand"

Part 27 = The PAC (Professional Affairs Committee) confirmed commencement of Practice for Mr Chin Feb 2005.
QUESTION = If application was granted then WHY refer Mr Monaco complaint to Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. ( LPCC ) ??
QUESTION = Under what authority or circumstance does an application (once accepted) become an issue within another body ??
QUESTION = What precedent constitutes a review of an acceptance ??
QUESTION = Who commissioned Ms Walter to review a resolved issue. ??
QUESTION = If issue was NOT resolved (as one would assume by the commissioning of a Board Membert to review) then under what circumstance was Mr Chin's confirmation to Practice -- accepted ??

Part 28 = QUESTION = Who authorised Respondent Board Secretary Ms Paton to forward Monaco Complaint to LPCC ??

Part 29 = The claim of "Four Matters" yet there appear to be more than Four -- ------QUESTION = What referance and Relevance are these complaints to the original complaint of -; "Fitness to Practice" as charged by Mr. Monaco -- given that an appology had been accepted ?? (see -; 29 b)

more to come --
Regards


Nicholas N Chin 
3:08 AM (16 hours ago)
to imroulereport
JIM MACLEOD
ALYN ROULE

Thank you for asking me to comment.  I shall put all MY COMMENTS IN BLOCK CAPITALS as indicated in the body of the emails below: 
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim MacLeod <jim.macleod@nor.com.au>
Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: JG = Chin
To: Alyn Roule <roulereport@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicholas Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
Thanks Alyn
Your diligent…. Keep up the good work
This is a question I pass on to Nick in the hope he can answer us both
The idea of the current discussion is several fold
a)      Give and gain clarification / feedback
b)       Enable and empower whatever options may exist
c)        Get to the root issues of what may have taken place
d)       And a raft of other questions that I too am working on Alyn
Thanks for the assistance and the swift feedback
Cheers (J
Over to you Nicholas for a further response – we can paste it up to blog later

From: Alyn Roule [mailto:roulereport@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2012 2:07 PM
To: Jim MacLeod
Subject: Re: JG = Chin

Hello Jim,
Is The Following the correct view ??
Under Chronology on Just Grounds
THE LINK TO THE CHRONOLOGY PREPARED BY ME FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF JUSTICE CHANEY IN THE SUPPREME COURT (COURT OF APPEAL) OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CACV 105 OF 2008  FOUND AT: http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/chronology-of-nicholas-n-chin-case-with-regulator-1?xg_source=activity

Part 25 = "Fitness to Practice" = Mr Monaco complaint re -; Misuse of intemperate Language contained in "Letter of Demand"

1) THE JUDGEMENT OF PRESIDENT CHANEY J IN CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 IS FOUND AT THE LINK http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2008WASAT0252/$FILE/2008WASAT0252.pdf.

2) IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE OF PINO MONACO IS BEING AVOIDED.  THERE IS NO LONGER ANY MENTION OF MR. PINO MONACO AND HIS COMPLAINT. 
Part 27 = The PAC (Professional Affairs Committee) confirmed commencement of Practice for Mr Chin Feb 2005.
QUESTION = If application was granted then WHY refer Mr Monaco complaint to Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. ( LPCC ) ??
1) MR. MONACO IS A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF WA.  ON 4.1.2005, I WROTE A LETTER OF DEMAND ON BEHALF OF DR. K S CHAN ACCUSING HIM OF PREDATORY CONDUCT WHICH IS TRUE.
2) PINO MONACO COMPLAINED AGAINST ME TO THE BOARD ON 19.1.2005.
3) IF PINO HAS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT WHY DID HE NOT GO THROUGH THE PROPER AUTHORITY WHICH IS THE LPCC BUT THROUGH THE BOARD. SOMETHING FISHY HERE?
4) THE PAC ON 24.2.2005 APPROVED MY INDEPENDENT PRACTICE STATUS AS FROM 17.1.2005 AFTER THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS ON 7.2.2005 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE LAW SOCIETY LETTER DATED 4.2.2005 TO THE BOARD COPIED TO MY MENTOR WALLY OZICH; THAT LETTER WAS PRESUMABLY ACTIVATED BY PINO MONACO.
4). ON 9.2.2005, THE LAW SOCIETY AGAIN WROTE TO MARY-ANNE PATON AS THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BOARD ATTACHING THE RESPONSE LETTER OF MR. OZICH. WHY LAW SOCIETY AND NOT LPCC?  LATER EVENTS SO TRANSPIRED THAT MARY-ANNE PATON HAD TO RESIGN FROM HER POSITION BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT ANSWER MY QUERIES AS PRESUMABLY SHE WAS FORCED BY CERTAIN PEOPLE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.
6) ON 24.2.2005, THE BOARD WAS ACTIVATED BY A LAWYER MS. F.B. WALTER ACTING PRESUMABLY AT THE CLANDESTINE DIRECTION OF PINO TO REVOKE ITS PRIOR APPROVAL ON 7.2.2005 OF THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE FOR MY INDEPENDENT PRACTICE.  MS. WALTER IS AN ELECTED MEMBER OF THE BOARD FOR THE PERIOD 1.7.2005 TO APRIL, 2005.WHY THE BOARD AND NOT LPCC?
7) MS. WALTER AND MS. PATON WAS IN ATTENDANCE IN THE PAC MEETING ON 24.2.2005 TO CAUSE THE RESOLUTION THAT THE MATTER OF PINO MONACO BE REFERRED TO THE LPCC (THE DECISION MAKER MEETING).
8) LPCC MEETING ON 7.2.2006, 4.7.2006 RESOLVED THAT I SHOULD BE PUT UNDER SUPERVISION AND THE MONACO MATTER WAS DISCUSSED EACH TIME AMONGST OTHERS. THE MINUTES OF EACH OF THE TWO LPCC MEETINGS SHOWS THAT MS. WALTER WERE PRESENT AT THE PROSECUTION MEETING BUT SHE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD (THE PROSECUTOR MEETING).
9) THE PAC OR THE BOARD MEETING ON 19.7.2006 WAS ALSO ATTENDED BY MS. PATON AND MS WALTER, WHICH MADE THE BOARD'S DECISION THAT I HAVE TO WORK UNDER SUPERVISION AND THE MONACO MATTER WAS ALSO DISCUSSED (THE DECISION MAKER DECISION).
9) 6.3.2007, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE LPCC THAT MS. WALTER HAD DECLARED AN INTEREST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION IN THE MINUTE OF THE PAC MEETING DATED 19.7.2006 WHICH IS THE DECISION MAKER'S DECISON.  THIS MEANS SHE DECLARED THAT SHE DID HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. THEREFORE THE DECISION THAT I WORK UNDER SUPERVISION IS TAINTED WITH BIAS AS A DECISION MAKER CANNOT BE THE POLICEMAN AND THE JUDGE AT THE SAME TIME (THE NUGATORY DECISION OF THE BOARD DATED 19.7.2006).
QUESTION = Under what authority or circumstance does an application (once accepted) become an issue within another body ??
1) THE ADMISSION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD IS TO ADMIT A LAWYER FOR INDEPENDENT LEGAL PRACTICE AFTER HE HAS FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS AND THIS WAS DONE ON 7.2.2005. I WROTE MY LETTER DATED 14.2.2005 TO THE BOARD SEEKING INDEPENDENT PRACTICE STATUS. ANOTHER COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD THE PAC APPROVED MY INDEPENDENT STATUS AS A LAWYER WITH EFFECT FROM 17.1.2005.  THERE WAS INTERFERENCE BY PINO MONACO TO RIGHT HIS OWN WRONGS AS A RESULT OF MY LETTER OF DEMAND DATED 4.1.2005 TO HIM. THE WRONGS HE HAD DONE TO DR. K S CHAN.  THERE MAY BE OTHER IMPROPER MOTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH DR. K S CHAN WHICH I AM NOT PRIVY TO.
2) THE LAW SAYS, THE REGULATOR CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME. AFTER IT HAS APPROVED MY INDEPENDENT STATUS AS A LAWYER, IT CANNOT RETRACT IT UNLESS I AM GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT. THERE WAS NO SUCH FINDINGS FOR AT LEAST SIX DECISIONS INCLUDING JUSTICE PRESIDENT CHANEY.
3) I RECEIVED A LETTER DATED 4.11.2009 FROM SAT COPIED TO THE LPCC WHICH INDICATED THAT THE RES JUDICATA POINT JUDGMENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AND PRONOUNCED ON 10.11.2009 HAS BEEN DECIDED WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO ME BY SAT ON THE SAME DAY (WHICH IS AN EARLIER DATE BY 6 DAYS) AS THAT LETTER. THAT LETTER CONTAINED A 12 PAGE JUDGMENT BY SAT PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY DELIVERED BY THE PRESIDENT IN MY ABSENCE THUS DENYING ME MY RIGHT TO OBJECT TO SO THAT THAT OBJECTION COULD BE BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE REVIEW.  I HAVE NO CHANCE TO REJECT IT AND DECLARE IT A NUGATORY JUDGMENT AS HIS HONOUR HAD BY SO DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT IN MY ABSENCE DECLARED HIMSELF EX FUNCTUS OFFICIO.  SO THAT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY AND PRESIDENT CHANEY IS REASONABLY SEEN TO BE BIASED. THIS JUDGMENT IS THE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 AND IS FOUND AT THE LINK http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2009WASAT0219/$FILE/2009WASAT0219.pdf
4) CAN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REASONABLY SAY THAT JUSTICE CHANEY IS NOT BIASED AGAINST ME AND HAS REFUSED TO HEAR ME OR HAD DENIED ME MY NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS DECISION IS ALSO RENDERED NUGATORY BY HIS HONOUR JUSTICE CHANEY BY VIRTUE OF HIS BIAS AND HIS DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO ME AND HIS AVOIDING THE ISSUES THAT WAS BEFORE HIM TO DECIDE. .
QUESTION = What precedent constitutes a review of an acceptance ??
SAT JUDGMENT CAN BE APPEALED OR BE REVIEWED.  THE JUSTICE HIMSELF WHO DECIDED THE CASE IF OBJECTED TO IMMEDIATELY HAS A RIGHT TO REVIEW HIS OWN DECISION. IT ALSO CAN BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT.  IF JUSTICE CHANEY WERE TO DO IT DELIBERATELY AND THEREBY DID NOT ALLOW ME TO OBJECT TO IT, IT MEANS THAT HE IS PARTICIPATING IN A FRAUDULENT DEAL AND FRAUD UNRAVELS EVERYTHING AND VITIATES EVERYTHING.
THE SAT ACT ALLOWS FOR APPEAL. I HAVE ASKED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THEY SAY I MUST APPEAL. WHEN I APPEALED THE SAT ACT SAYS I MUST GET LEAVE.  THE LEAVE IS REFUSED ME ON BOTH GROUNDS OF FACTS AND LAW. I APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT ALSO REFUSED ME LEAVE.  I APPLIED FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER S. 105(1) OF THE SAT ACT AND THEY REFUSED. THE GROUND FOR REFUSAL IS THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SUCCESS BUT OF COURSE THAT IS WRONG.  BUT HOW CAN IT BE WHEN THERE IS FRAUD.  EVERYONE WHO HAS COMMON SENSE CAN SAY THAT IS NOT TRUE. WHY ARE THE JUSTICES HOOD-WINKING THE COMMON MAN. BECAUSE THE COMMON MAN DID NOT STAND UP. THAT IS WHY? 
QUESTION = Who commissioned Ms Walter to review a resolved issue. ??
YOU AND I CAN MAKE A GUESS. IT MUST BE MR. PINO MONACO. WHY MUST THAT LETTER BE SENT TO THE BOARD AND NOT THE LPCC? THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER AND ONLY THE LPCC. 
QUESTION = If issue was NOT resolved (as one would assume by the commissioning of a Board Membert to review) then under what circumstance was Mr Chin's confirmation to Practice -- accepted ??
 THE ADMISSION COMMITTEE ACCEPTED ME FOR INDEPENDENT PRACTICE AFTER IT HAD RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT FROM MR. MONACO AND THE LAW SOCIETY OF WA. MR. MONOCA WENT THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.  HE WAS A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SO HE HAS THE POWER NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE LAW SOCIETY HAS LAUDABLE OBJECTIVES.  BUT IF HE HAS LEGITIMATE GROUNDS WHY NOT GO THROUGH THE LPCC. 
Part 28 = QUESTION = Who authorised Respondent Board Secretary Ms Paton to forward Monaco Complaint to LPCC ??
 RESOLVED BY THE LAWYER MS. F.B.WALTER WHO IS AN ELECTED MEMBER.  SHE MUST HAVE BEEN APPROACHED AS IS REASONABLY CONSTRUED FROM HER CONDUCT.  SHE IS A DECISION MAKER AND SHE MUST REMAIN UNBIASED.  SHE MUST NOT BE ACTIVE IN PROSECUTING ME AS WELL. HOW CAN SHE ATTEND THE MEETINGS OF THE LPCC TWICE ON 7.2.2006 AND 4.7.2006 IN ORDER TO GET THE LPCC TO PROSECUTE ME.  SHE IS A POLICEMAN AS WELL AS A JUDGE.  THAT CAUSED THE TAINTED BY BIAS DECISION OF THE BOARD DATED 19.7.2006. 
Part 29 = The claim of "Four Matters" yet there appear to be more than Four -- ------QUESTION = What referance and Relevance are these complaints to the original complaint of -; "Fitness to Practice" as charged by Mr. Monaco -- given that an appology had been accepted ?? (see -; 29 b)
MONACO HAD ACCEPTED MY APOLOGY THROUGH MY MENTOR.  BUT I MUST STAND UP FOR MY CLIENT. IF MY CLIENT HAD BEEN ROBBED OF MONIES WHICH SHE DID NOT OWE AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS IS THE CASE, I HAVE TO STAND UP FOR HER.  ROY GASCOIGNE, A FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND AN ACCOUNTANT INVESTIGATED THIS MATTER. BOTH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EMPLOYED BY DR. KS CHAN AND HE FOUND THAT SUMS THAT WERE NOT DUE WERE PAID TO MONACO BY DR. KS CHAN.OR THEY BECAME LEGAL COSTS THAT WERE NOT DUE AT THE TIME. DR. KS CHAN PRODUCED OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS WELL.  

No comments:

Post a Comment