I spoke to Nicholas 08 927857440 to get the number of the Supreme Court Appeals registrar.
Spoke to Rob at length who is a clerk and the registrar- a Mrs Eldred.
Rob's number-08 94215464. I asked - could a registrar throw an appeal in the bin without a CACV number. Answer- not without asking for any missing technical details first- so it seems irregular to have no number issued with no request for more info.
Nicholas has copies of corresspondence apparently so the ball would be in his court to demand what happened @ Mrs Aldred's desk. I was polite but forcefull that we just want a bit more transparency and the evidence will speak for itself. I played up the membership of justgrounds being determined people who like to see justice done for the common people and have a few senators on board ....yarda yarda.
Until you do the required "please explain " Nicholas - we should just talk here for the time being. Regards,
ps I have tried to keep it simple but any of you on this list could be more knowlegable on the legal side of things than I and please put your input
From Nicholas N Chin to Robert Mcjannett, Michaelng Clayton, rangi faulder, Bob Stewart, Rob Mooreand 12 more Sent 3 hours ago
In the meantime I hope you enjoy Christmas. Would you like me to pray about receiving an appeal number, Nicholas?
Mr. Yeates: Thank you for praying for me. ..For the purpose of the record, I attended the Court of Appeal Office of the Supreme Court of Western Australia at Barrack Street in Perth at about 11.00 am on 2.1.2013 to file my three documents, which I already put on my blogspot:
1) the Combo Appeal Notice against the SAT Judgments in VR87 of 2009 and the LPD2 Decison of the Full Bench.
2) An Application in Form for Leave to Appeal and Extension Time to Appeal and the Concurrent Application for Judicial Review of the SAT Judgments which the Court of Appeal has supervisory jurisdiction.
3) The Affidavit in Support of the Application
There, I met a counter-clerk girl by the name of Ashley and asked her what had happened to my Notice of Appeal filed by me on the 27.6.2012 for which I have not got a CACV number yet? Its a Consolidated appeal against the McKechnie's J and Heenan's J decision dated 18.6.2012 in Civ 1275 of 2012 and CIV 1323 of 2012. This Consolidated Notice of Appeal consolidates all my cases in the Supreme Court because it hinges upon one ground of appeal only. This ground of appeal appears as an error of law on the court records and is based on the principle of law that there can be no caveatable interests if it is not founded upon proprietary interests. Any court of integrity would not allow this error of law to remain in its records otherwise posterity would think this court is not legitimate (the Missing CACV Appeal Number).
If this error of law were to be effaced from the court records, all my problems with the courts wrong decisions would have been solved. There would be no striking me off from the roll of legal practitioners and there would be no abuse of process of court by me nor the court wrongly declaring me as a vexatious litigant by Justice Murray. I would also not be guilty of any abuse of the process of court. This is because the abuse started first with the court not being cognizant of the established principle of common law by which it should have judged my cases against my learned friends David Taylor and Timothy Thies and which forms the butt of the false allegations of the Pseudo Board of the Regulator against me that I am deficient in my professional knowledge.
The Start-Up of these false allegations began with Mr. Pino Monaco, a former President of the Law Society getting his mates to exclude me from the exclusive club of lawyers by the backdoor just as I was gathering my steps to walk into it on 7.1.2012 after I had completed my Restricted Practitioner year ending on 6.1.2012. The Minute of the regulator dated 24.2.2005 indicates that I achieved my independent status as from 17.1.2005 but the interference of Mr. Monaco caused a blight to my budding career for the Monaco complaint to be referred to the LPCC which is a matter of dispute to the presen