Friday, March 29, 2013



Nicholas N Chin 
12:35 PM (6 hours ago)
to Lilianbpyapkaveetha
The President of the Malaysian Bar Council
Malaysian Bar
Attention: Ms. Lilian Cheong

Mr. Yap Bell Pung
Bell & Lee 
Advocates and Solicitors of Malacca.
Atten: Mr. Yap Bell Pung.

Ms. Kaveetha a/p Arumugam
Appeals and Special Powers
High Court Kuala Lumpur
Komplek Pejabat-Pejabat Kerajaan
Jalan Duta
Kuala Lumpur
Atten: Ms. Kaveetha a/p Arumugam

Dear Sirs

I refer to my telephone conversation with your Ms. Lilian Cheong of the Malaysian Bar today.   I would like to state the following: 

1) The Malaysian Bar Council made its wrong decision in the abovenamed Petition to exempt me for three months of Reading in Chamber Period for a pupil lawyer under my Master mentor Mr. Yap Bell Pung, instead of my rightful entitlement of six months for the same, in accordance with the Malaysian laws pertaining to admissions of advocates an solicitors for a Malaysian who had obtained the necessary qualifications and experience as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Western Australian jurisdiction (the Wrong Decision of the Malaysian Bar). 
2) The Wrong Decision of the Malaysian Bar has no reasonable basis as is proven by its subsequent decision to grant exemptions of three months for Reading in Chamber period for persons with similar overseas qualifications, namely: 
2.1. Qualifying Bachelor of Laws Degree acceptable to the Malaysian Bar:  I have in addition my National University of Malaysia Bachelor of Economics with majors in Economics and Accountancy (1977), a Malaysian Teacher's Diploma (1965); Curtin University of Western Australian Post Graduate Diploma in Business Laws with above 70% average grade (1996) entitling me to enter the Murdoch University School of Law in 1997;
2.2. Completed my Article Training period of one year organized by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and having passed all related professional Bar Examinations, leading to my admission as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. 
2.3. Mandatory post-admission period of supervised legal practice of one year under the guidance of Mr. Wally Ozich, a practising barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia of more than 25 year experience as my mentor: a qualification for independent legal practice or legal practice on my own account (Qualifications for Independent Legal Practice). 
2.4. my 18 month period of independent legal practice experience acquired by me after I had obtained my Qualifications for Independent Legal Practice. 

3) The Wrong Decision of the Malaysian Bar had caused me to make a Second Petition in 20011 which was stopped by the then learned Registrar Cik Radziah of the Appeals and Special Powers Divisions of the Kuala Lumpur High Court at Jalan Duta in 2011.  The rationale of Cik Radziah is that I could invoke the abovenamed Petition of 2005 to further file Forms 3 to 8 so that I could be called to the Bar on the ground that I had completed my required three-month Reading in Chamber period in 2005-2006 (the RKK Decision). 
4) I traveled to Kuala Lumpur to have my appointment to see the learned Ms. Kaveetha a/p Arumugam,who is the new Registrar of the RKK replacing Cik Radziah on the 28.3.2013 at 2.00 pm.  Ms. Kaveetha confirms the RKK Decision. 
5) As a result of the above, I have rung my Master-Mentor Mr. Yap Bell Pung and shall engage with him again at about 2.00 pm today to further discuss the contents of this email to you. 
6) The reason for my delay in making this Final Application for Admission as an Advocate and Solicitor to the Malaysian Bar is that by September, 2006, I was embroiled in a dispute with the regulator of the legal profession in the State of Western Australia which made its initial decision not to disbar me from legal practice but on the unreasonable grounds that I be placed under supervisory practice again but had finally disbarred me on 12.12.2013 for which I had appealed.  The reasons for my appeal are in terms of the following: 
6.1. I had made false allegations against fellow legal practitioners Solicitors Timothy Robin Thies, David Taylor and Pino Monaco (the Impugned False Allegations);
6.2. I sought to correct the injustice done to me on the ground that the Impugned False Allegations were based on Untruths (the Untruths).
6.3. Once the Untruths were proved to the satisfaction of the various tribunals, the regulator through its disciplinary statutory body, the LPCC changed the goal posts and made me guilty of a sham dishonesty of a victim-less contrived fraud regarding the matter of my former client Mrs. Mathias.  She was an unwilling complainant and there was no deprivation of properties or monies of her by me.  The matter was already decided and any res judicata decision based on false grounds is null and void (the Sham Dishonesty). 
6.4 The Supreme Court decision to remove me from the roll of barristers and solicitors dated 12.12.2012 is null and void because it did not take into account my written submission regarding the Sham Dishonesty and upon technical grounds. You have my assurance that I am mature enough and am not in the habit of stirring up the hornet's nests by inviting controversy nor mishandling the good relationship and goodwill that ought to be subsisting between fellows members of the legal profession both in Malaysia and overseas. 
6.5. All matters affecting my legal entitlement to practice law in Western Australia post September, 2006 hinges on the controversy of the initial non-suspension of my practice certificate despite its being unlawfully withheld upon invalid grounds by an unauthorized groups of persons that I work under supervision, which I was objecting to, at all material times (the Controversy).
6.6. The purpose of my seeking Malaysian Bar Admission as an Advocate and solicitor is to enable me to help Malaysians residing in Australia or people who have interests in dealing with Malaysia by providing them with legal advice and help and other assistance as a foreign lawyer in Western Australia irrespective of whether I seek to register with the Australian Government or not and depending on the legal requirements of my legal practice, pending the resolution of my Controversy with the WA regulator. 
6.6. The matters of the Controversy is currently under appeal and is being controverted to by my many Australian Supporters against the WA regulator, as is being exemplified by the Comments in the Just Grounds Community website at Nicholas N Chin's Page at and Nicholas N Chin's Discussions at:  This is despite the fact that I am currently helping many Australians legally and on a pro bono basis to solve their dispute with the legal profession apparently seen to be plundering and pillaging their clients, with the apparent connivance of the regulator. Amongst them are many learned and distinguished people who are at loggersheads with the Australian government's implementation of the judiciary system in Australia.  This is true democracy at work. 
6.7. In the public interests, I would appreciate if the Malaysian Bar would look into the intricacies of my dispute with the regulator of the legal profession of WA as is available at my blogspots, the links of which are as follows: 
Business Web site (Optional)
Your Blog (Optional)
Fackbook Page (Optional)
Twitter Account (Optional)

Yours faithfully
2516, Simpang Ampat, 
Brisu Road, Alor Gajah. 78000
Ph: 06 5529459 Mobile: 01121231220

No comments:

Post a Comment