Monday, April 29, 2013


  • Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you‏

Nicholas N Chin (
10:36 AM
Hi Kenn:
The WA Discipline Board for Lawyers the LPCC conducted malafides proceedings against me in VR 87 OF 2007.   The Mala Fides of the the President of the State Administrative Tribunal is exempliefied;  his Honour Justice Chaney was asked to recuse himself when he did a bare-faced lying judgment against me.  He did recuse himself by activating his Deputy Judge SAT by altering the statute law to empower him to do so, to continue to do the insidious job for him which he did by removing me from the roll of barristers and solicitors.   I was asked to respond to his order confining myself to the penalty issue which the latter judge was proposing against me.  I put up my written submissions, which I considered to be part and parcel of the appeal process i.e. my submissions against Penalty is equated to my Submissions against being guilty of the claimed wrongdoings (My Submissions).
My Submissions is not being considered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which sat on 12.12.2012 to remove me from the roll of barristers and solicitors.  It contends that I have have NOT appealed the SAT decision to remove from the roll.
The mala fides of the LPCC are:
1) It disciplines me for contrived infractions whereas it does not discipline lawyers like Timothy Robin Thies, David Taylor and Pino Monaco for real infractions of the law.
2) It finds me guilty of sham dishonesty upon the non-complaining Mrs. Mathias who had withdrawn her complaint about a res judicata issue or non-issue that I had ALTERED a costs agreement when it did not happened. There is proof that the ink of the costs agreement’s impugned alteration was made subsequent after it had been drawn up. Indeed it is: the alteration was made after it was drawn up within a few minutes and with the presence of Mrs. Mathias. It contradicts the fundamental common law notion for a real finding of fraud i.e. there must be a pecuniary deprivation of funds of Mrs. Mathias and there was none.  In fact Mrs. Mathias obtained benefits from me for which I had condoned her non-payment for my legal services (the Sham Dishonesty).
3) The Sham Dishonesty is just a ruse of the LPCC to get me out of the legal profession just because I had made allegations of the real infractions of the law by the three lawyers:
3.1. David Taylor for misleading the court with a forged document that he filed the impugned Writ of Summons on time in compliance with Justice Jenkins Orders in CIV1142 of 2005 when he did not.  My client suffered a premature death as a result of the injustice she received from Mr. David Taylor. The various courts simply refused to make a decision on this barefaced facts that was properly brought before it.
3.2. Pino Monaco for misleading the court that he did not used duplicitous and duplicated bills of costs to effect the pillaging and plundering my client Dr. Kheng Su Chan.
3.3. Timothy Robin Thies pillaged and plundered my son Paul Chin contrary to the tenor of the costs agreement he entered into with my son Paul Chin.  The lawyer refused to quit when told to do so and keep escalating costs for my son Paul.  This case was finally won by me but the court refused to acknowledge that Mr. Thies has no caveatable interests to justify his strangle-hold over my son’s property and refused to order damages against him.
3.5. Both Timothy Thies and David Taylor misled the court when they unlawfully lodged unlawful caveats against the property of my son Paul Chin and my former client Ms Nancy Hall respectively, when both of these lawyers know or should know that caveatable interests can only be founded upon proprietary interests in the caveat property which both lawyers or their clients have none.  They have thus misled the courts on the fundamental principle of law and are getting away with it.  I have appealed this point but the Supreme Court is ignoring it.
Armed with a summary of my grievance, I hope your Campaign can solve this “democracy” problem for me, which is my fundamental human rights to be able to earn my living as a lawyer.
Nicholas N Chin
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you
Dear Nicholas,
It would be more convenient if, when contacting us with
matters concerning the Restoration Campaign, we receive
your messages, not by invitations to blogs and/or discussion
forums, but directly by e-mail.
We hope you are well.
Best wishes,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:49 AM
Subject: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you


    In Re Wendy Anne Wright [2011] QSC 34, the Supreme Court of Queensland had to consider the prospects of the applicant’s application. Justice Wilson said:

    ‘A person who seeks readmission after having been struck off the roll of legal practitioners for professional misconduct must generally acknowledge his or her past misconduct and demonstrate genuine remorse for it. While confession is not a necessary precondition to readmission, it is usually indicative of insight, which is in turn relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether there has been moral regeneration such that the applicant is now a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner. There may be cases where an applicant has no remorse because of a genuine belief that the findings of the disciplinary tribunal were wrong. An applicant may accept the authority and binding character of the decision made by the disciplinary tribunal but nevertheless genuinely believe its findings were wrong. Whether a particular case falls within that category depends upon an assessment of all of the circumstances. But as Mason P observed in Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission[7]:

    “…there is no error in concluding in a particular context that continuing vigorous challenge to clearly established guilt may be indicative of continuing unfitness on one or other of the grounds indicated in the sentence underlined.”[8]

  2. While it is not for me to predetermine what attitude the Court would take to the applicant’s attempt to re-ventilate issues determined against her by the Tribunal (albeit for the purpose of explaining her lack of remorse), I think her prospects of succeeding in her application for readmission are poor. Suffice it to say that I think there would be a powerful argument that her attempt to explain her lack of remorse would amount to a collateral attack on the findings of the Tribunal and that it should be disallowed as an abuse of process.’