MY REPLY TO THE REGULATOR OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN WA DATED 28.11.2017.
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin 387 Alexander Drive DIANELLA WA 6059 Ph: 08 92757440 Mobile: 0421642735 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Dennis Barich Legal Officer Legal Practice Board of Western Australia Level 6, 111 St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 Ph: 6211 3600 Email: GENERAL@LPBWA.COM
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTDIAL
Dear Sir ENGAGING, OR REPRESENTING ENTITLEMENT TO ENGAGE, IN LEGAL PRACTICE WHEN NOT ENTITLED
Thank you for your letter dated 28th November, 2017 and I would to respond to you as follows:
1) I have never been engaging or representing entitlement to engage in legal practice since the 12.12.2012. 2) About your paragraph 2.1. my website at http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/ has a portrait of me wearing a wig and a robe and this is correct: that is my ceremonial clothing when I was admitted as a barrister and solicitor by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 19.12.2003. It represents my history and it does represent that I am engaging or representing entitlement to engage in legal practice when not so entitled. (the Wig and Robe Representative of My Life-History). 3) The Wig and Robe Representative of My Life-History is explained by the following words: “I was a school teacher and was a lawyer. I am not currently certificated as a lawyer and am fighting my case for any wilful professional misconduct.” 4) I am a retired old man and is wont to do some philanthropic duties as an indication of my Christian love for my neighbour of which I am best at because I have dedicated my whole life to the study of the law since I was a school boy and I never stop learning about the law because it is the only subject which I have a passion for. I explain this trait of my character in these words: “Interests: I would like to help people who are distressed and cannot find their way through the legal system on a pro bono basis in a legal way by not contravening the law and I do not represent that I am entitled to be engaged in legal practice pursuant to subs.13(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (WA). As from today, I cannot use the title lawyer nor legal practitioner nor barrister nor solicitor. This might give the public the wrong impression that I am entitled to be engaged in the independent practice of the law. I can practise law under supervision but I exist because I want to protect the public interests that the ordinary person is not being given short shrift in the law, in so far as it is humanly possible for me to do so.” 5) About your paragraph 2.2: the caption JUSTICE FOR A LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA is derived and adapted from the non-reply email Google Alert that I received from my email box all the time. It provides the current news affecting the integrity of judges and lawyers throughout the world and it by no means bears any connotation that I am claiming to be a currently-licensed lawyer notwithstanding the fact that I am a person who is trained to be a lawyer and have never been convicted of a crime and cannot be disbarred from his chosen profession for life whether in law or in equity. Such disbarment is unconscionable and abhorrent and is void both in equity and in law.
6) About your paragraph 2.1.: the logo of a jabot representing justice is never mine and I was never its author nor did I ever put it there or wherever it appears. Someone unknown to me put it there, for whatever reason, I do not understand it and did not try to understand it. I cannot delete it nor is it mine to delete. That Jabot Logo made its circulation after I have rejected for my name to be advertised in a magazine by one David who approached me soon after I was admitted to the Bar. But I had to reject that advert and gave him my reason for doing so. Since then, I used to see that Logo attached to my website or wherever my name appears. That signifies that members of the public are not happy about what had happened to me in such a short space of time for no wrongs. I was just trying to get justice for my client Nancy Cloonan Hall etc and many others who have been maligned by the law, which arise from the wrong-doings of other lawyers and the conspiracy is so overwhelming to cover them up such that it is no longer worthwhile for me to fight my case any more. I was found by a judge to have been frivolous and vexatious and its never the case. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of WA took away my name from the list of barristers and solicitors but one of the three was found to be dissenting. You must remember that I am now 72 years old. This situation happens to a chinaman in the State of Carlifornia and the Law Society honoured him posthumously after more than 134 years when he was long dead. It happened in New Zealand too, to another chinaman and it happened in WA. All these are found in various links of my postings. Incidentally, all those cases that I fought for have been vindicated by the various justices subsequently but not directly with me: the mistaken plight they have put me into have never been rectified. Its just too mind-boggling for me to keep fighting as I do get ill when I fight for my own matters as I become emotionally involved and I cannot spend money for lawyers to fight a losing battle for me. 7) About your paragraph 2.3: there is no denying the fact that I am involved in the industry of the Law as I cannot be stopped from doing pro-bono work for people who are lost in the maze created by the legal profession for them. Everytime if I am forced to do pro bono work as a McKenzie friend, I make sure that I have it in writing that the person involved signed a document for me verifying the fact that I have informed him that I am not a licensed legal practitioner and that I am not insured and that I am not giving him any legal advice but merely setting him or her on a trial of his case by papers. Probono also means that I have to be compensated for my outgoings. 8) About your paragraph 2.4: the caption A LAWYER FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENT LAW PRACTICE does not connote that I am a legally licensed lawyer but that I have the qualifications of a legally qualified lawyer prior to my disbarment on 12.12.2012 and that the fight is still on and never-ending for an independent legal practice as it may happen one day long after my death. I do have the legitimate expectation that those who have done wrong to me will wake up to their wrongdoings and correct those wrongdoings which have already been partially corrected in some of the cases without referring to the wrongs done to me: as it is wrong for them in equity to deny me my basic human rights that I have a basic right to earn my living in the profession that I have chosen for life. It is akin to their putting an invisible walls to restrict my freedom and to imprison me invisibly - they will have to answer to the Almighty Creator for the wrongs which they have done to me deliberately. 9) About your paragraph 2.5: I maintain that I can practise law under supervision but I do not choose to be under supervision. This is what they wanted me to do at first - to undergo supervision under another lawyer so as to cover up the fault of the other party but no lawyer would want to see me thriving without making use of me as a slave for an indefinite period of time at this station of my life. Its only when I refused the offer of practising under supervision that they finally got me off the roll of barristers and solicitors on 12.12.2017. 10) As per your paragraph 12: at my linked in website: https://au.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-nchin-5278762a, those words: “barrister & solicitor at Nicholas n chin” is never my words. I
tried to delete it many times but it was placed there by the editors or Linkedin which I have no control to delete or remove. I therefore sought to qualify them by the following words: “I do not represent that I am entitled to practice law as a legal professional as I am in the process of being struck off the roll for no willful misconduct and victimless dishonesty. The test for dishonesty is misappropriation of property by deception through fraud or conspiracy. None of these elements exist. For more information, please see: http://justgroundsonline.com/profile/NicholasNChin. Just remember that my knowledge of the law cannot be stolen from me. It just does not fit into the picture to have a crime without the criminal: things can go wrong and do go wrong and it cannot be rectified because we are all humans and humans have certain limitations. Only God the Almighty Creator can be all-seeing and all comprehending. Just look at what happened in California some 134 years ago and they are trying to correct it.” The Just Grounds Website and links attracted a lot of attention to the extent they remove it altogether. 11) As per your paragraph 5: There can never be any presumption to the general public that I am an Australian legal practitioner and that I am entitled to legal practice. I made my stand clear that there has been a wrong done to me that was not righted and it is an impossible task for me to set it aright in my lifetime as the conspiracy to defeat justice is just too overwhelming for me to counter as an ordinary human being and that there is no justice in disbarring me for a life-time when I have never committed any crime or defraud of anyone of any monies or wealth and that I am allowed to live my ordinary life and be in touch with the law and be there to right injustice remotely as a McKenzie friend. 12) In the premises as per paragraph 6, I have not contravened s. 12(2) of the LPA as I have not engaged in legal practice as a McKenzie friend with or without the consent of the court and that my name is never there as representing any litigant in court but any litigant is entitled to a trial by the papers which I can help them to prepare on a pro-bono basis. 13) In the premises, as per paragraph 7, I have not contravened s. 13(1) of the LPA in that I never represent nor advertise myself as a person entitled to engage in the practice of the law. 14) In the premises, as per paragraph 8, I do not claim myself to fall under the category of an Australian Legal Practitioner of s.5 of the LPA. 15) In the premises, as per paragraph 9, I have rejected the wrongdoing of the Board which requires me to be under supervision again after I have completed my year of supervised practice and I ought to be granted the right to practice independently but I was denied. More so, I have never been disbarred in accordance with the law or the decision disbarring me is fraught with error which I no longer wishes to counter. Therefore, I do not wish to be a lay associate under s. 15(3) of the LPA. 16) In the premises, as per paragraph 10, I have never represented myself as a “barrister and solicitor” as both the Jabot Logo and the Linked in Words are never written by me but I deleted them and it came back for which I have no capacity to delete it. Therefore I have never represented that I am entitled to engage in legal practice in breach of s. 11(1) of the LPA. 17) In the premises, as per paragraph 11, I have not been giving written or oral legal advice and I so advise each person if any, who seek my help in written form that I do not practise the law and do not give legal advice and whatever help that I do provide can never be relied by them as legal advice. I am only a McKenzie friend who is reputed to have been in legal practice in the past and have a Bachelor of Laws, an Admission Certificate as a Barrister and Solicitor and a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Law but I do not have a current practice certificate. Therefore I have represented that I am NOT entitled to engage in legal practice in breach of section 12(2) of the LPA. 18) In the premises, as per paragraph 12, the Board may consider whether I have breached ss.12 and 13 of the LPA having regard to the fact that I have aired the misdoings and the wrongdoings perpetrated upon me by the Conspiracy to Defeat Justice to put me away in
cold storage as an independent practising lawyer having regard to the fact that I am more learned in the law than most young lawyers because I have a compassion and life-long passion for anything law since my early secondary school days, barred by the fact that I have had to earn my living as a school teacher to help my father’s family and only formally took up my belated legal education when I was about fifty years of age, when I found my freedom of education in Western Australia. The justice system is humanly fraught with errors and the prejudice is so ingrained that it is overwhelming difficult for a chinaman like me to fight back because nobody would like to listen lest they be kicked out of the group for empathy or sympathy with my plight and I know it happens for sure. Once a properly admitted lawyer, he is always a lawyer unless he has been evicted from the legal profession by the conviction of a criminal act and even so he has a reprieve whereas I have none and I do not want to fight back. Let the justice come from the heavens. 19) In the premises, as per your paragraph 13, this reply letter do constitute my denial of any those alleged breaches and is dated 27.11.2017. 20) In the premises, as per your paragraph 14, I agree to remove those matters in both Linked In and Google only in relation to those words “barristers and solicitors” if I can do it and if it were in my power to do so and not otherwise. But I am afraid it is not within my bounds to do it as I have no control over those words. I am also NOT able to remove the word LAWYER as it signifies what I was and what I should be and those websites represents my continuing fight against the injustice done to me by the legal system and it remains for posterity to see and wake up to it, just as it has done so in the State of California and in New Zealand because the legal profession should not be made a monopoly for the privileged few who has no competition and who dislike whistle-blowers and will punish them by way of ostracism. To deny me this right to air my freedom of speech is a repressive and oppressive conduct of the regulator of the legal profession which has its aim to do the common good and to promote justice for all at the expenses of the coffers of the public. 21) In the premises, as per your paragraph 14 and 15, I shall call the writer Mr. Denis Barich after he has been given time to digest the information that I have provided and to seek to delve further into the truth of the matter for truth means justice and justice can only mean that the truth is being faced soberly and in reality by all the parties to the dispute and the adjudicators of the truths only and not fiction.
NICHOLAS N CHIN