WHY OMBUDSMAN WA CANNOT RESPOND TO MY LETTER IN ACCCORDANCE WITH THE LAW

From: Irene Yok Moy Lem Sent: Friday, 27 November 2020 10:59 AM To: Mail Ombudsman ; Chief Magistrate's Office ; Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au; Bradley, Claire (V. Connelly, MP) ; Minister.Quigley@dpc.wa.gov.au; Minister.Saffioti@dpc.wa.gov.au; admin@dpc.wa.gov.au; fines@justice.wa.gov.au; Perth Magistrates Court ; LPCC ; amber.jade.sanderson@mp.wa.gov.au; libby.mettam@mp.wa.gov.au; michael.mischin@mp.wa.gov.au; Criminal Injuries ; MrGillett68 Subject: Re: C/40552 - Complaint to the Ombudsman Western Australia Michelle Bovill Senior Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution All parties involved Dear Ms. Bovill: Thank you for your reply email dated 25.11.202 at 5.18pm to my letter to the Ombudsman dated 16.11.2020. I regret to state that I take exception to the penultimate paragraph which states as follows: "As set out in our letter to you dated 18 May 2020, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the Magistrates Court and those matters that have been the subject of proceedings before the Magistrates Court. Accordingly, our response to your complaint remains as set out in our letter to you dated 18 May 2020 and our office will not take any further action on your emails dated 16 November 2020." May I suggest that the Ombudsman is also subject to the rule of law like anyone else and if so why is he is not doing so in practice by virtue of the fact that he is not responding ad verbatim to each of my statements of facts as contained in my letter to him dated 16.11.2020 (the Ombudsman Non-Reply to My Letter): the points for the Ombudsman's Non-Reply to My Letter are referable only to the paragraph numbers and its contents its summary form within brackets of My Letter which are as follows: 1) Para.2: The rule of law in Coram Non Judice. 2) Para.3: the Non-existing Subject: No Proceedings at the Magistrates Court; 3) Para.4: Ombudsman Has Discretionary Jurisdiction; 4) Para.5: The Grounds for the Ombudsman Discretionary Jurisdiction: 5) Para. 5.2: The Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman; 6) Para.5.3: The Unlawful Driver Licence Suspension of Irene Yok Moy Lem. 7) Para.5.3.1: The Construction of the Law on the Unlawful Driver Licence Suspension of Irene Yok Moy Lem: 8) Para.5.4.1: The Malfeasance; 9) Para.5.4.2: The Impossibility of the Commission of the Alleged Crimes; 10) Para. 5.4.2.2: Building Permit Exists. 11) Para. 5.4.2.3: Planning Approval Exists. 12) Para. 5.4.2.4: Short Term Stay Accommodation Approval Exists. 13) Para. 5.5: Ombudsman is not Prohibited to Investigate the Malfeasance; 14) Para.5.5.1: Coram Non Judice and No Proceedings in Magistrates stems from No Right to Appeal; 15) Para.5.5.2: No Remedy for Aggrieved Person except through the Ombudsman; 16) Para.5.5.3: Aggrieved Person's Reliance on the Ombudsman Discretion. 17) The Ombudsman Duty is to Explain why he is not allowed the Expected Outcome of the Aggrieved Person out of her reliance on the Ombudsman Discretion. 18) The Ombudsman Cannot Refuse to Investigate the Malfeasance because the Magistrate Court has not complied with its duty to address that Challenge of Jurisdiction by the Aggrieved Party. 19) The appeal process of the VOID AB INITIO JUDGMENT OF MAGISTRATE HALL should be begun by the City of Stirling and not vice versa. 20) The Ombudsman owes members of the public that it does perform its duties efficiently and appropriately in accordance with the law and the legislation in place, so that members of the public have confidence in the good governance of Australia generally. 3 Attachments

REDDIT: PRETTY FUNNY CASE: LAWYER STRUCK OFF THE ROLL

 https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/j3kefs/pretty_funny_case/

PRETTY FUNNY CASE:

I am Nicholas N Chin and I would like to comment on the below posting in Reddit as follows in BLOCK CAPITALS as follows:

1. I FEEL HARROWED, TRAUMATISED AND HARASSED BY THE MISINFORMED BUT UNWITTING POSTING AS IT DOES NOT PORTRAYED THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

2. THERE IS A CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF WA AS ONCE IT IS OFFENDED IT WOULD HOUND THE VICTIM AND STOP HIS PROFESSION.

3. I NO LONGER WISH TO APPEAL THIS INJUSTICE BECAUSE IT IS SO OVERWHELMING THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS AS I HAVE PUT MY EVERY EFFORT INTO IT.

4. THE ALLEGED PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IS NON EXISTENT AS ALL MY PAPERS FILED IN THE VARIOUS COURTS AVERRED TO THOSE FACTS WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM INDEED TOOK INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT FACTS AND LAW TO THE EXTENT OF INTRODUCING A TROJAN HORSE OF NAILINI WHO THREW MY CASE OFF RAIL AS THERE IS NO DISHONESTY INVOLVING THE ALLEGED DECEPTION AND FRAUD OR FOR WHICH THE ALLEGED VICTIM WAS DEPRIVED OF ANY MONIES OR PROPERTY: THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTICATION FOR TAKING THE PRACTITIONER OFF THE ROLL.

5. I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY SEVERAL QUARTERS ABOUT THE PROTOGANISTS OF THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE WHICH ALL BEGAN WHEN I ADVOCATED FOR A CLIENT MS. NANCY CLOONAN HALL WHO HAS SINCE DIED IN A NURSING HOME UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. I WAS TOO HONEST IN ADVANCING MY CLIENT'S CAUSE AND IT UPSET CERTAINS PEOPLE WHICH LED TO MY DEREGISTRATION AS A BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR. THE COURT IS NOT A FORUM FOR TESTING MY PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY AS I HAVE PASSED THROUGH STRINGENT TESTS AND EXAMINATIONS. EVERY PROFESSIONAL HAS WEAK POINTS AND CANNOT BE CAUGHT UNAWARES AND ENTRAPPED FOR AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE.

6. THE SAT DECISION IS AN INFERIOR TRIBUNAL WHICH FAILED TO PROVIDE EQUAL JUSTICE BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT JURISDICTIONAL FACTS WHICH EMPOWERS ITS POSITION TO MAKE FALLACIOUS FINDINGS OF MY INCOMPETENCY. ITS DECISION IS THEREFORE NOT MERELY VOIDABLE BUT VOID AND ARE THEREFORE NULLITIES. THE THREE MEMBER JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ON 12.12.2012 DECIDED TO EXPUNGE ME FROM THE ROLL OF THE BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS KNOWING THAT THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED BY ME BEFORE THE VARIOUS COURTS POINTS TO THE VOID DECISON OF SAT AND IT HAS A DISCRETION TO LOOK INTO THE FACTS AND THE LAW DESPITE THE PROVISION OF S.444 OF THE LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ACT, WA AND TO POINT OUT FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO ME AS TAKING OFF A PERSON FROM THE ROLL IS NOT A LIGHT DECISION TO BE MADE OR A THING TO LAUGH AT..

7. I WOULD NOT LIKE TO ELABORATE FURTHER ON THIS MATTER AS IT IS A BIGOTRY OF THE KIND THAT HAPPENS TO CHINESE LAWYERS EVEN IN USA AND NEW ZEALAND FOR FEAR OF FURTHER REPRISALS.

8. THE RULE OF LAW IS DEFINITELY NOT UPHELD IN AUSTRALIA AND THIS EVEN INVOLVE THE APEX COURT AND THE PROTECTION OF A CLOSED PROFESSION.

Pretty funny case (lawyer struck off)

📷

Edit: Upon reflecting upon the thread title - I shouldn't have been so flippant.

This was in the SC of WA....LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 467

5 In the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v Chin [2012] WASC 7 Murray J ordered that the practitioner is prohibited for instituting any proceeding in any Western Australian court or tribunal without the leave of that court or tribunal.

......

23 Competence in drafting Will

The documentation prepared by the practitioner in the drafting of M's will and trust deed were convoluted and often difficult to follow. The draft will purported to permit the testator to alter its terms in a manner that any law student should know would not have been valid.

The practitioner's conduct in preparing the will disclosed a substantial failure to understand basic principles involved in preparing and executing a will and lacked to a substantial degree a reasonable standard of competence.

Subverting the Jurisdiction of the Committee

The sending of the bill of costs to the client M gave rise to a dispute between her and the practitioner. The dispute was settled and in a letter setting out the terms of settlement (Settlement Letter) the practitioner sought to make the withdrawal of a 'complaint made or to be made' to the applicant a term of the settlement agreement with M. The Tribunal rejected the practitioner's evidence that he was unaware of any complaint made by the client to the applicant when he drafted the Settlement Letter and found such evidence demonstrably false.

The practitioner's intention in drafting the last sentence of the Settlement Letter was an attempt to subvert the jurisdiction of the Committee.

.............

The hearing before this court

47 Regrettably the hearing itself provided further evidence as to the practitioner's unsuitability, lack of insight and lack of understanding of basic procedures.

48 The practitioner displayed a complete misunderstanding of law and practice when on 13 September 2012 he wrote to the Chief Justice requesting a trial by jury and for the empanelling of five Supreme Court judges for the pending matter. The Chief Justice declined.

(Page 24)

49 At the commencement of the hearing, when asked for his appearance:

CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. I appear. I'm representing myself and I believe that order 58 of the Rules of the Supreme Court makes this court the trustee and I'm the beneficiary of the trust and I represent the sovereign people of Australia in flesh and blood. McKECHNIE J: I think you represent yourself in this application, as I understand it.

50 The practitioner immediately sought the assistance of a McKenzie friend:

CHIN, MR: Yes, your Honour. I have my friend, Mr Rogerio Cristovao. He is my McKenzie friend and he knows about my case and just in case he needs to stand up for me and tell the court what he believes to be true and I ask for this honourable court's permission to grant him that right to be my McKenzie friend (ts 2).

51 The rule in McKenzie v McKenzie [1971] P 33, (1970) 3 All ER 1034 is to assist unqualified litigants, not practitioners. Nevertheless, we permitted Mr Cristovao to remain at the bar table and take notes. 52 The practitioner was incapable of providing reasoned assistance to the court. Despite first accepting that the SAT findings were incontrovertible, he continued to try to controvert them. The practitioner was ignorant as to the Legal Profession Act s 444 - the section that founds the court's power in this proceeding.

53 When confronted with the difficulty, the practitioner's response was remarkable:

BEECH J: This is not an appeal against the tribunal's decision. This is an exercise of power by the court under section 444 of the Legal Profession Act. CHIN, MR: To exercise that power this honourable court will have to look at (indistinct) of that facts finding decision of SAT.

HALL J: That's exactly what we can't do. It says that the report is to be taken as conclusive. It's not open to us to question it.

CHIN, MR: If that is the case, I will have to appeal the SAT decision and I want to appeal, and I want this current proceeding to be adjourned.

(Page 25) BEECH J: Mr Chin, is there any reason why you have not taken any step to appeal the tribunal's decision until 40 minutes into this hearing? Given that the tribunal's decision was made more than three months ago. CHIN, MR: Because I believe that if SAT in the second judgment dated 20 August 2012 is not able to refute every point that I have made against the decision, then its decision is null and void. It has not done that and, therefore, its decision is null and void and, therefore - - -

McKECHNIE J: Mr Chin, that is not an answer to Beech J's question.

CHIN, MR: Your Honour, this matter is of most importance to me. Although I'm in the sunset years of my life, I am - contributed to the common good of Australians, that I help them in their matters in court, that I help them even pro bono.

McKECHNIE J: Mr Chin, that is still not answering Beech J's question.

CHIN, MR: The reason for the delay, your Honour, in not appealing that decision is that I have not fully comprehended the import of the law with regard to persuasion of this - with regard to the rights and duties of and obligations of this full bench. I thought that the full bench has got a duty to overturn the decision of SAT (ts 11).

54 The court declined to adjourn the proceedings. 55 After the hearing concluded, the practitioner filed supplementary submissions by email. Leave is required: Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246, 258. He did not seek leave to do so.

56 The proposed submissions are legally incomprehensible and nothing is gained by setting them out in full. They provide further evidence of the practitioner's unfitness for practise.

Conclusion

57 We agree with the reasons and conclusion of the Tribunal [28] - [34] (set out above) that the nature and degree of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct considered in combination require an order striking the practitioner from the roll. Such an order is not lightly made. However, it is inevitable. Public confidence in the legal profession would be greatly undermined if the practitioner's name remained upon the roll. Any member of the community who went to the practitioner for advice or representation would be at serious risk. The practitioner demonstrates no understanding of the extent of his misconduct and his submissions before this court display a dangerous lack of knowledge of elementary law and procedure. Regrettably, the practitioner's complete lack of insight means there is no basis to expect, or even hope, that things might improve through further training or education.

17 CommentsGive AwardShareSaveHideReport90% UpvotedThis thread is archivedNew comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be castSORT BYBESTlevel 1Comment deleted by user2 years agolevel 1Rabid_goat28 points·2 years ago

I wouldn’t say this is funny. A practitioner being struck off is not a funny thing.

In a situation where someone is clearly malicious, many people will be glad the lawyer is struck off. This isn’t one of those situations.

Yes, the lawyer clearly wasn’t very good. In fact, that’s why he was struck off. But it’s certainly no laughing matter.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2PotatomonsterStarch-based tormentor of grads35 points·2 years ago

He’s borderline sovereign citizen. If you don’t laugh you’ll end up in despair. How did he get a practising certificate?

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 3Not_InsightfulMr Potato Head and filthy ICAC astroturfer27 points·2 years ago

Borderline? He wrote to the CJ and demanded a five judge bench jury trial.

Borderline insane maybe, full sovcit.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 3Donners22Undercover Chief Judge, County Court of Victoria7 points·2 years ago

And when, given he’s in the “sunset years” of his life? I’m curious as to his background.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 4iamplasmaSecretly Kiefel CJ11 points·2 years ago

One of the related judgments says the guy was admitted to practice 2003. By 2006 the Western Australian Legal Practice Board had resolved to impose some conditions on his PC, and from there he just went ballistic, appealing that decision through every avenue available until his special leave application was refused in 2010.

Of course there was plenty of other litigation in issue, too, but his lunacy is impressive.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 3IC_Pandemonium2 points·2 years ago

Interestingly, his attempted McKenzie friend has been embroiled in legal proceedings himself... https://jade.io/article/575891

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2slimcrusty**Not asking for legal advice but...**8 points·2 years ago

His rambling and incoherent responses to the bench are most certainly funny

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2ajmit32 points·2 years ago

No, I acknowledge that I was a little too flippant... it is indeed no laughing matter and that Mr Chin is clearly still aggrieved by the decision.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 3antantantant80Gets off on appeal9 points·2 years ago

He should just take it on the chin and get on with it..

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 1slimcrusty**Not asking for legal advice but...**6 points·2 years ago

http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/

Website title is "JUSTICE FOR A FORMER LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA" HAHAHA

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2iamplasmaSecretly Kiefel CJ7 points·2 years ago

WTF, there are two different sites depending on if you put the dot in wwwnicholaschin

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 3skullofregret2 points·2 years ago

So he maintains www.nicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au AND www.wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au?

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a circumstance.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 4Vanilla_Face_2 points·2 years ago

There's actually a third too.... nnchin1.blogspot.com.au

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2Donners22Undercover Chief Judge, County Court of Victoria4 points·2 years ago

4.2. The reasons for this link are the following: 4.2.1. He assaulted me on 3.11.2017; 4.2.2. He probably pissed on my evaporative air conditioner and we had the smell of urine for a few days within the vicinity of 3.11.2016. 4.2.3. Nicolas Watson electrician unreasonably demanded monies in July 2017 that is not due to him and it is is probably incited by Ian Jack, who had contact with him. 4.2.4. My Nissan X Trail windscreen was screwed to smithereens some time in July 2017 when Ian Jack was building the front unauthorized retaining wall as part of his contract work.

I wish subs were written like this more often; reading them would be a hell of a lot less arduous.

Give AwardShareReportSavelevel 2theangryantipodeanArchbishop of Banterbury3 points·2 years ago

Jesus Christ, has this guy heard of a paragraph?

Give AwardShareReportSave