ENGLISH
This comment provides a multilingual clarification for readers. The purpose is to ensure that the information in the main post is accessible to English, Chinese, and Malay readers. The content of the main post remains unchanged. This comment simply restates the key message for transparency and public understanding.

中文 CHINESE
此评论以多语言方式向读者作出说明。目的是让主要文章的内容能够让英语、中文和马来语读者理解。主要文章的内容保持不变。本评论只是为了透明度和公众理解而重申重点信息。

BAHASA MELAYU
Komen ini memberikan penjelasan dalam pelbagai bahasa untuk pembaca. Tujuannya adalah supaya maklumat dalam posting utama dapat difahami oleh pembaca berbahasa Inggeris, Cina dan Melayu. Kandungan posting utama tidak diubah. Komen ini hanya mengulangi mesej penting untuk ketelusan dan pemahaman umum.

ESCALATION TO PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR – REVIEW OF CCC DECISION DATED 3 MARCH 2026

Date: 3 March 2026

This post records that I have formally requested the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission (PICCC) to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the CCC’s handling of my submissions dated 9–10 February 2026, and its decision communicated to me by letter dated 3 March 2026.

The CCC has stated that my allegations concerning officers of Landgate, the WA Police Force, judicial officers, the Sheriff’s Office and the WA Ombudsman “do not meet the threshold for serious misconduct” and that it will take no further action unless I provide substantially new information.

I have forwarded the CCC’s 3 March 2026 letter to the Parliamentary Inspector and requested a review of whether the CCC:

• properly assessed my submissions in accordance with the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003;
• acted reasonably and with procedural fairness in deciding to take no further action; and
• failed to exercise its jurisdiction by declining to investigate matters that may fall within the definition of serious misconduct.

For the public record, the full text of my confidential letter to the Parliamentary Inspector will be reproduced in the comments to this post.

⚠️ OFFICIAL NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN: THE INSPECTORATE MUST EXERCISE ITS STATUTORY POWERS TO RECOVER THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS TOTALING $31,771.67.

⚠️ TRI‑LINGUAL PUBLIC NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN ⚠️
THE STATUTORY DUTY TO ACT IS ENGAGED. THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS MUST BE RETURNED.

---

🇨🇳 致地方政府监察官 Tony Brown 的三语公开通告： 您的法定职责已经触发，三笔被非法扣押的款项必须归还。

---

🇲🇾 NOTIS AWAM TIGA BAHASA KEPADA INSPEKTOR TONY BROWN: Kewajipan statutori untuk bertindak telah bermula. Tiga jumlah wang yang dirampas secara tidak sah mesti dipulangkan.

⚠️ FINAL TRI‑LINGUAL NOTICE ⚠️
THE RETURN OF THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORATE.

---

🇨🇳 最终三语通告： 追回三笔被非法扣押的款项是地方政府监察署的法定责任。

---

🇲🇾 Notis Akhir Tiga Bahasa: Pemulangan tiga jumlah wang yang dirampas secara tidak sah adalah kewajipan statutori Inspektorat Kerajaan Tempatan.

HIGH‑RISK ASSET RECOVERY OFFER — “Verida AFI Ltd” / “Baron Boucher”

This post records unsolicited “asset recovery” approaches for public reference and consumer awareness. It highlights risk indicators commonly associated with recovery‑room scams. It is not a court finding and does not assert that any named person or company has committed a criminal offence.

---

1. First email received — “Why Verida is different”

From: Baron Boucher (claiming to be a “Verida Specialist”)

Claimed company: Verida (links to UK company registration)

Subject: Why Verida is different — and how we can help recover your assets

Dear Nicholas, you requested more information from us , I understand you’ve been contacted by many people, so I wanted to clearly explain what makes Verida different. Verida is a properly registered company with a government-issued license in the UK. You can verify our registration here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16549578 What makes us different is our professional and transparent process. We start by reviewing your supporting evidence and transaction history. We then use advanced blockchain tracing software to follow the movement of the funds and identify the wallets involved. If a wallet is discovered, we proceed with deeper blockchain analysis and move into the recovery phase. Our legal team supports this process within a proper legal framework, and our work is backed by positive client reviews and real results. We don’t make unrealistic promises, but we do offer a serious, professional attempt to recover your assets using both technical and legal tools. If you’re open to it, let’s talk and review your case in detail. You can reach me on WhatsApp and we can discuss the next steps. Find attached license verified government issued documents, while you can take your time getting back to me on time puts us in a much better position to help you. Best regards, Baron Boucher Verida Specialist Specialist Wa +44 7346 305434

---

2. Follow‑up email — “Urgent: Update Regarding Your Recovery Case”

From: Baron Boucher <boucherbaron@gmail.com>

Subject: Urgent: Update Regarding Your Recovery Case

Dear Nicholas, I hope you are well. We have been trying to reach you regarding the recovery case you recently signed up for, but unfortunately we have not been able to connect with you by phone. We’ve made important progress in our analysis, and it’s essential that we speak with you as soon as possible to discuss the next steps and move forward while the opportunity is still available. Please let us know a convenient time for a quick call. Alternatively, you can reach us directly on WhatsApp at +44 7346 305434. We look forward to speaking with you soon. Kind regards, Baron Boucher Senior Recovery Specialist Verida Recovery Company

2.1. Your replies (for context)

I DO NOT HAVE RECORDS OF OUR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE. PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DETAILS. NICHOLAS N CHIN.

I remember having chatted with Robert Kappl. Please provide me info about your Verida Recovery so that i can answer your questions.

---

3. Company registration vs. consumer risk

• Registered company: The email links to a UK Companies House entry for a company named VERIDA AFI LTD (company number 16549578). Company registration alone does not prove that any particular service is safe, regulated, or effective.
• Not the same as regulation: Being on Companies House does not mean the firm is authorised by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or any other financial regulator.
• Asset recovery is high‑risk: Fraud victims are frequently targeted by “recovery” firms that charge fees but never actually recover funds.

---

4. Risk indicators in these approaches

• Targeting a known victim: The emails are directed at someone who has already suffered losses, which is typical of “second‑wave” recovery offers.
• Pressure and urgency: Phrases like “urgent”, “essential that we speak as soon as possible” and “while the opportunity is still available” are classic pressure tactics.
• Shift to WhatsApp: Repeated invitations to move to WhatsApp (+44 7346 305434) make later evidence gathering and dispute resolution harder.
• Vague prior consent: Reference to a “recovery case you recently signed up for” even when you have no clear record of signing anything is a red flag.
• Future fees likely: Asset recovery services almost always involve fees; victims should be extremely cautious about any request for upfront or “case opening” payments.

---

5. Consumer protection guidance

• Check regulatory status: Search the FCA (or your local regulator) register to see if the firm is authorised for the services it claims to provide.
• Avoid upfront fees: Be very wary of any demand for retainers, “investigation fees”, “escrow” or similar payments before results.
• Get a written contract: Insist on a clear written agreement setting out scope, fees, and what happens if no funds are recovered.
• Seek independent legal advice: Consider consulting your own lawyer before sending money or signing documents.
• Use official channels first: Report fraud to your bank, police, and official regulators before engaging private recovery firms.

---

6. Purpose of this publication

• To preserve a public record of the approaches received;
• To highlight common risk indicators in asset recovery offers;
• To encourage victims to rely on official channels and independent advice before paying any third party.

Readers should conduct their own checks (including regulator registers and independent legal advice) before engaging with any company or individual offering asset recovery services.

SCAMMER NO. 4 — “Eric Levine” (refund-agency.com) — Fake Blockchain.com Withdrawal Confirmation

SUMMARY

A sender using the name “Eric Levine” and the domain refund-agency.com sent a fake Blockchain.com withdrawal email claiming that 68,241.08 USDT had been “successfully withdrawn” and that the recipient must click “Complete Transaction” to finalize the transfer. This is a classic escrow-fund / verification-fee scam.

---

1. Email Used by the Scammer

Sender name: Eric Levine

Email address: ericlevine@refund-agency.com

Subject: USDT Withdrawal Successful – Complete The Transaction

Date: 28 February 2026

---

2. Scam Email Content (Evidence)

Blockchain.com
USDT Withdrawal Successful

Congratulations, you have successfully withdrawn 68,241.08 USDT from a secure intermediary account.

Once the transaction is confirmed on blockchain explorer, your funds will be visible and spendable without any restriction.

Click “Complete Transaction” and follow the instructions to finalize your transfer on the network. Once confirmed, your funds will be released to your wallet and a receipt will be emailed to you.

Support | Terms & Conditions
© 2008 Blockchain.com. All rights reserved.

---

3. Why This Email Is a Scam

• Fake domain: Blockchain.com does not send withdrawal confirmations from refund-agency.com.
• No real withdrawal: The large USDT amount is fabricated to create urgency.
• “Complete Transaction” button: Typically leads to:
  • demands for an escrow fund,
  • requests for a gas fee or “unlock fee”,
  • or a fake blockchain explorer showing fake balances.
• Real crypto withdrawals: Never require extra payments after the transaction.

---

4. Scam Pattern Identified

This email matches known patterns used by:

• Fake “refund agencies”
• Fake Blockchain.com support impersonators
• Fake escrow verification services
• Fake blockchain explorers

---

5. Evidence for Regulators

• The fraudulent email content
• The fake domain refund-agency.com
• The fabricated USDT amount
• The “Complete Transaction” button leading to payment requests
• Links to fake explorers such as erc20chainscan.com

---

6. Cross‑Links

• Scammer No. 1 — (insert link)
• Scammer No. 2 — (insert link)
• Scammer No. 3 — Fake ERC20ChainScan — (insert link)

---

7. Conclusion

The sender using the name “Eric Levine” and the domain refund-agency.com is operating a fake Blockchain.com withdrawal scheme designed to trick recipients into paying an escrow fund. This post is published to warn the public and assist regulators.

诈骗者编号 4 — “Eric Levine”（refund-agency.com）假冒 Blockchain.com 提款通知

摘要

名为 “Eric Levine”、使用 refund-agency.com 域名的发件人发送了一封 假冒 Blockchain.com 的 USDT 提款邮件，声称 68,241.08 USDT 已“成功提取”，并要求收件人点击 “Complete Transaction（完成交易）” 才能释放资金。这是一种典型的 托管金 / 验证费诈骗。

---

THE GETHING DECISION IS VOID AND NOT VOIDABLE. THE JUDGE EXCEEDED THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY S.6(1) VPRA, AND BECAUSE THE VPRA PROVIDES NO RIGHT OF APPEAL, THE ERROR CANNOT BE CORRECTED THROUGH ORDINARY APPELLATE PROCESSES. THE DECISION IS THEREFORE A NULLITY.

格辛判决属于无效而不是可撤销。法官超越了《限制滥诉法》(VPRA) 第6(1)条所赋予的管辖权，而该法并未提供上诉途径，因此错误无法通过通常的上诉程序纠正，该判决因此属法律上的无效决定。

Keputusan Gething adalah batal dan bukan boleh dibatalkan. Hakim telah melebihi bidang kuasa yang diberikan oleh s.6(1) VPRA, dan kerana VPRA tidak menyediakan hak rayuan, kesilapan itu tidak boleh diperbetulkan melalui proses rayuan biasa. Oleh itu keputusan tersebut adalah tidak sah.

Reinstatement Request to Law Mutual – VOID Gething Decision
致 Law Mutual 的重新审理请求 – Gething 判决无效
Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual – Keputusan Gething Tidak Sah

---

SECTION 1 — English (Official Legal Version)

Subject: Reinstatement and Fresh Determination – Effect of Void Gething Decision

Dear Law Mutual,

I refer to my correspondence of 23 February 2026 (Withdrawal Without Prejudice) and 25 January 2026 (Request for Fresh Determination).

At the time of my withdrawal, I acted on what I believed to be the correct effect of Justice Gething’s reasons for decision, which I did not receive until 14 February 2026. Those reasons appeared to confirm that the former statutory compensation pathway under s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) had been repealed in 1996 and that the Assurance Fund no longer existed.

I now notify Law Mutual that the Gething decision is voidable and has become void, and therefore cannot extinguish my rights or remove Law Mutual’s jurisdiction.

1. The Gething Decision Is Voidable and Has Become Void
The decision is not appealable under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). A decision made without jurisdiction and insulated from appeal is void.

2. Consequence: My Cause of Action Against Landgate Remains Alive
Because the decision is void, my cause of action against Landgate and the Registrar of Titles remains intact.

3. Consequence for Law Mutual
The professional indemnity claim against V. Ozich & Co is not extinguished and must be assessed under the Master Policy.

4. Evidence
Three documents demonstrating the void status of the decision are attached.

5. Effect on Withdrawal
My withdrawal was expressly Without Prejudice and cannot waive rights or bar reinstatement.

I request reinstatement of my claim and a fresh determination.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin

---

SECTION 2 — 中文简体 (Public Summary)

关于向 Law Mutual 提交重新审理请求的公开说明

我已正式向 Law Mutual 提交申请，要求重新审理我针对 V. Ozich & Co 的专业疏忽索赔。此申请基于以下关键事实：

• Gething 判决属于可撤销（voidable），现已成为 无效（void）；
• 无效判决不能取消我的权利，也不能阻止我继续追究 Landgate 的责任；
• 无效判决同样不能取消我对 Law Mutual 的专业赔偿索赔；
• 我之前的撤回是 无损权利（Without Prejudice），不影响我继续主张权利。

此公开声明旨在确保透明度、问责性，并为相关监督机构提供记录。

---

SECTION 3 — Bahasa Melayu (Public Summary)

Kenyataan Awam Mengenai Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual

Saya telah menghantar permohonan rasmi kepada Law Mutual untuk menilai semula tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap V. Ozich & Co. Permohonan ini berdasarkan fakta berikut:

• Keputusan Gething adalah boleh dibatalkan (voidable) dan kini tidak sah (void);
• Keputusan yang tidak sah tidak boleh menyingkirkan hak saya atau menghalang tindakan terhadap Landgate;
• Keputusan yang tidak sah juga tidak membatalkan tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap Law Mutual;
• Penarikan saya sebelum ini adalah Without Prejudice, dan tidak menjejaskan hak saya.

Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan untuk memastikan ketelusan, akauntabiliti, dan rekod bagi badan pengawasan berkaitan.

---

SECTION 4 — Footer

Published for public transparency and procedural accountability.
为公众透明度与程序问责而发布。
Diterbitkan untuk ketelusan awam dan akauntabiliti prosedur.

PROTECTING MRS IRENE YOK MOY LEM

English: Irene is a weak and vulnerable person who has already been harmed once. This public record exists to protect her from further oppression and to ensure that no authority can act against her in darkness or silence.

中文：林玉梅女士体弱、脆弱，曾经遭受过一次伤害。本公开记录旨在保护她，防止任何进一步的压迫，并确保任何机关不得在黑暗中、在沉默中对她采取行动。

Bahasa Melayu: Puan Irene ialah seorang yang lemah dan mudah terdedah, dan telah pun disakiti sekali. Rekod awam ini diwujudkan untuk melindunginya daripada penindasan lanjut dan memastikan tiada pihak berkuasa boleh bertindak terhadapnya secara senyap atau tersembunyi.

A Message to Irene

English:
Irene, you are not alone. You have suffered enough, and everything written here is to protect you. No one has the right to frighten you or take from you again. This record exists so that every authority must act openly, fairly, and with full accountability. You are safe, and you are surrounded by people who will stand with you.

中文（简体）:
玉梅，你并不孤单。你已经受了太多委屈，这里的一切都是为了保护你。
没有人再有权利吓唬你、伤害你或从你那里夺走任何东西。
这份公开记录让所有机关必须光明正大、公平透明地行事。
你是安全的，我们都会站在你身边。

Bahasa Melayu:
Irene, kamu tidak bersendirian. Kamu telah menanggung terlalu banyak kesakitan, dan segala yang ditulis di sini adalah untuk melindungi kamu. Tiada sesiapa berhak menakutkan kamu atau mengambil apa‑apa daripada kamu lagi. Rekod ini memastikan semua pihak berkuasa bertindak secara terbuka, adil dan bertanggungjawab. Kamu selamat, dan kami semua berdiri bersama

Closing Blessing

English:
May peace surround this home, may protection stand at every door, and may Irene be held in safety, dignity, and compassion. May truth prevail, and may every authority act with fairness and integrity.

中文（简体）:
愿平安围绕这个家，愿保护守在每一扇门前，愿玉梅女士被安全、尊严与慈爱所环抱。
愿真理得以彰显，愿所有机关以公平与正直行事。

Bahasa Melayu:
Semoga kedamaian menyelubungi rumah ini, semoga perlindungan berdiri di setiap pintu, dan semoga Puan Irene dipelihara dalam keselamatan, maruah dan kasih sayang. Semoga kebenaran ditegakkan dan semua pihak berkuasa bertindak dengan adil dan berintegriti.

Message to Our Sons

English:
To our sons: your mother is protected, and her dignity is defended. This record stands as proof that your family acts with courage, unity, and truth. You are not alone in this journey — your strength and love are part of her protection.

中文（简体）:
致我们的儿子们：你们的母亲受到保护，她的尊严受到捍卫。
这份记录证明了你们的家庭以勇气、团结与真理面对一切。
你们并不孤单——你们的力量与爱也是她的保护。

Bahasa Melayu:
Kepada anak‑anak kami: ibu kamu dilindungi, dan maruahnya dipertahankan. Rekod ini menjadi bukti bahawa keluarga kamu berdiri dengan keberanian, kesatuan dan kebenaran. Kamu tidak bersendirian — kekuatan dan kasih kamu adalah sebahagian daripada perlindungannya.

A Gentle Prayer

English:
May Irene’s heart be calmed, may her fears be lifted, and may she walk each day knowing she is protected. May justice guide every step taken by those in authority, and may peace return to this family.

中文（简体）:
愿玉梅女士的心灵得以安宁，愿她的恐惧被解除，愿她每天都知道自己被保护着。
愿正义引导所有掌权者的每一步，愿平安回到这个家庭。

Bahasa Melayu:
Semoga hati Irene ditenangkan, semoga ketakutannya diangkat, dan semoga setiap hari dia mengetahui bahawa dia dilindungi. Semoga keadilan membimbing setiap langkah pihak berkuasa, dan semoga kedamaian kembali kepada keluarga ini.

English: This page is for Irene.

中文：此页面献给玉梅。

Bahasa Melayu: Halaman ini ditujukan untuk Irene.

Signature

English:
With love, protection, and unwavering commitment,
Nicholas N. Chin

中文（简体）:
以爱、保护与坚定的承诺，
陈年发

Bahasa Melayu:
Dengan kasih sayang, perlindungan dan komitmen yang teguh,
Nicholas N. Chin

Family Creed

English:
In this family, we stand together. We protect the vulnerable, we speak the truth, and we do not fear injustice. Our strength is unity, our shield is integrity, and our path is honour.

中文（简体）:
在这个家庭里，我们同心而立。
我们保护弱者，坚持真理，不畏不公。
我们的力量是团结，我们的盾牌是正直，我们的道路是荣誉。

Bahasa Melayu:
Dalam keluarga ini, kita berdiri bersama. Kita melindungi yang lemah, kita berkata benar, dan kita tidak gentar menghadapi ketidakadilan. Kekuatan kita ialah kesatuan, perisai kita ialah integriti, dan jalan kita ialah kehormatan.

English: Please share this page with all relevant authorities to ensure full transparency and accountability.

中文：请将此页面分享给所有相关机关，以确保完全的透明与问责。

Bahasa Melayu: Sila kongsikan halaman ini kepada semua pihak berkuasa yang berkaitan untuk memastikan ketelusan dan akauntabiliti sepenuhnya.

---

English:
This page stands as a record of truth, protection, and transparency. May all who read it act with fairness, integrity, and compassion.

中文（简体）:
本页面作为真相、保护与透明的记录。 愿所有阅读此页的人以公平、正直与慈爱行事。

Bahasa Melayu:
Halaman ini menjadi rekod kebenaran, perlindungan dan ketelusan. Semoga semua yang membacanya bertindak dengan adil, berintegriti dan penuh belas kasihan.

— End of Public Record —

VOID ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE HALL – DURESS-INDUCED GUILTY PLEAS – UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL DEMANDS

City of Stirling v Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018)

1. English

This public notice concerns the proceedings in City of Stirling v Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018). On 9 December 2019, orders were made against Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem in the Perth Magistrates Court before Magistrate Hall. Those orders are void ab initio for the following reasons:

• Interpreter-entered pleas: The guilty pleas were not entered by Mrs Lem herself, but by the interpreter.
• Duress and coercion: The pleas were induced by duress arising from coercive conduct by Spyker Legal.
• No judicial inquiry: No proper inquiry was made by the magistrate into voluntariness, comprehension, or informed consent.
• False factual premises: The factual premises relied upon were false, misleading, and untested.

A void order has no legal effect. It cannot be enforced, cannot be appealed, and cannot lawfully be used to extract money. Despite this, the City of Stirling has continued to issue financial demands and pursue enforcement against Mrs Lem.

These actions raise serious concerns about procedural fairness, misuse of authority, and discrimination against a vulnerable migrant woman with limited English. Multiple agencies and regulators have now been formally notified and requested to act within their statutory and administrative powers to prevent further harm and to address systemic failures.

Issued by: Nicholas N. Chin, for Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, Perth, Western Australia.

---

2. 简体中文

本公告涉及案件：Stirling 市议会 诉 林玉梅（Irene Yok Moy Lem）（PE 6810–6813/2018）。 2019 年 12 月 9 日，在珀斯地方法院 Hall 法官面前，对林玉梅女士作出的裁判命令 自始无效（void ab initio），理由如下：

• 并非本人认罪：“认罪”并非由林女士亲自作出，而是由传译员代为表示。
• 在胁迫下认罪：认罪是在 Spyker Legal 施加的压力和胁迫下作出。
• 法官未作必要询问：法官没有就认罪是否自愿、是否真正理解及是否知情同意作出适当询问。
• 事实基础错误：法院所依赖的事实基础是虚假、误导且未经检验的。

自始无效的命令在法律上毫无效力，不能被执行、不能作为有效上诉对象，也不能被用来向当事人索取金钱。 尽管如此，Stirling 市议会仍持续向林女士发出金钱要求并采取执行行动。

这些行为严重损害程序公正，构成权力滥用，并对一位英语能力有限的弱势移民妇女造成歧视。 多个机构和监管机关现已被正式通知，并被要求在其法定和行政权限范围内采取行动，防止进一步伤害并纠正系统性失误。

发布人： Nicholas N. Chin，代表林玉梅女士，西澳珀斯。

---

3. Bahasa Melayu

Notis awam ini berkaitan prosiding City of Stirling lwn Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018). Pada 9 Disember 2019, perintah telah dibuat terhadap Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem di Mahkamah Majistret Perth di hadapan Majistret Hall. Perintah-perintah tersebut adalah batal dan tidak sah dari awal (void ab initio) atas sebab-sebab berikut:

• Pengakuan bukan oleh beliau sendiri: Pengakuan bersalah tidak dibuat oleh Puan Lem sendiri, tetapi oleh jurubahasa.
• Paksaan dan tekanan: Pengakuan itu dibuat di bawah paksaan dan tekanan daripada firma guaman Spyker Legal.
• Tiada siasatan mahkamah yang mencukupi: Majistret tidak membuat siasatan sewajarnya tentang kerelaan, kefahaman dan persetujuan termaklum.
• Fakta yang salah dan mengelirukan: Asas fakta yang digunakan adalah palsu, mengelirukan dan tidak pernah diuji.

Perintah yang batal dari awal tidak mempunyai apa-apa kesan undang-undang. Ia tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan, tidak boleh dijadikan asas rayuan, dan tidak boleh digunakan secara sah untuk menuntut wang. Namun begitu, City of Stirling masih meneruskan tuntutan kewangan dan tindakan penguatkuasaan terhadap Puan Lem.

Tindakan ini menimbulkan kebimbangan serius mengenai keadilan prosedur, penyalahgunaan kuasa dan diskriminasi terhadap seorang wanita migran yang lemah dengan keupayaan bahasa Inggeris yang terhad. Pelbagai agensi dan badan pengawas kini telah dimaklumkan secara rasmi dan diminta bertindak dalam bidang kuasa undang-undang dan pentadbiran masing-masing untuk mengelakkan mudarat lanjut dan menangani kegagalan sistemik.

Dikeluarkan oleh: Nicholas N. Chin, bagi pihak Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, Perth, Australia Barat.

Three Minor Case Claims for Specific Performance of Solar & Battery Contracts
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

三项小额索赔：要求 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 履行三份太阳能与电池合同
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

Tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil untuk Pelaksanaan Khusus Kontrak Solar & Bateri
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

---

ENGLISH VERSION

TITLE

Three Minor Case Claims for Specific Performance of Solar & Battery Contracts
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

ABOUT THIS POST

This post records the filing of three Minor Case Claims in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. Each claim seeks specific performance of a written contract for solar and battery installation at three separate properties. The respondents are Grand Solar (two contracts) and TruPower (one contract).

The purpose of this post is to maintain public transparency, provide a clear factual record, and ensure that all parties—including the Court, the respondents, and the public—can access the same information.

SUMMARY OF THE THREE CLAIMS

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Attempted unlawful termination
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Repudiation and non-performance
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Failure to perform agreed installation
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS

• November 2025 – Three contracts signed
• December 2025 – January 2026 – Delays, non-performance, attempted repudiation
• February 2026 – Notices affirming the contracts issued
• February 2026 – Three Minor Case Claims prepared
• February 2026 – Claims lodged with the Magistrates Court

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Category	Document Description
Contracts	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
Notices	Notices of affirmation for all three contracts
Correspondence	Emails, messages, and written communications with Grand Solar and TruPower
Affidavit	Supporting affidavit filed with the Court
Evidence Bundle	Timeline, screenshots, emails, and supporting materials

COMMENT

These claims are brought to enforce lawful contractual rights and to ensure that solar and battery installations proceed as agreed. Specific performance is the appropriate remedy because each contract relates to unique property-specific installations and cannot be substituted by damages.

---

中文版本 (CHINESE VERSION)

标题

三项小额索赔：要求 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 履行三份太阳能与电池合同
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

关于本帖

本帖记录在西澳地方法院提交的三项小额索赔。每一项索赔均要求被告依照书面合同履行安装太阳能与电池系统的义务。被告包括 Grand Solar（两份合同） 与 TruPower（一份合同）。

本帖旨在保持公开透明，提供清晰的事实记录，并确保法院、被告及公众均可获取相同信息。

三项索赔摘要

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：试图无合法依据终止合同
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：拒绝履行与不履行
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：未按合同履行安装义务
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

关键事件时间线

• 2025 年 11 月 – 三份合同签署
• 2025 年 12 月 – 2026 年 1 月 – 延误、不履行、试图终止合同
• 2026 年 2 月 – 发出合同确认通知
• 2026 年 2 月 – 准备三份小额索赔
• 2026 年 2 月 – 向地方法院提交索赔

文件清单

类别	文件内容
合同	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
通知	三份合同的确认通知
往来信件	与 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 的电邮与信息
宣誓书	提交法院的支持性宣誓书
证据材料	时间线、电邮、截图等支持性材料

评论

这些索赔旨在维护合法合同权利，并确保太阳能与电池系统按约安装。由于每份合同均与特定物业相关，无法以金钱赔偿替代，因此强制履行是适当的救济。

---

MALAY VERSION (BAHASA MELAYU)

TAJUK

Tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil untuk Pelaksanaan Khusus Kontrak Solar & Bateri
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

MENGENAI CATATAN INI

Catatan ini merekodkan pemfailan tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil di Mahkamah Majistret Australia Barat. Setiap tuntutan memohon pelaksanaan khusus terhadap kontrak bertulis bagi pemasangan sistem solar dan bateri.

RINGKASAN TIGA TUNTUTAN

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Cubaan menamatkan kontrak tanpa asas sah
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Tidak melaksanakan kontrak
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Gagal melaksanakan pemasangan
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

GARIS MASA PERISTIWA UTAMA

• November 2025 – Kontrak ditandatangani
• Disember 2025 – Januari 2026 – Kelewatan dan kegagalan melaksanakan
• Februari 2026 – Notis pengesahan dikeluarkan
• Februari 2026 – Tuntutan disediakan
• Februari 2026 – Difailkan di Mahkamah Majistret

SENARAI DOKUMEN

Kategori	Dokumen
Kontrak	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
Notis	Notis pengesahan
Surat-menyurat	Emel dan mesej dengan Grand Solar & TruPower
Afidavit	Afidavit sokongan
Bukti	Garis masa, emel, dan bahan sokongan

ULASAN

Tuntutan ini bertujuan menguatkuasakan hak kontrak yang sah dan memastikan pemasangan solar dan bateri dilaksanakan seperti dipersetujui.

---

Transparency note: This post is published for public transparency, accountability, and accurate record-keeping. All information is factual to the best of the author’s knowledge at the time of publication.