COMBINED MASTER COMPLAINT LETTER

Landgate Omission → Magistrate Ward Error → Lawyer Misconduct → Unlawful Sheriff Enforcement

To:
1. Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC)
2. Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice
3. Ombudsman Western Australia

From:
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia

Subject:
Systemic Failure Arising from Landgate Omission, Magistrate Ward Error, Lawyer Misconduct by Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, and Unlawful Enforcement by Sheriff Officer Mark

---

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 I submit this combined complaint to the LPCC, the Sheriff / Department of Justice, and the Ombudsman WA because the events described below form a single, indivisible chain of systemic failure involving multiple public authorities and a legal practitioner.

1.2 The relevant actors are:

(a) Landgate – administrative omission of a statutory easement from the Certificate of Title for Unit 1/383.
(b) Magistrates Court (Magistrate Ward) – decision based on a false factual and legal premise.
(c) Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd (Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, Principal Solicitor) – misleading submissions and procurement of a void costs order.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark – unlawful enforcement of that void order at an inflated amount.

1.3 Each regulator is addressed in this single document so that all can see the conduct and responsibilities of the others, and so that the systemic nature of the failure is not obscured by fragmented complaints.

---

2. LANDGATE’S ADMINISTRATIVE OMISSION

2.1 A statutory implied easement attached to Unit 1/383 was not carried forward onto the Certificate of Title when the strata plan was created. This was an administrative omission by the Registrar of Titles (Landgate).

2.2 The omission rendered the easement invisible on the title, creating a false legal vacuum. In consequence, third parties, including the court and the defendants’ solicitor, proceeded on the mistaken assumption that no such right existed.

2.3 This omission is the root cause of the subsequent chain of injustice, as it:

(a) Misled the Magistrates Court as to the existence and nature of the easement.
(b) Enabled the defendants’ lawyer to advance a legally impossible defence.
(c) Ultimately led to the procurement and enforcement of a void costs order.

---

3. MAGISTRATE WARD’S ERROR

3.1 On 4 April 2022, Magistrate Ward determined proceedings concerning the easement attached to Unit 1/383. The decision proceeded on the premise that the easement “did not exist” because it did not appear on the title.

3.2 In truth:

(a) The easement was statutory in origin.
(b) The omission from the title was administrative, not substantive.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or appropriate statutory easement rights by their conduct.
(d) The court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a right that had been administratively erased from the register but not lawfully extinguished.

3.3 By accepting the false premise created by the Landgate omission, the Magistrate acted without proper jurisdiction. Any costs order arising from that decision is therefore void ab initio.

---

4. MISCONDUCT BY MR XUAN VINH NGUYEN (FOR LPCC)

4.1 Mr Xuan Vinh NGUYEN is the Principal Solicitor of Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd and acted for the defendants (the tenants) in the proceedings before Magistrate Ward.

4.2 Mr Nguyen advanced a defence that was legally impossible, relying on the false assumption that the easement “did not exist”, despite the following:

(a) The easement was statutory and attached to Unit 1/383 at creation.
(b) The omission from the title was an administrative error by Landgate.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or acquire statutory easement rights by occupation or relocation of a business.
(d) The defence was inconsistent with the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) and basic principles of indefeasibility.

4.3 On 21 April 2022, Mr Nguyen emailed me demanding payment of legal costs fixed in the sum of AUD 10,890 pursuant to the Magistrate Ward order of 4 April 2022, and threatening enforcement if payment was not made by 28 April 2022.

4.4 Because the subject matter of the proceedings no longer existed in law, the costs order was void. Procuring and relying upon a void order, and threatening enforcement of it, constitutes serious professional misconduct.

4.5 Mr Nguyen’s conduct engages the LPCC’s jurisdiction in relation to:

(a) Misleading the court by omission and commission.
(b) Failing in the duty of candour to the court.
(c) Advancing a legally impossible defence.
(d) Procuring and enforcing a void costs order.
(e) Conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

---

5. UNLAWFUL ENFORCEMENT BY SHERIFF OFFICER MARK (FOR DOJ)

5.1 Following Mr Nguyen’s demand for AUD 10,890, Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the Magistrate Ward costs order at the significantly higher amount of AUD 14,993.94.

5.2 This amount was extracted under threat of imprisonment. The uplift from AUD 10,890 to AUD 14,993.94 reflects enforcement fees, interest and associated charges added to an order that was void from the outset.

5.3 Enforcement of a void order is unlawful, regardless of internal administrative processes. Sheriff Officer Mark’s conduct therefore raises serious concerns, including:

(a) Failure to verify the jurisdictional validity of the order.
(b) Use of coercive powers (including threats of imprisonment) to enforce a void order.
(c) Extraction of AUD 14,993.94 in circumstances where no lawful entitlement existed.

5.4 This conduct falls within the responsibility of the Sheriff of Western Australia and the Department of Justice and warrants investigation and remedial action.

---

6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE (FOR OMBUDSMAN WA)

6.1 The events described above constitute a systemic failure involving multiple public bodies and a legal practitioner. The chain can be summarised as follows:

(a) Landgate omitted the statutory easement from the title for Unit 1/383, creating a false legal vacuum.
(b) Magistrate Ward relied on that false premise and acted without jurisdiction, rendering the costs order void.
(c) Mr Nguyen advanced a legally impossible defence, misled the court, and procured a void order, then demanded payment of AUD 10,890.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the void order at AUD 14,993.94 under threat of imprisonment.

6.2 No single regulator can fully address this matter in isolation. The failure is systemic and requires coordinated scrutiny and recommendations.

---

7. RELIEF SOUGHT

7.1 From the LPCC, I seek:

(a) Investigation of Mr Nguyen’s conduct as outlined in section 4.
(b) Findings on whether he misled the court, advanced a legally impossible defence, and improperly procured and enforced a void order.
(c) Any appropriate disciplinary or remedial action.

7.2 From the Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice, I seek:

(a) Investigation of the enforcement conducted by Sheriff Officer Mark.
(b) A finding that enforcement of the void order and extraction of AUD 14,993.94 was unlawful.
(c) Refund of the unlawfully extracted amount and review of enforcement procedures.

7.3 From the Ombudsman WA, I seek:

(a) Investigation of the systemic chain of failure involving Landgate, the Magistrates Court, the Sheriff’s Office and the legal practitioner.
(b) Findings on administrative fault and systemic weaknesses.
(c) Recommendations to prevent recurrence, including corrective measures at Landgate and within justice system processes.

---

8. ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE

8.1 I am able to provide, upon request or as directed:

(a) The email from Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen dated 21 April 2022 demanding AUD 10,890.
(b) The Magistrate Ward order dated 4 April 2022.
(c) Records of Sheriff enforcement showing the amount of AUD 14,993.94 and the circumstances of payment.
(d) Title and related documents evidencing the omission of the statutory easement for Unit 1/383.
(e) A detailed timeline of events linking Landgate, the Magistrates Court, Mr Nguyen and Sheriff Officer Mark.

---

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 This complaint demonstrates a continuous chain of error and misconduct arising from a single Landgate omission and culminating in unlawful enforcement against me.

9.2 I respectfully request coordinated investigation by all three regulators addressed in this letter and appropriate findings, remedies and systemic reforms.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia

INJUSTICE SUFFERED BY NICHOLAS N CHIN

TIMELINE OF INJUSTICE SUFFERED BY NICHOLAS N. CHIN

Master Chronology and Public Record

This document sets out the injustice suffered by Nicholas N. Chin. It explains the legal errors, misattributions, and procedural failures that led to his removal as a lawyer, the extinguishing of his property rights, and the wrongful treatment of his family. This record is published for public scrutiny, transparency, and historical accuracy.

1. Chronology of Injustice

1.1 Professional Background

1.1.1 Nicholas N. Chin was admitted as a lawyer in Western Australia and practised without disciplinary blemish.

1.1.2 He also worked as a teacher and property manager, known for fairness and advocacy.

1.2 The Nalini Matter and Wrongful Removal

1.2.1 The Legal Practice Board removed Nicholas on the basis of alleged “dishonesty” in the Nalini matter.

1.2.2 No money was taken, no property was stolen, no client suffered loss, and Nicholas obtained no benefit.

1.2.3 Even if a signature were disputed, dishonesty requires a dishonest purpose — gain, loss, or misappropriation — none of which existed.

1.2.4 The Board treated a procedural dispute as if it were criminal fraud, without the legal elements of dishonesty.

1.2.5 This was a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

1.3 The Magistrates Court Action Regarding Unit 1/383

1.3.1 Nicholas lawfully commenced proceedings to protect the statutory implied easement rights attached to Unit 1/383.

1.3.2 The tenant wrongfully relocated the lunch bar to Unit 10, extinguishing the easement and destroying the commercial utility of Unit 1.

1.3.3 Under the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, once a proprietary right is extinguished, it cannot be revived.

1.3.4 The subject matter of the case ceased to exist; therefore, the cause of action abated.

1.3.5 A plaintiff cannot be liable or “lose” a case where the defendant’s own conduct destroyed the right being enforced.

1.4 Misattribution of Irene’s Planning Prosecution

1.4.1 Nicholas’s wife, Irene, as owner of 387 Alexander Drive, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention.

1.4.2 The alleged contravention was caused by the builder, not Irene.

1.4.3 Irene had no mens rea — no guilty mind — and therefore no criminal liability.

1.4.4 This matter was wrongly associated with Nicholas and contributed to public misunderstanding.

1.5 Post‑Removal Harm

1.5.1 Nicholas suffered impersonation, misattribution, and reputational harm.

1.5.2 Regulatory bodies failed to correct errors despite repeated notice.

1.5.3 Public records remained inaccurate, compounding the injustice.

1.6 Public Advocacy

1.6.1 Nicholas established the “Justice for a Former Lawyer” blog to document the injustice.

1.6.2 He continues to publish evidence, analysis, and public records for transparency.

---

2. Public Narrative

My name is Nicholas N. Chin. I was removed as a lawyer in Western Australia on the basis of an allegation of dishonesty that had no foundation in law or fact. In the Nalini matter, no money was taken, no property was stolen, no client suffered loss, and I obtained no benefit. Even if a signature were disputed, dishonesty requires a dishonest purpose — and none existed. The Legal Practice Board punished me for something that does not meet the legal definition of dishonesty.

Separately, I commenced lawful proceedings in the Perth Magistrates Court to protect the statutory implied easement rights of Unit 1/383. The tenant destroyed those rights by relocating the lunch bar to Unit 10. Under the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, once a proprietary right is extinguished, it cannot be revived. The subject matter of the case ceased to exist. A plaintiff cannot be liable or lose a case where the defendant’s own conduct destroyed the right being enforced.

My wife, Irene, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention at 387 Alexander Drive. The alleged offence was caused by the builder, not Irene. She had no mens rea — no guilty mind — and therefore no criminal liability. Yet this prosecution was wrongly allowed to influence perceptions of my family.

These events — the wrongful removal, the extinguished easement, the misattribution of Irene’s case, and the failure of regulators to correct the record — form a pattern of injustice that must be exposed to public scrutiny. This document is published so that the truth is known, the record is corrected, and the public can see how easily injustice can occur when institutions fail to follow the law.

---

Annexure A. The Nalini Matter

Why the allegation of dishonesty was legally impossible.

No property was stolen. No money was taken. No client suffered loss. No benefit was obtained. A disputed signature, even if proven, is not dishonesty without a dishonest purpose. The Legal Practice Board acted without the legal elements required to establish dishonesty.

Annexure B. Extinguishment of the Easement

Why the Magistrates Court case collapsed.

The statutory implied easement attached to Unit 1/383 was extinguished when the tenant relocated the lunch bar. Under indefeasibility of title, extinguished rights cannot be revived. The subject matter of the case ceased to exist, and the cause of action abated. A plaintiff cannot be liable where the defendant destroyed the right being enforced.

Annexure C. Irene’s Planning Prosecution

Clarifying the misattribution affecting Nicholas’s family.

Irene, owner of 387 Alexander Drive, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention caused entirely by the builder. She had no mens rea and no criminal liability. This matter was wrongly associated with Nicholas and contributed to public misunderstanding.

---

3. Closing Statement

This document is published so that the injustice suffered by Nicholas N. Chin is placed under public scrutiny. It records the legal errors, misattributions, and procedural failures that led to his wrongful removal, the extinguishing of his property rights, and the harm suffered by his family. The public is invited to examine this record carefully and to recognise the need for accountability and correction.

Consolidated Public Summary – Administrative Omission, Statutory Rights & Insurance Assessment

Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA – AFCA · Justice Gething · QBE · Law Mutual

---

English

Overview

This public summary explains the long-running administrative omission affecting Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA, and how this omission led to systemic factual misunderstandings across multiple institutions, including the Supreme Court of Western Australia, AFCA, QBE Insurance, and Law Mutual.

The purpose of this publication is transparency. It provides a clear, factual narrative without seeking legal orders or making allegations. Each institution is addressed only within its proper jurisdiction.

Key Facts

1. Restrictive Covenant (COV 52/1998)
A restrictive covenant was imposed during the 1998 subdivision process. It was recorded on WAPC Form 26 but omitted from the Landgate register. This omission created a factual misunderstanding that persisted for years.

2. Statutory Implied Easements (s.52 Property Law Act 1969)
These rights arise automatically upon subdivision. They do not require registration and form part of the land and building. They were not considered by QBE or AFCA during earlier assessments.

3. 2016 Extinguishment Event
When tenants relocated the lunch bar from Unit 1/383 to Unit 10, the exclusive statutory rights were extinguished without lawful authority. This triggered compensation rights under the Transfer of Land Act.

4. Systemic Factual Misunderstanding
Multiple institutions relied on the incorrect assumption that no rights existed. This misunderstanding was caused by the administrative omission in the land register.

Why This Matters

This summary clarifies the distinction between:

• State-based issues – administrative omission and extinguishment of land rights
• Insurance issues – QBE’s assessment of the building based on incorrect factual assumptions

These issues do not overlap and cannot result in double recovery.

---

简体中文（Simplified Chinese）

概述

本公开摘要说明了位于西澳马拉加（Malaga）Victoria Road 383号1单元的行政遗漏问题，以及该遗漏如何导致多个机构长期以来的事实误解，包括西澳最高法院、AFCA、QBE保险公司和Law Mutual。

本摘要旨在提供透明度，不寻求任何法律命令，也不作出指控。每个机构仅在其法定权限范围内被提及。

关键事实

1. 限制性契约（COV 52/1998）
1998年分割土地时设立的限制性契约记录在WAPC的Form 26上，但未被Landgate登记。此遗漏导致多年持续的事实误解。

2. 法定默示地役权（《1969年财产法》第52条）
这些权利在土地分割时自动产生，无需登记，是土地和建筑物的一部分。QBE和AFCA在早期评估中未考虑这些权利。

3. 2016年权利消灭事件
当租户将餐饮店从1单元迁至10单元时，专属法定权利在未经合法授权的情况下被消灭，从而触发《土地转让法》下的补偿权利。

4. 系统性事实误解
多个机构基于“没有任何权利存在”的错误假设作出决定，而该假设源于土地登记中的行政遗漏。

重要性

本摘要澄清了以下区别：

• 州政府相关问题 —— 行政遗漏及土地权利的消灭
• 保险相关问题 —— QBE基于错误事实假设所作出的建筑物评估

两者互不重叠，不会造成双重赔偿。

---

Bahasa Malaysia

Ringkasan

Ringkasan awam ini menerangkan isu kecuaian pentadbiran yang melibatkan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA, dan bagaimana kecuaian ini menyebabkan salah faham fakta yang berpanjangan dalam beberapa institusi termasuk Mahkamah Agung WA, AFCA, QBE Insurance dan Law Mutual.

Tujuan penerbitan ini adalah ketelusan. Ia tidak meminta apa‑apa perintah mahkamah dan tidak membuat tuduhan. Setiap institusi hanya disentuh dalam bidang kuasa masing‑masing.

Fakta Utama

1. Kovenan Sekatan (COV 52/1998)
Kovenan ini diwujudkan semasa proses pecahan tanah pada tahun 1998 dan direkodkan dalam Borang WAPC 26, tetapi tidak dimasukkan dalam daftar Landgate. Ini menyebabkan salah faham fakta selama bertahun‑tahun.

2. Easemen Tersirat Berkanun (Seksyen 52 Akta Undang‑Undang Harta 1969)
Hak ini timbul secara automatik apabila pecahan tanah diluluskan. Ia tidak memerlukan pendaftaran dan merupakan sebahagian daripada tanah dan bangunan. QBE dan AFCA tidak mempertimbangkan hak ini dalam penilaian terdahulu.

3. Peristiwa Pelupusan Hak Tahun 2016
Apabila penyewa memindahkan kedai makan dari Unit 1/383 ke Unit 10, hak eksklusif tersebut telah dilupuskan tanpa kuasa yang sah, dan ini mencetuskan hak pampasan di bawah Akta Pemindahan Tanah.

4. Salah Faham Fakta Secara Sistemik
Beberapa institusi telah bergantung kepada anggapan yang salah bahawa tiada hak yang wujud. Salah faham ini berpunca daripada kecuaian pentadbiran dalam daftar tanah.

Kepentingan

Ringkasan ini menjelaskan perbezaan antara:

• Isu berkaitan Negeri – kecuaian pentadbiran dan pelupusan hak tanah
• Isu berkaitan insurans – penilaian bangunan oleh QBE berdasarkan anggapan fakta yang salah

Kedua‑dua isu ini tidak bertindih dan tidak boleh menghasilkan pampasan berganda.

POLICE INACTION ENABLED THE THEFT OF AUD $30,000 BY BRENDON McFARLANE

🇦🇺 English

On 25–26 March 2026, WA Police failed to take timely action despite multiple verified reports of threats, trespass, and escalating safety risks involving Brendon McFarlane at 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick. This delay directly enabled McFarlane — a short-stay guest with no tenancy rights — to unlawfully enter Room 4 and steal AUD $30,000 in cash belonging to the victim. Police were repeatedly notified that McFarlane had refused to vacate, was acting aggressively, and posed an immediate risk to persons and property. Had police acted promptly on the initial complaints, removed the trespasser, or secured the premises, the theft would not have occurred.

🇨🇳 中文（简体）

在 2026 年 3 月 25–26 日期间，尽管接到多次关于 Brendon McFarlane 在 Kenwick，8 Stafford Road 的威胁、非法入侵及不断升级的安全风险的正式报告，西澳警方仍未及时采取行动。警方的延误直接导致 McFarlane——一名没有租赁权的短租住客——非法进入 4 号房间并盗走受害人价值 30,000 澳元的现金。 警方多次被告知 McFarlane 拒绝离开、行为具攻击性，并对人员与财产构成即时风险。如果警方在最初 接报时及时采取行动、将入侵者移除或保护现场，此次盗窃本可避免。

🇲🇾 Bahasa Melayu

Pada 25–26 Mac 2026, Polis WA gagal mengambil tindakan segera walaupun menerima beberapa laporan sah mengenai ancaman, pencerobohan, dan risiko keselamatan yang semakin meningkat melibatkan Brendon McFarlane di 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick. Kelewatan ini secara langsung membolehkan McFarlane — seorang tetamu inap-singkat tanpa hak penyewaan — memasuki Bilik 4 secara tidak sah dan mencuri wang tunai sebanyak AUD $30,000 milik mangsa. Polis telah dimaklumkan berulang kali bahawa McFarlane enggan keluar, bertindak agresif, dan menimbulkan risiko segera kepada orang dan harta benda. Jika polis bertindak segera berdasarkan aduan awal, mengeluarkan penceroboh, atau mengamankan premis, kecurian ini tidak akan berlaku.

THIS PUBLIC NOTICE IS ISSUED TO PROTECT IRENE YOK MOY LEM — SHE WAS WRONGED, MISLED, AND UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED. HER GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID. THE $55,760 TAKEN FROM HER WAS UNLAWFUL.

THIS PUBLIC NOTICE PROTECTS IRENE YOK MOY LEM — SHE WAS WRONGED, MISLED, AND UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED.
本公告旨在保护林玉梅女士 —— 她被冤枉、被误导、被非法处罚。
NOTIS INI MELINDUNGI PUAN IRENE YOK MOY LEM — BELIAU TELAH DIBERI LAYANAN YANG TIDAK ADIL.

WHY IRENE MUST NEVER BE AFRAID — BECAUSE SHE WAS WRONGED, NOT GUILTY

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
4 March 2026

To:
Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem
Dianella, Western Australia

Dear Irene,

I want to explain something very important to you — calmly, clearly, and with love. You must never be afraid, because you were wronged, and everything that happened in court was caused by other people’s failures, not yours.

You trusted a lawyer to protect you. Instead, he acted in a way that harmed you. You deserve to understand why, and you deserve to feel safe.

1. You were frightened, unwell, and unable to understand

On the day in court, you were scared, overwhelmed, confused, stressed, and limited in English. A good lawyer must protect a vulnerable client. Joshua Burton did not protect you.

2. He told the court you “instructed” him to plead guilty — but you did not

He wrote:
“I have received instructions from my client to plead guilty.”
This was false. You were crying, frightened, and saying you did not understand.

3. He hid your medical condition and fear from the Magistrate

He failed to tell the court you were under duress, medically fragile, and unable to understand. A guilty plea under these conditions is not valid.

4. He hid all the evidence that proved you were innocent

He did not present the 2015 City advice, 2017 retrospective approval, 2018 habitation approval, builder responsibility, CRIS report, or lack of criminal intent. This is serious misconduct.

5. He even told the Magistrate to punish you

He wrote:
“It is appropriate to impose a fine.”
This is the opposite of defending you.

6. Why he did this

Properly defending you would expose the City’s errors, the prosecutor’s misconduct, and the unlawful prosecution. He protected himself and the City — not you.

7. You did nothing wrong

You were a victim of fear, confusion, poor legal representation, and misconduct. Your guilty plea is void, and the $55,760 taken from you was unlawful.

8. We are now correcting everything

I have formally complained to LPBWA. They already opened a file in 2020 (R198/18). You are safe. You are protected. We are on the right path.

With love and commitment,
Nicholas

---

中文版本（简体）

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
2026年3月4日

致：
林玉梅（Irene Yok Moy Lem）女士
西澳大利亚州 Dianella

亲爱的 Irene，

我想用最清楚、最温柔的方式告诉你： 你永远不需要害怕，因为你是被冤枉的。 法庭上发生的一切，是别人失职造成的，不是你的错。

你信任律师保护你，但他却伤害了你。 你有权知道真相，也有权感到安全。

1. 你当时害怕、生病、无法理解

那天你非常害怕、紧张、困惑、压力大，而且英语有限。 一个好律师应该保护弱势的当事人。 Joshua Burton 没有保护你。

2. 他告诉法官你“指示”他认罪 —— 但这是假的

他写道：
“我已收到当事人的指示，要认罪。”
这是不真实的。你当时哭泣、害怕，并且说你不明白发生什么。

3. 他隐瞒了你的健康状况和恐惧

他没有告诉法官你处于胁迫、身体虚弱、无法理解。 在这种情况下的认罪是无效的。

4. 他隐瞒了所有证明你无罪的重要证据

他没有向法官说明： 2015 市政府建议、2017 追溯批准、2018 居住批准、建筑商责任、CRIS 报告、你没有犯罪意图等。 这是严重失职。

5. 他甚至要求法官惩罚你

他写道：
“适合对她处以罚款。”
这不是辩护，而是要求惩罚一个无辜的人。

6. 他为什么这样做？

因为如果他认真为你辩护，他就会暴露市政府的错误、检察官的误导、以及整个起诉是违法的。 他选择保护自己和市政府，而不是你。

7. 你没有做错任何事

你是恐惧、困惑、律师失职和不当行为的受害者。 你的认罪是无效的，被拿走的 $55,760 是非法的。

8. 我们正在纠正一切

我已经正式向 LPBWA 投诉。 他们在 2020 年已开档（R198/18）。 你现在是安全的，你受到保护，我们走在正确的道路上。

爱你的，
Nicholas

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
4 Mac 2026

Kepada:
Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem
Dianella, Australia Barat

Puan Irene yang dikasihi,

Saya ingin menerangkan semuanya dengan jelas dan penuh kasih sayang. Puan tidak perlu takut, kerana Puan telah dianiaya, dan apa yang berlaku di mahkamah bukan salah Puan.

Puan mempercayai peguam untuk melindungi Puan, tetapi dia gagal. Puan berhak mengetahui kebenaran dan berhak berasa selamat.

1. Puan ketakutan, tidak sihat dan tidak faham apa yang berlaku

Pada hari di mahkamah, Puan takut, keliru, tertekan dan lemah dalam bahasa Inggeris. Peguam yang baik mesti melindungi klien yang lemah. Joshua Burton tidak melindungi Puan.

2. Dia memberitahu mahkamah bahawa Puan “mengarahkannya” untuk mengaku salah — tetapi itu tidak benar

Dia menulis:
“Saya telah menerima arahan daripada klien saya untuk mengaku bersalah.”
Ini tidak benar. Puan sedang menangis, takut dan tidak faham apa yang berlaku.

3. Dia menyembunyikan keadaan kesihatan dan ketakutan Puan

Dia tidak memberitahu majistret bahawa Puan berada dalam tekanan, tidak sihat dan tidak memahami pertuduhan. Pengakuan bersalah dalam keadaan ini adalah tidak sah.

4. Dia menyembunyikan semua bukti yang membuktikan Puan tidak bersalah

Dia tidak mengemukakan nasihat Majlis 2015, kelulusan retrospektif 2017, kelulusan kediaman 2018, tanggungjawab pembina, laporan CRIS, atau ketiadaan niat jenayah. Ini adalah salah laku serius.

5. Dia malah meminta majistret menghukum Puan

Dia menulis:
“Adalah sesuai untuk mengenakan denda.”
Ini bukan pembelaan — ini mengundang hukuman.

6. Mengapa dia melakukan ini

Jika dia membela Puan dengan betul, kesilapan Majlis, salah laku pendakwa dan pendakwaan tidak sah akan terbongkar. Dia melindungi dirinya dan Majlis — bukan Puan.

7. Puan tidak melakukan apa‑apa kesalahan

Puan adalah mangsa ketakutan, kekeliruan, kegagalan peguam dan salah laku pihak berkuasa. Pengakuan bersalah Puan adalah tidak sah, dan $55,760 yang diambil adalah tidak sah.

8. Kami sedang membetulkan semuanya

Saya telah membuat aduan rasmi kepada LPBWA. Fail telah dibuka sejak 2020 (R198/18). Puan kini selamat, dilindungi, dan kami berada di landasan yang betul.

Dengan kasih dan komitmen,
Nicholas

Case Note: WA Police Delay & Resulting $30,000 Theft from Room 4

Location: 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick · Context: STRA Guest Incident · Author: Nicholas N. Chin

Section	Language	Jump
Incident Summary	English	Go to English
事件概述	简体中文	跳转到中文
Ringkasan Insiden	Bahasa Melayu	Pergi ke BM
Download	PDF	Download Evidence PDF

Key Evidence Photos (Screenshots)

Below are screenshots relevant to the incident (agreement, messages, and theft report).

Screenshot 1: Signed agreement dated 22 March 2026 ($900 due 24 March).

Screenshot 2: Messages about payment and Brendon’s failure to pay.

Screenshot 3: Jimmy’s message reporting theft (“about $20k… in call police now”).

WA Police Delay Resulted in Further Crime: Theft of $30,000 From Room 4

This post documents a serious incident involving a long-term STRA guest, Brendon McFarlane, and the impact of a police delay that allowed a further crime to occur at 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick.

On 24 March 2026, Brendon failed to pay the agreed $900, despite signing a written commitment on 22 March 2026. Because of this breach, his belongings were packed and he was required to leave the property.

On 25–26 March, Jimmy did not return to secure his room because he was waiting for police clearance after receiving a threatening message from Brendon. This delay left Room 4 unprotected.

On 27 March, Jimmy discovered that approximately $30,000 in cash had been stolen from his room. He initially estimated the loss at $20,000 under stress, and later corrected it to $30,000 after checking the bundles. This correction is consistent with truthful reporting.

The theft occurred during the period Jimmy was unable to return, which was directly affected by the police delay.

---

简体中文版本 (Simplified Chinese)

本文记录了一起严重事件，涉及长期短租住客 Brendon McFarlane，以及 警方延误 所造成的进一步犯罪后果。

在 2026 年 3 月 24 日，Brendon 未按约定支付 900 澳元，尽管他已在 3 月 22 日 签署书面承诺。由于违约，他的物品被打包，他被要求离开住所。

在 3 月 25–26 日，Jimmy 因等待 警方许可 而不敢返回房间，因为 Brendon 曾发出威胁信息。警方延误导致 4 号房间无人保护。

在 3 月 27 日，Jimmy 发现房间内约 30,000 澳元现金 被盗。他最初在压力下估计为 20,000 澳元，随后检查现金捆后更正为 30,000 澳元。这种更正符合真实受害者的行为。

盗窃发生在 Jimmy 无法返回期间，而这一情况 直接受到警方延误的影响。

---

Bahasa Melayu Version

Catatan ini mendokumentasikan satu insiden serius melibatkan tetamu STRA jangka panjang, Brendon McFarlane, serta kesan kelewatan polis yang membolehkan jenayah tambahan berlaku.

Pada 24 Mac 2026, Brendon gagal membayar $900 seperti yang dipersetujui, walaupun telah menandatangani perjanjian bertulis pada 22 Mac 2026. Disebabkan pelanggaran ini, barang-barangnya telah dibungkus dan dia diminta meninggalkan premis.

Pada 25–26 Mac, Jimmy tidak kembali untuk mengamankan biliknya kerana menunggu kebenaran polis selepas menerima mesej ugutan daripada Brendon. Kelewatan ini menyebabkan Bilik 4 tidak dilindungi.

Pada 27 Mac, Jimmy mendapati kira-kira $30,000 tunai telah dicuri dari biliknya. Beliau pada mulanya menganggarkan kerugian $20,000 dalam keadaan tertekan, dan kemudian membetulkannya kepada $30,000 selepas memeriksa ikatan wang. Pembetulan ini selaras dengan tingkah laku mangsa sebenar.

Kecurian berlaku semasa Jimmy tidak dapat kembali, dan keadaan ini dipengaruhi secara langsung oleh kelewatan polis.

---

Disclaimer: This post is based on the author’s personal experience and documentary records (messages, agreements, and police references). It is published for transparency, public awareness, and community safety. It is not legal advice and does not accuse any person of a criminal offence beyond what is being investigated by the proper authorities.

For formal legal or police matters, readers should rely on official documents and communications from the relevant authorities.

⚠️ PUBLIC WARNING: HIGH‑RISK “CRYPTO RECOVERY” EMAIL RECEIVED ⚠️

THIS NOTICE IS PUBLISHED FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION. THE EMAIL REQUESTED BANK STATEMENTS AND A VERIFIED BTC WALLET — A COMMON PATTERN IN HIGH‑RISK CRYPTO RECOVERY APPROACHES.