TRILINGUAL PUBLIC NOTE – KENWICK SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN & $252,000 CLAIM

ENGLISH VERSION

PUBLIC NOTE: CLARIFICATION ON THE KENWICK SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN AND THE $252,000 CONTRIBUTION CLAIM

After reviewing the Kenwick South Structure Plan in full, including Sections 1.0 (Introduction), 2.0 (Site Analysis), 3.0 (Opportunities and Constraints), 4.0 (Design Principles), 5.0 (Land Use and Density), 6.0 (Movement Network), 7.0 (Public Open Space), and 8.0 (Servicing), I confirm that there is no clause, schedule, map, or requirement that imposes any development contribution or financial charge on Lot 701 (8 Stafford Road, Kenwick) for the construction of three modular homes.

Section 8.3 (Sewer and Water Servicing) only outlines general servicing principles and does not create any per‑lot financial obligation.

The Structure Plan contains:
– No Development Contribution Plan (DCP)
– No cost‑sharing schedule
– No contribution area map
– No reference to any $252,000 charge

Therefore, the Structure Plan provides no statutory or policy basis for the $252,000 contribution figure mentioned by planner Kevin. This public note is published for transparency, accuracy, and community understanding.

---

简体中文版本

公开说明：关于 Kenwick South 结构规划与 252,000 澳元费用的澄清

我已经完整审阅了《Kenwick South 结构规划》的所有章节，包括： 1.0（简介）、2.0（场地分析）、3.0（机会与限制）、4.0（设计原则）、 5.0（土地用途与密度）、6.0（交通网络）、7.0（公共开放空间）、8.0（基础设施服务）。

在整个文件中，没有任何条款、附表、地图或要求规定 Lot 701（8 Stafford Road, Kenwick） 在建设三间模块化住宅时必须支付任何开发费用或基础设施费用。

第 8.3 节（污水与供水服务）仅说明一般性服务原则， 并未对任何单一地块设定收费义务。

该结构规划文件中：
– 没有开发贡献计划（DCP）
– 没有费用分摊表
– 没有贡献区域地图
– 没有提及 252,000 澳元的收费

因此，该结构规划并不支持规划人员 Kevin 所提及的 252,000 澳元费用。 此公开说明旨在确保透明度、准确性与社区理解。

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

NOTA UMUM: PENJELASAN MENGENAI PELAN STRUKTUR KENWICK SOUTH DAN DAKWAAN BAYARAN $252,000

Saya telah meneliti keseluruhan Kenwick South Structure Plan, termasuk Seksyen 1.0 (Pengenalan), 2.0 (Analisis Tapak), 3.0 (Peluang dan Kekangan), 4.0 (Prinsip Reka Bentuk), 5.0 (Guna Tanah dan Ketumpatan), 6.0 (Rangkaian Pergerakan), 7.0 (Ruang Terbuka Awam), dan 8.0 (Perkhidmatan Infrastruktur).

Dalam semua seksyen tersebut, tidak terdapat sebarang klausa, jadual, peta atau keperluan yang mewajibkan Lot 701 (8 Stafford Road, Kenwick) membayar apa‑apa sumbangan pembangunan atau caj kewangan untuk pembinaan tiga rumah modular.

Seksyen 8.3 (Perkhidmatan Pembetungan dan Air) hanya menyatakan prinsip perkhidmatan umum dan tidak mewujudkan apa‑apa kewajipan kewangan bagi setiap lot.

Pelan Struktur ini:
– Tidak mempunyai Development Contribution Plan (DCP)
– Tidak mempunyai jadual perkongsian kos
– Tidak mempunyai peta kawasan sumbangan
– Tidak menyebut apa‑apa caj $252,000

Oleh itu, Pelan Struktur ini tidak memberikan asas undang‑undang atau dasar bagi angka $252,000 yang disebut oleh perancang Kevin. Nota umum ini diterbitkan untuk ketelusan, ketepatan dan pemahaman masyarakat.

SUMMARY OF EARLY SCAM ACTIVITY (5–13 JUNE 2025)

Luna White • Rob Miller • DAXTODO • Anti‑Fraud Alliance

Between 5 June and 13 June 2025, the scam involving Luna White, Rob Miller, and the fake trading platform DAXTODO.com was already fully active. This period contains the earliest documented evidence of manipulation, false promises, and coordinated pressure to extract money.

---

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

1. First Warning to Anti‑Fraud Alliance (5 June 2025)

I contacted the Anti‑Fraud Alliance to verify whether Rob Miller and Luna White were legitimate. They sent only an automated reply and never helped — confirming later that they were part of the scam.

2. Pressure to Pay a Fake “Legal Aid Loan” (13 June 2025)

The scammers demanded 1,000 USDT upfront, contradicting the original NO WIN NO PAY agreement.

3. Fake Account Balances Used for Manipulation

DAXTODO displayed a fake balance of 43,562.28 USDT but blocked all withdrawals. When I refused to pay, they locked me out of my account.

4. My Bank Warned Me Not to Pay

On 13 June, my bank advised me not to send the 1,000 USDT. This was the first official warning from a legitimate institution.

5. My Attempts to Seek Help

I repeatedly contacted the Anti‑Fraud Alliance with screenshots, chat logs, and evidence. They ignored every message.

6. Coordinated Manipulation by Luna White & Rob Miller

The chat logs show fake “loan repayment”, pressure to buy ETH, refusal to honour NO WIN NO PAY, emotional manipulation, and blocking withdrawals.

Conclusion

This early period proves the scam was already active on 5 June 2025, the Anti‑Fraud Alliance was fake, DAXTODO was fraudulent, and I acted responsibly by questioning them and contacting my bank.

---

🇨🇳 中文简体版本

1. 首次向 Anti‑Fraud Alliance 求助（2025年6月5日）

我联系 Anti‑Fraud Alliance，询问 Rob Miller 和 Luna White 是否真实合法。他们只发来自动回复，从未提供任何帮助。

2. 要求支付虚假“法律援助贷款”（2025年6月13日）

诈骗者要求我提前支付 1000 USDT，完全违反原本的 NO WIN NO PAY（不成功不收费） 协议。

3. 利用虚假账户余额进行操控

DAXTODO 显示虚假的 43,562.28 USDT 余额，但禁止提款。当我拒绝付款时，他们立即锁定我的账户。

4. 我的银行警告我不要付款

6月13日，我的银行明确警告我不要支付1000 USDT。

5. 我多次寻求帮助

我多次向 Anti‑Fraud Alliance 提交截图、聊天记录和证据，但他们完全无视。

6. Luna White 与 Rob Miller 的联合操控

聊天记录显示虚假的“贷款偿还”、强迫购买 ETH、拒绝履行 NO WIN NO PAY、情绪操控和阻止提款。

结论

这一阶段证明诈骗在 2025年6月5日 已全面开始，Anti‑Fraud Alliance 是假的，DAXTODO 是诈骗平台，而我负责任地提出质疑并咨询银行。

---

🇲🇾 BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

1. Amaran Pertama kepada Anti‑Fraud Alliance (5 Jun 2025)

Saya menghubungi Anti‑Fraud Alliance untuk mengesahkan sama ada Rob Miller dan Luna White adalah sah. Mereka hanya memberi jawapan automatik.

2. Tekanan Membayar ‘Pinjaman Bantuan Guaman’ Palsu (13 Jun 2025)

Penipu menuntut 1000 USDT dibayar terlebih dahulu, bercanggah dengan perjanjian asal NO WIN NO PAY.

3. Baki Akaun Palsu Digunakan untuk Manipulasi

DAXTODO memaparkan baki palsu 43,562.28 USDT tetapi menyekat semua pengeluaran. Apabila saya enggan membayar, akaun saya dikunci.

4. Bank Saya Menasihatkan Supaya Tidak Membayar

🌐 TRILINGUAL PUBLIC WARNING — RECOVERY SCAM ALERT

(English • 简体中文 • Bahasa Melayu)

---

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

PUBLIC WARNING: “Freya Johnson / TrustOryx / M2 Recoveri Ltd” is a Recovery Scam

This notice is issued to protect the public from a fraudulent email claiming that a company called M2 Recoveri Ltd / TrustOryx has “recovered” my funds and is ready to return $60,000 in cryptocurrency.

The email falsely states that they have “shut down an unregulated entity” and asks for a cryptocurrency wallet address. This is a classic recovery-scam tactic used by criminals to target victims a second time.

Key red flags include:

• Unsolicited claim of recovered funds
• Promise to return money in cryptocurrency
• Request for a wallet address
• Fake success statistics
• Fake attachments and certificates
• Suspicious domain: trustoryx.online

This is a scam. No funds have been recovered.

The public is advised not to respond, not to provide any wallet details, and not to open any attachments.

---

🇨🇳 简体中文版本

公众警告：“Freya Johnson / TrustOryx / M2 Recoveri Ltd” 是恢复资金骗局

此公告旨在提醒公众，有诈骗分子冒充 M2 Recoveri Ltd / TrustOryx，声称已经为我“追回” $60,000，并准备以加密货币方式返还。

邮件声称他们已经“关闭了一个无监管实体”，并要求提供 加密货币钱包地址。这是典型的 二次诈骗（Recovery Scam） 手法，专门针对已经受骗过的受害者。

主要危险信号包括：

• 未经请求的“追回资金”通知
• 承诺以加密货币返还资金
• 要求提供钱包地址
• 虚假的成功率
• 伪造的附件和证书
• 可疑域名：trustoryx.online

这是骗局。并没有任何资金被追回。

请勿回复、勿提供钱包信息、勿打开附件。

---

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN
(Local Government Inspectorate, Western Australia)

正式通知：致西澳地方政府监察官 TONY BROWN 先生

NOTIS RASMI: KEPADA INSPEKTOR KERAJAAN TEMPATAN TONY BROWN

4 March 2026 – Formal Lodgement of Spyker Legal Misconduct Complaint (LPCC R198/18)

English

This post records the formal lodgement of my complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPBWA) on 4 March 2026, concerning professional misconduct by Spyker Legal (Mr Joshua Burton) in the matter of City of Stirling v Lem (PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018).

This complaint has been submitted as new evidence under the existing LPCC reference R198/18, originally opened in 2020 regarding the conduct of Mr Peter Gillette of McLeods Lawyers.

The misconduct of Spyker Legal is directly connected to the earlier complaint against Mr Gillette. Both solicitors contributed to the unlawful prosecution of Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, the denial of procedural fairness, the misrepresentation of instructions, the concealment of duress and disability, and the resulting void conviction and unlawful extraction of $55,760.

On 4 March 2026, the following documents were formally submitted to LPBWA:

• Spyker Misconduct Notice (4 March 2026)
• Spyker Legal Mitigation Plea (5 December 2019)
• Formal Notice – Protection of Vulnerable Person (Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem)
• Tony Brown – Spyker Notice (Inspectorate submission)

These documents establish misrepresentation of client instructions, failure to disclose duress and disability, failure to present the defence and exculpatory evidence, failure to challenge misleading submissions, and the invitation to punish a medically vulnerable person.

This complaint is filed under LPCC Reference: R198/18. LPBWA has been requested to update the file, open a formal investigation into Spyker Legal, determine whether disciplinary action is warranted, and advise on the next procedural steps.

This post is published to maintain transparency, accountability, and a chronological public archive of all regulatory steps taken in the protection of Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, a vulnerable elderly person.

---

简体中文 (Chinese)

本帖记录我于 2026 年 3 月 4 日向西澳大利亚法律职业投诉委员会（LPBWA）正式提交投诉，指控 Spyker Legal（律师 Joshua Burton 先生）在案件 City of Stirling v Lem（PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018）中存在专业不当行为。

本次投诉作为新的证据，提交在现有的 LPCC 档案编号 R198/18 之下。该档案最初于 2020 年开立，涉及 McLeods 律师事务所 Peter Gillette 先生的行为。

Spyker Legal 的不当行为与之前针对 Gillette 先生的投诉直接相关。两位律师共同导致了对 Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士的非法起诉、程序公正的被剥夺、对当事人指示的歪曲、对胁迫和残疾情况的隐瞒，以及最终产生的无效定罪和非法扣取 55,760 澳元。

2026 年 3 月 4 日，以下文件已正式提交给 LPBWA：

• Spyker 不当行为通知书（2026 年 3 月 4 日）
• Spyker Legal 辩解陈词（2019 年 12 月 5 日）
• 《正式通知 – 保护弱势人士（Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士）》
• 《Tony Brown – Spyker 通知》（监察官提交文件）

这些文件证明：对当事人指示的歪曲、未披露胁迫和健康脆弱情况、未提出辩护及有利证据、未质疑误导性陈述，以及要求惩罚一名体弱多病的弱势人士。

本投诉在 LPCC 档案编号：R198/18 下备案。我已请求 LPBWA 更新该档案，正式调查 Spyker Legal 的行为，决定是否采取纪律处分，并告知下一步程序。

本帖公开发布，是为了维护透明度和问责制，并按时间顺序记录所有为保护弱势长者 Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士而采取的监管步骤。

---

Bahasa Melayu

Catatan ini merekodkan pemfailan rasmi aduan saya kepada Jawatankuasa Aduan Profesion Guaman (LPBWA) pada 4 Mac 2026 berhubung salah laku profesional oleh Spyker Legal (Encik Joshua Burton) dalam kes City of Stirling v Lem (PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018).

Aduan ini dikemukakan sebagai bukti baharu di bawah rujukan LPCC sedia ada R198/18, yang pada asalnya dibuka pada tahun 2020 berkaitan tingkah laku Encik Peter Gillette dari firma guaman McLeods.

Salah laku Spyker Legal berkait rapat dengan aduan terdahulu terhadap Encik Gillette. Kedua-dua peguam telah menyumbang kepada pendakwaan tidak sah terhadap Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, penafian keadilan prosedur, pemutarbelitan arahan anak guam, penyembunyian paksaan dan kelemahan kesihatan, serta menghasilkan sabitan yang tidak sah dan pengambilan wang sebanyak AUD 55,760 secara tidak sah.

Pada 4 Mac 2026, dokumen berikut telah difailkan secara rasmi kepada LPBWA:

• Notis Salah Laku Spyker (4 Mac 2026)
• Rayuan Mitigasi Spyker Legal (5 Disember 2019)
• Notis Rasmi – Perlindungan Orang Rentan (Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem)
• Notis Tony Brown – Spyker (penyerahan kepada Inspektorat)

Dokumen-dokumen ini membuktikan pemutarbelitan arahan anak guam, kegagalan mendedahkan paksaan dan kerentanan, kegagalan mengemukakan pembelaan dan bukti yang memihak, kegagalan mencabar hujahan yang mengelirukan, serta ajakan supaya menghukum seorang individu yang lemah dari segi kesihatan.

Aduan ini difailkan di bawah Rujukan LPCC: R198/18. LPBWA telah diminta untuk mengemas kini fail tersebut, membuka siasatan rasmi terhadap Spyker Legal, menentukan sama ada tindakan tatatertib wajar diambil, dan memaklumkan langkah prosedur seterusnya.

Catatan ini diterbitkan untuk mengekalkan ketelusan, akauntabiliti, dan rekod awam berurutan bagi semua langkah pengawalseliaan yang diambil demi melindungi Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, seorang warga emas yang rentan.

PUBLIC RECORD – FORMAL REGULATORY NOTICE
Published for transparency and accountability

公开记录 – 正式监管通知

REKOD AWAM – NOTIS PENGAWALSELIAAN RASMI

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.