IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:1019of 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Certiorari Orders Nisi to review and quash the decision of the learned President Justice Chaney of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), in both his judgments in VR107 of 2008 and VR87 of 2009; the insufficiency of the reasons for judgment impinging on the President’s credibility and his lack of independence as a judge warrants a review of the former decision and a striking off of the latter action as an abuse of the process of court.
And
In the matter of an Application Under Order 67 r.5 of the RSC, 1971 (WA) for Leave to re-file the Amended Papers of the Original Application that were originally rightly considered and rightly refused by the learned Martin CJ on 14.12.2009 in CIV 3068 of 2009 on grounds that the Notice of Originating Motion were then found to be “incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the Affidavit” but it is now no longer deemed to be so.
EXPARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 28th March, 2010
Date of filing: 28th March, 2010
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059 Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
SUPPLEMENTRY AFFIDAVIT OF NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
SWORN THE 28th March, 2010
WITH ANNEXURES
LIST OF ANNEXURES
No Label Date of Document Particulars of Document Page
A AFFI 28.03.2010 Supplementary Affidavit of Applicant Nicholas Ni Kok Chin with 123 pages of annexed documents i to xii
1. NNC-1 to
NNC-2 6.10.2009 Email letter from President of Unity Party WA Mr. Eddie Hwang to Chairperson of the Legal Practice Board copied to the Attorney General regarding the unlawful restriction on my independent legal practice by its Pseudo Board 1-2
2 NNC-3 to NNC-17 10.11.2009 The transcript of proceedings before President of SAT in VR87 of 2009 3-17
3 NNC-18 26.11.2009 Email from Unity Party WA to Applicant - Complaint to Ombudsman re Pseudo Board. 18
4 NNC-19 to NNC-31 10.12.2009 Affidavit sworn by Applicant in CIV 3086 of 2009 to correct errors of Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 re falsifications of court records by Mr. David Taylor in CIV 1131 of 2006 and the fact that Applicant did not make false allegations against Mr. David Taylor which is an error of Justice Chaney in his First Judgment in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment). 19-31
5. NNC-32 10.12.2009 Cover letter from Applicant to Chief Registrar of Supreme Court attaching Affidavit sworn by Applicant on the same day in CIV 3086 of 2009 32
6. NNC-33 11.12.2009 Email correspondence between the President of the Unity Party WA and Applicant re the falsifications of court records by Mr. David Taylor with the collaboration and help of the learned Registrar Mr. D Powell. 33
7. NNC-34 to
NNC-35 14.12.2009 Cover facsimile letter enclosing 16 pages and a similar email letter from Applicant to LPCC re false allegations of the LPCC against Applicant before Justice Chaney who refused to accept the facts of the case but insist on branding me as having a proclivity to make false allegations against fellow legal practitioners in the First Judgment.
34-35
8 NNC-36 to
NNC-37 22.12.2009 Draft Judgment by His Honour Chief Justice Wayne QC who dismissed my Application in CIV 3086 of 2009. 36-37
9 NNC-38 24.12.2009 Email letter by Applicant to Crime Corruption Officer Mr. Hellier regarding the incorrect statement of reason by the Chief Justice. 38
10 NNC-39 24.12.2009 Email letter by Applicant to Associate of the Chief Justice re correct copy of Statement of Reason or trial transcript for his dismissal of CIV 3086 of 2009 on 22.12.2009. 39
11 NNC-40 to
NNC-47 22.12.2009 Trial transcript for hearing on 22.12.2009 when Chief Justice dismissed CIV 3086 of 2009 40-47
12 NNC-48 29.12.2009 Facsimile letter from Applicant to LPCC copied to SAT and Supreme Court that I have submitted papers for Writ of Certiorari Review Orders in CIV 3068 of 2009 that was subsequently dismissed by the Chief Justice. 48
13 NNC-49 30.12.2009 Email letter from Ms. Juliana Loskoska of Court of Appeal re my progress in filing my Application for Special Leave to the High Court of Australia in P1 of 2010. 49
14 NNC-50 12.1.2010 Email letter from Associate to Deputy President of SAT Her Honour Judge Pritchard re orders of the Justice Chaney dated 10.11.2009. 50
15 NNC-51 18.1.2010 Facsimile letter form the Applicant to LPCC re Mr. David Taylor 51
16 NNC-52 to
NNC-60 19.1.2010.
20.1.2010
28.1.2010
2.2.2010 Emails communications between Ms. Turner of SAT and Applicant re the continuation of the res judicata proceedings despite my Application for stay and review orders to strike it off as abuse of process in CIV 1019 of 2010 at the Supreme Court. 52-60
17 NNC-61 to
NNC-62
NNC-62A NNC-62B 23.1.2010 The falsifications of the Court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 were reported to the Police Commissioner.
61-64
18 NNC-63 to
NNC-64 3.2.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to SAT, the LPCC and the Supreme Court in CIV 1019 of 2010 re stay of execution of res judicata proceedings in SAT VR 87 of 2009 65- 66
19 NNC-65 to
NNC-76 6.2.2010 Facsimile Letter form Applicant to State Ombudsman requesting it to investigate the irregularity of the Department of Attorney General for maladministration in allowing Pseudo Board to fester in the legal system of WA against the public interest. 67-78
20. NNC-77 to
NNC-80 8.2.2010 and various Letters from the Chief Executive Officer of SAT following President Chaney’s decision for directions hearing on 16.2.2010 to fix further directions hearing scheduled on 13.4.2010 and final hearing of res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 on 18.5.2010 for three days. 79-82
21 NNC-81 to
NNC-85 8.2.2010 Facsimile letter from Applicant to SAT, LPCC and Supreme Court in CIV 1019 of 2010. 83-88
22 NNC-86 to NNC-87 24.1.2010 Online Complaint to the Department of the Attorney General re the falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006. 89-90
23 NNC-88-NNC-92 4.2.2010 and various Letters from State Ombudsman and the Attorney General responding to Applicant’s complaints about Pseudo Board and the falsification of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006. 91-95
24 NNC-93 5.3.2010 Email letter from Associate of President of SAT Ms. Toni Sherwood to Applicant that President has recused himself from the final hearing of VR 87 of 2009. 96
25 NNC-94 to NNC-96 1.3.2010
11.3.2010 Original Letters from the High Court of Australia informing Applicant of dismissal special leave to appeal in P36 of 2009 re the Pseudo Board relying on the credibility of Justice Chaney who had not accepted the mala fides of the Pseudo Board thus opening up an avenue for review by Supreme Court in CIV1019 of 2010. 97-99
26 NNC-97 to
NNC-100 11.3.2010 Email letter from Applicant to State Ombudsman urging it to investigate reason as to why Department of the Attorney General allows the Pseudo Board to fester in the regulator of the legal profession against the public interest which was not accepted by Justice Chaney. 100-103
27. NNC-100A to NNC-102 17.3.2010
24.3.2010 Communication with Deputy Registrar of High Court Mr. Matthew Grey and State Ombudsman regarding need for High Court to review its decision in P36 of 2009 and for the Ombudsman to review its position with regard to the position of judicial officers having a conspiratorial link with LPCC through the mala fides of the Pseudo Board. 104-106
28 NNC-103 to NNC-115 15.3.2010
17.3.2010
19..3.2010 Facsimile letter from the Applicant to LPCC copied to SAT and Supreme Court in CIV 1019 of 2010 with regard to conspiratorial link between the LPCC and Justice Chaney and requiring him to answer those 21 questions concerning res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009. All these information have been copied to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Ms. Cheetham. 107-119
29 NNC-116 to NNC-119 20.3.2010 Email letter to world by Unity Party publishing the fact that racism is thriving in WA in response to former Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop call for better governance in Western Australia. 120 to 123.
I, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, Barrister & Solicitor, No. 387, Alexander Drive, Dianella WA 6059, having been duly sworn, say on oath the following:
1. I am filing this Supplementary Affidavit to supplement my five-page Affidavit sworn 6th day of January, 2010 containing annexed 520 pages of evidentiary materials which is self-explanatory. The renewed purpose of this Supplementary Affidavit sworn 28th day of March, 2010 is in support of my application for Certiorari Orders for a two-fold purpose:
1.1. the quashing and review of the First Judgment by the President of SAT, His Honour Justice Chaney on the grounds that he had refused to accept the live issues affecting the existence and the mala-fides of the Pseudo Board which did not have the lawful authority to restrain my independent legal practice for a clandestine purpose to protect its cronies;
1.2. the quashing, review and the striking off of the res judicata re-persecution proceedings in the Second Judgment in VR 87 of 2009. It knew or ought to have known that this is a malicious re-persecution caused by the mala-fides of the Pseudo Board acting illegally through the statutory body the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (the LPCC) funded by the public to do public interests work of disciplining erring members of the legal profession. Instead it has been reasonably found to be abusing the process of court, to wit to do an intentional tort which is a calculated mischief for the purpose of getting rid of me as a whistle blower. In the process it is trying to implicate me for the preposterous proposition of professional misconduct and is injuring my reputation as a result and is causing me economic loss and sufferings in terms of pains and mental torture, all for no professional misconduct. This is contrary to the principle of the rule of law in res judicata and issues estoppel which forbids the LPCC to pursue further remedies of professional misconduct if it had originally neglected to do it properly for the first time.
2. The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct.
3. On 20.1.2010 I filed a six page Minute of Proposed Certiorari Orders Nisi pursuant to my Notice of Originating Motion in CIV 1019 of 2010 filed the 6th day of January, 2010 which is scheduled for hearing before the learned Justice Heenan in Chambers on 6.4.2010 at 10.20 am.
4. Due to the change of circumstances caused by the High Court of Australia on 10.3.2010 dismissing my Application for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009, I have to file an Amended Minute of Proposed Certiorari Order Nisi pursuant to my Notice of Originating Motion in Civ 1019 of 2010 containing six pages, filed the 25.3.2010 at 3.50 pm at the Central Office of the Supreme Court Building in Spring Gardens at Barrack Street, Perth.
5. On the 25.3.2010 at 3.50 pm, I also caused to be filed in CIV 1019 of 2010 a 22 page documents in three copies my Outline of Written Submissions together with my List of Authorities which represents my argument for my prayers as contained in the Amended Proposed Certiorari Orders as indicated above.
6. I would now like to keep the Honourable Justice Heenan who is hearing my Application for leave to file my Application for the proposed Certiorari Orders, up-to-date with the latest developments of my case in the following terms:
6.1. The President of the Unity Party of WA did write to the Chairman of the Legal Price Board of Western Australia informing her that the Pseudo Board is acting without lawful authority and is usurping the statutory functions of the regulator of the legal profession of WA to protect some clandestine interests. As a result of her being notified of this state of affairs, there seems to be no positive indications as what corrective measures that it should be taking. On previous occasions, the Board heeded to my barrister’s request for its lawful authority in the form of its valid minutes of delegation to the Pseudo Board to unlawfully interfere with my independent law practice and it had admitted by its conduct on two previous occasions that it did not have that valid authority. This led to my first Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007 to be abrogated for a consent judgment on the 26.9.2007 but unfortunately, the terms of the consent judgment was not honoured. Records of these terms are with Registrar Eldred of the Court of Appeal and it could be found in the evidence provided to this Court. (See: Annexure NNC-1 to NNC-2).
6.2. As a result of the res judicata point judgment which was made in ambush against me by the learned President of SAT His Honour Justice Chaney on the 4.11.2009 when I was wrongly adjudged to have been guilty of professional misconduct in absentia, I was subsequently given a chance to be present before Justice Chaney on the date which he had notified to be present i.e. on the 10.11.2009. I have objected to the illegal manner that the res-judicata point judgment had been conducted by my having been denied natural justice. The transcripts of the proceedings are in 15 pages. (See Annexure: NNC-3-NNC-17).
6.3. On 26.11.2009, Ms. Rachel Francis as the Assistant Administrative Assistant of the WA Ombudsman responded to Mr. Eddie Hwang of Unity Party WA with regard to its complaint about the Legal Practice Board. (See Annexure: NNC-18)
6.4. The Court of Appeal made an error regarding the falsification of court records by Mr. David Taylor in paragraph 54 and 55 of its otherwise perfect judgment in CACV 107 of 2008. I sought to rectify this error through an Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 3086 of 2009 containing my Affidavit sworn 10.12.2009 which was dismissed by the learned Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC. (See Annexure: NNC-19-NNC-31).
6.5. On the same day, I wrote to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court filing my Affidavit referred to in sub-paragraph 6.4 above (See Annexure: NNC-32).
6.5. On 11.12.2009, I explained to the President of Unity Party WA Mr. Eddie Hwang by email regarding the falsifications of court records by Mr. David Taylor who would not have achieved his purpose if there was no cover up by the learned Registrar Powell. This is an administrative error of the Supreme Court which should be investigated by the State Ombudsman under s.14 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971. Similarly, this should also happen in the case of the Learned Justice Chaney who has been acting under the behest of the Pseudo Board to persecute me illegally for imagined professional misconduct in VR 87 of 2009. (See Annexure: NNC33).
6.6. My persecutor the LPCC is working at the behest of the Pseudo Board to persecute me to no ends and it would not budge from its wrongful stance to do its statutory duties to discipline erring legal practitioners. It just would not listen and it keeps on making false allegations against me in VR87 of 2009 despite knowing that it is treading on res judicata grounds and that it should not be seeking further remedies after it had already persecuted me on the same issues of facts and law. It is therefore abusing the legal process and it has the sanction of the learned President Chaney who does not require the LPCC to conform to his orders and who does not require its counsel Ms. Le Miere to say thing for fear of misleading the tribunal. (See Annexure: NNC-34 – NNC-35).
6.7. On the 22.12.2006, His Honour Wayne Martin QC as the presiding judge and who is also the Chief Justice of the legal system in WA decided to dismiss my application but he was in error when he did not give me a proper reason for his decision (See Annexure: NNC-36-NNC-37).
6.8. I had to write to the Crime Corruption Commission of WA and the Associate of the Chief Justice Ms. Butterly on 24.12.2009 for the proper statement of reason from the learned Chief Justice who dismissed CIV 3086 of 2009 on 24.12.2009 and I was rewarded by my efforts. (See Annexure: NNC-38 to NNC-47).
6.9. By the 29.12.2009 I was preparing my papers for another Writ of Certiorari Orders in CIV 3068 of 2009 with the view of seeking the Supreme Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the Orders of Justice Chaney given by ambush on 4.11.2009 when he prejudged that I am guilty of professional misconduct without affording me a trial. I objected to this ambushed trial and subsequently I was given a chance to argue my case before him the 10.11.2009. As a result, he gave Orders which is beyond his jurisdiction which I had to inform the opposing party that I could not comply as I was then shocked and traumatised by the unfair injustice meted out to me. (See Annexure: NNC-48).
6.10. By the 30.12.2009 I was in touch with the Court of Appeal regarding the dismissal of my CIV 3086 of 2009 by the Chief Justice and that I was then intending to make an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court in P1 of 2010 (See Annexure: NNC-49).
6.11. On 12.1.2010 I was in telephone contact with Ms. Alexander Turner who is the Associate of the Deputy President of SAT to the effect that the President was recusing himself and that the res judicata proceedings will be heard by Judge Pritchard. I told her that I have made a fresh application in CIV 1019 of 2010 for Certiorari Orders to set aside the res judicata proceedings with SAT in VR 87 of 2009 after my second Certiorari Orders Application in CIV 3068 of 2009 was dismissed by the Chief Justice (See Annexure: NNC-50).
6.12. On 18.1.2010 I wrote a complaint letter again to the LPCC regarding Mr. David Taylor informing it of the current situation following the error of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 in Chin v Hall that was the subject of my Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the High Court in P1 of 2010. (See Annexure: NNC-51)
6.13 On 19.1.2010 I further communicated with Ms. Turner the Associate of the Deputy President regarding the continuing agitation by the LPCC to further re-persecute me on the res judicata matters (See Annexure: NNC-52 to NNC-60) .
6.14 On 23.1.2010, the falsifications of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 was reported to the Crime Stoppers because there was a criminal offence contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913 and the cover-up is contrary to s.27 of the Crime Corruption Commission Act, 2003. (See: Annexure: NNC-61-NNC-62).
6.15. By the 3.2.2010, I had to write to the parties concerned that the malicious re-persecution of me for professional misconduct was unnecessary due to my application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010. (See Annexure: NNC63-NNC64).
6.16. On the 6.2.2010 I wrote a 12 page letter to the State Ombudsman regarding the maladministration of the Department of the Attorney General for allowing the Pseudo Board to fester the regulator of the legal profession in WA, which enables the Ombudsman to investigate it under s.14 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971 (WA). The wrong is that a government department had been involved in maladministration by allowing the Pseudo Board to usurp the lawful authority of the regulator of the legal profession in WA and to prejudice its lawful functions (See Annexure: NNC-65-NNC-76).
6.17. The President of SAT, His Honour Justice Chaney continued to arrange the res judicata proceedings that was without jurisdiction for further directions hearing and for the final hearing before Her Honour Judge Pritchard who is the Deputy President of SAT. I am frightened that is a pre-arranged hearing with a set agenda that is going to achieve a clandestine purpose as is apparent from the intentions of the learned President as evinced by his words and his conduct when I was before him in one of the directions hearing. I have asked for a copy of the transcript for the directions hearing on 16.2.2010 that was conducted in my absence, but I have yet to receive it (See Annexure: NNC77 to NNC-81).
6.18. On 8.2.2010 I was in communication with the various parties with regard to the developments of the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 with Ms. Turner together with my communication with the State Ombudsman (See Annexure: NNC-81 to NNC-85).
6.19 On the 24.1.2010 I was forced to make an online complaint to the Attorney General of Western Australia. Your Honour will note that I have always been exercising restraints against complaining against anyone let alone any legal practitioner. I would not want to stir the hornet’s nest and it is the least to be expected of me. However, I need to make these complaints as they were necessary under the circumstances. For example, Mr. David Taylor was not willing to live and let live and was bent on doing all he could to discredit me and he did through Registrar Powell by ordering me to pay a costs order of $300.00 to Mr. Maurice Frederick Law in CIV 1131 of 2006 and I had to defend myself in the Magistrates Court which I won finally. I would never want to give Mr. Taylor or Mr. Thies any problem if I could help it. I had spoken to him to settle this matter but he had told me to do what I like. I have no choice. There was nothing I could do to release him from all these troubles. (See Annexure: NNC-86-87).
6.20 I have since lodging my complaints with the State Ombudsman and the Attorney
General of Western Australia received some responses since 2009 till the present day (NNC-88 to NNC-92).
6.21 On 5.3.2010 I finally received an email from the Associate of Justice Chaney that he is willing to recuse himself only for the final hearing of the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 but he is laying down the ground for his Deputy President to preside over its hearing for three beginning from the 18.5.2010. (See Annexure: NNC-93).
6.22. On 1.3.2010 the Senior Registrar of the High Court of Australia wrote to me that my Application for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009 is scheduled for publication of reasons and pronouncement of Orders on 10.3.2010 in Canberra. Subsequently I received the Order dismissing my application and the reason in the judgment states that that judgment was based on the credibility of Justice Chaney. (See Annexure: NNC-94 to NNC-96).
6.23. Justice Chaney refused to take account of the fact that the Pseudo Board did not have the lawful authority of the regulator of the legal profession in WA to unreasonably curb my independent legal practice for no professional misconduct. As a consequence, the reasons provided by Justice Chaney in his First Judgment in VR 107 of 2008 that became the subject of my unsuccessful leave applications to appeal in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of WA in CACV 105 of 2008 and in the High Court in P36 of 2009. Irrespective of whether my appeal have been successful or not, if those live issues of the mala fides of the Pseudo Board was considered by Justice Chaney as the trial judge in the First Judgment, I would be barred from having this matter adjudicated again in the current proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010. If Justice Chaney had been bona-fide in the execution of his duties as a judicial officer to provide me with fair justice, then there is no reason to impeach his credibility. On account of the fact that Justice Chaney lacks credibility in his First Judgment and in his Second Judgment, which is the very ground relied upon by the High Court, then the High Court may have to open itself for a review of its decision or the Supreme Court is enabled to take this task.
Therefore this is no argument that the undecided matters left by Justice Chaney are going to be barred by any defence of res judicata or issue estoppel. (See my Written Outline of Submissions filed in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 25.3.2010 in 22 pages and also see Annexure: NNC-97 to NNC-99).
6.24. I have been communicating with the State Ombudsman and the High Court with regard to the festering of the Pseudo Board in WA justice system which is protecting its cronies who have wronged members of the public with impunity. They have been guilty of plundering and pillaging innocent members of the public and the LPCC is working through the Pseudo Board and is reasonably found not to be performing its statutory duties to impose discipline on erring members of the legal profession. Instead, it is geared to weed out whistle blowers such that the system is going to get worse instead of getting better. Members of Parliament are now campaigning for better governance. My letters responding to the LPCC continuing efforts to re-persecute me for the preposterous proposition of professional misconduct, without an inkling that such persecuting is verging on impossibility to succeed, without the constituent elements of my unfitness to practice being present unless it can be concocted. As such it is a sheer waste of public funds to harness the LPCC by the Pseudo Board for the purpose of pursing its private clandestine interests of protecting its cronies (See Annexure: NNC-100 to NNC-115).
6.25. The Unity Party of WA smells a rat. Its members are of the unanimous decision that the causes of all these bickerings are the result of the pockets of racism that are rearing its ugly heads from time to time and is an enigmatic force that cease to go away although not everyone of us would like to be branded as a racist. I understand that even Chinese people are racists.
6.26. But no one should be a victim of racism and the government has to take care of this. Our former WA Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop is blasting racism and the world should know about it. So Unity Party WA is taking the first step to let the world know such that we might have better governance through our judiciary. Australia is to be applauded for leading the world in having a true democratic government and is criticising the wrong-doings of the ruling Malaysian Government persecution of the leader of its opposition political parties Mr. Anwar Abraham.
6.28. In its over-zealousness to foster democracy in other nations, Australia is forgetting its little problems of racism in its own backyard just as the Malaysian government is using the “backside” of a young man Saiful to claim victory over its opposition icon. (See Annexure: NNC-116 to NNC-119)
SWORN by the Deponent at Perth ]
In the State of Western Australia ]
This 28th day of March, 2010 ]……………………………………………..
Before me:
…………………………………..
Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme
Court for Taking Affidavit
Friday, March 26, 2010
LOOK AT OUR OWN BACKYARD FIRST INSTEAD OF WATCHING THE BACKSIDE OF OTHERS
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Editor - the Australian
Cc: Attorney General - WA ; Ace Qi ; Liu Jianxin ; UNHCR - geneve ; UN Wire ; UN News ; UN - Europe ; UN - Human Rights ; Senator - Joyce ; Senator - fielding ; senator Bob Brown ; Senator-Sherry ; Prime Minister ; Chief Minister - NT ; Chief Minister - Act ; Premier - NSW ; Premier - Qld ; Premier - Vic ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; Editor - The Hindu ; Editor - Apple Daily ; Editor - Chinese Daili la ; Editor - ddhw ; Editor - GMA tv ; Editor - NDTV ; Editor - Qiaobao ; Editor - Sing Tao - uk ; Editor - Singtao ; Editor - SingTao - fr ; Editor - Sun my ; Editor - Taipei Times ; Editor - The Asian Age ; Editor - The Star ; Editor - United D/N Tai ; Editor - Wenxue City ; Editor - Zaobo sg ; Editor- Apple Daily tw ; Editor-Asian Tribune ; Editor-Strait Post sg ; Editor-Yomiuri S. ; Gerakan Part - My ; Dr. Mike Nahan - MP ; MLC - G. Watson ; Paul Llewllyn - MLC ; Manager - TV/2 Perth ; Manager - SBS TV ; Editor-W.N.Wkly -Qld ; Editor - XKB ; Editor - WAFM1049 ; Editor - Qld A.B. Wkly ; Editor - Pacific Times ; Editor - Oriental Post ; Editor - IndoMedia ; Editor - DCH Mel ; Editor - Chinesent ; Editor - C.M.D Mel ; Editor - Aus.Chinese daily ; Editor - ACNW vic ; Editor - ACA ; Editor - A.B.Weekly ; Editor - Perth Express ; Fed Liberal Leader ; Fed Education - Lib ; Foreign Min - Lib ; Petro Georgiou - MP ; President - Press Council ; President - Press Club - india ; President - Press cl uk ; President - Press Cl ug ; SBS - Sydney ; President - Press Cl ta ; President - Press cl sm ; President - Press cl -sg1 ; President - Press cl ma ; President - Press cl in ; President - Press Cl id ; President - Press Cl ch ; President - CJFE ca ; Commission - eu ; President - Press club NZ ; Foreign Minister ; Fed. Minister - IMMI ; Fed. Attorney General ; Fed Treasurer ; Fed Minister- Health ; Fed Minister for Trade ; Fed Minister for Mul ; Fed Minister - Indigenous ; Fed Minister - Finance ; Fed Minister - Communication ; Fed Minister - Climate ; Fed Minister - Arts & heritage ; Fed Deputy Prime Minister ; Fed Defence Minister ; Fed Minister - DAFF ; Director - AMF ; President - CRC ; Wang Huaping ; Perth Alliance Church ; Church D ; Church C ; Church B ; Church A ; Sagaramudra Buddhist Temple ; Editor - 60 Minutes ; CEO - 2 UE Radio ; Editor - 6PR ; Editor - AFR ; Editor - AJA ; Editor - GetUp ; Editor - Heraldsun ; Editor - Jim Marrs ; Editor - News ; Editor - News Digital ; Editor - Sky News ; Editor - Sun Herald ; Editor - TechCrunch ; Editor - the Australian ; Editor - Today Tonight ; Editor - WA News ; Editor - Xenox ; Editor-Advertiser ; Editor-Courier Mail ; Editor-Sunday Times ; Editor-Sydney Morning H ; Editor-West Australian ; Howard Satlier ; Manager - TV/10 Perth ; Manager - TV/9 Perth ; Manager-ABC - TV ; Miranda Devine ; Paul Murray ; Simon - 6PR ; Senator - M. Choi ; Hong Lim MP ; President - Culture Club Kok ; Councillor - Sandra. Liu ; Jack Au - Auburn ; Mayor - Auburn ; Mayor - Marrickville ; Presideent - He Nan Asn ; President - ACMF ; President - CAF ; President - CAU ; President - FCMA ; President - Fujian Asn ; President - He Tong Huey ; President - HKABA ; President - SAWA ; President - WACCC ; President - WHF ; President - Zhejiang ; Editor - Network world ; Editor - 123Jump ; Editor - AHN nz ; Editor - Belgian Today ; Editor - Bloomberg ; Editor - CNN ; Editor - Daily Crus ; Editor - Dim Sum ; Editor - Free Press ca ; Editor - Fundem uk ; Editor - Globe/Mail ; Editor - Guardian ; Editor - Gulf Times ; Editor - Haaretz ; Editor - Het Belang be ; Editor - Independent ; Editor - Irish Times ; Editor - ITV ; Editor - National Post ca ; Editor - New York Times ; Editor - People ; Editor - Pravda ru ; Editor - The Banner ca ; Editor - Toronto Star ; Editor - TV Be ; Editor - TV Ger ; Editor - TV7 fr ; Editor - VOANews ; Editor - Wall St Journal ; Editor - WSJ ; Editor -bpra.bund.de ; Editor -political Comments ; Editor-L'Humanite.fr ; Editor-Toronto Star ; Green Party - NZ ; John Pilger ; Warren Mundine ; Ted. Wilkes ; SBS Radio Perth ; Noel Pearson ; Mick Dodson ; George Newhouse ; Aboriginal Legal Right ; President - High Court ; President - Amnesty Intl ; President - Brussell Tribunel ; President - lpb wa ; President - TI ; picc@picc.wa.gov.au ; lpcc@lpbwa.com
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: China sends a message, and we tremble and obey
Mr. Greg Sheridan,
The Australian,
newsroom@NEWS.com.au
Dear Mr. Sheridan
We refer to your article and readers' comments below for your information.
We praise our Australian government for its very laudable motives in ensuring that the sodomy charges against the leader of the opposition parties Mr. Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia is not just a political ploy of the ruling government to get rid of him by using the backside of his so-called victum Saiful.
We are very jealous of the democratic rights of our citizens in Australia. However, it is a shame that something equally pugnacious is happening to our citizens in this lucky country. Australia cannot boast that it is a true democratic nation when it is guilty of perpetrating injustices infringing on the human rights of its own citizens.
We should examine what is happening in our backyard before we can be proud that we are condemning that the ruling Malaysian and Chinese governments are both using a backside trick to swindle the people of those two respective countries as we have two examples of Chinese-Australians who are being mistreated by our Federal and WA State governments and its statutory authorities in our own backyard. Look at our website: www.unitywa.org and http://twitter.com/unitywa for further information of those two victims: Ms. Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas N Chin. You can also look at the blogspot of Mr. Chin by typing "nicholasnchin" in Google for full details.
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 26-Mar--2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
China sends a message, and we tremble and obey
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor -The Australian 25/3/2010
STERN Hu's confession in a Chinese court to allegations of bribery has exactly the same moral and forensic credibility as the confessions captured journalists make in Taliban custody.
The confession itself tells you absolutely nothing about Hu's conduct. If I had been in a Chinese jail for nine months and had the prospect of earlier release with a confession or later release without one, I'd confess to anything. It's probably as near to a plea bargain as you'll get in the Chinese system.
Labor MP Michael Danby, chairman of the parliament's foreign affairs subcommittee, says: "I have no faith in the Chinese legal system and believe the confession was probably extracted from him [Hu] with the promise of an early release."
An obsession with confessions has a long history in modern China. This emerges more from communist than Chinese culture.
Indeed, those two-bob sages of Chinese culture (who abound in Australia, especially in the less academic arts of the Australian National University), who analyse every move of the Beijing government in the light of millennia of Chinese history, ignore the deliberate and sustained efforts of the Chinese Communist Party to rupture the link between the Chinese people and their traditional culture. This went as far as simplifying the characters used in Chinese language to cut the people off from the classics of their literature.
But in modern Chinese communist culture, confessions have long had a big part.
The classic work on Chinese prisons was by a French Chinese, Jean Pasqualini. His Prisoner of Mao details an astonishingly gruesome experience that included, among other things, 15 months of interrogation leading to a 700-page confession.
China's gulags produced somewhat fewer literary classics than the comparable Soviet gulag, in part because fewer Chinese were released and fewer had any meaningful access to the West or opportunity to publish their experiences.
China has changed since Pasqualini's experiences of 35 years ago. But it hasn't changed altogether. The hardest heads in the Australian system understand what the Hu business is all about. Beijing has sent a message to Australia: tremble and obey.
The Hu case changes the context for all Australians doing business with China, whether commercial or political. Former treasurer Peter Costello captured this most clearly when he remarked soon after Hu's initial detention last June: "Since Stern Hu is now in detention, someone else will have to lead Rio's negotiations with the Chinese steel mills. My guess is they will not push the negotiations as strenuously as Hu." The manner of iron-ore price negotiations is changing substantially, but Costello's broad point is certainly correct.
Evidence that the Chinese intimidation has worked is sadly mounting up. As this newspaper revealed last Saturday, the government made a secret commitment to the Chinese that neither Kevin Rudd nor Julia Gillard would see the Dalai Lama on his visit to Australia last December. This was a change in policy, as Rudd had seen the Dalai Lama in opposition and said he would be happy to see him in government.
Similarly, I have learned that the government has pretty much decided that no Australian minister will visit Taiwan during the Rudd government's the first term. This is a big change of policy and a big act of appeasement of Beijing.
Australia follows a one-China policy that recognises a notional Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. At the same time, Australia opposes any threat or use of force by Beijing to change Taiwan's status, which is de facto independent.
Consistent with the one-China policy, Australia has for many years sent ministers to Taiwan to support Australian trade. In truth these visits also recognise the political achievements of Taiwan.
Taiwan represents every single political value Australia admires: democracy, a free press, a pluralist society, respect for human rights, equal rights for women and a productive and economically successful society that provides for the wellbeing of its own people.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says the Rudd government has not made a formal undertaking to Beijing that no minister will visit Taiwan during the first term of the Rudd government. But no Rudd minister has visited Taiwan so far and the spokesperson confirms that there is no plan for a visit.
This will be the first time at least since the Hawke government that a whole parliamentary cycle has gone by without such a visit. If the opposition were not such a complete political and moral vacuum on these issues you might have expected it to have had something to say. It is a signal act of cowardice and appeasement on Australia's part. For a long time we sent a minister to Taiwan every year, but Alexander Downer was weaker on China issues than John Howard and the practice slipped a bit, but certainly we never went a whole term under Howard without a ministerial visit. This is just another way in which China policy is worse, more cowardly and less effective today than it should be.
The world has watched the Hu case. And one lesson is that if you rely on the moral courage of the Australian government or opposition, you are relying on nothing at all.
Could it be that the Vietnamese government, which is preventing two Jetstar executives from leaving Vietnam, drew lessons from the Hu matter ?
Rio Tinto has produced a wonderfully convenient investigation that clears the company of all wrongdoing but leaves Hu's guilt or innocence as a matter on which it cannot pronounce.
Of course it is remotely possible that Hu, like millions of others in China, paid or received a bribe, although there is no reason to think so. But Beijing's decision to prosecute him, and the ostentatiously contemptuous manner in which it has dealt with the Australian government, was taken to intimidate Australia. In this, Beijing seems to have succeeded.
Readers' comment:
jhtan of Singapore Posted at 2:54 PM Today
Bribery exists everywhere, even in your own country. Why is it that in this case you pronounced that it did not and couldn't have happened? Confessions of crimes also happen on a daily basis in your country. The confessed felon did it for a variety of reasons including hoping for a lighter sentence(and rightly so). Do you have any evidence to suggest that in this case the confession was coerced? You cited historical evidence. Well, if you judge a case based on alleged historical propensities, there wouldn't be many free people walking in the streets of Australia.
blindsider Posted at 7:15 AM Today
I am not defending that actions of the Chinese legal system, however is there not a parallel also to the expeiences one of Hicks and Habib at the hands of our ally. Sadly, Mr Hu has become a victim of the morals we prescribe and 'defend'. So what is wrong with the Chinese replicating our actions? - If it is wrong for them, it is also wrong for us, or are we hypocrites?
Angry of Mayfair Posted at 8:15 AM Today
I guess, by your reasoning, any confession from anyone who'd been locked up in fetters at Gitmo could also be instantly dismissed as gained by coercion. And we tremble and grovel to America, too. Check your double standards, Mr Sheridan.
Bulldust of Perth Posted at 11:05 AM Today
Two simple questions... 1) Why would Stern Hu be accepting bribes? 2) Where is the money? I have seen neither of these questions addressed by the media or anyone else for that matter.
TBear of Sydney Posted at 11:20 AM Today
And Mr Sheridan just imperiously dismissses the possibility that Mr Hu did in fact receive corrupt payments. Did he? I don't know. But he has
apparently admitted as much and if the same conduct were committed in Australia, he would be looking at a fair stretch in prison.
Dave of Brisbane Posted at 12:13 PM Today
Why is that Australian nationals who commit crimes overseas are always presumed innocent by most Australian journalists. Why is that they expect the Australian government to come to the rescue of people who flout the laws of other countries. Why is it that Australians in general think the Australian government (a minnow on the world stage) has the clout to pressure foreign governments. And why is it so fashionable to constantly criticize China when that country is largely responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in Australia. It's time you got a grip on reality Greg.
Ahmad again of NSW Posted at 1:06 PM Today
China is not only feared by Australia but every other nation on the planet . Why is that like so surprising when they have all aspects of strenght of a super power , But lets not forget one thing , China only claim the land it has historical and racial rights on . It has not invaded as yet and deployed permenant military basis all over the world like the USA . Question is why ? Maybe they actually dont have the passion to war for money and emperialistic objectives !! I thnk we owe respect and good relations with China as its in our best interest and I agree 100% with Mr Rudd polocies regarding our current relations . Thank you
Knee Jerk of Sydney Posted at 1:19 PM Today
Do people really think that the Chinese are incapable of making moral or ethical decisions? If anything, they are probably more moral in their own way which is not always the same as the West. We are so intimitely engaged in trade that any serious conflict can hurt business for both sides. Their justice system is no better or worse than ours.
GWhore Posted at 1:44 PM Today
Why don't you provide some evidence before pointing fingers? Or is it that everything that comes out of China is presumed false until proven true?
CP of Melbourne Posted at 2:39 PM Today
There probably is some truth in Mr Hu's confession. It seems that paying and accepting bribes and industrial espionage are just a normal part of doing business in China. But, let's face it, we are never ever going to "stand up" to China. Who are you kidding. The Chinese economy is the reason we dodged the bullet that was the worst of the GFC. THe Chinese economy is the reason why our economy is now doing so well and our super funds have regained much of the value lost 18 months ago. And how much American debt do they own? Frankly, the Chinese could pretty much do anything they liked right now and the best we would do is shake our limp and ineffectual fingers at them. We know it and they know it
Eyes Only Posted at 3:17 PM Today
Gre, I'm going to ask you the same question Joe O'Brien on the ABC News Breakfast asks Liberal politicians: What would you do differently? If it's welcome the Dalai Llama, visit Taiwan and criticise China, well now, your Golden Boy The Man of Steel didn't do that when in power either, eh?
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
From: Unity Party WA
To: Editor - the Australian
Cc: Attorney General - WA ; Ace Qi ; Liu Jianxin ; UNHCR - geneve ; UN Wire ; UN News ; UN - Europe ; UN - Human Rights ; Senator - Joyce ; Senator - fielding ; senator Bob Brown ; Senator-Sherry ; Prime Minister ; Chief Minister - NT ; Chief Minister - Act ; Premier - NSW ; Premier - Qld ; Premier - Vic ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; Editor - The Hindu ; Editor - Apple Daily ; Editor - Chinese Daili la ; Editor - ddhw ; Editor - GMA tv ; Editor - NDTV ; Editor - Qiaobao ; Editor - Sing Tao - uk ; Editor - Singtao ; Editor - SingTao - fr ; Editor - Sun my ; Editor - Taipei Times ; Editor - The Asian Age ; Editor - The Star ; Editor - United D/N Tai ; Editor - Wenxue City ; Editor - Zaobo sg ; Editor- Apple Daily tw ; Editor-Asian Tribune ; Editor-Strait Post sg ; Editor-Yomiuri S. ; Gerakan Part - My ; Dr. Mike Nahan - MP ; MLC - G. Watson ; Paul Llewllyn - MLC ; Manager - TV/2 Perth ; Manager - SBS TV ; Editor-W.N.Wkly -Qld ; Editor - XKB ; Editor - WAFM1049 ; Editor - Qld A.B. Wkly ; Editor - Pacific Times ; Editor - Oriental Post ; Editor - IndoMedia ; Editor - DCH Mel ; Editor - Chinesent ; Editor - C.M.D Mel ; Editor - Aus.Chinese daily ; Editor - ACNW vic ; Editor - ACA ; Editor - A.B.Weekly ; Editor - Perth Express ; Fed Liberal Leader ; Fed Education - Lib ; Foreign Min - Lib ; Petro Georgiou - MP ; President - Press Council ; President - Press Club - india ; President - Press cl uk ; President - Press Cl ug ; SBS - Sydney ; President - Press Cl ta ; President - Press cl sm ; President - Press cl -sg1 ; President - Press cl ma ; President - Press cl in ; President - Press Cl id ; President - Press Cl ch ; President - CJFE ca ; Commission - eu ; President - Press club NZ ; Foreign Minister ; Fed. Minister - IMMI ; Fed. Attorney General ; Fed Treasurer ; Fed Minister- Health ; Fed Minister for Trade ; Fed Minister for Mul ; Fed Minister - Indigenous ; Fed Minister - Finance ; Fed Minister - Communication ; Fed Minister - Climate ; Fed Minister - Arts & heritage ; Fed Deputy Prime Minister ; Fed Defence Minister ; Fed Minister - DAFF ; Director - AMF ; President - CRC ; Wang Huaping ; Perth Alliance Church ; Church D ; Church C ; Church B ; Church A ; Sagaramudra Buddhist Temple ; Editor - 60 Minutes ; CEO - 2 UE Radio ; Editor - 6PR ; Editor - AFR ; Editor - AJA ; Editor - GetUp ; Editor - Heraldsun ; Editor - Jim Marrs ; Editor - News ; Editor - News Digital ; Editor - Sky News ; Editor - Sun Herald ; Editor - TechCrunch ; Editor - the Australian ; Editor - Today Tonight ; Editor - WA News ; Editor - Xenox ; Editor-Advertiser ; Editor-Courier Mail ; Editor-Sunday Times ; Editor-Sydney Morning H ; Editor-West Australian ; Howard Satlier ; Manager - TV/10 Perth ; Manager - TV/9 Perth ; Manager-ABC - TV ; Miranda Devine ; Paul Murray ; Simon - 6PR ; Senator - M. Choi ; Hong Lim MP ; President - Culture Club Kok ; Councillor - Sandra. Liu ; Jack Au - Auburn ; Mayor - Auburn ; Mayor - Marrickville ; Presideent - He Nan Asn ; President - ACMF ; President - CAF ; President - CAU ; President - FCMA ; President - Fujian Asn ; President - He Tong Huey ; President - HKABA ; President - SAWA ; President - WACCC ; President - WHF ; President - Zhejiang ; Editor - Network world ; Editor - 123Jump ; Editor - AHN nz ; Editor - Belgian Today ; Editor - Bloomberg ; Editor - CNN ; Editor - Daily Crus ; Editor - Dim Sum ; Editor - Free Press ca ; Editor - Fundem uk ; Editor - Globe/Mail ; Editor - Guardian ; Editor - Gulf Times ; Editor - Haaretz ; Editor - Het Belang be ; Editor - Independent ; Editor - Irish Times ; Editor - ITV ; Editor - National Post ca ; Editor - New York Times ; Editor - People ; Editor - Pravda ru ; Editor - The Banner ca ; Editor - Toronto Star ; Editor - TV Be ; Editor - TV Ger ; Editor - TV7 fr ; Editor - VOANews ; Editor - Wall St Journal ; Editor - WSJ ; Editor -bpra.bund.de ; Editor -political Comments ; Editor-L'Humanite.fr ; Editor-Toronto Star ; Green Party - NZ ; John Pilger ; Warren Mundine ; Ted. Wilkes ; SBS Radio Perth ; Noel Pearson ; Mick Dodson ; George Newhouse ; Aboriginal Legal Right ; President - High Court ; President - Amnesty Intl ; President - Brussell Tribunel ; President - lpb wa ; President - TI ; picc@picc.wa.gov.au ; lpcc@lpbwa.com
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: China sends a message, and we tremble and obey
Mr. Greg Sheridan,
The Australian,
newsroom@NEWS.com.au
Dear Mr. Sheridan
We refer to your article and readers' comments below for your information.
We praise our Australian government for its very laudable motives in ensuring that the sodomy charges against the leader of the opposition parties Mr. Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia is not just a political ploy of the ruling government to get rid of him by using the backside of his so-called victum Saiful.
We are very jealous of the democratic rights of our citizens in Australia. However, it is a shame that something equally pugnacious is happening to our citizens in this lucky country. Australia cannot boast that it is a true democratic nation when it is guilty of perpetrating injustices infringing on the human rights of its own citizens.
We should examine what is happening in our backyard before we can be proud that we are condemning that the ruling Malaysian and Chinese governments are both using a backside trick to swindle the people of those two respective countries as we have two examples of Chinese-Australians who are being mistreated by our Federal and WA State governments and its statutory authorities in our own backyard. Look at our website: www.unitywa.org and http://twitter.com/unitywa for further information of those two victims: Ms. Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas N Chin. You can also look at the blogspot of Mr. Chin by typing "nicholasnchin" in Google for full details.
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 26-Mar--2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
China sends a message, and we tremble and obey
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor -The Australian 25/3/2010
STERN Hu's confession in a Chinese court to allegations of bribery has exactly the same moral and forensic credibility as the confessions captured journalists make in Taliban custody.
The confession itself tells you absolutely nothing about Hu's conduct. If I had been in a Chinese jail for nine months and had the prospect of earlier release with a confession or later release without one, I'd confess to anything. It's probably as near to a plea bargain as you'll get in the Chinese system.
Labor MP Michael Danby, chairman of the parliament's foreign affairs subcommittee, says: "I have no faith in the Chinese legal system and believe the confession was probably extracted from him [Hu] with the promise of an early release."
An obsession with confessions has a long history in modern China. This emerges more from communist than Chinese culture.
Indeed, those two-bob sages of Chinese culture (who abound in Australia, especially in the less academic arts of the Australian National University), who analyse every move of the Beijing government in the light of millennia of Chinese history, ignore the deliberate and sustained efforts of the Chinese Communist Party to rupture the link between the Chinese people and their traditional culture. This went as far as simplifying the characters used in Chinese language to cut the people off from the classics of their literature.
But in modern Chinese communist culture, confessions have long had a big part.
The classic work on Chinese prisons was by a French Chinese, Jean Pasqualini. His Prisoner of Mao details an astonishingly gruesome experience that included, among other things, 15 months of interrogation leading to a 700-page confession.
China's gulags produced somewhat fewer literary classics than the comparable Soviet gulag, in part because fewer Chinese were released and fewer had any meaningful access to the West or opportunity to publish their experiences.
China has changed since Pasqualini's experiences of 35 years ago. But it hasn't changed altogether. The hardest heads in the Australian system understand what the Hu business is all about. Beijing has sent a message to Australia: tremble and obey.
The Hu case changes the context for all Australians doing business with China, whether commercial or political. Former treasurer Peter Costello captured this most clearly when he remarked soon after Hu's initial detention last June: "Since Stern Hu is now in detention, someone else will have to lead Rio's negotiations with the Chinese steel mills. My guess is they will not push the negotiations as strenuously as Hu." The manner of iron-ore price negotiations is changing substantially, but Costello's broad point is certainly correct.
Evidence that the Chinese intimidation has worked is sadly mounting up. As this newspaper revealed last Saturday, the government made a secret commitment to the Chinese that neither Kevin Rudd nor Julia Gillard would see the Dalai Lama on his visit to Australia last December. This was a change in policy, as Rudd had seen the Dalai Lama in opposition and said he would be happy to see him in government.
Similarly, I have learned that the government has pretty much decided that no Australian minister will visit Taiwan during the Rudd government's the first term. This is a big change of policy and a big act of appeasement of Beijing.
Australia follows a one-China policy that recognises a notional Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. At the same time, Australia opposes any threat or use of force by Beijing to change Taiwan's status, which is de facto independent.
Consistent with the one-China policy, Australia has for many years sent ministers to Taiwan to support Australian trade. In truth these visits also recognise the political achievements of Taiwan.
Taiwan represents every single political value Australia admires: democracy, a free press, a pluralist society, respect for human rights, equal rights for women and a productive and economically successful society that provides for the wellbeing of its own people.
A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says the Rudd government has not made a formal undertaking to Beijing that no minister will visit Taiwan during the first term of the Rudd government. But no Rudd minister has visited Taiwan so far and the spokesperson confirms that there is no plan for a visit.
This will be the first time at least since the Hawke government that a whole parliamentary cycle has gone by without such a visit. If the opposition were not such a complete political and moral vacuum on these issues you might have expected it to have had something to say. It is a signal act of cowardice and appeasement on Australia's part. For a long time we sent a minister to Taiwan every year, but Alexander Downer was weaker on China issues than John Howard and the practice slipped a bit, but certainly we never went a whole term under Howard without a ministerial visit. This is just another way in which China policy is worse, more cowardly and less effective today than it should be.
The world has watched the Hu case. And one lesson is that if you rely on the moral courage of the Australian government or opposition, you are relying on nothing at all.
Could it be that the Vietnamese government, which is preventing two Jetstar executives from leaving Vietnam, drew lessons from the Hu matter ?
Rio Tinto has produced a wonderfully convenient investigation that clears the company of all wrongdoing but leaves Hu's guilt or innocence as a matter on which it cannot pronounce.
Of course it is remotely possible that Hu, like millions of others in China, paid or received a bribe, although there is no reason to think so. But Beijing's decision to prosecute him, and the ostentatiously contemptuous manner in which it has dealt with the Australian government, was taken to intimidate Australia. In this, Beijing seems to have succeeded.
Readers' comment:
jhtan of Singapore Posted at 2:54 PM Today
Bribery exists everywhere, even in your own country. Why is it that in this case you pronounced that it did not and couldn't have happened? Confessions of crimes also happen on a daily basis in your country. The confessed felon did it for a variety of reasons including hoping for a lighter sentence(and rightly so). Do you have any evidence to suggest that in this case the confession was coerced? You cited historical evidence. Well, if you judge a case based on alleged historical propensities, there wouldn't be many free people walking in the streets of Australia.
blindsider Posted at 7:15 AM Today
I am not defending that actions of the Chinese legal system, however is there not a parallel also to the expeiences one of Hicks and Habib at the hands of our ally. Sadly, Mr Hu has become a victim of the morals we prescribe and 'defend'. So what is wrong with the Chinese replicating our actions? - If it is wrong for them, it is also wrong for us, or are we hypocrites?
Angry of Mayfair Posted at 8:15 AM Today
I guess, by your reasoning, any confession from anyone who'd been locked up in fetters at Gitmo could also be instantly dismissed as gained by coercion. And we tremble and grovel to America, too. Check your double standards, Mr Sheridan.
Bulldust of Perth Posted at 11:05 AM Today
Two simple questions... 1) Why would Stern Hu be accepting bribes? 2) Where is the money? I have seen neither of these questions addressed by the media or anyone else for that matter.
TBear of Sydney Posted at 11:20 AM Today
And Mr Sheridan just imperiously dismissses the possibility that Mr Hu did in fact receive corrupt payments. Did he? I don't know. But he has
apparently admitted as much and if the same conduct were committed in Australia, he would be looking at a fair stretch in prison.
Dave of Brisbane Posted at 12:13 PM Today
Why is that Australian nationals who commit crimes overseas are always presumed innocent by most Australian journalists. Why is that they expect the Australian government to come to the rescue of people who flout the laws of other countries. Why is it that Australians in general think the Australian government (a minnow on the world stage) has the clout to pressure foreign governments. And why is it so fashionable to constantly criticize China when that country is largely responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy in Australia. It's time you got a grip on reality Greg.
Ahmad again of NSW Posted at 1:06 PM Today
China is not only feared by Australia but every other nation on the planet . Why is that like so surprising when they have all aspects of strenght of a super power , But lets not forget one thing , China only claim the land it has historical and racial rights on . It has not invaded as yet and deployed permenant military basis all over the world like the USA . Question is why ? Maybe they actually dont have the passion to war for money and emperialistic objectives !! I thnk we owe respect and good relations with China as its in our best interest and I agree 100% with Mr Rudd polocies regarding our current relations . Thank you
Knee Jerk of Sydney Posted at 1:19 PM Today
Do people really think that the Chinese are incapable of making moral or ethical decisions? If anything, they are probably more moral in their own way which is not always the same as the West. We are so intimitely engaged in trade that any serious conflict can hurt business for both sides. Their justice system is no better or worse than ours.
GWhore Posted at 1:44 PM Today
Why don't you provide some evidence before pointing fingers? Or is it that everything that comes out of China is presumed false until proven true?
CP of Melbourne Posted at 2:39 PM Today
There probably is some truth in Mr Hu's confession. It seems that paying and accepting bribes and industrial espionage are just a normal part of doing business in China. But, let's face it, we are never ever going to "stand up" to China. Who are you kidding. The Chinese economy is the reason we dodged the bullet that was the worst of the GFC. THe Chinese economy is the reason why our economy is now doing so well and our super funds have regained much of the value lost 18 months ago. And how much American debt do they own? Frankly, the Chinese could pretty much do anything they liked right now and the best we would do is shake our limp and ineffectual fingers at them. We know it and they know it
Eyes Only Posted at 3:17 PM Today
Gre, I'm going to ask you the same question Joe O'Brien on the ABC News Breakfast asks Liberal politicians: What would you do differently? If it's welcome the Dalai Llama, visit Taiwan and criticise China, well now, your Golden Boy The Man of Steel didn't do that when in power either, eh?
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
Thursday, March 25, 2010
WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND LIST OF AUTHORITIES IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:1019of 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Certiorari Orders Nisi to review and quash the decision of the learned President Justice Chaney of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), in both his judgments in VR107 of 2008 and VR87 of 2009; the insufficiency of the reasons for judgment impinging on the President’s credibility and his lack of independence as a judge warrants a review of the former decision and a striking off of the latter action as an abuse of the process of court.
And
In the matter of an Application Under Order 67 r.5 of the RSC, 1971 (WA) for Leave to re-file the Amended Papers of the Original Application that were originally rightly considered and rightly refused by the learned Martin CJ on 14.12.2009 in CIV 3068 of 2009 on grounds that the Notice of Originating Motion were then found to be “incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the Affidavit” but it is now no longer deemed to be so.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 25th March, 2010.
Date of filing: 25th March, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
nnchin09@tpg.com.au
I N D E X
APPLICATION NO LONGER AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: 2
JUSTICE CHANEY AVOIDED GIVING REASONS FOR THE FACTUAL CONFLICTS ISSUES: 5
JUSTICE CHANEY IS NOT INDEPENDENT 6
CREDIBILITY OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO BE IMPEACHED 7
DUTIES OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO DO FAIR JUSTICE 8
THE INEVITABLE OBVIOUS DECISION OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT: 9
THE DEFICIENT FIRST AND SECOND JUDGMENTS 9
WHAT DEFICIENCY OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE? 10
REVIEW OF THE SECOND JUDGMENT: 10
LPCC IS GUILTY OF ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT 11
INTENTIONAL TORT OF ABUSING THE COURT PROCESS: 11
APPLICATION NEITHER FRIVOLOUS NOR VEXATIOUS: 12
THE LAW PROSCRIBES FURTHER REMEDY IN RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS: 12
WHY NO FURTHER REMEDY IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT: 15
IS JUSTICE CHANEY BIASED? 16
PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY LPCC IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: 16
COURT TO STRIKE OUT RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS AS A DUTY AND NOT AS A DISCRETION 20
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 20
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS: 20
PERTINENT CASES: 21
ARTICLES: 21
CASE LAW: 22
OUTLINE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN AT 10.20 AM ON 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010 AT 10.20 AM AND LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Your Honour:
1. I humbly pray for your leave to file my Application for prerogative writs of certiorari orders, under O.67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) (the RSC).
APPLICATION NO LONGER AN ABUSE OF PROCESS:
2. I humbly submit that this Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 is now no longer an abuse of process as formerly found by the learned Chief Justice in CIV3068 of 2009 as its Original Notice of Originating Motion has now been amended to suit the two-pronged objectives of seeking Certiorari Orders for the Reviews of the First Judgement of Justice Chaney delivered on 17.10.2008 in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and his Second Judgment in VR87 of 2009 delivered after an “ambushed” trial on 4.11.2009 (the Second Judgment).
3. I am entitled in law to a Review of the First Judgment on the ground that the reason for the Judgment Orders is insufficient as it does not take into account the most salient point of my case affecting the mala-fides of the Pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board (the Pseudo Board).
4. Justice Chaney did not take into account the fact that the Pseudo Board did usurp the lawful authority of that regulator of the legal profession in WA to unreasonably curb my independent legal practice for the unlawful and secret purpose of protecting the cronies of the Pseudo Full Board (the deficient judgment).
5. The deficient judgment had caused me to make unsuccessful Applications for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeal and for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court .
6. The deficient judgment therefore do not contain those issues of facts and law pertaining to the hitherto live issues of the Pseudo Board (the live issues) that would normally bar this Application for Review in Certiorari Orders on the grounds of res judicata or issues estoppel.
JUSTICE CHANEY AVOIDED GIVING REASONS FOR THE FACTUAL CONFLICTS ISSUES:
7. The factual conflicts vis-Ã -vis the live issues was avoided by Justice Chaney in order to deny me fair justice which he ought to have provided me (as his judicial duty) as a party to the dispute. As a consequence, he was unable to justify the resolution of those factual conflicts in his reasons for his decision . He therefore sought to give me extraneous and irrelevant reasons instead that are not in accord with the dictates of the law; this did not facilitate my subsequent appeals as already explained.
8. For any order decision or ruling of substance that he had issued affecting the rights of the parties to the dispute, the learned Justice Chaney is ordinarily expected to give meaningful reasons especially with regard to the machinations of the Pseudo Board explaining why it had unlawfully and unreasonably curbed my independent law practice. I am disappointed at the unfair justice meted out to me.
9. Had the learned Justice Chaney provided proper reasons for his First Judgment, it would have been more likely than not that his decision would have promoted transparency in the legal process and the proper exercise of his judicial power. Sad to say, he had missed this honourable task by his omitting to do so by design. The law obliges the learned Justice Chaney to write his reasons for his decision in such a way that they do facilitate appellate reviews and reconsiderations; they are well-established.
JUSTICE CHANEY IS NOT INDEPENDENT
10. It is a requirement of the common law that Justice Chaney when dispensing his judicial duties ought to be seen to be INDEPENDENT; the evidence before this Court shows that he has not been so . These requirements do have a constitutional foundation as is suggested in the case law (the judicial independence).
11. The judicial independence includes independence not only from extraneous pressures and influences but also independence from the judge's judicial colleagues where that is necessary to the proper discharge of his judicial functions . His credibility was relied upon by the appellate courts referred to earlier in the reasons for their decisions but in reality his First and Second Judgments do lack credence as the factual conflicts affecting the live issues have been avoided by him altogether. He had therefore misled those appellate courts and as a result fair justice was denied to me.
12. I as a party to this litigation had lost my fundamental human rights to Justice Chaney; the opposing party to this litigation should have been the real Full Board or the legitimate regulator but it was the Pseudo Board which was making its presence felt at all material times. I as a legitimate licensee found myself to be dealing with an imposter and not with the real licensor of my independent legal practice licence.
13. The First and Second Judgments are not effective explanations of how the learned Justice Chaney had arrived at his conclusions because they are based on issues of facts that have been proven to be wrong or falsified . This “expose” is just a tip of the ice-berg of the sad state of affairs prevailing in the legal system of Western Australia.
14. During the trial of the First Judgment case and the preliminary directions hearing of the case of Second Judgment in VR87 of 2009, I had always been constantly urging for the detachment of Justice Chaney so that he would decide my case without passion and always "as though it weren't your fight" yet he did ascend into the arena of conflict and was blinded by the dust of conflict. With all due respect to the learned Justice Chaney, he not only did not exercise detachment and self-restraint but he is also not sceptical about his judicial power.
CREDIBILITY OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO BE IMPEACHED
15. My unsuccessful appeals in the appellate courts arising from the deficient judgment open up an avenue for a review through the prerogative writs of certiorari in this Application in CIV 1019 of 2010. In this context, I quote the learned Justice Brennan who was convinced that the High Court is not bound by its own decision as it could re-express the common law under certain circumstances .
16. Further, this Court like the High Court may change the rule of law that is standing in its way to provide fair justice to me.
DUTIES OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO DO FAIR JUSTICE
17. We now would like to investigate as to why Justice Chaney made those First and Second Judgments in the way he did. The discourse says that a judge “occupy one of the more stressful jobs in contemporary society". This is because he is faced with the task to make a decision which cannot be delegated, he must do so in public and often in dramatic circumstances and is subject to appellate review and criticism and he is obliged to discharge his functions with "impeccable honesty, resolute even-handedness, conspicuous humanity and a high degree of judicial wisdom”; yet he has to succumb and did succumb to his inner wish that he does not stir up the hornet’s nest of the Pseudo Board.
18. It is logical therefore to deduce from the circumstances that the learned Justice Chaney had chosen to ignore the live issues in his First and Second Judgments. Mr. Pino Monaco was the former President of the Law Society of Western Australia just as Justice Chaney was. By the very nature of the circumstances shaping him in our legal society in Western Australia I am being denied fair justice which Justice Chaney has an obligation to provide me and he did not.
19. Justice Chaney came into the position to make that First Judgment as the Deputy President of SAT to relieve the former President Justice Barker who has been promoted to the High Court. There is a sudden change of stance which I felt as the winds of change were blowing against my first case in the First Judgment at its initial stage. The calming effect of the former President was no longer there. The grapevine has it that mine is a case fighting against the Pseudo Board and this will have ramifications upon those who had been actively involved in the protection of their friends after I have caused a stir concerning the pillaging and plundering of Dr. Kheng Su Chan by Mr. Pino Monaco.
20. Therefore the peer pressures are there for Justice Chaney to contend with. He is thus exposed to stress which is a physiological phenomenon. It is a fact of life. The existence of all animals is characterised by the constant presence of stress. No species is more prone to this than human beings . According to experts on the subject, it is a fundamental biological law that animal organisms submitted to stress will respond with a reaction of either fight or flight . Many judges of the past responded to stress by denial - which is a kind of flight. The physiological forces continued to affect their bodies and thinking processes for despite their offices, they could not escape the physiological forces which stress releases.
THE INEVITABLE OBVIOUS DECISION OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT:
21. Enough time has now elapsed since the 19th day of July, 2006 for truth and justice to emanate from the malicious persecution of myself by the Pseudo Board (working through its PAC and the LPCC at the behest of Mr. Pino Monaco who is a former President of the Law Society of WA through Ms. F.H.Walter who had acted both as prosecutor and decision maker to achieve the decision to curb my independent legal practice that is tainted with gross bias), for the obvious decision to be made by this Honourable Court.
22. It arises from the conflicting facts, from which the truth must emerge that I should be exonerated from all the false accusations and that I be free as an independent barrister & solicitor once again. In this context, I quote Lord Justice Ormrod of the English Court of Appeal observed in R Ormrod.
THE DEFICIENT FIRST AND SECOND JUDGMENTS
23. The three rationales for the trial judge Justice Chaney to give reasons are:
(1) to explain why he had ignored the persecuting malice of the Pseudo Board as a fact despite the over-whelming evidence and the admissive conduct of the Board.
(2) to provide public accountability as to why the Pseudo Board is usurping the statutory function of the regulator of the legal profession in WA.
(3) to write his judgment reasons in such a manner so as to facilitate appellate reviews of his First and Second Judgments.
24. It is an undoubted fact that the First and Second Judgments are not sufficient in their entirety and in the context of available evidence made before him, that he had failed to perform faithfully these three functions.
25. If we were to investigate the role of Justice Chaney as the trial judge in terms of the sufficiency of his reasons, we must look at the trial records, the live issues, and the submissions of counsel. The learned Justice is not required to provide detailed explanations of every single finding or descriptions of all evidence which are well settled and uncontroversial. The details of his reasons will depend circumstantially on whether the basis of his decision is clear from the record. It is reasonably obvious that it is not.
26. Justice Chaney failed to explain that he “has seized the substance of the live issues before him” i.e. the issues of whether I was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Board. If he did, he would have concluded that the LPCC through the Pseudo Board had committed the intentional tort against me by abusing the process of the courts and the tribunals and had misused all the resources it had before it.
27. The elements of the abuse of process are that I have been maligned and prevented from practicing my profession for no probable cause. The Pseudo Board has violated a sacred public trust which bestows power upon it to file and prosecute legal actions and it is guilty of an intentional tort. As such the Pseudo Board is a threat to the legal system in Western Australia and it deserves the indignation and contempt of a decent society in Western Australia through the agency of this Court.
WHAT DEFICIENCY OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE?
28. I had been properly engaged in the highest calling of my profession to represent my clients zealously and that I had at all times acted reasonably under the circumstances. The Pseudo Board misused the public right of access to the courts. The elements for this intentional tort are:
28.1 It is the malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process through the statutory powers of the LPCC to impose conditions on my practice certificate for no wrongs under s.40 of the former LP Act; that is not justified by the circumstances.
28.2 The abuse of process is through the PAC to influence the LPCC by the Pseudo Board for an oblique purpose of protecting its cronies who have done wrongs to members of the public but they did not receive the censure of the regulator of the legal profession because its function had been usurped.
28.3 The person who abuses the process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose of imposing a restraint on my independent legal practice that is collateral to the proper object of the process which is to sift out incompetent and unfit legal practitioners; that offends justice: such as an unjustified or unfounded persecution of a Pseudo Board without lawful authority to curb my independent legal practice.
REVIEW OF THE SECOND JUDGMENT:
29. I am entitled to my defence of Res Judicata and Issues Estoppel in the case of the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney on the ground that I cannot be prosecuted for a FURTHER REMEDY of Professional Misconduct in VR 87 of 2009 once I have already been prosecuted for the mischievous and frivolous allegations of the nebulous “deficiency of my professional knowledge syndrome” in inter alia the VR 137 of 2006 and the VR107 of 2008.
LPCC IS GUILTY OF ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT:
30. This court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent its procedures being abused. This Application no longer falls into those categories of abuse of procedures; although the categories remain open, but they usually fall into one of the three categories:
30.1. I have not invoked the court's procedures for the prerogative writ orders of certiorari for an illegitimate purpose whereas the LPCC is doing so through an obvious conspiratorial link with the judge of the tribunal; this is without a doubt :
30.2. I am not using the court's procedures in an unjustifiably oppressive manner to the LPCC and to the Pseudo Board; it is undoubted that they have done this to me.
30.3. I am not using the court's procedures for the purpose of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; it is undoubted the pseudo Board through the LPCC is doing this very thing which I am not doing to them.
INTENTIONAL TORT OF ABUSING THE COURT PROCESS:
31. The malicious persecution of me by the Pseudo Board for the protection of its cronies arises from the institution of its intention to unreasonably curb my independent law practice so that innocent members of the public inter alia my son Paul Chin, Dr. Kheng Su Chan and Mr. Alessandro Bertini could be pillaged and plundered by erring members of the legal profession with impunity. It is climaxing with the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 whilst my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 was in progress (the current injustice). This has now been dismissed by the High Court of Australia on 10.3.2010. This dismissal relied upon the credibility of the trial judge Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008; this current injustice has not been dealt with by the High Court yet as they are separate issues from that Application for Special Leave to Appeal. Therefore, I should be able to go back to the High Court to address the live issues once again as they are not considered in the First Judgment.
32. This Court should beware that any procedural step taken by the LPCC in the course of these proceedings have apparently been properly instituted by the Pseudo Board, yet they are still capable of being an abuse of the court's process .
APPLICATION NEITHER FRIVOLOUS NOR VEXATIOUS:
33. My Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 is neither frivolous nor vexatious as the evidence before this Honourable Court will show; because it has a reasonable chance of succeeding, and it would not bring hardship on the opposite party to defend my claim that the Pseudo Board is unreasonably curbing my independent legal practice for the purpose of protecting its cronies .
34. My claim is not frivolous as it has legal merit and is not manifestly insufficient or futile. It is not based on absurd legal theories, does not involve superabundance of motions, nor is it uncivil or harassing to the courts, nor does it claim extreme remedies but is based upon the underlying justification of facts .
35. It is not vexatious in that it is not aimed to harass or subdue my adversary in the Pseudo Board nor is there any unwarranted filing of meritless motions.
THE LAW PROSCRIBES FURTHER REMEDY IN RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS:
36. Brett MR , dismissed an argument that the doctrine of res judicata applies only where there is a formal record . There are many court-like tribunals like the PAC, the LPCC and the SAT tribunals which sat before Judge Eckert and Justice Chaney which tried these issues of facts and law and they all came to the conclusion that there was no professional misconduct on my part. How come Justice Chaney now wants to review his own decision and he had already done so in the Second Judgment on 4.11.2009 by pronouncing a prejudgment? He had already adjudged those same issues of facts and law and he is now blatantly denying me fair justice once again by denying that that I do have my justifiable defence of res judicata and issues estoppel as explained earlier. He is coming as a judge again albeit as an ex-functus officio judge in the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 which is an abuse of the court process by the LPCC. As a result, his decision in the Second Judgment is without jurisdiction and need not be complied with.
37. For Res Judicata to be binding, the following conditions must be observed:
• identity in the thing at suit – the issue of my “fitness to practice” as a barrister and solicitor came to be considered under both s.39 and s. 40 of the former LP Act. I have never been persecuted nor prosecuted for unfitness in s.39 of the former LP Act.
• identity of the cause at suit – all those issues that have been the subject of litigation at the various levels, namely, the court like tribunals of the Professional Affairs Committee, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (the LPCC), the SAT tribunal before Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006, the SAT tribunal before Judge Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Inquiry Panel of the Pseudo Board that was ill-constituted; the Consent Judgment obtained in CACV 43 of 2007 was dishonoured by the Pseudo Board, the dismissal of my Leave to Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008, the dismissal of the High Court Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009 – the malicious and wrongful allegations by the LPCC that I was deficient in my professional knowledge that should not entitle the Pseudo Board to usurp the powers of the regulator of the legal profession to impose conditions on my practice certificate under s.40 of the LP Act divested of s.39 which should have been employed to question my unfitness to practice if any.
• identity of the parties to the action: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as the legal practitioner and the Legal Practice Board as the regulator of the legal profession acting through its Pseudo Board which did not have the legitimate majority consent of the legitimate regulator of the legal profession in WA in accordance with s.10 and 11 of the former LP Act and regulations 15 and 17 of the former Legal Practice Board Rules, 2004 (the invalid authority).
• identity in the designation of the parties involved; Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as the licensee who has the legitimate expectations that his licence as a qualified legal practitioner be renewed without illegal constraints and the Legal Practice Board of WA as the licensor whose legitimate authority should not have been usurped by a Pseudo Board.
• whether the judgment was final:
o Yes: each of the decisions of the court-like tribunals of the PAC, the LPCC, the SAT tribunals in VR137 of 2006 and in VR107 of 2008. The conditions for consent judgment agreed to by the Pseudo Full Board was provided to Registrar Eldred and is therefore obtainable from the court records of Justice Steytler’s consent judgment in CACV 43 of 2007 given on 26.9.2007. It was dishonoured by the Pseudo Board. Appellate courts dismissal for Leave to appeal the First Judgment was based on the credibility of Justice Chaney. Credibility debunked because it did not address the live issues. Therefore appellate courts dismissals do not bar further proceedings on the live issues.
o No: Inquiry Panel of the Pseudo Board sat on 3.4.2009 was improperly constituted; Justice Chaney’s ambushed trial in Second Judgment on 4.11.2009 is without jurisdiction. This warrants this current application in CIV 1019 of 2010 for Certiorari orders to quash and review the First and Second Judgments and stay the Second Judgment .
• whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue: No: at the court-like tribunals because those decisions were made in absentia.
• Yes: all other proceedings except VR 87 of 2009 before Justice Chaney.
WHY NO FURTHER REMEDY IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT:
38. The question before this court is whether the Second Judgment is without jurisdiction. It is reasonably found to have contradicted the law at paragraph 2 .
39. The Pseudo Board acting through the LPCC is without legitimate authority to seek the further remedy of “professional misconduct” in the Second Judgment other than what it had already obtained in the first action.
40. It is clear that the rationale in the Second Judgment to give the green light to the LPCC to continue the malicious persecution against me in its later stages is without jurisdiction and its consequent orders need not be complied with; I am therefore asking for the consequential relief for the damages of an intentional tort to abuse the process of court by the LPCC from this Honourable Court
IS JUSTICE CHANEY BIASED?
41. Is the learned Justice Chaney and the Honourable Members of the LPCC able to answer my twenty one questions as posed in my response letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 . A reasonable answer from them should be presented to this court and they will be read together with all the evidence presented before this Court. A failure to answer them faithfully by the learned Justice Chaney and the LPCC would naturally imply the vindication of my rights as an independent barrister and solicitor. The learned Judge of the Second Judgment has already accepted that he is indeed biased and has so relinquished his job for his Deputy President as indicated by the email letter .
PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY LPCC IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS:
42. Section 402 of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (the Act) defines Unsatisfactory professional Conduct as being a failure to reach the standard of conduct in competency and diligence of a reasonable legal practitioner. Section 403 of the Act takes a step further in defining professional misconduct as an aggravated form of unsatisfactory conduct qualified by its quality of being consistent or substantial.
43. Therefore, the essentialities of professional misconduct are in the following terms:
a) A failure to reach the standard of competence and diligence of a legal practitioner expected of by a member of the public (the failure);
b) The failure must be either consistent or substantial;
c) The conduct vis-Ã -vis this failure is either outside the practice of law or within the practice of the law, which renders the legal practitioner an unfit person (the unfitness).
d) The unfitness is to be defined by the s.8 suitability matters of the Act.
44. Looking at the unsuitability matters or my unfitness to independent legal practice as a barrister and solicitor, I can find none of them disqualifies me. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the learned Justice Chaney to make the predeterminations that I was guilty of professional misconduct without a trial and this happened during the ambushed trial on 4.11.2009. Unless His Honour is indeed imbued with persecuting malice and is working hand in glove with the LPCC , this state of affairs cannot happen. I keep asking myself if it were a crime for the learned Justice to be conspiring with members of the Pseudo Board for the purpose of persecuting me for no professional misconduct and for pronouncing that I am guilty of professional misconduct where there was no trial as yet.
45. The res judicata issues of facts and law in the current res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 have merged with those of the previous judgments and as such they no longer have any independent existence for Her Honour Judge Pritchard and Member Jordan to deliberate upon, as arranged for by Justice Chaney in his directions hearing held on 16.2.2010 for 18.5.2010 for three days, despite my protestestations.
COURT TO STRIKE OUT RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS AS A DUTY AND NOT AS A DISCRETION
46. I urge this court to strike out the res judicata proceedings of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 not as a discretionary measure, but as its duty. It is an abuse of process which results in an intentional tort to me and it should therefore not be condoned by this Honourable Court .
NICHOLAS N CHIN – SOLICITOR LITIGANT IN PERSON
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS:
1. O.67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA)
2. Rr. 15 and 17 of the Legal Practice Board Rules, 2004 (WA)
3. S.18 for Misconduct of Public Officers under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, 2003 (WA).
4. Ss. 10, 11, 39 and 40 of the Legal Practice Act, 2003 (WA)
5. Ss. 8, 402 and 403 of the Legal Profession Act (2008) (WA).
6. Ss. 83, 84 and 121 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913 (WA).
PERTINENT CASES:
7. First Judgment of Justice Chaney at: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252
8. Second Judgment of Justice Chaney at: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 referred to as the res judicata point decision by Justice Chaney.
9. The First Appellate Court Decision at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2009] WASCA 117
10. The Second Appellate Court Decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2010/4.html in the case of: Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2010] HCASL 4 (10 March 2010).
11. The decision of Justice Hasluck re: Mr.Timothy Robin Thies: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in the case of: RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256;
12. The decision of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 re Mr. David Taylor: at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in CHIN -v- HALL [2009] WASCA 216
13. Selective prosecutions by the LPCC: RE BERTINI; EX PARTE BERTINI [2010] WASC 34 at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf
14. No further remedy to Plaintiff in actions barred by the defence of res judicata: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm - the “Lectric Law Library
15. The blogspot of Nicholas N Chin by Googling: “nicholasnchin” for pertinent documents relating to this case at . http://www.nicholasnchin.com/
16. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 14.1. See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 10; European Convention on Human Rights, art 6(1); American Convention on Human Rights, art 8(1); and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, art 7(1)(b).
ARTICLES:
17. Cannon, W: The Wisdom of the Body (1939);
18. Ellis T and Showalter C: "Work-Related Stress in American Trial Judges" 22 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 71 (1994);
19. Frivolous Litigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation
20. Hand, L: "The Contribution of an Independent Judiciary to Civilization" in The Spirit of Liberty (1959), 118 at 121;
21. Hand, L"Thomas Walter Swan" in The Spirit of Liberty" (1959), 158 at 165;
22. Kirby J: JUDGING: REFLECTIONS ON THE MOMENT OF DECISION: By the Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY FIFTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REASONING AND DECISION-MAKING WAGGA WAGGA, 4 DECEMBER 1998 at website: http://www.highcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_charles.htm
23. Lectric Law Library: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm - the “Lectric Law Library
24. Ormrod, J: "Judges and the Process of Judging" in Jubilee Lectures, University of Birmingham (1981) 181 at 187-188 cited Watson, above n 64, at 947;
25. Shanks, H: The Art and Craft of Judging: The Decisions of Judge Learned Hand (1968) at 20;
26. Vexatious Litigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation;
27. Watson, A: "Some Psychological Aspects of the Trial Judge's Decision-Making" 39 Mercer L Rev 937 at 938 (1988) and at 940;
CASE LAW:
28. Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said of certiorari, at 580-581:
29. Deakin v Webb (1904) 1 CLR 585 at 604-605;
30. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 318-321;
31. Evans v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 489 at 522 [272];
32. Farley vs Ireland & Others, [1997] IESC 60 per Justice Barron at page 1521
33. Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166 at 229-230 [187]-[191];
34. Halabi v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) 17 NSWLR 26;
35. Henderson v. Henderson ((94) [1843] EngR 917; (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 115 [1843] EngR 917; (67 ER 313 at 319)
36. Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) AC 529 at 536.
37. In re May (65) (1885) 28 Ch D 516 at 518.
38. Jacobs v London County Council [1950] AC 361 at 369;
39. McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62
40. Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 388;
41. Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 at 666
42. Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 at 666;
43. R v Fleming [1998] HCA 68 at [22];
44. Rado, S: Adaptational Psychodynamics (1969) at 25-47;
45. Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 at 187-188 (PC);
46. Rogers v R [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251; (1994) 123 ALR 417; (1994) 68 ALJR 688; (1994) 74 A Crim R 462 (28 September 1994) at paragraph 13
47. Smits (2006) 227 CLR 423 at 461 [111] Referring to Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 362-363 [79]-[82], 372-373 [115]-[117];
48. Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423 at 459-460 [104];
49. Walton v. Gardiner ((130) [1992] HCA 12; (1992) 177 CLR 378 at 393.
50. Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 at 573 [160];
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Certiorari Orders Nisi to review and quash the decision of the learned President Justice Chaney of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), in both his judgments in VR107 of 2008 and VR87 of 2009; the insufficiency of the reasons for judgment impinging on the President’s credibility and his lack of independence as a judge warrants a review of the former decision and a striking off of the latter action as an abuse of the process of court.
And
In the matter of an Application Under Order 67 r.5 of the RSC, 1971 (WA) for Leave to re-file the Amended Papers of the Original Application that were originally rightly considered and rightly refused by the learned Martin CJ on 14.12.2009 in CIV 3068 of 2009 on grounds that the Notice of Originating Motion were then found to be “incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the Affidavit” but it is now no longer deemed to be so.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 25th March, 2010.
Date of filing: 25th March, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
nnchin09@tpg.com.au
I N D E X
APPLICATION NO LONGER AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: 2
JUSTICE CHANEY AVOIDED GIVING REASONS FOR THE FACTUAL CONFLICTS ISSUES: 5
JUSTICE CHANEY IS NOT INDEPENDENT 6
CREDIBILITY OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO BE IMPEACHED 7
DUTIES OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO DO FAIR JUSTICE 8
THE INEVITABLE OBVIOUS DECISION OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT: 9
THE DEFICIENT FIRST AND SECOND JUDGMENTS 9
WHAT DEFICIENCY OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE? 10
REVIEW OF THE SECOND JUDGMENT: 10
LPCC IS GUILTY OF ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT 11
INTENTIONAL TORT OF ABUSING THE COURT PROCESS: 11
APPLICATION NEITHER FRIVOLOUS NOR VEXATIOUS: 12
THE LAW PROSCRIBES FURTHER REMEDY IN RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS: 12
WHY NO FURTHER REMEDY IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT: 15
IS JUSTICE CHANEY BIASED? 16
PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY LPCC IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: 16
COURT TO STRIKE OUT RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS AS A DUTY AND NOT AS A DISCRETION 20
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 20
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS: 20
PERTINENT CASES: 21
ARTICLES: 21
CASE LAW: 22
OUTLINE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN AT 10.20 AM ON 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010 AT 10.20 AM AND LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Your Honour:
1. I humbly pray for your leave to file my Application for prerogative writs of certiorari orders, under O.67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA) (the RSC).
APPLICATION NO LONGER AN ABUSE OF PROCESS:
2. I humbly submit that this Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 is now no longer an abuse of process as formerly found by the learned Chief Justice in CIV3068 of 2009 as its Original Notice of Originating Motion has now been amended to suit the two-pronged objectives of seeking Certiorari Orders for the Reviews of the First Judgement of Justice Chaney delivered on 17.10.2008 in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and his Second Judgment in VR87 of 2009 delivered after an “ambushed” trial on 4.11.2009 (the Second Judgment).
3. I am entitled in law to a Review of the First Judgment on the ground that the reason for the Judgment Orders is insufficient as it does not take into account the most salient point of my case affecting the mala-fides of the Pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board (the Pseudo Board).
4. Justice Chaney did not take into account the fact that the Pseudo Board did usurp the lawful authority of that regulator of the legal profession in WA to unreasonably curb my independent legal practice for the unlawful and secret purpose of protecting the cronies of the Pseudo Full Board (the deficient judgment).
5. The deficient judgment had caused me to make unsuccessful Applications for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeal and for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court .
6. The deficient judgment therefore do not contain those issues of facts and law pertaining to the hitherto live issues of the Pseudo Board (the live issues) that would normally bar this Application for Review in Certiorari Orders on the grounds of res judicata or issues estoppel.
JUSTICE CHANEY AVOIDED GIVING REASONS FOR THE FACTUAL CONFLICTS ISSUES:
7. The factual conflicts vis-Ã -vis the live issues was avoided by Justice Chaney in order to deny me fair justice which he ought to have provided me (as his judicial duty) as a party to the dispute. As a consequence, he was unable to justify the resolution of those factual conflicts in his reasons for his decision . He therefore sought to give me extraneous and irrelevant reasons instead that are not in accord with the dictates of the law; this did not facilitate my subsequent appeals as already explained.
8. For any order decision or ruling of substance that he had issued affecting the rights of the parties to the dispute, the learned Justice Chaney is ordinarily expected to give meaningful reasons especially with regard to the machinations of the Pseudo Board explaining why it had unlawfully and unreasonably curbed my independent law practice. I am disappointed at the unfair justice meted out to me.
9. Had the learned Justice Chaney provided proper reasons for his First Judgment, it would have been more likely than not that his decision would have promoted transparency in the legal process and the proper exercise of his judicial power. Sad to say, he had missed this honourable task by his omitting to do so by design. The law obliges the learned Justice Chaney to write his reasons for his decision in such a way that they do facilitate appellate reviews and reconsiderations; they are well-established.
JUSTICE CHANEY IS NOT INDEPENDENT
10. It is a requirement of the common law that Justice Chaney when dispensing his judicial duties ought to be seen to be INDEPENDENT; the evidence before this Court shows that he has not been so . These requirements do have a constitutional foundation as is suggested in the case law (the judicial independence).
11. The judicial independence includes independence not only from extraneous pressures and influences but also independence from the judge's judicial colleagues where that is necessary to the proper discharge of his judicial functions . His credibility was relied upon by the appellate courts referred to earlier in the reasons for their decisions but in reality his First and Second Judgments do lack credence as the factual conflicts affecting the live issues have been avoided by him altogether. He had therefore misled those appellate courts and as a result fair justice was denied to me.
12. I as a party to this litigation had lost my fundamental human rights to Justice Chaney; the opposing party to this litigation should have been the real Full Board or the legitimate regulator but it was the Pseudo Board which was making its presence felt at all material times. I as a legitimate licensee found myself to be dealing with an imposter and not with the real licensor of my independent legal practice licence.
13. The First and Second Judgments are not effective explanations of how the learned Justice Chaney had arrived at his conclusions because they are based on issues of facts that have been proven to be wrong or falsified . This “expose” is just a tip of the ice-berg of the sad state of affairs prevailing in the legal system of Western Australia.
14. During the trial of the First Judgment case and the preliminary directions hearing of the case of Second Judgment in VR87 of 2009, I had always been constantly urging for the detachment of Justice Chaney so that he would decide my case without passion and always "as though it weren't your fight" yet he did ascend into the arena of conflict and was blinded by the dust of conflict. With all due respect to the learned Justice Chaney, he not only did not exercise detachment and self-restraint but he is also not sceptical about his judicial power.
CREDIBILITY OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO BE IMPEACHED
15. My unsuccessful appeals in the appellate courts arising from the deficient judgment open up an avenue for a review through the prerogative writs of certiorari in this Application in CIV 1019 of 2010. In this context, I quote the learned Justice Brennan who was convinced that the High Court is not bound by its own decision as it could re-express the common law under certain circumstances .
16. Further, this Court like the High Court may change the rule of law that is standing in its way to provide fair justice to me.
DUTIES OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO DO FAIR JUSTICE
17. We now would like to investigate as to why Justice Chaney made those First and Second Judgments in the way he did. The discourse says that a judge “occupy one of the more stressful jobs in contemporary society". This is because he is faced with the task to make a decision which cannot be delegated, he must do so in public and often in dramatic circumstances and is subject to appellate review and criticism and he is obliged to discharge his functions with "impeccable honesty, resolute even-handedness, conspicuous humanity and a high degree of judicial wisdom”; yet he has to succumb and did succumb to his inner wish that he does not stir up the hornet’s nest of the Pseudo Board.
18. It is logical therefore to deduce from the circumstances that the learned Justice Chaney had chosen to ignore the live issues in his First and Second Judgments. Mr. Pino Monaco was the former President of the Law Society of Western Australia just as Justice Chaney was. By the very nature of the circumstances shaping him in our legal society in Western Australia I am being denied fair justice which Justice Chaney has an obligation to provide me and he did not.
19. Justice Chaney came into the position to make that First Judgment as the Deputy President of SAT to relieve the former President Justice Barker who has been promoted to the High Court. There is a sudden change of stance which I felt as the winds of change were blowing against my first case in the First Judgment at its initial stage. The calming effect of the former President was no longer there. The grapevine has it that mine is a case fighting against the Pseudo Board and this will have ramifications upon those who had been actively involved in the protection of their friends after I have caused a stir concerning the pillaging and plundering of Dr. Kheng Su Chan by Mr. Pino Monaco.
20. Therefore the peer pressures are there for Justice Chaney to contend with. He is thus exposed to stress which is a physiological phenomenon. It is a fact of life. The existence of all animals is characterised by the constant presence of stress. No species is more prone to this than human beings . According to experts on the subject, it is a fundamental biological law that animal organisms submitted to stress will respond with a reaction of either fight or flight . Many judges of the past responded to stress by denial - which is a kind of flight. The physiological forces continued to affect their bodies and thinking processes for despite their offices, they could not escape the physiological forces which stress releases.
THE INEVITABLE OBVIOUS DECISION OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT:
21. Enough time has now elapsed since the 19th day of July, 2006 for truth and justice to emanate from the malicious persecution of myself by the Pseudo Board (working through its PAC and the LPCC at the behest of Mr. Pino Monaco who is a former President of the Law Society of WA through Ms. F.H.Walter who had acted both as prosecutor and decision maker to achieve the decision to curb my independent legal practice that is tainted with gross bias), for the obvious decision to be made by this Honourable Court.
22. It arises from the conflicting facts, from which the truth must emerge that I should be exonerated from all the false accusations and that I be free as an independent barrister & solicitor once again. In this context, I quote Lord Justice Ormrod of the English Court of Appeal observed in R Ormrod.
THE DEFICIENT FIRST AND SECOND JUDGMENTS
23. The three rationales for the trial judge Justice Chaney to give reasons are:
(1) to explain why he had ignored the persecuting malice of the Pseudo Board as a fact despite the over-whelming evidence and the admissive conduct of the Board.
(2) to provide public accountability as to why the Pseudo Board is usurping the statutory function of the regulator of the legal profession in WA.
(3) to write his judgment reasons in such a manner so as to facilitate appellate reviews of his First and Second Judgments.
24. It is an undoubted fact that the First and Second Judgments are not sufficient in their entirety and in the context of available evidence made before him, that he had failed to perform faithfully these three functions.
25. If we were to investigate the role of Justice Chaney as the trial judge in terms of the sufficiency of his reasons, we must look at the trial records, the live issues, and the submissions of counsel. The learned Justice is not required to provide detailed explanations of every single finding or descriptions of all evidence which are well settled and uncontroversial. The details of his reasons will depend circumstantially on whether the basis of his decision is clear from the record. It is reasonably obvious that it is not.
26. Justice Chaney failed to explain that he “has seized the substance of the live issues before him” i.e. the issues of whether I was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Board. If he did, he would have concluded that the LPCC through the Pseudo Board had committed the intentional tort against me by abusing the process of the courts and the tribunals and had misused all the resources it had before it.
27. The elements of the abuse of process are that I have been maligned and prevented from practicing my profession for no probable cause. The Pseudo Board has violated a sacred public trust which bestows power upon it to file and prosecute legal actions and it is guilty of an intentional tort. As such the Pseudo Board is a threat to the legal system in Western Australia and it deserves the indignation and contempt of a decent society in Western Australia through the agency of this Court.
WHAT DEFICIENCY OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE?
28. I had been properly engaged in the highest calling of my profession to represent my clients zealously and that I had at all times acted reasonably under the circumstances. The Pseudo Board misused the public right of access to the courts. The elements for this intentional tort are:
28.1 It is the malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process through the statutory powers of the LPCC to impose conditions on my practice certificate for no wrongs under s.40 of the former LP Act; that is not justified by the circumstances.
28.2 The abuse of process is through the PAC to influence the LPCC by the Pseudo Board for an oblique purpose of protecting its cronies who have done wrongs to members of the public but they did not receive the censure of the regulator of the legal profession because its function had been usurped.
28.3 The person who abuses the process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose of imposing a restraint on my independent legal practice that is collateral to the proper object of the process which is to sift out incompetent and unfit legal practitioners; that offends justice: such as an unjustified or unfounded persecution of a Pseudo Board without lawful authority to curb my independent legal practice.
REVIEW OF THE SECOND JUDGMENT:
29. I am entitled to my defence of Res Judicata and Issues Estoppel in the case of the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney on the ground that I cannot be prosecuted for a FURTHER REMEDY of Professional Misconduct in VR 87 of 2009 once I have already been prosecuted for the mischievous and frivolous allegations of the nebulous “deficiency of my professional knowledge syndrome” in inter alia the VR 137 of 2006 and the VR107 of 2008.
LPCC IS GUILTY OF ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT:
30. This court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent its procedures being abused. This Application no longer falls into those categories of abuse of procedures; although the categories remain open, but they usually fall into one of the three categories:
30.1. I have not invoked the court's procedures for the prerogative writ orders of certiorari for an illegitimate purpose whereas the LPCC is doing so through an obvious conspiratorial link with the judge of the tribunal; this is without a doubt :
30.2. I am not using the court's procedures in an unjustifiably oppressive manner to the LPCC and to the Pseudo Board; it is undoubted that they have done this to me.
30.3. I am not using the court's procedures for the purpose of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; it is undoubted the pseudo Board through the LPCC is doing this very thing which I am not doing to them.
INTENTIONAL TORT OF ABUSING THE COURT PROCESS:
31. The malicious persecution of me by the Pseudo Board for the protection of its cronies arises from the institution of its intention to unreasonably curb my independent law practice so that innocent members of the public inter alia my son Paul Chin, Dr. Kheng Su Chan and Mr. Alessandro Bertini could be pillaged and plundered by erring members of the legal profession with impunity. It is climaxing with the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 whilst my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 was in progress (the current injustice). This has now been dismissed by the High Court of Australia on 10.3.2010. This dismissal relied upon the credibility of the trial judge Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008; this current injustice has not been dealt with by the High Court yet as they are separate issues from that Application for Special Leave to Appeal. Therefore, I should be able to go back to the High Court to address the live issues once again as they are not considered in the First Judgment.
32. This Court should beware that any procedural step taken by the LPCC in the course of these proceedings have apparently been properly instituted by the Pseudo Board, yet they are still capable of being an abuse of the court's process .
APPLICATION NEITHER FRIVOLOUS NOR VEXATIOUS:
33. My Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 is neither frivolous nor vexatious as the evidence before this Honourable Court will show; because it has a reasonable chance of succeeding, and it would not bring hardship on the opposite party to defend my claim that the Pseudo Board is unreasonably curbing my independent legal practice for the purpose of protecting its cronies .
34. My claim is not frivolous as it has legal merit and is not manifestly insufficient or futile. It is not based on absurd legal theories, does not involve superabundance of motions, nor is it uncivil or harassing to the courts, nor does it claim extreme remedies but is based upon the underlying justification of facts .
35. It is not vexatious in that it is not aimed to harass or subdue my adversary in the Pseudo Board nor is there any unwarranted filing of meritless motions.
THE LAW PROSCRIBES FURTHER REMEDY IN RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS:
36. Brett MR , dismissed an argument that the doctrine of res judicata applies only where there is a formal record . There are many court-like tribunals like the PAC, the LPCC and the SAT tribunals which sat before Judge Eckert and Justice Chaney which tried these issues of facts and law and they all came to the conclusion that there was no professional misconduct on my part. How come Justice Chaney now wants to review his own decision and he had already done so in the Second Judgment on 4.11.2009 by pronouncing a prejudgment? He had already adjudged those same issues of facts and law and he is now blatantly denying me fair justice once again by denying that that I do have my justifiable defence of res judicata and issues estoppel as explained earlier. He is coming as a judge again albeit as an ex-functus officio judge in the res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 which is an abuse of the court process by the LPCC. As a result, his decision in the Second Judgment is without jurisdiction and need not be complied with.
37. For Res Judicata to be binding, the following conditions must be observed:
• identity in the thing at suit – the issue of my “fitness to practice” as a barrister and solicitor came to be considered under both s.39 and s. 40 of the former LP Act. I have never been persecuted nor prosecuted for unfitness in s.39 of the former LP Act.
• identity of the cause at suit – all those issues that have been the subject of litigation at the various levels, namely, the court like tribunals of the Professional Affairs Committee, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (the LPCC), the SAT tribunal before Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006, the SAT tribunal before Judge Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Inquiry Panel of the Pseudo Board that was ill-constituted; the Consent Judgment obtained in CACV 43 of 2007 was dishonoured by the Pseudo Board, the dismissal of my Leave to Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008, the dismissal of the High Court Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009 – the malicious and wrongful allegations by the LPCC that I was deficient in my professional knowledge that should not entitle the Pseudo Board to usurp the powers of the regulator of the legal profession to impose conditions on my practice certificate under s.40 of the LP Act divested of s.39 which should have been employed to question my unfitness to practice if any.
• identity of the parties to the action: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as the legal practitioner and the Legal Practice Board as the regulator of the legal profession acting through its Pseudo Board which did not have the legitimate majority consent of the legitimate regulator of the legal profession in WA in accordance with s.10 and 11 of the former LP Act and regulations 15 and 17 of the former Legal Practice Board Rules, 2004 (the invalid authority).
• identity in the designation of the parties involved; Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as the licensee who has the legitimate expectations that his licence as a qualified legal practitioner be renewed without illegal constraints and the Legal Practice Board of WA as the licensor whose legitimate authority should not have been usurped by a Pseudo Board.
• whether the judgment was final:
o Yes: each of the decisions of the court-like tribunals of the PAC, the LPCC, the SAT tribunals in VR137 of 2006 and in VR107 of 2008. The conditions for consent judgment agreed to by the Pseudo Full Board was provided to Registrar Eldred and is therefore obtainable from the court records of Justice Steytler’s consent judgment in CACV 43 of 2007 given on 26.9.2007. It was dishonoured by the Pseudo Board. Appellate courts dismissal for Leave to appeal the First Judgment was based on the credibility of Justice Chaney. Credibility debunked because it did not address the live issues. Therefore appellate courts dismissals do not bar further proceedings on the live issues.
o No: Inquiry Panel of the Pseudo Board sat on 3.4.2009 was improperly constituted; Justice Chaney’s ambushed trial in Second Judgment on 4.11.2009 is without jurisdiction. This warrants this current application in CIV 1019 of 2010 for Certiorari orders to quash and review the First and Second Judgments and stay the Second Judgment .
• whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue: No: at the court-like tribunals because those decisions were made in absentia.
• Yes: all other proceedings except VR 87 of 2009 before Justice Chaney.
WHY NO FURTHER REMEDY IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT:
38. The question before this court is whether the Second Judgment is without jurisdiction. It is reasonably found to have contradicted the law at paragraph 2 .
39. The Pseudo Board acting through the LPCC is without legitimate authority to seek the further remedy of “professional misconduct” in the Second Judgment other than what it had already obtained in the first action.
40. It is clear that the rationale in the Second Judgment to give the green light to the LPCC to continue the malicious persecution against me in its later stages is without jurisdiction and its consequent orders need not be complied with; I am therefore asking for the consequential relief for the damages of an intentional tort to abuse the process of court by the LPCC from this Honourable Court
IS JUSTICE CHANEY BIASED?
41. Is the learned Justice Chaney and the Honourable Members of the LPCC able to answer my twenty one questions as posed in my response letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 . A reasonable answer from them should be presented to this court and they will be read together with all the evidence presented before this Court. A failure to answer them faithfully by the learned Justice Chaney and the LPCC would naturally imply the vindication of my rights as an independent barrister and solicitor. The learned Judge of the Second Judgment has already accepted that he is indeed biased and has so relinquished his job for his Deputy President as indicated by the email letter .
PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY LPCC IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS:
42. Section 402 of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (the Act) defines Unsatisfactory professional Conduct as being a failure to reach the standard of conduct in competency and diligence of a reasonable legal practitioner. Section 403 of the Act takes a step further in defining professional misconduct as an aggravated form of unsatisfactory conduct qualified by its quality of being consistent or substantial.
43. Therefore, the essentialities of professional misconduct are in the following terms:
a) A failure to reach the standard of competence and diligence of a legal practitioner expected of by a member of the public (the failure);
b) The failure must be either consistent or substantial;
c) The conduct vis-Ã -vis this failure is either outside the practice of law or within the practice of the law, which renders the legal practitioner an unfit person (the unfitness).
d) The unfitness is to be defined by the s.8 suitability matters of the Act.
44. Looking at the unsuitability matters or my unfitness to independent legal practice as a barrister and solicitor, I can find none of them disqualifies me. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the learned Justice Chaney to make the predeterminations that I was guilty of professional misconduct without a trial and this happened during the ambushed trial on 4.11.2009. Unless His Honour is indeed imbued with persecuting malice and is working hand in glove with the LPCC , this state of affairs cannot happen. I keep asking myself if it were a crime for the learned Justice to be conspiring with members of the Pseudo Board for the purpose of persecuting me for no professional misconduct and for pronouncing that I am guilty of professional misconduct where there was no trial as yet.
45. The res judicata issues of facts and law in the current res judicata proceedings in VR87 of 2009 have merged with those of the previous judgments and as such they no longer have any independent existence for Her Honour Judge Pritchard and Member Jordan to deliberate upon, as arranged for by Justice Chaney in his directions hearing held on 16.2.2010 for 18.5.2010 for three days, despite my protestestations.
COURT TO STRIKE OUT RES JUDICATA PROCEEDINGS AS A DUTY AND NOT AS A DISCRETION
46. I urge this court to strike out the res judicata proceedings of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 not as a discretionary measure, but as its duty. It is an abuse of process which results in an intentional tort to me and it should therefore not be condoned by this Honourable Court .
NICHOLAS N CHIN – SOLICITOR LITIGANT IN PERSON
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS:
1. O.67 r.5 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1971 (WA)
2. Rr. 15 and 17 of the Legal Practice Board Rules, 2004 (WA)
3. S.18 for Misconduct of Public Officers under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act, 2003 (WA).
4. Ss. 10, 11, 39 and 40 of the Legal Practice Act, 2003 (WA)
5. Ss. 8, 402 and 403 of the Legal Profession Act (2008) (WA).
6. Ss. 83, 84 and 121 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913 (WA).
PERTINENT CASES:
7. First Judgment of Justice Chaney at: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252
8. Second Judgment of Justice Chaney at: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 referred to as the res judicata point decision by Justice Chaney.
9. The First Appellate Court Decision at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2009] WASCA 117
10. The Second Appellate Court Decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2010/4.html in the case of: Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2010] HCASL 4 (10 March 2010).
11. The decision of Justice Hasluck re: Mr.Timothy Robin Thies: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in the case of: RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256;
12. The decision of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 re Mr. David Taylor: at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf in CHIN -v- HALL [2009] WASCA 216
13. Selective prosecutions by the LPCC: RE BERTINI; EX PARTE BERTINI [2010] WASC 34 at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf
14. No further remedy to Plaintiff in actions barred by the defence of res judicata: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm - the “Lectric Law Library
15. The blogspot of Nicholas N Chin by Googling: “nicholasnchin” for pertinent documents relating to this case at . http://www.nicholasnchin.com/
16. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 14.1. See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 10; European Convention on Human Rights, art 6(1); American Convention on Human Rights, art 8(1); and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, art 7(1)(b).
ARTICLES:
17. Cannon, W: The Wisdom of the Body (1939);
18. Ellis T and Showalter C: "Work-Related Stress in American Trial Judges" 22 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 71 (1994);
19. Frivolous Litigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation
20. Hand, L: "The Contribution of an Independent Judiciary to Civilization" in The Spirit of Liberty (1959), 118 at 121;
21. Hand, L"Thomas Walter Swan" in The Spirit of Liberty" (1959), 158 at 165;
22. Kirby J: JUDGING: REFLECTIONS ON THE MOMENT OF DECISION: By the Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY FIFTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REASONING AND DECISION-MAKING WAGGA WAGGA, 4 DECEMBER 1998 at website: http://www.highcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_charles.htm
23. Lectric Law Library: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm - the “Lectric Law Library
24. Ormrod, J: "Judges and the Process of Judging" in Jubilee Lectures, University of Birmingham (1981) 181 at 187-188 cited Watson, above n 64, at 947;
25. Shanks, H: The Art and Craft of Judging: The Decisions of Judge Learned Hand (1968) at 20;
26. Vexatious Litigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation;
27. Watson, A: "Some Psychological Aspects of the Trial Judge's Decision-Making" 39 Mercer L Rev 937 at 938 (1988) and at 940;
CASE LAW:
28. Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said of certiorari, at 580-581:
29. Deakin v Webb (1904) 1 CLR 585 at 604-605;
30. Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 318-321;
31. Evans v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 489 at 522 [272];
32. Farley vs Ireland & Others, [1997] IESC 60 per Justice Barron at page 1521
33. Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166 at 229-230 [187]-[191];
34. Halabi v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) 17 NSWLR 26;
35. Henderson v. Henderson ((94) [1843] EngR 917; (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 115 [1843] EngR 917; (67 ER 313 at 319)
36. Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) AC 529 at 536.
37. In re May (65) (1885) 28 Ch D 516 at 518.
38. Jacobs v London County Council [1950] AC 361 at 369;
39. McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62
40. Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 388;
41. Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 at 666
42. Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 at 666;
43. R v Fleming [1998] HCA 68 at [22];
44. Rado, S: Adaptational Psychodynamics (1969) at 25-47;
45. Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 at 187-188 (PC);
46. Rogers v R [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251; (1994) 123 ALR 417; (1994) 68 ALJR 688; (1994) 74 A Crim R 462 (28 September 1994) at paragraph 13
47. Smits (2006) 227 CLR 423 at 461 [111] Referring to Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at 362-363 [79]-[82], 372-373 [115]-[117];
48. Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423 at 459-460 [104];
49. Walton v. Gardiner ((130) [1992] HCA 12; (1992) 177 CLR 378 at 393.
50. Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 at 573 [160];
Friday, March 19, 2010
FORMER PREMIER GEOFF GALLOP BLASTS RACISM IN AUSTRALIA - AUSTRALIA CRITICIZES MALAYSIA FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ITS OWN BACKYARD
From: Unity Party WA [UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 9:37 AM
To: Peter Torrens
Cc: Nicholas Chin
Subject: Fw: Gallop blasts racism
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Editor-West Australian
Cc: President - CCC ; President - TI ; President - The Brussells Tribunal ; Ace Qi ; Liu Jianxin ; Vice-chancellor - Adelaide U ; Dr. Jennifer Curtin ; Vice Chancellor - Macquarie ; Vice Chancellor-Curtin ; Vice Chancellor-UNSW ; Vice-Chancellor - La Trobe ; Vice-Chancellor - Melb U ; Vice-Chancellor - Tas ; UNHCR - geneve ; UN Wire ; UN News ; UN - Europe ; UN - Human Rights ; Senator - Joyce ; Senator - fielding ; senator Bob Brown ; Senator-Sherry ; Prime Minister ; President - ICJ ; President - High Court ; Ombudsman - WA ; Ombudsman - Comm ; Chief Minister - NT ; Chief Minister - Act ; Premier - NSW ; Premier - Qld ; Premier - Vic ; Premier - WA ; Editor - The Hindu ; Editor - Apple Daily ; Editor - Chinese Daili la ; Editor - ddhw ; Editor - GMA tv ; Editor - NDTV ; Editor - Qiaobao ; Editor - Sing Tao - uk ; Editor - Singtao ; Editor - SingTao - fr ; Editor - Sun my ; Editor - The Star ; Editor - United D/N Tai ; Editor - Zaobo sg ; Editor- Apple Daily tw ; Editor-Asian Tribune ; Editor-Strait Post sg ; Editor-Yomiuri S. ; Gerakan Part - My ; Dr. Mike Nahan - MP ; MLC - G. Watson ; Paul Llewllyn - MLC ; Manager - TV/2 Perth ; Manager - SBS TV ; Editor-W.N.Wkly -Qld ; Editor - XKB ; Editor - WAFM1049 ; Editor - Qld A.B. Wkly ; Editor - Pacific Times ; Editor - Oriental Post ; Editor - IndoMedia ; Editor - DCH Mel ; Editor - Chinesent ; Editor - C.M.D Mel ; Editor - Aus.Chinese daily ; Editor - ACNW vic ; Editor - ACA ; Editor - A.B.Weekly ; Editor - Perth Express ; Fed Liberal Leader ; Fed Education - Lib ; Foreign Min - Lib ; Petro Georgiou - MP ; President - Press Council ; President - Press Club - india ; President - Press cl uk ; President - Press Cl ug ; SBS - Sydney ; President - Press Cl ta ; President - Press cl sm ; President - Press cl -sg1 ; President - Press cl ma ; President - Press cl in ; President - Press Cl id ; President - Press Cl ch ; President - CJFE ca ; Commission - eu ; President - Press club NZ ; Fed. Attorney General ; Director - AMF ; President - CRC ; Principal - Geelong Grammer ; Principal - Ivanhoe Grammer ; Principal - Lauriston ; Principal - Mentone Grammer ; Principal - Scotch ; Principal _ Camberwell Grammer ; Principal _ Mel Grammer ; Sagaramudra Buddhist Temple ; Church B ; Church C ; Church D ; Perth Alliance Church ; Wang Huaping ; Editor - 60 Minutes ; CEO - 2 UE Radio ; Editor - 6PR ; Editor - AFR ; Editor - AJA ; Editor - GetUp ; Editor - Heraldsun ; Editor - Jim Marrs ; Editor - News ; Editor - News Digital ; Editor - Sky News ; Editor - Sun Herald ; Editor - TechCrunch ; Editor - the Australian ; Editor - Today Tonight ; Editor - WA News ; Editor - Xenox ; Editor-Advertiser ; Editor-Courier Mail ; Editor-Sunday Times ; Editor-Sydney Morning H ; Editor-West Australian ; Howard Satlier ; Manager - TV/10 Perth ; Manager - TV/9 Perth ; Manager-ABC - TV ; Michael Badcock ; Miranda Devine ; Paul Murray ; Simon - 6PR ; Senator - M. Choi ; Hong Lim MP ; President - Zhejiang ; President - WHF ; President - WACCC ; President - SAWA ; President - HKABA ; President - He Tong Huey ; President - Fujian Asn ; President - FCMA ; President - Culture Club Kok ; President - CAU ; President - CAF ; President - ACMF ; Presideent - He Nan Asn ; Mayor - Marrickville ; Mayor - Auburn ; Jack Au - Auburn ; Councillor - Sandra. Liu ; Editor - SunMedia ; Editor - 123Jump ; Editor - AHN nz ; Editor - Al Fasoldt ; Editor - Belgian Today ; Editor - Bloomberg ; Editor - CNN ; Editor - Daily Crus ; Editor - Dim Sum ; Editor - Free Press ca ; Editor - Fundem uk ; Editor - Globe/Mail ; Editor - Guardian ; Editor - Gulf Times ; Editor - Haaretz ; Editor - Het Belang be ; Editor - Independent ; Editor - Irish Times ; Editor - ITV ; Editor - New York Times ; Editor - People ; Editor - Pravda ru ; Editor - The Banner ca ; Editor - Toronto Star ; Editor - TV Be ; Editor - TV7 fr ; Editor - VOANews ; Editor - Wall St Journal ; Editor - WSJ ; Editor -bpra.bund.de ; Editor -political Comments ; Editor-L'Humanite.fr ; Editor-Toronto Star ; Green Party - NZ ; John Pilger ; Warren Mundine ; Ted. Wilkes ; SBS Radio Perth ; Noel Pearson ; Mick Dodson ; George Newhouse ; Aboriginal Legal Right ; Attorney General - WA ; Prime Minister - my ; general@lpbwa.com ; Chair - legal pcc wa ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au ; commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Gallop blasts racism
The Editor,
The West Australian
westinfo@wanews.com.au
Dear Editor,
We refer to the report below and wish to congratulate the former WA Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop for telling the truth about Racism in Australia.
It is a strange, enigmatic and tragic problem happening in our society which does not seem to want to go away. None of us would like to see himself or herself as a racist, yet this strange enigmatic force is very real, and it persists in its tenacious ways with its tentacle-like structures that permeate even our justice system let alone the school systems and the government departments.
Just look at the treatment of our Members Ms Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas Chin. Their stories contain rich and meaningful lessons for us. Theirs are on our website: www.unitywa.org and http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ and the blogspot of Mr. Chin which you can access it by typing “nicholasnchin” on Google.
We are criticizing about Malaysia and its opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim being deprived of his rights in a country without true democracy but this very situation is happening in our own back yard. How can we be so hypercritical?
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 20-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Gallop blasts racism
PHILIPPA PERRY, The West Australian March 18, 2010, 5:02 am
Australia has significant pockets of racism and has seen a re- emergence of nationalism, according to former WA premier Geoff Gallop.
In a speech to be delivered to a Human Rights Arts and Film Festival breakfast this morning, Dr Gallop says Australia should have a charter of rights to benefit ordinary people as well as the marginalised and vulnerable in society.
"There are a lot of good things about Australia but one of them isn't the re-emergence of a form of political and cultural nationalism backed up at times by a particularly crude and nasty form of populism," he says.
"We describe ourselves as an egalitarian and tolerant nation but significant and unjustified inequalities remain as do not- insignificant pockets of racism."
Dr Gallop says Australia is the only democratic nation without a national bill or charter of rights and that while our rights receive some recognition nationally, it is very limited.
He says a charter of rights could be given a role in the legislative process, the administration of policy and the interpretation of the law.
Dr Gallop says there is a deep suspicion among elements of the political elite that a Human Rights Act will make it too hard for them to govern when faced with challenges such as terrorism and crime generally. "Not having a charter of rights legitimised by the Parliament sends a message to the community that the government itself is fearful of subjecting itself to serious human rights scrutiny," he said.
Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb -2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL LISTED FOR THE PUBLICATION OF REASONS AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS CANBERRA WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 2010 No. Applicant Respondent Court appealed from Result
4. Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (P36/2009)
Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2009] WASCA 117
Application Dismissed [2010] HCASL 4
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 9:37 AM
To: Peter Torrens
Cc: Nicholas Chin
Subject: Fw: Gallop blasts racism
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Editor-West Australian
Cc: President - CCC ; President - TI ; President - The Brussells Tribunal ; Ace Qi ; Liu Jianxin ; Vice-chancellor - Adelaide U ; Dr. Jennifer Curtin ; Vice Chancellor - Macquarie ; Vice Chancellor-Curtin ; Vice Chancellor-UNSW ; Vice-Chancellor - La Trobe ; Vice-Chancellor - Melb U ; Vice-Chancellor - Tas ; UNHCR - geneve ; UN Wire ; UN News ; UN - Europe ; UN - Human Rights ; Senator - Joyce ; Senator - fielding ; senator Bob Brown ; Senator-Sherry ; Prime Minister ; President - ICJ ; President - High Court ; Ombudsman - WA ; Ombudsman - Comm ; Chief Minister - NT ; Chief Minister - Act ; Premier - NSW ; Premier - Qld ; Premier - Vic ; Premier - WA ; Editor - The Hindu ; Editor - Apple Daily ; Editor - Chinese Daili la ; Editor - ddhw ; Editor - GMA tv ; Editor - NDTV ; Editor - Qiaobao ; Editor - Sing Tao - uk ; Editor - Singtao ; Editor - SingTao - fr ; Editor - Sun my ; Editor - The Star ; Editor - United D/N Tai ; Editor - Zaobo sg ; Editor- Apple Daily tw ; Editor-Asian Tribune ; Editor-Strait Post sg ; Editor-Yomiuri S. ; Gerakan Part - My ; Dr. Mike Nahan - MP ; MLC - G. Watson ; Paul Llewllyn - MLC ; Manager - TV/2 Perth ; Manager - SBS TV ; Editor-W.N.Wkly -Qld ; Editor - XKB ; Editor - WAFM1049 ; Editor - Qld A.B. Wkly ; Editor - Pacific Times ; Editor - Oriental Post ; Editor - IndoMedia ; Editor - DCH Mel ; Editor - Chinesent ; Editor - C.M.D Mel ; Editor - Aus.Chinese daily ; Editor - ACNW vic ; Editor - ACA ; Editor - A.B.Weekly ; Editor - Perth Express ; Fed Liberal Leader ; Fed Education - Lib ; Foreign Min - Lib ; Petro Georgiou - MP ; President - Press Council ; President - Press Club - india ; President - Press cl uk ; President - Press Cl ug ; SBS - Sydney ; President - Press Cl ta ; President - Press cl sm ; President - Press cl -sg1 ; President - Press cl ma ; President - Press cl in ; President - Press Cl id ; President - Press Cl ch ; President - CJFE ca ; Commission - eu ; President - Press club NZ ; Fed. Attorney General ; Director - AMF ; President - CRC ; Principal - Geelong Grammer ; Principal - Ivanhoe Grammer ; Principal - Lauriston ; Principal - Mentone Grammer ; Principal - Scotch ; Principal _ Camberwell Grammer ; Principal _ Mel Grammer ; Sagaramudra Buddhist Temple ; Church B ; Church C ; Church D ; Perth Alliance Church ; Wang Huaping ; Editor - 60 Minutes ; CEO - 2 UE Radio ; Editor - 6PR ; Editor - AFR ; Editor - AJA ; Editor - GetUp ; Editor - Heraldsun ; Editor - Jim Marrs ; Editor - News ; Editor - News Digital ; Editor - Sky News ; Editor - Sun Herald ; Editor - TechCrunch ; Editor - the Australian ; Editor - Today Tonight ; Editor - WA News ; Editor - Xenox ; Editor-Advertiser ; Editor-Courier Mail ; Editor-Sunday Times ; Editor-Sydney Morning H ; Editor-West Australian ; Howard Satlier ; Manager - TV/10 Perth ; Manager - TV/9 Perth ; Manager-ABC - TV ; Michael Badcock ; Miranda Devine ; Paul Murray ; Simon - 6PR ; Senator - M. Choi ; Hong Lim MP ; President - Zhejiang ; President - WHF ; President - WACCC ; President - SAWA ; President - HKABA ; President - He Tong Huey ; President - Fujian Asn ; President - FCMA ; President - Culture Club Kok ; President - CAU ; President - CAF ; President - ACMF ; Presideent - He Nan Asn ; Mayor - Marrickville ; Mayor - Auburn ; Jack Au - Auburn ; Councillor - Sandra. Liu ; Editor - SunMedia ; Editor - 123Jump ; Editor - AHN nz ; Editor - Al Fasoldt ; Editor - Belgian Today ; Editor - Bloomberg ; Editor - CNN ; Editor - Daily Crus ; Editor - Dim Sum ; Editor - Free Press ca ; Editor - Fundem uk ; Editor - Globe/Mail ; Editor - Guardian ; Editor - Gulf Times ; Editor - Haaretz ; Editor - Het Belang be ; Editor - Independent ; Editor - Irish Times ; Editor - ITV ; Editor - New York Times ; Editor - People ; Editor - Pravda ru ; Editor - The Banner ca ; Editor - Toronto Star ; Editor - TV Be ; Editor - TV7 fr ; Editor - VOANews ; Editor - Wall St Journal ; Editor - WSJ ; Editor -bpra.bund.de ; Editor -political Comments ; Editor-L'Humanite.fr ; Editor-Toronto Star ; Green Party - NZ ; John Pilger ; Warren Mundine ; Ted. Wilkes ; SBS Radio Perth ; Noel Pearson ; Mick Dodson ; George Newhouse ; Aboriginal Legal Right ; Attorney General - WA ; Prime Minister - my ; general@lpbwa.com ; Chair - legal pcc wa ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au ; commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Gallop blasts racism
The Editor,
The West Australian
westinfo@wanews.com.au
Dear Editor,
We refer to the report below and wish to congratulate the former WA Premier Dr. Geoff Gallop for telling the truth about Racism in Australia.
It is a strange, enigmatic and tragic problem happening in our society which does not seem to want to go away. None of us would like to see himself or herself as a racist, yet this strange enigmatic force is very real, and it persists in its tenacious ways with its tentacle-like structures that permeate even our justice system let alone the school systems and the government departments.
Just look at the treatment of our Members Ms Lili Kang and Mr. Nicholas Chin. Their stories contain rich and meaningful lessons for us. Theirs are on our website: www.unitywa.org and http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ and the blogspot of Mr. Chin which you can access it by typing “nicholasnchin” on Google.
We are criticizing about Malaysia and its opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim being deprived of his rights in a country without true democracy but this very situation is happening in our own back yard. How can we be so hypercritical?
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa (uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 20-Mar-2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
Gallop blasts racism
PHILIPPA PERRY, The West Australian March 18, 2010, 5:02 am
Australia has significant pockets of racism and has seen a re- emergence of nationalism, according to former WA premier Geoff Gallop.
In a speech to be delivered to a Human Rights Arts and Film Festival breakfast this morning, Dr Gallop says Australia should have a charter of rights to benefit ordinary people as well as the marginalised and vulnerable in society.
"There are a lot of good things about Australia but one of them isn't the re-emergence of a form of political and cultural nationalism backed up at times by a particularly crude and nasty form of populism," he says.
"We describe ourselves as an egalitarian and tolerant nation but significant and unjustified inequalities remain as do not- insignificant pockets of racism."
Dr Gallop says Australia is the only democratic nation without a national bill or charter of rights and that while our rights receive some recognition nationally, it is very limited.
He says a charter of rights could be given a role in the legislative process, the administration of policy and the interpretation of the law.
Dr Gallop says there is a deep suspicion among elements of the political elite that a Human Rights Act will make it too hard for them to govern when faced with challenges such as terrorism and crime generally. "Not having a charter of rights legitimised by the Parliament sends a message to the community that the government itself is fearful of subjecting itself to serious human rights scrutiny," he said.
Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
general@lpbwa.com
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
lpcc@lpbwa.com
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
WA Commissioner for Police
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
OMBUDSMAN’S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC?
I refer to the case of our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin, Barrister & Solicitor. He alleges that he is a subject of malicious persecution caused by the maladministration of the Legal Practice Board of the Department of the Attorney General. He also suffers the detriment caused to him by Registrar Powell’s maladministration of court records of the Supreme Court. Both of them made wrongful administrative decisions thereby helping erring lawyers to achieve private and personal advantages and at the same time thus enabling them to commit crimes and cause public detriment with impunity. Both of them are not involved in making judicial decisions, the merits of which could not be questioned by the Ombudsman. They are involved in maladministration of the government departments for which the Ombudsman has the statutory right to interfere so as to promote better governance of Western Australia. The facts of the case are available at the blogspot of Mr. Chin, which you may access by Googling “nicholasnchin”.
In accordance with s.14 of the Parliamentary Commisioner Act, 1971 (WA), the Honourable Ombudman should therefore exercise his public statutory duty to investigate the following government Departments for maladministration, failing which, the public would have no choice but to compel him to perform his public obligations and duties:
a) The Department of the Attorney General, particularly the Attorney General himself is to be held responsible for his administrative decision in allowing a pseudo Full Board of the Legal Practice Board to fester and to usurp the statutory functions of that regulator of the Legal Profession of WA. The pseudo Full Board was able to influence the independence, integrity and impartiality of the lawyer’s watchdog body, the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The pseudo Full Board’s unsavoury influence enabled that watchdog body to achieve a clandestine purpose which is against the public interests. This wrongful administration of that Department is thus causing a public detriment as members of the public are constantly being robbed, plundered and fleeced by erring lawyers with impunity. Many cited examples of these makes it abundantly clear that the Ombudsman should act and act quickly in order to stem the tide of a rapidly deterioration of what used to be an efficient government of Western Australia.
b) The Police Department of Western Australia should be taken to tasks for neglecting to make the administrative decision to investigate the criminal conduct of lawyers who infiltrate the Pseduo Full Board, the watchdog body of lawyers in WA and the corrupt judicial officers who manipulate court records for the personal advantage of erring lawyers. We acknowledge that it is not allowed to investigate lawyers and judicial officers if they are doing justice for the common people. But the situation would be different, if they are found to be manipulating the administrative affairs of the courts and the government departments to achieve the clandestine purpose of perverting the course of justice and to achieve a private advantage as opposed to the achievement of a public advantage in the public interests.
c) The Case Management Registrar D Powell of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had participated in a purposive wrongful administrative decision to cover up erring lawyer David Taylor. This had enabled the learned David Taylor to commit the crimes of perjury contrary to s.124 and the falsification of court records contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913. The cover-up of these crimes in contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009 that has the effect of misleading the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall [2009] WASCA 216 to make a mistake in its reasoning at paragraphs 54 and 55 of that judgment. But for this error, the public detriment would not have been caused. This conduct of a judicial officer is contrary to the meaning of being corrupt as defined by Jean-Franois Revel (ENCOUNTER March, 1987) in the following words: “It means misapplying political or administrative power, whether directly or indirectly outside its proper spheres, for one’s own financial or material advantage, or in order to distribute the gains among one’s friends, colleagues, relations or supporters.”
We would appreciate your comment and action as our members therefore demand that we receive a reply to this letter within 14 days or we will have no choice but to upload this letter onto our website for public information.
Yours faithfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Ph/Fax: 61 893681884
Date: 08-Feb -2010.
Environmental Friendly - Save the trees - Use Email.
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
RESULTS OF APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL LISTED FOR THE PUBLICATION OF REASONS AND PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS CANBERRA WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 2010 No. Applicant Respondent Court appealed from Result
4. Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (P36/2009)
Supreme Court of Western Australia (Court of Appeal) [2009] WASCA 117
Application Dismissed [2010] HCASL 4
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
MY RESPONSE TO LPCC DATED 17.3.2010 RE: RES JUDICATA PROOCEEDINGS IN VR87 OF 2009
My ref: VR87OF2009
Your ref: S232/09
17th day of March, 2010.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer: Ms. Caroline Brookes
PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831 Fax: 08 9461 2265
Your ref: S232/09
Dear Sir
RES JUDICATA POINT JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF SAT
JUSTICE CHANEY ON 4.11.2009 IN VR 87 OF 2009
I acknowledge the receipt of your response dated 15th March, 2010 to my letter of the same date responding to your letter dated 11.3.2010. I would like to respond to it as follows:
a) If the LPCC were to respect the principle of the rule of law that I am entitled to my defence of res judicata, then it should not seek to mislead the tribunal any further.
b) The LPCC could just remedy the wrongs that were partly occasioned by its counsel Ms. Le Miere by way of omission when she was before the learned President at the stage before the pronouncement of the res judicata judgment by the tribunal through the learned President Justice Chaney.
c) The LPCC could remedy these wrongs by informing the tribunal that it is bound by the law in that it is not able to seek the “further remedy” of prosecuting me for professional misconduct when it had already persecuted me for the nebulous “deficiency in my professional knowledge” in the past.
d) The LPCC should also understand that my defence of res judicata and issues estoppel prevent the learned Deputy President Judge Pritchard for further hearing the res judicata proceedings. The reason is that there are no longer in existence, issues of facts and law, triable before the tribunal. These have already merged into the previous judgments, irrespective of whether I have unsuccessfully or successfully appealed them. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the LPCC to further persecute me with the fabricated evidence of Mrs. Mathias.
e) The LPCC should know that I have made an application in CIV 1019 of 2010 in the Supreme Court of WA invoking prerogative writ orders to prevent the abuse of powers of the tribunal and to stay the res judicata proceedings; this application is scheduled to be heard on 6.4.2010 at 10.00 am. It therefore operates as a stay of the res judicata proceedings and any further directions hearing by the tribunal in defiance of this stay is a wrong administrative decision by the tribunal through its learned President.
f) The LPCC should inquire together with me from the learned President for his written answers to my 21 questions as contained in my letter dated 15.3.2010, failing which the LPCC and the learned President is reasonably seen to be conspiring with each other for the purpose of persecuting me for an illegal purpose or for a secret agenda which the LPCC has an obligation to explain to members of the public as to why it is utilizing public funds and public amenities for a private purpose.
g) The LPCC should be prosecuting Mr. Timothy Robin Thies, Mr. David Taylor and Mr. Pino Monaco for professional misconduct and why it is not doing so in the interests of the public but is persecuting me to serve a secret agenda which it has secret knowledge of. Are the former Presidents of the Law Society of WA so powerful that they are invincible to any prosecution by the LPCC?
h) Why did the learned President condone the pillaging and plundering of legal professionals against innocent members of the public as in the case of Mr. Alessandro Bertini and Dr. Kheng Su Chan and my son Paul Chung Kiong Chin. These people are still seeking justice but justice is not being seen to be done. As a consequence, the onus of proof of this secret knowledge is therefore reversed.
i) Are there warlords in the justice system of Western Australia which a lawyer must pay obeisance to, in order to be able to practice the law without persecution?
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Your ref: S232/09
17th day of March, 2010.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer: Ms. Caroline Brookes
PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831 Fax: 08 9461 2265
Your ref: S232/09
Dear Sir
RES JUDICATA POINT JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF SAT
JUSTICE CHANEY ON 4.11.2009 IN VR 87 OF 2009
I acknowledge the receipt of your response dated 15th March, 2010 to my letter of the same date responding to your letter dated 11.3.2010. I would like to respond to it as follows:
a) If the LPCC were to respect the principle of the rule of law that I am entitled to my defence of res judicata, then it should not seek to mislead the tribunal any further.
b) The LPCC could just remedy the wrongs that were partly occasioned by its counsel Ms. Le Miere by way of omission when she was before the learned President at the stage before the pronouncement of the res judicata judgment by the tribunal through the learned President Justice Chaney.
c) The LPCC could remedy these wrongs by informing the tribunal that it is bound by the law in that it is not able to seek the “further remedy” of prosecuting me for professional misconduct when it had already persecuted me for the nebulous “deficiency in my professional knowledge” in the past.
d) The LPCC should also understand that my defence of res judicata and issues estoppel prevent the learned Deputy President Judge Pritchard for further hearing the res judicata proceedings. The reason is that there are no longer in existence, issues of facts and law, triable before the tribunal. These have already merged into the previous judgments, irrespective of whether I have unsuccessfully or successfully appealed them. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the LPCC to further persecute me with the fabricated evidence of Mrs. Mathias.
e) The LPCC should know that I have made an application in CIV 1019 of 2010 in the Supreme Court of WA invoking prerogative writ orders to prevent the abuse of powers of the tribunal and to stay the res judicata proceedings; this application is scheduled to be heard on 6.4.2010 at 10.00 am. It therefore operates as a stay of the res judicata proceedings and any further directions hearing by the tribunal in defiance of this stay is a wrong administrative decision by the tribunal through its learned President.
f) The LPCC should inquire together with me from the learned President for his written answers to my 21 questions as contained in my letter dated 15.3.2010, failing which the LPCC and the learned President is reasonably seen to be conspiring with each other for the purpose of persecuting me for an illegal purpose or for a secret agenda which the LPCC has an obligation to explain to members of the public as to why it is utilizing public funds and public amenities for a private purpose.
g) The LPCC should be prosecuting Mr. Timothy Robin Thies, Mr. David Taylor and Mr. Pino Monaco for professional misconduct and why it is not doing so in the interests of the public but is persecuting me to serve a secret agenda which it has secret knowledge of. Are the former Presidents of the Law Society of WA so powerful that they are invincible to any prosecution by the LPCC?
h) Why did the learned President condone the pillaging and plundering of legal professionals against innocent members of the public as in the case of Mr. Alessandro Bertini and Dr. Kheng Su Chan and my son Paul Chung Kiong Chin. These people are still seeking justice but justice is not being seen to be done. As a consequence, the onus of proof of this secret knowledge is therefore reversed.
i) Are there warlords in the justice system of Western Australia which a lawyer must pay obeisance to, in order to be able to practice the law without persecution?
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Sunday, March 14, 2010
RESPONSE LETTER TO LPCC DATED 15.3.2010
Your ref: S232/09
15th day of March, 2010.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer: Ms. Caroline Brookes
PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace,
Your ref: S232/09
Dear Sir
RES JUDICATA POINT JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF SAT
JUSTICE CHANEY ON 4.11.2009 IN VR 87 OF 2009
I refer to your letter dated 11.3.2010 requesting my consent for Mrs. Mathias evidence to be given in person in the week prior to the trial. I do not consent to this method of giving evidence as Mrs Matthias cannot then be cross-examined by me as my accuser should be confronting me. I have to summon all my trepidations in order to write this letter at my own peril although I am fearful of the repercussions. I also do not agree that the res judicata trial should proceed as it is already the subject of my Application for stay of execution and for review in CIV 1019 of 2010. The conduct of Justice Chaney in proceeding with the directions hearing on 16.2.2010 implies that he is aware, perhaps that the Supreme Court itself is already prejudging my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV1019 of 2010. I do place my trust in the Supreme Court as I believe that there is still some vestige of fair justice left for me.
I fail to understand as to why the LPCC is continuing to persecute me or to witch-hunt me for no rhyme or reason. Why is the LPCC not catching those real people who are defrauding innocent people like Mr. Timothy Robin Thies and Mr. David Taylor who is causing court records to be falsified? What monies have I defrauded Mrs Mathias and what intentions do I have in defrauding her to warrant this persecution. Why is it chasing after shadows in order to protect the real wrong doers?
With due respect to the learned Justice Chaney, I would like to state that the res judicata proceedings in VR 87 of 2009 did not receive my consent to proceed as the orders of Justice Chaney is not in conformity with the law and they are null orders given without jurisdiction by His Honour in an “ambushed” trial; who had lost his independence, integrity and impartiality as a judge. This is despite the fact that I have a suppressed wish that if I had been prosecuted for professional misconduct instead of being persecuted for the nebulous “deficiency” of my professional knowledge, I would not have been “imprisoned” in the legal abyss that is not of my own making. Despite the admissive conduct of the pseudo Full Board which is usurping the lawful authority of the regulator of the legal profession of WA, Justice Chaney is avoiding that particular issue in his judgment in VR107 of 2008.
If at all there is a going to be trial, it is not I who is going on trial but the learned Judge himself. I would like to know why there is a conspiratorial link between the LPCC and the learned Justice Chaney by my asking him to respond to the following questions:
a) Why did Justice Chaney adopt a pre-judgmental attitude to the case of VR 107 of 2008 when compared with the stance adopted by the former President of SAT the learned Justice Barker, before the former took over that case from the latter?
b) Why does Justice Chaney twist the facts to suit his agenda and do not present the truth or lie in his judgment in VR 107 of 2008 and in his res judicata point judgment in VR 87 of 2009?
c) Why did Justice Chaney prejudged on 4.11.2009 before trial of VR87 of 2009, that I was guilty of professional misconduct in having allegedly acted in conflict of interests with regard to the vendors of the Centenary Lunch Bar; he ought to have accepted my argument that the vendors gave me a written voluntary informed consent for me to act for them?
d) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issue I did not treat Mr. Pino Monaco with fairness and courtesy on 4.1.2005 when he was guilty of plundering and pillaging Dr. Kheng Su Chan with impunity? Is it not a duty of a solicitor to act for his client faithfully?
e) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law of my having acting in conflict of interests for Mr. Tylor who is my client and his two companions who accompanied him to see me?
f) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issue that I made improper allegations against Mr. David Taylor when the facts are clear that the latter had falsified court records and committed perjury while doing so in collaboration with the learned Registrar Powell?
g) Why does Justice Chaney descend into the arena of conflict and was blinded by the dust of the affray when he denied me the defence of “issue estoppel” which he himself admits is a good defence for me in the res judicata proceedings?
h) Why does Justice Chaney refuse to accept the fact that there are no issues of facts or law before Her Honour Judge Pritchard for the proposed trial of the res judicata proceedings as they have already merged into the previous judgments[1]?
i) Why does Justice Chaney culpably maintain that it is okay to persecute me for professional misconduct this time again, as his contention is that I am never so persecuted on those issues of facts and law in the past; he ought to have known that the LPCC cannot have a “further remedies”[2] on a subsequent prosecution as such a “strategy” is barred by the defence of res judicata?
j) Why is Justice Chaney so eager to make wrongful administrative decision in “directions hearings” such that he could control the future of the res judicata proceedings which he knows ought not to be proceeded with as they are outside the jurisdiction of SAT?
k) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law regarding Mrs. Nalini Matthias when he ought to have known that I did not abuse my powers as her solicitor, did not exploit her vulnerabilities if any, but was exploited by her and did not defraud her of any monies?
l) Why did Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law with regard to my communication with Ms. Pryer who is the Associate of Justice Jenkins which was in turn expediently communicated to Mr. David Taylor, for the purpose of securing the rights of my client, the late Ms. Hall?
m) Why did Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law relating to “trust monies” when they were monies in transit acted upon by me in accordance with my client’s instructions?
n) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law with regard to the allegedly “scandalous” accusations in accordance with my client’s instructions in the Clohessy affair when they are true and relevant and therefore are never legally scandalous?
o) Why does Justice Chaney prejudge the issues of facts and law with regard to non-existent trust monies when legal fees were received by me from my clients after work had been completed for them?
p) Why does Justice Chaney order me to comply with his orders to respond to the res judicata Application of the LPCC which I did in protest, but he does not require it (the LPCC) to reply to my response as specifically ordered by him to do so, and as a result, he left me in a lurch?
q) Why does Justice Chaney after becoming aware as the judge in VR 107 of 2008 that the essential elements of professional misconduct are missing in the issues of facts and law that were before him, still insists that I be persecuted for the “further remedy” of the res judicata proceedings?
r) Why does Justice Chaney knowing that it is well-nigh impossible for him to convert his previous findings that I was not guilty of any professional misconduct now has a change of mind: his is the resolute will to impute dishonestly and unreasonably into very those self-same issues of facts and law he had found before, with the impossible qualities of my “substantial” and “consistent” failure to reach a standard of competence and diligence expected by members of a reasonable legal practitioner? He waves a magic wand and hey presto, the conversion is done according to his wishes?
s) Has Justice Chaney forgotten to do his duties as a duly appointed judicial officer to do fair justice?
t) Is Justice Chaney unaware as a judicial officer that he has abused the process of court in ordering for the abusive res judicata proceedings to be proceeded with?
u) Is Justice Chaney unaware that even SAT which is not a court has an inherent jurisdiction to stay the abused process of court because it sought to re-litigate issues that had already been disposed of by other proceedings[3]?
The High Court of Australia has refused my Application for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009 on
10.3.2010 upon the ground that the credibility of Justice Chaney remains un-impeached in VR 107
of 2008 but not in VR 87 of 2009[4]. Therefore it is logical for me to apply for a review in the High Court if
necessary, later, to impeach the credibility of Justice Chaney in the High Court only if the learned
Justice Chaney were to answer the questions enumerated from (a) to (u) above. If, however, those
questions remain unanswered, it would be reasonably presumed that the expected answers to those
questions are reasonably expected to be admitted by Justice Chaney.
As my final humble gesture of defiance of an order that is issued by SAT without jurisdiction, I respectfully quote Dean Alfange's Creed:
"I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say - ‘This, with God’s help, I have done."
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099
[1] It is well settled, so far as civil proceedings are concerned, that, if a "judicial determination directly involv(es) an issue of fact or of law ... that (issue) cannot afterwards be raised between the same parties or their privies" ((77) Blair v. Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464 at 531 per Dixon J See Hoysted v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1921] HCA 56; (1921) 29 CLR 537 at 561 where Higgins J (dissenting) first used the term "issue- estoppel". With regard to the development of the doctrine in English law, see Thoday v. Thoday (1964) P 181 at 197-198 per Diplock L.J; Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb (1966) 1 QB 630; Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd. (No.2) (1967) 1 AC 853.). That rule, or "issue estoppel" as it is generally called, is different from "res judicata " or "cause of action estoppel" which occurs when a cause of action passes into judgment so that "it is merged and has no longer an independent existence" ((78) Blair v. Curran (1939) 62 CLR at 532.) and "no other proceedings can thereafter be maintained on (it)" ((79)
[2] See the "extended principle" in
"(t)he plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the
time".
[3] In Walton v. Gardiner ((130) [1992] HCA 12; (1992) 177 CLR 378 at 393.), Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ said that the jurisdiction to stay proceedings that are an abuse of process:
"extends to all those cases in which the processes and procedures of the court, which exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness". Their Honours gave three examples of such an abuse of process ((131) ibid.). One of them is the case where an estoppel cannot be established but the proceedings are unjustifiably oppressive because it is sought to litigate an issue which has already been disposed of by earlier proceedings ((132) See, for example, Reichel v. Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665 at 668; Connelly v. DPP (1964) AC 1254 at 1361-1362.). Reichel v. Magrath ((133) (1889) 14 (133) (1889) 14 App Cas 665.) is the paradigm example of such a case.”
[4] See the website of the High Court of Australia http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2010/4.html in Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
“The Tribunal rejected the applicant's submissions, including that the respondent did not have jurisdiction to impose the conditions without some finding of incapacity or unfitness or some disciplinary proceedings being successful against the practitioner and, alternatively, that the conditions were not necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have the proper appreciation of, and did not observe, the standards of conduct expected of legal practitioners.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)