CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO TRIAL OF VR87 OF 2009 THAT WAS TRIAL BEFORE A SAT PANEL ON 11.10.2011

1.	5.1.2008	Respondent filed Draft Chronology in CACV 105 of 2008 depicting 120 items of events for the period ending on 10.1.2009.
2	12.7.2008 (refer to items 4 and 22 below)	1) Letter from Mrs. Michele-Maree Gannaway (daughter of Nancy Hall) to Maurice Law indicating that Mrs. Audrey Hall’s (Michele’s aunty) mortgage is a sham (the sham).  2) The former is executor of estate of Nancy (who died on 13.1.2008) and she removed the new caveats of Maurice and Respondent in CIV 2157 of 2011 on 12.8.2011.  Nancy is the former client of Respondent in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 only.  The LPCC in connection with this Nancy’s affairs against David Taylor took away the independent status of Respondent as a lawyer on 12.9.2006 (the lawyer for Nancy was disabled).  3) David Taylor and Registrar Powell falsified the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 by pretending to have complied with Justice Jenkin’s Order in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 (the falsifications). 4) The falsifications have the legal effect that it was not Respondent who removed Spunter Pty Ltd (Maurice’s) Caveats from the two properties of Nancy Hall, namely Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley thus stopping the Respondent from being recognized in law as the salvour of parts of Nancy’e estate.  This caused the Respondent to protest the falsifications to the LPCC (the protest). 5). The lawyer for Nancy was disabled by the LPCC inter alia, as a result of the protest favouring Taylor on unreasonable grounds. Therefore CIV1142 of 2005 No.2 and CIV 1131 of 2006 was forced to be abandoned by Respondent.  As a result, an incorrect outcome was achieved by Taylor to the detriment of Nancy’s estate by his misleading the court (the second fraud). 6). The first fraud is the result of Mrs. Hall using the sham through Mr. Anthony Prime to achieve a $2.3m claim against the estate of Nancy in CIV 2073 of 2007 (the first fraud).    7). The sham is the subject of the error of Master Sanderson’s judgment in CIV 1775 of 2008 on 29.10.2008 (the error). 8). The error on the one hand denied the Respondent salvour’s status which resulted from s.244 of the former LPA but on the other hand recognized that Mr. Anthony Prime is responsible for removing  the Spunter’s Caveats on 29.10.2008 when it was the Respondent’s solicitor work for Nancy which removed it lawfully on 10.2.2006 (the salvour status).   9). The error also recognized that the sham has priority over the  salvour status.  The Respondent appealed the said error to the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed although there is a near perfect judgment except for Owen JA refusal to receive the fresh evidence of Registrar Powell’s letter dated 11.6.2009.  This letter is an unsuccessful attempt by the learned Registrar to cover up the second fraud (the priority).  10). The High Court rarely grants special leave to appeal but it explains the reason for its dismissal in that the Respondent needs to prove a causal connection between his solicitor’s work for Nancy and the removal of the Spunter’s Caveats. This means the Respondent must prove the first fraud in order to succeed.  This is done if the said priority is negated (the causal connection).  11). The error of Owen JA in refusing to accept the fresh evidence is inconsistent to the point of its being construed as reasonably ludicrous because His Honour expounded the law for its (the fresh evidence) acceptance and yet His Honour contradicts himself: fresh evidence must be received at the appeal stage if the second fraud is being unraveled or if the fresh evidence as a condition for its acceptance would have caused a reverse effect of the court of appeal decision in CACV 107 of 2008.  This is the focused issue before Commissioner Sleight in CIV1877 of 2010 which was undecided on the ground that a brother judge has no prerogative writ powers over his brother judge of the same rank (the focused issue).    12). Both Maurice Law and Respondent applied for the focused issue or the error of law apparent on the court records to be effaced in CACV 107 of 2008 on 15.7.2011 (the error of law). 13). The first fraud caused a less than arms length expedited settlement of $702k between Mrs. Gannaway and her aunty but left debts of Nancy’e estate owing and payable to Maurice Law and Respondent, unsettled (the creditors).  14). Mrs. Gannaway in CIV 2157 removed both the creditors New Caveats on the Hazelmere Property dated 28.2.2011 on 12.8.2011.  Mrs. Hall promised to pay Respondent $20k to be kept in trust with her solicitor Mr. Anthony Prime of McCallum Donovan Sweeney on condition that the error of Master Sanderson is set aside.  But setting aside the error involves continuing legal work for Nancy’s estate which must be paid for.   Buzz JA in CACV 107 of 2008 says that Respondent has right as salvour to claim for continuing work done for Nancy posthumously despite being disabled by LPCC and regulator.   There is no multiplicity of proceedings by Respondent as the issues that was before both Master Sanderson and Owen JA on the focused issue were never decided.  Thus, there is no abuse of process of courts by Respondent when the focused issue is re-litigated.  Justice must be seen to be done.  There is injustice - there are manifestations of partiality of the decision-makers in favour of the other party.  The decisions were also made not in accordance with the law.
3	2.11.2008	Respondent’s letter to court of appeal Registrar re the Consent Judgment of Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007 to set aside the decision of Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 (the res judicata issues).  Respondent received a response from Dr. Narelle Morris which did not answer his questions thereby admitting them to be true.  The Court of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 similarly did not answer the four issues (the four issues): a)       Why did Justice Chaney decide later on the res judicata issues again in VR107 of 2008 and arrived at the same decision as Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006? b)       Why the Pseudo Board, without lawful authority again imposed conditions on the Respondent in the aftermath of Justice Chaney’s decision without a finding of professional misconduct or unprofessional misconduct thus contradicting all rules and law? c)        Why the Pseudo Board refused to bind itself by the terms of the Steytler Consent Judgment it had voluntarily entered into to set aside the decision of Judge Eckert?  d)       Why did the Court of Appeal avoid the issues affecting the abuse of powers by the Pseudo Board and went on a frolic of its own to impose the hurdle of leave of appeal against the Respondent thereby denying him natural justice – by  compromising on the unlawful and professional misconduct of David Taylor and Timothy Robin Thies?
4	12.2.2009 (refer to item 2 above)	1). Letter from Mr. Anthony Prime in CACV 107 of 2008 to Respondent stating that the $20k promised by Mrs. Audrey Hall is being kept in trust by his form for the respondent and shall only be paid to the Respondent provided the error is set aside or the priority negated (the promise).  2. The Respondent expect that when Maurice Law application to review the decision of SAT in VR158 of 2011 is vindicated in accordance with the suggestions of the judgment of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 delivered on 15.6.2011 (Commissioner Sleight’s directions). 3. The promise and Commissioner Sleight’s directions shall vindicate the rights of the creditors once the said error and priority is set aright (righting the injustice). 4) Righting the injustice involves the estate of Nancy paying its debts to its creditors by settling the just emoluments for Respondent’s salvour status and reinstating Maurice Law for the unjust enrichment of Nancy’s estate caused by the first and second fraud.  The value of the unjust enrichment is the value of the default judgment in DCA 2509 of 2002 in the sum of $145k plus incidental costs and interests charges since 10.10.2002 arising from the second fraud.     5) Respondent duty of candidness to the court is paramount compared to his duty to the estate of Nancy Hall (the paramount duty).  6) The paramount duty involves the Respondent in righting the injustice by setting aside the error, negating the priority and obtaining his just emoluments for his works by fulfilling his public interests obligations as an officer of the court (the public interests duty).
5.	30.6.2009	1) Persecution of Respondent by Ms. Mc Cahon of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 in the form of an Application to SAT by the LPCC under s. 428(1) of the LPA for the malicious purpose of finding the inconvenient untruths that the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct misguidedly in terms of (the Application): “a) s.438(1) of the LPA, b) consequential orders pursuant to s.438 or s.439 an/or s.441 of the LPA and c) the practitioner pay the LPCC costs pursuant to subs. 87(2) of the SAT Act.” 2) The Application is an attempt by the LPCC to convert the “perceived deficiency” of the Respondent in his professional knowledge by Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 into some kind of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct (the malicious attempt). 3) They latter imports some imaginary elements of dishonesty and recklessness or incompetency or lack of diligence respectively on the part of the Respondent (the non-existent elements).  4) The malicious attempt and the non-existent elements reek of a conspiracy by the LPCC and the Pseudo Board to protect its cronies, namely David Taylor and Timothy Robin Thies (cronyism).   5) The cronyism is widespread and it covers judicial officers like Registrar Powell.  There is a pattern of conduct of the LPCC and the Pseudo Board which is consistent with its insistence and persistence to refuse to provide the Respondent with an even playing field through such actors like Ms. McCahon and Ms. LeMiere (the persistency).  6) The persistency results from their common ambitions to cover up the wrong-doings that was initiated by Ms. Katherine Coombs since 19.7.2006 emanating from Pino Monoco’s plundering conduct on Dr. K S Chan that resulted in the Steytler Consent Judgment compromise with the Respondent in CACV 43 of 2007 of 26.9.2007 (the compromise). 7) The compromise resulted in the Respondent being continually restrained in his independent legal practice till today (the calumny).
6.	20.8.2009	Respondent’s innocent reply to the calumny pursuant to order of SAT President, His Honour Justice Chaney given on 14.7.2009 that had brought about the untold pain and suffering of the Respondent marked by an emotional catharsis experienced by the Respondent before Judge Eckert on 12.9.2006.  This is a reflection of man’s inhumanity to man which has been repeated throughout the ages and it survives even in modern day Australia (the pain).
7	18.12.2009	Receipt of a file of documents from the LPCC re the calumny. It is  barred by the principle of res judicata on the ground that they are matters already decided by Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 on 12.9.2006 or matters that could have been raised with reasonable diligence by the LPCC at that time, in accordance with the principles of law enunciated by Sir James Wigram VC in Henderson v Henderson 3 Hare 100, (SEE FOOTNOTE NO.2 BELOW)
8	15.12.2009	1) Complaint by Respondent to Corruption Crime Commission (CCC) in a 24 page document by way of facsimile addressed to its Commissioner Len Robert-Smith QC re the falsifications. 2) A response was received from Roger Hellier copied to David Robinson.  The Respondent answers dated 16.12.2009 addressed all the issues by Mr. Hellier. 3) The CCC would not investigate the falsifications on the ground that they are the subject of an application for Special Leave to the High Court in P1 of 2010 and it would only investigate after the High Court has already decided on those issues…..
9	20.12.2009	1) Respondent’s written submission to Associate Ms. Lauren Butterly and Natalie Sinton for the consideration of the Chief Justice hearing of CIV3086 of 2009 filed 10.12.2009 heard on 22.12.2009 (the submission). 2) It involves the falsifications which predicated the outcome that prerogative writs orders is not amenable to a brother judge of the same rank by the Chief Justice (the common outcome). 4) The said common outcome should not preclude the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to correct its own errors as confirmed by Commissioner Sleight in his judgment in CIV 1877 of 2011 delivered on 15.6.2011 (the other avenue).  5) The said common outcome and the said other avenue caused an injustice as the falsifications involving the alleged misconduct of a judicial officer and therefore the protocol requires a complaint to be lodged with the Chief Justice first before the WA Major Fraud Squad can begin a formal investigation into it.  This is the step taken by Sergeant Gangin overseeing the falsification which is a criminal offence through the WA Police Commissioner at the initiation of the Attorney General of Western Australia (the Protocol). 6) Only after the Protocol has been performed by Chief Justice, can the WA Major Fraud Squad then reactivate it through the initiatives of the   WA Police Commissioner (the correct police procedure).
10	8.1.2010	1) Respondent’s letter to Parliamentary Inspector regarding how the Chief Justice and the CCC dealt with CIV 3068 of 2009 re the calumny and CIV3086 of 2009 re the falsifications (the PI).  2) The PI responded to Respondent on 5.1.2010 and 12.1.2010 that he is jurisdictionally restricted to oversee the investigation of the CCC but he cannot investigate the CCC for any wrongdoing (the powers of the PI). 3) Despite the restrictive powers of the PI, he welcomes feedback on how the errors of the CCC from the Respondent to facilitate the overseeing process (the overseeing by PI). 4) The Chief Justice has explained his positions and he bears me no malice.  Therefore, I do not have any complaints but is still waiting for the Protocol to eventuate (the powers of the Chief Justice). 5) Respondent’s email letter to PI dated 21.1.2010 indicating that Roger Hellier of CCC had indicated by email 22.12.2009 his promise to investigate both the calumny and the falsifications while waiting for the decision of the High Court in P36 of 2009 and P1 of 2010 respectively. Despite having received both the outcomes from the High Court, the Respondent is still waiting but to no avail.  Major Fraud Squad and CCC are now co-coordinating each other’s activities.
11	18.1.2010	1) Respondent’s facsimile letter to the CCC Len Roberts-Smith imploring him to investigate the falsifications based upon the promise of CCC officer Roger Hellier together with a similar imploration to the LPCC to do the same by providing it with the 6 page Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court in P1 of 2010 which was filed on 4.1.2010.  2) By 25.1.2010, Respondent received a letter from Assessor of CCC providing a history of the complaint, whilst the CCC is keeping a monitoring role of the situation. The matter was also reported to the Police on 29.1.2010.
12	23.1.2010	1) Respondent wrote an email to the State Ombudsman complaining about the Government Department of the State Attorney General of WA providing a comprehensive report of the falsifications.  2) By 28.1.2010 the PI wrote to the Respondent confirming that CCC Officer Roger Hellier shall be meeting with the Respondent to assess the evidence of the falsifications. By 9.2.2010, Helen Stamp of the CCC acknowledged that the CCC will assess the falsifications of court records case when the High Court in P1 of 2010 made its decision.
13	7.4.2010	1) Respondent served the LPCC and SAT with a list of documents that was filed in CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex parte application for Certiorari Orders to set aside Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and VR87 of 2009.  2) There are 9 batches of documents which cover the period from 29.12.2009 till the 6.4.2010.
14	2.5.2010	Respondent’s email letter to the International Criminal Court copied to all members of parliament of Western Australia also copied to SAT lamenting the fact that the Justice System is ceasing to function in Western Australia.
15	1.6.2010	Respondent lodged a complaint against David Taylor re the falsifications.
16	8.6.2010	Respondent received a letter bearing reference 197/10 from Senior Legal Officer Ms. G. McCahon of the LPCC that it intends to deal with my complaint regarding David Gerald Taylor efficiently and expeditiously as is practicable but this turns out to be a false assertion.
17	11.6.2010	1) Respondent filed an Ex-parte Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV1877 of 2010 that was heard before Commissioner Sleight. 2) Although it was dismissed on the ground of the said outcome but His Honour provides rationale on how the matter could be pursued further in RE HALL; EX PARTE CHIN [No 2] [2011]  WASC 155.  3) As a result, the Respondent and Maurice Law made separate error of law effacement applications to the Court of Appeal in CACV107 of 2008 on 15.7.2011 on the focused issue left undecided.
18	16.7.2010	1) Respondent received letter from Ms. Mc Cahon of the LPCC regarding Complaint against David Taylor and requiring the Respondent to make a written submission within 21 days.  2) Respondent responded on 20.7.2010.  This shows that the LPCC is not providing a level playing field to the Respondent.
19	30.9.2010 (See item No.31 below)	1) Respondent filed Notice of Originating Motion in CIV 1981 of 2010 and CIV 1877 of 2010 which was adjourned sini die by Heenan J on 4.8.2010 on the ground of the said outcome as first indicated by the Chief Justice above but the issue before the court is always left undecided without resorting to the availability of the said other avenue agreed to by Commissioner Sleight (the courts refusing to do justice or avoiding the issue). 2) The purpose of the former case is for the Respondent to seek   recusal of Ken Martin J in CIV 1903 of 2008 No.2 which denied the Respondent his natural justice.  His Honour imposed a stultifying security costs order against Respondent on 8.7.2010 that restricted the flow of justice from the very fount of justice sought by the Respondent in CIV 1903 of 2008 No.2 owing to the reasonably apprehended bias of Ken Martin J (the bias proceedings). 3) CIV1689 of 2011 is the proceedings instituted by the principal registrar of the Supreme Court of WA through the State Solicitor of WA to probe whether the falsifications, Thies plunderings, and calumny proceedings are indeed an abuse of court process by the Respondent in terms of s.4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2003 WA (the probe). 4) The purpose of the probe heard by Murray J on 19.8.2011 is take out the said bias proceedings and to prevent it from being listed for hearing (the purpose of the probe). 5) The said purpose of the probe contradicts the reasonably logical common sense notion of the apprehended bias of Ken Martin J in that he has admitted to the 20 or so issues of his biasness filed in the said bias proceedings which that learned judge refused to answer but had instead chosen to bulldoze his way through anyway by his deciding to stultify the second part of the Review Order in CIV 1903 of 2008 No.2 on 8.7.2010 which he has no authority to do so albeit unilaterally or without the consent of the Respondent, thereby denying him his natural justice (the null stultification). 6) The null stultification is qualified by Ken Martin J’s manifestations of partiality toward Timothy Robin Thies and His Honour making his decision on the aberrant findings of fact and law that the Respondent has a weak case which belies the findings of the Hasluck J in the first stage of the Review Order in CIV 1903 of 2008 No.1 (the qualified null stultification). 7) The qualified null stultification is appealed against by the Respondent o the Court of Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 but it could not cross “the leave to appeal and its associated arbitrary nature of prospect of success” hurdle, which again denied the Respondent his natural justice by its refusal to litigate the bias proceedings (the hurdle). 4) The High Court in P50 of 2010 usually do not grant special leave to appeal but left pointers to the Respondent in terms of the belated qualified null stultification, described as the “cart before the horse” anomaly (the anomaly). 5) Registrar Wallace subsequently tried to regularize the irregular in the said anomaly.  She made an attempt to pay the $100.00 security costs in District Court Appeal No.6 of 2008 to Timothy Robin Thies as an after the event rectification of the anomaly of the court records in CACV75 of 2010. The $100.00 is the court fees paid by the Respondent when he appealed the decision of the Magistrates Court in FR944 of 2007 which subsequently became the subject matter of the Review Order in CIV 1903 of 2008 No.1.  The fees at the time it was paid is not security fees as the relevant legislation had been repealed. This is the subject of Allanson J decision in CIV 1491 of 2011 which is similar to the said common outcome and reflects the court avoiding the issue before it. This is the error of law apparent on the court records in CACV 75 of 2010 (the second error of law). 6) The second error of the law is the subject of the second error effacement application by the Respondent filed with the Supreme Court.
20	19.10.2010	Maurice Law complained to the LPCC through Mr. M.D. Evans regarding the falsifications.
21	30.11.2010	Respondent reported to WA Police concerning the criminal conspiracy of Pseudo Board working against the public interest to perpetuate injustice in the legal system in WA by taking away Respondent’s independent status as a lawyer (the second police report).
22	16.2.2011 (refer to item 2 above)	The Deputy Sheriff of the Sheriff’s Office of the Central Law Courts tried unsuccessfully to enforce the void judgments of the said error  and the said priority, the taxing master being Regisrar Powell himself who is a judge of his own cause.  This is the subject of a complaint to the Attorney General.  See also letter of demand from Anthony Prime dated 17.2.2011 for the null costs orders of the said error and the said priority (the enforcement of null court orders caused by the said error and the said priority).
23	28.2.2011	Maurice Law responded to Mr. D Evans of the LPCC re the falsifications.
24	11.3.2011	Respondent provided an oral written submission before the Court of Appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 on only four issues of the calumny to be tried: 1) Pseudo Board 2) Timothy Robin Thies and bias of Ken Martin J, 3) David Taylor and falsifications of court records and 4) the Consent Judgment of Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007 setting aside the decision of Judge Eckert.  These issues are never res judicata as they are never spelled out in any statement of reasons of any fora for which these matters are supposed to have been litigated.  The courts do not want to address them but avoided them all the time (the non-res judicata issues).
25	8.4.2011	1) Respondent’s letter to Mr. Anthony Prime in respect of the suspension of the enforcement of null court orders caused by the error and the priority in CHIN -v- HALL [No 2] [2011] WASCA 96 dated 1.4.2011.  2) The Respondent’s also canvasses the issues: 1. his entitlement to the $20k as promised by the Mrs. Audrey Hall as a condition for the upliftment of the Respondent’s first caveat in CACV 107 of 2008, 2. his further costs in defending the CACV107 of 2008 under conditions of necessity which is to be borne by Nancy’s estate, which caveat has been removed in CIV 2157 of 2011 on 12.8.2011.  3) Buzz JA alluded to the possibility of the Respondent in law for being paid for further works under conditions of necessity to pursue justice for the estate of Nancy Hall.  3) The Respondent lodged this matter with the WA Police on the same day followed by a detailed letter to Senior Constable Williams dated 12.4.2011 (the second police report).  4) This is followed by the Respondent complaining to all members of Parliament regarding the disparity in the enforcement of rules by a failing judicial system, namely the decision of Pullins and Newnes JJA on 1.4.2011 as indicated above. 5) Maurice Law also wrote to Mr. Anthony Prime seeking a return of monies paid for the wrongful costs orders of Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 resulting from the falsifications of court records by David Taylor.
26	8.4.2011	1) Transcript of the proceedings before SAT when Ms. Le Miere for the LPCC before His Honour Judge Sharp who made references for Ms. LeMiere to quicken the matter so that the Respondent could get his practice certificate back.  2) This matter was similarly broached by the Tribunal on 26.11.2010.   Reference was also made by Respondent with regard to his letter to the Tribunal and the LPCC dated 21.3.2011 with reference to the 8 questions that the Respondent had asked of Ms. Le Miere regarding the inequity of the LPCC to which she was not answering by the 8.4.2011.  3) Not answering is an admission of the truths implicit in those rhetorical questions.  Refer also to email of Respondent dated 10.5.2011.
27	16.4.2011	1) Respondent’s complaint to LPCC regarding Mr. Anthony Prime keeping the $20k that was promised to be paid to the Respondent after his solicitor’s lien caveat on Nancy’s land was uplifted.  2) That Caveat was caused by the error and the priority and therefore it should not have been lifted by Master Sanderson’s Order in CIV1775 of 2008.  3) The Respondent is reasonably perceived to be continuing to be working for the estate of Nancy Hall under conditions of necessity, even though his independent status as a lawyer was taken away unlawfully by the Pseudo Board on 19.7.2006 that was confirmed by the Judge Eckert decision in VR137 of 2006 on 12.9.2006 (the restraint).  4) The restraint was set aside by Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007 on 26.9.2007.  4) The Pseudo Board continues to defame the Respondent in the aftermath of 26.9.2007 by relying on misinformation that the Respondent was making false accusations against David Taylor and Timothy Robin Thies when it is plain and apparent that the wrongdoers were them instead of the Respondent.
28	11.5.2011	1) Respondent reported to the Major Fraud Squad of the WA Police Sergeant Gangin re the falsifications after WA Police has investigated it upon the prompting of the State Attorney General in the first and second police reports.    2) This shows the malicious intent of the LPCC.
29	13.5.2011	1) The Respondent provided the LPCC with sufficient information on the focused issue of the falsifications, which would reasonably cause it to reach the verdict it did not wish to arrive at when it delivered its decision to Maurice Law on 4.8.2011. 2) This caused Maurice Law to make his VR 158 of 2011 Application to SAT on 13.9.2011 which was heard by Justice Chaney.
30	17.5.2011	1) The State Attorney General responded to the email of the Respondent by stating that the judiciary and the executive government are independent of each other and therefore he cannot intervene.  2) However, he thanked the Respondent for bringing the matter to his attention as he is being made aware of the hearing of SAT in VR87 of 2009 on 11.10.2011.  3) This has prompted the Attorney General to launch the law reforms which is currently in process affecting the issues of misconduct of judicial officers.
31	19.5.2011 (See item No.19 above)	1) Respondent reported to Sgt Gangin regarding Her Honour Registrar Wallace’s decision to regularize the irregular or to rectify the cart before the horse anomaly situation. 2) This security sum of $100.00 is not a deposit for security costs fees as the relevant legislation was repealed at the time of its payment. 3) The First stage Review Proceedings was first granted by His Honour Justice Hasluck but was discontinued by Justice Ken Martin.  The matter was discussed in ex parte proceedings for prerogative writs in CIV 1491 of 2011 before Allanson J who decided that he has no powers against his brother judge of the same rank for prerogative writ powers (no powers) 4) Heenan J also arrived at no powers conclusion in CIV 1981 of 2010 and Civ 1877 of 2010 on 11.4.2010 but adjourned the two cases sini die.  5) Registrar Wallace’s sudden decision to regularize the irregular is like a bolt from the blue sky.  It is caused by the rationale of the High Court decision in P50 of 2010 in that security costs order not be delayed such that His Honour Ken Martin J had stultified the proceedings by putting the cart before the horse or the anomaly situation.  5) Ken Martin J in that second stage process of the Review Order manifested less than impartiality to the Respondent and did not decide the issue in accordance with the law. This offends the two pillars of justice (the injustice by Ken Martin J).
32	13.6.2011	1) Two letters of the same date from Sgt. Gangin of Major Fraud Squad of WA Police to Respondent indicating that the matter of the falsifications and the separate issue of stultification by Ken Martin J has been referred to the Chief Justice under its Policy Guidelines (the Protocol).  2) The Major Fraud Squad can investigate only after the Protocol.
33	11.7.2011	The Honorable Michael Mischin MLC as Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General responded to the President of the Unity Party of WA Mr. Eddie Hwang stating that “Mr. Chin’s case has been argued extensively and intensively” and should be left at that; he implies thereby that the executive branch of the government of WA should not interfere with the independence of the judiciary in meting out justice to Mr. Chin.