TABLE SHOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS OF PRESIDENT CHANEY OF SAT IN
HIS HONOUR’S JUDGMENT IN VR158 OF 2012 OR LAW and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS
COMMITTEE [2012] WASAT 36 DATED 24.2.2012
|
Nos.
|
Types of
Jurisdictional Errors
|
Para-graphs Numbers
of the Judgment
|
|
Comment on
paragraph numbers of the Judgment in relation to Types of Jurisdictional
Errors committed by President Chaney
|
|
1
|
denying the
Applicant procedural fairness
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9 and 10.
|
|
1: The Committee
has no jurisdiction to dismiss all of the complaints as it is in
jurisdictional error. That is why the
Applicant wants SAT to Review. If SAT
is sincere, then it should have seen the non-bona fides of the Committee. It looks like the Committee is directing
SAT what to do. The Committee in the
first place should not have dismissed all the complaints and should not have
determined that three of the complaints are unreasonable. The Committee has not given reasons why
they are unreasonable. There is no reason why the three complaints are
unreasonable as they fulfill all the criteria of s. 453(2) of the LPA
Act. The criteria are: REASONABLESS,
NOT FRIVOLOUS, NON-TRIVIAL, and Applicant has DIRECT PERSONAL INTERESTS in
them.
|
|
2
|
identifying the
wrong issues,
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
2: SAT is in
jurisdictional error in determining that Leave is required for its Review of
the Three Complaints pursuant to by subs. 435(2) of the LPA, because the
criteria which impose this Leave for Review is unnecessary under the
circumstances of the case.
|
|
3
|
asking the wrong
questions,
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
3: SAT is in
jurisdictional error to agree with the Committee about dismissing all the
eight complaints. SAT has a duty to
explain the reasons to Maurice Law why he is in agreement with the Committee to
dismiss all the eight complaints. Even
President Chaney himself does not know the reason why the Committee dismissed
all the eight complaints. If he did,
he would have explained it to Maurice Law.
Maurice does not know what President Chaney knows.
|
|
4
|
ignoring relevant
materials,
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
4: President Chaney
did not consider the written submissions by the Applicant dated 14.10.2011 originally
intended for Deputy President Sharp.
If President Chaney did, His Honour would have arrived at the decision
that Leave was not required as the Three Complaints are not unreasonable as
applicable to the facts of the case.
The reason why President Chaney is making his decision thus is because
he had shut his minds to the facts of the case.
|
|
5
|
relying on
irrelevant materials,
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
5.a. Owen JA
“helpfully summarized” is misleading and President Chaney knows that it is
misleading because His Honour Owen JA did self-contradict on the law and the
facts by not accepting the fresh evidence of the Letter of Registrar Powell
dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book in CACV 107 of
2008.
5. b. Mr. Law has
five scribe-writers helping him and therefore His Honuor President Chaney should
have said that Mr. Law consulted Mr. Ni Kok Chin on some of the facts of the
case from time to time.
5.c. Although there
was conflicting interests between Mr. Chin and Mr. Law before 10.2.2006,
those conflicting interests no longer exist since that date as the sole issue
in dispute in these proceedings that CIV1131 of 2006 was not commenced by Mr.
Taylor on behalf of Mr. Law.
5.d. Both Mr. Law
and Mr. Chin now have common interests to pursue their common purpose against
Mr. Taylor for having wronged them respectively.
5.e. The LPCC should not have found the matters
of complaint against Mr. Law in the Hall litigation as unreasonable but the
contrary. Mr. Law has stated that Mr. Taylor
had encouraged him to complain against Mr. Chin for the wrong reason just to
get rid of Mr. Chin as solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005.
5.f. Mr. Law was
blindly led by Mr. Taylor to complain against Mr. Chin because the latter is
the former’s solicitor and is therefore in a position to undue-influence the
former. Mr. Taylor paid the court fees
for Mr. Law to start the
|
|
6
|
making erroneous
findings of facts or law
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
6. The law for the
Test for Leave under s. 435(2) of the LP Act is correct but it is misapplied
to the perceived circumstances of SAT that does not tally with the factual
circumstances. The facts of the case
reveal that there was no requirement for such Leave and therefore the Test
for Leave as advocated by President Chaney is unnecessary.
|
|
7
|
reaching mistaken
conclusions of acts or law,
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
7.a: Leave under s.
435(2) of the Act is not required for Complaint 5 because the Four Criteria
of Unreasonableness, Frivolity, Triviality and Direct Personal Interests are
being faithfully fulfilled by the Applicant.
This is an area of dispute which warrants the Judicial Review which
includes declarative judgments, the reconsideration of disputed issues and
new trials of disputed issues as per ss.25(6), 43 and 59 of the Supreme Court
Act, 1935 WA (see the Table prepared by Applicant in his Submission dated
14.10.2011 pursuant to s.27A of the Evidence Act, 1906 WA).
7.b: Leave under
s.435(2) is also not required for Complaint 6 as there is no dispute about the
Non-commencement of Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 until today proven
by the The ONLY DOCUMENT (The Single Issue). That was deposited with SAT on 29.11.2011 by
David Taylor as a result of the Order of President Chaney dated 15.11.2011 in
VR158 of 2011, it was viewed by Applicant on 30.11.2011, agreed to be given a
copy by President Chaney on 15.11.2011 as evidenced by the transcript but was
unreasonably withheld by Jacqui of SAT for more than three months and finally
supplanted with 7 pages of Irrelevant Documents dated 15.2.1012 (the ONLY
DOCUMENT).
7.c: The ONLY DOCUMENT
destroyed the two myths:
7.1.c. The first
myth created by the falsity of the Sworn
Affidavit of David Taylor in CIV 1131 of 2006 dated 19.3.2007 that
CIV1131 of 2006 was commenced on 10.2.2006.
7.2.c. The second
myth created by Registrar Powell in his letter dated 11.6.2009 found at page
136 of the Yellow Appeal Book in CACV 107 of 2008 that CIV1131 of 2006 was
commenced on 16.2.2006.
The IRREFUTABLE
PROOF of the ONLY DOCUMENT states that the court fees of $654.20 was paid
into the bank account of the Supreme Court of WA on or about the 20.5.2009
for the purpose of generating the false receipt. That sum was withdrawn from that account on the same day.
Therefore, when no court fees were ever paid for CIV 1131 of 2006, the ONLY
DOCUMENT proves that CIV 1131 of 2006 was never commenced at any time in the
past nor today.
|
|
8
|
determine critical
facts where there is no evidence
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
8: President Chaney
avoided the facts of the case with regard to there being no reasonable likelihood
that SAT would find David Taylor guilty of professional misconduct or
unsatisfactory conduct for advising his client Maurice Law, the Applicant to
complain against Ni Kok Chin without any adequate or proper basis for doing
so. There is no written evidence made
by the Applicant against Mr. Chin. The
only evidence is that Mr. Taylor paid for court fees of $399.00 to sue Mr.
Chin at the
|
|
9
|
making irrational
and illogical reasoning in the fact finding process,
|
1,2, 3,
|
|
9: Mr. Law
challenged anyone to dispute the veracity of his statement as quoted by
President Chaney regarding the malicious intention of Mr. David Taylor
against Mr. Ni Kok Chin. This is an
issue for this Judicial Review which must be re-considered on the facts of
the case and it cannot be just glossed over by SAT to hide the glaring facts.
Again, why did David Taylor pay the
court fees on behalf of Mr. Law to the
|
|
10
|
misapprehending the
law
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10.
|
|
10: Maurice Law is
not aware that he is required to provide further information by the Committee
with regard to the nature of the complaint which Mr. Taylor advised him to
make against Mr.Chin maliciously. He
is willing to provide further information if so requested and is providing
them in his Affidavit in Support for this Application for Judicial Review.
|
|
|
|
1,2,3,
4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9 and
10
|
|
11. Mr. David
Taylor’s complaint against Mr. Ni Kok Chin is indeed without foundation on
the following grounds:
11.1. The former
refused to compromise with the latter when approached by the latter about the
Single Issue of the Commencement Date for CIV1131 of 2006.
11.2. The former
told the latter that he could do anything he likes and the former is not
worried because he implies that he is beyond the law and that he has the
right to be arrogant to the latter and even to the Applicant.
11.3. The former
does not want to budge from the falsehood that he commenced CIV 1131 of 2006
on 10.2.2006 even though his version of the story conflicted with Registrar
Powell’s version in that there is an irreconcilable issue of the disputed and
fictitious payment of the court fees with either a cheque or a credit card
payment which are never confirmed by concrete evidence until the appearance
of the ONLY DOCUMENT ????, which was withheld by President Chaney.
11.4. The former
caused the latter to withdraw from acting for Nancy Hall in CIV1131 of 2006
because the integrity and legality of the Single Issue has not been solved by
the Committee that was caused by the interference of the learned Registrar
Powell who even go the extent of trying to intimidate and put fears into the
hearts of Mr. Chin and the Applicant by becoming the bogus taxation Master in
the Null and Void Costs of Master Sanderson Costs Order in CIV 1775 of 2008
and Owen JA Costs Order in CACV 107 of 2008 that are related to the Single
Issue for the purpose of putting the Single Issue at rest. The Single Issue is not a trivial matter
because it affects the livelihood of Mr. Chin and its affects the loss of the
legitimate claim of the Applicant against the Estate of Nancy Hall. The fraud of David Taylor are: the
falsification of the court records that unlawfully clogged up the equity of
Nancy Hall and stop her from her carrying out her normal duties as a
businesswoman and caused her early death.
The fraud on the Applicant for which he lost more than $60k to David
Taylor for no work done including his dishonest inducement to make the
Applicant do free building work for him. David Taylor has yet to acknowledge the free
building work done for him.
11.5. There was no
requirement for the latter to attend before Registrar Powell as he had made
his position clear to David Taylor that he is not the lawyer acting for Nancy
Hall in CIV1131 of 2006 as a result of the dispute of its commencement or the
Single Issue. All these matters are
the subject of the Committee investigations into the dispute between David
Taylor and Mr. Chin and therefore, the Committee has no jurisdiction to
dismiss those Complaints.
11.6. The non-attendance of the latter
before Registrar Powell caused the $300.00 improper costs order made by
Registrar Powell against the latter, which David Taylor knew was caused by
his own misleading statement to the learned Registrar.
11.7. The improper
costs of $300.00 by Registrar Powell caused the latter to defend his case
against Maurice Law who was misled by David Taylor to pay $400.00 to get back
the false hope of $300.00 of Registrar Powell’s costs order by institute a
false claim against Mr. Chin in
11.8. The dispute
of the improper costs order has been properly recorded and provided to the Committee
by Mr. Chin and there is no reason that there is insufficient evidence in
this regard to found the professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct of
David Taylor.
12: The Applicant
has made all representations that are necessary for Complaint 5. He is satisfied that the representations
would cause Mr. Taylor to be found guilty of professional misconduct or
unsatisatisfactory conduct. As
indicated above, he is now clarifying the issue which the Committee already
knows because the information has been provided by Mr. Chin himself. The Committee has to protect the public
interests and instead it is reasonably found to be protecting its own vested
interests.
13. Complaint 6 and
7 relates to the Single Issue and the False Affidavit of David Taylor aided
by the misleading letter of Registrar Powell contradicting the facts of the
Single Issue. SAT does not want to
know the facts of the Single Issue because it is paying deference to
Registrar Powell who had abused his powers as a public officer to protect his
own crony David Taylor. SAT does not
want to know that David Taylor took $2000.00 from the Applicant for the
purpose of effecting the Single Issue and this was not done but this sum is
never recorded in the trust Account of David Taylor. Why is there no professional misconduct on
this count alone? Why is Mr. Chin being blamed for minor things when he did not
even abuse trust account monies. This happens despite the Applicant having
inquired from David Taylor and SAT why the trust monies are not kept in the
trust account?
14 and 15: SAT has found
the truth to the Single Issue and yet President Chaney keeps on avoiding that
issue. Simon O’Brien illegible written
statement has no significance to the Single Issue. Yet SAT has accepted it. SAT supplanted the
seven page Irrelevant Document to replace the ONLY DOCUMENT it had withheld
from the Applicant. Is this not plain
that President Chaney is avoiding the issue at all costs and is making
attempts to defeat justice for the sake of his friend David
Taylor and
Registrar Powell again and again. He
is denying the conspiracy which is plain and clear to any one. President Chaney is simply ignoring the
Applicant’s complaint and does not give any reason why he is ignoring
it.
16. The arguments
of Mr. Ni Kok Chin make no mistakes and no confusion. The confusion is caused by His Honour Owen
JA self-contradicting rationale as to how the fresh evidence of Registrar
Powell’s letter dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book could
be properly rejected by the Court of Appeal and His Honour failed in this
regard. President Chaney found favour
in this illogical argument.
17. There is no payment
of the court fees made either on 10.2.2006 or 16.2.2006 as provided for in
THE ONLY DOCUMENT that was withheld by SAT from Maurice Law which document
was observed by Maurice Law on 30.11.2012.
Even the Seven Irrelevant Documents that was supplanted by SAT cannot
tally with the falsehood of David Taylor false Affidavit sworn 29.3.2007 in
CIV 1131 of 2006. President Chaney is
confused himself with the facts of the case and the real situation is, His
Honour is trying to avoid the truth by relying on the RED HERRING of
Registrar Powell.
18. Simmonds J
pointed out the discrepancies (between
the stamp date of Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 as 10.2.2006 and the actual
date of payment of the court fees in CIV 1131 of 2006 that was also
stamp-dated 10.2.2006 but subsequently altered to 16.2.2006) to Ms. Nancy
Hall.
19. The allegation
of lying and conspiracy is not without foundation as found by President
Chaney. This is the Single Issue that
was being avoided by Justice Chaney at all material times, right from the
start even before this case. The
Applicant thought he had changed into a new leaf but this does not happen
even most recently. This issue warrants a new trial so that the issue may be
trashed out. Again, why did the
President withhold that ONLY DOCUMENT viewed by Maurice Law through Jacqui on
30.11.2011? SAT will not find David
Taylor guilty of professional misconduct and Unsatisfactory Conduct if it
avoid the evidence before it.
20. The Order
dismissing the Application for Leave in relation to complaint 6 and 7 is
improperly dismissed without jurisdiction by President Chaney and it is
therefore NULL and VOID.
21. President
Chaney prejudged the issue of Complaint 1 (sic: should be Complaint 5) in
relation to David Taylor having encouraged the Applicant to sue Mr. Chin for
no reasonable grounds in that he found that it is unreasonable. It cannot be unreasonable because it is not
trivial as it affects the livelihood of Mr. Chin, it also affects the Applicant
being fleeced of $60k and giving free building works to David Taylor. It is
not frivolous because it is true and relevant to the single Issue. It is not
unreasonable because the Applicant does not make an illogical complaint. It
relates directly to the Applicant’s own personal interests. Because of the
dereliction of duties of David Taylor, the Applicant is on the brink of
bankruptcy, he is being chased by solicitors for improper costs orders like
that of Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008 by Mr. Anthony Prime. It can drive the Applicant to suicide or
heart attacks. Justice is being defeated because the just creditor is not
getting his money from the estate of Nancy Hall which is not bankrupt. The
Supreme Court of Western is established for the purpose of delivering justice
to the common people of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
,
,
No comments:
Post a Comment