LETTER FROM MAURICE LAW TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF WA RE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CIV 1397 OF 2012 OF JUSTICE CHANEY'S DECISION IN VR 158 OF 2011

MAURICE LAW

87 William Street

Herne Hill   6056                                                                                             08 9296 1555                                                                              

                                                                                                                          0402 002 797

Tuesday, March 20, 2012                                                                        

Email: Moza35@bigpond.com

The Principal Registrar

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Spring Gardens, Barrack St

PERTH WA 6000 (9 pages)

Fax: 92214436

The Chief Executive Officer

STATE ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Ground Floor, 12  St Georges Terrace

PERTH   6000

9325 5099  fax   ph   9219 3111

Atten: Associate to the President of SAT, His Honour Justice Chaney

To be served with the 134 pages of CIV 1397 of 2012.

The Legal Profession Complaints Committee

2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace
PERTH WA 6000

PO Box Z5293
ST GEORGES TERRACE WA 6831( 9 pages)

Fax number

08 9461 2265

Atten: Mr. I Fletcher

The Associate to the Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC

The Hon. Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin
Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel (08) 9421 5337
E-mail - Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5395  Fax: 92214436
E-mail - Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au (9 pages)

The Honourable Attorney General of Western Australia

The Honourable Christian Porter MLA.,

21st Floor, Governor Stirling Tower
197 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: (08) 9222 8800
Fax: (08) 9222 8801
Email: Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au (9 pages)

David Taylor Solicitors (9 pages) 

Faxed: 93715233

Dear Sirs

Re: CIV1397 OF 2012- MATTER OF MAURICE FREDERICK LAW

I refer to the above matter and the hearing of my application for Judicial Review before His Honour, the Honourable Chief Justice of Western Australia (the Chief f Justice).  I would like to state as follows:

1)         The Chief Justice is not functus officio as His Honour had not effectively dealt with the matter before him or had avoided them, in the following terms:  

1.1.      The issues that are required to be dealt by the Chief Justice in CIV 1397 of 2012 have not been dealt with by His Honour and therefore, those issues are not res judicata. I therefore humbly request for those issues to be dealt with again by another judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (see the Attached Transcript of the proceedings before the Chief Justice dated 12.3.2012 in 2 pages marked as MFL1 to MFL-2).

1.2.      The Chief Justice did communicate with His Honour Justice and President Chaney of SAT but the latter was not served with the 134 pages of the papers the Chief Justice was served with in CIV 1397 of 2012.  As a result President Chaney does not know what my complaint is about, although His Honour had requested me for those papers and I did not at that time accede to His Honour’s request.  I am serving those 134 pages to SAT together with this letter.

1.3.      The Chief Justice did make it a condition on 12.3.2012 as reflected in the transcript that His Honour would not deal with CIV 1397 of 2012 until I have made an application for President Chaney to recuse himself on the ground of his apprehended bias. Therefore, the Chief Justice should not have dismissed CIV 1397 of 2012 on 12.3.2012 but should have adjourned it sini die.  

1.4.      As a result of the Chief Justice’s expression of his intentions as indicated above, I have therefore made a special oral application on 13.3.2012 for Justice Chaney to recuse himself on ground of his apprehended bias, but His Honour had refused to do so and instead have adjourned the matter to be heard by himself again on 19.4.2012.  This time, Justice Chaney re-inforced his apprehended bias against me by making it clear to me that I shall be DENIED MY NATURAL JUSTICE IN THE FUTURE by his refusing to grant me my request for the full transcript of that hearing dated 13.3.2012 and THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ALL FUTURE HEARING S of SAT.   This is to ensure that I will be unable to appeal his decision which His Honour is intending to make against me.

1.5.      The reinforcement of the apprehended bias of Justice Chaney against me is the result of the unanswered questions which are as follows:

1.5.1.  David Taylor had responded specifically to the Order of Justice Chaney dated 15.11.2011 by depositing that single page bank statement dated 19.5.2009 which indicates that the sum of $654.20 was paid into the Registry of the Supreme Court on that day but was WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY.  That sum was paid for the purpose of enabling Registrar Powell to issue the false invoice bearing No. 2024832 giving effect to the false receipt bearing No.SCR 1442 dated 16.2.2006 but is intrinsically dated 19.5.2009 (the single page bank statement).   

15.2.    The single page bank statement was shown to me by Jacqui of SAT on 30.11.2011 and I did request for a copy of it to be given to me orally and I was told that I need to put that request in writing.  In fact, my request was already in writing and had received the assent of Justice Chaney as recorded in the transcript of the proceedings dated 15.11.2011.  Despite this, I have been making oral and written requests for this single page document until the 13.2.2012 when SAT FINALLY SUPPLANTED that single page bank statement with a seven page documents.  Why is there are so many unanswered questions and nobody wants to answer them:   

15.3.    Why did this have to happen when it affects David Taylor and Registrar Powell again and again? 

15.4.    Why is there no honesty in SAT dealings with me? 

15.5.    Why is the issue of the non-event of the payment of $654.20 as court fees for the purported filing of CIV1131 of 2006 being avoided all the times, right from Master Sanderson decision in CIV1775 of 2008, Owen JA decision in CACV 107 of 2008, Registrar Powell’s taxation of the bill of costs in those two cases? 

15.6.    Why are they refusing to look at the very evidence – the bank statement that no money was paid on 10.2.2006? 

1.5.7.   Why is there so much injustice even by the Chief Justice himself who had been entrusted by the WA Police Fraud Squad to report on this matter? 

1.5.8.   Why are they running away from this merely to protect David Taylor and Registrar Powell?

1.5.9.   Why is there no justice and fair play for the ordinary common person?

1.5.10. Why is that, right under our nose, Justice Chaney is dismissing Complaint No.6 and 7 without reasons for doing so?   

1.5.11. Why is it that, right under our nose, Justice Chaney is saying that he will again dismiss Complaint No.5 and he is getting away with it?

1. 5.12. Why is the Chief Justice saying that I appeal against Justice Chaney’s refusal to recuse himself, when he knows that the Court of Appeal would simply deny my appeal saying that there is no prospect of success?

1.5.13. The seven page SUPPLLANTED DOCUMENT also does not prove that the $654.20 was ever paid to the Supreme Court Registry as court fees for the filing of CIV 1131 of 2006 between the dates 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006.  How come Justice Chaney can arrive at the decision that Maurice Law was not misled as to the filing of the CIV1131 of 2006 by David Taylor and How come Justice Chaney can come to the decision that David Taylor did not swear a false affidavit dated 29.3.2007 filed in CIV 1131 of 2006?  These are the subject matters of Complaints Nos.6 and 7 and they HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON 24.2.2012.  Why are there no reasons for judgments that explain clearly how all this ludicrous judgments have come about?  Am I not entitled to the reasons for those judgments?

1.5.14. Why did Registrar Powell say that the payment of $654.20 was made by credit card payment?  Where is the proof of this? Why is Justice Chaney avoiding this very issue that affects the issue of Maurice Law having been pillaged and plundered by his own solicitor?

1.5.15. Where is the $2,000.00 paid by Maurice Law to David Taylor on the 9.2.2006? That payment should be in the trust account? Why is it not there? Why is Justice Chaney keeping quiet about this?

1.5.16. I, Maurice Law, will not allow Justice Chaney to continue to hear this case.  I know he is going to destroy my case and he is going to destroy my life?  Why is the Chief Justice not stopping David Taylor?

1.5.17. I, Maurice Law am not going to stomach this anymore.  This is self-torture and I am going to be a dead person by the time, justice is seen to be done to me. Are the justices going to be responsible for my death just as they have done to Nancy Hall in the past? 

1.5.18. Justice Chaney is not doing his duty to the court if that missing one page bank statement entrusted to him by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 and viewed by Maurice Law on 30.11.2011 as provided by Jacqui is going to disappear into oblivion without any explanation.  Jacqui has been queried and she had threatened me Maurice Law to the effect that I should not threaten SAT.  Is SAT not there to do justice or is SAT there to protect David Taylor and Registrar Powell?

2. Justice Chaney had not the opportunity to consider the contents of the papers that was before the Chief Justice and that was not before Justice Chaney.  Therefore, I am now serving those 134 pages upon Justice Chaney and I know that he will still decide not to recuse himself.  He will be the judge who is in jurisdictional error and who had refused to answer to all the evidence that is before him and yet come to a ludicrous decision without any basis on facts and law.
3. The Chief Justice has been provided with the 134 pages of documents filed in CIV 1397 of 2012 and yet His Honour is saying that he has not got the decision of Justice Chaney dated 24.2.2012 where Justice Chaney had dismissed Complaints 5 and 6.  His Honour had not been provided with the Application Papers in VR158 of 2011 but that is the duty of SAT to provide that to the Chief Justice as it constitutes the court records for the Judicial Review in CIV 1397 of 2012.  
4. It is a ludicrous situation where the Judges will not do justice in accordance with the law and the facts of the case.  The Chief Justice has himself acknowledge that there is corruption in the judiciary and that His Honour will try to solve the problem of corruption.  Why is this corruption staring in the face of the Chief Justice by Justice Chaney himself?

Yours truly,

M. Law

c.c. to
The Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia

Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850 Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA

Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884 Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au

Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849 
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au

Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Attention: Mr Murray Alder
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849 
Phone: (08) 9264 9570 
Email: murray.alder@piccc.wa.gov.au

Senior Constable Williams of WA Police

The WA Police Fraud Squad, Sgt K. Gangin