SUPREME COURT OF
|
NO.: [CACV ………. OF 2012]
|
||||
COURT OF APPEAL
|
AFFIDAVIT
|
||||
Parties to the Appeal
|
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Appellant
|
||||
THE LEGAL
PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Respondent
|
|||||
EX PARTE
|
|||||
Person making affidavit
|
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
|
||||
Date Made
|
3.1.2013.
|
||||
Purpose
|
In support of my application in form
9 dated 3.1.2012 for the following:
1) Leave to appeal the first SAT Judgment and the SAT Final Judgment
pursuant to s. 105(1), (2) and (3) of the state administrative tribunal act,
2004 (the SAT Judgments).
2) Leave for extension of time to appeal the SAT Judgments pursuant
to s. 105(5), (6), (7) and 13 of the SAT act upon grounds of facts and law or
Mixed Facts and Law with no stipulations as to costs as the Appellant has and
is not misconducting himself in these proceedings.
3) A Concurrent Application for Judicial Review of the SAT judgments
(The Judicial Review).
|
||||
Filed by
|
THE APPELLANT
|
||||
Index
|
Contents Page
|
||||
1. Affidavit of NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN 2
2. No annexures as all relevant documents are in the court records 7
|
|||||
[Party’s] address for
service
|
|||||
Firm name
|
NICHOLAS NI KOK as litigant in person
|
||||
Street Address
|
387,
|
||||
Telephone no
|
0892757440
|
Fax No
|
08 92757440
|
||
Reference
|
|||||
Email address
|
|||||
I, NICHOLAS NI KOK
CHIN (Former Lawyer) of No. 387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059 DO SOLEMNLY
SWEAR and state as in the following:
INDEX
PAGE NUMBERS
1. The information
that I provide below is of my own knowledge which I perceived with my own
senses and if there are information which is not so perceived by me, I shall
state the source of such information to the best of my information and belief.
2. I am appealing
the SAT Judgments and the FB Judgment in my CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF APPEAL dated
the 3.1.2013 (the Appeal).
THE INVALID REPORT OR
RECOMMENDATION AND THE CONSEQUENT INVALID MANDATE TO THE FULL BENCH:
3. I honestly
believe in the following:
3.1. the First SAT
Judgment dated 24.4.2012 is null and void on the grounds of its Denial of
Natural Justice to me as indicated in the Merit Issues or the List of
Jurisdictional Issues as contained in my Written Penalty Submissions dated
29.5.2012 (the Null First SAT Judgment).
3.2. The Final SAT
Judgment dated 20.8.2012 is also null and void on the ground that it avoided
the Merit Issues and the List of Jurisdictional Errors in its written judgment after
the Decision Maker had been alerted of them as indicated in the First SAT
Judgment (The SAT Final Judgment denied me my Natural Justice).
3.3. As a
consequence of the Null First SAT Judgment and the Null Final SAT Judgment, the
Decision Maker or SAT had no standing or mandate to provide the Full Bench of
the Supreme Court the required Report or Recommendation pursuant to s. 438 of
the LP 2008 Act for the Appellant to be struck off the roll of practitioners
(the VOID FB Mandate).
4. I honestly
believe that my Written Penalty Submissions dated 29.5.2012 constitutes: 4.1. A
valid appeal on the Merit Issues that can be reasonably construed from the List
of Jurisdictional Errors of the SAT Panel which are embedded in the Appellant’s
Written Penalty Submissions dated and filed the 29.5.2012 i.e. filed within the
prescribed statutory period for appeal of 21 days from the date of the First
SAT Judgment (A Meritorious Appeal).
4.2. It is a Meritorious
Appeal because I was unaware of the requirement to Appeal the First SAT
Judgment as I was distracted by the Decision Maker SAT to provide a Written
Penalty Submissions within 14 days of my receipt of the Respondent Written
Submission on Penalty and I thought that was all that I had to do and I shall
be heeded as a result (The Valid Appeal).
4.2. Even if the
Valid Appeal is subsequently invalidated by the Court of Appeal, there is a
concurrent request by me for an internal judicial review by the Decision Maker
or SAT on the ground that I had taken the first opportunity to immediately
object to the First SAT Judgment upon the grounds of the said List of
Jurisdictional Errors (Concurrent Internal Review).
4.3. I did not
appeal the First SAT Judgment but merely submitted my Written Penalty
Submission within the required time frame of 14 days from the date I received
the Respondent Written Penalty Submissions and this signifies that to my mind I
was appealing the First SAT Judgment (My intention To Appeal).
4.4. The
irregularity of the SAT Final Judgment is at [17] in [2012] WASAT 77(S) found
at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2012WASAT0077(S)/$FILE/2012WASAT0077(S).pdf
where the Decision maker avoided the MERIT ISSUES of the Jurisdictional Errors
of the First SAT Judgment by these words (the Avoidance of the Issues before
SAT in the Final Judgment):
“The Practitioner's more formal submissions
of 29
May 2012 are lengthy,
extensively footnoted and extremely difficult to understand. The first 13 pages
of the submissions are set out as a table of 'jurisdictional errors' contained
in the decision in Chin.
The Practitioner then proceeds to maintain his original contention (Chin at [4]) that the Committee,
in pursuing the complaints against him, is acting in a vexatious manner.”
4.5. The Final SAT
Judgment did not take into account the Merit Issues the Valid Appeal, the
Concurrent Internal Review or My Intention to Appeal and avoided the Issues
that was before it. This means that it
denied me my natural justice and it thereby rendered its SAT Final Judgment a
nullity (the Null SAT Final Judgment).
4.5. I as the Appellant
did not appeal the SAT Final Judgment during the period from 20.8.2012 till the
23.12.2012 because I knew and understood that the Full Bench in LPD 2 of 2012
has a supervisory jurisdiction over SAT and the said List of Jurisdictional
Errors is sufficient to set aide the SAT Final Judgment or in the alternatively
or concurrently, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in LPD 2 of 2012 could
grant me relief in accordance with the common law prerogative Writs of
Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition. But
it did not contrary to my expectations and instead accepted Invalid Mandate
from the SAT Final Judgment (Reason for Not Appealing the SAT Final Judgments).
4.6. As a litigant
in person, the Full Bench has duties and obligations to advise me on the
procedural errors involving my Reason Not Appealing the SAT Judgments although
it has no duties to advise me on the merits of my case or on the substantive
law (the Duty of the Full Bench on Procedural Errors).
THE NULL FB JUDGMENT
I believe the Full
Bench Judgment in LPD 2 of 2012 is null and void on the grounds that it should
have:
1) NOT ABIDED by
the Anomalous After The Fact Provision of s. 444 of the Inapplicable LP 2008
Act not to disturb the findings of the SAT Judgments knowing them to be
nullities.
2) NOT ABIDED by
the Anomalous After The Fact Provisions of s.622 of the LP 2008 Act replacing
the operative statute law of s. 185 and 205A of the LP2003 Act, which provides
that only the President of SAT has the power to remove the Appellant from the
roll of practitioners.
3) ABIDED by the
operative statute law provisions of ss. 185 and 205A of the LP2003 by having
regard to the fact that President Chaney of SAT had ambushed the Appellant in
the Res Judicata Point Decision in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS
COMMITTEE and CHIN
[2009] WASAT 219 dated 4.11.2009 and subsequently by His Honour’s conduct did admit
to this fault by abdicating himself from further hearing the VR87 of 2009.
REASON FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND THE CONCURRENT JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS:
6. I honestly
believe the following:
6.1. that a
Concurrent Judicial Review by way of Prerogative Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari
and Prohibitions should have been set in place in LPD 2 of 2012 upon the advice
of the Full Bench so that the SAT JUDGMENTS could be judicially reviewed by it as
it (the Full Bench of the Supreme Court) has supervisory jurisdiction over SAT
in VR 87 of 2009 having regard to the implications of the nullity of the SAT
Judgments (the Concurrent Judicial Review).
6.2. It is not too
late for the Full Court in LPD 2 of 2012 to be re-constituted so that it could
implement the Concurrent Judicial Review while at the same time deciding whether
or not it has received the necessary mandate from the SAT Final Judgment on the
ground that its LPD 2 of 2012 decision dated 12.12.2012 is a null decision and
there is nothing for me the Appellant to appeal against (the Re-Constituted
Full Court).
6.3. If there is a Concurrent Judicial Review
in place, it could run concurrently with this current Consolidated Appeal or it
could run after this appeal has been judicially determined (the Consolidated
Appeal Process to Run Concurrently).
6.4. The
Consolidated Appeal Process could be dispensed with because it involves the
costly Leave to Appeal Process and the Leave to Extend Time to Appeal Process
and a cheaper alternative of a Concurrent Judicial Review Process should be
used instead (Dispensation of the Consolidated
Appeal Process).
THE APPREHENDED REAL
BIAS OF JUSTICE MCKECHNIE:
7. The apprehended
or actual bias of the presiding Judge His Honour McKechnie J also contributes
to the nullity of the LPD 2 of 2012 decision dated 12.12.20120. See the transcript of the proceedings for the
Full Bench at the site where the Appellant asked the Presiding Judge His Honour
Justice McKechnie to recuse himself from further hearing the case on the ground
of perceived and actual bias: See the transcript of the proceedings at: http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/transcript-of-proceedings-before-full.html.
8. The Court of
Appeal hearing this matter may have resort to the spontaneous comments made by
me and other interested observes of the Just Grounds Community with regard to
the nullity of the SAT Judgments and the FB Judgments. I have put into THE JUST GROUNDS COMMUNITY
WEBSITE for Discussions of the Community at NICHOLAS N CHIN PAGE in:
8.2. NICHOLAS N
CHIN DISCUSSIONS at
inter alia, the
following:
A reasonable and fair-minded person would apprehend bias by his Honour
Justice Mckechnie:
1) at [6] his Honour said that he dismissed [2012]wasc219 or civ
3427 of 2011 because i) "did not seek leave to commence
proceedings as required by the order of Murray J" (the
dismissal).
2) the dismissal is a jurisdictional error because of item 3
in my notice of appeal dated 27.6.2012 filed with the court of appeal
registrar (item 3 of the appeal notice).
3) item 3 of
the appeal notice states: "3. Civ3427 of 2011 is filed by
the applicant on 19.12.2011 and it ante-dates the applicant's
vexatious litigant order of justice murray
1) the "Consolidated Cases" Appeal Nnotice filed 27.6.2012
consolidates all the cases that have been considered by Justice Murray in
the vexatious proceedings in Civ 1689 of 2011 resulting in his Honour
declaring me as a vexatious litigant (my vexatious litigant status).
2) if his Honour Justice Murray had considered the single non-litigated
issue of "no caveatable interests can be founded upon non-proprietary
interests of David Taylor and Timothy Thies, then my vexatious litigant status
would have been solved (Solution to my Vexatious Litigant Status).
3) A solution to my Vexatious Litigant Status would provide me with
equal justice before the courts of Western Australia
4) The Equal Justice to Me would mean that my name as a Barrister and Solicitor
in the rolls of the Supreme Court of Western Australia would not be unlawfully
removed by the Full Bench on 12.12.2012.
Again
a reasonable person at [10] would consider justice Mc Kechnie's bias
when the dismissed the second procedural error decision in [2012] WASC 220 or Civ
1323 of 2012:
1) at
[7] Mc Kechnie J was wise in pointing out to me the procedural error that
there is no judicial review for the decision of a supreme court judge like Justice
Murray in Civ 1689 of 2011 or [2012] WASC7, declaring me a vexatious
litigant, except by way of an appeal (the second procedural error).
2)
despite the second procedural error, any reasonable person like me would have
made an application by way of RSC 1971 0.59 r.3 to the court of appeal for a
new trial of certain areas of dispute in the decision of justice
Murray pursuant to s.59 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 WA (the Statutory
Remedy).
3)
subsequent to the Second Pprocedural Error decision of Justice Mc Kechnie dated
18.6.2012, I have appealed it in the same Notice of Appeal dated 27.6.2012
under item 2.3 of the "consolidated cases" upon the single
non-litigated issue of law: "no caveatable interests can
ever exist for David Taylor and Timothy Robin Thies if they are never
founded upon proprietary interests".
9. All relevant
information pertaining to my case with the Applicant can be found at these
three blogspots:
10. I have been vexed seven times by SAT
in VR137 of 2006, VR107 of 2008, Special Inquiry by the Pseudo Board and the
court-like tribunal of the various committes of the regulator found at: http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/no-court-can-decided-the-same-issues-again-and-again-seven-times
on the same subject matter with the
President of SAT having recused himself in VR87 OF 2009. The operative laws is the LPAct 2003 and not
the after the event anamolous provisions of the New LP 2008 Act which came into
operation only in 2009 when the alleged offences I have committed transpired in
the period 2004 to 2006. Therefore the s.444 and 622 of the Inaplicable LP2008
Act were applied by McKechnie J to punish me whereas it is the not the policy
of the regulator to punish me at all unless I have been guilty of some criminal
conduct:
"The Respondent
had been vexed seven times in terms of the following:
1) The decision of the Professional Affairs Committee of the Board
on 4.7.2006 that the Respondent is not guilty of professional misconduct or
unsatisfactory conduct but of DEFICIENCY IN HIS PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE.
2) The same decision was reached again by the tribunal-like
Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee on 19.7.2006;
3) The State Administrative Tribunal again made the same
decision by Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 on 12.9.2006;
4) The twice improperly delegated Special Inquiry Committee
of the Board again made the same decision on 2.5.2008
5) His Honour Justice Chaney himself again made the same
decision in VR107 of 2008 or [2008]WASAT252) on 28.10.2008;
6) His Honour Justice Chaney acting in conflict of interest
(MY UTMOST RESPECT) delivered the prejudgment res judicata decision in the
“ambushed” decision that the Respondent is guilty of Professional in
[2009]WASAT 219 and
7) The Honourable Members of the SAT Panel in the present proceedings made
the preliminary findings in these proceedings that are currently being refuted
before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia on
23.11.2012. It is interesting to see how the Full Bench shall decide the
issue of whether I can be struck off the roll for no perceived dishonesty or
misappropriation of funds or fraud.
SWORN BY THE DEPONENT )
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN )
AT PERTH ON 3.1.2012 )…………………………………………………
SIGNATURE OF NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
BEFORE ME
……………………………………………………………………………………
A COMMISSIONER OF OATHS OR A PERSON AUTHORISED TO TAKE AFFIDAVITS.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=609097013300838&id=100026016336253
ReplyDelete