AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGN PARTY APPOINTS NICHOLAS N CHIN AS HONORARY LEGAL ADVISOR

RE: Hello Nicholas.

	Inbox		x

Gregory Orfanidis via LinkedIn	8:43 PM (26 minutes ago)
to me

LinkedIn Gregory Orfanidis has sent you a message. Date: 2/21/2013 Subject: RE: Hello Nicholas. Hello Nicholas, That's fantastic to hear, and thank you for the nice words also. As I said, I don't ever intend for this to infringe on your time, and so with your permission, I will keep your contact details handy to utilise purely in the event the committee requires legal advice (which may be very rarely). Thank you again Nicholas. Keep fighting the good fight. Kindest Regards, Greg Orfanidis National Secretary On 02/18/13 7:14 AM, Nicholas N Chin wrote: -------------------- Thank you Greg for your kindly words. The Almighty Creator shall reward for your just thoughts and your predisposition to want to know the Truth. I am willing to play the role you have entrusted me to and shall be happy to hear further from you. Cheers NICHOLAS N CHIN On 01/02/13 4:52 AM, Gregory Orfanidis wrote: -------------------- Hello Nicholas, It's great to make a connection with you on LinkedIn. As an ASP member, and as a legal professional, I was hoping that you'd consider a proposal that I'm about to make. The ASP has now obtained its requisite to register federally in time for the upcoming election. We’ve attracted some invaluable people that have become active members – a couple of economists, a marketer, a graphics designer, and many others. The one very important role we haven’t yet covered is a legal advisor – which is why I’m writing to you. We all have our full-time jobs and are busy, as I’m sure you are, so I don’t want you to get the wrong impression of what I’m proposing here. The Legal Advisor role is not an office-bearer role, so you won’t need to be actively involved – unless you want to be of course. We essentially need someone with your background and expertise to fulfil this role to simply advise on matters legal if and when we require something confirmed or expertly assessed. Again, this is not designed to infringe on your work at all, and there is never any pressure associated with this role. Let me know your thoughts. I'll respect your decision either way. Looking forward to your response. Kindest Regards, Greg Orfanidis.

MY COMPLAINT WITH AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER AND ITS RESPONSE

REPLY FROM LANI WESTCOTT OF COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER


Posted by Nicholas N Chin on February 20, 2013 at 12:44am in ActivismView Discussions.Complaints Info
9:18 pm (1 day ago)
to me

Dear Mr Chin I refer to your further email. Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRCA), the Commission can investigate alleged breaches of human rights against the Commonwealth of Australia or one of its agents. Human rights are specifically defined to include those rights as provided for in the international instruments scheduled or declared to the AHRCA, including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). From the information you have provided, it does not appear the outlined situation would be covered by these human rights provisions as it does not involve the Commonwealth or one of its agents. Rather it appears your concerns are with the Western Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Western Australian Legal Profession Complaints Committee.

Kind regards Lani Westcott

Complaint Information Officer

Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 175 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001

Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Nicholas N Chin a href="mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au" target="_blank">nnchin09@tpg.com.au> wrote:

Dear Lani:

I refer to your response email to me as indicated below where you imply that my human rights has been violated by the State of Western Australia in relation to ICPPR.

I should appreciate that you address article 2 of the ICPPR with regard to the duties and obligations of our Commonwealth Human Rights Commisioner to me as an Australian citizens, in terms of the following:

Article 2

1.Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2.Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps. in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3.Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

1.To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

2.To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Cheers

NICHOLAS N CHIN



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Complaints Info wrote:
Dear Nicholas
I refer to your contact with the Commission regarding the State of Western Australia and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has the power to investigate and conciliate complaints about:
discrimination because of a person’s race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, age or disability as well as sexual harassment in specific areas of public life, such as, employment, education, providing you with goods and services and accommodation;
racial hatred that takes place in public;
discrimination in employment because of a person’s criminal record, sexual preference, trade union activity, religion, political opinion or social origin; or
breaches of human rights by the Commonwealth of Australia or one of its agents only.

While I appreciate that this matter is important to you, it does not appear that the Commission’s Investigation and Conciliation Section can assist you with this matter as it does not appear to raise issues that fall within our laws.

If you have further questions, please advise via return email or call the Complaint Information Line on 1300 656 419.
Kind regards
Bethany Hender
Complaint Information Officer
Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 3, 175 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

From: Nicholas N Chin nnchin1@gmail.com

Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Contact with the Australian Human Rights Commisson [DLM=Sensitive:Personal]
To: Complaints Info complaints.info@humanrights.gov.au
Dear Ms Hender
I would appreciate if you would be kind enough to state specifically your statement of reason in relation to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Cheers.
Nicholas N Chin
Sent from my iPad

UNITY PARTY INQUIRY FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE REGARDING THE APPEALS OF NICHOLAS N CHIN

Re: Mr. Nicholas N. Chin

Inbox

x

Unity Party WA	Feb 10 (3 days ago)
to Chief.Justice.., Attorney, Peter, me

The Hon. Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin AC

Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel  
E-mail - Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Associate - tel  (08) 9421 5479
E-mail - Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au

The Human Right Commissioner

Australian Human Rights Commission

Address   .C.Chun

The Notice of Consolidated Appeal and the Notice of Appeal against the Full Bench Decision dated 27.6.2012 and 3.1.2013 respectively have not been returned to Mr. Chin yet despite repeated reminders of Mr. Chin through Ms. Tracey, who is the Associate to the Court of Appeal Registrar.

 

I would like to remind you that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights since 1972 and did confirm its commitment to it in 1980 (the ICCPR).   Article 2 of the ICCPR provides that Australia through its state agents must provide competent judiciary and administrative services to ensure that proper remedies at law are being provided to its citizens to redress any form of injustice that is being meted out to our member Mr. Nicholas N Chin.

 

As the Chief Justice of Western Australia would you ensure that Justice to Mr. Chin is done through competent judiciary and administrative officers of the West Australian Government as he complained that he was unfairly treated after a license was granted to him.

We look forward to hear from you in due course.

Yours respectfully,

President

Unity Party WA

info@unitywa.org

http://unitypartywa.wordpress.com

http://unitywaorg.blogspot.com.au

http://twitter.com/unitypartywa

Phone/Fax: 61893681884

Environmental friendly - save the trees - use email.

UPWA is the only political party that calls a spade a spade.

Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au	Dear Sir Thank you for your email. For reasons that I am sure you will apprec...	Feb 11 (2 days ago)

Unity Party WA	4:29 pm (1 day ago)
to Christina.Curt., Attorney, me, Peter

Dear Chief Justice,

Thank you for your kindly reply.  We shall wait the court's decision in the not too distant future with regard to the litigation of Nicholas N Chin in the light of the following reasonable implications deriving from the reply of His Honour the Chief Justice: 

a) The non-registration of the Notice of Consolidated Appeal of Mr. Chin dated 27.6.2012 is awaiting consideration by the Court of Appeal Registrar. 

b) The non-registration of the Notice of Appeal of Mr. Chin dated 3.1.2013 against the Full Bench Decision to remove Mr. Chin unlawfully from the roll of barristers and solicitors is also awaiting consideration by the Court of Appeal Registrar. 

c) There is an assurance that the public interests of fair and equal justice will be provided by the judicial system of WA to every litigant in the State of WA in accordance with Article 2 of the United Nations International Covenant and Civil Rights (the ICCPR). 

In view of the above, Mr. Chin had notified the Court of Appeal Registrar that he shall be away from the jurisdiction for some two to three months as from mid-March of 2013 and shall accordingly be given the opportunity to be heard on his two appeals upon his return.

Yours respectfully, 

Eddie Hwang

-----Original Message-----
From: Christina.Curtis@justice.wa.gov.au
[mailto:Christina.Curtis@justice.wa.gov.au] On Behalf Of
Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 3:03 PM
To: info@unitywa.org
Cc: Peter Torrens; Attorney General - WA ; Nicholas N Chin
Subject: Re: Mr. Nicholas N. Chin

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email.

For reasons that I am sure you will appreciate, it is not my practice to engage in correspondence dealing with particular cases which are before the court with persons who are not parties to those proceedings.

However, I would observe that I have no reason to think that there has been any failure to provide a completely adequate system of justice in order to deal with the litigation involving Mr Nicholas Chin.

Yours sincerely

The Hon Wayne Martin AC
Chief Justice of Western Australia

             Unity Party WA
             <info@unitywa.org>  

To: <Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au>

11/02/2013 03:42PM 

cc:"Attorney General - WA " <minister.mischin@dpc.wa.gov.au>,
Peter Torrens<jptorrens@iprimus.com.au>, 

Nicholas N Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mr. Nicholas N. Chin

The Hon. Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin AC

Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel E-mail -
Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au

Associate - tel  (Embedded image moved to file: pic30523.gif)(08) 9421 5479

E-mail - Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au

The Human Right Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission

Address   .C.Chun
The Notice of Consolidated Appeal and the Notice of Appeal against the Full Bench Decision dated 27.6.2012 and 3.1.2013 respectively have not been returned to Mr. Chin yet despite repeated reminders of Mr. Chin through Ms. Tracey, who is the Associate to the Court of Appeal Registrar.

I would like to remind you that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights since 1972 and did confirm its commitment to it in 1980 (the ICCPR).   Article 2 of the ICCPR provides that Australia through its state agents must provide competent judiciary and administrative services to ensure that proper remedies at law are being provided to its citizens to redress any form of injustice that is being meted out to our member Mr. Nicholas N Chin.

As the Chief Justice of Western Australia would you ensure that Justice to Mr. Chin is done through competent judiciary and administrative officers of the West Australian Government as he complained that he was unfairly treated after a license was granted to him.

We look forward to hear from you in due course.

Yours respectfully,

Eddie Hwang

President
Unity Party WA
info@unitywa.org
http://unitypartywa.wordpress.com
http://unitywaorg.blogspot.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
Phone/Fax: 61893681884

Date: 11-2-2013.

Environmental friendly - save the trees - use email.UPWA is the only political party that calls a spade a spade.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail may be private and personal or otherwise confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of any part of the information is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please inform thesender and delete the document.

PROCEDURAL ERRORS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PREJUDICE MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO WORK IN MY CHOSEN PROFESSION

McKechnie J in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 467 or LPD 2 OF 2012 refers to the procedural errors committed by the Respondent in the following paragraphs of his judgment:

6. Re Nicholas Ni Kok Chin; Ex parte Chin [2012] WASC 219 was an

attempt by the practitioner to re-litigate matters which had been

determined by the Court of Appeal. He did not seek leave to commence

the proceedings as required by the order of Murray J. The application was

dismissed. This is a procedural decision.
ANSWER: LEAVE WAS SOUGHT. NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER. 

7 Re Nicholas Chin; Ex parte Chin [2012] WASC 220 was an

application for judicial review in respect of Murray J's order. The

applicant did not lodge a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. This is

the only competent way to challenge the order. The application was

dismissed. Again the decision was procedural.
ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.    

IN RELATION TO S.244 OF THE LPA2008:

34 The practitioner's written and oral submissions before us revealed a

profound failure to understand the character of these proceedings and the

legal framework for its determination. He invited us to reject, ignore or

invalidate the findings of SAT. He submits, for example, that the court

should not accede to the recommendations of SAT because 'it is a void

recommendation' and 'it is based on falsity ... falsehood ... [and] improper

motives' (ts 8). No such course is open to us in this proceeding. It is not

an appeal from, or application for judicial review of, the SAT's decision.

To the contrary, SAT's report is conclusive as to the facts and findings in

it.

ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 3.1.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.

In the terms of the above procedural errors committed by the Respondent and NOTICE OF APPEAL HAVING BEEN LODGED DATED 27.6.2012, the Full Bench has a duty to ensure that the Appellant did not suffer prejudice in accordance with the accepted principle of law that procedural errors as opposed to errors in substantive law should not prejudice the Respondent's fundamental rights to earn a living.  In this respect, the Respondent appends below the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 at para.10 where their Honours Murphy J and Newnes JA made the following observations:  

“A Court should always be careful to see that the rights of an unrepresented litigant have not been “obfuscated by their own advocacy”: Neil v Nottr [1994) HCA l23(5).  It must be alert to the possibility that beneath inadequately expressed and often irrelevant material there may lurk an arguable case. And some leniency may be required in relation to compliance with the rules.  But in the end the allowances that can be made for a litigant in person are necessarily limited, both as a matter of fairness to the other party, who must be adequately informed of the case they have meet, and because the provision of acceptable grounds of appeal is fundamental to the appellate function by the court.”