LAWYERS PUNISHED BY HIS JUDICIAL PEERS FOR EXPOSING INJUSTICE

• Fw: W.A. Lawyer punished by his judicial peers for exposing injustice.‏

Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hl​avka O.W.B. (inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au)

11/05/2013

Photos

To: nnchin1@hotmail.com

• 

Outlook Active View

1 attachment (541.3 KB)

Download

View slide show (1)

Download as zip

Nicholas,
albeit I am not a lawyer, as a Professional advocate, I represented Mr Harold James Johnson (solicitor and barrister for 22 years) in 4 hearings where the Legal Service Commissioner was seeking a life ban but ended up with a 2 1/2 year ban. And, it made clear it wasn't going to disprove James allegations. As such the punishement was not for James to be wrong (as to his claims against other lawyers/judges)

 

Constitutionalist & Consultant

 

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., GUARDIAN

(OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN)

107 Graham Road, Viewbank, 3084, Victoria, Australia

Ph (International) 61394577209

.

Email; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au

 

Do note, that emails forwarded to my other email address(es) without my prior permission will be deleted immediately!

 

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: 
To:  
Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2013 1:14 PM
Subject: W.A. Lawyer punished by his judicial peers for exposing injustice.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Campaign@democracydefined.org

To: Campaign@democracydefined.org

Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 4:32 AM

Subject: To Nicholas Chin from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Campaign@democracydefined.org

To: Nicholas N Chin

Cc: Sue Maynes ; David Walter

Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:48 PM

Subject: To Nicholas Chin from Kenn d'Oudney, DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

 

 

Dear Nicholas,

 

We are very sorry to hear about your predicament. Unfortunately, yours is an experience only too familiar to the RESTORATION Campaign. Your interests and confrontation of the other lawyers with their alleged criminal infractions form a cause which should onlybe judged upon by disinterested jurors.

 

If you (and all people) were still possessed of the proper constitutional and just common law power to prosecute individuals within government for their acts and decisions, thereby bringing the decisions of the judges under the scrutiny of a Jury in Common Law Trial by Jury, then this constitutionally-correct due process would have been most likely to have produced a result more to your satisfaction.

 

This Campaign is for Restoration of the authentic Constitutional Trial by Jury which is not only utilised for defence against accusations, but is indispensable as the prosecutory means of holding those who work in or for government to the Rule of Law by which such persons' wrongdoings are brought to account. (The judiciary is an arm of government.)

 

Today, the Restoration of Common Law Trial by Jury constitutes the single most important secular duty of all adults.

 

Have you yet joined support the Australian Common Law Party ? It is (to our knowledge) the only Australian Party which is fully committed to Restoration of Trial by Jury. Contact ACLP Chairman Dr. John Wilson:  jhwilson@rightsandwrong.com.au

 

RESTORATION would produce redress and compensation for ALL causes deemed fair by our men and women in juries.

 

Yours sincerely,

Kenn.

 

Kenn d'Oudney.www.democracydefined.org

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Nicholas N Chin

To: Campaign@democracydefined.org ; nnchin1@gmail.com ;

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:35 AM

Subject: Re: Nicholas N Chin has left a message for you

Hi Kenn:

 

The WA Discipline Board for Lawyers the LPCC conducted malafides proceedings against me in VR 87 OF 2007. The Mala Fides of the the President of the State Administrative Tribunal Justice Chaney was asked to recuse himself when he did a bare-faced lying judgment against me. He did recused himself by activating his Deputy Judge SAT to continue to do the insidious job for him which he did by removing me from the roll of barristers and solicitors.

 

I was asked to respond to his order confining myself to the penalty issue which the latter judge was proposing against me. I put up my written submissions, which I considered to be part and parcel of the appeal process i.e. my submissions against Penalty is equated to my Submissions against being guilty of the claimed wrongdoings (My Submissions).

 

My Submissions is not being considered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which sat on 12.12.2012 to remove me from the roll of barristers and solicitors. It contends that I have have NOT appealed the SAT decision to remove from the roll.

 

The mala fides of the LPCC are:

 

1) It disciplines me for contrived infractions whereas it does not discipline lawyers like Timothy Robin Thies, David Taylor and Pino Monaco for real infractions of the law.

 

2) It finds me guilty of sham dishonesty upon the non-complaining Mrs. Mathias who had withdrawn her complaint about a res judicata issue or non-issue that I had already a costs agreement when it did not happened. There is proof that the ink of the costs agreement’s impugned alteration was made subsequent after it had been drawn up. Indeed it is: the alteration was made after it was drawn up within a few minutes and with the presence of Mrs. Mathias. It contradicts the fundamental common law notion for a real finding of fraud i.e. there must be a pecuniary deprivation of funds of Mrs. Mathias and there was none. In fact Mrs. Mathias obtained benefits from me for which I had condoned her non-payment for my legal services (the Sham Dishonesty).

 

3) The Sham Dishonesty is just a ruse of the LPCC to get me out of the legal profession just because I had made allegations of the real infractions of the law by the three lawyers:

 

3.1. David Taylor for misleading the court with a forged document that he filed the impugned Writ of Summons on time in compliance with Justice Jenkins Orders in CIV1142 of 2005 when he did not. My client suffered a premature death as a result of the injustice she received from Mr. David Taylor. The various courts simply refused to make a decision on this barefaced facts that was properly brought before it.

 

3.2. Pino Monaco for misleading the court that he did not used duplicitous and duplicated bills of costs to effect the pillaging and plundering my client Dr. Kheng Su Chan.

 

3.3. Timothy Robin Thies pillaged and plundered my son Paul Chin contrary to the tenor of the costs agreement he entered into with my son Paul Chin. The lawyer refused to quit when told to do so and keep escalating costs for my son Paul. This case was finally won by me but the court refused to acknowledge that Mr. Thies has no caveatable interests to justify his strangle-hold over my son’s property and refused to order damages against him.

 

3.5. Both Timothy Thies and David Taylor misled the court when they unlawfully lodged unlawful caveats against the property of my son Paul Chin and my former client Ms Nancy Hall respectively, when both of these lawyers know or should know that caveatable interests can only be founded upon proprietary interests in the caveat property which both lawyers or their clients have none. They have thus misled the courts on the fundamental principle of law and are getting away with it. I have appealed this point but the Supreme Court is ignoring it.

 

Armed with a summary of my grievance, I hope your Campaign can solve this “democracy” problem for me, which is my fundamental human rights to be able to earn my living as a lawyer.

 

Cheers.

Nicholas N Chin