Rude Lawyers deserve the sanction of a Reprimand and Not a Permanent Ban

see the link here: https://lawyerslawyer.net/2020/11/30/the-tariff-for-rudeness-a-reprimand/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

INVITATION BY BOVILL OF OMBUDSMAN WA TO INFORM HER OF THE MATTERS UNDECIDED BY MAGISTRATE HALL IN HIS AB INITIO VOID DECISION DATED 9.12.2019 RE: UNLAWFUL DRIVER LICENCE OF INNOCENT ACCUSED

Irene Yok Moy Lem Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: Mail Ombudsman , Chief Magistrate's Office , Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au, Minister.Quigley@dpc.wa.gov.au, Minister.Saffioti@dpc.wa.gov.au, admin@dpc.wa.gov.au, fines@justice.wa.gov.au, Perth Magistrates Court , LPCC , amber.jade.sanderson@mp.wa.gov.au, libby.mettam@mp.wa.gov.au, michael.mischin@mp.wa.gov.au, Criminal Injuries , MrGillett68 , Info , Stirling , Stevan Rodic , Simon Wheeler Michelle Bovill Senior Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution All parties involved Dear Ms. Bovill: COMPLAINT CASE NO: C/40552: THE LAST PARA OF YOUR LETTER DATED 25.11.2020 I refer to the above matter and your invitation to me to write to you again, which are couched in Your Last Paragraph, in the following words: (Your Invitation): "If you have a complaint about the City of Stirling that relates to matters that have not been the subject of proceedings before a court, it is open to you to write to us and set out those matters for our assessment." By way of Your Invitation, you have admitted to me that the Ombudsman WA has jurisdiction to investigate these matters under s.13 and 14 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971 (the Act) and I would therefore like to state that the following matters have not been determined by a court for the Assessment of the Ombudsman (the Assessment by WA Ombudsman): 1) The Undue Influence of the Protagonist Nicholas N Chin (the Protagonist) exerted upon his spouse the accused Irene Lem Yok Moy (the Accused) in relation to the commissioning of Builder Ian Jack to build the New Addition which has since become the subject of the malicious persecution of the Accused by the City of Stirling (the Undue Influence). 2) The Undue Influence caused the Guilty Pleas of the Accused before Magistrate Hall on 9.12.2019 is therefore of null effect as it was not her own free will or volition and the attached documents will attest to the fact that the situation has become so untenable and unbearable to the accused that she should seek solace to plead guilty involuntarily in order to get herself out of the rut not of her own making (the Null Guilty Pleas of the Accused). 3) The abuse of Elders by the City of Stirling through the unlawful suspension of the Driver's Licence caused by the Non-Enforceable Void Penalty Orders of Magistrate Hall in a Non-Coram Judice Trial on 9.12.2020 that limits the human rights of both the accused and her husband in in the context of the Undue Influence and the Null Guilty Pleas of the Accused (The Invasion of Human Rights of Australian Elders Citizens). 4) The Invasion of the Human Rights of Australian Elders Citizens is the subject of my complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission and the International Human Rights Commissions (The Human Rights Complaints). 5) The Impossibility of the Accused to commit those three offences which are the subject of the Malfeasance of the City of Stirling which are based on NINE (NOT LIMITED AS THERE ARE OTHER UNCITED GROUNDS) grounds below: (the Impossibility in Law of Accused Ever Commissioning those Alleged Crimes): 5.1) The indisputability of Existence of the Building Permit approved by the City of Stirling dated 10.10.2016 as the City cannot be seen to blowing hot and cold at the same time; 5.2) The indisputability of Existence of the Planning Approval granted by the City of Stirling dated 10.10.10.2016 as the City cannot be seen to be blowing hot and cold at the same time; 5.3) The indisputability of Existence of the Lawful use of the New Addition for Short Term Stay Accommodation by the Accused as the City cannot be seen to be blowing hot and cold at the same time; 5.4) The malicious Refusal of the Prosecutor to prosecute lawfully the Protagonist instead of the Accused who has no mens rea and no actus rea for those alleged crimes as is evidenced by the Transcript; 5.5) The inherent Defective Building Approval Process of the City of Stirling as found by the Department of Mines & Energy or the Building Commission of WA as applicable only to Western Australia (Mines & Energy) as depicted in p.18 of the CRIS Report; which shows that WA is the only culprit among all the States of Australia; 5.6) The unlawful prosecution caused by the delay of more than 12 months by the Prosecutor in prosecuting the Accused as proscribed by s.21(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2004; when the offences are alleged to have occurred in 2016 but the Prosecution was launched only in February 2018; 5.7) The Non-Interference of the City of Stirling for the internal variations of the New Addition as proscribed by s.61(1)(b) of the Local Planning Regulations 2015 WA; which therefore do not require planning approval; 5.8) The Approval of the New Addition as a Short Term Stay Accommodation in a Single House by the Prosecutor Peter Gillette on 23.2.2018. 5.9) The Double-Jeopardy of Prosecuting Builder Ian Jack in PE6817 of 2018 and the Accused for the same or similar alleged offences under circumstances where there is no proof of abetment or a conspiracy to commit the same crimes by the Owner and the Builder at the same time under circumstances where there is a complete relinquishment of any criminal responsibility by the terms of the HIA Contract by the Accused as Owner to the Builder as Agent for the Owner; 6) The sources of information for the preceding 5 paragraphs of this email are to be obtainable from the attached FOURTEEN documents as listed below as well as the records keep at the Magistrates Court at Perth and at the offices of the City of Stirling and all its agents; which have been supplied by the Protagonists from time to time; if you are in doubts about the veracity of those information, please do not hesitate to contact the writer for clarifications of any points of doubts or for further evidence. Yours faithfully NICHOLAS N CHIN and Irene Yok Moy Lem 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6O59 Ph: 0892757440 Mob: 0421642735 Email: ireneyokmoylem1@gmail.com [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 3 Attachments [Quoted text hidden] 14 attachments JACK-PLANNING APPLICATION 05072016.png 1740K GILLETT-23022018..jpg 3456K LEM-JACK-CTC4423OF2018-ORDER15042019.jpg 3208K LEM-JACK-CTC4423OF2018-ORDER17052019.jpg 2951K TRANSCRIPT-MAGISTRATE WILSON-15102018-TRIAL ON PAPERS OBJECTED TO BY PROSECUTOR.png 83K STIRLING-MALICIOUS-PERSECUTION-CHARGES15052018.jpg 2188K DEMAIO-LEM-TRANSCRIPT-PERSECUTION-22062018.pdf 148K JACK-BUILDING PERMIT10102016.pdf 393K JACK-PE6817OF2018-TRANSCRIPT.pdf 162K cris_building_approvals_process_residential.pdf 2127K HUSTON-TRANSCRIPT-OBJECTED TO NNC AS ACCUSED-02112018.pdf 2016K LEMYM-STATUTORY-DECLARATIONS-FOUR CHARGES STIRLING02022018.docx 18K LPS 2015 REGULATIONS-SCHEDULE 2 PART7 & 8.rtf 157K SPYKER-MITIGATION PLEA-FINAL-05122019.pdf 322K

From: Irene Yok Moy Lem Sent: Friday, 27 November 2020 10:59 AM To: Mail Ombudsman ; Chief Magistrate's Office ; Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au; Bradley, Claire (V. Connelly, MP) ; Minister.Quigley@dpc.wa.gov.au; Minister.Saffioti@dpc.wa.gov.au; admin@dpc.wa.gov.au; fines@justice.wa.gov.au; Perth Magistrates Court ; LPCC ; amber.jade.sanderson@mp.wa.gov.au; libby.mettam@mp.wa.gov.au; michael.mischin@mp.wa.gov.au; Criminal Injuries ; MrGillett68 Subject: Re: C/40552 - Complaint to the Ombudsman Western Australia Michelle Bovill Senior Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution All parties involved Dear Ms. Bovill: Thank you for your reply email dated 25.11.202 at 5.18pm to my letter to the Ombudsman dated 16.11.2020. I regret to state that I take exception to the penultimate paragraph which states as follows: "As set out in our letter to you dated 18 May 2020, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the Magistrates Court and those matters that have been the subject of proceedings before the Magistrates Court. Accordingly, our response to your complaint remains as set out in our letter to you dated 18 May 2020 and our office will not take any further action on your emails dated 16 November 2020." May I suggest that the Ombudsman is also subject to the rule of law like anyone else and if so why is he is not doing so in practice by virtue of the fact that he is not responding ad verbatim to each of my statements of facts as contained in my letter to him dated 16.11.2020 (the Ombudsman Non-Reply to My Letter): the points for the Ombudsman's Non-Reply to My Letter are referable only to the paragraph numbers and its contents its summary form within brackets of My Letter which are as follows: 1) Para.2: The rule of law in Coram Non Judice. 2) Para.3: the Non-existing Subject: No Proceedings at the Magistrates Court; 3) Para.4: Ombudsman Has Discretionary Jurisdiction; 4) Para.5: The Grounds for the Ombudsman Discretionary Jurisdiction: 5) Para. 5.2: The Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman; 6) Para.5.3: The Unlawful Driver Licence Suspension of Irene Yok Moy Lem. 7) Para.5.3.1: The Construction of the Law on the Unlawful Driver Licence Suspension of Irene Yok Moy Lem: 8) Para.5.4.1: The Malfeasance; 9) Para.5.4.2: The Impossibility of the Commission of the Alleged Crimes; 10) Para. 5.4.2.2: Building Permit Exists. 11) Para. 5.4.2.3: Planning Approval Exists. 12) Para. 5.4.2.4: Short Term Stay Accommodation Approval Exists. 13) Para. 5.5: Ombudsman is not Prohibited to Investigate the Malfeasance; 14) Para.5.5.1: Coram Non Judice and No Proceedings in Magistrates stems from No Right to Appeal; 15) Para.5.5.2: No Remedy for Aggrieved Person except through the Ombudsman; 16) Para.5.5.3: Aggrieved Person's Reliance on the Ombudsman Discretion. 17) The Ombudsman Duty is to Explain why he is not allowed the Expected Outcome of the Aggrieved Person out of her reliance on the Ombudsman Discretion. 18) The Ombudsman Cannot Refuse to Investigate the Malfeasance because the Magistrate Court has not complied with its duty to address that Challenge of Jurisdiction by the Aggrieved Party. 19) The appeal process of the VOID AB INITIO JUDGMENT OF MAGISTRATE HALL should be begun by the City of Stirling and not vice versa. 20) The Ombudsman owes members of the public that it does perform its duties efficiently and appropriately in accordance with the law and the legislation in place, so that members of the public have confidence in the good governance of Australia generally. 3 Attachments