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