THE MALFUNCTION OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT

C/40552 - Complaint to the Ombudsman Western Australia Irene Yok Moy Lem Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 9:56 PM To: Mail Ombudsman , Perth Magistrates Court , 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, Criminal Injuries Cc: fines@justice.wa.gov.au, ferttp , LPCC , amber.jade.sanderson@mp.wa.gov.au, libby.mettam@mp.wa.gov.au, MrGillett68 , michael.mischin@mp.wa.gov.au, Info Service , Stirling , Simon Wheeler Bcc: Info Michelle Bovill Senior Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution Ombudsman Western Australia - Serving Parliament, Serving Western Australians Level 2, Albert Facey House, 469 Wellington Street, Perth Western Australia 6000 T: (08) 9220 7555 F: (08) 9220 7500 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au Website: www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au Dear Ms Bovill: PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER'S JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINT CASE NO: C/40552 AS PER S.14 OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER ACT, 1971 (THE ACT) i refer to your last response letter to me dated 16.12.2020 and would like to state as follows: 1. S.13 of the Act provides that the City of Stirling is the the Department and authoritY of the government of WA that is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman Investigation). 2. Subs.13(1) and (2) (g) provides that the Subject Matter for the Ombudsman Investigation as provided in s.14 of the Act is not applicable to the non-decision of Magistrate Hall in PE6810/6811/6812 of 2018 dated 9.12.2020 (the Non-Decision); 3. The Non-Decision is reasonably clear to the Ombudsman having regard to the Accused five-paragraph letter, particularly emphasizing the nine sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5 dated 28.11.2020 and 27.11.2020 on the topic of the Impossibility of those alleged offences (the Impossibility). 4. Therefore on the basis of the Non-Decision derived from the Impossibility, s. 13 of the Act by any stretch of logic does grant the Ombudsman the required jurisdiction to commence the impugned Ombudsman Investigation: for Ms. Bovill to say otherwise is an excess of jurisdiction and a dereliction of duties of the Ombudsman (the Dereliction). 5. Subs.14(1) of the Act empowers the Ombudsman Investigation as such is "SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" in terms of the Non-Decision, the Impossibility and the Dereliction: if the Ombudsman were to do otherwise, then it as a statutory functionary is contravening the RULE OF LAW THAT AN INFERIOR TRIBUNAL WHO ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION HAS DELIVERED A NON DECISION (Obligation of Ombudsman to Investigate the Subject Matter). 5. Subs.14(2) imposes the Obligation of Ombudman to Investigate the Subject Matter upon the following terms: (a) a failure or refusal of Magistrate Hall on 9.12.2019 to perform the act of acting within his jurisdictional limits as imposed by the law upon him and not otherwise; and (b) the formulation of the proposal of Magistrate Hall on 9.12.2019 to impose his intention of acting beyond his jurisdictional powers by the issuing the unwarranted penalty of the Non-Decision based on the circumstances of the Impossibility which materializes in the fake Penalty Order for $47,600 against the Accused which later originates from the ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY of the Magistrates Court at Perth bearing REFERENCE NOS: 19/419417; 19/419415 AND 19/419416 (Proposal and Intention) ; and (c) The Proposal and Intention when confronted with the rebuttal of the Accused, the Enforcement Registry made a fake recommendation to the Minister of Transport thereby unlalwfully withholding of the Driver Licence of the Accused (Revocation of Driver's Licence). 6. Subs.14(4) does not prevent the Ombudsman Investigation based on the Non-Decision, the Impossibility but makes it an Obligation of Ombudsman to Investigate the Subject Matter, having regard to: (Subsection 14(4): (a) The Accused as the person aggrieved has or had NO RIGHT OF APPEAL, OR REVIEW TO OR BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY ENACTMENT OR BY VIRTUE OF CROWN PREROGATIVE; (b) The Accused as the person aggrieved has or had NO REMEDY BY WAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF LAW. 7. Subs.14(5) provides that notwithstanding Subs.(14(4), the Ombudsman MAY CONDUCT ANY INVESTIGATION NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE AGGRIEVED PERSON HAS HAD SUCH REMEDY OF SUBS.14(4) PROVIDED HE IS SATISFIED IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IT IT NOT REASONABLE FOR HIM TO EXPECT THAT THE ACCUSED OR AGGRIEVED PERSON TO RESORT OR TO HAVE RESORTED TO IT (THE PROVISO). 8. The PROVISO relate to the particular circumstances of the Aggrieved Person to initiate the legal process of making an appeal against the Non-Decision having regard to the Impossibility, the Dereliction and the Obligation of Ombudsman to Investigate the Subject Matter (the Proviso that the Ombudsman Must Investigate). 8. In respect of Subs.14(6) of the Act, the Subject Matter of the Investigation has no nexus to any person taking action as legal adviser or counsel for the Accused or Aggrieved Person (No Nexus between Subject of Investigation with Legal Advice or Counsel). . 9. Subs.14(7) provides: (despite the factual circumstances and laws relating to the Non-Decision, the Impossibility, the Dereliction and the Obligation of Ombudsman to Investigate the Subject Matter, the Ombudsman does have a discretion which must be exercised within the four corners of the law) MAY BE EXERCISED BY HIM (the Statutory Discretionary Powers of the Ombudsman). Yours faithfully IRENE YOK MOY LEM AS THE ACCUSED AND AGGRIEVED PERSON; NICHOLAS N CHIN AS THE SPOUSE OF IRENE YOK MOY LEM (SPOUSE PROTAGONIST). [Quoted text hidden]