COMBINED MASTER COMPLAINT LETTER

Landgate Omission → Magistrate Ward Error → Lawyer Misconduct → Unlawful Sheriff Enforcement

To:
1. Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC)
2. Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice
3. Ombudsman Western Australia

From:
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia

Subject:
Systemic Failure Arising from Landgate Omission, Magistrate Ward Error, Lawyer Misconduct by Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, and Unlawful Enforcement by Sheriff Officer Mark

---

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 I submit this combined complaint to the LPCC, the Sheriff / Department of Justice, and the Ombudsman WA because the events described below form a single, indivisible chain of systemic failure involving multiple public authorities and a legal practitioner.

1.2 The relevant actors are:

(a) Landgate – administrative omission of a statutory easement from the Certificate of Title for Unit 1/383.
(b) Magistrates Court (Magistrate Ward) – decision based on a false factual and legal premise.
(c) Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd (Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, Principal Solicitor) – misleading submissions and procurement of a void costs order.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark – unlawful enforcement of that void order at an inflated amount.

1.3 Each regulator is addressed in this single document so that all can see the conduct and responsibilities of the others, and so that the systemic nature of the failure is not obscured by fragmented complaints.

---

2. LANDGATE’S ADMINISTRATIVE OMISSION

2.1 A statutory implied easement attached to Unit 1/383 was not carried forward onto the Certificate of Title when the strata plan was created. This was an administrative omission by the Registrar of Titles (Landgate).

2.2 The omission rendered the easement invisible on the title, creating a false legal vacuum. In consequence, third parties, including the court and the defendants’ solicitor, proceeded on the mistaken assumption that no such right existed.

2.3 This omission is the root cause of the subsequent chain of injustice, as it:

(a) Misled the Magistrates Court as to the existence and nature of the easement.
(b) Enabled the defendants’ lawyer to advance a legally impossible defence.
(c) Ultimately led to the procurement and enforcement of a void costs order.

---

3. MAGISTRATE WARD’S ERROR

3.1 On 4 April 2022, Magistrate Ward determined proceedings concerning the easement attached to Unit 1/383. The decision proceeded on the premise that the easement “did not exist” because it did not appear on the title.

3.2 In truth:

(a) The easement was statutory in origin.
(b) The omission from the title was administrative, not substantive.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or appropriate statutory easement rights by their conduct.
(d) The court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a right that had been administratively erased from the register but not lawfully extinguished.

3.3 By accepting the false premise created by the Landgate omission, the Magistrate acted without proper jurisdiction. Any costs order arising from that decision is therefore void ab initio.

---

4. MISCONDUCT BY MR XUAN VINH NGUYEN (FOR LPCC)

4.1 Mr Xuan Vinh NGUYEN is the Principal Solicitor of Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd and acted for the defendants (the tenants) in the proceedings before Magistrate Ward.

4.2 Mr Nguyen advanced a defence that was legally impossible, relying on the false assumption that the easement “did not exist”, despite the following:

(a) The easement was statutory and attached to Unit 1/383 at creation.
(b) The omission from the title was an administrative error by Landgate.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or acquire statutory easement rights by occupation or relocation of a business.
(d) The defence was inconsistent with the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) and basic principles of indefeasibility.

4.3 On 21 April 2022, Mr Nguyen emailed me demanding payment of legal costs fixed in the sum of AUD 10,890 pursuant to the Magistrate Ward order of 4 April 2022, and threatening enforcement if payment was not made by 28 April 2022.

4.4 Because the subject matter of the proceedings no longer existed in law, the costs order was void. Procuring and relying upon a void order, and threatening enforcement of it, constitutes serious professional misconduct.

4.5 Mr Nguyen’s conduct engages the LPCC’s jurisdiction in relation to:

(a) Misleading the court by omission and commission.
(b) Failing in the duty of candour to the court.
(c) Advancing a legally impossible defence.
(d) Procuring and enforcing a void costs order.
(e) Conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

---

5. UNLAWFUL ENFORCEMENT BY SHERIFF OFFICER MARK (FOR DOJ)

5.1 Following Mr Nguyen’s demand for AUD 10,890, Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the Magistrate Ward costs order at the significantly higher amount of AUD 14,993.94.

5.2 This amount was extracted under threat of imprisonment. The uplift from AUD 10,890 to AUD 14,993.94 reflects enforcement fees, interest and associated charges added to an order that was void from the outset.

5.3 Enforcement of a void order is unlawful, regardless of internal administrative processes. Sheriff Officer Mark’s conduct therefore raises serious concerns, including:

(a) Failure to verify the jurisdictional validity of the order.
(b) Use of coercive powers (including threats of imprisonment) to enforce a void order.
(c) Extraction of AUD 14,993.94 in circumstances where no lawful entitlement existed.

5.4 This conduct falls within the responsibility of the Sheriff of Western Australia and the Department of Justice and warrants investigation and remedial action.

---

6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE (FOR OMBUDSMAN WA)

6.1 The events described above constitute a systemic failure involving multiple public bodies and a legal practitioner. The chain can be summarised as follows:

(a) Landgate omitted the statutory easement from the title for Unit 1/383, creating a false legal vacuum.
(b) Magistrate Ward relied on that false premise and acted without jurisdiction, rendering the costs order void.
(c) Mr Nguyen advanced a legally impossible defence, misled the court, and procured a void order, then demanded payment of AUD 10,890.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the void order at AUD 14,993.94 under threat of imprisonment.

6.2 No single regulator can fully address this matter in isolation. The failure is systemic and requires coordinated scrutiny and recommendations.

---

7. RELIEF SOUGHT

7.1 From the LPCC, I seek:

(a) Investigation of Mr Nguyen’s conduct as outlined in section 4.
(b) Findings on whether he misled the court, advanced a legally impossible defence, and improperly procured and enforced a void order.
(c) Any appropriate disciplinary or remedial action.

7.2 From the Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice, I seek:

(a) Investigation of the enforcement conducted by Sheriff Officer Mark.
(b) A finding that enforcement of the void order and extraction of AUD 14,993.94 was unlawful.
(c) Refund of the unlawfully extracted amount and review of enforcement procedures.

7.3 From the Ombudsman WA, I seek:

(a) Investigation of the systemic chain of failure involving Landgate, the Magistrates Court, the Sheriff’s Office and the legal practitioner.
(b) Findings on administrative fault and systemic weaknesses.
(c) Recommendations to prevent recurrence, including corrective measures at Landgate and within justice system processes.

---

8. ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE

8.1 I am able to provide, upon request or as directed:

(a) The email from Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen dated 21 April 2022 demanding AUD 10,890.
(b) The Magistrate Ward order dated 4 April 2022.
(c) Records of Sheriff enforcement showing the amount of AUD 14,993.94 and the circumstances of payment.
(d) Title and related documents evidencing the omission of the statutory easement for Unit 1/383.
(e) A detailed timeline of events linking Landgate, the Magistrates Court, Mr Nguyen and Sheriff Officer Mark.

---

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 This complaint demonstrates a continuous chain of error and misconduct arising from a single Landgate omission and culminating in unlawful enforcement against me.

9.2 I respectfully request coordinated investigation by all three regulators addressed in this letter and appropriate findings, remedies and systemic reforms.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia

INJUSTICE SUFFERED BY NICHOLAS N CHIN

TIMELINE OF INJUSTICE SUFFERED BY NICHOLAS N. CHIN

Master Chronology and Public Record

This document sets out the injustice suffered by Nicholas N. Chin. It explains the legal errors, misattributions, and procedural failures that led to his removal as a lawyer, the extinguishing of his property rights, and the wrongful treatment of his family. This record is published for public scrutiny, transparency, and historical accuracy.

1. Chronology of Injustice

1.1 Professional Background

1.1.1 Nicholas N. Chin was admitted as a lawyer in Western Australia and practised without disciplinary blemish.

1.1.2 He also worked as a teacher and property manager, known for fairness and advocacy.

1.2 The Nalini Matter and Wrongful Removal

1.2.1 The Legal Practice Board removed Nicholas on the basis of alleged “dishonesty” in the Nalini matter.

1.2.2 No money was taken, no property was stolen, no client suffered loss, and Nicholas obtained no benefit.

1.2.3 Even if a signature were disputed, dishonesty requires a dishonest purpose — gain, loss, or misappropriation — none of which existed.

1.2.4 The Board treated a procedural dispute as if it were criminal fraud, without the legal elements of dishonesty.

1.2.5 This was a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

1.3 The Magistrates Court Action Regarding Unit 1/383

1.3.1 Nicholas lawfully commenced proceedings to protect the statutory implied easement rights attached to Unit 1/383.

1.3.2 The tenant wrongfully relocated the lunch bar to Unit 10, extinguishing the easement and destroying the commercial utility of Unit 1.

1.3.3 Under the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, once a proprietary right is extinguished, it cannot be revived.

1.3.4 The subject matter of the case ceased to exist; therefore, the cause of action abated.

1.3.5 A plaintiff cannot be liable or “lose” a case where the defendant’s own conduct destroyed the right being enforced.

1.4 Misattribution of Irene’s Planning Prosecution

1.4.1 Nicholas’s wife, Irene, as owner of 387 Alexander Drive, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention.

1.4.2 The alleged contravention was caused by the builder, not Irene.

1.4.3 Irene had no mens rea — no guilty mind — and therefore no criminal liability.

1.4.4 This matter was wrongly associated with Nicholas and contributed to public misunderstanding.

1.5 Post‑Removal Harm

1.5.1 Nicholas suffered impersonation, misattribution, and reputational harm.

1.5.2 Regulatory bodies failed to correct errors despite repeated notice.

1.5.3 Public records remained inaccurate, compounding the injustice.

1.6 Public Advocacy

1.6.1 Nicholas established the “Justice for a Former Lawyer” blog to document the injustice.

1.6.2 He continues to publish evidence, analysis, and public records for transparency.

---

2. Public Narrative

My name is Nicholas N. Chin. I was removed as a lawyer in Western Australia on the basis of an allegation of dishonesty that had no foundation in law or fact. In the Nalini matter, no money was taken, no property was stolen, no client suffered loss, and I obtained no benefit. Even if a signature were disputed, dishonesty requires a dishonest purpose — and none existed. The Legal Practice Board punished me for something that does not meet the legal definition of dishonesty.

Separately, I commenced lawful proceedings in the Perth Magistrates Court to protect the statutory implied easement rights of Unit 1/383. The tenant destroyed those rights by relocating the lunch bar to Unit 10. Under the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, once a proprietary right is extinguished, it cannot be revived. The subject matter of the case ceased to exist. A plaintiff cannot be liable or lose a case where the defendant’s own conduct destroyed the right being enforced.

My wife, Irene, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention at 387 Alexander Drive. The alleged offence was caused by the builder, not Irene. She had no mens rea — no guilty mind — and therefore no criminal liability. Yet this prosecution was wrongly allowed to influence perceptions of my family.

These events — the wrongful removal, the extinguished easement, the misattribution of Irene’s case, and the failure of regulators to correct the record — form a pattern of injustice that must be exposed to public scrutiny. This document is published so that the truth is known, the record is corrected, and the public can see how easily injustice can occur when institutions fail to follow the law.

---

Annexure A. The Nalini Matter

Why the allegation of dishonesty was legally impossible.

No property was stolen. No money was taken. No client suffered loss. No benefit was obtained. A disputed signature, even if proven, is not dishonesty without a dishonest purpose. The Legal Practice Board acted without the legal elements required to establish dishonesty.

Annexure B. Extinguishment of the Easement

Why the Magistrates Court case collapsed.

The statutory implied easement attached to Unit 1/383 was extinguished when the tenant relocated the lunch bar. Under indefeasibility of title, extinguished rights cannot be revived. The subject matter of the case ceased to exist, and the cause of action abated. A plaintiff cannot be liable where the defendant destroyed the right being enforced.

Annexure C. Irene’s Planning Prosecution

Clarifying the misattribution affecting Nicholas’s family.

Irene, owner of 387 Alexander Drive, was sued by the City of Stirling for an alleged planning contravention caused entirely by the builder. She had no mens rea and no criminal liability. This matter was wrongly associated with Nicholas and contributed to public misunderstanding.

---

3. Closing Statement

This document is published so that the injustice suffered by Nicholas N. Chin is placed under public scrutiny. It records the legal errors, misattributions, and procedural failures that led to his wrongful removal, the extinguishing of his property rights, and the harm suffered by his family. The public is invited to examine this record carefully and to recognise the need for accountability and correction.

Consolidated Public Summary – Administrative Omission, Statutory Rights & Insurance Assessment

Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA – AFCA · Justice Gething · QBE · Law Mutual

---

English

Overview

This public summary explains the long-running administrative omission affecting Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA, and how this omission led to systemic factual misunderstandings across multiple institutions, including the Supreme Court of Western Australia, AFCA, QBE Insurance, and Law Mutual.

The purpose of this publication is transparency. It provides a clear, factual narrative without seeking legal orders or making allegations. Each institution is addressed only within its proper jurisdiction.

Key Facts

1. Restrictive Covenant (COV 52/1998)
A restrictive covenant was imposed during the 1998 subdivision process. It was recorded on WAPC Form 26 but omitted from the Landgate register. This omission created a factual misunderstanding that persisted for years.

2. Statutory Implied Easements (s.52 Property Law Act 1969)
These rights arise automatically upon subdivision. They do not require registration and form part of the land and building. They were not considered by QBE or AFCA during earlier assessments.

3. 2016 Extinguishment Event
When tenants relocated the lunch bar from Unit 1/383 to Unit 10, the exclusive statutory rights were extinguished without lawful authority. This triggered compensation rights under the Transfer of Land Act.

4. Systemic Factual Misunderstanding
Multiple institutions relied on the incorrect assumption that no rights existed. This misunderstanding was caused by the administrative omission in the land register.

Why This Matters

This summary clarifies the distinction between:

• State-based issues – administrative omission and extinguishment of land rights
• Insurance issues – QBE’s assessment of the building based on incorrect factual assumptions

These issues do not overlap and cannot result in double recovery.

---

简体中文（Simplified Chinese）

概述

本公开摘要说明了位于西澳马拉加（Malaga）Victoria Road 383号1单元的行政遗漏问题，以及该遗漏如何导致多个机构长期以来的事实误解，包括西澳最高法院、AFCA、QBE保险公司和Law Mutual。

本摘要旨在提供透明度，不寻求任何法律命令，也不作出指控。每个机构仅在其法定权限范围内被提及。

关键事实

1. 限制性契约（COV 52/1998）
1998年分割土地时设立的限制性契约记录在WAPC的Form 26上，但未被Landgate登记。此遗漏导致多年持续的事实误解。

2. 法定默示地役权（《1969年财产法》第52条）
这些权利在土地分割时自动产生，无需登记，是土地和建筑物的一部分。QBE和AFCA在早期评估中未考虑这些权利。

3. 2016年权利消灭事件
当租户将餐饮店从1单元迁至10单元时，专属法定权利在未经合法授权的情况下被消灭，从而触发《土地转让法》下的补偿权利。

4. 系统性事实误解
多个机构基于“没有任何权利存在”的错误假设作出决定，而该假设源于土地登记中的行政遗漏。

重要性

本摘要澄清了以下区别：

• 州政府相关问题 —— 行政遗漏及土地权利的消灭
• 保险相关问题 —— QBE基于错误事实假设所作出的建筑物评估

两者互不重叠，不会造成双重赔偿。

---

Bahasa Malaysia

Ringkasan

Ringkasan awam ini menerangkan isu kecuaian pentadbiran yang melibatkan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA, dan bagaimana kecuaian ini menyebabkan salah faham fakta yang berpanjangan dalam beberapa institusi termasuk Mahkamah Agung WA, AFCA, QBE Insurance dan Law Mutual.

Tujuan penerbitan ini adalah ketelusan. Ia tidak meminta apa‑apa perintah mahkamah dan tidak membuat tuduhan. Setiap institusi hanya disentuh dalam bidang kuasa masing‑masing.

Fakta Utama

1. Kovenan Sekatan (COV 52/1998)
Kovenan ini diwujudkan semasa proses pecahan tanah pada tahun 1998 dan direkodkan dalam Borang WAPC 26, tetapi tidak dimasukkan dalam daftar Landgate. Ini menyebabkan salah faham fakta selama bertahun‑tahun.

2. Easemen Tersirat Berkanun (Seksyen 52 Akta Undang‑Undang Harta 1969)
Hak ini timbul secara automatik apabila pecahan tanah diluluskan. Ia tidak memerlukan pendaftaran dan merupakan sebahagian daripada tanah dan bangunan. QBE dan AFCA tidak mempertimbangkan hak ini dalam penilaian terdahulu.

3. Peristiwa Pelupusan Hak Tahun 2016
Apabila penyewa memindahkan kedai makan dari Unit 1/383 ke Unit 10, hak eksklusif tersebut telah dilupuskan tanpa kuasa yang sah, dan ini mencetuskan hak pampasan di bawah Akta Pemindahan Tanah.

4. Salah Faham Fakta Secara Sistemik
Beberapa institusi telah bergantung kepada anggapan yang salah bahawa tiada hak yang wujud. Salah faham ini berpunca daripada kecuaian pentadbiran dalam daftar tanah.

Kepentingan

Ringkasan ini menjelaskan perbezaan antara:

• Isu berkaitan Negeri – kecuaian pentadbiran dan pelupusan hak tanah
• Isu berkaitan insurans – penilaian bangunan oleh QBE berdasarkan anggapan fakta yang salah

Kedua‑dua isu ini tidak bertindih dan tidak boleh menghasilkan pampasan berganda.

POLICE INACTION ENABLED THE THEFT OF AUD $30,000 BY BRENDON McFARLANE

🇦🇺 English

On 25–26 March 2026, WA Police failed to take timely action despite multiple verified reports of threats, trespass, and escalating safety risks involving Brendon McFarlane at 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick. This delay directly enabled McFarlane — a short-stay guest with no tenancy rights — to unlawfully enter Room 4 and steal AUD $30,000 in cash belonging to the victim. Police were repeatedly notified that McFarlane had refused to vacate, was acting aggressively, and posed an immediate risk to persons and property. Had police acted promptly on the initial complaints, removed the trespasser, or secured the premises, the theft would not have occurred.

🇨🇳 中文（简体）

在 2026 年 3 月 25–26 日期间，尽管接到多次关于 Brendon McFarlane 在 Kenwick，8 Stafford Road 的威胁、非法入侵及不断升级的安全风险的正式报告，西澳警方仍未及时采取行动。警方的延误直接导致 McFarlane——一名没有租赁权的短租住客——非法进入 4 号房间并盗走受害人价值 30,000 澳元的现金。 警方多次被告知 McFarlane 拒绝离开、行为具攻击性，并对人员与财产构成即时风险。如果警方在最初 接报时及时采取行动、将入侵者移除或保护现场，此次盗窃本可避免。

🇲🇾 Bahasa Melayu

Pada 25–26 Mac 2026, Polis WA gagal mengambil tindakan segera walaupun menerima beberapa laporan sah mengenai ancaman, pencerobohan, dan risiko keselamatan yang semakin meningkat melibatkan Brendon McFarlane di 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick. Kelewatan ini secara langsung membolehkan McFarlane — seorang tetamu inap-singkat tanpa hak penyewaan — memasuki Bilik 4 secara tidak sah dan mencuri wang tunai sebanyak AUD $30,000 milik mangsa. Polis telah dimaklumkan berulang kali bahawa McFarlane enggan keluar, bertindak agresif, dan menimbulkan risiko segera kepada orang dan harta benda. Jika polis bertindak segera berdasarkan aduan awal, mengeluarkan penceroboh, atau mengamankan premis, kecurian ini tidak akan berlaku.

THIS PUBLIC NOTICE IS ISSUED TO PROTECT IRENE YOK MOY LEM — SHE WAS WRONGED, MISLED, AND UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED. HER GUILTY PLEA WAS INVALID. THE $55,760 TAKEN FROM HER WAS UNLAWFUL.

THIS PUBLIC NOTICE PROTECTS IRENE YOK MOY LEM — SHE WAS WRONGED, MISLED, AND UNLAWFULLY PUNISHED.
本公告旨在保护林玉梅女士 —— 她被冤枉、被误导、被非法处罚。
NOTIS INI MELINDUNGI PUAN IRENE YOK MOY LEM — BELIAU TELAH DIBERI LAYANAN YANG TIDAK ADIL.

WHY IRENE MUST NEVER BE AFRAID — BECAUSE SHE WAS WRONGED, NOT GUILTY

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
4 March 2026

To:
Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem
Dianella, Western Australia

Dear Irene,

I want to explain something very important to you — calmly, clearly, and with love. You must never be afraid, because you were wronged, and everything that happened in court was caused by other people’s failures, not yours.

You trusted a lawyer to protect you. Instead, he acted in a way that harmed you. You deserve to understand why, and you deserve to feel safe.

1. You were frightened, unwell, and unable to understand

On the day in court, you were scared, overwhelmed, confused, stressed, and limited in English. A good lawyer must protect a vulnerable client. Joshua Burton did not protect you.

2. He told the court you “instructed” him to plead guilty — but you did not

He wrote:
“I have received instructions from my client to plead guilty.”
This was false. You were crying, frightened, and saying you did not understand.

3. He hid your medical condition and fear from the Magistrate

He failed to tell the court you were under duress, medically fragile, and unable to understand. A guilty plea under these conditions is not valid.

4. He hid all the evidence that proved you were innocent

He did not present the 2015 City advice, 2017 retrospective approval, 2018 habitation approval, builder responsibility, CRIS report, or lack of criminal intent. This is serious misconduct.

5. He even told the Magistrate to punish you

He wrote:
“It is appropriate to impose a fine.”
This is the opposite of defending you.

6. Why he did this

Properly defending you would expose the City’s errors, the prosecutor’s misconduct, and the unlawful prosecution. He protected himself and the City — not you.

7. You did nothing wrong

You were a victim of fear, confusion, poor legal representation, and misconduct. Your guilty plea is void, and the $55,760 taken from you was unlawful.

8. We are now correcting everything

I have formally complained to LPBWA. They already opened a file in 2020 (R198/18). You are safe. You are protected. We are on the right path.

With love and commitment,
Nicholas

---

中文版本（简体）

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
2026年3月4日

致：
林玉梅（Irene Yok Moy Lem）女士
西澳大利亚州 Dianella

亲爱的 Irene，

我想用最清楚、最温柔的方式告诉你： 你永远不需要害怕，因为你是被冤枉的。 法庭上发生的一切，是别人失职造成的，不是你的错。

你信任律师保护你，但他却伤害了你。 你有权知道真相，也有权感到安全。

1. 你当时害怕、生病、无法理解

那天你非常害怕、紧张、困惑、压力大，而且英语有限。 一个好律师应该保护弱势的当事人。 Joshua Burton 没有保护你。

2. 他告诉法官你“指示”他认罪 —— 但这是假的

他写道：
“我已收到当事人的指示，要认罪。”
这是不真实的。你当时哭泣、害怕，并且说你不明白发生什么。

3. 他隐瞒了你的健康状况和恐惧

他没有告诉法官你处于胁迫、身体虚弱、无法理解。 在这种情况下的认罪是无效的。

4. 他隐瞒了所有证明你无罪的重要证据

他没有向法官说明： 2015 市政府建议、2017 追溯批准、2018 居住批准、建筑商责任、CRIS 报告、你没有犯罪意图等。 这是严重失职。

5. 他甚至要求法官惩罚你

他写道：
“适合对她处以罚款。”
这不是辩护，而是要求惩罚一个无辜的人。

6. 他为什么这样做？

因为如果他认真为你辩护，他就会暴露市政府的错误、检察官的误导、以及整个起诉是违法的。 他选择保护自己和市政府，而不是你。

7. 你没有做错任何事

你是恐惧、困惑、律师失职和不当行为的受害者。 你的认罪是无效的，被拿走的 $55,760 是非法的。

8. 我们正在纠正一切

我已经正式向 LPBWA 投诉。 他们在 2020 年已开档（R198/18）。 你现在是安全的，你受到保护，我们走在正确的道路上。

爱你的，
Nicholas

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

Nicholas N. Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
4 Mac 2026

Kepada:
Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem
Dianella, Australia Barat

Puan Irene yang dikasihi,

Saya ingin menerangkan semuanya dengan jelas dan penuh kasih sayang. Puan tidak perlu takut, kerana Puan telah dianiaya, dan apa yang berlaku di mahkamah bukan salah Puan.

Puan mempercayai peguam untuk melindungi Puan, tetapi dia gagal. Puan berhak mengetahui kebenaran dan berhak berasa selamat.

1. Puan ketakutan, tidak sihat dan tidak faham apa yang berlaku

Pada hari di mahkamah, Puan takut, keliru, tertekan dan lemah dalam bahasa Inggeris. Peguam yang baik mesti melindungi klien yang lemah. Joshua Burton tidak melindungi Puan.

2. Dia memberitahu mahkamah bahawa Puan “mengarahkannya” untuk mengaku salah — tetapi itu tidak benar

Dia menulis:
“Saya telah menerima arahan daripada klien saya untuk mengaku bersalah.”
Ini tidak benar. Puan sedang menangis, takut dan tidak faham apa yang berlaku.

3. Dia menyembunyikan keadaan kesihatan dan ketakutan Puan

Dia tidak memberitahu majistret bahawa Puan berada dalam tekanan, tidak sihat dan tidak memahami pertuduhan. Pengakuan bersalah dalam keadaan ini adalah tidak sah.

4. Dia menyembunyikan semua bukti yang membuktikan Puan tidak bersalah

Dia tidak mengemukakan nasihat Majlis 2015, kelulusan retrospektif 2017, kelulusan kediaman 2018, tanggungjawab pembina, laporan CRIS, atau ketiadaan niat jenayah. Ini adalah salah laku serius.

5. Dia malah meminta majistret menghukum Puan

Dia menulis:
“Adalah sesuai untuk mengenakan denda.”
Ini bukan pembelaan — ini mengundang hukuman.

6. Mengapa dia melakukan ini

Jika dia membela Puan dengan betul, kesilapan Majlis, salah laku pendakwa dan pendakwaan tidak sah akan terbongkar. Dia melindungi dirinya dan Majlis — bukan Puan.

7. Puan tidak melakukan apa‑apa kesalahan

Puan adalah mangsa ketakutan, kekeliruan, kegagalan peguam dan salah laku pihak berkuasa. Pengakuan bersalah Puan adalah tidak sah, dan $55,760 yang diambil adalah tidak sah.

8. Kami sedang membetulkan semuanya

Saya telah membuat aduan rasmi kepada LPBWA. Fail telah dibuka sejak 2020 (R198/18). Puan kini selamat, dilindungi, dan kami berada di landasan yang betul.

Dengan kasih dan komitmen,
Nicholas

Case Note: WA Police Delay & Resulting $30,000 Theft from Room 4

Location: 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick · Context: STRA Guest Incident · Author: Nicholas N. Chin

Section	Language	Jump
Incident Summary	English	Go to English
事件概述	简体中文	跳转到中文
Ringkasan Insiden	Bahasa Melayu	Pergi ke BM
Download	PDF	Download Evidence PDF

Key Evidence Photos (Screenshots)

Below are screenshots relevant to the incident (agreement, messages, and theft report).

Screenshot 1: Signed agreement dated 22 March 2026 ($900 due 24 March).

Screenshot 2: Messages about payment and Brendon’s failure to pay.

Screenshot 3: Jimmy’s message reporting theft (“about $20k… in call police now”).

WA Police Delay Resulted in Further Crime: Theft of $30,000 From Room 4

This post documents a serious incident involving a long-term STRA guest, Brendon McFarlane, and the impact of a police delay that allowed a further crime to occur at 8 Stafford Road, Kenwick.

On 24 March 2026, Brendon failed to pay the agreed $900, despite signing a written commitment on 22 March 2026. Because of this breach, his belongings were packed and he was required to leave the property.

On 25–26 March, Jimmy did not return to secure his room because he was waiting for police clearance after receiving a threatening message from Brendon. This delay left Room 4 unprotected.

On 27 March, Jimmy discovered that approximately $30,000 in cash had been stolen from his room. He initially estimated the loss at $20,000 under stress, and later corrected it to $30,000 after checking the bundles. This correction is consistent with truthful reporting.

The theft occurred during the period Jimmy was unable to return, which was directly affected by the police delay.

---

简体中文版本 (Simplified Chinese)

本文记录了一起严重事件，涉及长期短租住客 Brendon McFarlane，以及 警方延误 所造成的进一步犯罪后果。

在 2026 年 3 月 24 日，Brendon 未按约定支付 900 澳元，尽管他已在 3 月 22 日 签署书面承诺。由于违约，他的物品被打包，他被要求离开住所。

在 3 月 25–26 日，Jimmy 因等待 警方许可 而不敢返回房间，因为 Brendon 曾发出威胁信息。警方延误导致 4 号房间无人保护。

在 3 月 27 日，Jimmy 发现房间内约 30,000 澳元现金 被盗。他最初在压力下估计为 20,000 澳元，随后检查现金捆后更正为 30,000 澳元。这种更正符合真实受害者的行为。

盗窃发生在 Jimmy 无法返回期间，而这一情况 直接受到警方延误的影响。

---

Bahasa Melayu Version

Catatan ini mendokumentasikan satu insiden serius melibatkan tetamu STRA jangka panjang, Brendon McFarlane, serta kesan kelewatan polis yang membolehkan jenayah tambahan berlaku.

Pada 24 Mac 2026, Brendon gagal membayar $900 seperti yang dipersetujui, walaupun telah menandatangani perjanjian bertulis pada 22 Mac 2026. Disebabkan pelanggaran ini, barang-barangnya telah dibungkus dan dia diminta meninggalkan premis.

Pada 25–26 Mac, Jimmy tidak kembali untuk mengamankan biliknya kerana menunggu kebenaran polis selepas menerima mesej ugutan daripada Brendon. Kelewatan ini menyebabkan Bilik 4 tidak dilindungi.

Pada 27 Mac, Jimmy mendapati kira-kira $30,000 tunai telah dicuri dari biliknya. Beliau pada mulanya menganggarkan kerugian $20,000 dalam keadaan tertekan, dan kemudian membetulkannya kepada $30,000 selepas memeriksa ikatan wang. Pembetulan ini selaras dengan tingkah laku mangsa sebenar.

Kecurian berlaku semasa Jimmy tidak dapat kembali, dan keadaan ini dipengaruhi secara langsung oleh kelewatan polis.

---

Disclaimer: This post is based on the author’s personal experience and documentary records (messages, agreements, and police references). It is published for transparency, public awareness, and community safety. It is not legal advice and does not accuse any person of a criminal offence beyond what is being investigated by the proper authorities.

For formal legal or police matters, readers should rely on official documents and communications from the relevant authorities.

⚠️ PUBLIC WARNING: HIGH‑RISK “CRYPTO RECOVERY” EMAIL RECEIVED ⚠️

THIS NOTICE IS PUBLISHED FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION. THE EMAIL REQUESTED BANK STATEMENTS AND A VERIFIED BTC WALLET — A COMMON PATTERN IN HIGH‑RISK CRYPTO RECOVERY APPROACHES.

SCAM WARNING: “Liquidnet Ltd.” (support@liquidnetcapital.com)

Date Received: 18 March 2026
Sender: Liquidnet Ltd. <support@liquidnetcapital.com>
Subject: Introduction to “crypto recovery services”

---

SUMMARY

This email is a fraudulent crypto‑recovery scam impersonating a legitimate financial institution. It falsely claims ASIC and FCA licensing, uses a deceptive domain name, and promotes an illegal “asset recovery” service. No legitimate organisation can recover stolen cryptocurrency.

---

FULL EMAIL CONTENT

TRILINGUAL PUBLIC NOTE – KENWICK SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN & $252,000 CLAIM

ENGLISH VERSION

PUBLIC NOTE: CLARIFICATION ON THE KENWICK SOUTH STRUCTURE PLAN AND THE $252,000 CONTRIBUTION CLAIM

After reviewing the Kenwick South Structure Plan in full, including Sections 1.0 (Introduction), 2.0 (Site Analysis), 3.0 (Opportunities and Constraints), 4.0 (Design Principles), 5.0 (Land Use and Density), 6.0 (Movement Network), 7.0 (Public Open Space), and 8.0 (Servicing), I confirm that there is no clause, schedule, map, or requirement that imposes any development contribution or financial charge on Lot 701 (8 Stafford Road, Kenwick) for the construction of three modular homes.

Section 8.3 (Sewer and Water Servicing) only outlines general servicing principles and does not create any per‑lot financial obligation.

The Structure Plan contains:
– No Development Contribution Plan (DCP)
– No cost‑sharing schedule
– No contribution area map
– No reference to any $252,000 charge

Therefore, the Structure Plan provides no statutory or policy basis for the $252,000 contribution figure mentioned by planner Kevin. This public note is published for transparency, accuracy, and community understanding.

---

简体中文版本

公开说明：关于 Kenwick South 结构规划与 252,000 澳元费用的澄清

我已经完整审阅了《Kenwick South 结构规划》的所有章节，包括： 1.0（简介）、2.0（场地分析）、3.0（机会与限制）、4.0（设计原则）、 5.0（土地用途与密度）、6.0（交通网络）、7.0（公共开放空间）、8.0（基础设施服务）。

在整个文件中，没有任何条款、附表、地图或要求规定 Lot 701（8 Stafford Road, Kenwick） 在建设三间模块化住宅时必须支付任何开发费用或基础设施费用。

第 8.3 节（污水与供水服务）仅说明一般性服务原则， 并未对任何单一地块设定收费义务。

该结构规划文件中：
– 没有开发贡献计划（DCP）
– 没有费用分摊表
– 没有贡献区域地图
– 没有提及 252,000 澳元的收费

因此，该结构规划并不支持规划人员 Kevin 所提及的 252,000 澳元费用。 此公开说明旨在确保透明度、准确性与社区理解。

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

NOTA UMUM: PENJELASAN MENGENAI PELAN STRUKTUR KENWICK SOUTH DAN DAKWAAN BAYARAN $252,000

Saya telah meneliti keseluruhan Kenwick South Structure Plan, termasuk Seksyen 1.0 (Pengenalan), 2.0 (Analisis Tapak), 3.0 (Peluang dan Kekangan), 4.0 (Prinsip Reka Bentuk), 5.0 (Guna Tanah dan Ketumpatan), 6.0 (Rangkaian Pergerakan), 7.0 (Ruang Terbuka Awam), dan 8.0 (Perkhidmatan Infrastruktur).

Dalam semua seksyen tersebut, tidak terdapat sebarang klausa, jadual, peta atau keperluan yang mewajibkan Lot 701 (8 Stafford Road, Kenwick) membayar apa‑apa sumbangan pembangunan atau caj kewangan untuk pembinaan tiga rumah modular.

Seksyen 8.3 (Perkhidmatan Pembetungan dan Air) hanya menyatakan prinsip perkhidmatan umum dan tidak mewujudkan apa‑apa kewajipan kewangan bagi setiap lot.

Pelan Struktur ini:
– Tidak mempunyai Development Contribution Plan (DCP)
– Tidak mempunyai jadual perkongsian kos
– Tidak mempunyai peta kawasan sumbangan
– Tidak menyebut apa‑apa caj $252,000

Oleh itu, Pelan Struktur ini tidak memberikan asas undang‑undang atau dasar bagi angka $252,000 yang disebut oleh perancang Kevin. Nota umum ini diterbitkan untuk ketelusan, ketepatan dan pemahaman masyarakat.

SUMMARY OF EARLY SCAM ACTIVITY (5–13 JUNE 2025)

Luna White • Rob Miller • DAXTODO • Anti‑Fraud Alliance

Between 5 June and 13 June 2025, the scam involving Luna White, Rob Miller, and the fake trading platform DAXTODO.com was already fully active. This period contains the earliest documented evidence of manipulation, false promises, and coordinated pressure to extract money.

---

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

1. First Warning to Anti‑Fraud Alliance (5 June 2025)

I contacted the Anti‑Fraud Alliance to verify whether Rob Miller and Luna White were legitimate. They sent only an automated reply and never helped — confirming later that they were part of the scam.

2. Pressure to Pay a Fake “Legal Aid Loan” (13 June 2025)

The scammers demanded 1,000 USDT upfront, contradicting the original NO WIN NO PAY agreement.

3. Fake Account Balances Used for Manipulation

DAXTODO displayed a fake balance of 43,562.28 USDT but blocked all withdrawals. When I refused to pay, they locked me out of my account.

4. My Bank Warned Me Not to Pay

On 13 June, my bank advised me not to send the 1,000 USDT. This was the first official warning from a legitimate institution.

5. My Attempts to Seek Help

I repeatedly contacted the Anti‑Fraud Alliance with screenshots, chat logs, and evidence. They ignored every message.

6. Coordinated Manipulation by Luna White & Rob Miller

The chat logs show fake “loan repayment”, pressure to buy ETH, refusal to honour NO WIN NO PAY, emotional manipulation, and blocking withdrawals.

Conclusion

This early period proves the scam was already active on 5 June 2025, the Anti‑Fraud Alliance was fake, DAXTODO was fraudulent, and I acted responsibly by questioning them and contacting my bank.

---

🇨🇳 中文简体版本

1. 首次向 Anti‑Fraud Alliance 求助（2025年6月5日）

我联系 Anti‑Fraud Alliance，询问 Rob Miller 和 Luna White 是否真实合法。他们只发来自动回复，从未提供任何帮助。

2. 要求支付虚假“法律援助贷款”（2025年6月13日）

诈骗者要求我提前支付 1000 USDT，完全违反原本的 NO WIN NO PAY（不成功不收费） 协议。

3. 利用虚假账户余额进行操控

DAXTODO 显示虚假的 43,562.28 USDT 余额，但禁止提款。当我拒绝付款时，他们立即锁定我的账户。

4. 我的银行警告我不要付款

6月13日，我的银行明确警告我不要支付1000 USDT。

5. 我多次寻求帮助

我多次向 Anti‑Fraud Alliance 提交截图、聊天记录和证据，但他们完全无视。

6. Luna White 与 Rob Miller 的联合操控

聊天记录显示虚假的“贷款偿还”、强迫购买 ETH、拒绝履行 NO WIN NO PAY、情绪操控和阻止提款。

结论

这一阶段证明诈骗在 2025年6月5日 已全面开始，Anti‑Fraud Alliance 是假的，DAXTODO 是诈骗平台，而我负责任地提出质疑并咨询银行。

---

🇲🇾 BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

1. Amaran Pertama kepada Anti‑Fraud Alliance (5 Jun 2025)

Saya menghubungi Anti‑Fraud Alliance untuk mengesahkan sama ada Rob Miller dan Luna White adalah sah. Mereka hanya memberi jawapan automatik.

2. Tekanan Membayar ‘Pinjaman Bantuan Guaman’ Palsu (13 Jun 2025)

Penipu menuntut 1000 USDT dibayar terlebih dahulu, bercanggah dengan perjanjian asal NO WIN NO PAY.

3. Baki Akaun Palsu Digunakan untuk Manipulasi

DAXTODO memaparkan baki palsu 43,562.28 USDT tetapi menyekat semua pengeluaran. Apabila saya enggan membayar, akaun saya dikunci.

4. Bank Saya Menasihatkan Supaya Tidak Membayar

🌐 TRILINGUAL PUBLIC WARNING — RECOVERY SCAM ALERT

(English • 简体中文 • Bahasa Melayu)

---

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

PUBLIC WARNING: “Freya Johnson / TrustOryx / M2 Recoveri Ltd” is a Recovery Scam

This notice is issued to protect the public from a fraudulent email claiming that a company called M2 Recoveri Ltd / TrustOryx has “recovered” my funds and is ready to return $60,000 in cryptocurrency.

The email falsely states that they have “shut down an unregulated entity” and asks for a cryptocurrency wallet address. This is a classic recovery-scam tactic used by criminals to target victims a second time.

Key red flags include:

• Unsolicited claim of recovered funds
• Promise to return money in cryptocurrency
• Request for a wallet address
• Fake success statistics
• Fake attachments and certificates
• Suspicious domain: trustoryx.online

This is a scam. No funds have been recovered.

The public is advised not to respond, not to provide any wallet details, and not to open any attachments.

---

🇨🇳 简体中文版本

公众警告：“Freya Johnson / TrustOryx / M2 Recoveri Ltd” 是恢复资金骗局

此公告旨在提醒公众，有诈骗分子冒充 M2 Recoveri Ltd / TrustOryx，声称已经为我“追回” $60,000，并准备以加密货币方式返还。

邮件声称他们已经“关闭了一个无监管实体”，并要求提供 加密货币钱包地址。这是典型的 二次诈骗（Recovery Scam） 手法，专门针对已经受骗过的受害者。

主要危险信号包括：

• 未经请求的“追回资金”通知
• 承诺以加密货币返还资金
• 要求提供钱包地址
• 虚假的成功率
• 伪造的附件和证书
• 可疑域名：trustoryx.online

这是骗局。并没有任何资金被追回。

请勿回复、勿提供钱包信息、勿打开附件。

---

OFFICIAL NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN
(Local Government Inspectorate, Western Australia)

正式通知：致西澳地方政府监察官 TONY BROWN 先生

NOTIS RASMI: KEPADA INSPEKTOR KERAJAAN TEMPATAN TONY BROWN

4 March 2026 – Formal Lodgement of Spyker Legal Misconduct Complaint (LPCC R198/18)

English

This post records the formal lodgement of my complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPBWA) on 4 March 2026, concerning professional misconduct by Spyker Legal (Mr Joshua Burton) in the matter of City of Stirling v Lem (PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018).

This complaint has been submitted as new evidence under the existing LPCC reference R198/18, originally opened in 2020 regarding the conduct of Mr Peter Gillette of McLeods Lawyers.

The misconduct of Spyker Legal is directly connected to the earlier complaint against Mr Gillette. Both solicitors contributed to the unlawful prosecution of Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, the denial of procedural fairness, the misrepresentation of instructions, the concealment of duress and disability, and the resulting void conviction and unlawful extraction of $55,760.

On 4 March 2026, the following documents were formally submitted to LPBWA:

• Spyker Misconduct Notice (4 March 2026)
• Spyker Legal Mitigation Plea (5 December 2019)
• Formal Notice – Protection of Vulnerable Person (Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem)
• Tony Brown – Spyker Notice (Inspectorate submission)

These documents establish misrepresentation of client instructions, failure to disclose duress and disability, failure to present the defence and exculpatory evidence, failure to challenge misleading submissions, and the invitation to punish a medically vulnerable person.

This complaint is filed under LPCC Reference: R198/18. LPBWA has been requested to update the file, open a formal investigation into Spyker Legal, determine whether disciplinary action is warranted, and advise on the next procedural steps.

This post is published to maintain transparency, accountability, and a chronological public archive of all regulatory steps taken in the protection of Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, a vulnerable elderly person.

---

简体中文 (Chinese)

本帖记录我于 2026 年 3 月 4 日向西澳大利亚法律职业投诉委员会（LPBWA）正式提交投诉，指控 Spyker Legal（律师 Joshua Burton 先生）在案件 City of Stirling v Lem（PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018）中存在专业不当行为。

本次投诉作为新的证据，提交在现有的 LPCC 档案编号 R198/18 之下。该档案最初于 2020 年开立，涉及 McLeods 律师事务所 Peter Gillette 先生的行为。

Spyker Legal 的不当行为与之前针对 Gillette 先生的投诉直接相关。两位律师共同导致了对 Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士的非法起诉、程序公正的被剥夺、对当事人指示的歪曲、对胁迫和残疾情况的隐瞒，以及最终产生的无效定罪和非法扣取 55,760 澳元。

2026 年 3 月 4 日，以下文件已正式提交给 LPBWA：

• Spyker 不当行为通知书（2026 年 3 月 4 日）
• Spyker Legal 辩解陈词（2019 年 12 月 5 日）
• 《正式通知 – 保护弱势人士（Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士）》
• 《Tony Brown – Spyker 通知》（监察官提交文件）

这些文件证明：对当事人指示的歪曲、未披露胁迫和健康脆弱情况、未提出辩护及有利证据、未质疑误导性陈述，以及要求惩罚一名体弱多病的弱势人士。

本投诉在 LPCC 档案编号：R198/18 下备案。我已请求 LPBWA 更新该档案，正式调查 Spyker Legal 的行为，决定是否采取纪律处分，并告知下一步程序。

本帖公开发布，是为了维护透明度和问责制，并按时间顺序记录所有为保护弱势长者 Irene Yok Moy Lem 女士而采取的监管步骤。

---

Bahasa Melayu

Catatan ini merekodkan pemfailan rasmi aduan saya kepada Jawatankuasa Aduan Profesion Guaman (LPBWA) pada 4 Mac 2026 berhubung salah laku profesional oleh Spyker Legal (Encik Joshua Burton) dalam kes City of Stirling v Lem (PE 6810/6811/6812 of 2018).

Aduan ini dikemukakan sebagai bukti baharu di bawah rujukan LPCC sedia ada R198/18, yang pada asalnya dibuka pada tahun 2020 berkaitan tingkah laku Encik Peter Gillette dari firma guaman McLeods.

Salah laku Spyker Legal berkait rapat dengan aduan terdahulu terhadap Encik Gillette. Kedua-dua peguam telah menyumbang kepada pendakwaan tidak sah terhadap Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, penafian keadilan prosedur, pemutarbelitan arahan anak guam, penyembunyian paksaan dan kelemahan kesihatan, serta menghasilkan sabitan yang tidak sah dan pengambilan wang sebanyak AUD 55,760 secara tidak sah.

Pada 4 Mac 2026, dokumen berikut telah difailkan secara rasmi kepada LPBWA:

• Notis Salah Laku Spyker (4 Mac 2026)
• Rayuan Mitigasi Spyker Legal (5 Disember 2019)
• Notis Rasmi – Perlindungan Orang Rentan (Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem)
• Notis Tony Brown – Spyker (penyerahan kepada Inspektorat)

Dokumen-dokumen ini membuktikan pemutarbelitan arahan anak guam, kegagalan mendedahkan paksaan dan kerentanan, kegagalan mengemukakan pembelaan dan bukti yang memihak, kegagalan mencabar hujahan yang mengelirukan, serta ajakan supaya menghukum seorang individu yang lemah dari segi kesihatan.

Aduan ini difailkan di bawah Rujukan LPCC: R198/18. LPBWA telah diminta untuk mengemas kini fail tersebut, membuka siasatan rasmi terhadap Spyker Legal, menentukan sama ada tindakan tatatertib wajar diambil, dan memaklumkan langkah prosedur seterusnya.

Catatan ini diterbitkan untuk mengekalkan ketelusan, akauntabiliti, dan rekod awam berurutan bagi semua langkah pengawalseliaan yang diambil demi melindungi Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, seorang warga emas yang rentan.

PUBLIC RECORD – FORMAL REGULATORY NOTICE
Published for transparency and accountability

公开记录 – 正式监管通知

REKOD AWAM – NOTIS PENGAWALSELIAAN RASMI

ENGLISH
This comment provides a multilingual clarification for readers. The purpose is to ensure that the information in the main post is accessible to English, Chinese, and Malay readers. The content of the main post remains unchanged. This comment simply restates the key message for transparency and public understanding.

中文 CHINESE
此评论以多语言方式向读者作出说明。目的是让主要文章的内容能够让英语、中文和马来语读者理解。主要文章的内容保持不变。本评论只是为了透明度和公众理解而重申重点信息。

BAHASA MELAYU
Komen ini memberikan penjelasan dalam pelbagai bahasa untuk pembaca. Tujuannya adalah supaya maklumat dalam posting utama dapat difahami oleh pembaca berbahasa Inggeris, Cina dan Melayu. Kandungan posting utama tidak diubah. Komen ini hanya mengulangi mesej penting untuk ketelusan dan pemahaman umum.

ESCALATION TO PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR – REVIEW OF CCC DECISION DATED 3 MARCH 2026

Date: 3 March 2026

This post records that I have formally requested the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission (PICCC) to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the CCC’s handling of my submissions dated 9–10 February 2026, and its decision communicated to me by letter dated 3 March 2026.

The CCC has stated that my allegations concerning officers of Landgate, the WA Police Force, judicial officers, the Sheriff’s Office and the WA Ombudsman “do not meet the threshold for serious misconduct” and that it will take no further action unless I provide substantially new information.

I have forwarded the CCC’s 3 March 2026 letter to the Parliamentary Inspector and requested a review of whether the CCC:

• properly assessed my submissions in accordance with the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003;
• acted reasonably and with procedural fairness in deciding to take no further action; and
• failed to exercise its jurisdiction by declining to investigate matters that may fall within the definition of serious misconduct.

For the public record, the full text of my confidential letter to the Parliamentary Inspector will be reproduced in the comments to this post.

⚠️ OFFICIAL NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN: THE INSPECTORATE MUST EXERCISE ITS STATUTORY POWERS TO RECOVER THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS TOTALING $31,771.67.

⚠️ TRI‑LINGUAL PUBLIC NOTICE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR TONY BROWN ⚠️
THE STATUTORY DUTY TO ACT IS ENGAGED. THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS MUST BE RETURNED.

---

🇨🇳 致地方政府监察官 Tony Brown 的三语公开通告： 您的法定职责已经触发，三笔被非法扣押的款项必须归还。

---

🇲🇾 NOTIS AWAM TIGA BAHASA KEPADA INSPEKTOR TONY BROWN: Kewajipan statutori untuk bertindak telah bermula. Tiga jumlah wang yang dirampas secara tidak sah mesti dipulangkan.

⚠️ FINAL TRI‑LINGUAL NOTICE ⚠️
THE RETURN OF THE THREE UNLAWFULLY PLUNDERED SUMS IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORATE.

---

🇨🇳 最终三语通告： 追回三笔被非法扣押的款项是地方政府监察署的法定责任。

---

🇲🇾 Notis Akhir Tiga Bahasa: Pemulangan tiga jumlah wang yang dirampas secara tidak sah adalah kewajipan statutori Inspektorat Kerajaan Tempatan.

HIGH‑RISK ASSET RECOVERY OFFER — “Verida AFI Ltd” / “Baron Boucher”

This post records unsolicited “asset recovery” approaches for public reference and consumer awareness. It highlights risk indicators commonly associated with recovery‑room scams. It is not a court finding and does not assert that any named person or company has committed a criminal offence.

---

1. First email received — “Why Verida is different”

From: Baron Boucher (claiming to be a “Verida Specialist”)

Claimed company: Verida (links to UK company registration)

Subject: Why Verida is different — and how we can help recover your assets

Dear Nicholas, you requested more information from us , I understand you’ve been contacted by many people, so I wanted to clearly explain what makes Verida different. Verida is a properly registered company with a government-issued license in the UK. You can verify our registration here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16549578 What makes us different is our professional and transparent process. We start by reviewing your supporting evidence and transaction history. We then use advanced blockchain tracing software to follow the movement of the funds and identify the wallets involved. If a wallet is discovered, we proceed with deeper blockchain analysis and move into the recovery phase. Our legal team supports this process within a proper legal framework, and our work is backed by positive client reviews and real results. We don’t make unrealistic promises, but we do offer a serious, professional attempt to recover your assets using both technical and legal tools. If you’re open to it, let’s talk and review your case in detail. You can reach me on WhatsApp and we can discuss the next steps. Find attached license verified government issued documents, while you can take your time getting back to me on time puts us in a much better position to help you. Best regards, Baron Boucher Verida Specialist Specialist Wa +44 7346 305434

---

2. Follow‑up email — “Urgent: Update Regarding Your Recovery Case”

From: Baron Boucher <boucherbaron@gmail.com>

Subject: Urgent: Update Regarding Your Recovery Case

Dear Nicholas, I hope you are well. We have been trying to reach you regarding the recovery case you recently signed up for, but unfortunately we have not been able to connect with you by phone. We’ve made important progress in our analysis, and it’s essential that we speak with you as soon as possible to discuss the next steps and move forward while the opportunity is still available. Please let us know a convenient time for a quick call. Alternatively, you can reach us directly on WhatsApp at +44 7346 305434. We look forward to speaking with you soon. Kind regards, Baron Boucher Senior Recovery Specialist Verida Recovery Company

2.1. Your replies (for context)

I DO NOT HAVE RECORDS OF OUR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE. PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DETAILS. NICHOLAS N CHIN.

I remember having chatted with Robert Kappl. Please provide me info about your Verida Recovery so that i can answer your questions.

---

3. Company registration vs. consumer risk

• Registered company: The email links to a UK Companies House entry for a company named VERIDA AFI LTD (company number 16549578). Company registration alone does not prove that any particular service is safe, regulated, or effective.
• Not the same as regulation: Being on Companies House does not mean the firm is authorised by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or any other financial regulator.
• Asset recovery is high‑risk: Fraud victims are frequently targeted by “recovery” firms that charge fees but never actually recover funds.

---

4. Risk indicators in these approaches

• Targeting a known victim: The emails are directed at someone who has already suffered losses, which is typical of “second‑wave” recovery offers.
• Pressure and urgency: Phrases like “urgent”, “essential that we speak as soon as possible” and “while the opportunity is still available” are classic pressure tactics.
• Shift to WhatsApp: Repeated invitations to move to WhatsApp (+44 7346 305434) make later evidence gathering and dispute resolution harder.
• Vague prior consent: Reference to a “recovery case you recently signed up for” even when you have no clear record of signing anything is a red flag.
• Future fees likely: Asset recovery services almost always involve fees; victims should be extremely cautious about any request for upfront or “case opening” payments.

---

5. Consumer protection guidance

• Check regulatory status: Search the FCA (or your local regulator) register to see if the firm is authorised for the services it claims to provide.
• Avoid upfront fees: Be very wary of any demand for retainers, “investigation fees”, “escrow” or similar payments before results.
• Get a written contract: Insist on a clear written agreement setting out scope, fees, and what happens if no funds are recovered.
• Seek independent legal advice: Consider consulting your own lawyer before sending money or signing documents.
• Use official channels first: Report fraud to your bank, police, and official regulators before engaging private recovery firms.

---

6. Purpose of this publication

• To preserve a public record of the approaches received;
• To highlight common risk indicators in asset recovery offers;
• To encourage victims to rely on official channels and independent advice before paying any third party.

Readers should conduct their own checks (including regulator registers and independent legal advice) before engaging with any company or individual offering asset recovery services.

SCAMMER NO. 4 — “Eric Levine” (refund-agency.com) — Fake Blockchain.com Withdrawal Confirmation

SUMMARY

A sender using the name “Eric Levine” and the domain refund-agency.com sent a fake Blockchain.com withdrawal email claiming that 68,241.08 USDT had been “successfully withdrawn” and that the recipient must click “Complete Transaction” to finalize the transfer. This is a classic escrow-fund / verification-fee scam.

---

1. Email Used by the Scammer

Sender name: Eric Levine

Email address: ericlevine@refund-agency.com

Subject: USDT Withdrawal Successful – Complete The Transaction

Date: 28 February 2026

---

2. Scam Email Content (Evidence)

Blockchain.com
USDT Withdrawal Successful

Congratulations, you have successfully withdrawn 68,241.08 USDT from a secure intermediary account.

Once the transaction is confirmed on blockchain explorer, your funds will be visible and spendable without any restriction.

Click “Complete Transaction” and follow the instructions to finalize your transfer on the network. Once confirmed, your funds will be released to your wallet and a receipt will be emailed to you.

Support | Terms & Conditions
© 2008 Blockchain.com. All rights reserved.

---

3. Why This Email Is a Scam

• Fake domain: Blockchain.com does not send withdrawal confirmations from refund-agency.com.
• No real withdrawal: The large USDT amount is fabricated to create urgency.
• “Complete Transaction” button: Typically leads to:
  • demands for an escrow fund,
  • requests for a gas fee or “unlock fee”,
  • or a fake blockchain explorer showing fake balances.
• Real crypto withdrawals: Never require extra payments after the transaction.

---

4. Scam Pattern Identified

This email matches known patterns used by:

• Fake “refund agencies”
• Fake Blockchain.com support impersonators
• Fake escrow verification services
• Fake blockchain explorers

---

5. Evidence for Regulators

• The fraudulent email content
• The fake domain refund-agency.com
• The fabricated USDT amount
• The “Complete Transaction” button leading to payment requests
• Links to fake explorers such as erc20chainscan.com

---

6. Cross‑Links

• Scammer No. 1 — (insert link)
• Scammer No. 2 — (insert link)
• Scammer No. 3 — Fake ERC20ChainScan — (insert link)

---

7. Conclusion

The sender using the name “Eric Levine” and the domain refund-agency.com is operating a fake Blockchain.com withdrawal scheme designed to trick recipients into paying an escrow fund. This post is published to warn the public and assist regulators.

诈骗者编号 4 — “Eric Levine”（refund-agency.com）假冒 Blockchain.com 提款通知

摘要

名为 “Eric Levine”、使用 refund-agency.com 域名的发件人发送了一封 假冒 Blockchain.com 的 USDT 提款邮件，声称 68,241.08 USDT 已“成功提取”，并要求收件人点击 “Complete Transaction（完成交易）” 才能释放资金。这是一种典型的 托管金 / 验证费诈骗。

---

THE GETHING DECISION IS VOID AND NOT VOIDABLE. THE JUDGE EXCEEDED THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY S.6(1) VPRA, AND BECAUSE THE VPRA PROVIDES NO RIGHT OF APPEAL, THE ERROR CANNOT BE CORRECTED THROUGH ORDINARY APPELLATE PROCESSES. THE DECISION IS THEREFORE A NULLITY.

格辛判决属于无效而不是可撤销。法官超越了《限制滥诉法》(VPRA) 第6(1)条所赋予的管辖权，而该法并未提供上诉途径，因此错误无法通过通常的上诉程序纠正，该判决因此属法律上的无效决定。

Keputusan Gething adalah batal dan bukan boleh dibatalkan. Hakim telah melebihi bidang kuasa yang diberikan oleh s.6(1) VPRA, dan kerana VPRA tidak menyediakan hak rayuan, kesilapan itu tidak boleh diperbetulkan melalui proses rayuan biasa. Oleh itu keputusan tersebut adalah tidak sah.

Reinstatement Request to Law Mutual – VOID Gething Decision
致 Law Mutual 的重新审理请求 – Gething 判决无效
Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual – Keputusan Gething Tidak Sah

---

SECTION 1 — English (Official Legal Version)

Subject: Reinstatement and Fresh Determination – Effect of Void Gething Decision

Dear Law Mutual,

I refer to my correspondence of 23 February 2026 (Withdrawal Without Prejudice) and 25 January 2026 (Request for Fresh Determination).

At the time of my withdrawal, I acted on what I believed to be the correct effect of Justice Gething’s reasons for decision, which I did not receive until 14 February 2026. Those reasons appeared to confirm that the former statutory compensation pathway under s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) had been repealed in 1996 and that the Assurance Fund no longer existed.

I now notify Law Mutual that the Gething decision is voidable and has become void, and therefore cannot extinguish my rights or remove Law Mutual’s jurisdiction.

1. The Gething Decision Is Voidable and Has Become Void
The decision is not appealable under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). A decision made without jurisdiction and insulated from appeal is void.

2. Consequence: My Cause of Action Against Landgate Remains Alive
Because the decision is void, my cause of action against Landgate and the Registrar of Titles remains intact.

3. Consequence for Law Mutual
The professional indemnity claim against V. Ozich & Co is not extinguished and must be assessed under the Master Policy.

4. Evidence
Three documents demonstrating the void status of the decision are attached.

5. Effect on Withdrawal
My withdrawal was expressly Without Prejudice and cannot waive rights or bar reinstatement.

I request reinstatement of my claim and a fresh determination.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin

---

SECTION 2 — 中文简体 (Public Summary)

关于向 Law Mutual 提交重新审理请求的公开说明

我已正式向 Law Mutual 提交申请，要求重新审理我针对 V. Ozich & Co 的专业疏忽索赔。此申请基于以下关键事实：

• Gething 判决属于可撤销（voidable），现已成为 无效（void）；
• 无效判决不能取消我的权利，也不能阻止我继续追究 Landgate 的责任；
• 无效判决同样不能取消我对 Law Mutual 的专业赔偿索赔；
• 我之前的撤回是 无损权利（Without Prejudice），不影响我继续主张权利。

此公开声明旨在确保透明度、问责性，并为相关监督机构提供记录。

---

SECTION 3 — Bahasa Melayu (Public Summary)

Kenyataan Awam Mengenai Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual

Saya telah menghantar permohonan rasmi kepada Law Mutual untuk menilai semula tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap V. Ozich & Co. Permohonan ini berdasarkan fakta berikut:

• Keputusan Gething adalah boleh dibatalkan (voidable) dan kini tidak sah (void);
• Keputusan yang tidak sah tidak boleh menyingkirkan hak saya atau menghalang tindakan terhadap Landgate;
• Keputusan yang tidak sah juga tidak membatalkan tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap Law Mutual;
• Penarikan saya sebelum ini adalah Without Prejudice, dan tidak menjejaskan hak saya.

Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan untuk memastikan ketelusan, akauntabiliti, dan rekod bagi badan pengawasan berkaitan.

---

SECTION 4 — Footer

Published for public transparency and procedural accountability.
为公众透明度与程序问责而发布。
Diterbitkan untuk ketelusan awam dan akauntabiliti prosedur.

PROTECTING MRS IRENE YOK MOY LEM

English: Irene is a weak and vulnerable person who has already been harmed once. This public record exists to protect her from further oppression and to ensure that no authority can act against her in darkness or silence.

中文：林玉梅女士体弱、脆弱，曾经遭受过一次伤害。本公开记录旨在保护她，防止任何进一步的压迫，并确保任何机关不得在黑暗中、在沉默中对她采取行动。

Bahasa Melayu: Puan Irene ialah seorang yang lemah dan mudah terdedah, dan telah pun disakiti sekali. Rekod awam ini diwujudkan untuk melindunginya daripada penindasan lanjut dan memastikan tiada pihak berkuasa boleh bertindak terhadapnya secara senyap atau tersembunyi.

A Message to Irene

English:
Irene, you are not alone. You have suffered enough, and everything written here is to protect you. No one has the right to frighten you or take from you again. This record exists so that every authority must act openly, fairly, and with full accountability. You are safe, and you are surrounded by people who will stand with you.

中文（简体）:
玉梅，你并不孤单。你已经受了太多委屈，这里的一切都是为了保护你。
没有人再有权利吓唬你、伤害你或从你那里夺走任何东西。
这份公开记录让所有机关必须光明正大、公平透明地行事。
你是安全的，我们都会站在你身边。

Bahasa Melayu:
Irene, kamu tidak bersendirian. Kamu telah menanggung terlalu banyak kesakitan, dan segala yang ditulis di sini adalah untuk melindungi kamu. Tiada sesiapa berhak menakutkan kamu atau mengambil apa‑apa daripada kamu lagi. Rekod ini memastikan semua pihak berkuasa bertindak secara terbuka, adil dan bertanggungjawab. Kamu selamat, dan kami semua berdiri bersama

Closing Blessing

English:
May peace surround this home, may protection stand at every door, and may Irene be held in safety, dignity, and compassion. May truth prevail, and may every authority act with fairness and integrity.

中文（简体）:
愿平安围绕这个家，愿保护守在每一扇门前，愿玉梅女士被安全、尊严与慈爱所环抱。
愿真理得以彰显，愿所有机关以公平与正直行事。

Bahasa Melayu:
Semoga kedamaian menyelubungi rumah ini, semoga perlindungan berdiri di setiap pintu, dan semoga Puan Irene dipelihara dalam keselamatan, maruah dan kasih sayang. Semoga kebenaran ditegakkan dan semua pihak berkuasa bertindak dengan adil dan berintegriti.

Message to Our Sons

English:
To our sons: your mother is protected, and her dignity is defended. This record stands as proof that your family acts with courage, unity, and truth. You are not alone in this journey — your strength and love are part of her protection.

中文（简体）:
致我们的儿子们：你们的母亲受到保护，她的尊严受到捍卫。
这份记录证明了你们的家庭以勇气、团结与真理面对一切。
你们并不孤单——你们的力量与爱也是她的保护。

Bahasa Melayu:
Kepada anak‑anak kami: ibu kamu dilindungi, dan maruahnya dipertahankan. Rekod ini menjadi bukti bahawa keluarga kamu berdiri dengan keberanian, kesatuan dan kebenaran. Kamu tidak bersendirian — kekuatan dan kasih kamu adalah sebahagian daripada perlindungannya.

A Gentle Prayer

English:
May Irene’s heart be calmed, may her fears be lifted, and may she walk each day knowing she is protected. May justice guide every step taken by those in authority, and may peace return to this family.

中文（简体）:
愿玉梅女士的心灵得以安宁，愿她的恐惧被解除，愿她每天都知道自己被保护着。
愿正义引导所有掌权者的每一步，愿平安回到这个家庭。

Bahasa Melayu:
Semoga hati Irene ditenangkan, semoga ketakutannya diangkat, dan semoga setiap hari dia mengetahui bahawa dia dilindungi. Semoga keadilan membimbing setiap langkah pihak berkuasa, dan semoga kedamaian kembali kepada keluarga ini.

English: This page is for Irene.

中文：此页面献给玉梅。

Bahasa Melayu: Halaman ini ditujukan untuk Irene.

Signature

English:
With love, protection, and unwavering commitment,
Nicholas N. Chin

中文（简体）:
以爱、保护与坚定的承诺，
陈年发

Bahasa Melayu:
Dengan kasih sayang, perlindungan dan komitmen yang teguh,
Nicholas N. Chin

Family Creed

English:
In this family, we stand together. We protect the vulnerable, we speak the truth, and we do not fear injustice. Our strength is unity, our shield is integrity, and our path is honour.

中文（简体）:
在这个家庭里，我们同心而立。
我们保护弱者，坚持真理，不畏不公。
我们的力量是团结，我们的盾牌是正直，我们的道路是荣誉。

Bahasa Melayu:
Dalam keluarga ini, kita berdiri bersama. Kita melindungi yang lemah, kita berkata benar, dan kita tidak gentar menghadapi ketidakadilan. Kekuatan kita ialah kesatuan, perisai kita ialah integriti, dan jalan kita ialah kehormatan.

English: Please share this page with all relevant authorities to ensure full transparency and accountability.

中文：请将此页面分享给所有相关机关，以确保完全的透明与问责。

Bahasa Melayu: Sila kongsikan halaman ini kepada semua pihak berkuasa yang berkaitan untuk memastikan ketelusan dan akauntabiliti sepenuhnya.

---

English:
This page stands as a record of truth, protection, and transparency. May all who read it act with fairness, integrity, and compassion.

中文（简体）:
本页面作为真相、保护与透明的记录。 愿所有阅读此页的人以公平、正直与慈爱行事。

Bahasa Melayu:
Halaman ini menjadi rekod kebenaran, perlindungan dan ketelusan. Semoga semua yang membacanya bertindak dengan adil, berintegriti dan penuh belas kasihan.

— End of Public Record —

VOID ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE HALL – DURESS-INDUCED GUILTY PLEAS – UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL DEMANDS

City of Stirling v Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018)

1. English

This public notice concerns the proceedings in City of Stirling v Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018). On 9 December 2019, orders were made against Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem in the Perth Magistrates Court before Magistrate Hall. Those orders are void ab initio for the following reasons:

• Interpreter-entered pleas: The guilty pleas were not entered by Mrs Lem herself, but by the interpreter.
• Duress and coercion: The pleas were induced by duress arising from coercive conduct by Spyker Legal.
• No judicial inquiry: No proper inquiry was made by the magistrate into voluntariness, comprehension, or informed consent.
• False factual premises: The factual premises relied upon were false, misleading, and untested.

A void order has no legal effect. It cannot be enforced, cannot be appealed, and cannot lawfully be used to extract money. Despite this, the City of Stirling has continued to issue financial demands and pursue enforcement against Mrs Lem.

These actions raise serious concerns about procedural fairness, misuse of authority, and discrimination against a vulnerable migrant woman with limited English. Multiple agencies and regulators have now been formally notified and requested to act within their statutory and administrative powers to prevent further harm and to address systemic failures.

Issued by: Nicholas N. Chin, for Mrs Irene Yok Moy Lem, Perth, Western Australia.

---

2. 简体中文

本公告涉及案件：Stirling 市议会 诉 林玉梅（Irene Yok Moy Lem）（PE 6810–6813/2018）。 2019 年 12 月 9 日，在珀斯地方法院 Hall 法官面前，对林玉梅女士作出的裁判命令 自始无效（void ab initio），理由如下：

• 并非本人认罪：“认罪”并非由林女士亲自作出，而是由传译员代为表示。
• 在胁迫下认罪：认罪是在 Spyker Legal 施加的压力和胁迫下作出。
• 法官未作必要询问：法官没有就认罪是否自愿、是否真正理解及是否知情同意作出适当询问。
• 事实基础错误：法院所依赖的事实基础是虚假、误导且未经检验的。

自始无效的命令在法律上毫无效力，不能被执行、不能作为有效上诉对象，也不能被用来向当事人索取金钱。 尽管如此，Stirling 市议会仍持续向林女士发出金钱要求并采取执行行动。

这些行为严重损害程序公正，构成权力滥用，并对一位英语能力有限的弱势移民妇女造成歧视。 多个机构和监管机关现已被正式通知，并被要求在其法定和行政权限范围内采取行动，防止进一步伤害并纠正系统性失误。

发布人： Nicholas N. Chin，代表林玉梅女士，西澳珀斯。

---

3. Bahasa Melayu

Notis awam ini berkaitan prosiding City of Stirling lwn Irene Yok Moy Lem (PE 6810–6813/2018). Pada 9 Disember 2019, perintah telah dibuat terhadap Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem di Mahkamah Majistret Perth di hadapan Majistret Hall. Perintah-perintah tersebut adalah batal dan tidak sah dari awal (void ab initio) atas sebab-sebab berikut:

• Pengakuan bukan oleh beliau sendiri: Pengakuan bersalah tidak dibuat oleh Puan Lem sendiri, tetapi oleh jurubahasa.
• Paksaan dan tekanan: Pengakuan itu dibuat di bawah paksaan dan tekanan daripada firma guaman Spyker Legal.
• Tiada siasatan mahkamah yang mencukupi: Majistret tidak membuat siasatan sewajarnya tentang kerelaan, kefahaman dan persetujuan termaklum.
• Fakta yang salah dan mengelirukan: Asas fakta yang digunakan adalah palsu, mengelirukan dan tidak pernah diuji.

Perintah yang batal dari awal tidak mempunyai apa-apa kesan undang-undang. Ia tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan, tidak boleh dijadikan asas rayuan, dan tidak boleh digunakan secara sah untuk menuntut wang. Namun begitu, City of Stirling masih meneruskan tuntutan kewangan dan tindakan penguatkuasaan terhadap Puan Lem.

Tindakan ini menimbulkan kebimbangan serius mengenai keadilan prosedur, penyalahgunaan kuasa dan diskriminasi terhadap seorang wanita migran yang lemah dengan keupayaan bahasa Inggeris yang terhad. Pelbagai agensi dan badan pengawas kini telah dimaklumkan secara rasmi dan diminta bertindak dalam bidang kuasa undang-undang dan pentadbiran masing-masing untuk mengelakkan mudarat lanjut dan menangani kegagalan sistemik.

Dikeluarkan oleh: Nicholas N. Chin, bagi pihak Puan Irene Yok Moy Lem, Perth, Australia Barat.

Three Minor Case Claims for Specific Performance of Solar & Battery Contracts
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

三项小额索赔：要求 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 履行三份太阳能与电池合同
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

Tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil untuk Pelaksanaan Khusus Kontrak Solar & Bateri
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

---

ENGLISH VERSION

TITLE

Three Minor Case Claims for Specific Performance of Solar & Battery Contracts
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

ABOUT THIS POST

This post records the filing of three Minor Case Claims in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. Each claim seeks specific performance of a written contract for solar and battery installation at three separate properties. The respondents are Grand Solar (two contracts) and TruPower (one contract).

The purpose of this post is to maintain public transparency, provide a clear factual record, and ensure that all parties—including the Court, the respondents, and the public—can access the same information.

SUMMARY OF THE THREE CLAIMS

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Attempted unlawful termination
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Repudiation and non-performance
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• Contract signed: November 2025
• Property: [Insert address]
• Breach: Failure to perform agreed installation
• Remedy sought: Specific performance

TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS

• November 2025 – Three contracts signed
• December 2025 – January 2026 – Delays, non-performance, attempted repudiation
• February 2026 – Notices affirming the contracts issued
• February 2026 – Three Minor Case Claims prepared
• February 2026 – Claims lodged with the Magistrates Court

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Category	Document Description
Contracts	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
Notices	Notices of affirmation for all three contracts
Correspondence	Emails, messages, and written communications with Grand Solar and TruPower
Affidavit	Supporting affidavit filed with the Court
Evidence Bundle	Timeline, screenshots, emails, and supporting materials

COMMENT

These claims are brought to enforce lawful contractual rights and to ensure that solar and battery installations proceed as agreed. Specific performance is the appropriate remedy because each contract relates to unique property-specific installations and cannot be substituted by damages.

---

中文版本 (CHINESE VERSION)

标题

三项小额索赔：要求 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 履行三份太阳能与电池合同
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

关于本帖

本帖记录在西澳地方法院提交的三项小额索赔。每一项索赔均要求被告依照书面合同履行安装太阳能与电池系统的义务。被告包括 Grand Solar（两份合同） 与 TruPower（一份合同）。

本帖旨在保持公开透明，提供清晰的事实记录，并确保法院、被告及公众均可获取相同信息。

三项索赔摘要

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：试图无合法依据终止合同
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：拒绝履行与不履行
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• 签约日期：2025 年 11 月
• 物业：[填写地址]
• 违约情况：未按合同履行安装义务
• 请求救济：强制履行合同

关键事件时间线

• 2025 年 11 月 – 三份合同签署
• 2025 年 12 月 – 2026 年 1 月 – 延误、不履行、试图终止合同
• 2026 年 2 月 – 发出合同确认通知
• 2026 年 2 月 – 准备三份小额索赔
• 2026 年 2 月 – 向地方法院提交索赔

文件清单

类别	文件内容
合同	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
通知	三份合同的确认通知
往来信件	与 Grand Solar 与 TruPower 的电邮与信息
宣誓书	提交法院的支持性宣誓书
证据材料	时间线、电邮、截图等支持性材料

评论

这些索赔旨在维护合法合同权利，并确保太阳能与电池系统按约安装。由于每份合同均与特定物业相关，无法以金钱赔偿替代，因此强制履行是适当的救济。

---

MALAY VERSION (BAHASA MELAYU)

TAJUK

Tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil untuk Pelaksanaan Khusus Kontrak Solar & Bateri
GS7560 • GS7841 • TP13049

MENGENAI CATATAN INI

Catatan ini merekodkan pemfailan tiga Tuntutan Kes Kecil di Mahkamah Majistret Australia Barat. Setiap tuntutan memohon pelaksanaan khusus terhadap kontrak bertulis bagi pemasangan sistem solar dan bateri.

RINGKASAN TIGA TUNTUTAN

1. GS7560 – Grand Solar

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Cubaan menamatkan kontrak tanpa asas sah
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

2. GS7841 – Grand Solar

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Tidak melaksanakan kontrak
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

3. TP13049 – TruPower

• Ditandatangani: November 2025
• Hartanah: [Masukkan alamat]
• Pelanggaran: Gagal melaksanakan pemasangan
• Remedi: Pelaksanaan khusus

GARIS MASA PERISTIWA UTAMA

• November 2025 – Kontrak ditandatangani
• Disember 2025 – Januari 2026 – Kelewatan dan kegagalan melaksanakan
• Februari 2026 – Notis pengesahan dikeluarkan
• Februari 2026 – Tuntutan disediakan
• Februari 2026 – Difailkan di Mahkamah Majistret

SENARAI DOKUMEN

Kategori	Dokumen
Kontrak	GS7560 – Grand Solar
	GS7841 – Grand Solar
	TP13049 – TruPower
Notis	Notis pengesahan
Surat-menyurat	Emel dan mesej dengan Grand Solar & TruPower
Afidavit	Afidavit sokongan
Bukti	Garis masa, emel, dan bahan sokongan

ULASAN

Tuntutan ini bertujuan menguatkuasakan hak kontrak yang sah dan memastikan pemasangan solar dan bateri dilaksanakan seperti dipersetujui.

---

Transparency note: This post is published for public transparency, accountability, and accurate record-keeping. All information is factual to the best of the author’s knowledge at the time of publication.