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.

Post‑1996 Compensation Rights Under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

English

5. The key legal truth (for your VPRA application)
The repeal of s 197 in 1996 did not abolish the right to compensation. It was preserved and relocated into ss 201–205, which continue to provide a statutory right to compensation for deprivation of an estate or interest in land.
This is the sentence that corrects Justice Gething’s misunderstanding.

Section 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) was repealed in 1996, but the right to compensation for deprivation of land or interest was not abolished. The 1996 amendments relocated the compensation regime into sections 196 and 201–205. These provisions now govern the State’s liability for loss caused by error, omission, misdescription, wrongful registration, or deprivation of an estate or interest in land. The Registrar remains the nominal defendant, and compensation is paid from the Consolidated Account. The modern provisions preserve the substance of the former section 197 while updating the structure and removing the Assurance Fund.

中文（简体）

《1893年土地转让法》（西澳）第197条在1996年被废除，但土地或权益被剥夺的赔偿权并未被取消。 1996年的修订将赔偿制度重新编排至第196条及第201至205条。这些条文现在规定：若因登记错误、 遗漏、描述不当、错误注册或他人欺诈导致土地或权益被剥夺，州政府须承担赔偿责任。注册官仍为 名义被告，赔偿金由综合账户支付。现代条文保留了原第197条的实质内容，只是更新了结构并废除了 保证基金。

Bahasa Malaysia

Seksyen 197 Akta Pemindahan Tanah 1893 (WA) telah dimansuhkan pada tahun 1996, tetapi hak untuk menuntut pampasan atas kehilangan tanah atau kepentingan tidak dimansuhkan. Pindaan 1996 memindahkan rejim pampasan ke dalam seksyen 196 dan 201–205. Peruntukan ini kini menetapkan liabiliti Negeri bagi kerugian akibat kesilapan, ketinggalan, salah keterangan, pendaftaran yang salah, atau kehilangan sesuatu kepentingan dalam tanah. Pendaftar kekal sebagai defendan nominal, dan pampasan dibayar daripada Akaun Disatukan. Peruntukan moden mengekalkan intipati seksyen 197 yang lama sambil menghapuskan Dana Jaminan.

PUBLIC ARCHIVE SUMMARY – WITHDRAWAL OF LAW MUTUAL COMPLAINT (REF: 7.97)
公共透明记录摘要 — 撤回对 Law Mutual 的投诉（REF: 7.97）
RINGKASAN KETELUSAN AWAM — PENARIKAN ADUAN KEPADA LAW MUTUAL (REF: 7.97)

Date: 21 February 2026
Author: Nicholas N. Chin

ENGLISH VERSION

I have formally withdrawn my complaint to Law Mutual (WA) regarding V. Ozich & Co (REF: 7.97). This withdrawal is made without prejudice and ensures the matter proceeds through the correct jurisdiction.

1. Statutory Compensation Pathway Repealed

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the former compensation mechanism under s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) was repealed in 1996. The Assurance Fund no longer exists, and courts cannot award compensation under a repealed provision.

2. Law Mutual Has No Jurisdiction

Law Mutual is a professional indemnity insurer, not a statutory compensation body. It cannot assess or determine compensation for losses arising from Landgate administrative omissions.

3. No Practitioner Negligence

The loss did not arise from solicitor negligence. It arose from a government administrative omission and subsequent planning consequences. Professional indemnity insurance therefore does not apply.

4. Correct Pathway – Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation

A submission has been lodged with Hon. John Carey MLA, Minister for Lands and Minister for Planning, addressing the administrative omission and resulting planning harm.

5. Oversight and Transparency

For accountability, the withdrawal notice was also provided to:

• WA Ombudsman
• Corruption and Crime Commission
• Legal Practice Board
• Australian Human Rights Commission
• WA Parliamentary Oversight (Public Administration Committee & Advisory Officer Alex Hickman)

6. Purpose of Withdrawal

This withdrawal:

• does not waive rights
• does not concede any issue
• does not affect any ongoing process
• ensures the matter proceeds through the lawful and appropriate compensation pathway

---

简体中文版本

我已正式撤回向 Law Mutual (WA) 提出的关于 V. Ozich & Co 的投诉（REF: 7.97）。此次撤回是 在不影响任何权利的前提下进行的，目的是确保此事进入正确的司法管辖途径。

1. 法定赔偿途径已被废除

最高法院确认，《1893 年土地转让法》第 197 条的原法定赔偿机制已于1996 年废除。保证基金已不复存在，法院也无法依据已废除的条文作出赔偿。

2. Law Mutual 无管辖权

Law Mutual 是专业责任保险机构，并非法定赔偿机构。它无权处理或决定因Landgate 行政疏漏而产生的损失赔偿。

3. 无律师过失

损失并非源于律师过失，而是源于政府行政疏漏及其后续的规划影响。因此，专业责任保险不适用。

4. 正确途径 — 部长酌情赔偿（Ex Gratia）

我已向John Carey 议员（州土地及规划部长）提交部长酌情赔偿申请，说明行政疏漏及其造成的规划损害。

5. 监督与透明度

为确保透明度，此次撤回通知亦已发送至：

• 西澳监察专员
• 西澳反腐委员会
• 法律执业委员会
• 澳大利亚人权委员会
• 西澳议会监督机构（公共行政委员会及法律顾问 Alex Hickman）

6. 撤回目的

此次撤回：

• 不放弃任何权利
• 不承认任何责任
• 不影响任何正在进行的程序
• 仅确保此事进入合法且适当的赔偿途径

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

Saya telah menarik balik aduan saya kepada Law Mutual (WA) berhubung V. Ozich & Co (REF: 7.97). Penarikan ini dibuat tanpa prejudis dan memastikan perkara ini diteruskan melalui saluran bidang kuasa yang betul.

1. Laluan Pampasan Berkanun Telah Dimansuhkan

Mahkamah Agung mengesahkan bahawa mekanisme pampasan di bawah s 197 Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) telah dimansuhkan pada tahun 1996. Dana Jaminan tidak lagi wujud.

2. Law Mutual Tiada Bidang Kuasa

Law Mutual ialah penanggung insurans liabiliti profesional, bukan badan pampasan berkanun. Ia tidak boleh menilai atau menentukan pampasan bagi kerugian akibat kecuaian pentadbiran Landgate.

3. Tiada Kecuaian Peguam

Kerugian ini bukan disebabkan kecuaian peguam tetapi berpunca daripada kecuaian pentadbiran kerajaan dan kesan perancangan yang menyusul.

4. Laluan Betul — Pampasan Ex Gratia Menteri

Permohonan pampasan ex gratia telah dikemukakan kepada YB John Carey MLA, Menteri Tanah dan Menteri Perancangan.

5. Penyeliaan & Ketelusan

• Ombudsman WA
• Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah WA
• Lembaga Amalan Guaman
• Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Australia
• Pengawasan Parlimen WA (Public Administration Committee & Alex Hickman)

6. Tujuan Penarikan

• tidak menjejaskan hak
• tidak mengakui sebarang liabiliti
• tidak menjejaskan proses yang sedang berjalan
• hanya memastikan perkara ini diteruskan melalui saluran pampasan yang sah dan sesuai

---

Public Transparency Note:
This post forms part of an ongoing public archive documenting procedural handling, jurisdictional issues, and compensation pathways arising from administrative omissions.

公开透明声明：
此文章属于公共档案的一部分，用于记录行政疏漏所引发的程序处理、司法管辖问题及赔偿途径。

Nota Ketelusan Awam:
Catatan ini adalah sebahagian daripada arkib awam yang mendokumentasikan pengendalian prosedur, isu bidang kuasa, dan laluan pampasan akibat kecuaian pentadbiran.

---

---

Public Transparency Note:
This post forms part of an ongoing public archive documenting procedural handling, jurisdictional issues, and compensation pathways arising from administrative omissions.

公开透明声明：
此文章属于公共档案的一部分，用于记录行政疏漏所引发的程序处理、司法管辖问题及赔偿途径。

Nota Ketelusan Awam:
Catatan ini adalah sebahagian daripada arkib awam yang mendokumentasikan pengendalian prosedur, isu bidang kuasa, dan laluan pampasan akibat kecuaian pentadbiran.

---

Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Request Lodged – 20 February 2026

Today I formally submitted my Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Request to the Minister for Lands / Minister for Planning regarding the long‑standing administrative omission by Landgate and the consequential planning harm arising from the City of Swan’s 2015 approval affecting Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.

The submission includes:

• Ministerial Ex Gratia Compensation Submission
• Chronology of Relevant Events
• Memorandum & Evidence Bundle
• Landgate Correspondence (2020)

This request is made under the Executive Government’s discretionary authority to grant ex gratia compensation, supported by the Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) and the WA Government Ex Gratia Guidelines, which allow compensation where administrative error has caused loss and no legal remedy exists.

I now await the Minister’s written response.

---

部长酌情补偿申请已提交 – 2026年2月20日

我已正式向土地部长 / 规划部长提交了酌情补偿申请，内容涉及 Landgate 多年来的行政疏漏，以及 Swan 市议会在 2015 年所作出的规划批准对 Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga 造成的后续损害。

提交材料包括：

• 部长酌情补偿申请书
• 相关事件时间表
• 备忘录与证据文件
• Landgate 2020 年往来信件

本申请依据州政府的行政酌情权提出，并受《2006 年财务管理法（WA）》及西澳酌情补偿指引支持，用于处理因行政错误造成损失且无法律途径可补救的情况。

现正等待部长的书面回复。

---

Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia Menteri Telah Dihantar – 20 Februari 2026

Saya telah menghantar Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia kepada Menteri Tanah / Menteri Perancangan berhubung kesilapan pentadbiran Landgate dan kesan perancangan susulan daripada kelulusan tahun 2015 oleh City of Swan yang menjejaskan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.

Dokumen yang disertakan:

• Penyerahan Permohonan Pampasan Ex Gratia
• Kronologi Peristiwa Berkaitan
• Memorandum & Set Bukti
• Surat‑menyurat Landgate (2020)

Permohonan ini dibuat di bawah kuasa budi bicara Kerajaan Negeri, disokong oleh Financial Management Act 2006 (WA) dan Garis Panduan Pampasan Ex Gratia WA, yang membenarkan pampasan apabila kesilapan pentadbiran menyebabkan kerugian dan tiada remedi undang‑undang tersedia.

Saya kini menunggu maklum balas bertulis daripada Menteri.

SCAM ARCHIVE — RECOVERY SCAMMER (VERIDA / BARON BOUCHER)

Date received: 19 February 2026
Method: Email + WhatsApp
Type: Recovery Scam / Fake Asset‑Recovery Service / UK Shell‑Company Misuse

1. ENGLISH VERSION

Summary of Scam Attempt

I received an unsolicited email from “Baron Boucher – Verida Specialist” claiming that his company, “Verida,” is a licensed UK entity capable of recovering stolen crypto assets. The email uses classic recovery‑scam techniques: false legitimacy, fake “government‑issued license,” blockchain‑tracing claims, and pressure to contact him via WhatsApp.

The sender uses a Gmail address, provides a UK Companies House link (a common scam tactic), and attaches a so‑called “license” document — another hallmark of recovery scams.

Key Red Flags

• Gmail used: boucherbaron@gmail.com
• WhatsApp pushed: +44 7346 305434
• Claims: “Verida is a properly registered company with a government-issued license in the UK.”
• UK registration misused as proof of legitimacy
• Promises “advanced blockchain tracing software” and “legal team”
• Attaches a fake license PDF
• Introduces urgency: “Getting back to me on time puts us in a much better position to help you.”

Extracts from the Scam Email

“Verida is a properly registered company with a government-issued license in the UK.”
“We then use advanced blockchain tracing software to follow the movement of the funds…”
“You can reach me on WhatsApp…”

Conclusion

This is a recovery scam. No legitimate recovery service contacts victims through Gmail or WhatsApp, nor do they rely on UK shell‑company registrations or fake licenses.

---

2. 中文版本（简体）

诈骗总结

我收到一封来自 “Baron Boucher – Verida Specialist” 的邮件，自称其公司 “Verida” 是英国政府许可的正规机构，可以帮助追回被盗加密资产。邮件内容完全符合典型的“资产追回骗局”。

发件人使用 Gmail 邮箱、提供 英国公司注册链接（骗子常用伎俩），并附上所谓的“政府许可证”PDF。

主要危险信号

• 使用 Gmail： boucherbaron@gmail.com
• 要求转到 WhatsApp： +44 7346 305434
• 声称拥有“英国政府颁发的许可证”
• 利用英国公司注册作为“合法性”包装
• 承诺“区块链追踪软件”和“法律团队”
• 附上伪造的“许可证”文件
• 制造紧迫感：“尽快回复有助于我们帮助你。”

诈骗邮件摘录

“Verida 是一家在英国正式注册并拥有政府颁发许可证的公司。”
“我们使用先进的区块链追踪软件…”
“你可以通过 WhatsApp 联系我…”

结论

这是一起 资产追回骗局。正规机构不会使用 Gmail 或 WhatsApp，也不会依靠英国公司注册来证明合法性。

---

3. BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

Ringkasan Penipuan

Saya menerima emel daripada “Baron Boucher – Verida Specialist” yang mendakwa syarikatnya “Verida” berlesen di UK dan boleh membantu memulihkan aset kripto yang hilang. Ini adalah skrip tipikal penipuan pemulihan aset.

Pengirim menggunakan Gmail, memberikan pautan pendaftaran syarikat UK (taktik biasa penipu), dan melampirkan dokumen “lesen” palsu.

Tanda‑tanda Amaran

• Menggunakan Gmail: boucherbaron@gmail.com
• Mendesak WhatsApp: +44 7346 305434
• Dakwaan “lesen kerajaan UK”
• Menggunakan pendaftaran syarikat UK sebagai bukti palsu
• Menjanjikan “perisian jejak blockchain” dan “pasukan undang‑undang”
• Melampirkan PDF “lesen” palsu
• Mewujudkan rasa tergesa‑gesa: “Balas segera supaya kami boleh membantu.”

Petikan Emel Penipu

“Verida ialah syarikat berdaftar dengan lesen kerajaan UK.”
“Kami menggunakan perisian penjejakan blockchain yang canggih…”
“Hubungi saya melalui WhatsApp…”

Kesimpulan

Ini ialah penipuan pemulihan aset. Organisasi sah tidak menggunakan Gmail atau WhatsApp dan tidak bergantung pada pendaftaran syarikat UK sebagai bukti kelayakan.

# **🌐 TRI‑LINGUAL HEADER BANNER (Blogspot‑Ready)** ```

BRIEFING NOTE – PETITION REGARDING WA OMBUDSMAN (C/45628)

简报说明 – 关于西澳监察专员（投诉 C/45628）的请愿书

Nota Taklimat – Petisyen Berkenaan WA Ombudsman (C/45628)

``` --- # **🌐 TRI‑LINGUAL FOOTER TRANSPARENCY NOTE (Blogspot‑Ready)** ```

English: This public archive is provided in the interest of transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. All sensitive personal data has been redacted.

简体中文： 此公共存档旨在促进透明度、问责制和程序公正。所有敏感个人资料已被删除。

Bahasa Melayu: Arkib awam ini disediakan demi ketelusan, akauntabiliti dan keadilan prosedur. Semua data peribadi sensitif telah dipadamkan.

``` --- # **🌐 FULL COMBINED HTML BLOCK (HEADER + CONTENT + FOOTER)** **Ready for direct pasting into Blogspot (HTML mode).** You can drop this into a new post and it will render cleanly. ```

BRIEFING NOTE – PETITION REGARDING WA OMBUDSMAN (C/45628)

简报说明 – 关于西澳监察专员（投诉 C/45628）的请愿书

Nota Taklimat – Petisyen Berkenaan WA Ombudsman (C/45628)

English

This briefing note summarises the purpose and context of my petition requesting parliamentary oversight of the WA Ombudsman’s handling of Complaint C/45628. The petition concerns the Ombudsman’s constructive refusal to investigate administrative failures by Landgate relating to easement rights for Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.

Key Issues Raised:

• Failure to investigate administrative conduct, including safeguarding easement rights, maintaining accurate records, complying with statutory obligations, providing adequate reasons, and acting reasonably after notification of error.
• Misclassification of the matter as judicial review despite it being purely administrative.
• Constructive refusal of statutory duties by the Ombudsman.
• No alternative remedy exists, as only the Ombudsman can investigate State‑agency administrative misconduct.

Reason for Petition:
“The Committee is unable to consider the merits of a particular case or grievance that is not received as a petition.”

Requested Parliamentary Action:

1. Direct the Public Administration Committee to inquire into the Ombudsman’s handling of Complaint C/45628.
2. Examine systemic issues within the Ombudsman’s office.
3. Recommend reforms to ensure proper statutory oversight.
4. Ensure Landgate’s administrative failures are properly investigated.

中文（简体）

本简报说明了我向国会提交请愿书的背景与目的，要求国会监督西澳监察专员对投诉 C/45628 的处理。请愿书关注监察专员对 Landgate 在 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga 地役权相关行政失误的建设性拒绝调查。

提出的主要问题：

• 未调查行政行为，包括地役权登记保障、记录准确性、法定义务遵守、拒绝赔偿的理由不足，以及在被通知错误后未采取合理行动。
• 将此事错误归类为司法复核，而事实上完全属于行政问题。
• 监察专员构成对其法定职责的建设性拒绝。
• 无其他救济途径，因为只有监察专员有权调查州政府机构的行政不当行为。

提交请愿书的原因：
“委员会无法审议未以请愿书形式提交的个案或申诉。”

请求国会采取的行动：

1. 指示公共行政委员会调查监察专员对投诉 C/45628 的处理。
2. 审查监察专员办公室的系统性问题。
3. 建议改革以确保法定监督职能得到正确履行。
4. 确保 Landgate 的行政失误得到适当调查。

Bahasa Melayu

Nota taklimat ini menerangkan tujuan dan konteks petisyen saya kepada Parlimen berhubung tindakan WA Ombudsman dalam Aduan C/45628. Petisyen ini menegaskan bahawa Ombudsman telah menolak secara konstruktif untuk menyiasat kegagalan pentadbiran oleh Landgate berkaitan hak easement bagi Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.

Isu‑isu Utama:

• Kegagalan menyiasat tindakan pentadbiran, termasuk perlindungan hak easement, ketepatan rekod, pematuhan undang‑undang, alasan penolakan pampasan yang tidak mencukupi, dan tindakan tidak munasabah selepas dimaklumkan tentang kesilapan.
• Salah klasifikasi aduan sebagai isu semakan kehakiman walaupun ia hanya melibatkan tindakan pentadbiran.
• Penolakan konstruktif terhadap kewajipan statutori oleh Ombudsman.
• Tiada remedi alternatif kerana hanya Ombudsman mempunyai kuasa menyiasat salah laku pentadbiran agensi negeri.

Sebab Petisyen Diperlukan:
“Jawatankuasa tidak dapat menilai merit sesuatu kes atau aduan jika ia tidak diterima sebagai petisyen.”

Tindakan Parlimen yang Diminta:

1. Mengarahkan Jawatankuasa Pentadbiran Awam menyiasat cara Ombudsman mengendalikan Aduan C/45628.
2. Meneliti isu‑isu sistemik dalam pejabat Ombudsman.
3. Mencadangkan pembaharuan untuk memastikan pengawasan statutori dilaksanakan dengan betul.
4. Memastikan kegagalan pentadbiran Landgate disiasat dengan sewajarnya.

English: This public archive is provided in the interest of transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. All sensitive personal data has been redacted.

简体中文： 此公共存档旨在促进透明度、问责制和程序公正。所有敏感个人资料已被删除。

Bahasa Melayu: Arkib awam ini disediakan demi ketelusan, akauntabiliti dan keadilan prosedur. Semua data peribadi sensitif telah dipadamkan.

```

SCAM ARCHIVE ENTRY — “Fake Guardian / Elon Musk / Crypto Investment”

SCAMMER No. ___ — Fake ‘Guardian’ Article Using Elon Musk + Crypto Investment Redirect

Summary (English)

A malicious link was received via WhatsApp, leading to a fake “Global News / The Guardian” webpage hosted on a suspicious domain: ueiwire.top. The page falsely claims to report on Elon Musk and a supposed “XixoChain” investment. This is a common crypto scam format designed to impersonate legitimate news outlets and redirect victims to fraudulent signup pages.

The link contains multiple tracking tokens and redirects to another suspicious domain: ebooksdl.org. This pattern is consistent with scam affiliate networks that harvest personal information, banking details, or attempt to install malware.

No legitimate news organisation uses these domains. This is 100% a scam.

---

Evidence Collected

• Initial link:
  https://europe-north.ueiwire.top/global-news/gl-police-elon-musk-xixochain-the-guardian-v1/?offer=https://wo.ebooksdl.org/?_lp=1&_token=...&_subid=...
• Delivery method: WhatsApp message
• Fake branding: “The Guardian”, “Global News”, “Police”
• Scam pattern:
  • Fake news article
  • Elon Musk endorsement
  • Crypto investment redirect
  • Tracking tokens (_lp, _token, _subid)
• Risk:
  • Identity theft
  • Financial fraud
  • Malware
  • Data harvesting

---

Public Warning (English)

This link is fraudulent. Do not click, do not enter personal details, and do not trust any investment claims involving Elon Musk or “XixoChain”. Legitimate news outlets never use random domains like ueiwire.top.

公众警告（中文）

此链接为诈骗网站。请勿点击、勿填写任何个人资料，也不要相信任何以 “Elon Musk” 或 “XixoChain” 名义的投资宣传。 正规媒体绝不会使用像 ueiwire.top 这样的可疑域名。

Amaran Awam (Bahasa Melayu)

Pautan ini adalah penipuan. Jangan klik, jangan masukkan maklumat peribadi, dan jangan percaya sebarang dakwaan pelaburan yang menggunakan nama “Elon Musk” atau “XixoChain”. Laman berita yang sah tidak menggunakan domain mencurigakan seperti ueiwire.top.

---

Annex E (Redacted for Public Release)

Annex E contains:
– Full URL chain
– Screenshots of the fake article
– Technical indicators (tokens, redirects, domain metadata)
– WhatsApp delivery timestamp

Available upon request for verification or reporting purposes.

WARNING – GRAND SOLAR (GS7560 & GS7841)

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct – Failure to Supply and Install Contracted Solar Systems

警告：Grand Solar 误导性与欺骗性行为 – 未履行太阳能系统供应与安装合同
Amaran: Tingkah laku mengelirukan & menipu oleh Grand Solar – gagal membekal dan memasang sistem solar yang dipersetujui

Regulatory Notice:

This matter is currently under active conciliation with Consumer Protection WA (DOCEP). All contracts, correspondence, and timelines have been provided to regulators. This page is maintained as a public transparency record only.

Background

This post documents my experience with Grand Solar in relation to projects GS7560 and GS7841. Contracts were signed and deposits paid on 29 October 2025. Despite repeated written assurances and promised installation dates, Grand Solar has never supplied or installed the contracted systems.

Key Issues

• Failure to supply and install the contracted solar systems.
• Repeated delays with no reasonable installation timeline.
• Attempted unlawful price increase on 19 January 2026 caused by Grand Solar’s own delay.
• Attempted termination of the contracts despite clear affirmation on my side.
• Refunds issued without explanation, accepted strictly under protest.

Regulatory Status

The conduct has been reported to Consumer Protection WA. The matter is in the conciliation queue. Both DOCEP and Grand Solar already hold the full evidentiary record, including contracts, emails, legal correspondence, and a detailed timeline of events.

---

Public Comment – Tri-lingual Record

ENGLISH

This public record documents Grand Solar’s ongoing failure to supply or install the contracted systems for GS7560 and GS7841. As stated in my formal submission:

“The contracted solar system has not been supplied or delivered.”

Despite written assurances, promised installation dates, and full payment of deposits, no installation ever occurred. Grand Solar attempted to impose an unlawful price increase on 19 January 2026, caused entirely by their own delay. Refunds were later issued without explanation, and were accepted strictly under protest. This does not represent any agreement with their attempted termination. The matter is now under active conciliation with Consumer Protection WA. This archive will continue to be updated for public transparency.

— Nicholas & Jimmy

简体中文 (Chinese – Simplified)

此公开记录说明 Grand Solar 在 GS7560 和 GS7841 项目中持续未履行合同义务。正如我在正式提交中所述：

“合同中的太阳能系统尚未提供或安装。”

尽管多次书面承诺和明确的安装日期，Grand Solar 从未进行任何安装。2026 年 1 月 19 日，Grand Solar 试图因自身延误而非法加价。 随后发出的退款没有任何解释，并且是在强烈抗议下被迫接受的，并不代表我方同意其单方面终止合同。此事目前正在西澳消费者保护局的调解程序中。 此档案将持续更新，以确保公众透明度。

— Nicholas & Jimmy

Bahasa Melayu

Rekod awam ini menunjukkan kegagalan berterusan Grand Solar untuk membekalkan atau memasang sistem bagi GS7560 dan GS7841. Seperti dinyatakan dalam penyerahan rasmi saya:

“Sistem solar yang dipersetujui masih belum dibekalkan atau dipasang.”

Walaupun terdapat janji bertulis dan tarikh pemasangan yang dijanjikan, Grand Solar tidak pernah melakukan pemasangan. Pada 19 Januari 2026, Grand Solar cuba menaikkan harga secara tidak sah akibat kelewatan mereka sendiri. Bayaran balik kemudian dikeluarkan tanpa penjelasan, dan diterima di bawah bantahan, bukan sebagai persetujuan terhadap penamatan kontrak. Kes ini kini berada dalam proses pengantaraan dengan Consumer Protection WA. Arkib ini akan terus dikemas kini demi ketelusan awam.

— Nicholas & Jimmy

 

 SCAMMER ARCHIVE NO. 2

TrustOryx / Victoria Bianco / CertiK Impersonation Scam

(English • 中文 • Bahasa Melayu)

---

1. ENGLISH VERSION

SCAMMER NO. 2 — TrustOryx / Victoria Bianco / CertiK Impersonation Scam

A. Identity & Contact Details (as provided by scammer)

Name: Victoria Bianco
Email: victoria.bian@trustoryx.online
Phone: +44 7441 952531
WhatsApp: +1 954 425 3566
Claimed Address:
1001 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1801, New York, NY 10018, USA
Claimed Affiliation: “CertiK” (false)
Company Used: TrustOryx (fake “fund recovery” service)

---

B. Scam Method Summary

This scammer uses a fake partnership with CertiK to target victims who previously lost money in online investment scams. The scammer claims:

• “blockchain monitoring detected inconsistencies”
• “your transaction was flagged and restricted”
• “verification is required before reinstating access to recovered funds”
• “our trusted partner TrustOryx assists victims in recovering assets”

These statements are false.
No private company can “flag”, “restrict”, or “restore” blockchain transactions.
This is a recovery scam, designed to extract more documents, personal data, or money from victims.

---

C. Extracts from the scam email (for evidence)

“During a routine blockchain monitoring process, inconsistencies were detected…”
“the transaction was automatically flagged and temporarily restricted…”
“a verification procedure will be necessary before we can proceed…”
“our trusted partner, Trustoryx, specializes in assisting victims…”

These lines demonstrate impersonation, false authority, and fraudulent recovery claims.

---

D. Public Warning

This entity is not affiliated with CertiK.
TrustOryx is not a legitimate recovery service.
Do not send documents, identification, wallet information, or money.
This is a high‑risk impersonation and recovery scam.

---

2. 中文版本（简体）

骗子编号 2 — TrustOryx / Victoria Bianco / 冒充 CertiK 的诈骗

A. 骗子提供的身份与联系方式

姓名： Victoria Bianco
电邮： victoria.bian@trustoryx.online
电话： +44 7441 952531
WhatsApp： +1 954 425 3566
声称地址：
1001 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1801, New York, NY 10018, USA
声称机构： “CertiK”（虚假）
使用公司名称： TrustOryx（假冒“资金追回”公司）

---

B. 诈骗手法说明

骗子假冒 CertiK 合作伙伴，专门针对曾经被骗过的受害者。
常见说法包括：

• “区块链监控发现异常”
• “交易被自动标记并限制”
• “需要验证程序才能恢复资金”
• “TrustOryx 协助受害者追回资产”

这些说法全部是 虚假 的。
任何私人公司都无法“标记”、“冻结”或“恢复”区块链交易。
这是典型的 二次诈骗（资金追回骗局）。

---

C. 邮件证据摘录

“在例行区块链监控中发现不一致…”
“交易被自动标记并暂时限制…”
“需要进行验证程序才能继续…”
“我们的合作伙伴 Trustoryx 协助受害者追回资产…”

这些内容显示了冒充、虚假权威与诈骗意图。

---

D. 公告警告

此人并非 CertiK 员工。
TrustOryx 不是合法机构。
请勿提供任何文件、身份证明、钱包资料或金钱。
这是 高风险冒充与资金追回骗局。

---

3. BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

PENIPU NOMBOR 2 — TrustOryx / Victoria Bianco / Penyamaran CertiK

A. Maklumat Identiti & Hubungan (diberikan oleh penipu)

Nama: Victoria Bianco
Emel: victoria.bian@trustoryx.online
Telefon: +44 7441 952531
WhatsApp: +1 954 425 3566
Alamat yang didakwa:
1001 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1801, New York, NY 10018, USA
Afiliasi yang didakwa: “CertiK” (palsu)
Syarikat digunakan: TrustOryx (perkhidmatan “pemulihan dana” palsu)

---

B. Ringkasan Kaedah Penipuan

Penipu menyamar sebagai rakan kerjasama CertiK dan menyasarkan mangsa yang pernah ditipu sebelum ini.
Mereka mendakwa:

• “pemantauan blockchain mengesan ketidakselarasan”
• “transaksi ditandakan dan disekat”
• “prosedur pengesahan diperlukan untuk memulihkan dana”
• “TrustOryx membantu mangsa mendapatkan semula aset”

Semua dakwaan ini adalah palsu.
Tiada syarikat swasta boleh “menyekat”, “menandakan”, atau “memulihkan” transaksi blockchain.
Ini adalah penipuan pemulihan dana.

---

C. Petikan daripada emel penipuan

“Semasa pemantauan blockchain, ketidakselarasan dikesan…”
“transaksi ditandakan dan disekat sementara…”
“prosedur pengesahan diperlukan sebelum kami meneruskan…”
“rakan kami Trustoryx membantu mangsa memulihkan aset…”

Petikan ini menunjukkan penyamaran dan tuntutan palsu.

---

D. Amaran Kepada Orang Ramai

Individu ini bukan wakil CertiK.
TrustOryx bukan perkhidmatan sah.
Jangan berikan dokumen, maklumat dompet, atau wang.
Ini adalah penipuan penyamaran dan pemulihan dana.

---

Scam Incident Archive — Entry #1 WILLIAM WEBER

👉 https://finvestigation-solutions.com

• A suspicious domain like:
  https://finvestigationltd.co.uk

 SCAM WEBSITES USED BY “WILLIAM WEBER”

Tri‑Lingual Version: English / 简体中文 / Bahasa Melayu

---

ENGLISH VERSION

 WARNING — SCAM WEBSITES (FOR EVIDENCE ONLY)

The scammer used the following domains while impersonating “Finvestigation Solutions Ltd.”:

• global-fir.com
• finvestigation-solutions.com
• finvestigationltd.co.uk

These domains were used to:

• Falsely claim UK company registration
• Falsely claim FCA licensing
• Fabricate Ethereum “recovered funds”
• Impersonate a legitimate financial‑investigation service

These websites are listed for evidence only.
Do NOT visit, click, or interact with these domains.

---

简体中文版本（Chinese – Simplified）

警告：诈骗网站（仅供证据用途）

诈骗者使用以下域名冒充“Finvestigation Solutions Ltd.”：

• global-fir.com
• finvestigation-solutions.com
• finvestigationltd.co.uk

这些域名被用于：

• 虚假声称英国公司注册
• 虚假声称拥有 FCA 牌照
• 伪造以太坊“追回资金”
• 冒充合法的金融调查机构

此类网站仅作为证据列出。
请勿访问、点击或与这些域名互动。

---

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

AMARAN: Laman Web Penipuan (Untuk Bukti Sahaja)

Penipu menggunakan domain berikut untuk menyamar sebagai “Finvestigation Solutions Ltd.”:

• global-fir.com
• finvestigation-solutions.com
• finvestigationltd.co.uk

Domain‑domain ini digunakan untuk:

• Mendakwa pendaftaran syarikat UK secara palsu
• Mendakwa lesen FCA secara palsu
• Mencipta cerita palsu mengenai dana Ethereum yang “dipulihkan”
• Menyamar sebagai organisasi penyiasatan kewangan yang sah

Laman web ini disenaraikan untuk tujuan bukti sahaja.
Jangan lawati, klik, atau berinteraksi dengan domain ini.

==================== PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE ===================== JUSTICE FOR A FORMER LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA 

西澳前律师寻求司法公正 

KEADILAN UNTUK SEORANG BEKAS PEGUAM DI AUSTRALIA BARAT ======================================================================= 

CIV 1109 of 2026 – Structured Outline of What the Written Reasons Should Logically Address 

Re Nicholas Ni Kok Chin; Ex parte Chin – Application Hearing 13 February 2026 

三语公开透明档案（英文／中文／马来文） 

Arkib Ketelusan Awam – Versi Tiga Bahasa 

1. INTRODUCTION / 简介 / PENGENALAN 

English 

This post sets out a clear, structured outline of the elements that His Honour Justice Gething’s written reasons would ordinarily address following the hearing on 13 February 2026. 

It is published to ensure public transparency and to maintain an accurate procedural record. 

 中文（简体） 本篇文章列出 2026 年 2 月 13 日听证会后，Gething 法官在书面理由中通常需要处理的主要内容。此文旨在确保公开透明，并保持程序记录的准确性。 

 Bahasa Melayu 

Catatan ini menggariskan struktur yang lazimnya akan dihuraikan dalam alasan bertulis oleh Yang Arif Justice Gething selepas pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026. Tujuannya adalah untuk memastikan ketelusan awam dan rekod prosedur yang tepat. 

 2. DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT 

/ 法庭面前的文件 

/ DOKUMEN DI HADAPAN MAHKAMAH 

English 

His Honour would ordinarily identify the documents forming the record, including: 

 10‑page Application (filed 27.1.2026) 

 17‑page Written Submission (filed 27.1.2026) 

 Supplementary Written Submission (email 12.02.2026) 

 Notification of Core Issue (email 13.02.2026) 

 V. Ozich Appointment Letter 

 Ward Order (4 April 2022) 

 NNCHIN1 (9 pages) – Revisitation of Vaughan J’s decision in CIV 2074 of 2018 

 中文（简体） 法官通常会确认以下文件构成案件记录： 

 10 页申请书（2026 年 1 月 27 日提交） 

 17 页书面陈述（2026 年 1 月 27 日提交） 

 补充书面陈述（2026 年 2 月 12 日电邮）

 核心问题通知（2026 年 2 月 13 日电邮） 

 V. Ozich 任命信 Ward 命令（2022 年 4 月 4 日） 

 NNCHIN1（9 页）——重访 Vaughan 法官在 CIV 2074/2018 的判决 

 Bahasa Melayu Dokumen yang lazimnya dikenal pasti oleh mahkamah termasuk: 

 Permohonan 10 halaman (difailkan 27.1.2026) 

 Hujahan Bertulis 17 halaman (difailkan 27.1.2026) 

 Hujahan Tambahan (emel 12.02.2026) 

 Pemberitahuan Isu Teras (emel 13.02.2026) 

 Surat Pelantikan V. Ozich 

 Perintah Ward (4 April 2022) 

 NNCHIN1 (9 halaman) – Penilaian semula keputusan Vaughan J dalam CIV 2074/2018 

 3. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

/ 程序背景 

/ LATAR BELAKANG PROSEDUR 

English 

A summary of the events leading to the application, including prior administrative decisions, urgency, and relevance of CIV 2074/2018. 

 中文（简体） 

概述导致本次申请的事件，包括先前的行政决定、紧急性，以及 CIV 2074/2018 的相关性。 

 Bahasa Melayu 

Ringkasan peristiwa yang membawa kepada permohonan ini, termasuk keputusan pentadbiran terdahulu, keperluan segera, dan kaitan dengan CIV 2074/2018. 

 4. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 

/ 待裁定的问题 

/ ISU UNTUK DIPUTUSKAN 

English 

His Honour would identify the core legal questions, such as jurisdiction, procedural fairness, standing, and the effect of the Ward Order. 

 中文（简体） 法官需确认核心法律问题，例如司法管辖权、程序公正、当事人资格，以及 Ward 命令的法律效力。 

 Bahasa Melayu 

Isu undang‑undang utama termasuk bidang kuasa, keadilan prosedur, kedudukan pihak, dan kesan Perintah Ward. 

 5. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 

/ 申请人的陈述 

/ HUJAH PEMOHON 

English 

A structured summary of the arguments raised in all written and supplementary submissions. 

 中文（简体） 总结所有书面及补充陈述中的主要论点。 

Bahasa Melayu 

Ringkasan teratur hujah yang dikemukakan dalam semua dokumen bertulis dan tambahan. 

 6. ANALYSIS AND REASONS 

/ 分析与理由 

/ ANALISIS DAN ALASAN 

English 

The core reasoning section where His Honour applies legal principles to the facts. 

 中文（简体） 法官在此部分将法律原则应用于事实，并给出分析。 

 Bahasa Melayu 

Bahagian utama di mana Yang Arif menerapkan prinsip undang‑undang kepada fakta. 

 7. CONCLUSION 

/ 结论 

/ KESIMPULAN 

English 

Final orders, outcome, and any directions. 

 中文（简体） 最终裁定、结果及任何指示。 

 

Bahasa Melayu 

Perintah akhir, keputusan, dan sebarang arahan lanjut. 

 8. POST‑HEARING MATTERS 

/ 听证会后的事项 

/ PERKARA SELEPAS PENDENGARAN 

English 

His Honour indicated written reasons would be provided within seven days. A transcript has been requested to ensure accuracy and transparency. 

 中文（简体） 法官表示将在七天内提供书面理由。为确保准确与透明，已申请庭审记录。 

 Bahasa Melayu 

Yang Arif menyatakan alasan bertulis akan diberikan dalam tujuh hari. Transkrip telah diminta demi ketepatan dan ketelusan. 

========================= FOOTER NOTE ========================= This trilingual post is published as part of the ongoing PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE to ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. 

 此三语文章作为“公开透明档案”之一发布，旨在确保司法不仅被执行， 而且被公众清楚地看到。 

 Catatan tiga bahasa ini diterbitkan sebagai sebahagian daripada ARKIB KETELUSAN AWAM untuk memastikan keadilan bukan sahaja dilaksanakan, tetapi juga dapat dilihat oleh masyarakat. ================================================================

---

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE — TRI‑LINGUAL HEADER

...

Gething Submission (13 Feb 2026): ...

Gething Submission (13 Feb 2026): The Contradiction Between the General Prohibition on Exclusive Implied Easements and the Statutory Exception in s.52 PLAISQE

ENGLISH VERSION

Posted: 13 February 2026

This morning, before Justice Gething, I formally raised a structural contradiction that has long affected the administration of property rights in Western Australia. It concerns the tension between:

• the general common-law prohibition on exclusivity in implied quasi-easements, and
• the specific statutory exception created by s.52 Property Law Act 1969 (WA) — the Implied Subdivisional Quasi-Easement (PLAISQE).

This contradiction lies at the centre of the dispute involving Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, and has never been properly reconciled by Landgate.

1. The General Rule: No Exclusivity in Implied Easements

Under common law, including Wheeldon v Burrows, an implied easement cannot grant exclusive possession or exclusive use. Landgate applies this rule as if it governs all situations.

2. The Statutory Exception: s.52 PLAISQE

Parliament created a different rule for subdivisions.

Section 52 preserves all continuous and apparent uses existing at the moment of subdivision — including uses that are functionally exclusive.

The statute:

• does not exclude exclusive use
• does not require the use to be non-exclusive
• preserves the actual pattern of use at the time of subdivision

In 1998, the lunch-bar portion of Lot 12 was used in a functionally exclusive manner. Parliament required that use to continue onto the new titles.

3. Landgate’s Unresolved Contradiction

Landgate applies the general common-law prohibition as if it overrides the specific statutory exception.

But statute overrides common law.

4. Why This Matters

Landgate’s administrative severance of the s.52 quasi-easement:

• extinguished a statutory right it had no power to remove
• caused commercial and operational loss
• triggered unnecessary litigation
• undermined confidence in the titles register
• raised issues now before the Supreme Court and the CCC

5. The Issue Before Justice Gething

Whether s.52 preserved the lunch-bar’s pre-existing, functionally exclusive pattern of use as a statutory implied subdivisional quasi-easement, such that Landgate’s later administrative severance was ultra vires because it extinguished an incorporeal hereditament the Registrar had no power to remove.

---

简体中文版本（Chinese – Simplified）

2026年2月13日 Gething 法官庭审：普通法禁止“排他性隐含地役权”与《1969年财产法》第52条法定例外之间的矛盾

今天上午，在 Gething 法官面前，我正式指出了一个长期影响西澳土地管理体系的结构性矛盾。矛盾来自：

• 普通法对“隐含准地役权”禁止排他性使用的原则
• 与《1969年财产法》第52条（PLAISQE）所设立的法定例外

这一矛盾正是 383 Victoria Road, Malaga 单元1 争议的核心，而 Landgate 从未正确处理。

1. 普通法原则：隐含地役权不得具有排他性

根据普通法（包括 Wheeldon v Burrows），隐含地役权不能赋予排他性占有或使用权。Landgate 一直把这一原则当作绝对规则。

2. 法定例外：第52条 PLAISQE

然而，议会为“分割土地”设立了不同的规则。

第52条要求保留分割时已经存在的所有连续且明显的使用，包括具有排他性特征的使用。

该条文：

• 没有排除排他性使用
• 没有要求使用必须非排他
• 保护的是分割当时的实际使用模式

1998年，Lot 12 的餐饮区具有功能性排他使用。议会要求这种使用继续延续到新地契。

3. Landgate 从未解决的矛盾

Landgate 将普通法的“禁止排他性”当作可以凌驾于法定例外之上。

但成文法优于普通法。

4. 这为何重要

• Landgate 行政上切断第52条隐含地役权，实质上消灭了其无权消灭的法定权利
• 导致商业损失
• 引发不必要的诉讼
• 损害公众对地契登记系统的信心
• 目前已进入最高法院与 CCC 的审查范围

5. Gething 法官面前的核心问题

第52条是否保留了餐饮区原本具有排他性的使用模式，使得 Landgate 之后的行政切断行为属于越权（ultra vires），因为它消灭了登记官无权删除的无形财产权？

---

Bahasa Melayu Version（马来文）

Pembentangan di hadapan Hakim Gething (13 Feb 2026): Percanggahan antara Larangan Umum terhadap Hak Laluan Tersirat Eksklusif dan Pengecualian Statutori dalam s.52 PLAISQE

Pagi ini, di hadapan Hakim Gething, saya membangkitkan satu percanggahan struktur yang telah lama menjejaskan pentadbiran hak tanah di Australia Barat. Percanggahan ini melibatkan:

• Larangan umum common law terhadap penggunaan eksklusif dalam quasi-easement tersirat
• Pengecualian statutori khusus dalam s.52 Akta Undang-Undang Harta 1969 (WA) — PLAISQE

Percanggahan ini adalah isu utama dalam kes Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, dan belum pernah diselesaikan oleh Landgate.

1. Peraturan Umum: Hak laluan tersirat tidak boleh eksklusif

Dalam common law, termasuk Wheeldon v Burrows, hak laluan tersirat tidak boleh memberi pemilikan atau penggunaan eksklusif. Landgate menganggap peraturan ini terpakai dalam semua keadaan.

2. Pengecualian Statutori: s.52 PLAISQE

Parlimen menetapkan peraturan berbeza bagi tanah yang dibahagikan.

Seksyen 52 mengekalkan semua penggunaan yang berterusan dan jelas pada masa pembahagian — termasuk penggunaan yang bersifat eksklusif secara fungsional.

Peruntukan ini:

• tidak mengecualikan penggunaan eksklusif
• tidak mensyaratkan penggunaan mesti tidak eksklusif
• mengekalkan corak penggunaan sebenar pada masa pembahagian

Pada tahun 1998, kawasan kedai makan Lot 12 digunakan secara eksklusif secara fungsional. Parlimen menghendaki penggunaan itu diteruskan ke atas hak milik baharu.

3. Percanggahan yang tidak pernah diselesaikan oleh Landgate

Landgate menggunakan larangan umum common law seolah-olah ia mengatasi pengecualian statutori.

Namun undang-undang bertulis mengatasi common law.

4. Mengapa perkara ini penting

• Landgate memadamkan hak statutori yang tidak berada dalam kuasanya
• menyebabkan kerugian komersial
• mencetuskan litigasi yang tidak perlu
• menjejaskan keyakinan terhadap sistem pendaftaran hak milik
• kini berada di hadapan Mahkamah Agung dan CCC

5. Isu utama di hadapan Hakim Gething

Adakah s.52 mengekalkan corak penggunaan eksklusif kawasan kedai makan seperti sebelum pembahagian, sehingga tindakan Landgate memotongnya kemudian adalah ultra vires kerana ia memadamkan hak harta tak ketara yang pendaftar tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk memadam?

---

---

FOOTER — PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY NOTE

...

English

This post is published as part of an ongoing public transparency archive concerning the administration of statutory rights under s.52 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA), and the handling of those rights by Landgate and related oversight bodies. It is intended to assist public understanding, regulatory accountability, and the integrity of the titles register.

简体中文（Chinese – Simplified）

本文章作为公共透明度档案的一部分，用于记录和公开《1969年财产法》第52条法定权利的 行政处理情况，以及 Landgate 和相关监管机构对这些权利的处理方式。此发布旨在促进公众 理解、加强监管问责，并维护地契登记系统的完整性。

Bahasa Melayu

Catatan ini diterbitkan sebagai sebahagian daripada arkib ketelusan awam berhubung pentadbiran hak statutori di bawah s.52 Akta Undang‑Undang Harta 1969 (WA), serta cara hak tersebut ditangani oleh Landgate dan badan pengawasan berkaitan. Tujuannya adalah untuk meningkatkan pemahaman awam, memperkukuh akauntabiliti pengawalseliaan, dan menjaga integriti sistem pendaftaran hak milik.

---

Justice for a Former Lawyer

ENGLISH: A public record of one former lawyer’s efforts to seek lawful, transparent, and accountable decision-making in Western Australia.

中文（简体）： 一名前律师为争取西澳合法、透明及可问责的公共决策过程而建立的公开记录。

BAHASA MELAYU: Rekod awam usaha seorang bekas peguam untuk menuntut keputusan yang sah, telus dan boleh dipertanggungjawabkan di Australia Barat.

Public Comment – CCC Report (Submission ID: 954bc53a-6463-4c3f-a056-9227ce06fd43)

ENGLISH:
This public comment accompanies my report to the Corruption and Crime Commission regarding systemic failures across multiple Western Australian public agencies between 2020 and 2026. The matters raised concern the WA Police Force, the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the Court of Appeal, and Landgate. Across these agencies, mandatory procedures were not followed, statutory duties were disregarded, and requests for reasons or clarification were repeatedly ignored. These failures included the refusal to take or investigate a lawful crime report, judicial decisions issued without addressing the evidence or providing reasons, and Landgate’s acceptance and processing of documents contrary to the Transfer of Land Act. Despite formal notifications, none of the agencies took corrective action or provided procedural explanations. This comment is published to ensure transparency, maintain a public record, and support accountability in the administration of justice and public functions.

中文（简体）：
此公开评论与我向西澳反腐败与犯罪委员会（CCC）提交的报告一并发布，内容涉及 2020 至 2026 年期间多个西澳公共机构的系统性失职行为。相关机构包括西澳警察、最高法院、上诉法院及 Landgate。这些机构在处理相关事项时未遵循强制性程序，忽视法定职责，并多次无视我提出的理由说明或澄清请求。失职行为包括拒绝接受或调查合法的报案、法院在未处理证据或未提供理由的情况下作出裁决，以及 Landgate 违反《土地转让法》接受和处理文件。尽管已正式通知，各机构均未采取纠正措施或提供程序性解释。此评论旨在确保透明度、建立公开记录，并促进司法和公共行政的问责机制。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Komen awam ini disiarkan bersama laporan saya kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah dan Jenayah (CCC) mengenai kegagalan sistemik dalam beberapa agensi awam di Australia Barat antara tahun 2020 hingga 2026. Agensi yang terlibat termasuk WA Police Force, Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat, Mahkamah Rayuan, dan Landgate. Dalam tempoh ini, prosedur mandatori tidak dipatuhi, kewajipan statutori diabaikan, dan permintaan untuk alasan atau penjelasan tidak diberikan. Kegagalan tersebut merangkumi keengganan menerima atau menyiasat laporan jenayah yang sah, keputusan kehakiman tanpa menangani bukti atau memberikan alasan, serta tindakan Landgate memproses dokumen bertentangan dengan Akta Pemindahan Tanah. Walaupun telah dimaklumkan secara rasmi, tiada agensi mengambil tindakan pembetulan atau memberikan penjelasan prosedural. Komen ini diterbitkan demi ketelusan, sebagai rekod awam, dan untuk menyokong akauntabiliti dalam pentadbiran keadilan dan fungsi awam.

Annexure – Public Transparency Record

ENGLISH:
This annexure forms part of the public transparency archive relating to the report submitted to the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia. It provides supporting information, context, and documentation relevant to the matters raised.

中文（简体）：
本附录为提交至西澳反腐败与犯罪委员会的报告之公共透明档案的一部分，提供与所述事项相关的补充信息、背景资料及文件。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Lampiran ini merupakan sebahagian daripada arkib ketelusan awam berkaitan laporan yang dikemukakan kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah dan Jenayah Australia Barat. Ia menyediakan maklumat sokongan, konteks dan dokumentasi berkaitan perkara yang dibangkitkan.

---

Public Transparency Footer

ENGLISH:
This post is published in the interest of transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. All sensitive personal information has been redacted. This archive is maintained to ensure a clear public record of the issues raised and the steps taken.

中文（简体）：
本帖旨在促进透明度、问责制和程序公正。所有敏感个人资料均已删除。本档案旨在确保对所提出问题及相关处理步骤的公开记录。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Catatan ini diterbitkan demi ketelusan, akauntabiliti dan keadilan prosedur. Semua maklumat peribadi sensitif telah dipadamkan. Arkib ini diselenggara untuk memastikan rekod awam yang jelas mengenai isu yang dibangkitkan dan tindakan yang diambil.

Justice for a Former Lawyer

ENGLISH:
This site is a public transparency archive documenting legal, administrative, and procedural issues involving public agencies in Western Australia. It is maintained to create a clear record of events, correspondence, and outcomes, and to support accountability and procedural fairness.

中文（简体）：
本网站为公共透明档案，用于记录涉及西澳公共机构的法律、行政及程序问题。通过整理事件、往来文件及结果，本档案旨在建立清晰记录，并促进问责制和程序公正。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Laman ini merupakan arkib ketelusan awam yang mendokumentasikan isu undang-undang, pentadbiran dan prosedur melibatkan agensi awam di Australia Barat. Ia diselenggara untuk mewujudkan rekod yang jelas mengenai peristiwa, surat-menyurat dan keputusan, serta menyokong akauntabiliti dan keadilan prosedural.

 

Request to Parliament – Complaint C/45628

Date: 11 February 2026

---

ENGLISH

Update: Parliament IT Now Investigating Mail Gateway Failure

A delivery failure occurred when sending correspondence to committee.reception@parliament.wa.gov.au. The Parliament mail gateway rejected the message due to a TLS certificate SubjectMismatch error, where the server presented a certificate for mail.protection.outlook.com instead of a certificate matching parliament.wa.gov.au. This prevented external mail servers from establishing a secure connection.

Key diagnostic lines included:

• “450 4.4.317 Cannot establish session with remote server… SubjectMismatch.”
• “550 5.4.317 Message expired, cannot connect to remote server.”

A formal escalation note was sent to receptionservices@parliament.wa.gov.au. Reception Services acknowledged the issue and forwarded it to the Parliament IT Team for investigation.

A follow‑up update was sent to Minister Buti and the CCC, confirming that Parliament IT is now examining the certificate fault. The original correspondence will be resent once Parliament confirms that the gateway is functioning normally.

Status:
– Parliament IT investigation: Active
– External mail to Parliament: Still failing
– Next step: Await IT confirmation and resend correspondence.

---

简体中文 (Chinese – Simplified)

更新：州议会资讯科技团队正在调查邮件网关故障

向 committee.reception@parliament.wa.gov.au 发送文件时出现投递失败。 州议会的邮件网关因 TLS 证书主题不匹配（SubjectMismatch）错误 拒绝外部邮件。 服务器提供的证书为 mail.protection.outlook.com，而非与 parliament.wa.gov.au 匹配的证书，导致外部邮件服务器无法建立安全连接。

关键诊断信息包括：

• “450 4.4.317 无法与远程服务器建立会话……SubjectMismatch。”
• “550 5.4.317 邮件过期，无法连接远程服务器。”

我已向 receptionservices@parliament.wa.gov.au 发出正式升级通知。 接待服务部门已确认问题，并将其转交给 州议会资讯科技团队 进行调查。

随后，我向 Buti 部长 和 CCC 发出了更新通知，确认州议会资讯科技团队已开始调查证书故障。 一旦州议会确认邮件网关恢复正常，我将立即重新发送相关文件。

当前状态：
– 州议会资讯科技调查：进行中
– 外部邮件至州议会：仍然失败
– 下一步：等待资讯科技团队确认并重新发送文件。

---

Bahasa Melayu

Kemaskini: Pasukan IT Parlimen Kini Menyiasat Kegagalan Gerbang E‑mel

Penghantaran e‑mel kepada committee.reception@parliament.wa.gov.au telah gagal. Gerbang e‑mel Parlimen menolak mesej tersebut kerana ralat TLS SubjectMismatch, di mana pelayan menunjukkan sijil mail.protection.outlook.com dan bukannya sijil yang sepadan dengan parliament.wa.gov.au. Ini menyebabkan pelayan e‑mel luar tidak dapat mewujudkan sambungan selamat.

Maklumat diagnostik utama termasuk:

• “450 4.4.317 Tidak dapat mewujudkan sesi dengan pelayan jauh… SubjectMismatch.”
• “550 5.4.317 Mesej tamat tempoh, tidak dapat menyambung ke pelayan jauh.”

Saya telah menghantar nota eskalasi rasmi kepada receptionservices@parliament.wa.gov.au. Bahagian Reception Services telah mengesahkan isu tersebut dan menyerahkannya kepada Pasukan IT Parlimen untuk siasatan.

Saya juga telah menghantar kemaskini kepada Menteri Buti dan CCC, mengesahkan bahawa Pasukan IT Parlimen kini sedang menyiasat masalah sijil tersebut. Dokumen asal akan dihantar semula sebaik sahaja Parlimen mengesahkan bahawa gerbang e‑mel telah berfungsi semula.

Status:
– Siasatan IT Parlimen: Aktif
– E‑mel luar ke Parlimen: Masih gagal
– Langkah seterusnya: Tunggu pengesahan IT dan hantar semula dokumen.

---

Footer / 页脚 / Nota Kaki

ENGLISH: This update relates to Complaint C/45628 and forms part of the public transparency record for that complaint.

简体中文： 此更新属于 投诉 C/45628 的公开透明记录之一。

Bahasa Melayu: Kemaskini ini adalah sebahagian daripada rekod ketelusan awam bagi Aduan C/45628.

🟦 Corruption and Crime Commission Report – Public Archive

Submission ID: ab41c175-6379-4c11-97bb-00983acaf031

Date lodged: 10 February 2026

---

🟩 Individuals Reported

1. MARK 301193
Sheriff’s Officer, Sheriff’s Office of Western Australia
Conduct: Attempted to convey me to prison on 24 July 2024 for “failure to pay a debt” arising from a void ab initio order.

2. Shannon
Ombudsman Officer, Ombudsman Western Australia
Conduct: Refused to investigate, misclassified the complaint, ignored evidence, and provided no lawful reasons.

3. Magistrate Ward
Magistrate, Magistrates Court of Western Australia
Conduct: Issued the void ab initio order dated 4 April 2022 (MC/PER/CIV 10010/2020).

---

🟦 Summary of Allegations

On 24 July 2024, Sheriff’s Officer MARK 301193 attended my residence at 387 Alexander Drive, Dianella and attempted to convey me to prison for “failure to pay a debt.” This alleged debt came from a 4 April 2022 Magistrates Court order issued by Magistrate Ward.

That order was void ab initio—legally invalid from the outset—because the Magistrates Court lacked jurisdiction due to the earlier loss of the S.52 PLAISQE in 2016. A void order cannot be enforced, yet enforcement was attempted. Under coercive pressure, I later paid $14,993.94, which I state was paid under duress.

I also reported misconduct by Shannon, an officer of Ombudsman Western Australia, who refused to investigate the matter despite clear jurisdiction. The refusal misclassified the complaint, ignored the evidence, and provided no lawful or rational reasons. This prevented proper oversight of the Sheriff’s actions and obstructed accountability.

These events demonstrate misuse of authority, improper performance of public duties, and systemic failures in oversight mechanisms. I have provided the CCC with supporting documents including correspondence, WhatsApp communications, payment records, and court materials.

---

🟦 Timeline

• 2016 – Loss of the S.52 PLAISQE (jurisdictional foundation)
• 4 April 2022 – Magistrate Ward issues void ab initio order
• 24 July 2024 – Sheriff’s Officer attempts to convey me to prison
• 2024–2025 – Payment of $14,993.94 made under duress
• February 2026 – Ombudsman WA refusal by Shannon

---

🟦 Locations

387 Alexander Drive, Dianella WA 6059
Location of the attempted conveyance to prison on 24 July 2024.

Ombudsman Western Australia, Perth WA
Location of the refusal decision by Shannon.

---

🟦 Witnesses

• WA Police officers – Notified of the incident; may hold notes or system entries.
• Landgate staff – Involved in the S.52 PLAISQE loss.
• Supreme Court and Court of Appeal registry staff – Can confirm jurisdictional defects and void status.

---

🟦 Prior Reporting

Reported to:

• WA Ombudsman
• Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the CCC
• Legislative Council Public Administration Committee
• Relevant Ministerial offices

Outcome: The Ombudsman WA refused to investigate without lawful or adequate reasons. No corrective action was taken.

---

🟦 Evidence Provided to CCC

• Emails
• Written correspondence
• WhatsApp communications
• Payment records
• Court documents
• Supporting files including:
  • MARK 301193 CONVEY TO PRISON ON 24.7.2024.html
  • CIV1019OF2026‑FINAL8‑100226 (1).pdf
  • OMBUDSMAN‑REQUEST‑PROPER EXERCISE OF DUTIES‑200126‑ATTACHMENT.pdf

---

Note: CCC confidentiality obligations apply to the Commission and its officers. As the complainant, I am publishing my own report and documents.