🟦 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete**PUBLIC SUMMARY (ENGLISH)**
ReplyDeleteThis report has been formally lodged with the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia (CCC).
Submission ID: ab41c175‑6379‑4c11‑97bb‑00983acaf031
It concerns the attempted conveyance to prison on 24 July 2024 for a void ab initio order, the payment of $14,993.94 under duress, and the Ombudsman WA refusal to investigate.
---
**中文摘要（CHINESE）**
此报告已正式提交给西澳大利亚反腐败与犯罪委员会（CCC）。
提交编号：ab41c175‑6379‑4c11‑97bb‑00983acaf031
内容涉及 2024 年 7 月 24 日基于无效法院命令的非法拘押企图、在胁迫下支付 14,993.94 澳元，以及西澳监察专员拒绝调查的行为。
---
**RINGKASAN AWAM (BAHASA MELAYU)**
Laporan ini telah dihantar secara rasmi kepada Suruhanjaya Rasuah dan Jenayah Australia Barat (CCC).
ID Penyerahan: ab41c175‑6379‑4c11‑97bb‑00983acaf031
Ia berkaitan percubaan membawa saya ke penjara pada 24 Julai 2024 berdasarkan perintah mahkamah yang tidak sah, bayaran $14,993.94 di bawah paksaan, dan penolakan Ombudsman WA untuk menyiasat.
### Affidavit Evidence – Summary of Annexure NNC‑1
ReplyDelete*(English / 中文 / Bahasa Melayu)*
**English**
> **ESTATE**
> 37. The Estate of s.52 Property Law Act 1969 (WA) Implied Subdivisional Quasi‑Easement of Unit 1/383 was created for its long and apparent user of a singular Victoria Road lunch‑bar under the common law principle of Wheeldon v Burrows on 4.8.1998 by the common owner St. Marks of Lot 12, thereby making Unit 1/383 the dominant tenement and burdening the remaining 19 servient tenements.
> 38. The grant of the Estate was made by the WA Planning Commission on 17.12.1997 under Condition 3 of its 14 Conditions requiring strict compliance with all written laws.
> 39. The written laws include the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), the Property Law Act 1969 (WA), the Property Law Bill 1969 (WA), the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), and the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
>
> **DUTY**
> 40. The Registrar of Titles owed statutory duties under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), including subs.68(1), subs.63(1A), subs.129A(1)–(6), and s.131.
> 41. The Registrar was required to register or acknowledge the Estate through memoranda, encumbrances, or scheme plan annotations, including the Form 26 annotation “Cov.52/1998 Vol.2 p.93”.
> 42. The Registrar owed duties under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), including s.5(3)(b) and s.6(1)–(3), to register restrictions of use and impose fines.
> 43. The Registrar’s omissions constitute the DUTY breach relied upon.
>
> **OMISSION**
> 44. The omission of DUTY caused the loss of the Estate on 20.5.2015, perfected by the intended defendants on 14.2.2016.
> 45. The ex‑parte Plaintiff claims as constructive trustee for the registered owner for just compensation from the State of Western Australia.
> 46. Losses include: loss of the Estate; ongoing duties, taxes, and strata dues (approximately $8,000 annually); loss of 31 converted fixtures valued at $100,000 (PPSR Certificate No. 9631517394980001); little salvage value; and general damages.
> 47. The lost property claim is guaranteed by the State under the Torrens system, not falling within the exceptions of fraud, forgery, prior interests, prior certificates, or misdescription.
> a. The omission of DUTY also caused destruction of the insured building under Commercial Strata Policy No. WCS36835 and Claim No. WCS202100055.
> b. Claims against the insurer and the State are distinct and do not constitute double‑dipping.
>
> **CORRECTION**
> 48. Paragraph 3 of CIV 2074/2018 and paragraph 17 of CACV 88/2018 contradict the written laws and Condition 3 of the WAPC approval (contradictory void judgments).
> 49. Particulars of the Estate include: indefeasibility of Title Deed 1/SP34659 Vol 2139 Fol 838; compliance with Condition 3 (17.12.1997); Lot 12 becoming agreement land under s.15 of the Land Administration Act; subdivision into 20 lots; St. Marks as covenantor under s.15(3)(ii) LAA; grant of Estate on 4.8.1998 via Transfer G867504; Estate conveyed via strata plan interests clause; registered owner as successor in title; and Form 26 annotation proving compliance with the 14 conditions and existence of the Estate.
> 50. The indisputable existence of the Estate is shown by: enjoyment of the easement by St. Marks (17.12.1997–4.8.1998); conveyance to the Filippous; long and apparent user under s.68(1A) TLA; satisfaction of Wheeldon v Burrows conditions; omission of defined easements in the contradictory void judgments; and the Estate conveyed but not enforceable due to omission of DUTY (DA‑154/2015).
> 51. The Estate conveyed but not enforceable is the basis for guaranteed State compensation for indefeasibility of titles and the insurable interests claim.
**中文（简体）**
ReplyDelete> **产业权（ESTATE）**
> 37. 《1969年西澳财产法》第52条所产生的隐含分割准地役权（Unit 1/383）源自1998年8月4日根据 Wheeldon v Burrows 普通法原则，由共同业主 St. Marks（Lot 12）因长期及明显使用维多利亚路午餐店而创设，使 Unit 1/383 成为主导地块，其余19个地块成为受役地。
> 38. 该产业权由西澳规划委员会于1997年12月17日根据其14项条件中的第3项授予，要求严格遵守所有成文法。
> 39. 成文法包括：《1893年土地转让法》、《1969年财产法》、《1969年财产法草案》、《1997年土地管理法》及《1985年分层地契法》。
>
> **法定职责（DUTY）**
> 40. 产权登记官在《1893年土地转让法》下负有法定职责，包括第68(1)条、第63(1A)条、第129A(1)–(6)条及第131条。
> 41. 登记官须通过备忘录、产权负担或分层图注释（包括 Form 26 注释 “Cov.52/1998 Vol.2 p.93”）登记或确认该产业权。
> 42. 登记官亦在《1985年分层地契法》下负有职责，包括第5(3)(b)条及第6(1)–(3)条，以登记使用限制并施加罚款。
> 43. 登记官的遗漏构成所依赖的 DUTY 违责。
> > **遗漏（OMISSION）**
> 44. DUTY 的遗漏导致产业权于2015年5月20日灭失，并于2016年2月14日被预期被告进一步完善。
> 45. 原告以注册业主的建设性受托人身份向西澳政府索取公允赔偿。
> 46. 损失包括：产业权灭失；持续的税费及分层费用（约每年8,000澳元）；31件改装固定装置损失（价值100,000澳元，PPSR证书编号9631517394980001）；残值极低；以及一般性损害。
> 47. 该损失在托伦斯制度下由国家担保，不属于欺诈、伪造、既存权益、既存证书或描述错误的例外。
> a. DUTY 的遗漏亦导致商业分层保险（保单号 WCS36835，索赔号 WCS202100055）下的建筑物毁损。
> b. 对保险公司与国家的索赔是独立的，不构成重复索赔。
> > **更正（CORRECTION）**
> 48. CIV 2074/2018 第3段及 CACV 88/2018 第17段与成文法及 WAPC 第3号条件相矛盾（矛盾且无效的判决）。
> 49. 产业权的细节包括：地契1/SP34659 Vol 2139 Fol 838 的不可推翻性；遵守条件3（17.12.1997）；Lot 12 根据《土地管理法》第15条成为协议土地；分割为20个地块；St. Marks 成为第15(3)(ii)条下的契约人；1998年8月4日通过转让 G867504 设立产业权；产业权通过分层图利益条款转移；注册业主为继承人；Form 26 注释证明遵守14项条件及产业权存在。
> 50. 产业权的无可争议存在由以下事实证明：St. Marks 的使用（17.12.1997–4.8.1998）；转让给 Filippous；根据第68(1A)条的长期及明显使用；满足 Wheeldon v Burrows 条件；矛盾判决遗漏定义地役权；产业权虽已转移但因 DUTY 遗漏而无法执行（DA‑154/2015）。
> 51. 产业权已转移但无法执行，是国家在托伦斯制度下提供赔偿及保险利益索赔的基础。
**Bahasa Melayu**
ReplyDelete> **ESTATE**
> 37. Estate di bawah s.52 *Property Law Act 1969 (WA)* bagi Kuasi‑Easement Subdivisional Tersirat Unit 1/383 diwujudkan melalui penggunaan lama dan nyata sebuah kedai makan Victoria Road di bawah prinsip common law *Wheeldon v Burrows* pada 4.8.1998 oleh pemilik bersama St. Marks bagi Lot 12, menjadikan Unit 1/383 sebagai tenemen dominan dan 19 lot lain sebagai tenemen servien.
> 38. Estate tersebut diberikan oleh WA Planning Commission pada 17.12.1997 di bawah Syarat 3 daripada 14 syarat yang memerlukan pematuhan ketat terhadap semua undang‑undang bertulis.
> 39. Undang‑undang bertulis termasuk: *Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)*, *Property Law Act 1969 (WA)*, *Property Law Bill 1969 (WA)*, *Land Administration Act 1997 (WA)*, dan *Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)*.
>
> **DUTY**
> 40. Registrar of Titles mempunyai kewajipan statutori di bawah *Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)*, termasuk subs.68(1), subs.63(1A), subs.129A(1)–(6), dan s.131.
> 41. Registrar wajib mendaftarkan atau mengiktiraf Estate melalui memorandum, bebanan, atau anotasi pelan skim, termasuk anotasi Borang 26 “Cov.52/1998 Vol.2 p.93”.
> 42. Registrar juga mempunyai kewajipan di bawah *Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA)*, termasuk s.5(3)(b) dan s.6(1)–(3), untuk mendaftarkan sekatan penggunaan dan mengenakan denda.
> 43. Kelalaian Registrar membentuk pelanggaran DUTY yang dirujuk.
>
> **OMISSION**
> 44. Kelalaian DUTY menyebabkan kehilangan Estate pada 20.5.2015, disempurnakan oleh defendan yang dimaksudkan pada 14.2.2016.
> 45. Plaintif ex‑parte menuntut pampasan adil daripada State of Western Australia sebagai pemegang amanah konstruktif bagi pemilik berdaftar.
> 46. Kerugian termasuk: kehilangan Estate; cukai dan yuran strata berterusan (sekitar $8,000 setahun); kehilangan 31 lekapan ubah suai bernilai $100,000 (Sijil PPSR No. 9631517394980001); nilai sisa rendah; dan kerosakan am.
> 47. Tuntutan harta yang hilang dijamin oleh State di bawah sistem Torrens, tidak termasuk dalam pengecualian penipuan, pemalsuan, kepentingan terdahulu, sijil terdahulu, atau salah deskripsi.
> a. Kelalaian DUTY juga menyebabkan kemusnahan bangunan yang diinsuranskan di bawah Polisi Strata Komersial No. WCS36835 dan Tuntutan No. WCS202100055.
> b. Tuntutan terhadap penanggung insurans dan State adalah berasingan dan tidak merupakan tuntutan berganda.
>
> **CORRECTION**
> 48. Perenggan 3 CIV 2074/2018 dan perenggan 17 CACV 88/2018 bercanggah dengan undang‑undang bertulis dan Syarat 3 kelulusan WAPC (penghakiman bercanggah dan tidak sah).
> 49. Butiran Estate termasuk: ketakboleh‑guguran Title Deed 1/SP34659 Vol 2139 Fol 838; pematuhan Syarat 3 (17.12.1997); Lot 12 menjadi tanah perjanjian di bawah s.15 *Land Administration Act*; pembahagian kepada 20 lot; St. Marks sebagai pengikat janji di bawah s.15(3)(ii) LAA; pemberian Estate pada 4.8.1998 melalui Transfer G867504; Estate dipindahkan melalui klausa kepentingan pelan strata; pemilik berdaftar sebagai pewaris; dan anotasi Borang 26 membuktikan pematuhan 14 syarat dan kewujudan Estate.
> 50. Kewujudan Estate yang tidak dapat dipertikaikan dibuktikan melalui: penggunaan easement oleh St. Marks (17.12.1997–4.8.1998); pemindahan kepada Filippous; penggunaan lama dan nyata di bawah s.68(1A) TLA; pemenuhan syarat *Wheeldon v Burrows*; penghakiman bercanggah yang mengabaikan easement; dan Estate dipindahkan tetapi tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan akibat kelalaian DUTY (DA‑154/2015).
> 51. Estate dipindahkan tetapi tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan menjadi asas pampasan dijamin State di bawah sistem Torrens dan tuntutan kepentingan insurans.