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.
No comments:
Post a Comment