O. 54, R. 5 No. 64
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.
And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION
TAKE notice that the Supreme Court will be moved at [Perth] on day the day of 2010 at the hour of in the noon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, by counsel on behalf of A.B. for an order that:
A Writ of Mandamus be issued jointly, to compel the following justices to do their duties in accordance with the Oath of Office, in the following terms:
1) The President of the State Administrative Tribunal, Justice John Chaney (the President) to order Legal Profession Complaints Committee to stay the proceedings in VR87 of 2009 as it is commenced without jurisdiction (the res judicata prosecution);
2) The res judicata prosecution is based on the same issues of facts and law that have already been litigated by the various fora and it is therefore debarred by the common-law principle of “non-accessibility to further remedies” of the absent professional misconduct allegations (the common law barred “further remedy”);
2) The President to make a judicial determination of the issue that the Pseudo
Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia exists by virtue of its own admissive conduct (the existence of the Pseudo Board);
3) The existence of the Pseudo Board is created for the purpose of usurping the lawful authority of the real regulator of the legal profession in Western Australia for the clandestine agenda to protect some cronies who are found to be pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public thus causing a detriment to the public interests.
4) The Pseudo Board caused the Legal Practice Board of Western to act in bad faith to the Applicant by seeking to unreasonably curb his independent law practice for no professional misconduct nor deficiency in his professional knowledge.
4) The Honourable Justice Heenan of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to provide a copy of his extempore judgment (draft judgment) to the Applicant to show that he had wrongfully dismissed the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 (the Certiorari Orders Application).
5) Justice Heenan not to dismiss the Certiorari Orders Application which he did, without giving reasons as to why his Orders delivered on 21.4.2010 were not based on the First Judgment in VR 107 of 2008 of the President but rather on the two judgments of the President in VR 87 of 2009.
6) Justice Heenan to give reasons as to why he made an about turn decision contrary to his Orders issued by him on 6.4.2010 (requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to answer to the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders) after he had had telephone contact with the Legal Practice Board on the day prior to that decision and he had not given any reason for this about turn decision;
7) Another Justice be appointed specifically to consider the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders in the light of the errors of His Honour Justice Heenan for the purpose of avoiding a member of the judiciary from being compromised by the Pseudo Board;
8) The Legal Practice Board to provide an answer to this Honourable Court as to why it had hitherto allowed the Pseudo Board to usurp its legal functions as the regulator of the legal profession of Western Australia, especially so with regard to the unreasonable curbing of the independent legal practice of the Applicant who is not implicated in any professional misconduct.
or, for the following relief, namely:
1). Stay the malicious persecution of the LPCC acting at the behest of the Pseudo Full Board against the Applicant in VR 87 of 2009 pending the proper determination of CIV 1019 of 2010 or any other relief emanating from this Mandamus Orders Application.
2). The Judgment and consequent Orders of Justice EM Heenan in dismissing the Certiorari Orders Nisi Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 as reflected in his draft
Judgment and his future published judgment be reviewed by another Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
3) The Legal Practice Board and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee acting at the behest of the improperly constituted Pseudo Board without the legal authority of the majority consent of the real regulator of the legal profession in WA be and desist from further perverting the course of justice with impunity.
4) A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the Pseudo Full Board is not acting in good faith and had been abusing its powers to persecute the Applicant maliciously for the secret agenda by implicating him in non-existent common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY of professional misconduct for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are responsible for abusing their powers as legal professionals by pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for the purpose of advancing their own private interests and thereby undermining the public interests.
5) The Applicant be put into the same position as he was before he was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Full Board from the 12.9.2006 till today by the award of general for pain and suffering and the damage to his reputation as a result of being defamed and of special damages specially related to his loss of income as an independent barrister and solicitor; and that:
6) the costs of and incidental to this [application] may be paid by the respondent.
And further take notice that the grounds of this [application] are:
1. Justice EM Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 is based upon altogether different premises that were never within the contemplation of both the judge and the Applicant, resulting in a travesty of justice that runs counter to the notion that justice must be palpably seen to be done (the ex-tempore judgment).
2. Justice Heenan made an about-turn decision by reneging on his earlier Orders requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to respond to the Applicant’s Complaint which resulted in the compromise of his judicial independence (the Heenan compromise).
3. The compromise takes after the similarly mirrored Justice John Chaney’s about-turn decision in VR87 of 2009 by abandoning his own orders without giving any reasons in the earlier proceedings at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) where the Applicant is being persecuted for the common-law debarred claim of further remedy of fictitious professional misconduct irrationally based on res judicata issues of facts and law (the Chaney compromise).
4. Both the Heenan compromise and the Chaney compromise are unaccompanied by explanations and reasons and are inexplicable deviations of judicial conduct expected of public officers who are judicial officers, duly appointed by the Government of Western Australia.
5. The Chaney compromise probably arose out of the Pseudo Full Board criminally perverting the course of justice by its secret communication with that judicial officer; the similar indiscretion perpetrated on the Heenan compromise was disclosed by Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 to the Applicant resulting in the Applicant having written to the Legal Practice Board to that effect in his letter dated 22.4.2010 for which no answers are forthcoming as occurred on many other occasions.
6. The sources of both the compromise(s) which are travesties of justice, are caused by the Pseudo Board, the existence of which has always been admitted by the regulator of the legal profession; it is palpably seen to be attempting to put the Applicant to “rest” as an officer of the Court and to stop him from doing justice to the public in the public interests on the ground of a secret agenda of the Pseudo Full Board by hood-winking members of the public (the secret agenda).
7. The High Court decision in P36 of 2009 (dismissing the Applicant’s Application for Special Leave to Appeal the First Judgment through the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 105 of 2008) impinges on the trial judge Justice Chaney’s credibility; this is not an estoppel for the re-litigation of the live issue with regard to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board in any fora on the ground of res judicata, including this one. This means that High Court decision is not a bar to these current proceedings.
8. The secret agenda is its constant and continuous usurpation of the real powers of the official regulator of the legal profession of WA for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are erring lawyers and who are constantly pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for advancing their own interests, and as such, they are not acting in the public interests. Many cases of innocent people being plundered, both decided and undecided, is already before this Honourable Court, which has a duty to ensure that Western Australia has a viable justice system.
9. The ex-tempore judgment or draft judgment of Justice Heenan is result of the Applicant’s Application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of WA for prerogative Orders to quash and review the two decisions of the Justice Chaney in SAT (the draft judgment).
10. The draft judgment made references to the two judgments of the Justice Chaney in VR 87 of 2009 dated 4.11.2009 (the first res judicata judgment also referred to as the Second Judgment by the Applicant) and another judgment of Justice Chaney delivered on 10.11.2009 (the second res judicata judgment); Justice Heenan erroneously label them as the First and Second Judgment in his draft judgment.
11. The Applicant made it very clear to Justice Heenan in his said Application that the First and Second Judgments sought to be reviewed and quashed by the Supreme Court are the decisions of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and the first res judicata judgment in VR 87 of 2009 (the Second Judgment) and not as indicated in paragraph 10 above.
12. The draft judgment is a judgment by Justice Heenan that applied the wrong judgments and therefore it is reasonably expected that if the right judgments were applied, Justice Heenan would have achieved a different judgment altogether in CIV: 1019 of 2010 and His Honour might not even have dismissed the Applicant’s Application (the right decision).
13. Injustice is being done to the Applicant on the ground that he has been denied the right decision but Justice Heenan who has since been informed of his error is now trying to correct that injustice by preparing a reasoned judgment that will be published at a later date; this will replace the draft judgment.
14. Consequently, the Applicant had appealed the draft judgment delivered to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. However, the Applicant is intending now to replace that appeal with this Application for the prerogative Orders of Mandamus instead.
15. The purpose of this Application for Mandamus Orders is to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public resources that will achieve the same ends.
(Signed) by the Court
[Form 64 amended in Gazette 29 Apr 2005 p. 1795; 21 Feb 2007 p. 596.]
Friday, April 30, 2010
MY CONSTERNATION AT THE LACK OF JUSTICE IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM
My ref: VR87OF2009; Your ref: S232/09
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 ATTEN: JUDGE PRITCHARD
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
VR 87 0F 2009: LPCC V CHIN
Thank you for your Notice of Directions Hearing scheduled for 4.5.2010 and the Orders of Her Honour Deputy President dated 28.4.2010. I would like to state the following:
a) A simple solution to my problem that seems not to have been heard by His Honour Justice EM Heenan in my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 that was delivered on 21.4.2010 and published today, would have been:
a.1. a determination on the live issue that was never litigated at all levels of proceedings so far, concerns the unlawful authority of the Pseudo Board which represents the LPB which did not act in good faith to impose a constraint on my independent legal practice for the secret agenda of protecting their cronies. Everyone is trying to avoid this issue and is refusing to face reality but is putting the blame only on me.
a.2. the res judicata issues of facts and law enveloped by the current action of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 that ought never to have been proceeded with because there is never going to be any FURTHER REMEDY of my non-existent professional misconduct on those res judicata issues as they are being proscribed by a common law principle of law, that has been accepted by the High Court of Australia.
b) Based on the above premise, it is pointless for any hearing scheduled on 18.5.2010 to be proceeded
with, regarding those res judicata issues as Justice Chaney is clearly wrong in his res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and it would be a waste of governmental resources if SAT were to do so. Even so, the trial as scheduled would not be fair to me unless SAT takes the initiative of calling for all those papers filed in CIV1019 of 2010.
c) I apologize to Justice Heenan for saying this, but it is a fact that the learned Justice did not put his heart and soul into understanding and thereby deciding CIV11019 of 2010 equitably; this has caused me to lodge an Appeal Notice in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV41 of 2010 on the 22.4.2010.
d) I have also lodged documents with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to take Mandamus Orders proceedings against the learned Justice Chaney and the learned Justice Heenan so as to compel them to do their duties in accordance with their oath of Office.
e) If I were to receive tremendous resistance in my pursuit of the truths and justice as I have been much maligned, I would just have to give it up and retire and never touch law again. All I am fighting for is for the public interests that lawyers NOT be allowed to plunder and pillage innocent members of the public and get away with it. If I am not allowed to do this by our government, then I would just resign and retire and let others fight these thankless tasks.
f) If you need further information, I will be constantly updating my blogspot, access to which, you can always obtain by Googling my name: nicholasnchin.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer Ms. Caroline Brookes PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Facsimile: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 ATTEN: JUDGE PRITCHARD
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
VR 87 0F 2009: LPCC V CHIN
Thank you for your Notice of Directions Hearing scheduled for 4.5.2010 and the Orders of Her Honour Deputy President dated 28.4.2010. I would like to state the following:
a) A simple solution to my problem that seems not to have been heard by His Honour Justice EM Heenan in my Application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 that was delivered on 21.4.2010 and published today, would have been:
a.1. a determination on the live issue that was never litigated at all levels of proceedings so far, concerns the unlawful authority of the Pseudo Board which represents the LPB which did not act in good faith to impose a constraint on my independent legal practice for the secret agenda of protecting their cronies. Everyone is trying to avoid this issue and is refusing to face reality but is putting the blame only on me.
a.2. the res judicata issues of facts and law enveloped by the current action of the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 that ought never to have been proceeded with because there is never going to be any FURTHER REMEDY of my non-existent professional misconduct on those res judicata issues as they are being proscribed by a common law principle of law, that has been accepted by the High Court of Australia.
b) Based on the above premise, it is pointless for any hearing scheduled on 18.5.2010 to be proceeded
with, regarding those res judicata issues as Justice Chaney is clearly wrong in his res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2009 and it would be a waste of governmental resources if SAT were to do so. Even so, the trial as scheduled would not be fair to me unless SAT takes the initiative of calling for all those papers filed in CIV1019 of 2010.
c) I apologize to Justice Heenan for saying this, but it is a fact that the learned Justice did not put his heart and soul into understanding and thereby deciding CIV11019 of 2010 equitably; this has caused me to lodge an Appeal Notice in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV41 of 2010 on the 22.4.2010.
d) I have also lodged documents with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to take Mandamus Orders proceedings against the learned Justice Chaney and the learned Justice Heenan so as to compel them to do their duties in accordance with their oath of Office.
e) If I were to receive tremendous resistance in my pursuit of the truths and justice as I have been much maligned, I would just have to give it up and retire and never touch law again. All I am fighting for is for the public interests that lawyers NOT be allowed to plunder and pillage innocent members of the public and get away with it. If I am not allowed to do this by our government, then I would just resign and retire and let others fight these thankless tasks.
f) If you need further information, I will be constantly updating my blogspot, access to which, you can always obtain by Googling my name: nicholasnchin.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman
Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Atten: Legal Officer Ms. Caroline Brookes PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Facsimile: 9461 2265
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
TRANSCRIPT- CIV1019 OF 2010 BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 21.4.2010 : CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI DISMISSED UNJUSTIFIABLY - DRAFT JUDGMENT - NOT MADE AVAILABLE
Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.
THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
21/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010, AT 10.40 AM
Continued from 6/4/10
The applicant appeared in person.
2
HEENAN J: Please call the matter.
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin? Mr Chin, when this matter was last before me, I adjourned the proceedings and ordered that you filed copies of the papers on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee or the Legal Practice Board. Has that been done?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it has been done, sir.
HEENAN J: Yes. I should inform you that the court was notified yesterday that the Legal Practice Board or Committee does not intend to appear on the application.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: That being the case, I have heard all your submissions on the last occasion and I am ready to proceed to deal with the matter. Is there anything further which has arisen since the last hearing that you wish to advance?
CHIN, MR: Yes. Ordinarily, sir, this is an application for certiorari.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know what the application is about and I heard you fully on the last occasion. What I want to know is, is there anything new which has happened since then? I have not received any further papers from you.
CHIN, MR: I have, sir, most recently sent by email to your associate Mr Stephen Somerville a copy of the chronology.
HEENAN J: Yes, I do have that.
CHIN, MR: Which details everything that has happened in this case and until most recently I have not heard anything from the LPCC at all. The LPCC was allowed 10 days to respond and they did not respond by the 17th day of April.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I'm not sure if you understood what I said earlier. The court has been notified
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: - that the Legal Practice Complaints Committee has received these papers but does not wish to appear, attend or be heard on your application.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. There is a presumption in law that if the LPCC did not respond to the specific allegations as contained in my document, they are admitting them to be the
21/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
truth.
HEENAN J: I'm not sure that I can draw any such inference in this case.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, I will be presenting excerpts from the asterisked list of authorities.
HEENAN J: I don't think there is any need or occasion for you to present anything which is already before the court because I haven't had an opportunity to hear you when you made the application originally and I have since re examined all the papers.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, those particular asterisked cases, there were certain words from those charges which I think I should bring to your attention.
HEENAN J: No, there's no need for that, Mr Chin. I heard you when you first made this application on 6 April.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And I have since then re-examined the papers, so unless there is something new, I am ready to proceed to deal with the application.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, for the purposes of the record, can I please hand this copy to you so that you will have a chance to read it.
HEENAN J: What is it, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: It is about those case law and the chronology that I referred to.
HEENAN J: The time for filing papers has expired. If it is just a matter of chronology, I have the chronology. If it is a reference to cited cases, then these are cases which are already identified in the materials which you have filed. Is that not correct?
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. It's only that those particular words that requires your particular attention, that if you hadn't
HEENAN J: Let me see the document and I will decide whether or not
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Just hand it to the usher. This is the chronology. I already have the chronology.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, this seems to me to be a repetition of much of the content and perhaps a recapitulation of the content of your affidavits and submissions. I will receive the document but I am familiar with the substance of what is referred to in here.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: Does that complete your application?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. I would just like to say something. I have time again referred to some members of the judiciary. If I have said anythikng that is offensive, sir, please forgive me because it was never my intention to do so. I am here to do justice to myself. I need to be able to work in the profession that I have chosen.
HEENAN J: Yes; well, there are proceedings pending before you in the Legal Practice Complaints Committee and that is the authority appointed by law and act of parliament to consider allegations against legal practitioners. There is a role for the determination of those proceedings by the State Administrative Tribunal and there are rights of appeal from any such determinations. If you are concerned about your professional interersts and career and you wish to respond and make explanation to allegations against you, then those are the bodies established by law to deal with those matters.
CHIN, MR: Sir, I have been through the State Administrative Tribunal.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know that, and it has made certain decisions.
CHIN, MR: And I have not received justice twice already and if I were to proceed with it, there is already likelihood or real likelihood of bias against me and I'm unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: All right. I have heard all this, Mr Chin, and it's in the papers. I am familiar with your contentions.
CHIN, MR: And I believe, sir, the only way that I can get justice is through the retrial prorogative orders through the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court.
HEENAN J: Yes, very well. You may be seated.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
(Judgment delivered)
THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1019 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI TO REVIEW AND QUASH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED PRESIDENT JUSTICE CHANEY OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (SAT), IN BOTH HIS JUDGMENTS IN VR 107 OF 2008 and VR 87 OF 2009; THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IMPINGING ON THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY AND HIS LACK OF INDEPENDENCE AS A JUDGE WARRANTS A REVIEW OF THE FORMER DECISION AND A STRIKING OFF OF THE LATTER ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 67 RULE 5 OF THE RSC, 1971 (WA) FOR LEAVE TO RE-FILE THE AMENDED PAPERS OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WERE ORIGINALLY RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AND RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LEARNED MARTIN CJ ON 14.12.2009 IN CIV 3068 OF 2009 ON GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION WERE THEN FOUND TO BE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PROLIX AND REPLETE WITH DEROGATORY HYPERBOLE AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT" BUT IT IS NOW NO LONGER DEEMED TO BE SO
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
21/4/10 1
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010, AT 10.40 AM
Continued from 6/4/10
The applicant appeared in person.
2
HEENAN J: Please call the matter.
THE ASSOCIATE: In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, CIV 1019 of 2010, Chin.
HEENAN J: Yes, Mr Chin? Mr Chin, when this matter was last before me, I adjourned the proceedings and ordered that you filed copies of the papers on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee or the Legal Practice Board. Has that been done?
CHIN, MR: Yes, it has been done, sir.
HEENAN J: Yes. I should inform you that the court was notified yesterday that the Legal Practice Board or Committee does not intend to appear on the application.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: That being the case, I have heard all your submissions on the last occasion and I am ready to proceed to deal with the matter. Is there anything further which has arisen since the last hearing that you wish to advance?
CHIN, MR: Yes. Ordinarily, sir, this is an application for certiorari.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know what the application is about and I heard you fully on the last occasion. What I want to know is, is there anything new which has happened since then? I have not received any further papers from you.
CHIN, MR: I have, sir, most recently sent by email to your associate Mr Stephen Somerville a copy of the chronology.
HEENAN J: Yes, I do have that.
CHIN, MR: Which details everything that has happened in this case and until most recently I have not heard anything from the LPCC at all. The LPCC was allowed 10 days to respond and they did not respond by the 17th day of April.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, I'm not sure if you understood what I said earlier. The court has been notified
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: - that the Legal Practice Complaints Committee has received these papers but does not wish to appear, attend or be heard on your application.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. There is a presumption in law that if the LPCC did not respond to the specific allegations as contained in my document, they are admitting them to be the
21/4/10 CHIN, MR 3
truth.
HEENAN J: I'm not sure that I can draw any such inference in this case.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, I will be presenting excerpts from the asterisked list of authorities.
HEENAN J: I don't think there is any need or occasion for you to present anything which is already before the court because I haven't had an opportunity to hear you when you made the application originally and I have since re examined all the papers.
CHIN, MR: And, sir, those particular asterisked cases, there were certain words from those charges which I think I should bring to your attention.
HEENAN J: No, there's no need for that, Mr Chin. I heard you when you first made this application on 6 April.
CHIN, MR: Yes.
HEENAN J: And I have since then re-examined the papers, so unless there is something new, I am ready to proceed to deal with the application.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, for the purposes of the record, can I please hand this copy to you so that you will have a chance to read it.
HEENAN J: What is it, Mr Chin?
CHIN, MR: It is about those case law and the chronology that I referred to.
HEENAN J: The time for filing papers has expired. If it is just a matter of chronology, I have the chronology. If it is a reference to cited cases, then these are cases which are already identified in the materials which you have filed. Is that not correct?
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. It's only that those particular words that requires your particular attention, that if you hadn't
HEENAN J: Let me see the document and I will decide whether or not
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
HIS HONOUR: Just hand it to the usher. This is the chronology. I already have the chronology.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
HEENAN J: Mr Chin, this seems to me to be a repetition of much of the content and perhaps a recapitulation of the content of your affidavits and submissions. I will receive the document but I am familiar with the substance of what is referred to in here.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, sir.
HEENAN J: Does that complete your application?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. I would just like to say something. I have time again referred to some members of the judiciary. If I have said anythikng that is offensive, sir, please forgive me because it was never my intention to do so. I am here to do justice to myself. I need to be able to work in the profession that I have chosen.
HEENAN J: Yes; well, there are proceedings pending before you in the Legal Practice Complaints Committee and that is the authority appointed by law and act of parliament to consider allegations against legal practitioners. There is a role for the determination of those proceedings by the State Administrative Tribunal and there are rights of appeal from any such determinations. If you are concerned about your professional interersts and career and you wish to respond and make explanation to allegations against you, then those are the bodies established by law to deal with those matters.
CHIN, MR: Sir, I have been through the State Administrative Tribunal.
HEENAN J: Yes, I know that, and it has made certain decisions.
CHIN, MR: And I have not received justice twice already and if I were to proceed with it, there is already likelihood or real likelihood of bias against me and I'm unlikely to succeed.
HEENAN J: All right. I have heard all this, Mr Chin, and it's in the papers. I am familiar with your contentions.
CHIN, MR: And I believe, sir, the only way that I can get justice is through the retrial prorogative orders through the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court.
HEENAN J: Yes, very well. You may be seated.
CHIN, MR: Thank you, sir.
(Judgment delivered)
Monday, April 26, 2010
APPLICANT IN CIV1019 OF 2010 DID NOT RECEIVE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEOFRE JUSTICE HEENAN ON 21.4.2010
RE: 1019/10
From: Nicholas N Chin (nnchin@msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:55:15 AM
To: courttranscriptsc@justice.wa.gov.au; stephen.somerville@justice.wa.gov.au; Eddie Hwang (eddieh@westnet.com.au)
Attachments:
100421[1]TRANSCRIPT-HEENAN-CIV1019OF2010-210410.doc (39.5 KB)
Mr. Jarrad Waters
Court Transcript Officer
Supreme Court of WA
Mr. Stephen Sommerville
Associate to Justice Heenan
Supreme Court of WA
Dear Sirs
I found that the attached transcript in four pages that do not contain the judgment delivered by His Honour. I have objected to the Judgment which contains serious errors of law and facts with regard to the nature of the my Application for Certiorari Orders which was misconceived by the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that it be reviewed. His Honour in dismissing my Application was confused as to the one of the two judgments which forms the subject of my Application. The First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 delivered on 25.10.2008 was not considered in Justice Heenan judgment.
Please supply me with the appropriate contents of the ex-tempore judgment delivered by His Honour on the 21.4.2010 which came after the preliminaries which is found in the attached transcript of four pages that you have just sent to me. I would like a complete transcript of the proceedings, without which I would not be able to write my grounds of Appeal.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: +61892757440 +61892757440
Mobile: +61421642735 +61421642735
Email: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
From: CourtTranscriptSC@justice.wa.gov.au
Subject: 1019/10
To: nnchin@msn.com
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:27:50 +0800
Hello Nicholas,
Transcript attached.
Regards,
Jarrad Waters
Court Technology Officer
Supreme Court of Western Australia
(08)94215377 (08)94215377
(See attached file: 100421.doc)
From: Nicholas N Chin (nnchin@msn.com)
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 11:55:15 AM
To: courttranscriptsc@justice.wa.gov.au; stephen.somerville@justice.wa.gov.au; Eddie Hwang (eddieh@westnet.com.au)
Attachments:
100421[1]TRANSCRIPT-HEENAN-CIV1019OF2010-210410.doc (39.5 KB)
Mr. Jarrad Waters
Court Transcript Officer
Supreme Court of WA
Mr. Stephen Sommerville
Associate to Justice Heenan
Supreme Court of WA
Dear Sirs
I found that the attached transcript in four pages that do not contain the judgment delivered by His Honour. I have objected to the Judgment which contains serious errors of law and facts with regard to the nature of the my Application for Certiorari Orders which was misconceived by the learned Justice Heenan on the ground that it be reviewed. His Honour in dismissing my Application was confused as to the one of the two judgments which forms the subject of my Application. The First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 delivered on 25.10.2008 was not considered in Justice Heenan judgment.
Please supply me with the appropriate contents of the ex-tempore judgment delivered by His Honour on the 21.4.2010 which came after the preliminaries which is found in the attached transcript of four pages that you have just sent to me. I would like a complete transcript of the proceedings, without which I would not be able to write my grounds of Appeal.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: +61892757440 +61892757440
Mobile: +61421642735 +61421642735
Email: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
From: CourtTranscriptSC@justice.wa.gov.au
Subject: 1019/10
To: nnchin@msn.com
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:27:50 +0800
Hello Nicholas,
Transcript attached.
Regards,
Jarrad Waters
Court Technology Officer
Supreme Court of Western Australia
(08)94215377 (08)94215377
(See attached file: 100421.doc)
LETTER TO THE CRIME CORRUPTION COMMISSION REGARDING THE SALIENT ISSUE OF THE PSEUDO FULL BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
The Commissioner,
The Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC.
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, THE PRESIDENT OF SAT JUSTICE CHANEY AND REGISTRAR DAVID POWELL
I refer to my telephone conversation with your Mr. Robinson when I found out that I had been misled into believing that my complaints lodged with Mr. Robert Hellier has always been acted upon by him.
1. I have not received any information from Mr. Hellier to the effect that my complaint against Justice Chaney has been closed. I want this Complaint to be revived and wish that you give me a full explanation as to why this particular complaint is not being addressed by the Commission. The dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 given on 10.3.2010 rests on the credibility of Justice Chaney being unimpeached. Justice Chaney’s refusal to make a determination of the live issue of the illegality of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board impinges on his credibility as the trial judge in VR 107 of 2008. This live issue therefore has never been decided by the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and therefore this live issue is never a res judicata issue and I could take it up again in any forum. I have taken up this live issue in CIV 1019 of 2010 with a two pronged attack on the credibility of the Justice Chaney to review and quash both his decisions in the two judgments of VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. In the latter judgment, Justice Chaney is clearly seen to be conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further remedy on all those res judicata issues of facts and law that had already been decided in the various forums and that he knew that he could not do so in accordance with the law acting hand in hand with the LPCC and he still insists in doing so.
2. I do not agree that my complaint against Registrar Powell for conspiracy with Mr. David Taylor to commit a crime of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 should await the final outcome of my Application for Special Leave in the High Court in P1 of 2010. It is very clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraphs 54 and 55 that the evidence provided by Registrar Powell shows that he unsuccessfully tried to cover up the falsified records. Those records marked DGT 13 and 14 as annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 show that there was never a deposit of the court fees of either $654.00 or $654.20 for the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 but only on 16.2.2006 as the falsified documents themselves tell a lie about themselves. There is never a need or dependence of the Commission for a decision of the High Court in P1 of 2010 to explain this wrong. Therefore, to await its decision is an error of Mr. Roger Hellier in the exercise of his discretion, which should be corrected by the Commission.
3. The live issue of the Pseudo Board has always been admitted to by the Legal Practice Board in all its dealings with me and had even resulted in its willingness to submit itself to a consent judgment before the learned Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007. This live issue is a reality but it has always been avoided by the Justice Chaney and there is up to date no legal determination based on this live issue. This live issue is therefore never res judicata and is an issue before the learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 which is an Ex parte Application made by me for the purpose of Certiorari Orders to quash both the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney. On 20.4.2010, Justice Heenan received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board and this made him to make a turnabout decision just as it had probably happened to Justice Chaney in the past. On two occasions, both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan issued orders that were supposed to be complied with by the LPCC but it turned out that the LPCC did not wish to carry out its investigative authority to do the right thing but is always subject to the becks and calls of the Pseudo Board. The Pseudo Board is very powerful and is bent on continuing to do the wrong thing so much so that Justice Heenan unjustifiably erred in his judgment which is the subject of appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 for which I have requested the Real Board to interfere by righting the injustice by way of Review, which is its bounden duty to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Robinson for promising me to look into this matter on the coming Tuesday so that my Complaint on the three issues shall be investigated by the Commission with utmost good faith. It is in the public interest that the Commission should be looking into these issues so that innocent members of the public shall not continue to be robbed, pillaged and plundered again and again by erring members of the legal profession and for whose protection, the Pseudo Board had been sanctioning me for no rhyme and reason. Examples in point are Dr. Kheng Su Chan, Mr. Alessandro Bertini etc. I express my wish that justice must be seen to be done and it is within the powers of the Commission to ensure that our legal system is enabled to provide me this fair justice that I am asking for and nothing more. I have no evil intention to hurt anyone.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
The Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC.
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, THE PRESIDENT OF SAT JUSTICE CHANEY AND REGISTRAR DAVID POWELL
I refer to my telephone conversation with your Mr. Robinson when I found out that I had been misled into believing that my complaints lodged with Mr. Robert Hellier has always been acted upon by him.
1. I have not received any information from Mr. Hellier to the effect that my complaint against Justice Chaney has been closed. I want this Complaint to be revived and wish that you give me a full explanation as to why this particular complaint is not being addressed by the Commission. The dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 given on 10.3.2010 rests on the credibility of Justice Chaney being unimpeached. Justice Chaney’s refusal to make a determination of the live issue of the illegality of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board impinges on his credibility as the trial judge in VR 107 of 2008. This live issue therefore has never been decided by the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and therefore this live issue is never a res judicata issue and I could take it up again in any forum. I have taken up this live issue in CIV 1019 of 2010 with a two pronged attack on the credibility of the Justice Chaney to review and quash both his decisions in the two judgments of VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. In the latter judgment, Justice Chaney is clearly seen to be conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further remedy on all those res judicata issues of facts and law that had already been decided in the various forums and that he knew that he could not do so in accordance with the law acting hand in hand with the LPCC and he still insists in doing so.
2. I do not agree that my complaint against Registrar Powell for conspiracy with Mr. David Taylor to commit a crime of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 should await the final outcome of my Application for Special Leave in the High Court in P1 of 2010. It is very clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraphs 54 and 55 that the evidence provided by Registrar Powell shows that he unsuccessfully tried to cover up the falsified records. Those records marked DGT 13 and 14 as annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 show that there was never a deposit of the court fees of either $654.00 or $654.20 for the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 but only on 16.2.2006 as the falsified documents themselves tell a lie about themselves. There is never a need or dependence of the Commission for a decision of the High Court in P1 of 2010 to explain this wrong. Therefore, to await its decision is an error of Mr. Roger Hellier in the exercise of his discretion, which should be corrected by the Commission.
3. The live issue of the Pseudo Board has always been admitted to by the Legal Practice Board in all its dealings with me and had even resulted in its willingness to submit itself to a consent judgment before the learned Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007. This live issue is a reality but it has always been avoided by the Justice Chaney and there is up to date no legal determination based on this live issue. This live issue is therefore never res judicata and is an issue before the learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 which is an Ex parte Application made by me for the purpose of Certiorari Orders to quash both the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney. On 20.4.2010, Justice Heenan received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board and this made him to make a turnabout decision just as it had probably happened to Justice Chaney in the past. On two occasions, both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan issued orders that were supposed to be complied with by the LPCC but it turned out that the LPCC did not wish to carry out its investigative authority to do the right thing but is always subject to the becks and calls of the Pseudo Board. The Pseudo Board is very powerful and is bent on continuing to do the wrong thing so much so that Justice Heenan unjustifiably erred in his judgment which is the subject of appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 for which I have requested the Real Board to interfere by righting the injustice by way of Review, which is its bounden duty to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Robinson for promising me to look into this matter on the coming Tuesday so that my Complaint on the three issues shall be investigated by the Commission with utmost good faith. It is in the public interest that the Commission should be looking into these issues so that innocent members of the public shall not continue to be robbed, pillaged and plundered again and again by erring members of the legal profession and for whose protection, the Pseudo Board had been sanctioning me for no rhyme and reason. Examples in point are Dr. Kheng Su Chan, Mr. Alessandro Bertini etc. I express my wish that justice must be seen to be done and it is within the powers of the Commission to ensure that our legal system is enabled to provide me this fair justice that I am asking for and nothing more. I have no evil intention to hurt anyone.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
LETTER FROM UNITY PARTY OF WA TO CRIME CORRUPTION COMMISSIONER AND PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR
From: Unity Party WA [mailto:UnityPartyWA@westnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 26 April 2010 11:22 AM
To: Commissioner- CCC wa
Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Len Roberts-Smith, QC
Commissioner - WA Corruption and Crime Commission,
info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Commissioner,
We refer to our email to the Attorney General this morning and would be grateful if you could comment, please.
We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distance future.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Attorney General - WA
Cc: Nicholas Chin ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:05 AM
Commissioner - Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Christian Porter,
WA Attorney General,
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
Dear Attorney General,
We refer to the attachments above for your information.
We are very concern about our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin's allegations regarding the judicial system operating in Western Australia and would like to seek your view on this very important matter before we refer to other various authorities.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 26-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas N Chin"
To: "'Unity Party WA'"
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:06 PM
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:15 PM
To: 'piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF
JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Dr. Steytler
Please look into the most recent happenings in the Supreme Court of WA.The learned Justice Heenan was contacted by the Legal Practice Board which resulted in the reversal of the upcoming trend of his decision. I applied for the quashing and review for the First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and the Second Res Judicata Judgment of the 4.11.2010 but Justice Heenan again ignored the salient issue of the Pseudo Full Board which usurp the Legal Practice Board to protect their cronies who plundered and pillaged innocent members of the public with impunity. The salient issue of the Pseudo Board without the valid authority of the real Board seems always to be avoided and this live issue is never res judicata right even today.
Justice Heenan refused to look at the issue that there is never to be a Further Remedy for the vexatious professional misconduct claim in VR87 of 2009 proposed by the LPCC and propelled by the Pseudo Board. The law clearly does not allow a further prosecution on res judicata issues of facts and law already determined by SAT, the LPCC, the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia.
Please help me to access justice. The email below is my related communication with the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:02 PM
To: 'Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE
HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Roger Hellier
Ms. Helen Stamp
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address:
PO Box 7667
Cloisters Square
Perth WA 6850
Street Address:
186 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888
Tollfree: 1800 809 000
Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Mr. Hellier and Ms. Stamp:
Please find a copy of my two page letters addressed to Ms. Miranda Breisch,
Professional Affairs Officer of the Legal Pratice Board dated 23.4.2010
copied to the LPCC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, the State
Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney General of Western Australia and the
Ombudsman of Western Australia for your information and action.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: C:\Documents and Settings\Irene\Desktop\My
Pictures\lpb-lpcc-HEENANCIV1019-230410L
Sent: Monday, 26 April 2010 11:22 AM
To: Commissioner- CCC wa
Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Len Roberts-Smith, QC
Commissioner - WA Corruption and Crime Commission,
info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Commissioner,
We refer to our email to the Attorney General this morning and would be grateful if you could comment, please.
We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distance future.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
----- Original Message -----
From: Unity Party WA
To: Attorney General - WA
Cc: Nicholas Chin ; Premier - WA ; Ombudsman - WA ; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:05 AM
Commissioner - Subject: Fw: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Christian Porter,
WA Attorney General,
Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au
Dear Attorney General,
We refer to the attachments above for your information.
We are very concern about our Member Mr. Nicholas N Chin's allegations regarding the judicial system operating in Western Australia and would like to seek your view on this very important matter before we refer to other various authorities.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Date: 26-Apr-2010.
Environmental friendly-Save the trees-Use Email
Can you afford to give Telstra/Bigpond a try?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas N Chin"
To: "'Unity Party WA'"
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:06 PM
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:15 PM
To: 'piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF
JUSTICE HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission
Locked Bag 123
Perth Business Centre WA 6849
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Dr. Steytler
Please look into the most recent happenings in the Supreme Court of WA.The learned Justice Heenan was contacted by the Legal Practice Board which resulted in the reversal of the upcoming trend of his decision. I applied for the quashing and review for the First Judgment of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and the Second Res Judicata Judgment of the 4.11.2010 but Justice Heenan again ignored the salient issue of the Pseudo Full Board which usurp the Legal Practice Board to protect their cronies who plundered and pillaged innocent members of the public with impunity. The salient issue of the Pseudo Board without the valid authority of the real Board seems always to be avoided and this live issue is never res judicata right even today.
Justice Heenan refused to look at the issue that there is never to be a Further Remedy for the vexatious professional misconduct claim in VR87 of 2009 proposed by the LPCC and propelled by the Pseudo Board. The law clearly does not allow a further prosecution on res judicata issues of facts and law already determined by SAT, the LPCC, the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia.
Please help me to access justice. The email below is my related communication with the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 12:02 PM
To: 'Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: COMMUNICATION BY LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD CAUSE A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE
HEENAN DECISION IN CIV 1019 OF 1019 OF 2010 on 21.4.2010
Mr. Roger Hellier
Ms. Helen Stamp
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address:
PO Box 7667
Cloisters Square
Perth WA 6850
Street Address:
186 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888
Tollfree: 1800 809 000
Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Dear Mr. Hellier and Ms. Stamp:
Please find a copy of my two page letters addressed to Ms. Miranda Breisch,
Professional Affairs Officer of the Legal Pratice Board dated 23.4.2010
copied to the LPCC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, the State
Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney General of Western Australia and the
Ombudsman of Western Australia for your information and action.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: C:\Documents and Settings\Irene\Desktop\My
Pictures\lpb-lpcc-HEENANCIV1019-230410L
Thursday, April 22, 2010
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD COMMUNICATED WITH JUSTICE HEENAN AND THE LPCC DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH JUSTICE HEENAN'S ORDER DATED 6.4.2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
5th Floor, Kings Building
533 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 6211 3600 Facsimile: (08) 9325 2743
Email: general@lpbwa.com Atten: Ms. Miranda Breisch
Dear Sir
THE LEGAL PRACTTICE BOARD PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY CONTACTING JUSTICE EM HEENAN ON 20.4.2010 IN MY EXPARTE APPLICATION IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
I refer to the above matter and would like to state as follows:
a) I was present at the proceedings before His Honour Justice Heenan at Court room 13.1 at the Level 13 of the Supreme Court of Perth at No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
b) During the course of this ex-parte application for certiorari Orders, the learned Justice Heenan made an about-turn of his previous decision and dismissed my application irrationally which is directly caused by the telephone call made by the Legal Practice Board to him on 20.4.2010.
c) The reason why I am stating that Justice Heenan made an about-turn in his decision stems from the fact that he on the 6.4.2010 issued an order that I serve all the relevant papers on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC do respond to my ex-parte Application within 10 days which Order was not complied with by the LPCC by the latest date 17.4.2010.
d) It is illogical for Justice Heenan to issue an order which was not complied with by the LPCC and a subsequent telephone call by the Legal Practice Board had thereby compromised his judicial independence and had thereby stopped him from executing his duties as a judicial officer.
h) The same state of affairs exist with regard to the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 87 of 2009 which caused an about-turn in his decision and changed his mind with regard to the due compliance of Orders already issued by him to the LPCC to respond to my Response for the malicious and improper persecution of me on the res judicata issues of facts and law in VR87 of 2009.
i) Judicial Officers are not usually so inconsistent as to issue Orders and then subsequently be found to be reneging on their decision for the due compliance of those Orders without any reasons or explanations being tendered by the other party; and disregarding me as an ex-parte applicant by not giving me any due notifications but causing the judicial officer to be less than independent.
j) It is a well-known law that judicial officers and any other party who interferes with the course of justice or who perverts the course of justice is committing a criminal offence and should be appropriately dealt with by citing him or them for contempt of court. It looks like some parties are immune from the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the court
k) I do not understand that the sole salient feature that run through the whole fabric of my case with the regulator of the legal profession has always been avoided by the Board and the judicial officers: namely, the existence of a Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the real Board to exercise an invalid authority to sanction me for no wrongs with a secret agenda to protect its own cronies who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public with impunity.
l) As long as this salient issue is not been logically and legally determined by the contending parties, this issue remains a source of contention that can be taken up at any level of the legal system in Australia. I may have been to the High Court of Australia in P.36 of 2009 in my Special Application for Leave to Appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.2010 but that does not mean that I can no longer bring up this issue for determination again on that this salient issue can never be barred by the principle of res judicata. It is clear that Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 avoid the determination of this issue. It is also clear that Justice Chaney can never get down into the arena of conflict by conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further frivolous and vexatious remedy of professional misconduct upon issues of facts and law which is already res judicata.
m) The failure of the LPCC to comply with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 means that the LPCC is continuing to harbour criminals and wrong doers who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public but is keen to avoid the Supreme Court from finding out the truths and to help it to dispense fair justice to me.
n) I have asked His Honour Justice Chaney or the LPCC to help Justice to explain why he is taking the sides of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 in my two letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 but the answers are not forthcoming. I have also requested for the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Chaney that was made in my absence in an ambushed judgment on 4.11.2009 and a directions hearing on 16.2.2009 in VR87 of 2009 but they have not been acceded to.
o) The failure of any judicial officer or any party to the proceedings to answer any pertinent questions relating to the issues of the matter before it as an impartial tribunal tends towards the irrefutable conclusion that it is admitting to the truth of those allegations that is implicit in those questions aimed at producing transparency of proceedings.
In view of the above, I would like to Notify the real Board of the real regulator of the Legal Profession to interfere in good faith, to solve this longstanding matter so as to avoid the issue of the persecuting malice or he bad faith of the Pseudo Board from being denied in a court of law without full reason and explanations.
The LPCC is a Statutory authority empowered with a legal authority to investigate the wrong doings of the Pseudo Board and its refusal to respond to Justice Heenan’s Order is an indication that it is continuing to be in dereliction of its statutory duties.
The real Legal Practice Board through the help of the Attorney General its chairperson should therefore intervene in the legal proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 by setting aright the wrongs done by the LPCC to request the Supreme Court to review the decision of Justice Heenan by another Justice of the Supreme Court instead of allowing me to appeal it in CACV 41 of 2010, which will involve unnecessary resources.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee Fax: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845 Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman; Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Ombudsman Western Australia Fax: 08 9325 1107 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
Level 12 44 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
The Hon Christian Porter MLA
Department of the Attorney General
Level 12, Westralia Square,
141 St Georges Terrace, PERTH 6000 GPO Box F317, PERTH 6841 Phone: (08) 9264 1600
Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
5th Floor, Kings Building
533 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 6211 3600 Facsimile: (08) 9325 2743
Email: general@lpbwa.com Atten: Ms. Miranda Breisch
Dear Sir
THE LEGAL PRACTTICE BOARD PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY CONTACTING JUSTICE EM HEENAN ON 20.4.2010 IN MY EXPARTE APPLICATION IN CIV 1019 OF 2010
I refer to the above matter and would like to state as follows:
a) I was present at the proceedings before His Honour Justice Heenan at Court room 13.1 at the Level 13 of the Supreme Court of Perth at No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
b) During the course of this ex-parte application for certiorari Orders, the learned Justice Heenan made an about-turn of his previous decision and dismissed my application irrationally which is directly caused by the telephone call made by the Legal Practice Board to him on 20.4.2010.
c) The reason why I am stating that Justice Heenan made an about-turn in his decision stems from the fact that he on the 6.4.2010 issued an order that I serve all the relevant papers on the LPCC within 2 days and that the LPCC do respond to my ex-parte Application within 10 days which Order was not complied with by the LPCC by the latest date 17.4.2010.
d) It is illogical for Justice Heenan to issue an order which was not complied with by the LPCC and a subsequent telephone call by the Legal Practice Board had thereby compromised his judicial independence and had thereby stopped him from executing his duties as a judicial officer.
h) The same state of affairs exist with regard to the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 87 of 2009 which caused an about-turn in his decision and changed his mind with regard to the due compliance of Orders already issued by him to the LPCC to respond to my Response for the malicious and improper persecution of me on the res judicata issues of facts and law in VR87 of 2009.
i) Judicial Officers are not usually so inconsistent as to issue Orders and then subsequently be found to be reneging on their decision for the due compliance of those Orders without any reasons or explanations being tendered by the other party; and disregarding me as an ex-parte applicant by not giving me any due notifications but causing the judicial officer to be less than independent.
j) It is a well-known law that judicial officers and any other party who interferes with the course of justice or who perverts the course of justice is committing a criminal offence and should be appropriately dealt with by citing him or them for contempt of court. It looks like some parties are immune from the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the court
k) I do not understand that the sole salient feature that run through the whole fabric of my case with the regulator of the legal profession has always been avoided by the Board and the judicial officers: namely, the existence of a Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the real Board to exercise an invalid authority to sanction me for no wrongs with a secret agenda to protect its own cronies who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public with impunity.
l) As long as this salient issue is not been logically and legally determined by the contending parties, this issue remains a source of contention that can be taken up at any level of the legal system in Australia. I may have been to the High Court of Australia in P.36 of 2009 in my Special Application for Leave to Appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.2010 but that does not mean that I can no longer bring up this issue for determination again on that this salient issue can never be barred by the principle of res judicata. It is clear that Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 avoid the determination of this issue. It is also clear that Justice Chaney can never get down into the arena of conflict by conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further frivolous and vexatious remedy of professional misconduct upon issues of facts and law which is already res judicata.
m) The failure of the LPCC to comply with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 means that the LPCC is continuing to harbour criminals and wrong doers who have been pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public but is keen to avoid the Supreme Court from finding out the truths and to help it to dispense fair justice to me.
n) I have asked His Honour Justice Chaney or the LPCC to help Justice to explain why he is taking the sides of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 in my two letters dated 15.3.2010 and 17.3.2010 but the answers are not forthcoming. I have also requested for the transcript of the proceedings before Justice Chaney that was made in my absence in an ambushed judgment on 4.11.2009 and a directions hearing on 16.2.2009 in VR87 of 2009 but they have not been acceded to.
o) The failure of any judicial officer or any party to the proceedings to answer any pertinent questions relating to the issues of the matter before it as an impartial tribunal tends towards the irrefutable conclusion that it is admitting to the truth of those allegations that is implicit in those questions aimed at producing transparency of proceedings.
In view of the above, I would like to Notify the real Board of the real regulator of the Legal Profession to interfere in good faith, to solve this longstanding matter so as to avoid the issue of the persecuting malice or he bad faith of the Pseudo Board from being denied in a court of law without full reason and explanations.
The LPCC is a Statutory authority empowered with a legal authority to investigate the wrong doings of the Pseudo Board and its refusal to respond to Justice Heenan’s Order is an indication that it is continuing to be in dereliction of its statutory duties.
The real Legal Practice Board through the help of the Attorney General its chairperson should therefore intervene in the legal proceedings in CIV 1019 of 2010 by setting aright the wrongs done by the LPCC to request the Supreme Court to review the decision of Justice Heenan by another Justice of the Supreme Court instead of allowing me to appeal it in CACV 41 of 2010, which will involve unnecessary resources.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
c.c.
The Legal Profession Complaints Committee Fax: 9461 2265
The Chief Executive Officer
The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845 Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099 Atten:
The Associate to the President of SAT: Ms. Toni Sherwood
The Associate to Deputy President of SAT: Ms. Alexandra Turner
The Principal Registrar
Mr. Keith Frederick Chapman; Supreme Court of WA Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Associate: Tel: 08 9421 5302 Fax: 08 92218350
Your Ref: CIV 1019 of 2010: Ex-parte Nicholas N Chin
Ombudsman Western Australia Fax: 08 9325 1107 Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au
Level 12 44 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
The Hon Christian Porter MLA
Department of the Attorney General
Level 12, Westralia Square,
141 St Georges Terrace, PERTH 6000 GPO Box F317, PERTH 6841 Phone: (08) 9264 1600
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)