________________________________________
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:12 AM
To: 'lpcc@lpbwa.com'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: UNTYING THE GORDIAN KNOT WITH THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD SO THAT I CAN BE FREE TO INDEPENDENT LAW PRACTICE INDEPENTLY AGAIN
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92757440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin2@gmail.com.au; nnchin09@tpg.com.au
The Chairperson of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee of Western Australia
Mr C L Zelestis, QC
Law Complaints Officer: Ms D Howell
Contact Details: Phone: (08) 9461 2299 | Fax: (08) 9461 2265 | Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com
Address: 2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000
Postal Address: Post Office Box Z5293, St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Atten: Ms. Cahon
Dear Sirs
I wish to notify you that the current litigation between the LPCC and myself in VR87 of 2009 should be based on only three issues such that the LPCC may perform its statutory duties in ensuring that our justice system DO NOT AVOID the litigation of those basic issues such that justice may be seen to be done to me:
1) The Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the lawful authority of the real regulator of the legal profession without the lawful authority of its majority consent.
2) Pillaging by solicitor Timothy Robin Thies with a fraudulent zero sum false debt claims in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2008. DC Appeal No.6 of 2008, CIV 1112 of 2007 and the decision of Justice Kenneth Martin in the second stage of the subs.36(4) of the Magistrates Court Act, proceedings in CIV 1903 of 2008 currently being appealed through the Notice of Appeal I append below, which I intend to file soon.
3) Recognition of the falsification of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by the rectification of the accidental slip of the Court of Appeal Judgment in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraph 54 and 55 using s.33 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 WA without resorting to an appeal process currently being done through CIV1877 of 2010. Further Order 21 r.10 of the RSC and the ratio decidendi of Manoco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522 at 524 also dictate so.
5) Please note that I wish to untie this Gordian Knot in the public interest and in the interests of justice and my failure to do so will incur the peril that I could also be prosecuted for professional misconduct for which I wish to avoid at all costs. I am sorry if I caused any person any trauma as it is not my intention to do so. I have to save my own skin as I have been accused of having proclivities to make false allegations against fellow legal practitioners. All I want to do is to clear my name so that I could have my independent legal practice again. I hope the LPCC will accede to my quest for justice as I no longer want to be tortured by the unwitting mechanism of the government of Western Australia that is contrary to the United Nations Conventions Against Torture which Australia had ratified and is a signatory to and should therefore respect it.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
NOTICE OF APPEAL THE DECISON OF JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN IN CIV1112 OF 2007 AND CIV1903 OF 2008
COURT OF APPEAL, SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA No: CACV: OF 2010
Appeal notice
Parties to the appeal Appellant : NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
First Respondent: TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES
Second Respondent: PAUL CHUNG KIONG CHIN
Primary court’s decision: Registrar
Primary court
Case number
Parties
Date of decision
Judicial officer SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV 1117 OF 2007 & CIV 1903 OF 2008
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN v TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES &
PAUL CHUNG KIONG CHIN
13.5.2010 & 8.7.2010 respectively.
JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN (the Second Judge).
Decision details 1. The Appellant not being allowed to be heard in his own cause in the subsection 36(4) Magistrates Court Act, 2004 (the second stage of the MCA) proceedings in the Second Respondent’s or his son’s caveat case of the CIV 1112 of 2007 (the caveat case) as a litigant in person, contrary to the orbitur dicta of the orders of Justice Hasluck given on 17.6.2009 in CIV 1903 of 2008 (the First Judge) under circumstances where the two cases should have been consolidated into the latter as one case for the purpose of quieting all claims arising from the one event or transaction (of the fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM of the First Respondent) pursuant to Order 83 of the RSC.
2. The unjustified stifling of the Appellant’s prosecution of the second stage of the MCA proceedings caused by the unwarranted and unilateral Order for Security of Costs of $20,000.00 by the Second Judge, to be paid by the Appellant into Court, as a condition for the Appellant to continue those proceedings, absent the justifying factors for the court’s departure from the normal approach, which principle of law should have been adopted by the Second Judge in obeisance to the First Judge’s grant of s.36(1) review orders (the first stage of the proceedings); which principle is distilled from the case of Re:In the Application of s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004; Ex parte Brecker [2007] WASC 151 per Beech J (the ex-parte Brecker principle).
3. The Second Judge erred by his unjustified grant of liberty to the First Respondent to apply further to vary the First Judge’s order 5 to his orders of 7.11.2008 under circumstances that he knew or ought to have known that it would re-open the flood-gates for further litigation of the Null Costs Orders of Magistrate Musk in FR944 of 2008, Magistrate Michelides in FR417 of 2007 and Commission Herron in DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 (the courts below), after that Security Costs Order Gag had already been put on that case by the Second Judge purportedly to prevent further litigation; thus he is reasonably seen to be advantaging the First Respondent but disadvantaging the Appellant.
4. The error of the grant of Liberty to vary Order 5 is reasonably seen to be operating as a veiled threat to stop the Appellant from further prosecuting the First Respondent for his professional misconduct for pursuing the fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT claim using the Caveat case as his “gun” of duress to obtain the Duress-Vitiated Registrar Wilde Consent Order in FR417 of 2007 to achieve the disputed compromise which is the bone of contention for CIV1903 of 2008. The Second Judge is erroneously viewing the “appearance of consent” by the Appellant and the Second Respondent to the Consent Judgment as real consent. The public interest is thereby being reasonably undermined.
Appeal details:
Notice of appeal 1) The Appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal against the above decisions in the second stage of the proceedings of the Second Judge.
2) The Appellant’s appeal is subject to the hearing and disposal of the Applicant’s Application for Mandamus and Prohibition Orders for the Second Judge’s recusal, by way of Notice of Originating Motion in CIV1981 of 2010 dated and filed 28th day of June, 2010 and scheduled for hearing on 4th day of August, 2010 at not before 11.00 am for which the Second Judge had been notified in Court in the presence of the First Respondent on 8.7.2010.
Act that allows the appeal 1 Supreme Court Act, 1935 subs. 58(1)(a), (c) and (d).
Grounds of appeal 2 The Second Judge in the second stage of the proceedings erred in terms of the following:
1. by virtue of his being in dereliction of his judicial duties when he contradicted the First Judge’s findings (that the Appellant has a strong case which explains the reason why the s. 36(1) review orders were granted by the First Judge) without any reasonable basis, under circumstances where the Second Judge owes a duty to the court not to depart from the normal approach of the Ex-parte Brecker principle.
2. by his refusal to allow the Appellant to represent his own case and in his own cause in the caveat case knowing that it had been used by the First Respondent as his “gun” for the Duress-Vitiated Registrar Wilde Consent Judgment compromise and that his son was never a willing party to the Non-consensual Varied Solicitor’s Cost Agreement entered into by the Appellant with the Respondent.
3. by his refusal to recognize the fact that at all material times the Appellant never play the public role of solicitor for his son the Second Respondent but only as his helper or McKenzie friend or his scribe and as such the Appellant has no legal obligations as a court officer to be fair to the Respondent; that wrong concept of the Second Judge that the Appellant can ever be in conflict of interests (in acting in his own cause to sue the First Respondent or even when he had acted a settlement agent for the Vendors of the Centenary Lunch Bar with written their informed consent) should therefore be abrogated by this Court.
4. by his refusal to allow the consolidation of the Caveat case into the CIV1903 of 2008 case for the purpose of quelling all claims arising from one transaction or event of the fraudulent ZERO FALSE DEBT CLAIM of the First Respondent first started by him in FR417 of 2007.
5. by his refusal to allow the Appellant to be joined as the Second Defendant in the caveat “gun” case in order to enable him to fight for his own cause, in exchange for the Appellant having readily acceded to the First Respondent’s request (for the Second Respondent to be joined as the Second Defendant in CIV 1903 of 2008 under the auspices of the First Judge) knowing that the caveat case is the Appellant’s own case on the ground that the Second Respondent was never a willing party to the Non-consensual Varied Solicitor Costs Agreement.
6. by not providing any justifications for ordering the payment of Security Costs by the Appellant knowing that the circumstances suits a two-way process for the Order of Security Costs, on the ground that the legislative intention of the Minor Cases Provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 does provide for the non-cost-disadvantaging of any litigant who had complied with those Minor Case provisions.
7. by not recognizing that there are no profit costs entitlements to the First Respondent even if he were to win the second stage of these proceedings as dictated by the terms of the Minor Cases Provisions except for out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred by the First Respondent for which the Appellant had guaranteed to pay to the First Respondent should he finally win his case in CIV 1903 of 2008.
8. by not recognizing that Security of Costs Orders should work both ways in the light of the facts that there never exists any unmet legal costs in the courts below as they were non-enforceable costs orders of those courts originating from a fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM unlawfully advanced by the First Respondent in FR417 of 2007 using the Case as his duress “gun”.
9. by his refusal to accept the significance of the evidence of the First Respondent in his own Affidavit sworn and filed the 6th day of October, 2009 in which the First Respondent had specifically admitted to those facts of the pre-contractual terms of 25.10.2004 thus precipitating the legal existence of the Non-Consensual Varied Solicitor’s Costs Agreement between the Appellant and the First Respondent exacerbated by the fact that the Second Respondent was a non-willing participant to that NON-CONSENSUAL CONTRACT.
10. by his refusal to accept the fact of the existence of the ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM advanced by the First Respondent which he had unconscionably used to mislead the courts below resulting in their jurisdictional errors in pronouncing their Null Costs Orders which cannot be legally enforced by any courts of law acting within the confines of their own jurisdictions.
11. by his refusal to recognize the fact that it is in the public interests that the First Respondent should be reasonably found to have been culpable in the commission of professional misconduct by advancing his own interests first instead of advancing the interests of his own clients in the person of the Appellant and the Second Respondent by exploiting the latter’s vulnerabilities; the First Respondent should reasonably therefore be recommended by the Second Judge for disciplinary action to the LPCC, failing which the Appellant suffers the peril that he will suffer the fate of being wrongly persecuted by the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 which is currently in process.
12. by his refusal to recognize the fact that the zealous pursuit of the second stage of the proceedings by the Appellant is not a personal vengeance but is a public interests ligation to prevent unwitting solicitors clients from being falsely prosecuted for a no debt claim, resulting in much trauma, hardship and harm to non-consenting members of the public whenever they enter into a contractual relationship with a lawyer for legal services but instead of receiving the benefits of those services, they would inevitably found that they have landed themselves into more trouble but who nevertheless regards these services of lawyers as a necessary evil.
13. by his refusal to recognize the fact and the law that public interests litigations carried on by the Appellant should not be unjustly stifled by a Security Costs Order Gag for an ulterior purpose contrary to the relevant statutory provisions but for some lawful purposes which must be disclosed.
14. by his not recognizing the fact that the pervasive duress situation caused by the “gun” caveat case prevails with the continuing mysterious and inexplicable escalation of legal costs even at the time when the Appellant sought the pro-bono assistance of his former mentor Mr. Ozich who did not play the role of a solicitor but just acted as a friendly helper to fathom the conscience of the First Respondent when a figure of $10,500.00 was suggested to him and it was not taken seriously by him as he refused to act upon it.
15. by his failing to recognize the fact that this is not the case of any unmet legal fees owing to the First Respondent as he has no such entitlements on the ground that there was no consensual agreement, irrespective of whether he held any such bona fides belief to it or not.
Notice to the First Respondent If you want to take part in this appeal you must lodge a Form No. 85 under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 within 7 days after you are served with this notice and serve it on the appellant.
Last date for appealing Last date: 22.7.2010
Is an extension of time needed? No
Leave to appeal Is leave to appeal needed? No
If yes, state the Act and section requiring leave:
Legal representation Is the appellant legally represented in this appeal? No 3
Is the appellant applying for legal aid? No
Appellant’s details
Appellant’s geographical address 3 387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059
Appellant’s service details 3 NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92767440, Mobile: 04212642735 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
Nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
Ref: CIV1903OF2008(36(4).
Signature and date
Signature of appellant or lawyer
Appellant/Litigant in Person Date: 11.7.2010
Appeal notice
Parties to the appeal Appellant : NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
First Respondent: TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES
Second Respondent: PAUL CHUNG KIONG CHIN
Primary court’s decision: Registrar
Primary court
Case number
Parties
Date of decision
Judicial officer SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV 1117 OF 2007 & CIV 1903 OF 2008
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN v TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES &
PAUL CHUNG KIONG CHIN
13.5.2010 & 8.7.2010 respectively.
JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN (the Second Judge).
Decision details 1. The Appellant not being allowed to be heard in his own cause in the subsection 36(4) Magistrates Court Act, 2004 (the second stage of the MCA) proceedings in the Second Respondent’s or his son’s caveat case of the CIV 1112 of 2007 (the caveat case) as a litigant in person, contrary to the orbitur dicta of the orders of Justice Hasluck given on 17.6.2009 in CIV 1903 of 2008 (the First Judge) under circumstances where the two cases should have been consolidated into the latter as one case for the purpose of quieting all claims arising from the one event or transaction (of the fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM of the First Respondent) pursuant to Order 83 of the RSC.
2. The unjustified stifling of the Appellant’s prosecution of the second stage of the MCA proceedings caused by the unwarranted and unilateral Order for Security of Costs of $20,000.00 by the Second Judge, to be paid by the Appellant into Court, as a condition for the Appellant to continue those proceedings, absent the justifying factors for the court’s departure from the normal approach, which principle of law should have been adopted by the Second Judge in obeisance to the First Judge’s grant of s.36(1) review orders (the first stage of the proceedings); which principle is distilled from the case of Re:In the Application of s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004; Ex parte Brecker [2007] WASC 151 per Beech J (the ex-parte Brecker principle).
3. The Second Judge erred by his unjustified grant of liberty to the First Respondent to apply further to vary the First Judge’s order 5 to his orders of 7.11.2008 under circumstances that he knew or ought to have known that it would re-open the flood-gates for further litigation of the Null Costs Orders of Magistrate Musk in FR944 of 2008, Magistrate Michelides in FR417 of 2007 and Commission Herron in DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 (the courts below), after that Security Costs Order Gag had already been put on that case by the Second Judge purportedly to prevent further litigation; thus he is reasonably seen to be advantaging the First Respondent but disadvantaging the Appellant.
4. The error of the grant of Liberty to vary Order 5 is reasonably seen to be operating as a veiled threat to stop the Appellant from further prosecuting the First Respondent for his professional misconduct for pursuing the fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT claim using the Caveat case as his “gun” of duress to obtain the Duress-Vitiated Registrar Wilde Consent Order in FR417 of 2007 to achieve the disputed compromise which is the bone of contention for CIV1903 of 2008. The Second Judge is erroneously viewing the “appearance of consent” by the Appellant and the Second Respondent to the Consent Judgment as real consent. The public interest is thereby being reasonably undermined.
Appeal details:
Notice of appeal 1) The Appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal against the above decisions in the second stage of the proceedings of the Second Judge.
2) The Appellant’s appeal is subject to the hearing and disposal of the Applicant’s Application for Mandamus and Prohibition Orders for the Second Judge’s recusal, by way of Notice of Originating Motion in CIV1981 of 2010 dated and filed 28th day of June, 2010 and scheduled for hearing on 4th day of August, 2010 at not before 11.00 am for which the Second Judge had been notified in Court in the presence of the First Respondent on 8.7.2010.
Act that allows the appeal 1 Supreme Court Act, 1935 subs. 58(1)(a), (c) and (d).
Grounds of appeal 2 The Second Judge in the second stage of the proceedings erred in terms of the following:
1. by virtue of his being in dereliction of his judicial duties when he contradicted the First Judge’s findings (that the Appellant has a strong case which explains the reason why the s. 36(1) review orders were granted by the First Judge) without any reasonable basis, under circumstances where the Second Judge owes a duty to the court not to depart from the normal approach of the Ex-parte Brecker principle.
2. by his refusal to allow the Appellant to represent his own case and in his own cause in the caveat case knowing that it had been used by the First Respondent as his “gun” for the Duress-Vitiated Registrar Wilde Consent Judgment compromise and that his son was never a willing party to the Non-consensual Varied Solicitor’s Cost Agreement entered into by the Appellant with the Respondent.
3. by his refusal to recognize the fact that at all material times the Appellant never play the public role of solicitor for his son the Second Respondent but only as his helper or McKenzie friend or his scribe and as such the Appellant has no legal obligations as a court officer to be fair to the Respondent; that wrong concept of the Second Judge that the Appellant can ever be in conflict of interests (in acting in his own cause to sue the First Respondent or even when he had acted a settlement agent for the Vendors of the Centenary Lunch Bar with written their informed consent) should therefore be abrogated by this Court.
4. by his refusal to allow the consolidation of the Caveat case into the CIV1903 of 2008 case for the purpose of quelling all claims arising from one transaction or event of the fraudulent ZERO FALSE DEBT CLAIM of the First Respondent first started by him in FR417 of 2007.
5. by his refusal to allow the Appellant to be joined as the Second Defendant in the caveat “gun” case in order to enable him to fight for his own cause, in exchange for the Appellant having readily acceded to the First Respondent’s request (for the Second Respondent to be joined as the Second Defendant in CIV 1903 of 2008 under the auspices of the First Judge) knowing that the caveat case is the Appellant’s own case on the ground that the Second Respondent was never a willing party to the Non-consensual Varied Solicitor Costs Agreement.
6. by not providing any justifications for ordering the payment of Security Costs by the Appellant knowing that the circumstances suits a two-way process for the Order of Security Costs, on the ground that the legislative intention of the Minor Cases Provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 does provide for the non-cost-disadvantaging of any litigant who had complied with those Minor Case provisions.
7. by not recognizing that there are no profit costs entitlements to the First Respondent even if he were to win the second stage of these proceedings as dictated by the terms of the Minor Cases Provisions except for out of pocket expenses reasonably incurred by the First Respondent for which the Appellant had guaranteed to pay to the First Respondent should he finally win his case in CIV 1903 of 2008.
8. by not recognizing that Security of Costs Orders should work both ways in the light of the facts that there never exists any unmet legal costs in the courts below as they were non-enforceable costs orders of those courts originating from a fraudulent ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM unlawfully advanced by the First Respondent in FR417 of 2007 using the Case as his duress “gun”.
9. by his refusal to accept the significance of the evidence of the First Respondent in his own Affidavit sworn and filed the 6th day of October, 2009 in which the First Respondent had specifically admitted to those facts of the pre-contractual terms of 25.10.2004 thus precipitating the legal existence of the Non-Consensual Varied Solicitor’s Costs Agreement between the Appellant and the First Respondent exacerbated by the fact that the Second Respondent was a non-willing participant to that NON-CONSENSUAL CONTRACT.
10. by his refusal to accept the fact of the existence of the ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM advanced by the First Respondent which he had unconscionably used to mislead the courts below resulting in their jurisdictional errors in pronouncing their Null Costs Orders which cannot be legally enforced by any courts of law acting within the confines of their own jurisdictions.
11. by his refusal to recognize the fact that it is in the public interests that the First Respondent should be reasonably found to have been culpable in the commission of professional misconduct by advancing his own interests first instead of advancing the interests of his own clients in the person of the Appellant and the Second Respondent by exploiting the latter’s vulnerabilities; the First Respondent should reasonably therefore be recommended by the Second Judge for disciplinary action to the LPCC, failing which the Appellant suffers the peril that he will suffer the fate of being wrongly persecuted by the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 which is currently in process.
12. by his refusal to recognize the fact that the zealous pursuit of the second stage of the proceedings by the Appellant is not a personal vengeance but is a public interests ligation to prevent unwitting solicitors clients from being falsely prosecuted for a no debt claim, resulting in much trauma, hardship and harm to non-consenting members of the public whenever they enter into a contractual relationship with a lawyer for legal services but instead of receiving the benefits of those services, they would inevitably found that they have landed themselves into more trouble but who nevertheless regards these services of lawyers as a necessary evil.
13. by his refusal to recognize the fact and the law that public interests litigations carried on by the Appellant should not be unjustly stifled by a Security Costs Order Gag for an ulterior purpose contrary to the relevant statutory provisions but for some lawful purposes which must be disclosed.
14. by his not recognizing the fact that the pervasive duress situation caused by the “gun” caveat case prevails with the continuing mysterious and inexplicable escalation of legal costs even at the time when the Appellant sought the pro-bono assistance of his former mentor Mr. Ozich who did not play the role of a solicitor but just acted as a friendly helper to fathom the conscience of the First Respondent when a figure of $10,500.00 was suggested to him and it was not taken seriously by him as he refused to act upon it.
15. by his failing to recognize the fact that this is not the case of any unmet legal fees owing to the First Respondent as he has no such entitlements on the ground that there was no consensual agreement, irrespective of whether he held any such bona fides belief to it or not.
Notice to the First Respondent If you want to take part in this appeal you must lodge a Form No. 85 under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 within 7 days after you are served with this notice and serve it on the appellant.
Last date for appealing Last date: 22.7.2010
Is an extension of time needed? No
Leave to appeal Is leave to appeal needed? No
If yes, state the Act and section requiring leave:
Legal representation Is the appellant legally represented in this appeal? No 3
Is the appellant applying for legal aid? No
Appellant’s details
Appellant’s geographical address 3 387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059
Appellant’s service details 3 NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92767440, Mobile: 04212642735 Emails: nnchin@msn.com;
Nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
Ref: CIV1903OF2008(36(4).
Signature and date
Signature of appellant or lawyer
Appellant/Litigant in Person Date: 11.7.2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Justice Kenneth Martin decision in RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [No 2] [2010] WASC 169 heard 17.6.2010 and published 8.7.2010
I quote paragraph 33 of the Judgment of Justice Ken Martin in the following words
33 The plaintiff to date has been unable to assist me at all in terms of what jurisdictional challenges he would seek to raise at an inter parties hearing by reference to s 36, bearing in mind that the matter is not in the nature of an appeal. In his oral submissions to me, the plaintiff has, in a loose sense, articulated his grievance based upon duress and unconscionability relating to the circumstances in which he paid $6,000 to the first defendant towards the aggregate settlement of $11,500. The plaintiff now seeks to resile from that 2007 settlement.
I would now like to quote the meanings of Jurisdictional error as provided by the High Court of Australia in the case referred to as Craig; which jurisdictional error I am ascribing to Registrar Wilde Duress-Vitiated Consent Order in FR417 of 2007, Magistrate Musk decision in FR944 of 2007 and Commissioner Herron's decision in DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 and Magistrates Michelides decision in FR417 of 2007. I hope that the explanation of what is termed as Jurisdictional Error as applicable to the s.36 Review Order of Justice Hasluck will help clear the doubts that shows conclusively that Justice Ken Martin is indeed in error. I invite comments from readers:
Re Carey; Ex Parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] WASCA 219 (26 October 2006) para.116:
Craig for a more thorough exposition of the principles applicable to the scope of such jurisdiction (at 177 - 178):
"Jurisdictional error is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers. An inferior court would, for example, act wholly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in that sense if, having jurisdiction strictly limited to civil matters, it purported to hear and determine a criminal charge. Such a court would act partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction if, in a matter coming within the categories of civil cases which it had authority to hear and determine, it purported to make an order of a kind which it lacked power to make, such as an order for specific performance of a contract when its remedial powers were strictly limited to awarding damages for breach. Less obviously, an inferior court can, while acting wholly within the general area of its jurisdiction, fall into jurisdictional error by doing something which it lacks authority to do. If, for example, it is an essential condition of the existence of jurisdiction with respect to a particular matter that a certain event or requirement has in fact occurred or been satisfied, as distinct from the inferior court's own conclusion that it has, there will be jurisdictional error if the court or tribunal purports to act in circumstances where that event has not in fact occurred or that requirement has not in fact been satisfied even though the matter is the kind of matter which the court has jurisdiction to entertain. Similarly, jurisdictional error will occur where an inferior court disregards or takes account of some matter in circumstances where the statute or other instrument establishing it and conferring its jurisdiction requires that that particular matter be taken into account or ignored as a pre-condition of the existence of any authority to make an order or decision in the circumstances of the particular case. Again, an inferior court will exceed its authority and fall into jurisdictional error if it misconstrues that statute or other instrument and thereby misconceives the nature of the function which it is performing or the extent of its powers in the circumstances of the particular case. In the last-mentioned category of case, the line between jurisdictional error and mere error in the exercise of jurisdiction may be particularly difficult to discern."
181 The scope of jurisdictional error depends upon whether or not the decision-maker has authority either to authoritatively determine questions of law or to make an order or decision otherwise than in accordance with the law: Craig at 179. If it does not have authority to do either, there can be judicial review in the broad sense where the distinction between jurisdictional error and error within jurisdiction is of no practical significance. If the decision-maker has that authority, the Court's judicial review powers are confined to errors of jurisdiction in the narrow sense. The High Court in Craig identified five types or categories of such errors. It did not suggest the list was exhaustive. However, the appellants did not contend it should be expanded in any particular way to accommodate the errors in this case. The five categories are as follows. First, if an inferior court or an anomalous tribunal mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction. Second, if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist. Third, if it is an essential condition of the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a particular matter that a certain event or requirement has in fact occurred or been satisfied (which I understand to be a reference to a jurisdictional "fact") there will be jurisdictional error if the court or a tribunal purports to act in circumstances where that event has not in fact occurred or that requirement has not in fact been satisfied even though the matter is the kind of matter which the Court has jurisdiction to entertain. Fourth, jurisdictional error will occur where an inferior court disregards or takes account of some matter in circumstances where the statute establishing it and conferring its jurisdiction requires that that particular matter be taken into account or ignored as a precondition of the existence of any authority to make an order or decision in the circumstances of the case. Fifth, it will exceed its authority and fall into jurisdictional error if it misconstrues the statute establishing it and conferring jurisdiction and thereby misconceives the nature or the function which it is performing or the extent of its powers in the circumstances of the case.
33 The plaintiff to date has been unable to assist me at all in terms of what jurisdictional challenges he would seek to raise at an inter parties hearing by reference to s 36, bearing in mind that the matter is not in the nature of an appeal. In his oral submissions to me, the plaintiff has, in a loose sense, articulated his grievance based upon duress and unconscionability relating to the circumstances in which he paid $6,000 to the first defendant towards the aggregate settlement of $11,500. The plaintiff now seeks to resile from that 2007 settlement.
I would now like to quote the meanings of Jurisdictional error as provided by the High Court of Australia in the case referred to as Craig; which jurisdictional error I am ascribing to Registrar Wilde Duress-Vitiated Consent Order in FR417 of 2007, Magistrate Musk decision in FR944 of 2007 and Commissioner Herron's decision in DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 and Magistrates Michelides decision in FR417 of 2007. I hope that the explanation of what is termed as Jurisdictional Error as applicable to the s.36 Review Order of Justice Hasluck will help clear the doubts that shows conclusively that Justice Ken Martin is indeed in error. I invite comments from readers:
Re Carey; Ex Parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] WASCA 219 (26 October 2006) para.116:
Craig for a more thorough exposition of the principles applicable to the scope of such jurisdiction (at 177 - 178):
"Jurisdictional error is at its most obvious where the inferior court purports to act wholly or partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in the sense of entertaining a matter or making a decision or order of a kind which wholly or partly lies outside the theoretical limits of its functions and powers. An inferior court would, for example, act wholly outside the general area of its jurisdiction in that sense if, having jurisdiction strictly limited to civil matters, it purported to hear and determine a criminal charge. Such a court would act partly outside the general area of its jurisdiction if, in a matter coming within the categories of civil cases which it had authority to hear and determine, it purported to make an order of a kind which it lacked power to make, such as an order for specific performance of a contract when its remedial powers were strictly limited to awarding damages for breach. Less obviously, an inferior court can, while acting wholly within the general area of its jurisdiction, fall into jurisdictional error by doing something which it lacks authority to do. If, for example, it is an essential condition of the existence of jurisdiction with respect to a particular matter that a certain event or requirement has in fact occurred or been satisfied, as distinct from the inferior court's own conclusion that it has, there will be jurisdictional error if the court or tribunal purports to act in circumstances where that event has not in fact occurred or that requirement has not in fact been satisfied even though the matter is the kind of matter which the court has jurisdiction to entertain. Similarly, jurisdictional error will occur where an inferior court disregards or takes account of some matter in circumstances where the statute or other instrument establishing it and conferring its jurisdiction requires that that particular matter be taken into account or ignored as a pre-condition of the existence of any authority to make an order or decision in the circumstances of the particular case. Again, an inferior court will exceed its authority and fall into jurisdictional error if it misconstrues that statute or other instrument and thereby misconceives the nature of the function which it is performing or the extent of its powers in the circumstances of the particular case. In the last-mentioned category of case, the line between jurisdictional error and mere error in the exercise of jurisdiction may be particularly difficult to discern."
181 The scope of jurisdictional error depends upon whether or not the decision-maker has authority either to authoritatively determine questions of law or to make an order or decision otherwise than in accordance with the law: Craig at 179. If it does not have authority to do either, there can be judicial review in the broad sense where the distinction between jurisdictional error and error within jurisdiction is of no practical significance. If the decision-maker has that authority, the Court's judicial review powers are confined to errors of jurisdiction in the narrow sense. The High Court in Craig identified five types or categories of such errors. It did not suggest the list was exhaustive. However, the appellants did not contend it should be expanded in any particular way to accommodate the errors in this case. The five categories are as follows. First, if an inferior court or an anomalous tribunal mistakenly asserts or denies the existence of jurisdiction. Second, if it misapprehends or disregards the nature or limits of its functions or powers in a case where it correctly recognises that jurisdiction does exist. Third, if it is an essential condition of the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to a particular matter that a certain event or requirement has in fact occurred or been satisfied (which I understand to be a reference to a jurisdictional "fact") there will be jurisdictional error if the court or a tribunal purports to act in circumstances where that event has not in fact occurred or that requirement has not in fact been satisfied even though the matter is the kind of matter which the Court has jurisdiction to entertain. Fourth, jurisdictional error will occur where an inferior court disregards or takes account of some matter in circumstances where the statute establishing it and conferring its jurisdiction requires that that particular matter be taken into account or ignored as a precondition of the existence of any authority to make an order or decision in the circumstances of the case. Fifth, it will exceed its authority and fall into jurisdictional error if it misconstrues the statute establishing it and conferring jurisdiction and thereby misconceives the nature or the function which it is performing or the extent of its powers in the circumstances of the case.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
LETTER TO SAT IN VR87 OF 2009 AND COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR IN CACV41OF2010 TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT
The Associate of the Deputy President of SAT
Justice Pritchard, fax: (08) 9325 5099
7/9/2010 1:33:45 PM
The Chairperson
The LPCC, fax: (08) 9461 2265
Registrar Eldred of the Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of Western Australia, fax: (08) 9221 4436
Dear Sirs
CACV 41 OF 2010: CHIN V LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD; VR 87 OF 2009: LPCC V CHIN
I refer to the above appeal against Justice Heenan’s decision in CIV1019 of 2010 which has been put on an indefinite hold caused by my Application for Mandamus Orders against Heenan in CIV1604 of 2010. The latter has since been dismissed by Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 on 29.6.2010. My cases before the courts have become so complex such that it has become impossible for the individual Justices to obtain a full grasp of it in order to solve my problem. I term this problem as the proverbial GORDIAN KNOT. I have therefore taken the initiative to write to the Government of Western Australian as represented by the Members of Parliament who are representing the electorate of the East Metropolitan Region where I am located as a Citizen of Australia to seek relief through the political channels instead of through the courts system and also to the State Ombudsman in the terms as appearing hereunder:
Please find my letter to the State Ombudman of Western Australia. I believe there is a simple solution to my problem if the Government of Western Australia were to cut the Gordian knot, which our justice system would not want to ROCK THE BOAT ABOUT in terms of the following:
a) The existence of the Pseudo Board of the regulator of the legal Profession in WA which has no justifications to usurp the proper and statutory functions of the Board to protect its cronies.
b) The failure of Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV 1903 of 2008 to acknowledge that Mr. Timothy Robin Thies who is guilty of professional misconduct by plundering and pillaging his former clients with a ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM which is admitted to by that legal practitioner himself in his evidence filed before the Court on 6.10.2010.
c) The falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by David Taylor Solicitor resulting in false costs orders by Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008 to Mr. Maurice Frederick Law and Mr. Nicholas N Chin thus denying the latter his entitlement to his costs for solicitor work done in CIV1142 of 2006.
Below is the contents of my letter to the State Ombudsman dated 9.7.2010 in the following terms:
Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms[1]:
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[2].
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes:
[1] For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
[1] Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 9275 7440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
I understand that VR87 of 2009 is coming up before SAT on 13.8.2010 and the Court of Appeal has postponed my Appeal CACV41 of 2010 indefinitely. Further information on my cases is obtainable from my blogspot by Googling “NICHOLAS N CHIN”. Any sincere attempt by any interested parties in the interest of justice and in the public interests, in this matter, can be easily resolved by cutting the Gordian Knot that I referred to above. As long as these three issues of the Gordian Knot are not resolved satisfactorily, it will not clear up my name and the Legal Practice Board can be accused of acting clandestinely to protect its cronies. If these issues are resolved, the Legal Practice Board can then make its decision to impose conditions on my practice certificate as it will, if it then deems it necessary to do so. Without clearing up these three issues, I will stand steadfast by the notion that since these issues are not res judicata, I will want them to be legally determined such that I will no longer be subject to the tyranny of the courts which has repeatedly refused to do its duties to litigants coming before it, just because it is impossible for it to understand my case or that it is humanly impossible for the individual Justice to comprehensively grasp my cases.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Justice Pritchard, fax: (08) 9325 5099
7/9/2010 1:33:45 PM
The Chairperson
The LPCC, fax: (08) 9461 2265
Registrar Eldred of the Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of Western Australia, fax: (08) 9221 4436
Dear Sirs
CACV 41 OF 2010: CHIN V LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD; VR 87 OF 2009: LPCC V CHIN
I refer to the above appeal against Justice Heenan’s decision in CIV1019 of 2010 which has been put on an indefinite hold caused by my Application for Mandamus Orders against Heenan in CIV1604 of 2010. The latter has since been dismissed by Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 on 29.6.2010. My cases before the courts have become so complex such that it has become impossible for the individual Justices to obtain a full grasp of it in order to solve my problem. I term this problem as the proverbial GORDIAN KNOT. I have therefore taken the initiative to write to the Government of Western Australian as represented by the Members of Parliament who are representing the electorate of the East Metropolitan Region where I am located as a Citizen of Australia to seek relief through the political channels instead of through the courts system and also to the State Ombudsman in the terms as appearing hereunder:
Please find my letter to the State Ombudman of Western Australia. I believe there is a simple solution to my problem if the Government of Western Australia were to cut the Gordian knot, which our justice system would not want to ROCK THE BOAT ABOUT in terms of the following:
a) The existence of the Pseudo Board of the regulator of the legal Profession in WA which has no justifications to usurp the proper and statutory functions of the Board to protect its cronies.
b) The failure of Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV 1903 of 2008 to acknowledge that Mr. Timothy Robin Thies who is guilty of professional misconduct by plundering and pillaging his former clients with a ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM which is admitted to by that legal practitioner himself in his evidence filed before the Court on 6.10.2010.
c) The falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by David Taylor Solicitor resulting in false costs orders by Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008 to Mr. Maurice Frederick Law and Mr. Nicholas N Chin thus denying the latter his entitlement to his costs for solicitor work done in CIV1142 of 2006.
Below is the contents of my letter to the State Ombudsman dated 9.7.2010 in the following terms:
Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms[1]:
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[2].
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes:
[1] For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
[1] Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 9275 7440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
I understand that VR87 of 2009 is coming up before SAT on 13.8.2010 and the Court of Appeal has postponed my Appeal CACV41 of 2010 indefinitely. Further information on my cases is obtainable from my blogspot by Googling “NICHOLAS N CHIN”. Any sincere attempt by any interested parties in the interest of justice and in the public interests, in this matter, can be easily resolved by cutting the Gordian Knot that I referred to above. As long as these three issues of the Gordian Knot are not resolved satisfactorily, it will not clear up my name and the Legal Practice Board can be accused of acting clandestinely to protect its cronies. If these issues are resolved, the Legal Practice Board can then make its decision to impose conditions on my practice certificate as it will, if it then deems it necessary to do so. Without clearing up these three issues, I will stand steadfast by the notion that since these issues are not res judicata, I will want them to be legally determined such that I will no longer be subject to the tyranny of the courts which has repeatedly refused to do its duties to litigants coming before it, just because it is impossible for it to understand my case or that it is humanly impossible for the individual Justice to comprehensively grasp my cases.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
THE STATE GOVERNNMENT TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT: PSEUDO BOARD, ZERO SUM CLAIM AND FALSIFICATIONS OF COURT RECORDS
________________________________________
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:17 PM
To: 'Minister.Hames@dpc.wa.gov.au'; 'alyssa.hayden@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'helen.morton@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'melanie.archer@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'linda.savage@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'alison.xamon@mp.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'eddieh@westnet.com.au'
Subject: STATE OMBUDSMAN TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT IN THREE ISSUES: PSEUDO BOARD, ZERO SUM DEBT FALSE CLAIM AND FALSIFICATIONS OF COURT RECORDS IN CIV 1131 OF 2006
Hon. Dr Kim Desmond Hames MLA
Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Indigenous Affairs
Ministerial Office:
28th Floor
Governor Stirling Tower
197 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
Ph: 9222 8788
Fax: 9222 8799
Email: Minister.Hames@dpc.wa.gov.au
Hon. Alyssa Kathleen Hayden MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Electorate Office:
Unit 34, 6 Keane Street
MIDLAND WA 6056
Ph: (08) 9274 8484
Fax: (08) 9274 7874
Email: alyssa.hayden@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Helen Margaret Morton MLC
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer; Commerce; Science and Innovation; Housing and Works; Water; Mental Health
Electorate Office:
Unit 2, 201-205 Burslem Drive
MADDINGTON WA 6109
Ph: (08) 9452 8311
Fax: (08) 9452 8366
Email: helen.morton@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Donna Evelyn Mary Faragher MLC
Minister for the Environment; Youth
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: LIB
Ministerial Office :
10th Floor, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH WA WA 6005
Ph: (08) 9213 7250
Fax: (08) 9213 7255
Email: Minister.Faragher@dpc.wa.gov.au
Hon. Ljiljanna Maria Ravlich MLC
Shadow Minister for Commerce and Small Business; Government Accountability; Tourism; Training
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: ALP
Electorate Office:
Unit 3, 263 Walter Road
Morley WA 6062
Ph: (08) 9275 7000
Fax: (08) 9275 7333
Email: melanie.archer@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Linda Rosemary Savage MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: ALP
Electorate Office:
Unit 1, 398 Great Eastern Highway
ASCOT W.A. WA 6104
Ph: (08) 9477 3855
Fax: (08) 9477 4099
Email: linda.savage@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Alison Marie Xamon MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: GWA
Electorate Office:
62 Eighth Avenue
MAYLANDS WA WA 6051
PO Box 104
MAYLANDS WA 6931
(Please direct all mail to the above postal address)
Ph: (08) 9272 1718
Fax: (08) 9272 1719
Email: alison.xamon@mp.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs
Please find my letter to the State Ombudman of Western Australia . I believe there is a simple solution to my problem if the Government of Western Australia were to cut the Gordian knot, which our justice system would not want to ROCK THE BOAT ABOUT in terms of the following:
a) The existence of the Pseudo Board of the regulator of the legal Profession in WA which has no justifications to usurp the proper and statutory functions of the Board to protect its cronies.
b) The failure of Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV 1903 of 2008 to acknowledge that Mr. Timothy Robin Thies who is guilty of professional misconduct by plundering and pillaging his former clients with a ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM which is admitted to by that legal practitioner himself in his evidence filed before the Court on 6.10.2010.
c) The falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by David Taylor Solicitor resulting in false costs orders by Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008 to Mr. Maurice Frederick Law and Mr. Nicholas N Chin thus denying the latter his entitlement to his costs for solicitor work done in CIV1142 of 2006.
Below is the contents of my letter to the State Ombudsman dated 9.7.2010 in the following terms:
Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms[1]:
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[2].
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes:
[1] For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
[1] Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 9275 7440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
________________________________________
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:17 PM
To: 'Minister.Hames@dpc.wa.gov.au'; 'alyssa.hayden@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'helen.morton@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'melanie.archer@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'linda.savage@mp.wa.gov.au'; 'alison.xamon@mp.wa.gov.au'
Cc: 'eddieh@westnet.com.au'
Subject: STATE OMBUDSMAN TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT IN THREE ISSUES: PSEUDO BOARD, ZERO SUM DEBT FALSE CLAIM AND FALSIFICATIONS OF COURT RECORDS IN CIV 1131 OF 2006
Hon. Dr Kim Desmond Hames MLA
Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Indigenous Affairs
Ministerial Office:
28th Floor
Governor Stirling Tower
197 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
Ph: 9222 8788
Fax: 9222 8799
Email: Minister.Hames@dpc.wa.gov.au
Hon. Alyssa Kathleen Hayden MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Electorate Office:
Unit 34, 6 Keane Street
MIDLAND WA 6056
Ph: (08) 9274 8484
Fax: (08) 9274 7874
Email: alyssa.hayden@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Helen Margaret Morton MLC
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer; Commerce; Science and Innovation; Housing and Works; Water; Mental Health
Electorate Office:
Unit 2, 201-205 Burslem Drive
MADDINGTON WA 6109
Ph: (08) 9452 8311
Fax: (08) 9452 8366
Email: helen.morton@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Donna Evelyn Mary Faragher MLC
Minister for the Environment; Youth
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: LIB
Ministerial Office :
10th Floor, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
WEST PERTH WA WA 6005
Ph: (08) 9213 7250
Fax: (08) 9213 7255
Email: Minister.Faragher@dpc.wa.gov.au
Hon. Ljiljanna Maria Ravlich MLC
Shadow Minister for Commerce and Small Business; Government Accountability; Tourism; Training
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: ALP
Electorate Office:
Unit 3, 263 Walter Road
Morley WA 6062
Ph: (08) 9275 7000
Fax: (08) 9275 7333
Email: melanie.archer@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Linda Rosemary Savage MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: ALP
Electorate Office:
Unit 1, 398 Great Eastern Highway
ASCOT W.A. WA 6104
Ph: (08) 9477 3855
Fax: (08) 9477 4099
Email: linda.savage@mp.wa.gov.au
Hon. Alison Marie Xamon MLC
Electorate: East Metropolitan Region
Party: GWA
Electorate Office:
62 Eighth Avenue
MAYLANDS WA WA 6051
PO Box 104
MAYLANDS WA 6931
(Please direct all mail to the above postal address)
Ph: (08) 9272 1718
Fax: (08) 9272 1719
Email: alison.xamon@mp.wa.gov.au
Dear Sirs
Please find my letter to the State Ombudman of Western Australia . I believe there is a simple solution to my problem if the Government of Western Australia were to cut the Gordian knot, which our justice system would not want to ROCK THE BOAT ABOUT in terms of the following:
a) The existence of the Pseudo Board of the regulator of the legal Profession in WA which has no justifications to usurp the proper and statutory functions of the Board to protect its cronies.
b) The failure of Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV 1903 of 2008 to acknowledge that Mr. Timothy Robin Thies who is guilty of professional misconduct by plundering and pillaging his former clients with a ZERO SUM FALSE DEBT CLAIM which is admitted to by that legal practitioner himself in his evidence filed before the Court on 6.10.2010.
c) The falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by David Taylor Solicitor resulting in false costs orders by Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008 to Mr. Maurice Frederick Law and Mr. Nicholas N Chin thus denying the latter his entitlement to his costs for solicitor work done in CIV1142 of 2006.
Below is the contents of my letter to the State Ombudsman dated 9.7.2010 in the following terms:
Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms[1]:
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[2].
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes:
[1] For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
[1] Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 9275 7440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin1@gmail.com
________________________________________
ORAL SUBMISSIONS BEFORE JUSTICE LEMIERE IN CIV1604 OF 2010 ON 29.6.2010 AT 10.30 AM
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
1604 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANEY J, AND HEENAN J
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
LE MIERE J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON TUESDAY, 29 JUNE 2010, AT 10.29 AM
The applicant appeared in person.
29/6/10 1
(s&c)
LE MIERE J: ..........present yourself.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: Yes, very well. All right. This is your application this morning.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: What do you want to say in support of it?
CHIN, MR: Sir, the only issue that come before this honourable court is that I have been denied to practise law independently on my own account because the regulator of the legal profession in WA has been usurped by a pseudo board which did not have its powers to impose the necessary conditions to limit my independent legal practice, sir.
I have undergone tremendous difficulties in getting myself to be free from the unconscionable curb on my independent legal practice because, sir, there are many, many people of Western Australia that have been pillaged and plundered by erring lawyers without any relief. I am fighting this case, sir
LE MIERE J: None of those issues are before me this morning, are they?
CHIN, MR: There is only
LE MIERE J: The application you seek this morning is
CHIN, MR: Sir, my case is complicated by myriad complications of false allegations being made against me and there are currently other actions that I'm taking against those people who have made false allegations against me. And I know that Dr Chen has been receiving relief from the Crime Corruption Commission at the moment as a result of my effort.
LE MIERE J: Again, Mr Chin, none of that is before me this morning. Your application before me is for a writ of mandamus
CHIN, MR: Yes.
LE MIERE J: - - - initially an order nisi for a writ of mandamus
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: - - - against Heenan J and against Chaney J, as president of the State Administrative Tribunal, in respect of the decision made by Heenan J in CIV 1019 of 2010 and the decisions of the State Administrative Tribunal
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 2
in VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009.
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. There is only the two prong mandamus orders nisi that I'm seeking from this honourable court, the first one against his Honour Heenan J. With due respect to him, I believe that Heenan J had given deficient reasons for his decision made on 21 April because his extempore decision on 21 April was based on wrong premises and that his decision - written one that has been published on 30 April is not the correct decision.
LE MIERE J: No. Well, you've challenged all that by appealing from his decision, haven't you?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. The appeal is
LE MIERE J: What's happened to that appeal?
CHIN, MR: The appeal is only on the question of merit, sir, and the appeal has been put in abeyance pending my application for mandamus orders. If my mandamus orders is successful, then the appeal will be set aside.
I have, sir, been unable to appeal against the decision of the SAT decision because I - under the constraints of the SAT Act, I have to make an application for leave to appeal first to the Court of Appeal, and I did that, but due to my oversight I did not cite the very fact that the - Chaney J's credibility was the crux of the issue.
LE MIERE J: Mm.
CHIN, MR: Chaney J did not decide on the live issue of the pseudo board. This issue of - the live issue of the pseudo board was never decided, and this matter went to the Court of Appeal without deciding this live issue and it went to the High Court without deciding this live issue. Therefore, the live issue of the pseudo board is never res judicata and is before the court now, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: Right.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, it is in a matter public interest that I am fighting this case. I am a retired teacher and I wanted to be in the legal profession, because at a very young age I wanted to be a lawyer. And when I came to Western Australia, I was faced with tremendous difficulties of even getting a position as a permanent teacher, although I was on the top of the scale as a schoolteacher.
And I have to go through tremendous difficulties. There was a lot of racism against me that - and this - evidence of this has been in the papers and this well recorded in my article, Right to Work, which is at the web
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 3
site of the Unity Party WA.
I am a victim of racism, your Honour. I am very sorry to say this, but it happened to me. I am a victim of injustice, and being a victim of injustice does not go away. It just keeps coming and coming. Whenever I get into a position, they just want to put me off. They just want to put me off, because they won't allow me to work. They won't allow me to raise my head and be a respected member of this society.
Your Honour, I coming to Australia to escape from that positive racism that is prevailing in Malaysia against ethnic Chinese - against the ethnic Chinese community - and I hope that racism in Malaysia will one day go away.
But I coming to this country knowing that Australia is upholding its democratic ideals, but in the practical sense it just not happen, your Honour, perhaps because - it happens to me perhaps. Why did it happen to other people, your Honour? Perhaps because I'm a very outspoken person and I am aware of my rights all the time, because since a very young age I have been fighting all injustice and I've been standing up and I have that proclivity to stand up for my rights and this perhaps has got people on the offside against me, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: All right. Is there anything else you wanted to say?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I need to help people who are not only ethnic Chinese, who are ethnic Italians, who are ethnic white people of British and Welsh descent and of Scottish descents who, by virtue of their being unknowledgeable in the law, by virtue of them being disadvantaged in society, by virtue of them being incapable of understanding the law to the full capacity, they have been victims of raiding, pillaging and plundering by people who are well knowledge in the law.
This is a public interest, your Honour. This is public interest that we, as citizens of Australia, must seek to upright. This is something that we're aiming for a truly democratic society in Western Australia. I'm not only fighting for myself; it is for those poor people who have been made victims.
If there is anything that I've said here, your Honour, that you think it is not the truth, I am prepared to prove them to you, your Honour. I am never utter a single word of lie. I never said anything that is without proof. I never make a false allegations against a fellow practitioner. This I will never do and I will prove to the hilt that I am not the kind of person who makes false allegations and that there is a false accusation
against me that I am deficient in my professional
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 4
knowledge. This cannot happen. This is an unreasonable and a fallacious accusation, which I can always stand up for.
I am well trained. I have gone through all the processes of training that is required of me. I am well equipped to be a lawyer, and I don't want to be under the supervision of another lawyer who will control me and stop me from giving justice to ordinary people.
I mean, there is a system of friends protecting their friends. This is only natural. Everyone wants to protect their friends, but there must be a limit to this kind of protection that is afforded to their friend, because the public interest is greater than the interests of the personal friend.
LE MIERE J: Thank you.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, your Honour.
(Judgment delivered)
LE MIERE J: Accordingly, Mr Chin, the order I make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. I don't think there's anything else that arises from that, is there? Is there anything arising from that order?
CHIN, MR: Say again, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: The order that I'm going to make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. Is there anything you want to say about the form of that order?
I understand you don't agree that the application should be dismissed, but I've given you my reasons for dismissing it. I now come to the question of the formal order that I should make. The formal order that I intend to make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. Is there anything you want to say about the form of that order?
CHIN, MR: There is one thing I do not really understand, your Honour. There is only one issue. That is, the pseudo board did not have the majority consent of the Legal Practice - of the regulator. There are 52 members in the regulator. Only four person (indistinct) that order and that order was admitted by the whole board. That did not receive the majority consent. The majority consent must be in the form of the minutes. They are the statutory provisions governing the Legal Practice Board.
Now, all I want is that the regulator has made a void
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 5
decision against me. All I want, your Honour, is please let me practise independently.
LE MIERE J: Thank you. I have given my reasons. It's not appropriate that I should add to them. If you wish, you may apply for a copy of the transcript so that you may read and study them at your leisure.
CHIN, MR: Your reason, your Honour
LE MIERE J: Very well. That's
CHIN, MR: Please may I say it again? Your reason - your Honour say that the issue of pseudo board is not before your Honour. Your Honour has not decided on this issue. Your Honour has not made a legal determination on the exact prayer that I asked for.
Why the Legal Practice - why the pseudo board, without the majority consent, can make that order. Why is this court refusing to nullify that order that has been made without majority consent? That is a void order. That is a void order. Why is this court and the previous court and all the courts have not questioned the credibility of Chaney J, who is the trial judge in this matter? The trial judge did not pronounce on the very issue I am before this court.
The very issue I am before the court is for this court to make the legal determination so that it will never be - it will be a res judicata, will bar me from ever harping on this issue again. That is, this issue is before this court and this court is refusing to make this determination.
This court, your Honour, with due respect, your Honour, is refusing me justice. I want justice. I want the answer to be given to me why the Legal Practice Board without the majority consent is able to impose a condition on me? Why this court is not pronouncing that is a void order against me? It is curbing my independent legal practice unconscionably and unlawfully.
This is the very issue that I want determined. I've been to the High Court. I've been to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal stopped me from getting leave. The issue has never been litigated. I come before this court for this issue to be litigated. I don't want to have - I don't want to cast aspersions on the character of any judges that I've come before before. I'm not interested in making any false allegations against any judges. I only want this issue to be determined.
Your Honour, I quote the common law. The common law is that, before your Honour makes the order, I object to it immediately. And if I object to it immediately,
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 6
your Honour yourself have to make the decision in the Collova case. In the Collova case your Honour say that if there is an immediate objection to the order which you are going to make and which has not become law, which has not been written up, which has not been pronounced yet, then I have made that objection and your Honour is there to review it. Your Honour must review it, your Honour.
With due respect to you, your Honour must review this objection I am making. This is the only objection, the only point I am objecting, the only point - I can't stop emphasising this point. The only issue that is before this court is that there is never any legal authority or any lawful authority made by the four members of the pseudo board to curb my independent practice unconscionably without the majority consent of the board.
This is statute law. The statute law governs the authority of the Legal Practice Board. No one can - no one, no four person, can just say, "We get together. We have a meeting. We stop this person from being a lawyer, because he's annoying our friends. We don't want him. We want to castigate him, get him off. So we, the four people - we want to do that." But these four people must produce the minute. The minute must be authorised by the majority consent of the 52 members. And first time I ask, "Where is your minute?" they're not able to produce it. Second time my lawyer ask - my barrister ask, "Where is your minute?" they're not able to produce it. Third time we ask, "Where is your minute?" they still not able to produce it.
Your Honour, I have objected to this point repeatedly and I object to it right in your presence immediately, and your Honour has the legal obligation, which is the law which your Honour made. This is the common law principle which your Honour yourself make in the Collova case. The Collova case says that, if I objected to it, you have the right to review it, and your Honour must review it.
I pray, your Honour, that your Honour review it. I kneel down and pray that your Honour review this, because it affects me. It affects my life. It affects me as a human person. It affects me on how I live and how I die. I want to be a member of the legal profession. I want to help people. I have got a noble objective in life. I don't want to see injustice. Your Honour is there to see that injustice is not done. And, your Honour, if you make that order, your Honour is going to allow injustice to happen, and it never happen.
Let it be a lesson that, no matter how great a person is, if you have done wrong you have to face the consequences of that wrong. Your Honour, we're all friends. I have got a lot of friend. I am here to protect all my friends. But if my friend does something wrong to this innocent man, why, your Honour, do your Honour have to
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 7
protect these people?
There is no justification to protect this people, your Honour, because it is my life. I work hard for it. If you do not allow me independent practice, I can never practise again. I can never be an independent lawyer. Wherever I go in the world I can never practise law.
LE MIERE J: You've made that point, Mr Chin.
CHIN, MR: Right. Your Honour, I have no professional misconduct. If I have no professional misconduct, why do you stop me? Now, other lawyers have been stopped because they have professional misconduct, but I never commit a professional misconduct. Why are they stopping me? This is the only thing I'm asking from you, your Honour, in the name of God, in the name of justice.
LE MIERE J: All right.
CHIN, MR: Justice must be seen to be done.
LE MIERE J: Yes, all right. Thank you. I've heard what you had to say, Mr Chin. The order that I make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. The court will now adjourn.
AT 11.05 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 8
_____
THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1604 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANEY J, AND HEENAN J
ex parte
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
LE MIERE J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON TUESDAY, 29 JUNE 2010, AT 10.29 AM
The applicant appeared in person.
29/6/10 1
(s&c)
LE MIERE J: ..........present yourself.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: Yes, very well. All right. This is your application this morning.
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: What do you want to say in support of it?
CHIN, MR: Sir, the only issue that come before this honourable court is that I have been denied to practise law independently on my own account because the regulator of the legal profession in WA has been usurped by a pseudo board which did not have its powers to impose the necessary conditions to limit my independent legal practice, sir.
I have undergone tremendous difficulties in getting myself to be free from the unconscionable curb on my independent legal practice because, sir, there are many, many people of Western Australia that have been pillaged and plundered by erring lawyers without any relief. I am fighting this case, sir
LE MIERE J: None of those issues are before me this morning, are they?
CHIN, MR: There is only
LE MIERE J: The application you seek this morning is
CHIN, MR: Sir, my case is complicated by myriad complications of false allegations being made against me and there are currently other actions that I'm taking against those people who have made false allegations against me. And I know that Dr Chen has been receiving relief from the Crime Corruption Commission at the moment as a result of my effort.
LE MIERE J: Again, Mr Chin, none of that is before me this morning. Your application before me is for a writ of mandamus
CHIN, MR: Yes.
LE MIERE J: - - - initially an order nisi for a writ of mandamus
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir.
LE MIERE J: - - - against Heenan J and against Chaney J, as president of the State Administrative Tribunal, in respect of the decision made by Heenan J in CIV 1019 of 2010 and the decisions of the State Administrative Tribunal
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 2
in VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009.
CHIN, MR: It is correct, sir. There is only the two prong mandamus orders nisi that I'm seeking from this honourable court, the first one against his Honour Heenan J. With due respect to him, I believe that Heenan J had given deficient reasons for his decision made on 21 April because his extempore decision on 21 April was based on wrong premises and that his decision - written one that has been published on 30 April is not the correct decision.
LE MIERE J: No. Well, you've challenged all that by appealing from his decision, haven't you?
CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. The appeal is
LE MIERE J: What's happened to that appeal?
CHIN, MR: The appeal is only on the question of merit, sir, and the appeal has been put in abeyance pending my application for mandamus orders. If my mandamus orders is successful, then the appeal will be set aside.
I have, sir, been unable to appeal against the decision of the SAT decision because I - under the constraints of the SAT Act, I have to make an application for leave to appeal first to the Court of Appeal, and I did that, but due to my oversight I did not cite the very fact that the - Chaney J's credibility was the crux of the issue.
LE MIERE J: Mm.
CHIN, MR: Chaney J did not decide on the live issue of the pseudo board. This issue of - the live issue of the pseudo board was never decided, and this matter went to the Court of Appeal without deciding this live issue and it went to the High Court without deciding this live issue. Therefore, the live issue of the pseudo board is never res judicata and is before the court now, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: Right.
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, it is in a matter public interest that I am fighting this case. I am a retired teacher and I wanted to be in the legal profession, because at a very young age I wanted to be a lawyer. And when I came to Western Australia, I was faced with tremendous difficulties of even getting a position as a permanent teacher, although I was on the top of the scale as a schoolteacher.
And I have to go through tremendous difficulties. There was a lot of racism against me that - and this - evidence of this has been in the papers and this well recorded in my article, Right to Work, which is at the web
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 3
site of the Unity Party WA.
I am a victim of racism, your Honour. I am very sorry to say this, but it happened to me. I am a victim of injustice, and being a victim of injustice does not go away. It just keeps coming and coming. Whenever I get into a position, they just want to put me off. They just want to put me off, because they won't allow me to work. They won't allow me to raise my head and be a respected member of this society.
Your Honour, I coming to Australia to escape from that positive racism that is prevailing in Malaysia against ethnic Chinese - against the ethnic Chinese community - and I hope that racism in Malaysia will one day go away.
But I coming to this country knowing that Australia is upholding its democratic ideals, but in the practical sense it just not happen, your Honour, perhaps because - it happens to me perhaps. Why did it happen to other people, your Honour? Perhaps because I'm a very outspoken person and I am aware of my rights all the time, because since a very young age I have been fighting all injustice and I've been standing up and I have that proclivity to stand up for my rights and this perhaps has got people on the offside against me, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: All right. Is there anything else you wanted to say?
CHIN, MR: Your Honour, I need to help people who are not only ethnic Chinese, who are ethnic Italians, who are ethnic white people of British and Welsh descent and of Scottish descents who, by virtue of their being unknowledgeable in the law, by virtue of them being disadvantaged in society, by virtue of them being incapable of understanding the law to the full capacity, they have been victims of raiding, pillaging and plundering by people who are well knowledge in the law.
This is a public interest, your Honour. This is public interest that we, as citizens of Australia, must seek to upright. This is something that we're aiming for a truly democratic society in Western Australia. I'm not only fighting for myself; it is for those poor people who have been made victims.
If there is anything that I've said here, your Honour, that you think it is not the truth, I am prepared to prove them to you, your Honour. I am never utter a single word of lie. I never said anything that is without proof. I never make a false allegations against a fellow practitioner. This I will never do and I will prove to the hilt that I am not the kind of person who makes false allegations and that there is a false accusation
against me that I am deficient in my professional
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 4
knowledge. This cannot happen. This is an unreasonable and a fallacious accusation, which I can always stand up for.
I am well trained. I have gone through all the processes of training that is required of me. I am well equipped to be a lawyer, and I don't want to be under the supervision of another lawyer who will control me and stop me from giving justice to ordinary people.
I mean, there is a system of friends protecting their friends. This is only natural. Everyone wants to protect their friends, but there must be a limit to this kind of protection that is afforded to their friend, because the public interest is greater than the interests of the personal friend.
LE MIERE J: Thank you.
CHIN, MR: Thank you very much, your Honour.
(Judgment delivered)
LE MIERE J: Accordingly, Mr Chin, the order I make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. I don't think there's anything else that arises from that, is there? Is there anything arising from that order?
CHIN, MR: Say again, your Honour.
LE MIERE J: The order that I'm going to make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. Is there anything you want to say about the form of that order?
I understand you don't agree that the application should be dismissed, but I've given you my reasons for dismissing it. I now come to the question of the formal order that I should make. The formal order that I intend to make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. Is there anything you want to say about the form of that order?
CHIN, MR: There is one thing I do not really understand, your Honour. There is only one issue. That is, the pseudo board did not have the majority consent of the Legal Practice - of the regulator. There are 52 members in the regulator. Only four person (indistinct) that order and that order was admitted by the whole board. That did not receive the majority consent. The majority consent must be in the form of the minutes. They are the statutory provisions governing the Legal Practice Board.
Now, all I want is that the regulator has made a void
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 5
decision against me. All I want, your Honour, is please let me practise independently.
LE MIERE J: Thank you. I have given my reasons. It's not appropriate that I should add to them. If you wish, you may apply for a copy of the transcript so that you may read and study them at your leisure.
CHIN, MR: Your reason, your Honour
LE MIERE J: Very well. That's
CHIN, MR: Please may I say it again? Your reason - your Honour say that the issue of pseudo board is not before your Honour. Your Honour has not decided on this issue. Your Honour has not made a legal determination on the exact prayer that I asked for.
Why the Legal Practice - why the pseudo board, without the majority consent, can make that order. Why is this court refusing to nullify that order that has been made without majority consent? That is a void order. That is a void order. Why is this court and the previous court and all the courts have not questioned the credibility of Chaney J, who is the trial judge in this matter? The trial judge did not pronounce on the very issue I am before this court.
The very issue I am before the court is for this court to make the legal determination so that it will never be - it will be a res judicata, will bar me from ever harping on this issue again. That is, this issue is before this court and this court is refusing to make this determination.
This court, your Honour, with due respect, your Honour, is refusing me justice. I want justice. I want the answer to be given to me why the Legal Practice Board without the majority consent is able to impose a condition on me? Why this court is not pronouncing that is a void order against me? It is curbing my independent legal practice unconscionably and unlawfully.
This is the very issue that I want determined. I've been to the High Court. I've been to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal stopped me from getting leave. The issue has never been litigated. I come before this court for this issue to be litigated. I don't want to have - I don't want to cast aspersions on the character of any judges that I've come before before. I'm not interested in making any false allegations against any judges. I only want this issue to be determined.
Your Honour, I quote the common law. The common law is that, before your Honour makes the order, I object to it immediately. And if I object to it immediately,
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 6
your Honour yourself have to make the decision in the Collova case. In the Collova case your Honour say that if there is an immediate objection to the order which you are going to make and which has not become law, which has not been written up, which has not been pronounced yet, then I have made that objection and your Honour is there to review it. Your Honour must review it, your Honour.
With due respect to you, your Honour must review this objection I am making. This is the only objection, the only point I am objecting, the only point - I can't stop emphasising this point. The only issue that is before this court is that there is never any legal authority or any lawful authority made by the four members of the pseudo board to curb my independent practice unconscionably without the majority consent of the board.
This is statute law. The statute law governs the authority of the Legal Practice Board. No one can - no one, no four person, can just say, "We get together. We have a meeting. We stop this person from being a lawyer, because he's annoying our friends. We don't want him. We want to castigate him, get him off. So we, the four people - we want to do that." But these four people must produce the minute. The minute must be authorised by the majority consent of the 52 members. And first time I ask, "Where is your minute?" they're not able to produce it. Second time my lawyer ask - my barrister ask, "Where is your minute?" they're not able to produce it. Third time we ask, "Where is your minute?" they still not able to produce it.
Your Honour, I have objected to this point repeatedly and I object to it right in your presence immediately, and your Honour has the legal obligation, which is the law which your Honour made. This is the common law principle which your Honour yourself make in the Collova case. The Collova case says that, if I objected to it, you have the right to review it, and your Honour must review it.
I pray, your Honour, that your Honour review it. I kneel down and pray that your Honour review this, because it affects me. It affects my life. It affects me as a human person. It affects me on how I live and how I die. I want to be a member of the legal profession. I want to help people. I have got a noble objective in life. I don't want to see injustice. Your Honour is there to see that injustice is not done. And, your Honour, if you make that order, your Honour is going to allow injustice to happen, and it never happen.
Let it be a lesson that, no matter how great a person is, if you have done wrong you have to face the consequences of that wrong. Your Honour, we're all friends. I have got a lot of friend. I am here to protect all my friends. But if my friend does something wrong to this innocent man, why, your Honour, do your Honour have to
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 7
protect these people?
There is no justification to protect this people, your Honour, because it is my life. I work hard for it. If you do not allow me independent practice, I can never practise again. I can never be an independent lawyer. Wherever I go in the world I can never practise law.
LE MIERE J: You've made that point, Mr Chin.
CHIN, MR: Right. Your Honour, I have no professional misconduct. If I have no professional misconduct, why do you stop me? Now, other lawyers have been stopped because they have professional misconduct, but I never commit a professional misconduct. Why are they stopping me? This is the only thing I'm asking from you, your Honour, in the name of God, in the name of justice.
LE MIERE J: All right.
CHIN, MR: Justice must be seen to be done.
LE MIERE J: Yes, all right. Thank you. I've heard what you had to say, Mr Chin. The order that I make is that the application by notice of originating motion dated 29 April 2010 and filed 3 May 2010 is dismissed. The court will now adjourn.
AT 11.05 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY
29/6/10 CHIN, MR 8
LETTER TO STATE OMBUDSMAN REQUESTING IT TO INVESTIGATE THE GORDIAN KNOT: PSEUDO BOARD, ZERO SUM DEBT PLUNDER AND FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORDS
Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms :
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes to United States Conventions Against Torture:
For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution
Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms :
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes to United States Conventions Against Torture:
For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)