APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS ORDERS: IF I CANNOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS THEN I JUST GIVE UP AND RETIRE

O. 54, R. 5 No. 64
THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV NO:……. OF 2010
HELD AT PERTH
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel the President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) as the judge in the Applicant’s Application in VR107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) who refused to make the finding that the Pseudo Full Board exist by its very own admissive conduct and is found to be usurping the lawful functions of the real regulator of the Legal Profession in WA without the legal authority of the majority consent of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, to perform his duties as a judicial officer in good faith and in accordance with his Oath of Office.

And
In the matter of an application for Mandamus Orders to compel Justice EM Heenan in the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 to review and quash the First Judgment and the Second Judgment of Justice Chaney; the latter being his ambushed res judicata judgment delivered on 4.11.2010 in VR 87of 2009 for the common law-debarred Further Remedy of a Non-Existent Professional Misconduct; both the judges, to respond to their duties in the public interests in accordance with their respective Oath of Office as Justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

EX PARTE: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of document: 29th April, 2010
Date of filing: 29th January, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Ex parte Applicant
Prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Phone: 08 92757440;
387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA Mobile: 0421642735
WA 6059
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin09@tpg.com.au


NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION


TAKE notice that the Supreme Court will be moved at [Perth] on day the day of 2010 at the hour of in the noon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, by counsel on behalf of A.B. for an order that:
A Writ of Mandamus be issued jointly, to compel the following justices to do their duties in accordance with the Oath of Office, in the following terms:
1) The President of the State Administrative Tribunal, Justice John Chaney (the President) to order Legal Profession Complaints Committee to stay the proceedings in VR87 of 2009 as it is commenced without jurisdiction (the res judicata prosecution);
2) The res judicata prosecution is based on the same issues of facts and law that have already been litigated by the various fora and it is therefore debarred by the common-law principle of “non-accessibility to further remedies” of the absent professional misconduct allegations (the common law barred “further remedy”);
2) The President to make a judicial determination of the issue that the Pseudo
Full Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia exists by virtue of its own admissive conduct (the existence of the Pseudo Board);
3) The existence of the Pseudo Board is created for the purpose of usurping the lawful authority of the real regulator of the legal profession in Western Australia for the clandestine agenda to protect some cronies who are found to be pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public thus causing a detriment to the public interests.
4) The Pseudo Board caused the Legal Practice Board of Western to act in bad faith to the Applicant by seeking to unreasonably curb his independent law practice for no professional misconduct nor deficiency in his professional knowledge.
4) The Honourable Justice Heenan of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to provide a copy of his extempore judgment (draft judgment) to the Applicant to show that he had wrongfully dismissed the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 (the Certiorari Orders Application).
5) Justice Heenan not to dismiss the Certiorari Orders Application which he did, without giving reasons as to why his Orders delivered on 21.4.2010 were not based on the First Judgment in VR 107 of 2008 of the President but rather on the two judgments of the President in VR 87 of 2009.
6) Justice Heenan to give reasons as to why he made an about turn decision contrary to his Orders issued by him on 6.4.2010 (requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to answer to the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders) after he had had telephone contact with the Legal Practice Board on the day prior to that decision and he had not given any reason for this about turn decision;
7) Another Justice be appointed specifically to consider the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders in the light of the errors of His Honour Justice Heenan for the purpose of avoiding a member of the judiciary from being compromised by the Pseudo Board;
8) The Legal Practice Board to provide an answer to this Honourable Court as to why it had hitherto allowed the Pseudo Board to usurp its legal functions as the regulator of the legal profession of Western Australia, especially so with regard to the unreasonable curbing of the independent legal practice of the Applicant who is not implicated in any professional misconduct.
or, for the following relief, namely:
1). Stay the malicious persecution of the LPCC acting at the behest of the Pseudo Full Board against the Applicant in VR 87 of 2009 pending the proper determination of CIV 1019 of 2010 or any other relief emanating from this Mandamus Orders Application.
2). The Judgment and consequent Orders of Justice EM Heenan in dismissing the Certiorari Orders Nisi Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 as reflected in his draft
Judgment and his future published judgment be reviewed by another Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
3) The Legal Practice Board and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee acting at the behest of the improperly constituted Pseudo Board without the legal authority of the majority consent of the real regulator of the legal profession in WA be and desist from further perverting the course of justice with impunity.
4) A Declaration by this Honourable Court that the Pseudo Full Board is not acting in good faith and had been abusing its powers to persecute the Applicant maliciously for the secret agenda by implicating him in non-existent common-law debarred FURTHER REMEDY of professional misconduct for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are responsible for abusing their powers as legal professionals by pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for the purpose of advancing their own private interests and thereby undermining the public interests.
5) The Applicant be put into the same position as he was before he was maliciously persecuted by the Pseudo Full Board from the 12.9.2006 till today by the award of general for pain and suffering and the damage to his reputation as a result of being defamed and of special damages specially related to his loss of income as an independent barrister and solicitor; and that:
6) the costs of and incidental to this [application] may be paid by the respondent.

And further take notice that the grounds of this [application] are:

1. Justice EM Heenan’s dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for Certiorari Orders Nisi in CIV 1019 of 2010 on 21.4.2010 is based upon altogether different premises that were never within the contemplation of both the judge and the Applicant, resulting in a travesty of justice that runs counter to the notion that justice must be palpably seen to be done (the ex-tempore judgment).
2. Justice Heenan made an about-turn decision by reneging on his earlier Orders requiring the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to respond to the Applicant’s Complaint which resulted in the compromise of his judicial independence (the Heenan compromise).
3. The compromise takes after the similarly mirrored Justice John Chaney’s about-turn decision in VR87 of 2009 by abandoning his own orders without giving any reasons in the earlier proceedings at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) where the Applicant is being persecuted for the common-law debarred claim of further remedy of fictitious professional misconduct irrationally based on res judicata issues of facts and law (the Chaney compromise).
4. Both the Heenan compromise and the Chaney compromise are unaccompanied by explanations and reasons and are inexplicable deviations of judicial conduct expected of public officers who are judicial officers, duly appointed by the Government of Western Australia.
5. The Chaney compromise probably arose out of the Pseudo Full Board criminally perverting the course of justice by its secret communication with that judicial officer; the similar indiscretion perpetrated on the Heenan compromise was disclosed by Justice Heenan on 21.4.2010 to the Applicant resulting in the Applicant having written to the Legal Practice Board to that effect in his letter dated 22.4.2010 for which no answers are forthcoming as occurred on many other occasions.
6. The sources of both the compromise(s) which are travesties of justice, are caused by the Pseudo Board, the existence of which has always been admitted by the regulator of the legal profession; it is palpably seen to be attempting to put the Applicant to “rest” as an officer of the Court and to stop him from doing justice to the public in the public interests on the ground of a secret agenda of the Pseudo Full Board by hood-winking members of the public (the secret agenda).
7. The High Court decision in P36 of 2009 (dismissing the Applicant’s Application for Special Leave to Appeal the First Judgment through the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 105 of 2008) impinges on the trial judge Justice Chaney’s credibility; this is not an estoppel for the re-litigation of the live issue with regard to the existence of the Pseudo Full Board in any fora on the ground of res judicata, including this one. This means that High Court decision is not a bar to these current proceedings.
8. The secret agenda is its constant and continuous usurpation of the real powers of the official regulator of the legal profession of WA for the purpose of protecting their cronies who are erring lawyers and who are constantly pillaging and plundering innocent members of the public for advancing their own interests, and as such, they are not acting in the public interests. Many cases of innocent people being plundered, both decided and undecided, is already before this Honourable Court, which has a duty to ensure that Western Australia has a viable justice system.
9. The ex-tempore judgment or draft judgment of Justice Heenan is result of the Applicant’s Application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of WA for prerogative Orders to quash and review the two decisions of the Justice Chaney in SAT (the draft judgment).
10. The draft judgment made references to the two judgments of the Justice Chaney in VR 87 of 2009 dated 4.11.2009 (the first res judicata judgment also referred to as the Second Judgment by the Applicant) and another judgment of Justice Chaney delivered on 10.11.2009 (the second res judicata judgment); Justice Heenan erroneously label them as the First and Second Judgment in his draft judgment.
11. The Applicant made it very clear to Justice Heenan in his said Application that the First and Second Judgments sought to be reviewed and quashed by the Supreme Court are the decisions of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 (the First Judgment) and the first res judicata judgment in VR 87 of 2009 (the Second Judgment) and not as indicated in paragraph 10 above.
12. The draft judgment is a judgment by Justice Heenan that applied the wrong judgments and therefore it is reasonably expected that if the right judgments were applied, Justice Heenan would have achieved a different judgment altogether in CIV: 1019 of 2010 and His Honour might not even have dismissed the Applicant’s Application (the right decision).
13. Injustice is being done to the Applicant on the ground that he has been denied the right decision but Justice Heenan who has since been informed of his error is now trying to correct that injustice by preparing a reasoned judgment that will be published at a later date; this will replace the draft judgment.
14. Consequently, the Applicant had appealed the draft judgment delivered to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 41 of 2010. However, the Applicant is intending now to replace that appeal with this Application for the prerogative Orders of Mandamus instead.
15. The purpose of this Application for Mandamus Orders is to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public resources that will achieve the same ends.

(Signed) by the Court



[Form 64 amended in Gazette 29 Apr 2005 p. 1795; 21 Feb 2007 p. 596.]