The Commissioner,
The Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC.
Corruption and Crime Commission
Postal Address: PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Street Address: 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA
Phone: (08) 9215 4888 Tollfree: 1800 809 000 Fax: (08) 9215 4884
Email: info@ccc.wa.gov.au
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, THE PRESIDENT OF SAT JUSTICE CHANEY AND REGISTRAR DAVID POWELL
I refer to my telephone conversation with your Mr. Robinson when I found out that I had been misled into believing that my complaints lodged with Mr. Robert Hellier has always been acted upon by him.
1. I have not received any information from Mr. Hellier to the effect that my complaint against Justice Chaney has been closed. I want this Complaint to be revived and wish that you give me a full explanation as to why this particular complaint is not being addressed by the Commission. The dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009 given on 10.3.2010 rests on the credibility of Justice Chaney being unimpeached. Justice Chaney’s refusal to make a determination of the live issue of the illegality of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board impinges on his credibility as the trial judge in VR 107 of 2008. This live issue therefore has never been decided by the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and therefore this live issue is never a res judicata issue and I could take it up again in any forum. I have taken up this live issue in CIV 1019 of 2010 with a two pronged attack on the credibility of the Justice Chaney to review and quash both his decisions in the two judgments of VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009. In the latter judgment, Justice Chaney is clearly seen to be conspiring with the LPCC to persecute me for the further remedy on all those res judicata issues of facts and law that had already been decided in the various forums and that he knew that he could not do so in accordance with the law acting hand in hand with the LPCC and he still insists in doing so.
2. I do not agree that my complaint against Registrar Powell for conspiracy with Mr. David Taylor to commit a crime of the falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 should await the final outcome of my Application for Special Leave in the High Court in P1 of 2010. It is very clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Chin v Hall in CACV 107 of 2008 at paragraphs 54 and 55 that the evidence provided by Registrar Powell shows that he unsuccessfully tried to cover up the falsified records. Those records marked DGT 13 and 14 as annexed to the Affidavit of Mr. David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 show that there was never a deposit of the court fees of either $654.00 or $654.20 for the Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 but only on 16.2.2006 as the falsified documents themselves tell a lie about themselves. There is never a need or dependence of the Commission for a decision of the High Court in P1 of 2010 to explain this wrong. Therefore, to await its decision is an error of Mr. Roger Hellier in the exercise of his discretion, which should be corrected by the Commission.
3. The live issue of the Pseudo Board has always been admitted to by the Legal Practice Board in all its dealings with me and had even resulted in its willingness to submit itself to a consent judgment before the learned Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007. This live issue is a reality but it has always been avoided by the Justice Chaney and there is up to date no legal determination based on this live issue. This live issue is therefore never res judicata and is an issue before the learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 which is an Ex parte Application made by me for the purpose of Certiorari Orders to quash both the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney. On 20.4.2010, Justice Heenan received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board and this made him to make a turnabout decision just as it had probably happened to Justice Chaney in the past. On two occasions, both Justice Chaney and Justice Heenan issued orders that were supposed to be complied with by the LPCC but it turned out that the LPCC did not wish to carry out its investigative authority to do the right thing but is always subject to the becks and calls of the Pseudo Board. The Pseudo Board is very powerful and is bent on continuing to do the wrong thing so much so that Justice Heenan unjustifiably erred in his judgment which is the subject of appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 for which I have requested the Real Board to interfere by righting the injustice by way of Review, which is its bounden duty to do so.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mr. Robinson for promising me to look into this matter on the coming Tuesday so that my Complaint on the three issues shall be investigated by the Commission with utmost good faith. It is in the public interest that the Commission should be looking into these issues so that innocent members of the public shall not continue to be robbed, pillaged and plundered again and again by erring members of the legal profession and for whose protection, the Pseudo Board had been sanctioning me for no rhyme and reason. Examples in point are Dr. Kheng Su Chan, Mr. Alessandro Bertini etc. I express my wish that justice must be seen to be done and it is within the powers of the Commission to ensure that our legal system is enabled to provide me this fair justice that I am asking for and nothing more. I have no evil intention to hurt anyone.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
No comments:
Post a Comment