SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA NO.: CACV: 41 OF 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
Parties to the NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Appellant
Appeal THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT CHRONOLOGY
Date of document: 27 May, 2010
Date of filing: 27 May, 2010.
Filed on behalf of: The Applicant
Prepared by:
Nicholas N Chin Phone: 08 9275 7440
Barrister & Solicitor Fax: 08 9275 5729
387, Alexander Drive Email: nnchin@msn.com;nnchin09@tpg.com.au
DIANELLA WA 6059 Mobile: 0421642735
INDEX PAGE NUMBERS
APPELLANT ACQUIRED QUALFICATIONS FOR INDPENDENT LEGAL PRACTICE 2
PERSECUTION OF APPELLANT BEGAN WITH MR. PINO MONACO THROUGH A PSEUDO BOARD 3
THE LPCC ACTED AT THE BEHEST OF THE PSEUDO BOARD 4
THE PSEUDO BOARD ACT THROUGH ITS PROTAGANIST AND AGENT MS. F.B. WALTER 5
THE PILLAGING AND PLUNDERING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF MR. TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES 6
APPELLANT’S APPEAL IN CACV 43 OF 2007 SHORTCHANGED BY A CONSENT JUDGMENT THAT WAS MEANT TO BE ONE 7
PSEUDO BOARD ADMITS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LAWFUL DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF THE REAL BOARD AND THEREBY CONSENT TO THE FLAWED CONSENT JUDGMENT 9
SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIMED BY APPELLANT FOR IMPROPER CLOSURE OF HIS INDPENDENT LAW PRACTICE 10
THE INQUIRY PANEL AND ITS RATIFACTION PANEL ARE AGAIN USURPING THE POWERS OF THE REAL BOARD THROUGH THE PSEUDO BOARD REPETITIVELY 12
MR. GRANT DONALDSON SC ADMITTED THAT THE PSEUDO BOARD HAD NO POWER OR WAS USURPING THE POWERS OF THE REAL BOARD 13
COMPOSITION OF THE RATIFICATION PANEL AS A PSEUDO BOARD 14
THE ROOT OR BASIS FOR COMMISSIONER HERRON’S ORDER HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THE VOLUNTARY ADMISSIONS OF THE TWO MAGISTRATES’S JUDGMENT OCCASSIONED BY THE REVIEW ORDER OF JUSTICE HASLUCK– CAN THE BRANCHES AND STEM OF COMMISSIONER HERRON’S TREE STILL REMAIN STANDING? QUESTION POSED BEFORE JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN ON 13.5.2010 IN CIV 1903 OF 2008 14
PERSECUTING MALICE OF LPCC TO PROSECUTE APPELLANT FOR THE COMMON-LAW DEBARRED FURTHER REMEDY OF NON-EXISTENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN VR 87 OF 2009 17
CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY’S RES JUDICATA DECISION IN VR 87 OF 2009 19
CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY RES JUDICATA DECISION IN VR 87 OF 2009 REFILED AS CIV 1019 OF 20010 THAT WAS DISMISSED BY JUSTICE HEENAN ABOUT TURN DECISION 19
APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL IN CACV 41 OF 2010 AGAINST JUSTICE HEENAN DISMISSAL OF CIV 1019 OF 2010 21
RESPONSE LETTER FROM WA PARLIAMENT REGARDING TORTURE OF APPELLANT FOR JUDICARY’S REFUSAL TO LOOK INTO THE LIVE ISSUE OF THE PSEUDO BOARD 22
No. TIME PERIOD EVENTS
APPELLANT ACQUIRED QUALFICATIONS FOR INDPENDENT LEGAL PRACTICE
1. 28.12.2003 The Appellant was admitted by the Supreme Court of Western Australia as a Barrister & Solicitor after having completed the minimum period of 12 months training as an Articled clerk under the supervision of his mentor Mr. V. Ozich a legal practitioner of more than 30 years experience. Prior to his he completed a Bachelor of Economics Degree, a Post Graduate Degree in Business Law and a Bachelor of Laws Degree. He also passed and completed his Articles Training Program Examinations organized by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
2. 7.1.2004 – 7.1.2005 The Appellant completed his employment as a full-time restricted legal practitioner at the legal firm of V. Ozich & Co working under the supervision of his mentor, the said Mr. V. Ozich.
3. 06.1.2005 The Appellant after completion of a 12 month period of supervised legal practice had complied with s. 33(1) of the Legal Practice Act, 2003 (the LPA Act) and therefore qualified for independent legal practice.
4. 14.01.2005 The Appellant wrote to the Respondent Board indicating his intention to a start his own independent legal practice with effect from the 17th day of January, 2005.
5. 17.1.2005 The Appellant started his independent law legal practice under the style of Nicholas N Chin – Barrister & Solicitor, at his home office at No. 2, Seagull Close, BALLAJURA WA 6066.
PERSECUTION OF APPELLANT BEGAN WITH MR. PINO MONACO THROUGH A PSEUDO BOARD
6. 19.01.2005 As a result of helping his former client Dr. Kheng Su Chan die to a perception that she was being plundered and pillaged repeatedly through the legal processes of the courts, Mr. Pino Monaco clandestinely started to exert improper influences on the Professional Affairs Committee of the Legal Practice Board (the PAC) to the detriment of the Appellant. This initiated a series of malicious persecution of the Appellant achieved initially through the “backdoor” of the regulator of the legal profession in WA, instead of the Appellant being prosecuted legitimately through the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. The PAC need to consist only four members to constitute a Full Board of the Respondent but it could not be properly delegated under the s.10 and 11 of the former LP Act as it is acting in bad faith contrary to s.18 of that Act. It is indeed clandestinely usurping the real functions of the Respondent without the written majority consent of the real Board contrary to regulations 15 and 17 of the Legal Practice Board Rules, 2004 (WA) (the Pseudo Board). The Pseudo Board repeatedly rode rough shod over the basic human rights of the Appellant and this issue is being avoided by the learned Justice for legal determination in VR 107 of 2008 and remains a live issue for the current litigation because it has never been barred by previous litigation on the principle of res judicata (the Pseudo Board live Issue). The Court of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 and the High Court in P36 of 2009 consequently could not make a legal determination of the Pseudo Board Live Issue and even the Learned Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 erred by ignoring to make a proper legal determination of it.
7. 07.02.2005 Despite the improper influence of Mr. Pino Monaco on the first Pseudo Board, the Admissions & Registrations Committee of the Respondent approved the Appellant’s application for independent legal practice as in accordance with s. 33(1) of the LPAct as from the 17th day of January, 2005 and regulation 40 of the former LPB Rules.
8. 24.02.2005 Mr. Pino Monaco’s initiation of the interference with the independent law practice of the Appellant through a member of the PAC Ms. F.B.Walter caused the first Pseudo Board of the PAC as the decision maker to be tainted with gross-bias as both Ms. F.H. Walter acted both as decision maker and prosecutor at the same time.
9 26.04.2005 The first Pseudo Board of the PAC through the Secretary of the Respondent Board Ms. Mary Anne Paton forwarded the Monaco Complaint to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (the LPCC).
THE LPCC ACTED AT THE BEHEST OF THE PSEUDO BOARD
10. 07.02.2006 The LPCC acting at the behest of the First Pseudo Board considered four frivolous and vexatious matters:
a) Mr. Tim Thies who pillaged and plundered both myself and my son Paul CK Chin - non-issues of conflict of interests as the interests of myself and my son Paul coincided at all material times but Appellant was framed as having made false allegations against a fellow legal practitioner – the case being currently vindicated in the proceedings in CIV 1903 of 2008 where the Appellant was granted Review orders pursuant to s.36 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 2004 (WA) by Justice Hasluck on 7.11.2008 and is currently being proceeded with a view to finalization through the learned Justice Kenneth Martin.
c) Fitness to Practice – Appellant faulted blamelessly for having inadvertently advertised his professional skills his expertise in an Indian website.
d) Mrs. Mathias undue officiousness caused by the LPCC. Appellant was in the process of learning how to prepare an inchoate will for her whilst he was still in restricted practice when she reneged on her instructions just because she wanted to evade payment of her legal fees for a insurance claim done for her. This resulted in her voluntary efforts to settle the ensuing dispute with the Appellant. However, the LPCC revived her complaint against the Appellant by framing him for a non-existent proposed charge for “dishonesty” under circumstances Mr. Mathias was never defrauded by the Appellant.
e) The Trust Account is again a frame up because it is a non-issue on the ground that Mr. Chang Ming Tang being the director (of a corporate client M & J Metals Pty Ltd) of the Appellant gave explicit instructions to the Appellant that monies collected from a debt settlement by the Appellant on his behalf were not to be deposited into a trust account but were to be transit monies payable immediately to him. These transit monies had been properly accounted for by the Appellant to his client.
11 26.6.2006 The Appellant moved his home office to his new address at No.387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA, WA 6059.
12. 04.07.2006 The Pseudo Board acting through the court like tribunal of the LPCC decided to impose conditions on the Appellant’s practice certificate under s. 40 of the former LP Act based on its perceived and nebulous deficiency of the Appellant’s professional knowledge but was unable to proceed further for the purpose of disciplining the Appellant under s.180 of the SAT Act, unless it were to embarked on a persecution process.
THE PSEUDO BOARD ACT THROUGH ITS PROTAGANIST AND AGENT MS. F.B. WALTER
13. 19.07.2006 Ms. F B Walter’s was indicated by the Minutes to be present at two meetings of the LPCC on the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006. She was also present at the Pseudo Board of the PAC Meeting on the 19th day of July, 2006 when it unreasonably and with persecuting zeal impeded the independent law practice of the Applicant in bad faith and for no rhyme or reason. She acted as prosecutor and decision maker.
14. 12.09.2006 Judge Eckert of the State Administrative Tribunal acceded to the request of Ms. Mary Anne Paton to close down the independent law practice of the Appellant by improperly invoking s.156 of the former LP Act and accepting barrister Peter Quinlan’s suggestion that falsehood and malice is sufficient to deprive the Appellant of his right to independent legal practice.
15. 21.11.2006 The learned Master Sanderson in CIV 2210 of 2006 erred in blocking the appeal of Judge Eckert decision in VR 137 of 2006 caused by a confusion brought about the change in the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules, 2005 which requires an Appeal to be brought to the Court of Appeal instead of the General Division of the Supreme Court. The Appellant could not move his case to the Court of Appeal when he realized his mistake as the Learned Master wanted to hear and dismiss it himself (the blockage of Master Sanderson).
16. 27.11.2006 The blockage of Master Sanderson caused an intimidating costs order on the Appellant which was not enforced by the real Board of the Respondent.
17. 15.12.2006 The LPCC answered the Appellant’s request for information that Ms. FB Walter was the same person, who was present at two meetings of the LPCC dated the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006 when resolutions were carried with regard to the four matters that was the frivolous and vexatious subject of investigation by the LPCC against the Appellant.
18. 22.12.2006 Despite the blockage and intimidation, the Court of Appeal Registrar wrote to Appellant requesting him to apply for extension of time to appeal Judge Eckert’s decision.
19. 04.01.2007 The Appellant filed his Appeal Notice in CACV 1 of 2007 and served it on the Respondent. This action was withdrawn due to then threats of the pending enforcement of the improper costs orders of Master Sanderson.
20. 05.01.2007 The Appellant found the unexplained common denominator – the presence of the Ms. F B Walter at the two meetings of the Pseudo Board of the PAC on 22nd June 2006 and 19th day of July, 2006 and another two meetings of the LPCC on the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006 (See the Appellant’s Affidavit sworn 19th day of March, 2007). Ms. F B Walter coupled as my accuser and judge and her participation resulted in a decision of the Pseudo Board to curb my independent legal practice is therefore tainted with gross bias and therefore null and void.
21. 11.01.2007 Appellant filed his Notice of Discontinuance of CACV 1 of 2007 because he was under threats to pay Master Sanderson’s costs order.
22 17.01.2007 The Appellant was re-assured that our justice system is still working by the Honourable Chief Justice’s letter dated the 11th day of January, 2007.
THE PILLAGING AND PLUNDERING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF MR. TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES
23. 22.01.2007 The Appellant was experiencing tremors as a result of the pillaging and plundering of a fellow legal practitioner against himself and his son Paul CK Chin which finally resulted in his ex-parte application for review orders pursuant to s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004 being granted in CIV 1903 of 2008 by Justice Hasluck. Both their Honours Magistrates Musk and Michelides voluntarily complied upon the advice of the State Solicitor to comply with the Review Orders. The Appellant were then made Plaintiff in the further proceedings with Mr. Thies being made the Defendant and the case is currently being reviewed by the learned Justice Kenneth Martin to bring it to a final conclusion.
24. 07.02.2007 The Pseudo Board acting through the LPCC since the 4.7.2006 was unable to prosecute the Appellant for professional misconduct under s.180 of the former LP Act and did so inform the Appellant by its letter dated 6th day of February, 2007.
25. 26.02.2007 The Appellant saw his general practitioner doctor again and was given a medical certificate from Dr. Geoffrey Shulman concerning his state of nervous shock caused by the marauding and plundering behaviour of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies.
26. 06.03.2007 The Appellant received information from Respondent to the effect that Ms. FB Walter had declared a conflict of interests “out of an abundance of caution” in response to the Appellant’s alleged accusation that she had acted as the Appellant’s accuser as well as his decision maker against him and therefore the decision of the PAC dated the 19th day of July, 2006 is tainted with gross bias and is therefore a nullity.
APPELLANT’S APPEAL IN CACV 43 OF 2007 SHORTCHANGED BY A CONSENT JUDGMENT THAT WAS MEANT TO BE ONE
27 19.03.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers:
1) Appeal Notice in CACV 43 of 2007,
2) Application for Extension to Appeal;
3) Application for Leave to Appeal by Consent,
4) Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin in support of my applications sworn 19th day of March, 2007 in 97 pages.
28. 26.03.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers as the solicitors for the Respondent Board the Appellant’s case in CACV 43 of 2007.
29 29.3.2007 The Appellant wrote to Minter Ellison Lawyers that the Respondent Board showed malice in refusing Appellant’s Leave to Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007.
30. 05.04.2007 The Court of Appeal Registrar requested for the Appellant’s attendance before a single Judge of Appeal at the Supreme Court at 10.00 am.
31. 27.04.2007 Her Honour Justice McLure ordered that the Appellant’s application for extension of time to appeal be adjourned sini die and that the Appellant do file and serve any further proposed grounds of appeal by the 27th day of May, 2007.
32 18.05.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Respondent requesting it to provide on an urgent basis, a copy of the minute which shows that the Pseudo Board was acting with lawful delegated authority by the real regulator of the legal profession. By the time barrister Tim Stephenson filed papers on behalf of the Appellant at the Court of Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007 on the 25th day of May, 2007, the Pseudo Board refused to respond to this letter. However, the Appellant’s rights are saved and reserved because his counsel used his own copy of the Minute of the Legal Practice Board dated the 4th day of February, 2004 and annexed it to the Appellant’s Affidavit sworn 25.05.2007 to prove his point.
33. 29.05.2007 His Honour Justice Pullin ordered that by 4.00 pm on 5th June, 2007, the appellant do file and serve written submissions (limited to 6 pages) as to why the grounds in paragraph 2.2 should not be struck out on the basis that they do not allege any error of law and therefore involve a question of law.
34. 25.05.2007. The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers, the settled papers of counsel Barrister Tim Stephenson:
1) Minute of Proposed Grounds of Appeal in 8 pages.
2) Further Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin in support of Applications for Extension of Time to Appeal and Leave to Appeal sworn the 25th day of May, 2007 in 49 pages.
35. 31.05.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and serve on Minter Ellison Lawyers his written submission in response to the Order of the learned Justice Pullin dated the 29th day of May, 2007 in 3 pages - as to the reason as to why the Appellant should be allowed to plead facts as well as mixed facts and law and law in his appeal in accordance with subss. 105(2) and 105 (13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004.
36. 22.06.2007 His Honour Justice Pullin ordered that:
1) the time be extended for appealing until 19th March, 2007;
2) application for leave to appeal and the appeal be heard together and
3) Costs are reserved.
37 27.6.2008 The Appellant wrote to the Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison providing the conferral materials for the 42 paragraphs to be admitted as new evidence in the Court of Appeal. The Conferral was directed by his Honour Justice Pullin on the 22.6.2007 in the presence of Mr. Craig Gough for Minter Ellison Lawyers and the Appellant but the proposal conferral did not achieve a successful outcome.
38. 04.07.2007 The Appellant complied with the suggestion of the Learned Justice Pullin given on the 22nd day of June, 2007 that he confers with the Respondent. The Appellant’s conferral letter to Minter Ellison Lawyers containing 42 issues dated the 4th day of July, 2007 (containing 22 pages) received two Responses on the 20th day of July, 2007 to the effect that the conferral had failed.
39. 05.07.2007 The Court of Appeal Registrar Ms. Pamela Eldred ordered that the Appellant file his application for leave to adduce additional evidence together with an affidavit in support by 3rd August, 2007.
40 20.7.2008 The Board wrote to the Appellant responding to his letter of the 27.06.2008 bearing the 42 paragraphs which the Appellant intended to introduce as new evidence in the trial of the CACV 43 of 2007 appeal. The Board refused to consent to the admission of the new evidence but conceded that the Appellant should make an application for leave to do so to the Court of Appeal.
41. 23.07.2007 Emily at the office of the Court of Appeal Registrar had been informed by Appellant by telephone that his prior application to adduce new evidence together with his supporting affidavit and written submission totaling 33 pages and dated the 23rd day of July, 2007 sent by way of facsimile is to be replaced by the settled application referred to below.
42 24.07.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served Minter Ellison Lawyers his Application for Leave to Adduce as evidence in the Appeal the Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin sworn 25th May, 2007 in 3 pages as settled by my counsel Barrister Tim Stephenson.
43. 31.07.2007 Respondent consent to the Appellant’s filing the Appellant’s Case Out of Time after the determination of his application to adduce new evidence by the Court of Appeal.
44. 01.08.2007 Appellant sent Draft consent orders to be approved by Respondent in the form as approved by his counsel.
45. 03.08.2007 Both Appellant and Respondent consented to file the Appellant’s case on or before the 31.8.2007 by signing the Consent Notice. The Respondent through Mr. Michael Ferguson of Minter Ellison Lawyers refused to allow additional evidence to be introduced into the CACV 43 of 2007 appeal unless the Appellant filed an application to the Court of Appeal for inducing additional evidence by the 3rd day of August, 2007. Further the conferral materials as presented by the Appellant in his 42 numbered paragraphs was not acceded to by the Board nor consented to as the new evidence which the Appellant intended to introduce.
46. 06.08.2007 Registrar Eldred made programming orders to the effect that the Appellant were to file his written submission for his Application for Leave to rely on additional evidence on appeal by 16.8.2007 and the Respondent was to respond to it by the 22nd day of August, 2007 and that he be heard on the 24th day of August, 2007.
47 16.8.2007 The Appellant’s through his counsel barrister Stephenson filed a written submission on application to adduce further evidence on Appeal.
48 20.08.2007 Appellant served on the Respondent the documents as ordered by Registrar Eldred on 6th day of August, 2007 and which was filed on 16.8.2007 after they have been settled by Barrister Tim Stephenson, as follows:
a) Appellant’s Written Submission
b) Appellant’s List of Authorities.
49 22.8.2007 The Board served through Minter Ellison Lawyers its Written Submission and List of Authorities on the Appellant.
PSEUDO BOARD ADMITS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LAWFUL DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF THE REAL BOARD AND THEREBY CONSENT TO THE FLAWED CONSENT JUDGMENT
50 24.8.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board upon advice by his counsel barrister Stephenson for the following purpose:
a) request for the Minute of the Board which shows that the PAC was given the delegated powers under s.11 of the LPA but the Board was not able to produce this subsequently.
b) requesting for the Board to concede the point that those members of the Board who were present before Judge Eckert of the SAT on the 12.9.2008 and who had requested for the orders of SAT to close down the practice of the Appellant unreasonably and illegally and not in accordance with the provisions of s.155 and 156 of the LPA Act.
51. 29.08.2007 The Appellant’s case in CACV 43 of 2007 was filed by counsel barrister Tim Stephenson on behalf of the Appellant without the Draft Chronology. This document contains the Appellant’s Minute of Grounds of Appeal, The Appellant’s Submission, Appellant’s Legal Authorities, Orders Wanted and Draft Appeal Book Indexes and is made up of 27 pages. Apparently, this document was not filed with the Court of Appeal nor was it served because as the former appeal case was terminated by the Consent Order that was not properly reached between the parties resulting in the current ongoing dispute on the grounds that the outstanding issues as contained in the Appellant’s 42 paragraphs letter dated the 27.6.2007 was not fully thrashed out between the parties.
52. 31.08.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board inquiring if it was willing to concede to Ground 1 of the Appeal and to agree on a Chronology Statement.
53 4.9.2007 The Board is required to file and serve any answer to the Appellant’s case by the latest date the 25.9.2007.
SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIMED BY APPELLANT FOR IMPROPER CLOSURE OF HIS INDPENDENT LAW PRACTICE
54 24.9.2007 The Appellant gave prior notice to the Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison Lawyers by way of a facsimile reminding the Board to exercise its own discretion on the question of compensation for the Appellant which had purportedly acted in bad faith contrary to s.18 of the LPA. The Board’s conduct had caused the improper closure of the Appellant’s practice by certain members who was present at the time of the orders delivered by Sat on the 12.9.2008 including the Secretary of the Board who demanded the learned Judge Eckert to provide such wrongful orders without the prior delegated authority of the Board as evidenced by its Minutes and without invoking the proper procedures as prescribed by the legislation through SAT. The Appellant quantified his loss of income as special damages in the sum of $153.56 per day. This special damage is calculated basing upon the income of the Appellant of the previous 74 days prior to the 12.9.2006.
55 25.9.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Chairman of the Board Ms. Anna Liscia explaining why the Board should renew the practice certificate of the Appellant unconditionally and should also allow the Appellant to move to NSW to begin a new life after the Board had conceded the Appeal of the Appellant in CACV 43 of 2007.
56 26.9.2007 The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a Consent Judgment before the President of the Court of Appeal, the learned Justice Steytler on the assumption that the Pseudo Board through the PAC having usurped the lawful authority of the regulator of the legal profession in WA was conceding defeat and the ban on the Appellant’s independent law practice shall be lifted as a consequence. As events transpired, the Appellant was deceived as the Pseudo Board continued to make its appearance in subsequent events and each time it was again unable to deny the illegality of its usurping authority. This is the live issue that was refused to be looked into by Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008.
57 10.10.2007 Both the Appellant through his counsel Mr. Stephenson and the Respondent attended Room 211, Supreme Court Building, Stirling Gardens at 10.30 am to settle the appeal book papers and to give further direction on other issues.
23.10.2007 The Chairperson of the Board wrote to the Appellant disclosing the matters with regard to the Appellant’s complaint against Mr. Tim Thies citing the LPCC correspondence to the Appellant dated 4.10.2007 and 18.10.2007 and the Appellant’s response dated 20.10.2007. (The persecuting malice of the LPCC is apparent in the light of Justice Hasluck decision in CIV 1903 of 2008 delivered on 7.11.2008 that Mr. Thies is guilty of fraud and unconscionable conduct towards the Appellant and his son and that the Appellant had acted reasonably. See the written submission of the Appellant before Justice Kenneth Martin on 13.5.2010 in CIV 1903 of 2008 and the written submission of Paul CK Chin in CIV 1112of 2007 on 13.5.2010).
58 26.10.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board through its Chairperson with regard to his request for a Certificate of Fitness and for the renewal of his practice certificate. In this letter, the Appellant set forth his contentions with regard to the views of Ms. C Coombs of the LPCC affecting the issues of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies as contained in Ms. Coomb’s letter to the Appellant dated the 18th day of October, 2007. (It should be reasonably observed that Ms. Coombs has a predilection not to assist the court or any court-like tribunals in the dispensation of fair justice to the Appellant and is willfully blind to the facts of the case of Mr. Thies which was under her purview and investigation.) (This is persecuting malice)
59 29.10.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Chairman of the Board Ms. Anna Liscia explaining his grievances as to why the Board is not justified in its refusal to issue him with an unconditional practice certificate. (The persecuting malice of the Board is apparent from its refusal to expunge the irrelevant materials affecting the affairs of Mr. Thies). Any person reading the Affidavits would have agreed that Mr. Thies was doing the wrong thing).
60 31.10.2007 The Executive Officer of SAT wrote to the Appellant acceding to the request of the Appellant that the Orders published by the learned Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006 be removed from the SAT website.(Why no reason published but only the unreasonable orders)
61 16.11.2007 Ms. Miranda Breisch who replaced Ms. Mary Anne Paton of the Board informs the Appellant that he is required to make a formal application for a practice certificate so as to enable the Board to institute an inquiry pursuant to section 41(1)(b) of the LPA basing on the information that is available before it. The Board also informs the Appellant of its concerns on the 6 criteria as outlined in that letter. (It should be reasonably observed that there is persecuting malice of the LPCC in that Ms. Cahon as its principal legal officer is suggesting that the Appellant be re-prosecuted on 11 matters whereas the Board had limited the duties of the Inquiry Team held on 3.4.2008 to only 6 matters).
62 20.11.2008 The Appellant wrote a facsimile letter to Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board explaining further his grievances with the Board as contained in his letter to the Board dated the 18.12.2008.
63 21.11.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch explaining why the Board is visibly seen to be prejudging the issues as contained in its letter to the Appellant dated the 16.11.2007 and as a result was causing a delay to the issue of the Appellant’s practitioners Certificate. The Appellant also gave NOTICE to the Board that the costs of proving the 6 point criteria will have to borne by the Board on account of the fact that is responsible for the delay in the issuance of the Appellant’s Practitioner’s Certificate (This is persecuting malice).
THE INQUIRY PANEL AND ITS RATIFACTION PANEL ARE AGAIN USURPING THE POWERS OF THE REAL BOARD THROUGH THE PSEUDO BOARD REPETITIVELY
64 17.01.2008 Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board wrote an email letter to the Appellant informing him that the Inquiry Team of the Board will hear the Appellant’s Application for a Practitioner’s Certificate on the 3rd day of April, 2008 at the Hearing Room of Level 13 of International House at No. 26, St. Georges Terrace.
65 5.2.2008 The Board wrote to Counsel Tim Stephenson regarding its telephone conversation with him regarding the Inquiry Committee hearing scheduled on the 3.4.2008 and enclosing a copy of its letter dated the 16.11.2007 containing the six matters of concern of the Board to be dealt with at the Inquiry Hearing.
66 10.3.2008 Dr. Geoffrey Shulman provided the Appellant with a referral letter indicating that the Appellant did suffer from mild reactive depression (caused by Mr. Thies and the persisting persecuting malice of the Board) but no serious psychiatric illness which would interfere with his work ability. As at this date the Appellant has no psychiatric illness and there is no likelihood of him being predisposed to this in the future.
67 20.3.2008 Dr. Geoffrey Shulman responded to Barrister Tim Stephenson request for specific details about the history of the depressive illness of the Appellant and he formed the opinion that the Appellant does not have true depression but rather neurasthenia together with specific details about the medication prescribed to him.
68 25.3.2008 Psychologist Leonie W Coxon provide evidence to counsel Tim Stephenson a full report of her interview and assessment of the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant, from a psychological and mental health perspective is fit to practice as a Barrister-Solicitor on his own account.
69 28.3.2008 Barrister Tim Stephenson wrote on behalf of the Appellant to the Board to the effect that he is willing to accept a limited practice on his own account if this was proffered to him by the Board, yet the Board refused to concede to this condescension of the Appellant for the sake of accommodating the Board and to avoid the difficulties of further disputation. .
70 31.3.2008 Counsel Tim Stephenson for the Appellant wrote to the Board enclosing the Psychologist Report of Ms. Leonie Coxon.
71 1.4.2008 Counsel Stephenson wrote to the Board enclosing the medical report on the Appellant from Dr. G. Shulman dated 20.3.2008.
MR. GRANT DONALDSON SC ADMITTED THAT THE PSEUDO BOARD HAD NO POWER OR WAS USURPING THE POWERS OF THE REAL BOARD
72 3.4.2008 The Minute of the Inquiry Committee indicates that Mr. G. Donaldson appeared for as counsel for the Board and as agreed he cannot vote and participate in the meeting. There are therefore only 4 members of the Inquiry Committee. Mr. Stephenson as counsel for the Appellant at page 14 line 2 to 5 said:
“…..you ought to have a proper delegation from the board proper to do so and I would simply leave that to you because I don’t know what delegation you gentlemen received from the board in that respect but it may be regrettably, that if the delegation does not permit you to stand outside of the actual inquiry…”
At page 16 line 1 to 5 Mr. Stephenson again said:
“ Could I simply say however in relation to that, it may be – that is my clear understanding of it, if I can put if that way: However, it may be appropriate to check the minutes of – no doubt, minutes. However there was no formal delegation, it was simply that the board has been constituted in the way it has…”
At page 16, line 12-14, Mr. Stephenson again said:
“Having said that, I don’t really see that there is a need for us to proceed until we know. We understand what would happen if there was in fact, no power.”
At page 16 in line 25-26, the Chairman said:
“During this period, if you could obtain those minutes and let us know the position please?”
At page 18, Mr. Donaldson in line 15-45 effectively states that there are no minutes not even draft minutes to evidence that the Inquiry Committee has proper delegated authority to hold that inquiry under s.41(1)(a) of the LPA nor to make any proper decision resulting from that Inquiry.
73 22.4.2008 Mr. C. Colvin SC wrote to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch with copies extended to the other members of the Inquiry Committee, namely Mr. R O’Connor QC, Mr. R. Cock QC and Mr. S Penglis enclosing the Report of the Inquiry Committee which did not have the valid authority of the full Board through its authorized minutes contrary to s.11 of the LPA. The Report of the Inquiry Committee is therefore null and void and has no legal effect upon the Appellant. The Inquiry Committee contemplated a Special Committee of the Board to be convened which would comprise of only three valid members who are allowed to sit on the Special Meeting convened on the 2.5.2008. The other three members if they do sit they are already tainted with gross bias as they do not have the valid authority to make the Inquiry under s. 41(1)(b) of the LPA. They cannot then sit at the Special Meeting again as they have acted as prosecutor, judge and jury against the Appellant in both meetings. (This is persecuting malice)
74 29.4.2008 Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board provided a copy of the transcript (85 pages) of the proceedings of the Inquiry Team heard on the 3.4.2008 to the Appellant.
COMPOSITION OF THE RATIFICATION PANEL AS A PSEUDO BOARD
75 2.5.2008 A special Committee of the Board comprising of Mr. R Cock QC as Chairperson, Mr. R. O’Connor Q.C., Mr. S. Owen-Conway QC, Mr R. Birmingham QC, Mr. R. Mitchell SC and Mr. G. Donaldson SC sat to decide the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee given on 3.4.2008. The Inquiry Committee which made the recommendations comprise of Mr. R O’Connor as the Chairperson, Mr. R. Cock QC a, Mr. C. Colvin SC and Mr. Steven Penglis. It is to be noted that the Inquiry Committee did not have a valid minute in accordance with s.11 of the LPA to prove that it was validly constituted by the Board or that it did not have the approval of the majority of the members of the Board. The Inquiry Committee repeated the mistakes of the PAC that originally imposed the impugned conditions on the Appellant’s practice certificate on the 19.7.2006. The special committee meeting did not comprise the full Board as the quorum of the full board is 4 members and there are only three who were present namely, Mr. S. Owen-Conway QC, Mr. R. Birmingham QC, and Mr. R. Mitchell SC. The other three members of the Special Committee are disqualified because they were members of the Inquiry Committee namely Mr. R. Cock QC., Mr. R. O’Connor QC and Mr. G. Donaldson SC. (The question for this court to determine is whether the majority of the 48 members of the Board agreed to appoint the Special Committee to pass the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee. The onus of proof is on the Board as the knowledge of this matter lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the Board)
76 8.5.2008 The Board wrote to the Appellant informing him of the outcome of the Inquiry Committee in that made the recommendations to the Board when it sat on the 3.4.2008. A special meeting of the Board was convened on the 2.5.2008 to deliberate upon the recommendations of the Board.
THE ROOT OR BASIS FOR COMMISSIONER HERRON’S ORDER HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THE VOLUNTARY ADMISSIONS OF THE TWO MAGISTRATES’S JUDGMENT OCCASSIONED BY THE REVIEW ORDER OF JUSTICE HASLUCK– CAN THE BRANCHES AND STEM OF COMMISSIONER HERRON’S TREE STILL REMAIN STANDING? QUESTION POSED BEFORE JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN ON 13.5.2010 IN CIV 1903 OF 2008
77 12.5.2008 The learned Commissioner Herron of the District Court erred in dismissing the DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 which is an appeal against the decision of Magistrate Musk in FR 944 of 2008 given on the 9.1.2008 in favour of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies. Commissioner Herron also erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to decide that appeal and yet he contradicted himself by his conduct in dismissing that appeal. He also suggested that the Appellant should have appealed against the then allegedly Registrar Wilde’s Duress-vitiated Consent Order in FR 417 of 2007 (the Duress-vitiated Order). This cue from Commissioner Herron prompted the Appellant to launch a separate appeal at the Fremantle Magistrate’s Court against the Duress-vitiated Order before Magistrate Michelides on a subsequent occasion. The learned Magistrate Michelides erred by dismissing the Duress-vitiated Order Appeal by refusing to extend the time for appeal although the circumstances of the case would justify such an extension of time. The three matters at the Magistrates Court and the District Court were brought for the Review of the Supreme Court in CIV 1903 of 2008 before the learned Justice Hasluck who on 7.11.2008 granted the Review Orders application made by the Appellant under s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004.(This is persecuting malice)
78 10.6.2008 Directions Hearing of VR 107 of 2008 was heard before Justice Barker. The learned Justice ordered that within 14 days the Board is to file a statement of issues, facts and contentions and an indexed and paginated Bundle of Documents pursuant to s.24 of the SAT Act providing a statement of reason for decision and documents or other materials relevant to the review decision or internet address of any document.
Similarly within 14 days, the Appellant is to respond to the statement of facts, issues and contentions and similarly provided paginated bundle of documents to that effect and the matter to be adjourned to the 22.7.2008.
79 12.6.2008 The Executive Officer of SAT wrote to the Appellant that the direction hearing of VR107 of 2008 shall be heard on the 22.7.2008.
80 24.6.2008 The Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison Lawyers served upon the Appellant two Bundles of Documents pursuant to s.24 of the SAT Act, 2004.
The Board also served upon the Appellant its statement of facts, issues and contentions.
81 9.7.2008 The Appellant filed his Application under s. 44(b) of the LPA with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) with his Bundle of Documents containing 172 pages and the same was served on the Board the same day.
82 22.7.2008 The President of SAT made the following orders:
The matter in VR 107 of 2008 is listed for hearing on 25.9.2008 at 10.00 am.
Each witness is to give a signed witness statement to SAT and serve a copy on the Board 14 days before the hearing date.
The Witness are to be available for cross-examination at the hearing date.
83 18.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Affidavit in the Supreme Court in CIV 1775 of 2008 (containing 82 pages) in opposition to the claim of the sister in law of the late Ms. Nancy Cloonan Hall one Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall. She had filed a Writ claiming for an Order 14 summary judgment that the Appellant and others remove their respective caveats against the property of the late Ms. Hall. The Appellant had staked his claim as a first charge of solicitor lien for the debts of the late Ms. Hall in unpaid legal fees incurred by her in CIV 1142 of 2005 and this caveat was made in accordance with the Appellant’s entitlement for his solicitor’s lien as provided in s.244 of the LPA.
84 19.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 at the Supreme Court of WA invoking s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004 for a Review Order against the decisions of both the learned Magistrate Michelides and the learned Magistrate Musk. The former affects the appeal against the learned Registrar Wilde’s Duress-vitiated Order in FR 417 of 2007 entered into involuntarily on the 7.6.2007 between the Appellant and his son Paul with Mr. Timothy Robin Thies. The latter case is FR 944 of 2008 which was instituted by the Appellant against Mr. Thies under the Minor Claim provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 which was decided on 9.1.2007 by Magistrate Musk. The Musk’s decision was appealed against by the Appellant to the District Court in Appeal No. 6 of 2008 but was dismissed by the Learned Commissioner Herron on 12.5.2008. These were cases that dealt with the fraudulent and unconscionable conduct of Mr. Thies - a fellow legal practitioner which was investigated by the LPCC. (The learned Judge Chaney made erroneous findings about the alleged deficiency of the Appellant in his professional knowledge in VR 107 of 2008 which is the subject matter of this appeal.) See the case of RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256
at the website: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf
85 26.8.2008 Mr. Alessandro Bertini filed his Witness Statement in VR 107 of 2008 containing 60 pages alleging that he was subject to plundering and pillaging by an errant solicitor X. He has since make an applicant under s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004 in CIV 1764 of 2009 for a review order of his seven magistrates court applications dismissed by the Magistrates Court in CA 2881 of 2006. Justice Jenkins had since granted a review for one of the seven applications whilst dismissing the rest. The review concerns costs orders made without jurisdiction by the Magistrates Court but Justice Mazza had refused to make the grant of the Jenkin’s Order absolute but had obtained an undertaking from Solicitor X not to include any solicitor profit costs as he was a solicitor litigant in person in accordance with the rationale in Dobree v Hoffman.
86 26.8.2008 The Appellant’s filled his submission with regard to his objections to Mr. Thies’ Bill of Costs dated 29.7.2008 pursuant to the null cost order of the learned Mr. Commissioner Herron that was made with jurisdictional error dated 20.5.2008. That Bill of costs was taxed by Deputy Registrar Hewitt on 19.8.2008 despite the written objections of the Appellant. It was without the sanctity of law. The subsequent grant of Review Order by Justice Hasluck in CIV 1903 of 2008 resulted in Magistrates Musk and Michelides complying with the Review Order Nisi as advised by the State Solicitor resulted in the roots of Commissioner Herron being destroyed. The decision of Commission Herron has therefore been taken off the website of the District Court in Appeal No.6 of 2006.
87 29.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Further Affidavit in Support of the Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 for the grant of Review Orders against the Fremantle Magistrates Court Decision of Magistrates Musk and Magistrates Michelides (98 pages). The transcript of the proceedings in the appeal against the Registrar decision in FR 417 of 2007 which involves the alleged duress-vitiated Consent Order entered into between Mr. Thies and the Appellant and his son Paul, that was claimed to be vitiated by duress by the Appellant was indeed found to be so by Justice Hasluck on the 7.11.2008 in CIV 1903 of 2008.
88 8.9.2008 The Witness Statement of the Appellant together with the List of Documents attached to it was filed with SAT pursuant to the Order of the learned Justice Michael Barker in VR 107 of 2008 given on the 22.7.2008 (78 pages). The matter was subsequently heard before the learned Judge Chaney and its decision is the subject of the Applicant’s Applicant for Leave to Appeal to the Court of the Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 and his further Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2010, both having been dismissed but the Live Issue of the Pseudo Board has never been litigated in these Applications.
89 22.9.2008 The Appellant filed and serve his Outline of Written Submission in 9 pages pending his Application in VR 107 of 2008 be heard before the SAT Panel headed by the learned Judge Chaney on 25.9.2008.
90 25.9.2008 SAT reserved its decision in VR 107 of 2008 upon the application of the Appellant before Deputy President Judge Chaney, Senior Sessional Member Brian Hunt and Senior Sessional Member Margaret Jordan.
91 16.9.2008 The Appellant provide the Magistrate Court in Fremantle hearing the execution of the costs orders of Magistrate Musk and Magistrate Michelides the transcript of the proceedings of CIV 1903 of 2008 dated the 19.8.2008 for a temporary stay of those null costs orders of Magistrates Musk and Magistrate Michelides. The subsequent order of Justice Hasluck given on 7.11.2008 has now stayed the execution of those null costs orders pending the fininalization of CIV 1903 of 2008 at the Supreme Court.
92 28.10.2008 The learned Judge Chaney of SAT delivered his decision in VR 107 of 2008 to confirm the previous decision of Judge Eckert. This SAT decision confirms the decision of the Inquiry Committee that was made in May after the Pseudo Board again made its presence as Inquiry Committee which sat on the 3.4.2008 and again it was unable to explain it lawful authority having been properly delegated under s.11 of the LPA.
93 3.11.2008 The Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 against the decision of SAT delivered by the learned Judge Chaney on 28.10.2008 and served a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the same date that it was filed with the Court of Appeal.
94 4.11.2008 The Appellant wrote a 2 page facsimile letter to the Court of Appeal Registrar with copy extended to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board. This letter explains inter alia the 12 points reasons as to why the decision of the SAT panel headed by the learned Judge Chaney delivered on 28.10.2008 should be appealed against to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant and that the Appellant be accorded extension of time to do so having regard to the personal circumstances of the Appellant. As a consequence of this letter, the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file his Appellant’s case by common consent by the latest date the 10.1.2009.
PERSECUTING MALICE OF LPCC TO PROSECUTE APPELLANT FOR THE COMMON-LAW DEBARRED FURTHER REMEDY OF NON-EXISTENT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN VR 87 OF 2009
95 7.11.2008 The Appellant lodged a complaint with the LPCC by email after he had received the judgment of Justice Hasluck in CIV 1903 of 2008. The persecuting malice of the Board is found in Ms. Gail McCahon of the LPCC writing to the Appellant regarding her intention to refer the Appellant to that Committee for possible unsatisfactory conduct with regard to the Appellant’s dealings with Mr. Thies particularly concerning the issue as to whether there was a champertous agreement between the Appellant and his son. Apparently, Ms. McCahon was aware of the fact or that she had been so made aware of by the Appellant that the learned Justice Hasluck had on the same day delivered his judgment to grant the review orders against Magistrate Musk and Magistrate Michelides in FR417/2008 and FR 944 of 2008.
96 17.11.2008 The Principal Legal Officer Ms. Gail McCahon of the LPCC wrote to the Appellant stating that she intends that the court-like tribunal deliberate again on the 11 matters that have already been deliberated upon by both the LPCC, the PAC of the Board and SAT on two occasions before the decisions of Learned Judge Eckert and the learned Judge Chaney respectively. She made this decision despite being aware of the following:
The Appellant had appealed against Judge Chaney’s decision in VR 107 of 2008 to the Court of Appeal on the 28.10.2008.
The learned Justice Hasluck had granted review orders to the Appellant and made the findings that Mr. Thies is guilty of fraud and professional misconduct by unconscionable conduct towards the Appellant and his son Paul with regard to CIV 1903 of 2008 that was delivered on the 7.11.2008.
The Appellant had not entered into any champertous agreement with Mr. Thies.
97 20.11.2008 The Appellant responded by email to Ms. Gail McCahon to the effect that those 11 matters cannot be re-litigated as some of them had already been settled by the previous proceedings and are therefore res-judicata whilst the remaining outstanding matters are the subject of the appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 and will be dealt with accordingly. Upon the Appellant’s return from overseas, he had made enquiries with the LPCC to the effect that his response email to Ms McCahon had been received and is receiving her attention.
98 9.12.2008 The Appellant executed the orders of Justice Hasluck in CIV 1903 of 2008 delivered on the 7.11.2008 on the 9th day of December, 2008 by delivering them to Mr. Timothy Robin Thies. Meanwhile, Mr. Thies through his solicitor is pretending that he had not been personally served with the documents of CIV 1903 of 2008 but an Affidavit has been filed with the Supreme Court to this effect on 24.12.2008.
99 23.12.2008 The Appellant served the Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 and the Judgment of the Learned Justice Hasluck granting the Review Orders against Mr. Timothy Robin Thies inviting for his defence within 21 days on the solicitors for Mr. Thies Mr. Dean Elek Roser.
100 24.12.2008 The Appellant filed his Affidavit of Service in the Supreme Court in CIV 1903 of 2008 on the 24.12.2008 indicating that he had carried out the orders of Justice Hasluck.
CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY’S RES JUDICATA DECISION IN VR 87 OF 2009
101 30.11.2009 Applicant filed CIV 3068 of 2009 for Certiorari Orders Nisi against Justice Chaney Res Judicata Decisions in VR87 of 2009
4.12.2009 CIV 3068 of 2009 was rejected by the Chief Registrar on grounds that is unlikely to succeed and not because it is frivolous or vexatious as provided for in Order 67 r.5 of the RSC.
14.12.2009 CIV 3068 of 2009 re-lodged, pursuant to Order 67r.5 of the RSC -- dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC on the ground that the matter is pending decision by the High Court of Australia for Special Leave to Appeal in P36 of 2009
28.12.2009 CIV 3086 of 2009 Application for Certiorari Orders to review the Court of Appeal Decision in Chin v Hall re the error of facts pertaining to the falsification of court records by Mr. David Taylor with the collaboration of judicial officer the learned Registrar Powell as evidenced by his letter dated 11.6.2009 – dismissed by the Honourable Chief Justice, Wayne Martin Q.C on the ground that it already the subject of an Application for Special Leave to Appeal as P1 of 2010 in the High Court of Australia which is currently pending decision.
CERTIORARI ORDERS NISI AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY RES JUDICATA DECISION IN VR 87 OF 2009 REFILED AS CIV 1019 OF 20010 THAT WAS DISMISSED BY JUSTICE HEENAN ABOUT TURN DECISION
19.12.2009 Appellant filed re-amended CIV 3068 of 2009 known as CIV 1019 of 2010 with the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
5.1.2010 CIV 1019 of 2010 was rejected by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
6.1.2010 Appellant filed re-Amended CIV 1019 of 2010 with request to be heard by another Justice other than the Chief Justice on the ground of bias with two volumes of documents totalling 520 pages.
20.1.2010 Appellant filed Minute of Proposed Orders in 6 pages in CIV 1019 of 2010.
25.3.2010 Appellant Amended Minute of Proposed Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 in 6 pages in the light of the dismissal by the High Court of Australia of P36 of 2009 made on 10.3.2010 – caused by the credibility of the trial judge being the learned President of SAT, Justice John Chaney, remaining unimpeached, in both VR 107 of 2008 and CACV 105 of 2008. The deficiency of Justice Chaney’s first judgment re-opens the undecided issues in this Application for Certiorari Orders nisi made for in CIV 1019 of 2010.
25.3.2010 Appellant filed a 22 page Outline of Written Submissions in 3 copies for CIV 1019 of 20120 to be presented at the hearing before the Learned Justice Heenan on 6.4.2010.
29.3.2010 Appellant received a facsimile copy of the letter from Mr. Maurice Frederick Law regarding the falsity of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 that forms one of the subject matter of Justice Chaney’s error as regards the false concept affecting the Applicant’s propensity to make false allegations against fellow practitioners including Mr. David Taylor. This matter is the current subject of the appeal process in P1 of 2010.
29.3.2010 Appellant filed the Supplementary Affidavit of 12 pages annexing 123 pages of evidentiary materials in CIV 1019 of 2010 to further embellish and support his case for his Application for Certiorari Orders nisi against the First and Second Judgments of Justice Chaney.
2.4.2010 Appellant filed in CIV 1019 of 2010 the Amended List of Authorities bearing asterisked cases which will be elaborated in the oral presentation before Justice Heenan.
6.4.2010 Appellant appeared before Justice Heenan for hearing of CIV 1019 of 2010 in court room No.14, Level 14, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 whence an Order was issued by Justice Heenan for the Applicant to serve all relevant documents on the Legal Profession Complaints Committee within 2 days, the LPCC to respond within 10 days and the Application in CIV 1019 of 2010 to be withheld for 14 days pending the response of the LPCC.
7.4.2010 Appellant complied with the Orders of Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 dated 6.4.2010 to serve all relevant papers as evidenced by the facsimile cover letter of Appeal to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court marked for the attention of the Associate of Justice Heenan, Mr. Stephen Sommerville dated 7.4.2010. This letter is also copied to the Chief Executive Officer of SAT and to the LPCC.
7.4.2010 Appellant sent a facsimile letter to the Chief Executive of SAT, copied to the LPCC and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting for the transcript of proceedings of Justice Chaney given for the ambushed decision in VR 87 of 2009 on 4.11.2009 and the proceedings conducted in the absence of the Applicant on 16.2.2010. To date, the requested transcripts have not been provided for by SAT to the Appellant (the request for the 4.11.2009 transcript was made by a telephone request through one Mary of SAT on 8.4.2010 at 9.02 am).
12.4.2010 SAT responded to Appellant by re-listing the directions hearing of the res judicata proceedings in VR 87 of 2009 to be re-scheduled to the 27.4.2010 at 10.30 am.
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW CORROBORATES MY CLAIM FOR FALSIFICATIONS OF COURT RECORDS IN CIV 1131 OF 2006 BY DAVID TAYLOR THAT IS SUBJECT TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN HIGH COURT IN P.1 OF 2007.
12.4.2010 Mr. Maurice Frederick Law sent the Appellant a copy of the response he received from the LPCC as a result of his letter to the LPCC dated 29.3.2010.
13.4.2010 Appellant responded to paragraph 2.2. of that LPCC letter to Mr. Law by way of email explaining the intricacies of the factual circumstances and the related law with regard to the filing and processing of the filing of a Writ of Summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 and the methods of payments of court fees and how the law was being circumvented by the learned Registrar Powell acting in collaboration with Mr. David Taylor in falsifying the court records as contained in his special Leave to Appeal to the High Court in P1 of 2007.
14.4.2010 Appellant received an email that the resumed hearing in CIV 1019 of 2010 will be heard on Wednesday 21.4.2010 at 10.30 am at Supreme Court Perth court room 13.1. Level 13, No.111, St. George’s Terrace, Perth WA 6000 when an oral exposition of the asterisked case law in the New List of Authorities will be expected to be made by the Applicant before Justice Heenan.
21.4.2010 Justice Heenan made an about turn decision to absolve the LPCC from responding to his Orders given on 6.4.2010 after he had received a telephone call from the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia. He thereupon dismissed CIV 1019 of 2010 for Certiorari Orders Nisi against the two judgments of Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 and VR 87 of 2009 by giving an incorrect ex-tempore judgement stating that he only dismissed the two judgments of Justice Chaney in VR87 of 2007 dated 4.11.2009 and 10.11.2009.
APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL IN CACV 41 OF 2010 AGAINST JUSTICE HEENAN DISMISSAL OF CIV 1019 OF 2010
22.4.2010 The Appellant filed and served his Notice of Appeal in CACV41 of 2010 on the Respondent.
27.4.2010 Appellant wrote to the Associate of Justice Heenan requesting him to review his decision in dismissing CIV 1019 of 2010 in view of the fact that he made a mistake in his draft judgment delivered ex-tempore and lamenting the fact that His Honour had not put his heart and soul into the matter under his consideration.
MANDAMUS APPLICATION BY APPELLANT IN CIV 1604 OF 2010 AGAINST JUSTICE CHANEY AND JUSTICE CHANEY AFFECTING VR107 OF 2008 AND VR87 OF 2009 FOR THE FORMER AND JUSTICE HEENAN AFFECTING CIV 1019 OF 2010
29.4.2010 Appellant filed a Mandamus Application in CIV 1604 of 2010 to compel Justice Heenan and Justice Chaney to do their duties in accordance with their Oath of Office in CIV 1019 of 2010 by the former and VR 107 of 2008 and VR87 of 2009 by the latter respectively. Appellant filed His Notice of Originating Motion in CIV1604 of 2010 in 6 pages together with an Affidavit in Support sworn the same day containing 66 pages).
30.4.2010 Justice Heenan re-wrote the subject judgment of Appeal which was published at the website of the Supreme Court in Re President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), Justice Chaney; Ex parte CHIN [2010] WASC 89 to replace his draft judgment a copy of which was refused by Mr. Stephen Somerville, the Associate to Justice Heenan.
30.4.2010 Appellant sent a facsimile letter to SAT, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court and to the LPCC informing them of the strategy to solve this complicated matter is to have the Live Issue of the Pseudo Board tried as quickly as possible.
2.5.2010 The International Criminal Court of the United Nations was informed that the refusal of the WA government to delay the legal determination of the Live Issue of the Pseudo Board is the perpetration of an unlawful torture upon a national of Australia contrary to Article 2 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture which provides that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of toture. The torture is any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental is inflicted on the Appellant for the purpose of coercing him to refrain from suing for his human rights or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. This letter was copied to all members of Parliament of the Government of the Premier Colin Barnett of Western Australia.
JUSTICE CHANEY AND JUDGE PRITCHARD TO PRESIDE OVER HEARING OF VR 87 OF 2009
4.5.2010 Appellant attended directions hearing for VR87 of 2009 on 4.5.2009 after Justice Chaney had recused himself, before the Deputy President of SAT Her Honour Judge Pritchard. She vacated the hearing of VR 87 of 2009 scheduled on 18.5.2010 and re-scheduled a further directions hearing on 13.8.2010. In the meantime, she would like to be informed of further developments in the Supreme Court.
6.5.2010 Appellant wrote to the Court of Appeal Registrar responding to her letter of the same date and also inquiring if the Appellant is required to comply with the timeline to file his Appellant’s case within 35 days or seven weeks from the date the Appeal Notice was lodged.
RESPONSE LETTER FROM WA PARLIAMENT REGARDING TORTURE OF APPELLANT FOR JUDICARY’S REFUSAL TO LOOK INTO THE LIVE ISSUE OF THE PSEUDO BOARD
10.5.2010 Appellant received a response from the Principal Policy Advisor to Minister for Local Government Heritage, Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, the Hon GM (John) Castrilli MLA, from one Mrs. Sheryl Siekierka thanking me for the email communication dated 2.5.2010 as indicated above.
12.5.2010 Appellant received a reply from the Honourable Eric Ripper as Leader of the Opposition and acting on behalf of all Opposition MPs acknowledging receipt of my email as indicated above.
29.6.2010 The first hearing for CIV 1604 of 2010 is scheduled on this date.
NICHOLAS N CHIN – SOLICITOR LITIGANT IN PERSON
No comments:
Post a Comment