to Roger Bielec
date Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM
subject Re: Estate of Nancy Hall dec'd
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 7:15 PM (19 hours ago)
Mr. Roger Bielec:
Thank you for your email communication below: I shall use BLOCK CAPITALS AS MY ANSWERS TO EACH OF YOUR STATEMENT/QUESTION BELOW:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Roger Bielec
Sir.
Your recent communication to Landgate has been referred to In-house Counsel for consideration & comment.
The following communication has been suggested:
1 Thank you for your email dated 25 January 2011.
A HARD COPY OF THIS EMAIL WAS SERVED ON YOU BY MR. MAURICE LAW ON THE FOLLOWING DAY.
2 Your email refers to actions affecting (i) CTs 1696 – 880 and 1048 – 795, and (ii) caveat J614049
YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
3 All of these actions were authorised by orders made by the WA Supreme Court in proceedings in which you were a party.
THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 WAS MADE BY MASTER SANDERSON. THIS MATTER WAS APPEALED BY ME TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CACV107 OF 2008. INTERIM ORDERS WERE MADE BY JUSTICE PULLIN TO THE EFFECT THAT $20K WERE TO BE SET ASIDE BY MR. ANTHONY PRIME ACTING ON BEHALF OF MS. AUDREY FRANCES HALL AS THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KENNETH DUNCAN HALL. THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY APPEAL AND I MADE AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT IN P1 OF 2010. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED MY MY SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATION BUT STATED THAT THE COURT BELOW NEE4D TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER MY SOLICITOR WORK IN CIV 1142 OF 2005 HAD CAUSED THE REMOVAL OF SPUNTER PTY LTD CAVEAT. I MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER S.33 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 (WA) TO REPAIR THE TECHNICAL SLIP OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ITS WRITTEN JUDGEMENT AT PARAGRAPHS 54 & 55. THIS APPLICATION IS IN CIV 1877 OF 2010 AND IS CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE. THE COURT OF APPEAL DEPENDED ON THE STATEMENT OF REGISTRAR POWELL DATED 11.6.2009 WHICH MISLED THE COURT OF APPEAL. MR. ANTHONY PRIME IN THE TAXATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE BILL OF COSTS IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 AND THE CACV107 OF 2008 MISLED REGISTRAR POWELL TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE VOID COSTS ORDERS OF MASTER SANDERSON AND THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE POLICE AND THE CCC INTERVENED AND REGISTRAR POWELL REFUSED TO SIGN THE ALLOCATUR FOR THE TWO TAXED BILLS ARISING FROM THE TWO VOID COSTS ORDERS. I KEPT LANDGATE UP TO DATE OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS CASE IN ANTICIPATION THAT LANDGATE WOULD DO ITS DUTIES TO SAFEGUARD MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS.
4 If you believe you have an interest in land which is at risk, then should consider obtaining legal advice as to how your interest can be protected. This might include lodging a caveat to protect your interest or obtaining an injunction to prevent the Registrar of Titles from registering any dealings which might adversely affect your interest.
I SHALL BE LODGING A CAVEAT AGAIN TO REPLACE THE TWO CAVEATS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY JUSTICE PULLIN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE $20K SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING OF MR. ANTHONY PRIME. THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE AFTERMATH OF JUSTICE PULLIN'S ORDERS HAVE CAUSED LEGAL COSTS NECESSARILY INCURRED BY ME ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE NANCY CLOONAN HALL TO HAVE ESCALATED TO APPROXIMATELY $110K.
5 Please note that Landgate and its employees are unable to provide legal advice
LANDGATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ME WITH LEGAL ADVICE BUT LANDGATE HAS A STATUTORY DUTY TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS AND IF IT IS IN DERELECTION OF ITS DUTIES, IT WOULD ORDINARILY BE LIABLE TO ME FOR MY CURRENT LOSSES. I WOULD THEREFORE BE FILING A FRESH CAVEAT TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT LANDGATE WAS AWARE OF ITS CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS IN THE PAST, IT SHOULD HAVE KEPT ME INFORMED OF ITS LATEST DECISION TO REMOVE MY CAVEAT J614059. MS. BROOKE GERMON WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS OBLIGATIONS TO ME BUT IT LOOKS LIKE LANDGATE HAD NOT KEPT ITS PROMISE.
Regards,
Roger Bielec
Complex Dealings Section.
Landgate
92737833
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the addressee(s). It may contain information that is confidential and privileged, in which case neither is intended to be waived or lost by mistaken delivery to you. If you are not an intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure, distribution or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Western Australian Land Information Authority (Landgate). Information in this message not relating to the official business of Landgate shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Landgate’s liability is limited to re-supplying affected attachments.
1) Registrar Powell taxed the bill of Costs in CIV 1775 of 2008 and CACV 107 of 2008 on 3.11.2010 before the First and Second Defendant Nicholas N Chin and Mr. Law in the presence of solicitor Anthony Prime.
ReplyDelete2) Solicitor Anthony Prime's letter dated 21.12.2010 states that Registrar Powell signed the allocatur on 3.11.2011 following the review of taxation of the bills of costs.
3) The First and Second Defendants filed objections to those bills of costs on 10.11.2010.
4) The Allocatur must not be signed before the Review of the taxation which occurred on 17.12.2010.
5) The transcript says that the Registrar Powell refused to sign the Allocaturs on 17.12.2010.
The Deputy Sheriff of the Central Law Courts, Mr. Stefeens visited me on 16.2.2011 stating that he wished to execute those two taxed bills of costs. I explained to him that Registrar Powell is under police investigation for covering up David Taylor falsifications of court records in CIV1131 of 2006 and consequently the two costs orders are NULL and VOID as they have no basis in law. I request for a copy of the Warrant of Execution and I was refused a copy. He left without doing what he intend to do. I lodge a complaint with the Attorney General of WA Office.
ReplyDeleteI note that the transcript of the review of the taxation of the two bills of costs dated 17.12.2010 refers to the mistakes of my referring to myself as the Second Defendant in CIV 1775 of 2008 and Mr. Law as the First Defendant in the same case. This is not the case and the learned Registrar Powell has made a mistake. Please refer too my Amended First Defendant's Notice of Objection dated and filed 10.11.2011. Registrar Powell is not allowed to sign the Allocaturs until he has reviewed the taxation of the two bills of costs and this should only happened after the 17.12.2011 and not on 3.11.2011. Therefore the Warrant of Execution by the Deputy Sheriff is wrong in law.
ReplyDelete