MY EMAIL LETTER TO ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES OF WA DATED 10.3.2011 AS TO WHY THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD WHO HAD PROFESSED NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS APPEAL AND HAD THEREBY ADMITS THE CONTENTS OF MY APPEAL IS INTERESTED IN HAVING A SAY AS TO WHO ARE JUDGES WHO SHOULD HEAR THIS APPEAL.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicholas N Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Subject: LPB NOT PARTICIPATING YET INTERESTED IN THE JUDGES WHO WILL HEAR CACV41 OF 2010 HEARING ON 11.3.2011 AT 10.30 AM
To: courtofappeal.office@justice.wa.gov.au, mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au, Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au, simon.williams@police.wa.gov.au, Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au, piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au, murray.alder@piccc.wa.gov.au, eddieh@westnet.com.au, info@ccc.wa.gov.au


The Acting Court of Appeal Registrar, Ms. L Bush 
Attention Juliana Loskoska
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Barrack Street, Perth
Email: courtofappeal.office@justice.wa.gov.au

The State Ombudsman of Western Australia
Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au

The Attorney General of Western Australia
Email:  Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au

Senior Constable Simon Williams PD09216
simon.williams@police.wa.gov.au;

Crime Corruption Commissioner
Attention Mr. Roger Hellier
Email: Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au

The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au;

The Assistant to the Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email:murray.alder@piccc.wa.gov.au;

Mr. Eddie Hwang, President of Unity Party WA
Email: eddieh@westnet.com.au;

Dear Sirs

I refer to the above SUBJECT MATTER and wish to inform you of the following:
a) Please find my attached my one page facsimile letter to the Court of Appeal Registrar and the Legal Practice Board responding to the facsimile letter from the latter which was received by me at 12.52 pm yesterday.  My responding facsimile letter was faxed to you and the Legal Practice Board at about 1.30 pm for which I had received a telephone acknowledgment from your Miss Cindy at the Court of Appeal Office (my attached letter).
b) My attached letter explains the fact that the Psuedo Board is still actively pursuing me and does not relent even though the real Board has stated categorically in writing on two occasions to the Court of Appeal Registrar and to me that it is not participating in this appeal and will abide by the decision of this Honourable Court except for costs orders.  I am not worried about any costs orders because I am a litigant in person and is not entitled to profit costs but I am entitled to damages for having been defamed by the Pseudo Board for which the real Board should take responsibility (the pretence of the Pseudo Board).
c) The pretence of the Pseudo Board is clear because the legal counsel who signed that letter is not revealing his name but is hiding behind the name of Ms. Miranda Braesich.  A lawyer must be honest and transparent and must do his duties as a court officer in accordance with the law and must not be involved in a subterfuge of the law (the subterfuge).
d) It is reasonable for me to presume that the subterfuge involves the use of a judge or judges who might have already harboured a prejudgment against me before the hearing date and I am taking all necessary action to prevent the subterfuge from materializing as it had already happened in the past and will happen again in the future (the nature of the subterfuge).
e) The nature of the subterfuge is real and it had shocked me into a state of trauma yesterdzy such that I was not able to do anything about it yesterday and I had to go to sleep. 
f)  In the interests of justice, I would therefore request the administrator of this Honourable Court, the Court of Appeal Registrar, to do all things necessary so that the trial does not become a mockery of the law even if it means vacating the trial until a suitable panel of judges is found who is willing to do justice.
g) I do not want to go through the process of appealing again if the three pillars of justice IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY is absent at the forthcoming trial on Friday, the 11th day of March, 2011 at 10.30 am.
h) The acid test for the existence of the three pillars of justice being present is a preliminary announcement by the three justices with regard to the preliminary stand that it should take in accordance with my request as contained in my oral submissions that is before Their Honours. If this preliminary stand is not available to me, I am requesting for the case to be vacated so that I have the opportunity to appear before a more suitable forum in order to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. 

Cheers

NICHOLAS N CHIN.  
 
See the contents of my attached letter referred to above: 

"Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Ms L Bush

A/Court of Appeal Registrar

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Court of Appeal, Registrar’s Chambers

Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street PERTH WA 6000 By Facsimile: 9421 5471

 

Ms. Miranda Breisch

Legal Counsel of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia  By Facsimile: 9325 2743

 

Dear Ms. Bush

 

Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia

 

I refer to the copy of the facsimile of the Legal Practice Board dated 9^th March, 2011  received  by me at 12.52 pm today stating that none of the judges referred to in your facsimile letter dated 4.3.2011 have a conflict of interest.

 

I refer to my amended and re-faxed letter sent to you on the same day at 3.34 pm but I apologized for my remissness in not sending it to the Legal Practice Board as I then thought it was not necessary for me to do so.  Please note my comments as further explanations, made by me, with reference to my objecting to His Honour Newnes JA as a member of the panel of judges hearing this case.  These comments are also available at my website, which you can access by Googling NICHOLASNCHIN at https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMUzLVMR7tkhVwmVAoUHvumjswSdIBUKozlF3az8UxolzbqyzLZ6xgu3FMs9vWqZjN6yJIx2n3Ma8TQGOIGBruNzrpkOZCS-54Ui_yhl1iT5U9I_8u50PZDJ5b0Ju89sF7GlKCzjQUO-b3/s1600/cacv41of2010-objectNEWNES040311+001.jpg.  They are as follows:

 

“For CACV 107 of 2008, His Honour Newnes JA was only involved in the interim stages of that appeal. His Honour was not involved in the giving of deficient reasons in that appeal.”

 

“For CACV 75 of 2010, His Honour Newnes J was involved in allowing solicitor Timothy Robin Thies to be admitted into my application for leave to appeal Ken Martin J's decision in the second stage of CIV 1903 of 2008 under circumstances when the latter was not supposed to be admitted.  Once he was admitted into that application, he was not required to answer my Appellant's case when the law makes it mandatory for the latter to do so. Further Newnes JA was involved in providing deficient reasons in that judgment.”

 

“In CACV 105 of 2008, Newnes JA was involved in providing deficient reasons for that judgment together with Pullin JA.”

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN