COURT OF APPEAL CACV 41 OF 2010
BETWEEN
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN …………………………………………APPELLANT
AND
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRLAIA …….. RESPONDENT
ORAL PRESENTATION OF THE APPELLANT ON HEARING DATE ON 11.3.2011 AT 10.30 AM.
Filed and prepared by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 927857440 Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Honours:FOUR ISSUES TO BE TRIED
1. There are only FOUR ISSUES to be decided in this Appeal. This is an appeal against the decision of His Honour Heenan J in CIV 1019 of 2010 who was imbued with an original intention to do justice to me but alas, His Honour was prevented from doing so because the forces opposing him proves too great for His Honour to overcome:
1.1. the truth that a Pseudo Board usurps the statutory function of the real Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
1.2. the issue of my learned friend Mr. Timothy Robin Thies Solicitor having plundered and pillaged both myself and my son in the Civ 1903 of 2008 that is the subject of the my dismissed appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 which is the subject of my current Special Leave Application to the High Court in P50 of 2010. This is done with the tacit approval of the Pseudo Board acting through His Honour Ken Martin J.
1.3. the issue of my learned friend David Taylor Solicitor and His Honour Registrar Powell with regard to the cover up of the actual filing date of CIV 1131 of 2010, the truth of which would have enabled me to become the salvor of the Mt. Lawley and Hazelemere Properties of the late Nancy Cloonan Hall. This has caused my learned friend Anthony Prime Solicitor to enforce the two unenforceable Costs Orders of the learned Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 and of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008. This is also done with the tacit approval of the Pseudo Board acting through the Court of Appeal and the learned Master Sanderson and through Their Honours Pullin JA and Newnes JA. The matter has gone to the High Court in P1 of 2010 and it has given me pointers to come back to the Supreme Court of WA in the form of CIV 1877 of 2010 which is awaiting trial.
1.4. The consent judgment entered into between the Appellant and the Legal Practice Board in CACV 43 of 2007 that was not being honoured by the Pseudo Board in subsequent proceedings which gave rise to the wrongful judgment of the President of the SAT Administrative Tribunal in VR107 of 20008 which caused my appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 leading to the dismissal of my Application for Special Leave to the High Court in P36 of 2009. What is contained in that Consent Judgment is now res judicata issues estopped by the extended principle of Henderson v Henderson? The subsequent malicious persecution of the Appellant by the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 which culminated in the ambushed res judicata judgment of Chaney J on 4.11.2009 and dismissal of Heenan J’s decision in CIV 1019 of 2010. This Consent Judgment set aside the first SAT judgment of Her Honour Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 and every issues canvassed in it can no longer become the subject of the malicious persecution of the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 on the ground of res judicata. The FOUR ISSUES are not Res Judicata because they have been AVOIDED DECISION but the contents of the CONSENT JUDGMENT are res judicata because they have been decided by the then learned President Steytler of the Court of Appeal.
1.5. There has NEVER BEEN A TRIAL OF THE FOUR ISSUES in all the court proceedings that I have been through and therefore this is the right forum for the proper trial of those four issues. Therefore these four issues are never res judicata. A proper trial of these Four Issues will set my case on an even keel and will do me justice. Whether or not this is the proper forum for the trial of these Four Issues will depend on whether this Honourable Forum is willing to satisfy the conditions of the THREE PILLARS OF JUSTICE: Independence, impartiality and Integrity. To do this this Honourable Forum must qualify itself first by stating its preliminary stand first with regard to the issue of the admission conduct of the LPB which I am going to elaborate presently.
THE ADMISSION CONDUCT OF THE LPB
2. The Legal Practice Board was pursuing vigorously its claim against me as can be seen in the transcript of those proceedings before Chaney J in VR 87 of 2009. Since the recusal date of Chaney J, the LPCC and the Legal Practice has adopted a change of attitude. It no longer wishes to participate in this Appeal as from the 29.4.2010 and it has stated that it shall abide by the decision of this Honourable Court except for orders as to costs but not for orders as to damages for injury to my reputation which I am now seeking. It has subsequently reiterated its decision to concede defeat by admitting to all those facts which is inconsistent with its claims so far (the admission conduct of the LPB).
3. The admission conduct of the LPB is a voluntary Acknowledgment by the LPB who has been made a party to this lawsuit that certain facts that are inconsistent with its claims so far in the past with regard to this controversy with me as the Appellant are true.
3.1. It is express as it is in written form concerning the truth and it is also implied by the conduct of the LPB. The law states that if the LPB were to fail to deny certain assertions which, if false, would be denied by any reasonable person, such failure indicates that the LPB has accepted the truth of the allegations of the Appellant as contained in the documents that have been directed by the Court of Appeal Registrar to be served upon the LPB.
3.2. It therefore constitutes itself as evidence before this Honourable Court and as evidence in this trial. It takes the form of a discovery device which is the Appellant’s request for admission by the LPB. It has been submitted before the LPB asking for the truth of certain facts or the genuineness of particular documents concerning this Appeal to be acknowledged or denied. When those facts or documents have been admitted by the LPB to be true, this Honourable Court will have to accept them as such and they need not be proven at trial.
3.3. The LPB has not denied them and therefore all those documents presented by me as the Appellant before this Court should not become an issue to be argued before the trial. I as the Appellant can therefore seek an Order of preclusion from this Honourable Court which I now do.
ORDER OF PRECLUSION:
4. This Order of Preclusion once obtained by me will then prohibit the LPB from denial of those facts contained in the documents and allows this Honourable Court to treat them as if they had been admitted.
4.1. This method of eliminating undisputed facts allows me to expedite this trial today. It is also an admission against its own interests as it contradicts what the LPB has been alleging in its case so far and is now no longer alleging them as such. Its truth is presumed because the LPB would not make detrimental statements about itself unless they are true. It is therefore an exception to the hearsay rule and can be admitted as evidence in this case.
4.2. It also need to be construed by this Honourable Court as admission by flight, admission to be implied from its silence, admission in a form of a pleading, admission in an answer from a failure to deny, admission of a fact, admission of a party to this appeal and admission of its liability and is in accordance with the Latin tag: Qui non negat fatetur: he who does not deny admits.
CONCLUSION: LAW WILL NOT WORK IF THERE IS NO MORALITY
- The judgment of this court will not be enforceable and will become non-sequitur (a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it) if it not embedded with morality (is concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action).
- It is a universally accepted principle of any moral code or law in any country or nation in that its laws cannot be enforceable in a court of law if it is devoid of morality or if it does not take into account the goodness or badness in the conduct of the litigants in those proceedings.
- This is what I have pleaded before Chaney J that His Honour must do good and not do evil in His Honour’s judgment with my quote from the Ayn Rand Institute Centre of Advancement of Objectivism in California in the United States:
“Value is based on and derives from the facts of reality…. Reality, we hold—along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values. Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live.”
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN – APPELLANT
Dated 11th day of March, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment