MS. LE MIERE REPRESENTING THE LPCC BEFORE SAT ON 8.4.2011 DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THE LPCC WAS SUPPOSED TO ANSWER

Monday, March 21, 2011

Mr C L Zelestis, QC Chairperson and Law Complaints Officer: Ms D Howell    

Phone: (08) 9461 2299 Fax: (08) 9461 2265 Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com    

2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000    

Office Box Z5293, St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6831

Atten: Ms. Le Miere

 

His Honour Judge Timothy Sharp

Deputy President of State Administrative Tribunal
Ground Floor 12 St Georges Terrace Perth GPO Box U1991, Perth 6845
Ph: (08) 9219 3111; Fax:(08) 9325 5099

Attention: Associate of Judge Sharp: Candice           BY FACSIMILE

Dear Sirs

DIRECTIONS HEARING - VR 87 OF 2009: LPB V CHIN - 8.4.2011 - HEARING ROOM 8.09 AT 10.AM   

1. I refer to the above matter and wish to update the Committee and Your Honour on the following information (which is available at my blogspot by Googling “nicholasnchin”):  

1.1.          CACV 41 of 2010 Chin v LPB was adjourned sini die after I had asked for His Honour Newnes JA to recuse himself on 11.3.2011.

1.2.          On 9.3.2011, the Pseudo Board through Ms. Breisch had asserted for a right to “fix” Newnes JA through its facsimile letter (as she had done so previously albeit secretly on the 20.4.2010 to “fix” His Honour Heenan J) through two unidentified signatories to that letter, having regard to the fact that the LPB had already decided not to participate in that appeal.  She therefore had acted in conflict of interests, this time around.   It is therefore for the LPCC to look into this.

1.3.          CACV 107 of 2008 is scheduled for re-hearing again on 4.1.2011 at 2.15 pm.  This involves my application for a Suspension Order against the void or voidable costs order of the Court of Appeal regarding its technical slip affecting its reliance upon Registrar’s Powell letter dated 11.6.2009 to me (answering my query regarding the veracity of the date of filing of CIV 1131 of 2006).  This is because David Taylor swore an Affidavit dated 29.3.2007 in CIV 1131 of 2006 which contradicts Registrar Powell’s cover-up of the David Taylor story that 20 cents was missing when he filed Civ 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006.  The High Court in P1 of 2010 had said that I must prove a causal connection between my solicitor’s work in CIV 1142 of 2005 and the removal of the Spunter’s Caveats.

1.4.          The associated case of CIV 1877 of 2010 (which is my application for Certiorari Orders to repair that technical error of the Court of Appeal affecting matters in sub-para (b) above) is also scheduled to be heard on 4.4.2011 at 10.00 am.

1.5.          I am filing a new application for Certiorari Orders to review and quash the non-res judicata issue of the High Court of Australia P50 of 2010 and the CACV 75 of 2010 which did not decide the issue of the impropriety of the Security Costs Order of Ken Martin J in CIV 1903 of 2008 (the second stage) that was before it.  If the CIV 1981 of 2010 calling for the recusal of His Honour Ken Martin J, was disposed of earlier i.e. before the two cases which avoided that issue before it, the Impugned Improper Security Cost Order would probably not exist to complicate matters further today.

3. In order for all matters to settle at the scheduled directions hearing, I would like the LPCC to address the following issues before His Honour at the scheduled directions hearing:

2.1.   Why was my learned friend Peter Quinlan S.C. as counsel for the LPB not reprimanded by the LPCC when he said that it was “okay” for the LPCC and the Pseudo Board to tell lies or to speak untruths about me in VR137 of 2006 before Her Honour Judge Eckert?  Why is no action being taken by the LPCC after it had received my complaint regarding it?

2.2.   Why was my learned friend Barrister Scott Ellis allowed to mislead His Honour Ken Martin J in Michelides No.2 to the effect that there was no evidence before that court that Registrar Susan Wilde in FR417 of 2007 was not under duress when she entered into that Consent Judgment for Timothy Robin Thies solicitor to rob me and my son of $11,500.00 knowing that this statement is an untruth?  The result is that Ken Martin J did make the improper Security Costs Order against me that was being appealed to the Court of Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 and to the High Court in P50 of 2010 that was avoided by these two fora.  Why does the LPCC knowingly allow an injustice to occur?  Why did the LPCC not take any action after it had received a complaint about this from me?

2.3.   Why does the LPCC not take action against Solicitor Anthony Prime for knowingly having misled Registrar Powell resulting in the Sheriff Steefens pursuing from me a non-debt in CACV 107 of 2008, which is the result of David Taylor Solicitor falsifying court records in CIV 1131 of 2006?  This has necessitated my application for a Suspension Order referred to in sub-para. 1.3 above.

2.4.   Why does the LPCC allow Ken Martin J to be misled by solicitor Timothy Robin Thies and his counsel barrister Scott Ellis for the purpose of stultifying the proceedings and perverting the course of justice in Michelides No.2 in that it prevented Michelides No.1 first started by me through a righteous judge His Honour Justice Hasluck J from taking its natural course after it had been informed by me?  The LPCC could have stopped all those illegal proceedings in Michelides No.2.

2.5.   How does the LPCC justify that there could be a Security Costs Order in Michelides No.2 in favour of solicitor Timothy Ron Thies under circumstances when the legislative regime into which Michelides No.1 is first emplaced by me has no justifications for costs orders to be made against the Plaintiff or myself under the Minor Cases Provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 (WA), unless I was doing something unreasonable or illegal?

2.6.   By virtue of the fact that the LPB does not intend to participate in my CACV 41 of 2010 appeal and that it has expressed its willingness to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal’s decision, is it then improper for me to seek the assurance of the decision maker i.e. the Court of Appeal, to take its preliminary stand, in accordance with the Latin axiom: Qui Non Negat, Fatetur – He Who Does Not Deny, Admits.  This preliminary stand would be an acid test that the decision maker in CACV 41 of 20010 is a proper forum fulfilling the three conditions of justice: INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY and IMPARTIALITY.  Under these circumstances, would the LPCC admit that all those documentary evidence filed by me before the Court of Appeal should be accepted by a proper decision maker for the purpose of making its decision in CACV 41 of 2010 without any further dispute?

2.7.   Why did the LPCC and the LPB not take into account the fact that there was a genuine Consent Judgment entered into between me and the LPB on the 25.9.2007 before the then President Steytler of the Court of Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007 to set aside the judgment of Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006?  If so, is it right for me subsequently to state that all those proceedings by the LPB and the LPCC to place further conditions on my practice certificate since the 26.9.2007 are illegal and cannot be the subject matter of VR87 of 2009?  In short, all the subject matters of dispute in VR87 of 2009 that is currently before this Tribunal are barred by the principle of res judicata? 

2.8.   The circus of the tomfoolery of the efforts made by the Pseudo Board to put a restraint on my independent legal practice started with Mr. Pino Monaco after the plundering and pillaging of Dr. Kheng Su Chan to whom I came to aid in her defence.  Incidentally Mr. Pino Monaco is a former President of the Law Society of WA and it is this Society which started this circus through another former President Judge Eckert and then Ken Martin J and also the President of SAT Chaney J.  Judge Eckert’s decision has been set aside.  Justice Chaney’s decision has also been pulled out by His Honour recusing himself.  Ken Martin J has yet to recuse himself.  Newnes JA decision in CACV 75 of 2010 has yet to be set aside.  The High Court in P50 of 2010 is giving me pointers to work in the right directions.  Is it reasonable for me to point my finger to the reasonable conclusion that there is a conspiratorial links amongst all the actors as indicated above, contrary to s.135 of the Criminal Code, 1913 (WA)?     

3.  In view of the above, I would like to put the LPCC on NOTICE that if Ms. Le Miere were to fail to justify all and any of the above issues listed in sub-paragraphs 2.1. to 2.8 above by answering them in detail in a manner that is acceptable by this tribunal, at the direction hearings scheduled on 8.4.2011, the non-answer to all those queries as listed above shall be taken by the State Administrative Tribunal to be an admission by the LPCC of all those issues, thus also implicating the LPCC in the conspiracy, and this letter shall serve as evidence to this effect in all future proceedings.

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN