Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.
Your Ref: SSO 3289-10
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The State Solicitor for Western Australia
141 St. Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Atten: Ms. Kah Yee Loh, Solicitor.
Fax: 08 9264 1670 BY FACSIMILE
Dear Sir
CIV 1689 OF 2011: THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA V NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
I refer to your facsimile letter dated today responding to my facsimile letters to you dated 21, 22 and 25 April, 2011.
Until I hear from you responding to me each of my statements as contained in my three letters to you indicated above, I shall not be in a position to provide you with my unavailable dates and the estimated time required for the hearing.
Please note that I shall only agree to be heard before a panel of five judges from the judicial system of another State or Territory of Australia unless I am convinced by your response letter that the State Solicitor Office is strictly adhering to the rules to ensure that I will get justice at the end of day and that I am satisfied that this is not a mere exercise to get rid of me because I have been outspoken. I would like to draw your attention by repeating what the High Court per Kirby J said in Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323 in this context:
"First, it is always important for every Judge to keep an open mind in case a person who has been rejected by courts in the past may have, hidden amongst the verbiage of his or her arguments, a point which has not been previously seen and which may have merit. Vigilance, and not impatience, are specifically required where that person is not legally represented; secondly, it is regarded as a serious thing in this country to keep a person out of the courts. The rule of law requires that, ordinarily, a person should have access to the courts in order to invoke their jurisdiction. It is a rare thing to declare a person a vexatious litigant. It is extremely rare in this Court to use the power, whether under the inherent power or .....to require leave before a person may commence proceedings invoking the court's jurisdiction; thirdly, the court must never shy away from the determination of a point sought to be argued simply because it may have major ramifications. .....I should not be reluctant to provide relief on the legal grounds ...simply because to provide relief would be to attack both the banking and taxation and other economic systems of this country. The history of this Court since its establishment in 1903, including recently, has shown that the court does not refrain from offering relief where the law req Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323uires it simply because its decisions may have large consequences for the nation or particular interests in it; fourthly, ...seeking relief by way of the writs of certiorari and mandamus. It is not necessary for me, in the decision which I have arrived at, to determine whether they are in each case, or in any of the cases, the appropriate process of the court to invoke its jurisdiction. ....today unrepresented. If he had commenced proceedings by an irregular process which had any separate or different merit from the matters which have already been determined by the court, I would endeavour to assist him to get such proceedings into proper form or require him to commence again in proper form. I would not dispose of his application upon such a formal basis; ... "
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
THE COURTS HAVE SHIED AWAY FROM DETERMINING THE FOUR SALIENT POINTS I WANT DETERMINED: A) THE PSEUDO BOARD B)MISCONSTRUING THE THIES MISCONDUCT C) MISCONSTRUING THE TAYLOR MISCONDUCT D) THE PSEUDO BOARD REFUSAL TO HONOUR THE THEN PRESIDENT STEYTLER OF COURT OF APPEAL CONSENT JUDMENT IN CACV 43 OF 2007. WHEN THESE POINTS ARE BEING SHIED AWAY, THEY ARE NOT RES JUDICATA ISSUES. NO COURT WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT I AM BEING OBSESSED TO THE POINT OF FRIVOLITY WHEN I PURSUED ONLY TO ACHIEVE THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS OF THE FOUR JUSTICIABLE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN SHIED AWAY BY THE COURTS. NO ONE SHOULD SAY I AM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BECAUSE I TRIED TO PURSUE THESE NON-RES JUDICATA ISSUES. NO ONE CAN SAY THAT I HAVE ABUSED THE PROCESS OF COURT TO PURSUE THESE FOUR POINTS WHICH WAS WITH ME RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I HAD PUT IN AFTERWARDS. THEY WERE THERE FROM THE VERY START AND THE JUDGES HAVE AVOIDED THEM ALL ALONG.
ReplyDeleteI AM NOT MAKING PUBLIC THE LETTERS I WROTE TO THE STATE SOLICITOR AS INDICATED ABOVE, YET. NOT UNTIL I DO RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO THEM FROM THE STATE SOLICITOR. THAT RESPONSE WILL TELL ME IF THE STATE SOLICITOR IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PLOT TO STOP ME FROM SEEKING JUSTICE. IF THIS HAPPENS, THEN I WILL REQUIRE FIVE JUDGES FROM ANOTHER JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA TO HEAR ME AND GIVE ME JUSTICE. THERE ARE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ALREADY PROVIDED TO THE STATE SOLICITOR THAT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN WA IS PREVENTING ME FROM SEEKING JUSTICE.
ReplyDeleteTHE HIGH COURT RARELY ALLOW SPECIAL LEAVE FOR APPEAL APPLICATIONS. I HAVE THREE SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATIONS TO THE HIGH COURT THAT WAS DISMISSED. THESE DISMISSALS DOES NOT WARRANT THAT I HAVE NO CASE. IN FACT, THE HIGH COURT IN ITS WISDOM HAS ALWAYS POINTED ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTIONS TO SEEK JUSTICE FROM THE COURTS BELOW.
ReplyDeleteIN THE THIES CASE, THE HIGH COURT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THE STULTIFYING SECURITY COSTS ORDER INTERPOSED BY THE LEARNED KEN MARTIN J WAS NOT MADE PRIOR TO THE REVIEW ORDER OF HASLUCK J IN CIV 1903 OF 2008 UNDER S.36(1) OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT ACT, 2004 (THE ACT) BUT ONLY BEFORE THE S.36(4)OF THE ACT APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW ORDER OF HASLUCK J TO BE SET ASIDE.
ReplyDeleteIN THE PSEUDO BOARD CASE, THE HIGH COURT POINTS OUT TO THE ISSUE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT IS AT STAKE. I SHOULD ONLY DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE WHICH IS NON-RES JUDICATA AND WHICH IS NOT BARRED BY THE HENDERSON V HENDERSON PRINCIPLE AS AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS BECAUSE THIS ISSUE WAS THERE ALL ALONG AND IS NOT A NEW ISSUE USED AS AN AFTER THOUGHT.
ReplyDeleteIN THE TAYLOR CASE, THE HIGH COURT POINTED OUT TO ME RIGHTLY THAT I SHOULD BE WORKING ON ESTABLISHING THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN MY SOLICITOR'S WORK AND THE REMOVAL OF THE SPUNTER'S CAVEATS. THIS IS THE POINT THAT WAS MISSED OUT BY THE LEARNED MASTER SANDERSON IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 AND BY THE LEARNED OWEN JA IN CACV 107 OF 2008. WE ARE ALL NOT SAINTS AND WE DO MISTAKE. I HOPE THEREFORE THAT THE JUSTICES WILL NOT GET TOGETHER TO GET ME OUT BY CAUSING ME TO BE SUED AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGATION WHICH THEY ARE NOW DOING THROUGH THE STATE SOLICITOR.
ReplyDeleteTHE STATE SOLICITOR IS A GOVERNMENT LAWYER FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. IT REPRESENTS ITS CLIENT, THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. THE LATTER IS SUING ME AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. THE STATE SOLICITOR IS DUTY BOUND TO BE CAUTIOUS IN ACTING FOR THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO MALICE INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION. IF I AM INDEED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, I SHOULD BE SUED. IF I AM NOT, I SHOULD NOT BE SO SUED. A LAWYER HAS THE DUTY FIRST TO THE COURT, THE DUTY TO BE HONEST AND CANDID. HE MUST NOT DO SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVE IS NOT RIGHT OR AGAINST HIS OWN CONSCIENCE. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO THIS LAWYER IS ACTING FOR, IT MUST DETERMINE THE MOTIVES OF ITS CLIENTS - WHETHER IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD OR WHETHER IT IS A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME TO DEFEAT JUSTICE FOR THE COMMON MAN.
ReplyDeleteTHE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR IS NOW TAKING SIDES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO TAKE AWAY MY CIV 1981 OF 2010 FROM THE COURT RECORDS. THIS CASE IS ABOUT MY REQUEST FOR KEN MARTIN J TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM HEARING THE SECOND STAGE OF THE CIV 1903 OF 2008 AND THE CIV 1112 OF 2007. I HAVE ASKED FOR CERTIORARI ORDERS BEFORE ALLANSON J IN CIV 1491 TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF KEN MARTIN J BUT IT WAS DISMISSED. I RESIGNED MYSELF TO MY FAITH. IF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF WA DOES NOT DISPENSE JUSTICE, I NO LONGER WANT TO RECEIVE JUSTICE. I AM DOING A PUBLIC GOOD THAT LAWYERS MUST NOT PLUNDER AND PILLAGE THE COMMON PERSON AND THE COURTS DOES NOT WANT TO DO THIS PUBLIC GOOD. I PASS IT ON TO OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THIS PUBLIC GOOD.
ReplyDeleteREGISTRAR WALLACE ISSUED AN ORDER IN DISTRICT COURT APPEAL NO.6 OF 2008 ON 9.5.2011 THAT WAS RECEIVED BY ME ON 13.5.2011. THIS ORDER IS TAKING ME BY SURPRISE. THIS ORDER PERTAINS TO THE $100.00 I PAID WHEN I FILED MY APPEAL ON 24.1.2008 AGAINST MAGISTRATE MUSK DECISION IN FR944 OF 2008. THAT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY COMMISSIONER HERRON ON 20.5.2008. THAT $100.00 WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A SECURITY COST ORDER AS IT WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED BY THE DISTRICT COURT RULES, 2005. IT CONCERNS ORDER 8 R.6 OF THE DISTRICT COURT RULES 1996 WHICH WAS REPEALED ON 30.5.2005.
ReplyDelete