Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Mr. Eddie Hwang
President of Unity Party WA
Dear Sir
CACV 41 of 2010: CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2011] WASCA 110 and Letter of Attorney General WA ref: 35-14199 dated 4.5.2011
I refer to the above matter and would like to state the following:
a) I authorize Unity Party of WA to act on my behalf in resolving this issue of the Court of Appeal continuing to torture me and to take away my human rights to practice law for the purpose of protecting the public interests that lawyers in WA must not pillage and plunder innocent members of the public with impunity.
b) The Court of Appeal has denied me natural justice and therefore the judgment above is a nullity in that it shied away from dealing with the four issues: The Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the regulator of the legal profession in WA, the plundering and pillaging of Timothy Robin Thies of his clients, the falsification of court records by Solicitor David Taylor and the Pseudo Board refusing to honour the consent judgment entered into between myself and the regulator to set aside the judgment of Eckert J in VR 137 of 2006.
c) The High Court per Kirby J in Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323 has laid down the law in that the Court of Appeal must not continue to torture me and take away my human rights to independent legal practice by naming the wrong party as the abuser of the court process, 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
IT DOES NOT TAKE AN EINSTEIN TO REALIZE THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FAILING IN WA. I HAVE ASKED FOR THE JUSTICES TO TAKE A PRELIMINARY STAND BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO HEAR MY CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGULATOR OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN WA IS NOT DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST MY CHARGES. THE LATIN MAXIM QUI NON NEGAT, FATETUR IS AN APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE OF LAW IN OUR JURISDICTION. HE WHO DOES NOT DENY ADMITS. NONE OF THEIR HONOURS WERE WILLING TO TAKE THIS PRELIMINARY STAND. YET THEY DENIED ME PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS BY NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS BUT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
ReplyDeleteTHE FOUR ISSUES I HAVE ASKED TO BE LITIGATED HAVE NEVER BEEN LITIGATED AT ALL BEFORE ALL THE JUDGES THAT I HAVE BEEN BEFORE. WHAT GETS LITIGATED ARE ONLY NON ISSUES. HOW CAN THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD ACCUSE ME OF ABUSE OF PROCESS WHEN THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES OF IMPROPER USE OF LEGAL PROCESS AFTER IT HAS BEEN ISSUED OR A SUIT HAS COMMENCED. NOR IS THERE AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE A FRAUDULENT OR MALICIOUS MANIPULATION OF THE PROCESS ITSELF.
ReplyDeleteWHAT BAFFLES ME IS WHY THOSE FOUR ISSUES ARE NOT BEING LITIGATED WHEN THE ANSWERS TO THEM ARE VERY OBVIOUS AND VERY CLEAR TO ALL PARTIES CONCERNED. IT IS VERY EASY FOR THE JUSTICES TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF REASON FOR THOSE FOUR ISSUES. THOSE FOUR ISSUES ARE THE RAISON D'ETRE FOR THE REGULATOR TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT LEGAL PRACTICE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE THE HONOURABLE MR. CHRISTIAN PORTER CANNOT INTERFERE IN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. THE JUDICIARY ARE IMMUNE AND CAN DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DECIDE. BUT THEY HAVE TO GIVE REASONS FOR THEIR DECISION. IF THEY DO GIVE A DEFICIENT JUDGMENT, THAT IS ONE WITHOUT PROPER REASONS FOR DECISION, THAT JUDGMENT IS A NULL JUDGMENT AND CANNOT BE USED TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.
ReplyDeleteWHY IS THIS THING HAPPENING IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA. IT BAFFLES ME. THE JUSTICES ARE SUPERIOR IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND YET THIS SITUATION IS OCCURRING. IT IS AS IF THERE IS A DELIBERATE INTENTION TO DENY ME JUSTICE OR IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE. ONLY THE COMMON PEOPLE HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THIS. WHY IS THIS HAPPENING IN A DEMOCRACY LIKE AUSTRALIA.
ReplyDeleteI AM FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD THAT LAWYERS MUST NOT ROB AND PILLAGE THE COMMON AND ORDINARY FOLKS OF OUR LAND WHO ARE VULNERABLE PEOPLE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW. LET THE COMMON PEOPLE ATTAIN JUSTICE THAT IS FREE FROM THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE LAW THAT IS MAN MADE FOR OPPRESSING THE COMMON MAN. LET JUSTICE BE ACCESSIBLE TO BOTH THE RICH AND THE POOR ALIKE. LET EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY.
ReplyDeleteIT IS CONCEDED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE DECISION MAKERS. BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PRIVILEGED TO QUESTIONS THE INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY ASPECTS. THE INTEGRITY ASPECTS INVOLVES THE JUDGES NOT BEING DISHONEST BY GIVING DEFICIENT REASONS AND AVOIDING THE ISSUES AND THE LAW. THE IMPARTIALITY ASPECT INVOLVES THE JUDGES BEING FREE TO TELL THE LITIGANT WHAT PROCEDURAL LAW HE HAS GONE WRONG AND TO PUT HIM ON THE RIGHT PATH AND TO TAKE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT AND TO DISCARD IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
ReplyDeleteI DID NOT COMMENCE ANY SUIT MALICIOUSLY AGAINST THE REGULATOR. HOWEVER, THE LPCC AS THE ARM OF THE REGULATOR DID COMMENCE VR87 OF 2009 MALICIOUSLY OR IT DID THE WRONGFUL ACT OF FILING THAT SUIT FOR IMPROPER OR MALICIOUS PURPOSE. THAT SUIT FULFILLS THE THREE REQUIREMENTS: MALICE, LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE PROCESS AND A TERMINATION OF THE PRIOR CONSENT JUDGMENT ACHIEVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE STEYTLER P IN CACV 43 OF 2007 ON 26.9.2007. THAT CONSENT JUDGMENT WAS FAVOURABLE TO ME ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT IT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGE ECKERT IN VR 137 OF 2006. THE LPCC SOUGHT IN VR 87 OF 2009 TO RELITIGATE THE VERY SAME ISSUES THAT WAS SET ASIDE BY JUDGE ECKERT BY STATING THAT IT HAD FORGOTTEN TO SUE ME FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON THE EARLIER COUNTS. THIS IT CANNOT DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HENDERSON V HENDERSON PRINCIPLE WITHOUT ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT AS A RESULT.
ReplyDelete