| hide details 1:05 PM (0 minutes ago) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Attorney General of Western Australia
The Ombudsman of Western Australia
The Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia
The Parliamentary Inspector of the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia
The Assistant Parliamentary Inspector of the Crime Corruption Commission of Western Australia.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Executive Officer
State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia
12, St. Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Ph: (08) 9219 3111; Fax: (08) 9325 5099
Attention: Associate of Vice President Judge Sharp: Candice BY FACSIMILE
Dear Sirs
VR 87 OF 2009: LPB V CHIN
Thank you for your transcript to the above proceedings for Friday, 8th April, 2011 which I received yesterday. After reading through it, I feel it is no longer necessary (as requested earlier by me) for the learned Judge Sharp to provide me with a Statement of Reason to enable me “to understand the reason for having the matter set down for trial on 11.10.2011 where there are no issues to be tried and the LPCC has failed to respond to my 8 questions in my letter dated 21.3.2011 to LPCC and SAT”. I therefore apologized for the inconvenience caused to His Honour.
I would like to update the learned Vice President of the most recent developments of my case, in terms of the following:
a) The judgment of Hall J, as agreed to by Newnes and Murphy JJA in CACV41 of 2010, is contained in CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2011] WASCA 110 on delivered on 4.5.2011 (the joint judgment).
b) I find that the joint judgment contains defective statement of reasons which does not address the four issues of Pseudo Board, the Thies and Taylor misconduct and the Steytler P Consent Judgment in CACV 43 of 2007, in the light of the LPCC having admitted to my charges as encompassed by them (the issues), by not defending them. As a result, those issues are not res judicata and can be re-litigated, until they are being resolved by a statement of reason that addresses them.
c) The only remedy available to me now, to re-open CACV 41 of 2010, is through the Prerogative Writ Orders by my invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, within the time frame of 6 months from the date of that judgment as stipulated by the Rules. By the time the VR87 of 2009 is heard on 11.10.2011, my case, if not re-opened within that time-frame, would be rendered beyond redemption.
d) Hopefully, I am awaiting the judgment of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 to address the Taylor issue, successfully. I am also waiting for the CIV 1491 of 2011 to be settled affecting the Thies issue, which is scheduled to be heard tomorrow. If these two issues were settled by then, then there would remain only two issues in CACV41 of 2010 to be re-opened i.e. the Pseudo Board and the Steytler Consent Judgment issues. I want to insure that these two issues will not go wrong in VR87 of 2009 on the scheduled hearing on 10.11.2011 and hence, its urgency to be dealt with in the re-opening of the CACV 41 of 2010. If SAT can advise me otherwise, I would be willing to take up that position as advised, so as to avoid further waste of efforts in re-opening CACV 41 of 2010.
e) You would also appreciate that I have written to the State Solicitor regarding the intention of the Principal Registrar to sue me for abuse of court process in CIV1869 of 2011. I am getting some respite because of my third letter to the State Solicitor of WA dated 25.4.2011 is asking him, as the solicitor for the Principal Registrar to stop prosecuting for an alleged abuse of process which is a non-issue. I have been maliciously prosecuted by the LPCC in VR87 of 2009 because it commences that action to prosecute me on the res judicata issues already decided by Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006; that was already set aside by the Steytler P Consent Judgment. On the other hand, I have not abused the process of court because I have not been untruthful or have manipulated the proceedings fraudulently in my defence of having been maliciously attacked.
f) I have received a letter from the State Attorney General dated 4.5.2011 lamenting the fact that the judiciary of Western Australia is independent and therefore it is immune from any interference by the Honourable Minister Christian Porter. But Minister Porter can also look into the integrity and impartiality aspects of the judicial system of WA to find out if there are any elements of dishonesty in decision making and whether irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. This would have warranted Minister Porter’s interference.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
CIV 1491 OF 2011 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HIS HONOUR ALLANSON J ON 11.5.2011. I HAVE ASKED FOR HIS HONOUR'S TRANSCRIPT FROM WHICH I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THE DISMISSAL. I DID PERSUADE THE LEARNED JUDGE THAT HE COULD WRITE ON A CLEAN PLATE BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE KEN MARTIN J MADE A VOID SECURITY COSTS ORDER IN CIV 1904 OF 2008 ON 8.7.2010 BECAUSE HE WAS IN JURISDICTIONAL ERROR IN DOING SO ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED ME MY NATURAL JUSTICE.
ReplyDeleteTHE STATE SOLICITOR OF WA IS THE SOLICITOR FOR THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR IN CIV 1689 OF 2011. THE LEARNED REGISTRAR IS MISCONCEIVING HIS RIGHT TO INVOKE HIS JURISDICTION AS CONFERRED BY SUBS.4(2)(b) OF THE VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTION ACT, 2002 (WA) TO RESTRICT MY CAPACITY TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PSEUDO BOARD ON THE GROUND THAT I HAVE BEEN DEFENDING MY CASES VEXATIOUSLY WHEN IN ACTUAL FACT I HAVE NOT.
ReplyDeleteWhen rights cause injustice: a critique of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)by NIKOLAS KIRBY at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/2009/7.html to appreciate the laws governing vexatious proceedings.
ReplyDeleteWheelan J in Attorney-General (Vic) v Weston [2004] VSC 314 at [21], citing Brogden v Attorney-General [2001] NZCA 208 at [21]. See also Attorney-General v Collier [2001] NZAR 137 at [36], [56]; Hunters Hill Municipal Council v Pedler [1976] 1 NSWLR 478 (‘Pedler’) at 487–8 (Yeldham J) said:
ReplyDelete"[a] litigant may be said to be persisting in litigating though the number of separate proceedings he or she brings is quite small if those proceedings clearly represent an attempt to re-litigate an issue already conclusively determined against that person, particularly if this is accompanied by extravagant or scandalous allegations which the litigant has no prospect of substantiating or justifying".
IN MY CASE, I AM PERSISTING IN THE FOUR ISSUES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN ANSWERED BY ALL THE JUDGES THAT I HAVE BEEN BEFORE. I HAVE ASKED FOR THE ANSWERS TO THE FOUR ISSUES TO BE GIVEN TO BE IN A STATEMENT OF REASON; I HAVE ASKED IN VAIN. THEREFORE IT CAN BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE ARE ARE TWO STANDARDS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF RULES BY OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Roden J in Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481 at 491 said the following:
ReplyDelete"1. Proceedings are vexatious if they are instituted with the intention of annoying or embarrassing the person against whom they are brought.
2. They are vexatious if they are brought for collateral purposes and not for the purpose of having the court adjudicate on the issues to which they give rise.
3. They are also properly to be regarded as vexatious if, irrespective of the motive of the litigant, they are so obviously untenable or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless.
IN MY CASE, I DO NOT HAVE THE MOTIVE TO ANNOY THE PSEUDO BOARD; I DO NOT BRING MY CASES FOR A COLLATERAL PURPOSE; MY DEFENSIVE ACTIONS AFTER HAVING BEEN ATTACKED MALICIOUSLY ARE NEVER UNTENABLE OR MANIFESTLY GROUNDLESS.
As EM Heenan J stated in Granich Partners v Yap[2003] WASC 206 at [31]said:
ReplyDelete"This is an area where relief should be given not merely because another private litigant is being inconvenienced or harassed but also because important public resources of time and attention of the court are being, or may be, diverted by inappropriate claims, to the disadvantage not only of the court but to other litigants whose causes may be delayed by the time needed to deal with vexatious proceedings.[71][2003] WASC 206 at [31]."
IN MY CASE, PUBLIC FUNDS IS BEING WASTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING OUT MY CASE AGAINST THE LEARNED KEN MARTIN J IN CIV 1981 OF 2010 FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A MANDAMUS ORDER FOR THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE'S RECUSAL. ALTHOUGH HIS HONOUR KNEW ABOUT MY HAVING FILED CIV 1981 BEFORE HIS HONOUR DECISION IN INTERPOSING THE IMPROPER STULTIFYING SECURITY ORDER AGAINST ME IN CIV 1903 OF 2008 ON 8.7.2010. MY PURPOSE IN CIV 1491 OF 2011 WAS TO EXPUNGE THE TWO VOID DECISIONS OF KEN MARTIN J IN CIV 1903 OF 2008 AND CIV1112 OF 2007 FROM THE COURT RECORDS SO THAT ALLANSON J CAN START ON FRESH GROUNDS. BUT THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A WAY OF ADDRESSING THIS INJUSTICE.
THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF CIV 1689 OF 2011 INSTITUTED BY THE STATE SOLICITOR AGAINST ME ACTING FOR THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR IS TO TAKE OUT THE CIV 1981 OF 2010 WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN LISTED FOR HEARING SINCE THE DATE OF ITS FILING ON 28.6.2010. THE COURT CANNOT DELAY THESE PROCEEDINGS. SO THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS TO USE S.4(2(b) of the VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTION ACT 1002 (WA) AGAINST ME. THIS IS A WASTAGE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS THAT IS BEING USED FOR A PRIVATE PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE IS TO COVER UP THE WRONGDOINGS OF THE PSEUDO BOARD AND THE LPCC WHO ARE PROTECTING THEIR CRONIES
ReplyDeleteTHERE ARE MANY GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE WATCHING. ALL THE FIFTY TWO MEMBERS OF THE REAL REGULATOR OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN WA ARE WATCHING THE PSEUDO BOARD. THE PSEUDO BOARD IS INFILTRATING THE LPCC.
ReplyDelete