Our Ref: CIV1689 OF 2011.
Your Ref: CIV1689/11
May 25, 2011
The Listings Officer
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Barrack Street
Phone: 08 9421 5333 Fax: 08 9221 4436 BY FACSIMILE
Atten: Peter
Dear Sir
CIV 1689 OF 2011: THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA V NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
Thank you for your telephone call this morning. As per your request, I am giving you the reasons why I want the above matter to be listed after the 11.10.2011:
a) I believe the State Administrative Tribunal of WA under His Honour Judge Sharp is now prepared to conduct the trial of my case in VR87 of 2009 in a manner that is fair and just to me, having regard to the most recent transcript of the directions hearing dated 8.4.2011 that is made available by me at my blogspot which you can access by Googling NICHOLASNCHIN. That hearing is scheduled to be heard on 11.10.2011 and I will have to prepare a written submission for it. I therefore do not want CIV 1689 of 2011 to precede it (the Vexatious Proceedings).
b) The Vexatious Proceedings is misconceived by the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of WA in that it (the Vexatious Proceedings) itself is vexatious in that it tries to abrogate a non-vexatious proceedings in CIV 1981 of 2008. The latter case was filed by me since the 28.6.2010 which has so far not been heard and yet you want the Vexatious Proceedings to be heard so soon. There must be something fishy here? The latter is my Application for Mandamus Orders against His Honour Ken Martin J who had refused to recuse himself from hearing Michelides No.2 which has since caused me a lot of heartache. The reason for this Application is that His Honour refused to answer my questions put to him in writing as to why he had refused to recuse himself when it is plain and clear to everyone that His Honour was biased and prejudiced against me and did not accord me with fair justice.
c) Michelides No.2 had resulted in my Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010, my High Court Application for Special Leave in P50 of 2010, another application in CIV 1491 of 2011 before Allanson J that was heard on 11.5.2011. Most recently, it had caused me to write a complaint to the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the District Court in relation to Registrar Wallace having falsified the court records in making her Security Costs Order on 9.5.2011 for my payment of $100.00 which was “extorted” from me for no apparent reason and which I had inadvertently paid into the District Court in DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 on 24.1.2008.
d) Registrar Wallace’s Order is reasonably seen as a clandestine effort to regularize the improper Security Costs order of Ken Martin J in Michelides No.2 so as to put the “cart back after the horse” so as to accord with the reasoning of the High Court in P50 of 2010. (We must not have any adverse feelings about the High Court dismissing my application for special leave to appeal as it is the norm).
e) I have made three Applications for Leave to Appeal to the High Court namely P36 of 2009, P1 of 2010 and P50 of 2010 and they are in relation, respectively, to my dispute with the usurping regulator (of the Practice Board of Western Australia who are its Pseudo Members, which unlawfully restrained my independent legal practice for no other reason than to protect their cronies and its all happened through the conspiracies of the former Presidents of the Law Society of WA who are Chaney J, Judge Eckert and Mr. Pino Monaco) David Taylor Solicitor and Timothy Robin Thies Solicitor. It is very clear from the proceedings with regard to Taylor
f) They are infecting the members of the judiciary who are “reasonably seeming to be” protecting them or their cronies in terms of Taylor, Thies and the Pseudo Board, namely: Registrar Powell, Pullin, Newnes, Owen JJA and Heenan, Allanson and Le Miere JJ. They are reasonably not observed to be exercising their independence and they are not exercising their duties and their respective oaths of office as judges in accordance with the law by evading the issues that are before them. Unless and until I receive statements of reason that are delivered by the judges precisely on the issues that I have pleaded before them, will I then stop from accessing justice and be satisfied with their verdicts.
g) If it were otherwise, I am not barred by the principles of res judicata to continue my pursuit for justice, which I know is elusive and illusive. In the process, many people or members of the public are being swindled by a failing justice system. My cases include CACV 105 of 2008, CACV 75 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010, CIV 1019 of 2010 and CACV 41 of 2010 and also VR 107 of 2008 and VR137 of 2006. It is strange that Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 had decided on the same issues that I am not guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct but only guilty of “deficiency of my professional knowledge” and that the LPCC is pursuing me on the same matter vexatiously and maliciously again in VR87 of 2009.
h) On the other hand, I have been defending myself on non-res judicata matters only but I am being claimed by the Principal Registrar in CIV 1689 of 2011of having abused the court process or is considered to be a vexatious litigant. I have written to the State Solicitor who is the solicitor for the Principal Registrar requesting for a response to my queries as to why the State Solicitor is not respecting his own duties and obligations to be candid and not to abuse the process of court by filing a malicious prosecution against me in CIV 1689 of 2010 which is causing me undue hardship and stress. I have not received any response to my letters which are available at my blogspot as indicated earlier. I do not intend to spend a lot of time fighting this uphill battle if the courts are already preset to do me injustice. All the evidence that need to be used as my defence are already filed and it is for the simple reason that they are not being looked at by the Justice and not being explained in the statement of reasons that I have to fight an uphill battle. My blogspot is replete with examples of injustice to me only if the Justices are willing to read and digest them and look at one side of the story. So far I have only found Justice Hasluck, Justice Barker, Justice Simmonds and Judge Sharp, Buss JA, McLure JA who are righteous in their ways and conduct. Justice Heenan, Justice Allanson and Justice Le Miere are prepared to do justice only if only they could avoid the risk of offending their peers. Laws are supposed to be administered without fear and fervour but this is not true in practice but only true in theory.
In the circumstances as explained, I am therefore not a vexatious litigant. I await the answers of the State Solicitor to my letters which deal directly with this point. I want to get away from the stressful circumstances arising directly by the respective Justices refusing to do justice to me in accordance with the law by evading the issues to be decided by them. I have never abused the courts process by having the same issues re-litigated as they are issues that will never go away as long as the Justices refuse to have them litigated and have them settled once and for all. As a consequence, I am only available after the 11th day of October, 2011 for the hearing of CIV 1689 of 2011, if I am required to do so by then.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
TODAY I HAVE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS FROM THE ASSISTANT TO THE STATE SOLICITOR ONE MS. KAH YEE LOH TO ME AND TO THE LISTING OFFICER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WA. SHE IS STATING THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR WHO HAS RECEIVED MY LETTERS DATED 21ST, 22ND AND 25TH APRIL, 2O11 AND HAS CONSIDERED THEM. NOTWITHSTANDING,THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR HAS INSTRUCTED HER TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROSECUTION. I HAVE DONE MY PART BY PROVIDING THE LISTING OFFICER WITH MY UNAVAILABLE DATES FOR THE HEARING.
ReplyDelete