Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2011 5:28 PM
To: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au; Minister porter; WILLIAMS Simon [PD09216]; Roger Hellier; info@ccc.wa.gov.au; piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au; murray.alder@piccc.wa.gov.au;eddieh@westnet.com.au; eric.ripper@mp.wa.gov.au; crogers@hcourt.gov.au;rob.johnson@mp.wa.gov.au; Rose Noel
Subject: CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY COURT RECORDS IN CIV 1903 OF 2008 DELIVERED ON 8.7.2010 THROUGH R REGISTRAR WALLACE IN DCA NO.6 OF 2008 ON 9.5.2011
The State Ombudsman of Western Australia
Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Email: Minister.Porter@dpc.
Senior Constable Simon Williams PD09216
simon.williams@police.wa.gov.
Crime Corruption Commissioner
Attention Mr. Roger Hellier
Email: Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au;
The Assistant to the Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email:murray.alder@piccc.wa.
Mr. Eddie Hwang, President of Unity Party WA
Email: eddieh@westnet.com.au;
The Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Eric Ripper
Email: eric.ripper@mp.wa.gov.
Carolyn Rogers, Senior Registrar High Court of Australia Ph: (02) 6270 6862 Fax: (02) 6273 3025 crogers@hcourt.gov.au
The Attorney General of Western Australia
Email: Minister.Porter@dpc.
Senior Constable Simon Williams PD09216
simon.williams@police.wa.gov.
Crime Corruption Commissioner
Attention Mr. Roger Hellier
Email: Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.
The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au;
The Assistant to the Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email:murray.alder@piccc.wa.
Mr. Eddie Hwang, President of Unity Party WA
Email: eddieh@westnet.com.au;
The Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Eric Ripper
Email: eric.ripper@mp.wa.gov.
Carolyn Rogers, Senior Registrar High Court of Australia Ph: (02) 6270 6862 Fax: (02) 6273 3025 crogers@hcourt.gov.au
Minister for Police, Ministerial Office:
20th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower, 197 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 Tel: 9222 9211 Fax: 9321 6003
20th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower, 197 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 Tel: 9222 9211 Fax: 9321 6003
Dear Sirs
I refer to the above matter and would like to inform you that I have lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice of WA and the Chief Judge of the District Court with eefregard to the falsifications of court records in CIV 1903 of 2008 in the aftermath of the decision of the High Court in P50 of 2010. Please find attached the following documents for your perusal and attention:
a) My letter of complaint dated 14.5.2011 in 2 pages which was subsequently rectified by me on 15.5.2011 to indicate that the payment of $100.00 that was made by me under the belief that it was so required by the repealed District Court Rules 2005 on 24.1.2008 under circumstances when it was not so required. This means that the District Court found a way to use the unrequired payment to repair the error in the face of the court records in CIV 1903 of 2008 that was caused by Ken Martin J in CIV 1903 of 2008 on 8.7.2010 when his Honour delivered his Security Costs Orders against me for the purpose of stopping me unlawfully from prosecuting Mr. Timothy Robin Thies for the wrongs and the damage he had caused me and my son Paul by his plundering and pillaging us for no debts then owing to him in FR417 of 2007 and FR944 of 2007.
b) "The Order of Registrar Wallace in 'DCA No.6 of 2008 that was made by the the District Court of its own volition on 9.5.2011 and was received by me on 13.5.2011. This event happened after Allanson J on 11.5.2011 dismissed my application for Certiorari Orders to quash Ken Martin J Security Costs Order in CIV 1903 of 2008.
This is not an abuse of process of court as it is not a collateral attack on the decision of Ken Martin J as the High Çourt decision which does not usually allow special leave to appeal, does indicate its rationale eupheministically that the Security Costs Order of Ken Martin must be made prior to the grant of the s.36 Review of HASLUCK J (made on 7.11.2008) before that Security Costs Order by Ken Martin J (made on 8.7.2010) could be made effective. This is the case of the conspiracy to put back the cart after the horse after it was found to have been the situation of Ken Martin J having put the cart before the horse. This is the error on the face of the court records in CIV 1903 of 2008 that caused Ken Martin J's adverse security costs order against me to become a jurisdictional error decision that was attempted to be rectified by Registrar Wallace seeking to have it rectified and thereby abusing the process of court through the non-security cost order payment of $100.00 I made inadvertently on 24.1.2008. Instead of making amends for its error the judicial system is seeking through its Principal Registrar in CIV 1689 of 2011 using the State 'Solicitor to sue me for abuse of process but it is reasonably perceived to be abusing the process of court by seeking to de-list CIV 1981 of 2010 which is my application to recuse His Honour Ken Martin J from hearing the second stage of CIV 1903 of 2008 first filed by me on 28.6.2010 but was refused to be listed for hearing and is now in the process of being removed through that misconceived process by wrongfully invoking s.4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Áct, 2002.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE'
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 04216427345
The majority judgement, Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Walton v. Gardiner ((7) [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 395 stated that the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to stay its proceedings for abuse of process ((8) ibid. at 393.):
ReplyDelete"extends to all those categories of cases in which the processes and procedures of the court, which exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness".
Their Honours went on to say ((9) ibid.):
"(P)roceedings before a court should be stayed as an abuse of process if, notwithstanding that the circumstances do not give rise to an estoppel, their continuance would be
unjustifiably vexatious and oppressive for the reason that it is sought to litigate anew a case which had already been disposed of by earlier proceedings".
Their Honours again in Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, 392-393:
ReplyDelete“The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to stay its proceedings on grounds of abuse of process extends to all those categories of cases in which the processes and procedures of the court, which exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness. Thus, it has long been established that, regardless of the propriety of the purpose of the person responsible for their institution and maintenance, proceedings will constitute an abuse of process if they can be clearly seen to be foredoomed to fail. [Reference is then made to abuses of process constituted by cases where a court is a clearly inappropriate forum or where the continuation of proceedings would be unjustifiably vexatious and oppressive, having been disposed of by earlier proceedings.] The jurisdiction of a superior court in such a case was correctly described by Lord Diplock in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police as ‘The inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people’.”
Moevao v Department of Labour 137 [1980] 1 NZLR 464:
ReplyDelete“public interest in the due administration of justice necessarily extends to ensuring that the Court’s processes are used fairly by State and citizen alike. And the due administration of justice is a continuous process, not confined to the determination of the particular case. It follows that in exercising its inherent jurisdiction the Court is protecting its ability to function as a Court of law in the future as in the case before it. This leads on to the second aspect of the public interest which is in the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice. It is contrary to the public interest to allow that confidence to be eroded by a concern that the Court’s processes may lend themselves to oppression and injustice.”