THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR THROUGH THE STATE SOLICITOR IS SUSPECTING THAT I HAVE ABUSED THE PROCESS OF COURT AND ARE THEREFORE PROSECUTING ME IN CIV 1689 OF 2011. MY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE JUSTICE MURRAY ON 29.8.2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

                                                                                                CIV NO. 1689 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2002

BETWEEN

THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA                                        APPLICANT

And

NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                            RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT’S OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS IN OPPOSITION TO

APPLICATION OF APPLICANT UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTION ACT, 2002

(FOR HEARING ON 29.8.2011 BEFORE MURRAY J AT 10.30 AM ) (No.1)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF DOCUMENT:                                                    26^TH AUGUST, 2011

FILED ON BEHALF OF:                                                   THE RESPONDENT

DATE OF FILING                                                               26^TH AUGUST, 2011

PREPARED BY:

NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                PHONE: 01 92757440

387, ALEXANDER DRIVE

DIANELLA WA 6059

RESPONDENT IN PERSON

(The paragraph numbers referred to in this document is the paragraph numbers of the Applicant’s Outline of Submissions; Volume and page numbers are within brackets.  I follow the heading of the Applicant’s submission.).

Your Honour:

The established convention allows for 48 hours for filing and serving a written submission.  I was served with the Applicant’s submission on 25.8.2011 and the hearing date is 29.8.2011.  Usually, the Applicant will have the last word and there is simply not enough time.  It is impossible for me to write my whole response submissions to this case under the present circumstances and I therefore seek the indulgence of this court to write it in instalments.  This is the first of my series of submissions.

Outline of Submissions:

Paragraph 1 and 2: Agree.

1.         REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTIONS ACT, 2002:

Paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c): Agree.

VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS:

1.         Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Agree.

2.         Paragraph 14 (V.4; pp.414): Disagree.  The learned President Chaney of SAT is biased and prejudiced. I do not make false allegations of misconduct against other practitioners.    Further information pertaining to my stand can be obtained from my blogspot if one were to Google my name “nicholasnchin”.

3.         Paragraph 14 (V.4; pp. 702A to 799): Disagree: It consists of my application for prerogative writs against President Chaney to their Honours Justice Le Miere and Justice Heenan.  They would not grant those prerogative orders　

on the ground that they are not available against a fellow brother judge of the same rank i.e. Justice Chaney.

4.         They are not multiple attempts to re-litigate the same issues as the trial judge did not decide the issues that were before him and therefore they are not res judicata and the situation necessitates their being brought up again before another two judges. 

5.         Paragraph 14 (V.5; pp.820-1550): Disagree: The four issues have always been avoided by President Chaney, Le Miere J and Heenan J.  They are: David Taylor falsified court records in CIV 1131 of 2006, Timothy Robin Thies pillaging and plundering my son Paul and took advantage of his client to advance his own interests, the Consent Order of Justice Steytler achieved by me and my barrister against the Pseudo Board because of the wrongdoings of my learned friend Pino Monaco plundering my client Dr. Kheng Su Chan and the malicious intent of the Pseudo Board or the attempt of Chaney J to convert the deficiency syndrome defined by Eckert J in VR137 of 2006  into professional misconduct in VR87 of 2009 launched by the malicious intent of the LPCC.  They are never res judicata till today as there is no written judgement based on these issues.

6.         Paragraph 14: (V.9; pp.1865 – 1972): Disagree: The issues of the plundering and pillaging of my son Paul by my learned friend Timothy Robin Thies which led to the oppressed consent order made under duress before Registrar Wilde was never decided by Magistrate Musk. 

7.         There should not be invisible barriers in the courts that stop a litigant from pursuing justice in accordance with the law.  For example, in the State of Victoria there is no statutory bar to appeal against decision on professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct matters but in Western Australia, leave to appeal must first be obtained in order to enable the aggrieved practitioner to appeal against the decision of the SAT regarding disciplinary matters.  Leave to appeal is a discretionary matter and is subject to abuse as the probability of success is a subjective decision.

8.         There should not be any form of cronyism where particular litigants are being shielded or protected for reasons unknown.

9.         When a Judge made a decision, it should be transparent and clear to the common people and the reasons for the decision should be clearly explained.

10.       When a Judge writes a statement of reason, he should not evade the issue that is before him and he should not write a judgement that is not relevant to the issues at hand.

11.       When an issue has not been decided and is not contained in the statement of reason, that issue can be re-litigated in another forum on another day and no one can bar it as being res judicata.

12.       I must not be taken by surprise and be refused my chance to be heard, otherwise, the decision arrived at by this Honour in denying me my natural justice will be a void decision.

13.       In matters of procedural law, the court has a duty to advise me to go on the right path and my case cannot be dismissed on this ground.  But in matters of substantive law, I shall abide by the decision of the court if it stands to reason and logic and the issue has been properly decided.

14.       Over the years of my litigation, the issues in my dispute with the regulator has become very focussed:

14.1.    For the David Taylor Case, it is the issue of fresh evidence pertaining to the falsifications of court records by both Registrar Powell and David Taylor in CIV 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006 that was refused admission into the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008.  If it were so accepted, it would have reversed the outcome of the decision. That is the law pronounced by Owen JA himself. I am seeking to have this Error of Law apparent on the court records to be effaced from the court records in my application in that appeal case dated 15.7.2011 (the falsification of court records issue).

14.2.    For the Timothy Robin Thies Case, the issue is the improper and incorrect decision of His Honour Justice Ken Martin in restricting the review order from being implemented by interposing it with a security cost order on 8.7.2010.  That constitutes an obstruction to justice because the security costs order was the cart that was placed before the horse.  In order to rectify this anomaly, the District Court through Registrar Wallace was reasonably found to be legitimising an improper payment of court fees of $100.00 that I made to the District Court at the time when I lodged my appeal against Magistrate Musk decision of FR944 of 2007 in District Court Appeal No. 6 of 2008.   That payment was not made by me as security costs but was misinterpreted to be a security costs that was paid by me before the Review Order given in favour of me in CIV 1903 of 2008 by His Honour Justice Hasluck.  His Honour dealt with the first part of the Review and Justice Ken Martin dealt with the second part of the Review but the latter judge favoured Timothy Robin Thies and was biased and prejudiced against me.  There is no law in force at the time of its payment that it was intended as a security costs order.  This matter is a subject of my complaint to the Chief Judge of the District Court His Honour Judge Peter Martino and the Chief Justice Wayne Martin.  I have also made an application in CACV 75 of 2010 for the error of law apparent on the court records to be effaced dated 15.7.2011 (the obstruction of justice issue).   

14.3.    The existence of the Pseudo Board is not in dispute.  The Pseudo Board is not properly constituted and it came about by the secret arrangement of some six members of the 52 members of the Legal Practice Board to do a bidding of its former Presidents namely Mr. Pino Monaco who has been plundering and pillaging Dr. Kheng Su Chan and has caused her to be recently incarcerated in a hospital supposedly for psychiatric reason as she has been fighting injustice as a widow unsuccessfully for many years and was too stressed up.  This Pseudo Board appears again and again to restrain me from independent practice and is impregnated with the malicious intent.   The Pseudo Board is utilising its former Presidents like Justice Ken Martin, Justice Chaney as President of SAT and Judge Eckert of SAT in VR 137 of 2006.  The latter found me guilty of deficiency of my professional knowledge on 12.9.2006.   Since then I was fighting for my independent legal practice because I was without a professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct.  But I was stopped by the malicious intent of the LPCC to convert the deficiency of Judge Eckert into the professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct through Justice Chaney (the Pseudo Board issue).

14.4.    The Pseudo Board admitted the detriment caused to me through its conduct in a consent judgment of the malpractice caused by Pino Monaco that affected my independent status as a lawyer for Dr. Kheng Su Chan.  That consent judgment is in CACV 43 of 2007 achieved between the parties on 25.9.2007.  That consent judgment set aside the judgment of Judge Eckert which found the deficiency in me to warrant the taking away of my independent status as a lawyer.   Why was that consent judgment entered before the then Justice Steytler but it remains unimplemented and unrecognised by the Pseudo Board till today but for the malicious intent of the Pseudo Board to protect its cronies.  There are many good people in the Board but the Pseudo Board remains powerful and wanted to have its way and that is the reason why I have been maliciously persecuted for no misconduct.   The matters affecting my perceived deficiency by Judge Eckert cannot be used again by the LPCC with a malicious intent to find me guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct in VR87 of 2009 as it would be an abuse of process to do so.  This case is currently before Judge Sharp, the Deputy President of SAT.   Judge Sharp had stated a few times in the transcript of the proceedings to get the LPCC to address the issues so that my independent practice certificate could be returned to me but it is not happening.  The LPCC does not want to budge from its position as noted from its recent decision dated 4.8.2011 affecting the perceived misconduct of David Taylor in the falsifications of court records which is blatantly clear. (the Steytler Consent Judgment issue).  

 Signed by: NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN