WHERE IS THE JUSTICE ACCORDED TO ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW II?

From: Unity Party WA [mailto:info@unitywa.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:11 AM To: Commissioner - C.C.C. Cc: Nicholas N Chin Subject: Re: Your complaint to the CCC [CCC - Unclassified] Dear Mr. Menzies, Would you like to comment, please? Yours sincerely, Eddie Hwang. ************************ Dear Sir 1) Thank you for your response letter dated 26th August 2015 to my Complaint Letter dated 26th June, 2015 bearing Your Ref: 02020/2015/MGMCMIS Auth No: 22830. As anticipated, I regret your invalid decision to my complaint based on the following missing jurisdictional facts (the Missing Jurisdictional Facts): 1.1) the conspiracy to remove my name from the roll of barristers and solicitors (the conspiracy) 1.2) the untruths of the allegations made against me which forms the basis of that conspiracy (the untruths); 1.3 ) the untruths in relation to the findings of the various judges pertaining to the misconduct of my fellow solicitors Mr. Timothy Robin Thies and Mr. David Taylor who breached the rules of the profession and are able to get away with it because of the corrupt conduct of those judges (the corrupt conduct of judicial officers); 1.4) The corrupt conduct of judicial officers was achieved through the devious process of using the untruthful findings of my alleged dishonesty in relation to Ms. Nalini when no property of hers was ever deprived by me and the fact that she withdrew from her complaint (the contrived excuse of the serious misconduct of the judicial officers). 2. Your decision not to investigate the complaint further and to shelve the Complaint made on 26.8.2015 is a non-decision or a CORAM NON-JUDICE on the grounds of the MISSING JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. 3. Your decision is that of a decision maker in the CCC and is equivalent to that of an inferior tribunal and there is no requirement for me to appeal against it for the purpose of setting aside and is an invalid decision (the Invalid Decision). 4. For the Invalid Decision to be valid, you need to address the Missing Jurisdictional Issues in the Reason for Your Decision and you have failed to do this. 5. By reason of the Invalid Decision, you have not performed your duties as is required of you in the public position that you hold and you are not serving the public interests in holding on to that office by not enlivening your authority with that Invalid Decision you have achieved. This situation may be explained by what The Chief Justice of Western Australia Wayne Martin C.J. in the case of Stewart v City of Belmont [2013] WASC 366 (10 October 2013) at paragraph 54 which states: "54 There is, of course, a well-established distinction between jurisdictional facts - facts which must exist in order to enliven jurisdiction, and facts which are to be determined in the course of exercising jurisdiction - see Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Corporation [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135, 148 [28]; Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; (2011) 244 CLR 144 (Plaintiff M70). If jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a fact, and if it is established in proceedings for judicial review that the fact does not exist, it will follow that the decision maker has exceeded jurisdiction and relief may be granted (Plaintiff M70; Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (2010) 239 CLR 531 [72]). On the other hand, if the existence or otherwise of the fact is something to be determined in the course of exercising jurisdiction, it will be for the decisionmaker, and not for the court exercising powers of judicial review to determine whether or not that fact exists" 6. Further Your statutory powers is not enlivened by virtue of the fact that your decision have not met with the criteria or the condition of your decision and therefore Your Invalid Decision may be described as "arbitrary, capricious, irrational and not bona fide as explained below by the High Court of Australia in many cases on Jurisdictional Facts for instance at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdictional_fact where it says, inter alia, the following: 6.1. These criteria of Jurisdiction: 6.1.1. are created by and operate through statute: Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL & Ors [1999] NSWCA 8, at [28]; 6.1.2. may be subjective: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611, at 30; 6.1.3. may be objective in nature and may also be a complex of interactions: Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 at 130 see also R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 598 (5 September 1945). 6.2. But These criteria of Jurisdiction must NOT be: 6.2.1. illogical: Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 at 130 see also R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 598 (5 September 1945); 6.2.2. capricious and must be actual: Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 [21] (Atkins). 7. And further, you must not lose track of the fact that the former Director of the CCC when he was a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of WA did let me have a reprieve from the malicious persecution of the LPCC which eventually brought about the conspiracy. My efforts to regain my positon and their favours just eluded my grasp ever so often as there is a never ending leash upon me to stop me from lawyering based upon inadequate reasons and they have to keep finding a valid reason. In the end, they still did not find that reason but they found a way to make me a vexatious litigant and thereby ended my career by taking my name off the roll for no dishonesty or rather a feigned dishonesty. 8. I hope the above will help you to make a proper and valid decision so that I can lay this matter at rest, otherwise, there is going to be an unending nightmare for me to unravels why the State of Western Australia has not delivered even justice to me and my soul will not rest in peace. . Yours faithfully NICHOLAS N CHIN 387 ALEXANDER DRIVE DIANELLA WA 6059 Phone: 0892757440 Mobile: 0421642735.