Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Mr. Eddie Hwang
President of Unity Party WA
Dear Sir
CACV 41 of 2010: CHIN -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2011] WASCA 110 and Letter of Attorney General WA ref: 35-14199 dated 4.5.2011
I refer to the above matter and would like to state the following:
a) I authorize Unity Party of WA to act on my behalf in resolving this issue of the Court of Appeal continuing to torture me and to take away my human rights to practice law for the purpose of protecting the public interests that lawyers in WA must not pillage and plunder innocent members of the public with impunity.
b) The Court of Appeal has denied me natural justice and therefore the judgment above is a nullity in that it shied away from dealing with the four issues: The Pseudo Board usurping the authority of the regulator of the legal profession in WA, the plundering and pillaging of Timothy Robin Thies of his clients, the falsification of court records by Solicitor David Taylor and the Pseudo Board refusing to honour the consent judgment entered into between myself and the regulator to set aside the judgment of Eckert J in VR 137 of 2006.
c) The High Court per Kirby J in Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323 has laid down the law in that the Court of Appeal must not continue to torture me and take away my human rights to independent legal practice by naming the wrong party as the abuser of the court process, in this context:
"First, it is always important for every Judge to keep an open mind in case a person who has been rejected by courts in the past may have, hidden amongst the verbiage of his or her arguments, a point which has not been previously seen and which may have merit. Vigilance, and not impatience, are specifically required where that person is not legally represented; secondly, it is regarded as a serious thing in this country to keep a person out of the courts. The rule of law requires that, ordinarily, a person should have access to the courts in order to invoke their jurisdiction. It is a rare thing to declare a person a vexatious litigant. It is extremely rare in this Court to use the power, whether under the inherent power or .....to require leave before a person may commence proceedings invoking the court's jurisdiction; thirdly, the court must never shy away from the determination of a point sought to be argued simply because it may have major ramifications. .....I should not be reluctant to provide relief on the legal grounds ...simply because to provide relief would be to attack both the banking and taxation and other economic systems of this country. The history of this Court since its establishment in 1903, including recently, has shown that the court does not refrain from offering relief where the law req Re Attorney General (Commonwealth); ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323uires it simply because its decisions may have large consequences for the nation or particular interests in it; fourthly, ...seeking relief by way of the writs of certiorari and mandamus. It is not necessary for me, in the decision which I have arrived at, to determine whether they are in each case, or in any of the cases, the appropriate process of the court to invoke its jurisdiction. ....today unrepresented. If he had commenced proceedings by an irregular process which had any separate or different merit from the matters which have already been determined by the court, I would endeavour to assist him to get such proceedings into proper form or require him to commence again in proper form. I would not dispose of his application upon such a formal basis; ... "
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
