VR 87 OF 2010 - APPLICATION TO CALL OFF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - AN ABUSE OF PROCESS - IN EXCHANGE FOR PERSONAL GAIN
Reply |Nicholas N Chin to Legal
show details 7:20 PM (2 hours ago)
Reply |Nicholas N Chin to Legal
show details 7:20 PM (2 hours ago)
dateMon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:20 PM
subjectVR 87 OF 2010 - APPLICATION TO CALL OFF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - AN ABUSE OF PROCESS - IN EXCHANGE FOR PERSONAL GAIN
mailed-bygmail.com
subjectVR 87 OF 2010 - APPLICATION TO CALL OFF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION - AN ABUSE OF PROCESS - IN EXCHANGE FOR PERSONAL GAIN
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 7:20 PM (2 hours ago)
The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee for the attention of Ms. Le Miere
(I am sending this whole document to the LPCC by way of email only).
The Associate to the Deputy President or SAT His Honour Judge Sharp
(I am sending this letter as a facsimile to SAT as the email was sent by way of facsimile earlier today).
Dear Sirs
I refer to the above matter and wish to call off the scheduled hearing before the Deputy President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia His Honour Judge Sharp on the 11th day of October, 2011. My reason for doing so is that the LPCC has continued to show no serious intention to provide me with a level playing field in respect of the David Taylor matter as indicated in the complaint letter below sent by the Unity Party of WA to the State Ombudsman. This complaint requires the State Ombudsman to perform his statutory duty to put the LPCC aright. I shall await for the outcome and if there is no favourable outcome, I shall expect a reeasoned statement of reason that does not evade the issue that touches on the issue that that there is no credible evidence that David Taylor and Registrar Powell falsified the court records in CIv 1131 of 2006.
I have also made two separate applications in respect of the Errors of Law apparent on he face of the court records in CACV 107 of 2008 in respect of the David Taylor matter and in CACV75 OF 20010 in respect of the Timothy Robin Thies matter. These applications were lodged with the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dated 15.7.2011. I shall await for the outcome of these proceedings.
I have a very clear cut case before the State Administrative Tribunal and I do not believe there should be a trial of the malicous prosecution of me touching on the res judicata matters as contained in the VR 87 of 2009. I am required by His Honour Judge Sharp to provide the Tribunal with a written submission before that date and this email letter which is being faxed to the State Administrative Tribunal serves as that written submission.
Unless I have it in writing from both the LPCC and the State Administrative Tribunal that the VR 87 of 2009 proceedings are going to be settled in the manner indicated above, I do not see any point of my attending the hearing scheduled on the 11th day of October, 2011. I do not want to be taken by surprise or to be ambushed again or to be to be found guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct when there are no justifications for doing so.
If you the LPCC do have a valid contention that I can be validly prosecuted in VR87 of 2009, I would like to receive it in writing from you before the scheduled date of the hearing. You have so far evinced no seriousness in your intention that you are going to comply with the law and that you are going to be dealing with me honestly as you have already dealt with me dishonestly in the past. You do not even know what you are charging me as indicated by what your Le Miere was stating before the tribunal on 26.11.2010 as recorded in the transcript. You were obsessed with the idea of putting me me into trouble first so as to protect your cronies and you will do whatever later on when you can to seek out your reasons for doing so and thereby misleading the tribunal and the courts to the effect. How can you prosecute me for a wrong which has not been committed yet and thereafter researched for that fault aftere the event. When your Ms. Le Miere is before Judge Sharp on a few occassions in the past, she does not know what she was doing and was reasonably found to be misquoting the facts of the case. Your Ms. Le Miere have been leading me on a wild goose chase and she had not been able to answer my charges as required of her before State Adminsitratative Tribunal and she was found to be evading the issues. You, the LPCC have no sincerity in your professed committment to do justice and to help the regulator of the legal profession in an indepenedent manner. You do not wish to charge other solicitors for doingng the wrong things and and you were reasonably found to be protecting them continuously and unrelentingly and on the other hand you were reasonably found to be chasing after shadows and is trying to get me, an innocent lawyer convicted for no wrongs. You have taken away my human rights as an independent lawyer and you still do not want to admit to the facts. .... You may get more details from my blotspot by Googling NICHOLASNCHIN. I shall hold you liable for all the damages you have caused me so far for continuing this malicous prosecution of me since the date it was first started by Mr. Pino Monaco acting through the Law Society of Western Australia.
You have been trained to receive reason and logic but you are not using these wares to provide your statement of reason for your decision. I understand that you have many cases to deal with but you should not have dealt with my cases cursorily and depending on advice from people you know and thought you can trust but who have an axe to grind to against me and allow these people to use you against me to achieve their own ulterior purpose. You should not be protecting people who have done wrongs and thinking that legal prowess can transcend everything. Providence has provided us with reason and we shall not dominate and bully and put a person down for no rhyme nor reason. At least you may look at the reasoned judgment of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 who at least is willing to stand to reason.
I would like you to become aware that I shall not be available for three months or more as from mid November, 2011.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Phone: 08 92757440 Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com
(I am sending this whole document to the LPCC by way of email only).
The Associate to the Deputy President or SAT His Honour Judge Sharp
(I am sending this letter as a facsimile to SAT as the email was sent by way of facsimile earlier today).
Dear Sirs
I refer to the above matter and wish to call off the scheduled hearing before the Deputy President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia His Honour Judge Sharp on the 11th day of October, 2011. My reason for doing so is that the LPCC has continued to show no serious intention to provide me with a level playing field in respect of the David Taylor matter as indicated in the complaint letter below sent by the Unity Party of WA to the State Ombudsman. This complaint requires the State Ombudsman to perform his statutory duty to put the LPCC aright. I shall await for the outcome and if there is no favourable outcome, I shall expect a reeasoned statement of reason that does not evade the issue that touches on the issue that that there is no credible evidence that David Taylor and Registrar Powell falsified the court records in CIv 1131 of 2006.
I have also made two separate applications in respect of the Errors of Law apparent on he face of the court records in CACV 107 of 2008 in respect of the David Taylor matter and in CACV75 OF 20010 in respect of the Timothy Robin Thies matter. These applications were lodged with the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dated 15.7.2011. I shall await for the outcome of these proceedings.
I have a very clear cut case before the State Administrative Tribunal and I do not believe there should be a trial of the malicous prosecution of me touching on the res judicata matters as contained in the VR 87 of 2009. I am required by His Honour Judge Sharp to provide the Tribunal with a written submission before that date and this email letter which is being faxed to the State Administrative Tribunal serves as that written submission.
Unless I have it in writing from both the LPCC and the State Administrative Tribunal that the VR 87 of 2009 proceedings are going to be settled in the manner indicated above, I do not see any point of my attending the hearing scheduled on the 11th day of October, 2011. I do not want to be taken by surprise or to be ambushed again or to be to be found guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct when there are no justifications for doing so.
If you the LPCC do have a valid contention that I can be validly prosecuted in VR87 of 2009, I would like to receive it in writing from you before the scheduled date of the hearing. You have so far evinced no seriousness in your intention that you are going to comply with the law and that you are going to be dealing with me honestly as you have already dealt with me dishonestly in the past. You do not even know what you are charging me as indicated by what your Le Miere was stating before the tribunal on 26.11.2010 as recorded in the transcript. You were obsessed with the idea of putting me me into trouble first so as to protect your cronies and you will do whatever later on when you can to seek out your reasons for doing so and thereby misleading the tribunal and the courts to the effect. How can you prosecute me for a wrong which has not been committed yet and thereafter researched for that fault aftere the event. When your Ms. Le Miere is before Judge Sharp on a few occassions in the past, she does not know what she was doing and was reasonably found to be misquoting the facts of the case. Your Ms. Le Miere have been leading me on a wild goose chase and she had not been able to answer my charges as required of her before State Adminsitratative Tribunal and she was found to be evading the issues. You, the LPCC have no sincerity in your professed committment to do justice and to help the regulator of the legal profession in an indepenedent manner. You do not wish to charge other solicitors for doingng the wrong things and and you were reasonably found to be protecting them continuously and unrelentingly and on the other hand you were reasonably found to be chasing after shadows and is trying to get me, an innocent lawyer convicted for no wrongs. You have taken away my human rights as an independent lawyer and you still do not want to admit to the facts. .... You may get more details from my blotspot by Googling NICHOLASNCHIN. I shall hold you liable for all the damages you have caused me so far for continuing this malicous prosecution of me since the date it was first started by Mr. Pino Monaco acting through the Law Society of Western Australia.
You have been trained to receive reason and logic but you are not using these wares to provide your statement of reason for your decision. I understand that you have many cases to deal with but you should not have dealt with my cases cursorily and depending on advice from people you know and thought you can trust but who have an axe to grind to against me and allow these people to use you against me to achieve their own ulterior purpose. You should not be protecting people who have done wrongs and thinking that legal prowess can transcend everything. Providence has provided us with reason and we shall not dominate and bully and put a person down for no rhyme nor reason. At least you may look at the reasoned judgment of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010 who at least is willing to stand to reason.
I would like you to become aware that I shall not be available for three months or more as from mid November, 2011.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Phone: 08 92757440 Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Unity WA <unitywa@westnet.com.au>
Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:15 AM
Subject: FW: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY: LPCC FOR LODGING A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST OUR MEMBER MR. CHIN IN VR 87 OF 2009
To: ombudsman WA <mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au>
Cc: Nicholas N Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
Mr. Chris Field,WA Ombudsmanmail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au Dear Mr. Field, Thank you for your reply to our email to you on the 16-7-2011. Please find Mr. Chin’s authorisation attached and detailed allegations for you to look into before we refer the case to the CCC for further action. You might find the ”Oz Exposed” publication relevant to Mr. Chin’s complaint? We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely, Eddie HwangPresidentUnity Party WA22-8-2011. Mr. Chin’s allegation/complaint as follow: The LPCC is a statutory governmental authority with its officers' salaries being paid by the public purse. It therefore should not be partisan in its investigative works but should have done its works fairly and therefore it should not have denied Mr. Chin and members of the public generally their procedural fairness. Instead it is reasonably found to be favouoring one party namely: Registrar Powell and lawyer David Taylor in this particular instance as is indicated in its decision in favour of David Taylor displayed at Mr. Chin's blogspot at this link: http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2011/08/lpcc-is-not-making-right-findings-in.html. This letter to the complainant Mr. Maurice Law states that there is no credible evidence with regard to complaint that both Registrar Powell and Mr. David Taylor falsified court records. The LPCC is therefore wilfully blind to this fact. See the blatantly clear evidence at this link to be read together with Mr.Chin's coments at: http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2011/06/invoices-and-receipt-obtained-from.html This matter of the falsification of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 is one of the four moot points that had become the very focussed issues in Mr. Chin's defence in VR87 of 2009 against the LPCC currently scheduled to be heard before the Deputy President Judge Sharp on 11.10.2011. Since there is no honesty and therefore no level field afforded being afforded to Mr. Chin, there is no need for this malicious prosecution to go ahead as it is expected that the SAT will also be unfair to Mr. Chin. I am therefore on behalf of Mr. Chin calling it off (the dishonesty of the LPCC). The dishonesty of the LPCC is complicated by its making Mr. Chin the subject of its malicious prosecution and its abuse of court process, when it is blatantly seen to be involved in its conspiratorial role to take away Mr. Chin's independent legal pratice as a lawyer and the invasion of Mr. Chin's human rights (See: Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (2009 BCHRT 360) at tjhe link: http://www.ngariss.com/blog/2011/07/29/human-rights-liability-of-regulatory-bodies-the-gichuru-compensation-award/. It initially found Mr. Chin to be protecting his clients from from the marauding or pillaging and plundering activities of lawyers who had preyed upon innocent victims who are not well versed in the law. The lawyer involved in this instance is the former President of the the WA Law Society Mr. Pino Monaco and the unwitting victim is Dr. Kheng Su Chan who is now being treated for psychiatric disorder that was caused by her fighting endlessly against the failing legal system of WA. So this is a society where the not so clever people are being exploited by the clever people, nay even clever people are being swindled with the help of the judicial system. The LPCC's task is to prevent this state of affairs from happening but it is reasonably found not to be doing its statutory duty (the failure of the LPCC). The failure of the LPCC results from its dependence on the Law Society of Western Australia when it (the LPCC) should have been impartial. The Law Society of WA is a traditional society of practising lawyers and it is reasonably seen that its former Presidents in the persons of Judge Eckert, President Chaney and Justice Ken Martin are people who should be discharging their duties as judicial officers without fear or favour but they are reasonably found instead to be favouring the brethren of their legal profession namely: David Taylor, Timothhy Robin Thies and Mr. Pino Monaco, the third person mentioned also happens to be another former President of the WA Law Society. Traditionally the Law Society of WA has noble aims but it is also being exploited by these former Presidents to protect their friends thereby causing a public mischief of nepotism which is a form of judicial corruption. As a consequence, the LPCC is itself reasonably found to be causing a public mischief (the public mischief of the LPCC). Mr. Chin has already been prosecuted by the LPCC in VR137 of 2006 for all those cases where he could not then have been reasonably found by Her Honour Judge Eckert to have committed any professional misconduct nor any unsatisfactory conduct. Instead he had been been unreasonably found by Judge Eckert to have been guilty of a nebulous concept of deficiency in his professional knowledge, which term has been first coined by the LPCC to apply to Mr. Chin. It is a preposterous and outrageous concept as Mr. Chin has gone through the mill like other lawyers and how come he has been unlawfully discrimianted against by the ingenous device of the deficiency (the deficiency). As a result of the deficiency, Mr. Chin's independent legal practice status has been taken away. The deficiency, though a false concept has has been steadfastly adhered to by President of SAT His Honour Judge Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 found at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/SAT/SATdcsn.nsf. His Honour embelished it with his erroneous decision in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 also found at the same site as indicated above. The latter decision failed to take into account the law that once a decision touching on the deficiency has been made on the same subject matter in VR 137 of 2006, it cannot subsequently be re-litigated in VR87 of 2009 again on the ground that it had earlier forgotten to use the far fetched concept of profesional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct for the same subject matter. See the law on the abuse of process in Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65; [2002] 2 AC 1, by Lord Bingham at 30-1. As the latter SAT judgment shows, President Chaney had acceded to this abuse of process of court and was doing a lot more damages to Mr. Chin as well but he was stopped from doing so but until today, the learned President is not able to answer the many charges levelled at him by Mr. Chin in his letters to him dated 15.3.2009 and 17.3.2009 found at this link: http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2011/02/letter-to-lpcc-dated-1732010-alleging.html, (The Chaney Bar). Ever since the Chaney Bar, Mr. Chin have since been combating the deficiency arising from the public mischief of the LPCC but our judicial officers of the WA Supreme Court are inextricably intertwined with the WA Law Society and they are therefore reasonably found to have been irrestibly involved in the nepotism of helping their mates. As a result the WA Supreme Court have placed a strangle-hold upon Mr. Chin's right to independent legal practice by placing yet another bar on Mr. Chin's right to appeal through using the statutory leave to the appeal from the SAT decision (the Leave to Appeal Bar). Mr. Chin therefore cannot appeal the deficency decision unless Mr. Chin is being granted leave by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and this leave is not forthcoming. So it left Mr. Chin in a limbo. This ridiculous situation is contrary to what is being practised in the State of Victoria where professional misconduct cases are never restricted by that WA Leave to Appeal Bar (the Leave to Appeal Bar). The dispute of Mr. Chin with the regulator of the legal profession has now become very focussed on only four issues. You can read more of these issues in the various postings of Mr. Chin at his blogspot at by Goggling 'nicholasnchin" (the dispute): a) the allegedly true allegations by LPCC of Mr. Chin against Lawyer David Taylor which is now proven false; b) the allegedly true allegations by LPCC of Mr. Chin against Lawyer Timothy Robin Thies which is also proven false; c) President Chaney refusal to abide by the consent judgment of Justice Steytler in CACV 43 of 2007 which effectively set aside the decision of Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 caused by the wrongdoings of Mr. Pino Monaco against Mr. Chin.d) The attempt by President Chaney to change the deficiency syndrome of Mr. Chin into professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct syndrome in VR87 of 2009 which was stopped by Mr. Chin in time and is now left in the hands of the Deputy President of SAT to decide on 11.10.2011. The LPCC as a government body is established for the noble objective of displining lawyers but instead it is helping the promotion of corruption among judicial officeres to wit it engenders the abuse of powers by judicial officers for personal gain. They are people who are legally trained to accept logic and reason but they are not dispensing their wares of logic and reason in their decision. You as the Ombudman of Western Australia is empowered to flex your muscle to prevent maladministration of government departments. We the people in Unity Party WA do hope you will succeed in accomplishing your statutory duties. Your duties are to deal with the LPCC in the following terms:
a) Make it deal honestly with members of the public including Mr. Chin:
b) Prevent it from failing in the execution of its statutory duties to members of the pulbic including Mr. Chin; c) Stop it from creating a public mischief;
d) Make it stop cheating Mr. Chin of his human rights to independent practice of the law as a lawyer;
e) Make it stop cheating SAT and the Supreme Court about the deficiency and the WA Leave to Appeal Bar of the Supreme Court that obstructs justice to Mr. Chin.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to request for more detailed specific information from Mr. Chin.
Judicial Corruption in Australia
You have to laugh at the boldness
and hypocrisy with which Corrupt Public Servants are displaying on the High Courts website, a copy of a speech made by former Judge Michael Kirby entitled:
LIVING ETHICS TACKLING JUDICIAL CORRUPTION GLOBALLY
The speech makes a good reading in which Michael Kirby gave details of the Ethical conduct with which a Judge should act and which can be found in the UN Convention against Corruption to which Australia is a party to. From the corrupt conduct of may Judges like William GUMMOW of the High Court of Australia, Peter GRAHAM and Margaret STONE of the Federal Court, is is clear that Corrupt Judges lack ethical conduct when making Judgements and Orders to protect Corrupt Public Servants, Lawyers and Judges.
The Evidence against Corrupt Judges, Public Servants and Lawyers is over well-ming and to prevent that the Evidence be made Public, Corrupt Judges like Margaret Stone of the Federal Court of Australia make allegations of Abuse of Process, that Documents are scandalous or vexatious to Protect and Cover Up the corrupt conduct of Judges, Public Servants and to conceal forgery and criminal activity Lawyers like John Patrick Meehan.
The Evidence that Corrupt Judges have no Ethics and are perverting and obstructing justice and are violating Human Rights and abusing the law in Australia for their own gains, is in the Public view and Corrupt Politicians that are protecting corrupt Judges, Public Servants and Lawyers would be Judged accordingly, that is a fact. See the link: http://corruptionexposed.info/?cat=4
Is there really a Separation of Power?
See the Link: http://www.ozexposed.com/
This is a brilliant display of many things and MANY questions need to be asked by Australians!....
Did the Judge really listen to the case or was the verdict already decided and written before the case even started being presented?
The Judiciary and Polititions socially engineer us to "think" there is a separation of powers. After you read this you have to ask; Is the High Court there to adudicate as per the 'RULE OF LAW' or 'UPHOLD THE SYSTEM' no matter what?
Could it be that we have some 'BAD APPLES' on the high court bench?
nnc-authority-unity19082011 001.jpg
748K View Download
No comments:
Post a Comment