THE INTENDED ATTACHMENT THAT WAS SENT BY EMAIL BEFORE 2.30 PM TODAY BUT THE SUDDEN FAILURE OF THE INTERNET CAUSED ME TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE TO SEND MY EMAIL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

                                                                                                                CIV 2157 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF S. 138 OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND ACT, 1893 WA

BETWEEN

MICHELE-MAREE-GANNAWAY                                                                                  PLAINTIFF

AND

NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                                                                                FIRST DEFENDANT

AND

MAURICE FREDRICK LAW                                                                            SECOND DEFENDANT

REGISTRAR OF TITLES                                                                                       THIRD DEFENDANT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SUBMISSIONS TO OBJECTIONS OF PLAINTIFF AGAINST AFFIDAVIT OF MAURICE FREDERICK LAW IN DEFENCE AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S ORGINATING MOTION TO REMOVE BOTH THE CAVEATS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS SWORN AND DATED 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF DOCUMENT:                                                    12^TH AUGUST, 2011

FILED ON BEHALF OF:                                                     THE SECOND DEFENDANT:

DATE OF FILING:                                                               12^TH AUGUST, 2011.

PREPARED BY:

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                                           PHONE: 06 92961555

NO. 87, WILLIAM STREET                                              EMAIL: moza35@bigpond.com

HERNE HILL WA 6056

I, maurice frederick law, the second defendant and nicholas ni kok chin in this action humbly submit the following:

1.       Nothing can be frivolous, vexatious or scandalous, if the facts deposed to in our respective affidavits are true and relevant to the issues at hand.   If we were to speak the untruths knowingly, we understand that we can be penalised by the criminal law that is in force in western australia.  So what we have said are the absolute truths and they can be verified by the affidavits already filed by us in related proceedings.  If there is any doubt about the veracity and integrity of our respective evidence, we shall ask for witnesses to be called by this court for the purpose of cross-examinations.

2.       We understand that order  37r.5 and r.7 of the rules of supreme court, 1971 wa does not permit for any irregularity of an affidavit to be struck out, but it could still be accepted ed as evidence in this court  except for scandalous matters respectively,  which must be proven by the plaintiff to be  untruths.   The burden of proof is shifted upon the shoulders of the plaintiff in this instance.

3.       The issue of the fresh evidence of registrar powell that is related to the falsification of the court reccords in civ 1131 of 2006 that has not been accepted by owen ja in cacv 107 of 2008 is a very focussed issue.  This is the only issue remaining in all the related proceedings that has never been decided by any court of law and is therefore a live issue and is not a res judicata issue (the issue of the fresh evidence).

4.       The issues of the fresh evidence has been extensively and intensively explained by the first defendant at his blogspot at: http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2011/06/invoices-and-receipt-obtained-from.html. This document together with the comments by the first defendant explains clearly that the fact that the filing fee for the writ of summons of civ 1131 of 2006 was never paid irrespective of whether the writ has been deposited with the registry of the supreme court of wa  or not.  If the fees are never paid on the due date whether in part or as a whole sum and it was indeed paid only on the 29.5.2009 (after an inquiry has been made on registrar powell  and who deliberately and maliciously falsified the court record and therefore record his falsification in his letter dated 11.6.2009 to the First Defendant which is found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book and is referred to as the fresh evidence) and not on the 10.2.2006, then that action has never been commenced on its commencement date 10.2.2006.  When that is the case, the orders of jenkins j in civ 1142 of 2005 has never been complied with by solicitor David Taylor and a fraud has been committed upon the court, upon spunter or law, upon the estate of nancy hall and also upon the then solicitor of nancy hall the first defendant.  This exposes the criminal and civil liability of david taylor and registrar powell to all affected parties recited above.  There is now no dispute to this isssue (the fraud).

5.       The fraud caused the spunter’s caveat to be removed by the solicitor work of the first defendant through the operation of law and no one should  be able to dispute this fact.  The first defendant is therefore to be declared by this court to be the salvour of the two properties of the estate of nancy hall pursuant to s.244 of the repealed legal practice act, 2003 wa (the salvour status).

6.       The salvour status of the first defendant is very relevant to the law and chin caveats.   The fraud caused chin and law or the first and second defendant respectively to become liable to the null costs order of master sanderson in civ 1775 of 2008 delivered on 29.10.2008 which is the subject of the appeal in cacv 107 of 2008.   The fraud is the subject of the error of law apparent on the face of the court records in the first and second defendants application to the court of appeal dated 15.7.2011 (the effacement of the error of law application).

7.        the effacement of the error of law application, the salvour status and the fraud must be solved by this court and it cannot be left in abeyance for this is the statutory duty of this ccourt.  This court cannot shirk its responsibility (the courts responsibility). 

8.       The first chin caveat and the previous spunter caveats have been wrongly and unjustly removed by our learned friend anthony prime on behalf of audrey hall was caused by the courts in related proceedings being misled by court officers .  The  current chin and the law caveats are their replacements and they must be allowed to remain, otherwise the purpose of the chin and law caveats shall have been defeated as a result of the death of the rule of law in western australia.   If this honourable court were to remove the chin and the law caveats today, whoever that caused this honourable court to be misled shall be held liable; the proper notifications of the courts responsibility is now being given by the first and the second defendant in this third outline of written submission dated the 12.8.2011 for the trial that is scheduled to begin at 2.30 pm today (the notification).

9.       The notification relates to the pertinent law LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and VANDERFEEN [2011] WASAT 118 decided by the state administrative tribunal most recently in that a lawyer is guilty of professional misconduct if it were to mislead the court knowingly and thereby caused damage to the affected parties in this action.

10.   Our learned friend mr. Chris stokes who filed the plaintiff’s notice of objections dated 11.8.2011 is misleading this honourable court because there is no provision in the law for the affidavit evidence of the second defendant dated 11.8.2011 filed in these proceedings to be struck out unless they are scandalous i.e. they are speaking untruths.  There is provision however, to strike out irregular pleadings and not eviden ce.   A litigant is permitted by the law to write or give his evidence in his own words and there is no specific form on how the evidence in an affidavit is to be given provided it conforms with the set rules.

Signature of the first defendant: nicholas ni kok chin

To be forwarded by the first defendant to the second defendant who shall in turn sign it and file and serve this submission if he were to subscribe to it.

Signature of te second defendant: maurice frederick law