From: Unity WA
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
UNITY PARTY WA WROTE TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAMENTING ON THE MISSING RULE OF LAW IN THE REGULATION OF LAWYERS IN WA
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Unity WA
Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Subject: FW: Inquiry from Lawyers.com
To: Nicholas N Chin
From:
Sent from Lawyers.com [mailto:noreply@lawyers.com]
On Behalf Of eddie hwang
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011 2:14 PM
To: eddie hwang
Subject:
Inquiry from Lawyers.com
Thank you for using Lawyers.comSM.
Please retain a copy of this email for your records.
The following Lawyers and Firms have been emailed:
Gordon Turriff
First Name:
eddie
Last Name:
hwang
Phone:
(61) 08 - 9368
City:
Como
Country:
Australia
Postal Code:
6152
Email Address:
unitywa@westnet.com.au
Practice Area:
Other
Your Message:
Mr. Christian Porter,
WA Attorney General
Christian.
porter@mp.wa.gov.au
Dear Attorney General
While we are waiting for the Law Reform Commission of WA’s Report as indicated by us in our email to you dated 9th June 2011, we are surprised to find that the President of the British Columbia Bar the Honourable GORDON TURRIFF Q.C. had already criticized the failings of our Australian regulators of the legal profession as early as September, 2009.
There is no denying that he had made a serious study of our irregular regulatory system and found something amiss..... The flaw of our system that is adjusted to cater for the endemic cronyism and corruption in our Barnett government that has already been criticized by our beloved former WA Labour Premier Professor Geoff Gallop that has been highlighted by the Western Australian on the 18th day of November, 2011.
That criticism is impliedly focussed on the aspect of the WA Regulator in particular, which does not preserve the independence of lawyers as in the case of Mr. Nicholas N Chin just as any member of the judiciary needs its independence to be preserved in order to be able to deliver justice to the common people.
The learned President indicates to that Lawyer's Independence is a sine qua non to Judiciary Independence and any repression upon the BAR by the BENCH speaks of corruption of the latter at its core. The repression of the BAR can only be achieved by the BENCH failing to protect the most fundamental and sacrosanct principle of a true democracy like Australia in the RULE OF LAW.
We look forward to hearing from you in the not too distant future.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitywa@westnet.com.au
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
www.unitywa.org
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 30-Nov-2011.
Environmental Friendly - Save the Trees/use email.
Martindale-Hubbell Lawyers.com® is the most complete, trusted source for identifying qualified legal counsel.
Disclaimer: The information provided on Lawyers.comSM is not legal advice, Lawyers.comSM is not a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on Lawyers.comSM are paid attorney advertisements and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by Lawyers.comSM or any approved or authorized lawyer referral service.
Your access to and use of this site is subject to additional Terms and Conditions.
NOTE: Due to the inherent anonymity of the Internet, the identity of all individuals should be confirmed prior to entering into any business arrangement.
From: Unity WA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LOOK AT MY COMMENTS TO MY LAST POSTING OF THE ORDER OF HIS HONOUR JUSTICE CHANEY THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WA DATED 15.11.2011 IN VR158 OF 2011. MY COMMENTS ALSO REFERS TO THE EXACT WORDS USED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA (CANADIAN) BAR MR. GORDON TURIFF Q.C. SPEECH AT HIS MEETING WITH THE REGULATORY OFFICERS OF AUSTRALIA MEETING IN PERTH IN 2009 HE IS REFERRING TO THE DEFICIENCY OF AUSTRALIAN REGULATOR OF LAWYERS VIS A VIS THE CANADIAN REGULATOR OF LAWYERS AND TELLING US WHY THEY ARE DIFFERENT. THE DIFFERENCE HE POINTS OUT LIES IN CRONYISM OF THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM WHICH HAS TO AVOID IMPLEMENTING THE SACROSANCT RULE OF LAW. THERE CAN BE NO JUSTICE IF THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.
ReplyDeleteIN MATTERS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE REGULATOR FROM THE SAT DECISION OF JUSTICE CHANEY TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A RESTRICTION ON LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CACV 107 OF 2008. THE STATUTORY LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST MATTERS AFFECTING THE LIVELIHOOD OF A PROFESSION SHOULD NOT BE ENCUMBERED BY A RESTRICTIVE LEAVE APPLICATION. WHAT IF THE COURT APPEAL REFUSED TO GIVE LEAVE. DOES IT MEAN THAT THE VICTIM OF AN OPPRESSIVE REGULATOR WHICH IS RESTRICTING MY INDEPENDENCE AS A LAWYER MUST GO WITHOUT A REMEDY. LEAVE RESTRICTION RESTRAINING A PERSON FROM EARNING HIS LIVELIHOOD HONESTLY IS THEREFORE ABHORRENT IN NATURE AND MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH BY OUR LEGISLATORS.
ReplyDelete