I WANT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH ME FAIRLY: I SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED FOR NO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. I WANT TO UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTERESTS THAT THE COMMON PEOPLE GET FAIR LEGAL SERVICES
Saturday, November 5, 2011
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF MAURICE LAW IN VR158 OF 2011 PURSUANT TO ORDRER NO.2 OF JUJDGE SHARP, TO WHICH LPCC DID NOT MAKE RESPONSIVE SUBMISSIONS
IF WRIT 1131 OF 2006 WAS FILED ON 10.2.2006,TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED: 1) THE WRIT MUST BE DEPOSITED WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY AT PERTH ON THAT DAY. WHETHER IT WAS SO DEPOSITED ON THAT DAY CAN BE FALSIFIED AND SO IS AN UNKNOWN ELEMENT. 2) PART PAYMENT OF THE FEES OF $654.20 MUST BE DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY. THIS DEFINITELY DID NOT HAPPENED. THAT IS WHY REGISTRAR POWELL IS BACKING UP DAVID TAYLOR'S FALSEHOOD THAT A PART PAYMENT OF THAT FILING FEE WAS SO PAID,
THE TRUTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME AS THE SOLICITOR FOR NANCY HALL ESTATE AND THE BENEFICIARIES OF NANCY HALL ESTATE. THE TRUTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO DAVID TAYLOR'S CLIENT: MAURICE LAW.
Speech of Raja Aziz Addruse as President of the Malaysian Bar (1976-1978) at the elevation ceremony of then-Justice Lal Chand Vohrah: "But whatever the recommended conduct may be, one basic quality there must be: as Francis Bacon said, “Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue.” It is this virtue that will inevitably impel a judge to conduct himself in a manner designed to achieve the ends of justice and becoming the dignity of his office – to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially; and this virtue I have no doubt your Lordship has.”
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/speeches/first_keynote_address_by_the_right_honourable_tan_sri_arifin_bin_zakaria_chief_justice_of_malaysia_at_the_5th_china_asean_forum_26_27_sept_2011.html: Under the principle of the Rule of Law adequate protection of the law must be given to all persons and to give meaning to it, there must exist an unimpeded right of access to justice. Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, at page 85: "In the words of Lord Bingham “It would seem to be an obvious implication of the principle that everyone is bound by and entitled to the protection of law that people should be able, in the last resort, to go to court to have their civil rights and claims determined. An unenforceable right or claim is a thing of little value to anyone.” (Emphasis Added)
THE TRUTH IS THAT DAVID TAYLOR MADE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.3.2007 GIVING THE FALSIFIED RECEIPT THAT THE WHOLE FEES OF $654.20 WAS SO PAID ON THAT DAY. REGISTRAR POWELL ON THE OTHER HAND SAID ONLY PART OF THE FILING FEES I.E. ONLY $654.00 WAS PAID ON THAT DAY. WHEN THE TRUTH IS NOT THERE, THEY LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG. THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY DOES NOT TELL A LIE. THE TWO PAYMENTS OF 20 CENTS AND $654.OO WERE NEVER PAID ON 10.2.2006 BUT ONLY ON 16.2.2006. SO WHO IS TELLING A LIE NOW? THE LIE IS SO OBVIOUS AND YET THEY ARE TAKING SUCH A LONG TIME TO RECEIVE THE TRUTH.
ONE WONDERS WHY THE THE PRESIDENT OF SAT, HIS HONOUR JUSTICE CHANEY IS ADAMANT IN NOT SEEING THE TRUTH WHEN PRONOUNCING HIS HONOURS JUDGEMENT IN VR 158 OF 2011 AS IS EVIDENT IN THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE HEARING DATED 13.3.2012 AND 19.4.2012. THREE JUDGES ON THE LATTER DATE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH THAT IS SELF EVIDENT BEFORE MR. LAW AND MR.CHIN. UNWILLINGNESS TO SEE THE TRUTH VITIATES THE JUDGEMENT OF SAT IN VR158 OF 2011 THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT OF DECLARATIVE JUDGEMENTS IN CIV 1397 OF 2012 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. WHY DOES THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM IN WA PRACTISES DISPARITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES AGAINST DIFFERENT PERSONS: ONE SET OF RULES FOR MR. TAYLOR AND SET OF RULES FOR MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW.
FOR THE BIAS OF PRESIDENT CHANEY, PLEASE REFER TO THE TWO TRANS CRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN VR 158 OF 2011 ON 13.3.2012 AND 19.4.2012 DISPLAYED AT: http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/transcript-of-proceedings-in-vr-158-of.html?
IF WRIT 1131 OF 2006 WAS FILED ON 10.2.2006,TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED:
ReplyDelete1) THE WRIT MUST BE DEPOSITED WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY AT PERTH ON THAT DAY. WHETHER IT WAS SO DEPOSITED ON THAT DAY CAN BE FALSIFIED AND SO IS AN UNKNOWN ELEMENT.
2) PART PAYMENT OF THE FEES OF $654.20 MUST BE DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY. THIS DEFINITELY DID NOT HAPPENED.
THAT IS WHY REGISTRAR POWELL IS BACKING UP DAVID TAYLOR'S FALSEHOOD THAT A PART PAYMENT OF THAT FILING FEE WAS SO PAID,
THE TRUTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME AS THE SOLICITOR FOR NANCY HALL ESTATE AND THE BENEFICIARIES OF NANCY HALL ESTATE. THE TRUTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO DAVID TAYLOR'S CLIENT: MAURICE LAW.
ReplyDeleteSpeech of Raja Aziz Addruse as President of the Malaysian Bar (1976-1978) at the elevation ceremony of then-Justice Lal Chand Vohrah:
ReplyDelete"But whatever the recommended conduct may be, one basic quality there must be: as Francis Bacon said, “Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue.” It is this virtue that will inevitably impel a judge to conduct himself in a manner designed to achieve the ends of justice and becoming the dignity of his office – to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially; and this virtue I have no doubt your Lordship has.”
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/speeches/first_keynote_address_by_the_right_honourable_tan_sri_arifin_bin_zakaria_chief_justice_of_malaysia_at_the_5th_china_asean_forum_26_27_sept_2011.html:
ReplyDeleteUnder the principle of the Rule of Law adequate protection of the law must be given to all persons and to give meaning to it, there must exist an unimpeded right of access to justice. Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, at page 85:
"In the words of Lord Bingham “It would seem to be an obvious implication of the principle that everyone is bound by and entitled to the protection of law that people should be able, in the last resort, to go to court to have their civil rights and claims determined. An unenforceable right or claim is a thing of little value to anyone.” (Emphasis Added)
THE TRUTH IS THAT DAVID TAYLOR MADE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.3.2007 GIVING THE FALSIFIED RECEIPT THAT THE WHOLE FEES OF $654.20 WAS SO PAID ON THAT DAY. REGISTRAR POWELL ON THE OTHER HAND SAID ONLY PART OF THE FILING FEES I.E. ONLY $654.00 WAS PAID ON THAT DAY. WHEN THE TRUTH IS NOT THERE, THEY LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG. THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY DOES NOT TELL A LIE. THE TWO PAYMENTS OF 20 CENTS AND $654.OO WERE NEVER PAID ON 10.2.2006 BUT ONLY ON 16.2.2006. SO WHO IS TELLING A LIE NOW? THE LIE IS SO OBVIOUS AND YET THEY ARE TAKING SUCH A LONG TIME TO RECEIVE THE TRUTH.
ReplyDeleteONE WONDERS WHY THE THE PRESIDENT OF SAT, HIS HONOUR JUSTICE CHANEY IS ADAMANT IN NOT SEEING THE TRUTH WHEN PRONOUNCING HIS HONOURS JUDGEMENT IN VR 158 OF 2011 AS IS EVIDENT IN THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE HEARING DATED 13.3.2012 AND 19.4.2012. THREE JUDGES ON THE LATTER DATE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH THAT IS SELF EVIDENT BEFORE MR. LAW AND MR.CHIN. UNWILLINGNESS TO SEE THE TRUTH VITIATES THE JUDGEMENT OF SAT IN VR158 OF 2011 THAT IS CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT OF DECLARATIVE JUDGEMENTS IN CIV 1397 OF 2012 BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA. WHY DOES THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM IN WA PRACTISES DISPARITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES AGAINST DIFFERENT PERSONS: ONE SET OF RULES FOR MR. TAYLOR AND SET OF RULES FOR MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW.
ReplyDeleteFOR THE BIAS OF PRESIDENT CHANEY, PLEASE REFER TO THE TWO TRANS CRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN VR 158 OF 2011 ON 13.3.2012 AND 19.4.2012 DISPLAYED AT: http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/transcript-of-proceedings-in-vr-158-of.html?
ReplyDelete