Thursday, April 14, 2011

THE ENFORCEMENT OF VOID COSTS ORDERS BY MR. ANTHONY PRIME IN CACV 107 OF 2008 AND CIV 1775 OF 2008

DISPARITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES IN CACV 107 OF 2008 AND CIV 1775 OF 2008 TO BE CORRECTED BY COMMISSIONER SLEIGHT IN CIV 1877 OF 2010

Reply
|

Nicholas N Chin

 to crogers, courtofappeal.., mail, Minister.Porter, simon.williams, Roger.Hellier, piccc, murray.alder, eddieh, rob.johnson, peter.abetz, frank.alban, lisa.baker, Premier.Barnett, ken.baston, liz.behjat, matt.benson, geraldton, john.bowler, ian.britza, helen.bullock, troy.buswell, adele.carles, Minister.Castr., john.castrilli, vincent.catania
show details 4:32 PM (1 minute ago)

The Acting Court of Appeal Registrar, Ms. L Bush 
Attention: Juliana Loskoska  & Maria Santos Bond
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Barrack Street, Perth
Email: courtofappeal.office@justice.wa.gov.au

The State Ombudsman of Western Australia
Email: mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au

The Attorney General of Western Australia
Email:  Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au

Senior Constable Simon Williams PD09216
simon.williams@police.wa.gov.au;

Crime Corruption Commissioner
Attention Mr. Roger Hellier
Email: Roger.Hellier@ccc.wa.gov.au

The Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email: piccc@piccc.wa.gov.au;

The Assistant to the Parliamentary Inspector of Western Australia
Email:murray.alder@piccc.wa.gov.au;

Mr. Eddie Hwang, President of Unity Party WA
Email: eddieh@westnet.com.au;

The Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Eric Ripper
Email: eric.ripper@mp.wa.gov.au,

Carolyn Rogers, Senior Registrar  High Court of Australia
Ph: (02) 6270 6862 Fax: (02) 6273 3025
crogers@hcourt.gov.au
Minister for Police, Ministerial Office:
20th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower, 197 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000  Tel: 9222 9211 Fax: 9321 6003
All Members of Parliament of Western Australia
Dear Sir
Please find attached my letter dated 14.4.2011 in three pages sent by way of Facsimile to the Court of Appeal Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and other relevant parties to effect the following:

a) The technical errors of Owen and Pullin JJA in CACV 107 of 2008 must not be manipulated by any officer of court for the purpose of plundering and pillaging innocent ordinary Australians for void costs orders given by three judges who are in jurisdictional errors and who avoid the issue of the fraud on the court caused by the falsification of court records by a member of the judiciary Registrar Powell who covered up the perjured evidence of David Taylor Solicitor in CIV 1131 of 2006 contrary to ss. 85, 121, 124 and 424 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913 (WA). 

b) The High Court has been wise in pointing out the technical errors of the three judges couched in language replete with euphemism that was impliedly intended by the Justices to goad the failing judicial system to oil its unwieldy machinery such that the public interests is being served but to no avail. 

Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: +61892757440
Mobile: +61421642735

NNC-CA-APRIME-140411L.docNNC-CA-APRIME-140411L.doc
47K   View   Download  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

LETTER FROM UNITY PARTY WA TO LPCC COPIED TO ATTORNEY GENNERAL ACTING UPON THE LATTER'S ADVICE

ATTORNEY GENERAL ADVICE TO QUERY LPCC RE MR. NI KOK CHIN'S INDEPENDENT LEGAL PRACTICE








X











Inbox

X





Reply
|

Nicholas N Chin

 to Eddie
show details 9:32 AM (2 hours ago)

Mr C L Zelestis, QC Chairperson and Law Complaints Officer: Ms D Howell    
Phone: (08) 9461 2299 Fax: (08) 9461 2265 Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com    
2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000    
Office Box Z5293, St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Atten: Ms. Le Miere

The Attorney General of WA the Hon. C Christian Porter MLA
Level 21, Governor Stirling Tower,
197, St. Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
Email: Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au

Dear Sirs

I refer to the above matter and the letter of the Attorney General of WA dated 12.4.2011, a copy of which is attached.  The Attorney General is advising the Unity Party of WA to write to the LPCC in the following terms:
a)  The LPCC is the statutory body designed to resolve disputes within the legal profession but it does not fulfill this role in that Ms. Le Miere, the representative of that body did not respond to the letter of Mr. Chin dated 21.3.2011 before the directions hearing held before the Deputy Vice President of SAT, His Honour Judge Timothy Sharp on 8.4.2011.  A copy of this letter is attached for your perusal and retention.
b) Mr. Chin was trying to contact Ms. Le Miere, a few days before the 8.4.2011 by phone but only managed to speak to one Carlie at the LPCC.  Mr. Chin wanted Ms Le Miere to confirm that the LPCC did receive his submission in CIV 1877 of 2010 dated 3.4.2011 before Commissioner Sleight, his facsimile letter dated 30.3.2011regarding CACV 41 of 2010 and his facsimile letter dated 21.3.2011 containing eight questions which needed to be answered before Judge Sharp on 8.4.2011 for the directions hearing.
c) Mr. Chin only received a reply from Ms. Carlie when he called again after not having received a response from Ms. Le Miere, not confirming the receipt of those documents as indicated above but a reply " See you in Court tomorrow".
d) When Mr. Chin attended the court with Ms. Le Miere and Ms. Norton on the 8.4.2011, Ms Le Miere was there to state to Judge Sharp that there be a trial for four days on 11.10.2011 onwards.  After that, she excused herself without giving Mr. Chin a chance to response to her submission.
e)  Mr. Chin was indicating to the court before Judge Sharp after Ms. Le Miere had left to the effect that since  there was no response from the LPCC as required by his letter dated 8.4.2011 to those eight questions, those facts are being admitted by the LPCC and therefore there is no longer any issues to be tried on the 11.10.2011 which was set for three days by Judge Sharp.
f) Mr. Chin was also touching on the aspect that Ms. Le Miere is not doing her duties to the court by being honest and sincere and not to evade the issues at hand so that the directions hearing could progress to a successful conclusion having regard to the fact that on the previous directions hearing on the 26.11.2010, Ms. Le Miere had agreed with Judge Sharp that Mr. Chin was to be given back his practice certificate as soon as possible.   It looks like there is a secret communication that occurred in the meantime resulting in Judge Sharp agreeing to Ms. Le Miere's suggestion that the matter be set down for trial under circumstances when all parties are aware that there are no issues to be tried at all on the 11.10.2011.  Therefore Mr. Chin had applied for a statement of reason and a transcript of the proceedings before Judge Sharp on 8.4.2011 seeking an explanation as to why the directions hearing on 8.4.2011 did not proceed as scheduled to reach a consensus between the parties when a condition for trial of non-issues was imposed on Mr. Chin.
The Unity Party therefore requires the LPCC to explain the contents of those communications between the parties and Judge Sharp that transpired before the 8.4.2011 and to do those things that are required for the matter before Judge Sharp to be progressed equitably with no perceived disparity in the enforcement of rules or law and in the interests of justice on the following grounds:
a) The matters complained of are not trivial as they are very important for Judge Sharp to trial the issues of the abuse of human rights of Mr. Chin by the LPCC and the LPB instead of the non-issues currently before Judge Sharp.
b) The matters as contained in those written communications before Judge Sharp are not unreasonable as they are rational thinking of Mr. Chin for the purpose of pursuing his human to practice law independently and must not be interfered with by the LPCC to protect their cronies or to practise nepotism upon Mr. Chin.
c) Nothing in the claims of Mr. Chin are vexatious or frivolous in the sense that they are the truths that is aimed at seeking justice where Mr. Chin's rights as a human being and an Australian Citizen has been trampled upon.  Mr. Chin is not seeking to annoy the LPCC nor to take advantage of any situation that is not for the common good but his sole purpose is to promote better governance of Western Australia.
d) The Unity Party of WA of which I am its President is seeking to enforce the inalienable rights of the citizens of Australia so that all races in this multi-ethnic society can live in peace so as to oversee that our justice system is performing optimally for the common good of all Australians.
Cheers
PRESIDENT OF UNITY PARTY OF WA
Eddie Hwang.   


 
2 attachments — Download all attachments  
AGWA-CACV41OF10-130411L 001.jpgAGWA-CACV41OF10-130411L 001.jpg
604K   View   Download  
LPCC-SAT-VR87OF2009-210311L.docLPCC-SAT-VR87OF2009-210311L.doc
49K   View   Download  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, April 10, 2011

MS. LE MIERE REPRESENTING THE LPCC BEFORE SAT ON 8.4.2011 DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THE LPCC WAS SUPPOSED TO ANSWER

Monday, March 21, 2011

Mr C L Zelestis, QC Chairperson and Law Complaints Officer: Ms D Howell    
Phone: (08) 9461 2299 Fax: (08) 9461 2265 Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com    
2nd Floor Colonial Building, 55 St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6000    
Office Box Z5293, St George's Terrace, PERTH WA 6831
Atten: Ms. Le Miere
 
His Honour Judge Timothy Sharp
Deputy President of State Administrative Tribunal
Ground Floor 12 St Georges Terrace Perth GPO Box U1991, Perth 6845
Ph: (08) 9219 3111; Fax:(08) 9325 5099
Attention: Associate of Judge Sharp: Candice           BY FACSIMILE

Dear Sirs

DIRECTIONS HEARING - VR 87 OF 2009: LPB V CHIN - 8.4.2011 - HEARING ROOM 8.09 AT 10.AM   

1. I refer to the above matter and wish to update the Committee and Your Honour on the following information (which is available at my blogspot by Googling “nicholasnchin”):  

1.1.          CACV 41 of 2010 Chin v LPB was adjourned sini die after I had asked for His Honour Newnes JA to recuse himself on 11.3.2011.
1.2.          On 9.3.2011, the Pseudo Board through Ms. Breisch had asserted for a right to “fix” Newnes JA through its facsimile letter (as she had done so previously albeit secretly on the 20.4.2010 to “fix” His Honour Heenan J) through two unidentified signatories to that letter, having regard to the fact that the LPB had already decided not to participate in that appeal.  She therefore had acted in conflict of interests, this time around.   It is therefore for the LPCC to look into this.
1.3.          CACV 107 of 2008 is scheduled for re-hearing again on 4.1.2011 at 2.15 pm.  This involves my application for a Suspension Order against the void or voidable costs order of the Court of Appeal regarding its technical slip affecting its reliance upon Registrar’s Powell letter dated 11.6.2009 to me (answering my query regarding the veracity of the date of filing of CIV 1131 of 2006).  This is because David Taylor swore an Affidavit dated 29.3.2007 in CIV 1131 of 2006 which contradicts Registrar Powell’s cover-up of the David Taylor story that 20 cents was missing when he filed Civ 1131 of 2006 on 10.2.2006.  The High Court in P1 of 2010 had said that I must prove a causal connection between my solicitor’s work in CIV 1142 of 2005 and the removal of the Spunter’s Caveats.
1.4.          The associated case of CIV 1877 of 2010 (which is my application for Certiorari Orders to repair that technical error of the Court of Appeal affecting matters in sub-para (b) above) is also scheduled to be heard on 4.4.2011 at 10.00 am.
1.5.          I am filing a new application for Certiorari Orders to review and quash the non-res judicata issue of the High Court of Australia P50 of 2010 and the CACV 75 of 2010 which did not decide the issue of the impropriety of the Security Costs Order of Ken Martin J in CIV 1903 of 2008 (the second stage) that was before it.  If the CIV 1981 of 2010 calling for the recusal of His Honour Ken Martin J, was disposed of earlier i.e. before the two cases which avoided that issue before it, the Impugned Improper Security Cost Order would probably not exist to complicate matters further today.

3. In order for all matters to settle at the scheduled directions hearing, I would like the LPCC to address the following issues before His Honour at the scheduled directions hearing:

2.1.   Why was my learned friend Peter Quinlan S.C. as counsel for the LPB not reprimanded by the LPCC when he said that it was “okay” for the LPCC and the Pseudo Board to tell lies or to speak untruths about me in VR137 of 2006 before Her Honour Judge Eckert?  Why is no action being taken by the LPCC after it had received my complaint regarding it?
2.2.   Why was my learned friend Barrister Scott Ellis allowed to mislead His Honour Ken Martin J in Michelides No.2 to the effect that there was no evidence before that court that Registrar Susan Wilde in FR417 of 2007 was not under duress when she entered into that Consent Judgment for Timothy Robin Thies solicitor to rob me and my son of $11,500.00 knowing that this statement is an untruth?  The result is that Ken Martin J did make the improper Security Costs Order against me that was being appealed to the Court of Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 and to the High Court in P50 of 2010 that was avoided by these two fora.  Why does the LPCC knowingly allow an injustice to occur?  Why did the LPCC not take any action after it had received a complaint about this from me?
2.3.   Why does the LPCC not take action against Solicitor Anthony Prime for knowingly having misled Registrar Powell resulting in the Sheriff Steefens pursuing from me a non-debt in CACV 107 of 2008, which is the result of David Taylor Solicitor falsifying court records in CIV 1131 of 2006?  This has necessitated my application for a Suspension Order referred to in sub-para. 1.3 above.
2.4.   Why does the LPCC allow Ken Martin J to be misled by solicitor Timothy Robin Thies and his counsel barrister Scott Ellis for the purpose of stultifying the proceedings and perverting the course of justice in Michelides No.2 in that it prevented Michelides No.1 first started by me through a righteous judge His Honour Justice Hasluck J from taking its natural course after it had been informed by me?  The LPCC could have stopped all those illegal proceedings in Michelides No.2.
2.5.   How does the LPCC justify that there could be a Security Costs Order in Michelides No.2 in favour of solicitor Timothy Ron Thies under circumstances when the legislative regime into which Michelides No.1 is first emplaced by me has no justifications for costs orders to be made against the Plaintiff or myself under the Minor Cases Provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 (WA), unless I was doing something unreasonable or illegal?
2.6.   By virtue of the fact that the LPB does not intend to participate in my CACV 41 of 2010 appeal and that it has expressed its willingness to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal’s decision, is it then improper for me to seek the assurance of the decision maker i.e. the Court of Appeal, to take its preliminary stand, in accordance with the Latin axiom: Qui Non Negat, Fatetur – He Who Does Not Deny, Admits.  This preliminary stand would be an acid test that the decision maker in CACV 41 of 20010 is a proper forum fulfilling the three conditions of justice: INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY and IMPARTIALITY.  Under these circumstances, would the LPCC admit that all those documentary evidence filed by me before the Court of Appeal should be accepted by a proper decision maker for the purpose of making its decision in CACV 41 of 2010 without any further dispute?
2.7.   Why did the LPCC and the LPB not take into account the fact that there was a genuine Consent Judgment entered into between me and the LPB on the 25.9.2007 before the then President Steytler of the Court of Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007 to set aside the judgment of Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006?  If so, is it right for me subsequently to state that all those proceedings by the LPB and the LPCC to place further conditions on my practice certificate since the 26.9.2007 are illegal and cannot be the subject matter of VR87 of 2009?  In short, all the subject matters of dispute in VR87 of 2009 that is currently before this Tribunal are barred by the principle of res judicata? 
2.8.   The circus of the tomfoolery of the efforts made by the Pseudo Board to put a restraint on my independent legal practice started with Mr. Pino Monaco after the plundering and pillaging of Dr. Kheng Su Chan to whom I came to aid in her defence.  Incidentally Mr. Pino Monaco is a former President of the Law Society of WA and it is this Society which started this circus through another former President Judge Eckert and then Ken Martin J and also the President of SAT Chaney J.  Judge Eckert’s decision has been set aside.  Justice Chaney’s decision has also been pulled out by His Honour recusing himself.  Ken Martin J has yet to recuse himself.  Newnes JA decision in CACV 75 of 2010 has yet to be set aside.  The High Court in P50 of 2010 is giving me pointers to work in the right directions.  Is it reasonable for me to point my finger to the reasonable conclusion that there is a conspiratorial links amongst all the actors as indicated above, contrary to s.135 of the Criminal Code, 1913 (WA)?     

3.  In view of the above, I would like to put the LPCC on NOTICE that if Ms. Le Miere were to fail to justify all and any of the above issues listed in sub-paragraphs 2.1. to 2.8 above by answering them in detail in a manner that is acceptable by this tribunal, at the direction hearings scheduled on 8.4.2011, the non-answer to all those queries as listed above shall be taken by the State Administrative Tribunal to be an admission by the LPCC of all those issues, thus also implicating the LPCC in the conspiracy, and this letter shall serve as evidence to this effect in all future proceedings.


Yours faithfully


NICHOLAS N CHIN 


Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

DATO BROTHER MICHAEL T JACQUES - OUR BELOVED CHRISTIAN BROTHER OF THE DE LA SALLE ORDER - LOVED BY ALL

Videos on the funeral service of Dato' Dr. Bro. Michael Jacques FSC








X











Inbox

X





Reply
|

S.H.Ng

show details 11:55 PM (23 hours ago)


Dear friends,
Further to my earlier invitation to view photos taken at the funeral service of the Late
Dato' Dr. Bro. Michael Jacques, I now invite you to view the short videos I had loaded
onto the Youtube. Just click on the links.
May he rest in the arms of the Lord.
Warmest regards,
Soon Hong
=================================================================
Video 1: The body of the late Brother being accompanied into the Church
by fellow-Brothers, family, friends and alumni.
_________________________________________________________________
Video 2: Prayer by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur.
_________________________________________________________________
Video 3: Family, friends and alumni filled the House to bid final farewell.
A number of sisters and fellow-Brothers had come from afar from Singapore,
Burma and Vietnam.
_________________________________________________________________
Video 4: Blessing of the Body
__________________________________________________________________
Video 5: Family, friends and alumni saying "final goodbye" to the good Brother (1)
Many tears were shed.
__________________________________________________________________
Video 6: Family, friends and alumni saying "final goodbye" to the good Brother (2)
Many tears were shed.
______________________________________________________________________________
Video 7: Service over. The coffin will be loaded onto the hearse and head for
the crematorium.
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube - Videos from this email
Reply

Forward



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, April 1, 2011

STAY OF EXECUTION MUST BE GRANTED [F]or whatever reason, there is a real risk that it will not be possible for a successful appellant to be restored substantially to his former position if the judgment against him is executed.

romNicholas N Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
to"WILLIAMS Simon [PD09216]" <simon.williams@police.wa.gov.au>,
"minister.porter" <Minister.Porter@dpc.wa.gov.au>
dateFri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:44 PM
subjectFwd: APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF COSTS ORDER IN CACV 107 OF 2008 HEARD AT 2.15P M ON 1.4.2011
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 9:44 PM (22 minutes ago)

The Attorney General of WA the Honourable Christian Porter MLA.,
Senior Constable Simon Williams

Please find my email message below to the Associate of Pullin and Newnes JJA regarding the above matter which was rejected by the Court of Appeal.  Had I given the information that Audrey Frances Hall is in her deathbed, it might have caused a stay of execution of the void costs orders.
NICHOLAS N CHIN
- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicholas N Chin <nnchin1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM
Subject: APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF COSTS ORDER IN CACV 107 OF 2008 HEARD AT 2.15P M ON 1.4.2011
To: Associate.Justice.Pullin@justice.wa.gov.au, Associate.Justice.Newnes@justice.wa.gov.au, "Anthony M. Prime" <aprime@mdslaw.com.au>, moza35 <moza35@bigpond.com>


The Associate to Pullin JA
The Associate to Newnes JA
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of WA
Stirling Gardens
Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 (Please delete my previous two emails that was sent in error.  I apologized for the inconvenience)

Mr. Anthony Prime as the Solicitor for Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall
McCallum Donovan Sweeney
Barristers & Solicitors
Irwin Chambers
16, Irwin Street, Perth WA 6000
Fax: 9221220  BY FACSIMILE
Dear Sirs

I have received information today that the Plaintiff in CIV 1775 of 2008 and the First Respondent in CACV 107 of 2008 is now terminally ill in hospital.  As a result if there is no stay granted to me today in the above matter, I could not possibly be restored to my former position just in case I win my case with regard to Mr. Taylor having falsified the court records in CIV 1131 of 2010 and thereby establishing the casual connection (which is the advice of the High Court in P1 of 2010) between my solicitor's work for Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 and the removal of the Spunter's Caveat by way of operation of law in accordance with the provisions of s. 138B of the Transfer of Land Act, 1893 WA (the causal connection).

I am making an application for Certiorari Orders in CIV 1877 of 2010 which is scheduled to be heard on Monday the 4th day of April, 2011 relating to the issue of the technical slip of His Honour Owen JA at paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 under s.33 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935.   I understand that the Court of Appeal comprising of Pullin and Newnes JJA today has no jurisdiction to determine this issue of the rectification of the technical slip which relates to the causal relationship between my solicitor work for Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 and the removal of the Spunter's caveats that was caused by the non-compliance by David Taylor solicitor with the orders of Jenkins J in CIV 1142 of 2005 on 10.2.2006.
My salient ground for the temporary stay of execution of the Owen JA Costs Order in CACV 107 of 2008 and Master Sanderson Costs Orders in CIV 1775 of 2008 is based on the following ground alone:

    In Cellante v G Kallis Industries Pty Ltd, Young CJ stated that special circumstances would exist where:

    [F]or whatever reason, there is a real risk that it will not be possible for a successful appellant to be restored substantially to his former position if the judgment against him is executed.
This means if I were successful in my application for Review in CIV 1877 of 2010, I would not be restored substantially to my former position if those two judgments were executed against me because Audrey Frances Hall is now in her deathbed and all her estates claimed by her from Nancy Hall has been divested to the daughter of Nancy Hall one Michelle-Maree Gannaway under fraudulent circumstances that is currently being established by Mr. Maurice Law in District Court Action 2509 of 2002.  In the event of the demise of Audrey Frances Hall, I would not be able to get my money back.  This is a ground that I had forgotten to submit before their Honours.  I therefore hope that Their Honours would review this decision and grant me a temporary stay pending the decision of CIV 1877 of 2010 and perhaps my further appeal from that decision.

Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92757440
Mobile: 0421642735
Emails: nnchin1@gmail.com
nnchin@msn.com.

Mr. Steefens
The Deputy Sheriff of the Sheriff Office at Perth
Phone: 9425 2493 Fax: 9221 7894        BY FACSIMILE
In relation to your visit at my home today, please note that I made a mistake of asking for a permanent stay of execution and it was rejected.  If I had asked for a temporary stay, it should have been sustained on ground that was missed by me in the above hearing today.  I take this opportunity to inform you of this so that you may await the further orders from the Court of Appeal in this matter.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)