CACV144OF2011 IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE STAY OF THE FILING OF APPELLANT'S CASE UNTIL THE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CIV 1275 OF 2012 IS FINALLY DETERMINED

Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia.  Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited.  Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.

 _____

 THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

COURT OF APPEAL

CACV 144 of 2011

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW

and

MICHELE-MARIE GANNAWAY

PULLIN JA

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2012, AT 11.30 AM

The appellant appeared in person.

MR C.P. STOKES appeared for the respondent.

22/2/12                                                       1

(s&c)

THE ASSOCIATE:   In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Court of Appeal, Law and Gannaway, CACV 144 of 2011.

PULLIN JA:   Now, Mr Law, you are appearing on your own behalf?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   All right, thank you.  Take a seat.  Mr Stokes?

STOKES, MR:   If your Honour pleases, for the respondent.

PULLIN JA:   All right, thank you.  Now, Mr Law, this has been listed because you have made an application, which you call an application for a stay of the filing of the appellant's case.  I understand that really you are wanting an extension of time in which to file the appellant's case because the rules specify a date for filing of it and you want to delay that until something else has happened?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   There is something else which is apparently an application that you are making for judicial review and removal of the errors of law apparent on the court records in the general division of this court.  Is that right?

LAW, MR:   Yes, I think that's right.

PULLIN JA:   I understand that that application is an application to review various judgments.  Does it include the judgment that is being appealed from in this appeal, the judgment of Judge Sweeney?

LAW, MR:   Yes.

PULLIN JA:   Okay, and it also purports to seek a review by a single judge in the general division of some decisions of the Court of Appeal.  Is that correct?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   All right, and I understand from within the court that that application might have been rejected by the principal registrar.  Is that correct?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   In other words, you can't file it unless you get the leave of a judge in the general division.  Is that right?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

22/2/12                  LAW, MR                              2

PULLIN JA:   You intend proceeding with that application, do you?

LAW, MR:   Yes, please.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  That is something you will be doing in the general division and that is for the general division to deal with, but there is no reason why this appeal can't be disposed of.  You are seeking a review.  You are getting a review if you appeal against the judgment that you are concerned with in this case which is the judgment of Judge Sweeney dated 8 November 2011.  Why would you want to delay getting the review in a place where you definitely can get it and where you have filed a document; namely, the appeal notice?

LAW, MR:   There's four judges which we're appealing the decision of because of our fresh and new evidence, and those judgments were handed out without knowledge of this evidence and if we can review those decisions ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   You are seeking, if I can use the term loosely, to review the decision of Judge Sweeney in this appeal?

LAW, MR:   Yes.

PULLIN JA:   You are appealing against it.  You are seeking to appeal against her decision.

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   You don't have any trouble with that in the sense that you have been able to file an appeal notice.  Why would we not get on with the appeal and deal with it?

LAW, MR:   I'm sorry, sir.  I just can't quite hear.

PULLIN JA:   Why shouldn't we get on with the hearing of this appeal?

LAW, MR:   Okay, let's get on with the appeal.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  In that case we would dismiss your present application and give you a bit more time to file the appellant's case.  How long would you need to file the appellant's case?

LAW, MR:   I have some medical procedures lined up.  Could I put it off till 16 or 17 March?

PULLIN JA:   All right.  This was an appeal filed when?  When did you file the notice?

LAW, MR:   Sir, you have the copy of the papers that I have filed for today.

22/2/12                  LAW, MR                              3

PULLIN JA:   November, all right, so you are wanting, say, 17 March, are you?

LAW, MR:   Yes, please.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Mr Stokes, what do you say about that?

STOKES, MR:   We certainly want to find out what the grounds of the appeal are, so if it's four weeks, which that appears to roughly be, we couldn't object to that in the circumstances.

PULLIN JA:   Yes, all right, thank you, Mr Stokes.  We don't want to have to come back again.  Are you certain that you can deal with it in that time, file the appellant's case within that time?

LAW, MR:   Very much so.

PULLIN JA:   Should we make a springing order?  Do you know what a springing order is?  That is, if you don't do it by the 17th, don't file and serve the appellant's case by

17 March, the appeal will be dismissed?

LAW, MR:   Very good.  One request in that sentence there:  I've had terrible trouble getting transcripts, and for me to remember the actual business that I have to attain to, can I request expediated transcript of today?

PULLIN JA:   Of today?

LAW, MR:   Yes, it's just to have it looked in my face so that I can ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   We will arrange to get the transcript, but that's not going to in any way affect the preparation of the appellant's case.

LAW, MR:   No.

PULLIN JA:   You will need to get on with that straightaway.

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir, I will.

PULLIN JA:   We will provide you with a copy of the transcript.  It might take a few days before it comes.

LAW, MR:   That's beautiful.

PULLIN JA:   All right, so do you understand what a springing order is?  That is, we will give you until 4 pm on 17 March, which is a Saturday, so why don't we give you until the following Monday, the 19th?  All right?

22/2/12                                                       4

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   So is this clear in your head?  If by 4 pm on 19 March you have not filed and served on the other side the appellant's case, the appeal will be dismissed.  All right?

LAW, MR:   Very good, thank you.

PULLIN JA:   You are familiar with - you have been in cases before in this court, I know, because I have seen you before, so you should know what you have to do to file the appellant's case?

LAW, MR:   Once seen never forgotten.

PULLIN JA:   All right, so the order will be that the appeal is dismissed unless by 4 pm on 19 March 2012 the appellant files and serves the appellant's case.  Is that clear?

LAW, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   Okay.

LAW, MR:   I am waiting on two procedures to go to the hospital provided that they have booked me in.  These things, you have no idea when they are going to come on.  They are supposed to give me a month's notice.

PULLIN JA:   I would suggest you get on to this today, the preparation of the appellant's case, and then it will be all finished.  If you file it well before the 19th, you won't - if you leave it until two days before the 19th and run into trouble getting it filed or suddenly get called into hospital, your appeal will be dismissed.

LAW, MR:   I promise that I will attend to it straightaway.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Are there any costs complications?

STOKES, MR:   I do seek the costs of today, your Honour.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Is there any reason why the respondent shouldn't have the costs given that they have been brought down here and you have said more or less you agree that you should get on with the appeal?

LAW, MR:   I would object to the costs because I have done the same thing.  I have come hoping that it can be extinguished but because there are important factors, I have had to postpone it.  What do we do?  Tax the costs?

22/2/12                                                       5

PULLIN JA:   What order would you seek, Mr Stokes?

STOKES, MR:   Rather than tax it, I was simply going to ask for a standard amount of $380 for the costs of today rather than go to the cost of taxation.

PULLIN JA:   All right, that sounds reasonable, Mr Law.

LAW, MR:   All right.

PULLIN JA:   All right, the appellant do pay the respondent's costs of this application fixed at $380.  All right, thank you, Mr Law.

LAW, MR:   Would you like a copy of the papers that I have brought in today?

PULLIN JA:   What papers do you want to ‑ ‑ ‑

LAW, MR:   These are what I served on Mr Stokes and I left at the appeals office.

PULLIN JA:   But what documents are they?

LAW, MR:   Submission and an affidavit and other evidence that weighs up my case against the procedures that have been going on, the inquiry into the judges' decisions.

PULLIN JA:   This court is only interested in whether or not an error has been made by the judge in question here or whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the judgment under review in this appeal.

LAW, MR:   Right.

PULLIN JA:   Right, so we have made the orders and the court will now adjourn.

LAW, MR:   Thank you.

AT 11.40 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY

22/2/12                                                       6

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN VR158 OF 2011 ON 13.3.2012 WHEN JUSTICE CHANEY REFUSED TO RECUSE HIMSELF

PART OF LETTER FROM MAURICE TO SAT INQUIRING WHY HE WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENT HE VIEWED ON 30.11.2011 AT SAT SHOWN TO HIM BY JACQUI

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF JUSTICE CHANEY'S DECISION IN VR158 OF 2011 DATED 24.2.2012 LODGED 9.3.2012 BEFORE JUSTICE CHANEY REFUSAL TO RECUSE HIMSELF ON 13.3.2012

64 .         Notice of originating motion (O. 54 r. 5) 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

HELD AT PERTH                                                                             CIV 1397OF 2012

In the matters of:

1.            CIV 1275 of 2012 and 1323 of 2012, both of which currently listed for Special Appointment on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.

2.            VR158 of 2011 or Law and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASAT 36 dated 24.2.2012.

And

In the matter of an Ex-parte Application for Judicial Review of Justice Chaney decision in VR158 of 2011 pursuant to RSC O 59 r 3 and subs 25(6), 33, 43 and 59 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 for declarative judgments.  

BETWEEN

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD                                                                                              FIRST APPLICANT

And

DAVID GERALD TAYLOR                                                                  RESPONDENT

EX-PARTE: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW for Spunter Pty Ltd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMENDED NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO RSC. ORDER 67 R.5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Document:                                                9th 8^th day of March, 2012  

Filed on behalf of:                                                 Applicant in person                                                                                 Person. 

Date of filing:                                                         9^th 8^th day of March, 2012

Prepared by:

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                         Phone: 08 92961555

87, William Street, HERNE HILL                      Mobile: 0402002797

WA 6059                                                                 Email: moza35@bigpond.com

P.O. BOX: 399                                                       Mobile; 0402002797     

MIDLAND WA 6936                                           

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court [or Court of Appeal] will be moved at [Perth] on                      day the                day                      of 2012 at the hour of       in the          noon, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, by counsel on behalf of the Applicant Maurice Frederick Law for Orders that:  

1. His Honour, the President of SAT, Justice Chaney, be disqualified from continuing to hear VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012 as scheduled;
2. The Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney render His Honour’s Order and Judgment NULL and VOID.  Therefore VR158 of 2011 will have to be re-decided by a suitable and unbiased Judge who is willing to do justice in accordance with the law and the applicable facts;
3. The Remedy Sought For in CIV 1275 of 2012;
4. Any other Remedy this Honourable Court may deem fit;
5. Costs for the Applicant.  

The Grounds are as follows:

1.       President Chaney is biased against the Applicant :

1.1.  he subconsciously and prematurely stated his prejudgment at para.21 of the judgment to the effect that he would dismiss complaint 1 at a future hearing date on 13.3.2012 on the unlawful ground that ground 6 and 7 is without merit (the Prejudgment of President Chaney);

1.2.  Ground 6 cannot be without merit because President Chaney reneged on his own promise as provided in the transcript of the proceedings dated 15.11.2011 to provide the Applicant with the single page Document submitted by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 (which was viewed by Maurice Law on 30.11.2011) in response to President Chaney’s Order dated 15.11.2011 regarding the Single Issue that CIV1131 of 2006 was not commenced on 10.2.2006 (The Merit of Ground 6).

1.3.  Ground 7 cannot be without merit because President Chaney has in his possession the incontrovertible evidence of the false Affidavit of David Taylor sworn in CIV 1131 of 2006 dated 29.3.2007 that is being contradicted by the Letter of Powell’s Letter dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the CACV107 of 2008 Yellow Appeal Book (the Merit of Ground 7).

1.4.  President Chaney reneged on his promise to the Applicant as contained in the transcript of the proceedings of VR158 of 2011 dated 15.11.2011 to provide the ONE PAGE DOCUMENT submitted by David Taylor in response to President Chaney’s Order dated the same day showing any bank records which indicates that the court fees for CIV1131 of 2006 was paid to the Supreme Court Registry between 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006 (the Dishonesty of President Chaney).

1.5.  The Dishonesty of President Chaney is indicated by his conduct when he delayed the request of the Applicant for SAT to produce to him the ONE PAGE DOCUMENT which the Applicant was allowed by Jacqui of SAT to examine on the 30.11.2011, by supplanting it with a seven page document with its cover letter dated 15.2.2012 (President Chaney Supplanted the One Page Document).

1.6.  President Chaney refused and continues to refuse to uphold the three pillars of justice: IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE and INTEGRITY to the litigants before him (The Reasonable Perception of President Chaney’s Bias).

2.        President Chaney is obstructing justice in CIV 1275 of 2012 (by refusing to take into account the Errors of Law Apparent on the Court Records of Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008, Owen JA in CACV 107 of 2008, Simmonds J in CIV1257 2157 of 2011 and DCJ Sweeny in DCIV 2509 of 2002), by taking over the case of VR158 of 2011 from Deputy President Judge Sharp on 13.9.2011 with no apparent reason under circumstances which the former judge knew or ought to know that it is against the public interests for him to do so: a controversy has arisen as to his proper role as a judge with respect to the two cases he had already decided in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 and which resulted in His Honour’s voluntary recusal in VR87 of 2009 (the Obstruction of Justice by President Chaney).

3.        In regard to the Reasonable Perception of President Chaney’s Bias, His Honour acted without Jurisdiction (as per his judgment in VR158 of 2011 dated 24.2.2011, details of which is provided in the Affidavit in Support) by denying the Applicant procedural fairness, identifying the wrong issues, asking the wrong questions, ignoring relevant materials, relying on irrelevant materials, making erroneous findings of facts or law, reaching mistaken conclusions of acts or law, determine critical facts where there is no evidence, making irrational and illogical reasoning in the fact finding process, and misapprehending the law (the Jurisdictional Error of President Chaney).

4.        The Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney and its resultant Obstruction of Justice by President Chaney is the cause for the cover-up of the issue of the Professional Misconduct of David Taylor as the former solicitor for the Applicant in that he by his dishonesty defrauded the Applicant in the sum of $60k as legal fees that was paid for no work done: this resulted in the Applicant losing his claim as the legitimate creditor of the estate of Nancy Hall, through a default judgment in DCA2509 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002, which the Applicant had a right to enforce against Nancy Hall but for the fraud and neglect of David Taylor (The Fraud or Self-Aggrandizement or Advancement of the Personal Interests of David Taylor).

5.        President Chaney unlawfully dismissed Complaint 5, 6 and 7 and has indicated his intention to dismiss complaint No.5 on 13.3.2012  by disregarding the STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE ISSUE in respect of the Applicant’s NAY answer to the First Three of Triviality, Unreasonableness and Vexatiousness or Frivolity provisions and his YES answer to its fourth element of Direct Personal Interest of the Litigant, per subs.435(2) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (WA) as contained in the written submission of the Applicant dated 14.10.2011 in 7 pages (President Chaney’s misapprehension of the Statutory Leave Requirements).

(Signed)
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the Second Applicant          

SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF MAURICE LAW REQUESTING PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR TO RE-LIST JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CIV1397 OF 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

HELD AT PERTH                                                                                CIV 1397of 2012

In the matters of:

1.           CIV 1275 of 2012 and 1323 of 2012, both of which currently listed for Special Appointment on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.

2.           VR158 of 2011 or Law and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASAT 36 dated 24.2.2012.

And

In the matter of an Ex-parte Application for Judicial Review of Justice Chaney decision in VR158 of 2011 pursuant to RSC O 59 r 3 and subs 25(6), 33, 43 and 59 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 for declarative judgments. 

BETWEEN

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD                                                                                              FIRST APPLICANT

And

DAVID GERALD TAYLOR                                                       FIRST RESPONDENT

THE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

                                                                                                  SECOND RESPONDENT

EX-PARTE: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW for Spunter Pty Ltd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION DATED 8.3.2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Document:                                                21^st day of March, 2012 

Filed on behalf of:                                                 Applicant in person                                                                                  

Date of filing:                                                         21^st day of March, 2012

Prepared by:

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                         Phone: 08 92961555

87, William Street, HERNE HILL                      Mobile: 0402002797

WA 6059                                                                 Email: moza35@bigpond.com

P.O. BOX: 399                                                       Mobile; 0402002797     

MIDLAND WA 6936                                           

TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY NO.1 – COMPLAINT NOS 5 AND 6

No.	Date of Event	Description of Event	Page Nos.
9	6.3.2012	1) President Chaney of SAT delivered the Judgment in VR158 of 2011 on 24.2.2012 by dismissing the following Complaints without any justifications for doing so: A)    COMPLAINT NO.6: DAVID TAYLOR MISLED MR. LAW AS TO THE DATE OF FILING THE WRIT OF SUMMONS. B)     COMPLAINT NO.7: DAVID TAYLOR SWORE AN AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING A FALSE STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS. 2) It is clear that His Honour is biased and had prejudged the issue and had expressed his intention to dismiss complaint No.5 on 13.3.2012: DAVID TAYLOR ADVISED MR. LAW TO COMPLAIN TO LPCC AGAINST MR. CHIN WITHOUT ANY ADEQUATE OR PROPER BASIS FOR DOING SO. 3) Complaint No.5 relates to the issue that David Taylor advised Maurice Law to start a Frivolous and Vexatious Claim against Ni Kok Chin in Midland Minor Claim CA No. 2475 of 2006 through the help of Registrar Powell (See Annexure: Table Showing the Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney of SAT in his Honour Judgment in VR158 of 2011 or LAW and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2012] WASAT 36.  The Jurisdictional Errors is clearly explained vis-à-vis the 21 numbered paragraphs of the said Judgment and is in 9 pages (The Jurisdictional Error of President Chaney).	SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT: PAGES 74A1 to 74A9 for President’s Chaney Judgment dated 24.2.2012. PAGES 74B1 to 74B9 – JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS OF JUSTICE CHANEY
9A	21.3.2012	Letter of Complaint by Maurice Frederick Law to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia requesting for the re-listing of CIV1397 of 2012 after it had been mistakenly dismissed by the Chief Justice His Honour Wayne Martin QC on 12.3.2012.  His Honour, should have adjourned the Application for Judicial Review in CIV 1397 of 2012 adjourned it pending Maurice Law’s  oral application for President and Justice Chaney of SAT to recuse himself from further VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012.  By virtue of the technical mistake of the Chief Justice as evident in the transcript of the proceedings dated 12.3.2012, the Principal Registrar should now re-list the Judicial Review before another Judge. See Annexure MFL74C1 to MFL 74C10.	PAGES 74C1 to 74C10

1.                  I,  MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the authorized non-lawyer legal

2.                  representative of Spunter Pty Ltd (Retired Builder) of No. 87, Herne Hill, MIDLAND WA 6056 or PO Box 399, MIDLAND WA 6936, do make oath and say as follows:

2.1.      I am filing this Supplementary Affidavit to complement my Affidavit together with its Annexed documents and My Notice of Originating Motion in Form 64 for Judicial Review in CIV 1397 of 2012 dated 8.3.2012, totaling 134 pages.  I now found there are now 32 pages missing at item 9 and at the missing and now interpolated item 9A of the First Table of Chronology in my Affidavit dated 8.3.2012.  That original Affidavit of 130 pages, should have the now 33 missing pages added to it from this Supplementary Affidavit.  The missing pages are made up as follows:

2.1.1.  The Five pages of this Supplementary Affidavit dated and sworn 21.3.2012.

2.1.2.  The remaining 28 Annexed pages of this Supplementary Affidavit made up of the following:

2.1.2.1. The 9 pages of Annexure 74A1 to 74A9 which comprises the subject judgment of His Honour Justice Chaney dated 24.2.2012, which the Honourable Chief Justice found to be missing as recorded in the transcript dated 12.3.2012.   

2.1.2.2. The 9 pages of Annexure 74B1 to 74B9 which is a Table prepared by me bearing references to the respective paragraph numbers of the subject judgment, which contains the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Chaney.

2.1.2.3. The 10 pages of my complaint letter dated 31.3.2012 sent by me to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court, et al., requesting the Supreme Court to reinstate my Application for Judicial Review in CIV1397 of 2012 to be heard before another judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  This complaint letter contain the annexed pages of the Order of President Chaney dated 13.3.2012 stating that President Chaney had refused to recuse himself from hearing VR158 of 2011 in the aftermath of the hearing of the Judicial Review Application by the Chief Justice on 12.3.2012.  The learned Chief Justice had indicated in the transcript of the proceedings dated 12.3.2012 that the Judicial Review should only be heard by the Supreme Court after President Chaney of SAT had refused to recuse himself from hearing VR158 of 2011 (the condition). The condition set by the Chief Justice has now been fulfilled and therefore the Principal Registrar should re-list CIV1397 of 2012 for a re-hearing as the Chief Justice did ask me if he should have dismissed my Judicial Review Application and I made of saying YES to him instead of saying NO.  It is my mistake and I regret for saying that.        

2.2.      The facts herein as contained in the Tables of CHRONOLOGY as indicated above in item 9 are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct.

SWORN by the First Deponent at Perth]

In the State of Western Australia   ]

This   day of FEBRUARY, 2012   ]……………………………………………..

(Signature of MAURICE FREDERICK LAW AS THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF SPUNTER PTY LTD. )

Before Me,

…………………………………..

Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme

Court for Taking Affidavit 

SWORN by the Second Deponent ]

at Perth In the State of Western      ]

Australia  on  21^st day of March     ]

2012.                                              ]……………………………………………..

Before me:                                (Signature of Maurice Frederick Law as the Second Deponent)

…………………………………..

Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme

Court for Taking Affidavit 

AFFIDAVIT OF MAURICE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CIV 1397 OF 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

HELD AT PERTH                                                                             CIV 1397 OF 2012

In the matters of:

1.           CIV 1275 of 2012 and 1323 of 2012, both of which currently listed for Special Appointment on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.

2.           VR158 of 2011 or Law and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASAT 36 dated 24.2.2012.

And

In the matter of an Ex-parte Application for Judicial Review of Justice Chaney decision in VR158 of 2011 pursuant to RSC O 59 r 3 and subs 25(6), 33, 43 and 59 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 for declarative judgments. 

BETWEEN

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD                                                                                              FIRST APPLICANT

And

DAVID GERALD TAYLOR                                                       FIRST RESPONDENT

THE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

                                                                                                  SECOND RESPONDENT

EX-PARTE: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW for Spunter Pty Ltd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF ORIGINATING MOTION DATED 7.3.2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Document:                                                7th day of March, 2012 

Filed on behalf of:                                                 Applicant in person                                                                                  

Date of filing:                                                         8 th day of March, 2012

Prepared by:

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                         Phone: 08 92961555

87, William Street, HERNE HILL                      Mobile: 0402002797

WA 6059                                                                 Email: moza35@bigpond.com

P.O. BOX: 399                                                       Mobile; 0402002797     

MIDLAND WA 6936                                           

TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY NO.1 – COMPLAINT NOS 5 AND 6

No.	Date of Event	Description of Event	Page Nos.
1	7.11.2011	Spunter Pty Ltd through its director Maurice Law issued a Subpoena Ducus Tecum (See Annexure MFL1-2) to David Taylor his former solicitor requesting the latter to produce before SAT in VR158 of 2011 the bank statements that settles once and for all the Controversy involving: 1)      Registrar Powell’s Improper Costs Order CIV1131 of 2006 against Ni Kok Chin that was pursued by David Taylor  instigating Maurice Law and David Taylor paid the court fees of $66.20 dated 2.3.2012 for payments made 25.5.2007.  It is not correct that $66.20 was paid but $399.00 was indeed paid by David Taylor himself for and on behalf of Spunter Pty Ltd but he later refused to be involved in it after he had instigated it and he left Maurice Law to carry the baby himself  (See Annexure MFL3) but David Taylor claimed $399.00 on 29.5.2007 (See Annexure MFL3A) (See Annexure MFL4) from Maurice Law in a vexatious action of $300.00 against Mr. Ni Kok Chin in the Midland Magistrates Court Minor Claim CA2475 of 2006 (See Annexure MFL5 to MFL7), the subject of Complaint No.6 in VR158 of 2011 in the Table attached: See Annexure MFL8); 2)      Master Sanderson’s Improper costs order in CIV1775 of 2008 against both Ni Kok Chin and Maurice Law; 3)      Owen JA Improper Costs Order in CACV 107 of 2008 against Ni Kok alone, that is the subject of the pointer given by the High Court of Australia in P1 of 2010 relating to the NEXUS between the Solicitor’s Work of Ni Kok Chin for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005; 4)      The NEXUS is the subject of the Dereliction of the solicitor’s Duties of David Taylor to Spunter in CIV 1142 of 2005 and CIV 1131 of 2006 that caused the Loss of the Legitimate Claim of Spunter against the Estate of Nancy Hall in DC CIV2509 of 2002, the subject of DCJ Sweeney’s Decision and the resulting Improper Costs Order of DCJ Sweeney (MFL9). 5)      The Non-Jurisdictional Decision of DCJ O’Neal in DCCIV2509 of 2002 regarding the suspension of the Improper Costs Order of DCJ Sweeney resulting in the Improper Costs Order of Pullin and Murphy JJA which is the result of CACV144 of 2011 where the Applicant filed a 38 page documents which details the reason why Suspension Order should be granted by DCJ O’Neal.  There is no longer any need to pursue the Application for Suspension of the Judge O’Neal decision because it is not relevant on the ground that Spunter Pty Ltd is now un-financial. Notwithstanding DCJ Sweeney having declared that a sum of some $144k at paragraph 244 of the judgment is owing and payable to Spunter by the Estate of Nancy Hall. See Pullin J dismissal of CACV 144 of 2011 (Annexure MFL10). 6)      The Improper Costs Order of Pullin and Murphy JJA in CACV144 of 2011 that is the subject of the Notice of Discontinuance by Spunter dated 27.2.2012 (See Annexure MFL11) in view of the fact that there is currently in place Application for Judicial Reviews of all those matters in controversy by both Ni Kok Chin and Maurice Law in CIV1275 of 2011 and Ni Kok Chin in CIV1323 of 2012 both being scheduled for Special Appointment on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.	15-16 17-, 17A, 19 20 to 23 24 25 26
2.	15.11.2011	As a result of the Subpoena of Ducus Tecum indicated above, the President of SAT, His Honour Justice Chaney issued an Order to David Taylor to produce the subject bank statement which indicates that the court fees for CIV 1131 of 2006 (See Annexure MFL12) was indeed paid by David Taylor to the Registry of the Supreme Court of Western Australia between the dates in controversy of 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006.  The transcript of the proceedings dated 15.11.2011 at page 9 was the subject of Maurice Law request for a copy of that Document in his letter to SAT dated 27.11.2011 (See Annexure MFL13).	27 28
3.	29.11.2011	David Taylor in response to the President of SAT’s Order as indicated above deposited into the Office of SAT, the single page bank statement as indicted above, for which the President had promised Maurice Law that he could view it at his own leisure and obtain a copy of it from SAT.
4.	30.11.2011	Maurice Law attended at the Office of SAT at No.12, St. George’s Terrace, Perth in the State of Western Australia and did personally view the Single Page of the Bank Statement that was deposited by David Taylor with SAT on 29.11.2011, with the courtesy of Ms. Jacqui of SAT who was in attendance whilst Ms. Toni Sherwood was away on vacation.   Maurice Law saw that the single page document has about five transactions.  There was two transactions which indicate that David Taylor did pay the sum of $654.20 (NOT $654.00 ONLY) to the Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 (NOT 2006) (See Annexure MFL13A, which contains the date of the False Receipt 202483 issued by Registrar Powell only on 19.5.2009) BUT THAT SUM WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY purportedly for the purpose of enabling David Taylor to obtain the false receipt from the Supreme Court Registry to tally with the contents of the letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the yellow appeal book in cacv107 of 2008 that is the subject of the fresh evidence that was improperly rejected by Owen JA on 9.12.2009 (the Bank Statement).	29
5.	29.12.2011	Maurice Law wrote to SAT in 2 pages, copied to David Taylor and the LPCC requesting for the one page Bank Statement indicating the Five Entries, submitted by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 and personally viewed by Maurice Law and promised by President Chaney to be given to him (Request for the Single Document that was promised by President Chaney) (See Annexure MFL14 to MFL15).	30 to 31
6.	13.2.2011	Maurice Law wrote a two page letter to SAT copied to LPCC requesting for the Bank Statement that has five entries that shows that payment of $654.20 was paid by David Taylor into the Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 for the purpose of Registrar Powell issuing the False Receipt No.202483 backdating the payment of $654.20 without the proof of the Credit Card Payment that was advocated by Registrar Powell in his letter dated 11.6.2009, the subject of the rejected fresh evidence before Owen JA found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book in CACV 107 of 2008 (See Annexure: MFL16 to MFL20).	32 to 36
6.	15.2.2012	Maurice Law wrote a five page letter again to SAT, copied to David Taylor, the LPCC, the State Attorney General, the Crime Corruption Commissioner, the Fraud Squad of the WA Police and Senior Constable Williams giving a List of Interrogatories that explains the situation crystal clear to SAT (See Annexure MFL 20 to MFL 21) (the Crystal Clear Situation).	37 to 38
7.	17.2.2012	Maurice Law received a letter from SAT dated 13.2.2012 purportedly responding to his two letters dated 13.2.2012 and 15.2.2012.  This letter does not refer to the said two letters. This letter from SAT contains seven pages.  These seven pages is not the Bank Statement viewed by Maurice Law as provided by Jacqui to him on the 30.11.2011.  But Toni Sherwood of SAT falsely certifies on a completely new letter purportedly issued by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 that was never seen by Maurice Law on 30.11.2011 and it was never shown to Maurice at all as it was Jacqui who showed the bank statement to Maurice on 30.11.2011 (See Annexure: MFL22-MFL25. See also the seven page supplanted documents by Toni Sherwood who refused to provide the single page bank statement but instead provided on 13.2.2012 (Annexure: MFL-26 to  MFL-31 including MFL 28A and 28B for comparison purposes). Queries by Maurice Law: 1)      Why does SAT concoct this new evidence ELEVEN weeks later after that bank statement was produced by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 and showed to Maurice on 30.11.2011? (the SAT Concocted Evidence)? 2)      Maurice Law should not have to ask for the Bank Statement because he already asked for it on 27.11.2011 by letter as in Annexure MFL 13 despite President Chaney having agreed to provide him for it as recorded in the transcript dated 15.11.2011? 3)      Why was the $654.00 only (not $654.20 as required by Registrar Powell on 16.2.2006 as contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009) taken out from the trust account of David Taylor on 20.2.2006 long after the crucial date of 10.2.2006 for compliance with Jenkins Order dated 20.1.2006 in CIV1131 of 2006 had passed? (Annexure: MFL-28B) 4)      Why was this payment of $654.00 only then paid into the personal account of David Taylor on the same day and not paid into the Supreme Court as court fees for CIV1131 of 2006? (See Annexure MFL-27). David Taylor falsely swear on 29.3.2007 that he paid the fee of $654.20 for account No.201702 on 10.2.2006 for which Toni Sherwood did not certify to be a true copy (See Annexure MFL28).  David Taylor provided an illegible Note of Simon O’Brien accepted by SAT as an authentic document: See Annexure: MFL29). 5)      Why did President Chaney dismiss Complaint 6 and 7 which relates to the two issues, or is his Honour willfully blind and refusing to do justice in accordance with the law and the applicable facts of the case? – in terms of the following: 5.1.David Taylor having misled the Court of Simmonds J in CIV1142 of 2005 (No.2) about the date of the Filing of the Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006; 5.2. David Taylor having sworn a False Affidavit dated 29.3.2007 to mislead the Court of Simmonds J again in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.2. 5.3.     Why did the LPCC despite having been informed that it is seen to be siding David Taylor is deliberately disregarding the Evidence that is before it? (See Annexure MFL 31).	39 to 43 44 to 53 ………
8.	2.3.2012	1) Ms. Mavis Blower, an experienced settlement agent made a calculation of the interests at the interests rate of 15% p.a. accumulated on the Mortgage of the Hazelmere and the Mt. Lawley Properties of Nancy Hall to Engineering Facilities dated December, 1992.  The Mortgage was allegedly redeemed by Kenneth Duncan Hall in December, 1994 for $374, 107.00 (See Annexure MFL-32 to MFL-34). 2) The widow of Kenneth Duncan Hall, Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall, sued Nancy Hall while the latter was alive and was represented by Ni Kok Chin.  But David Taylor as the then solicitor for Spunter Pty Ltd defrauded Maurice Law of some $60k in legal fees but was working clandestinely with Anthony Prime of Mc Callum, Donavan and Sweeny conspiring with Registrar Powell to thwart the claim of Spunter and succeeded in removing Mr. Ni Kok Chin as solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005 No.1.  Nancy Hall as a disabled person afflicted with psychiatric morbidity was defrauded of her property rights in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.2 and Audrey Hall was given a freehand to defraud Nancy Hall in the sum of $2.3m in CIV2073 of 2003 as decided by Jenkins J. 3) Mavis Blower also did a research with Landgate about the transactions of the Estate of Nancy Hall in the aftermath of the death of Nancy Hall on 13.1.2008. (See Annexure: MFL 35- MFL-41).   4) Michele-Maree GANNAWAY as the administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall stated through her solicitor Mr. C.P. Stokes dated 14.7.2008 that no money changed hands for the takeover of the mortgage of the Hazelmere and the Mt. Lawley Properties of the estate of Nancy Hall in 1994 by Kenneth Duncan Hall and therefore the claim made by Mrs. Audrey Hall against the Estate of Nancy Hall in CIV2073 of 2008 is a falsehood (See aNNEXURE 42).  The falsehood has legal ramifications stemming from Master Sanderson’s decision in CIV1775 of 2008 which precipitated Audrey Hall claim of $2.3m in CIV 2073 of 2008.  Therefore Jenkin’s Decision must be set aside as the fraud is being unraveled (the Fraud of Audrey Hall). 5) The fraud of Audrey Hall has ramifications for the recovery of the legitimate debt of Spunter Pty Ltd that was caused by the Dereliction of the Solicitor Duties of David Taylor in CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 and No.2 and CIV1131 of 2006 and also for the recovery of the ongoing costs of the Salvour status of Ni Kok Chin as solicitor for the Estate of Nancy Hall pursuant to s.244 of the former LPA 2003.  These are the subject matters of CIV2157 of 2011 and CACV107 of 2008 and CIV 1775 of 2008. 6. Michele-Maree Gannaway has admitted to the fraud of Audrey Hall as she is purported to have paid only $702k to Mrs. Audrey Hall thus avoiding the fraudulent claim of $2.3m against the Estate of Nancy Hall, leaving sufficient funds for the Claims of Spunter Pty Ltd as the legitimate creditor that has been quantified by DCJ Sweeney in the sum of $141k found at paragraph 244 of Her Honour Judgment in DCIV 2509 of 2002 dated 8.11.2011 and the claim of Ni Kok pursuant to s.244 of the LPA 2003 in the sum of about $150k as contained in CIV2157 of 2011 (the Jurisdictional Errors of Simmonds J and Sweeney J) (See Annexure: MFL43-MFL51).	54 to 57 58 to 64 65 66 to 74
9	6.3.2012	1) President Chaney of SAT delivered the Judgment in VR158 of 2011 on 24.2.2012 by dismissing the following Complaints without any justifications for doing so: A)    COMPLAINT NO.6: DAVID TAYLOR MISLED MR. LAW AS TO THE DATE OF FILING THE WRIT OF SUMMONS. B)     COMPLAINT NO.7: DAVID TAYLOR SWORE AN AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING A FALSE STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS. 2) It is clear that His Honour is biased and had prejudged the issue and had expressed his intention to dismiss complaint No.5 on 13.3.2012: DAVID TAYLOR ADVISED MR. LAW TO COMPLAIN TO LPCC AGAINST MR. CHIN WITHOUT ANY ADEQUATE OR PROPER BASIS FOR DOING SO. 3) Complaint No.5 relates to the issue that David Taylor advised Maurice Law to start a Frivolous and Vexatious Claim against Ni Kok Chin in Midland Minor Claim CA No. 2475 of 2006 through the help of Registrar Powell (See Annexure: Table Showing the Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney of SAT in his Honour Judgment in VR158 of 2011 or LAW and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2012] WASAT 36.  The Jurisdictional Errors is clearly explained vis-à-vis the 21 numbered paragraphs of the said Judgment and is in 9 pages (The Jurisdictional Error of President Chaney).	SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT: PAGES 74A1 to 74A9 for President’s Chaney Judgment dated 24.2.2012. PAGES 74B1 to 74B9 – JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS OF JUSTICE CHANEY

CHRONOLOGY TABLE 2- EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO COMPLAINT NO.5

10	17.2.2005	Mr. Maurice Law was in depressive state of mind resulting from his daughter’s death, which caused him to be led blindly by David Taylor to take up Midland Magistrates Court Minor Claim in CA2475 of 2006 against Mr. Ni Kok Chin for no proper reasons.  He is reliant upon his solicitor who maliciously led him to make a false claim against Mr. Chin as uncovered by the following events:
11	14.3.2006 17.3.2006	Nancy Hall was not happy that Mr. Chin has to stop representing her because of the fraud of David Taylor and Registrar Powell.  Nancy got Barrister Alan Camp to represent her and there were in email communication. Mr. Chin explained the fraud of David Taylor and Registrar Powell with regard to CIV 1131 of 2006 in his email for which Alan Camp responded by email as well. (See Annexure: MFL-53 to MFL54)	75 to 76
12	28.3.2006	1) Mr. Chin responded to Registrar Powell that he was acting for Nancy Hall only for CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 and not for CIV 1131 of 2006 but there was a memorandum of Appearance filed 13.3.2006 conditional on Barrister Alan Camp representing Nancy Hall. (See Annexure MFL-55). 2) Mr. Chin filed NOTICE OF CEASING TO ACT FOR NANCY HALL resulting from Mr. David Taylor’s fabrication of the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 with the help of Registrar Powell, who knew that Mr. Chin was not acting for Ms. Hall and yet ordered a costs order against him on 12.6.2006 in the absence of Mr. Chin but in the presence of Mr. David Taylor. This resulted in Mr. Chin withdrawing from the case in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.2 and Nancy Hall working on the case as a litigant in person (See Annexure MFL-56).	77 78
13.	2.5.2006	Mr. Chin wrote to Daniel Wells who is in the know about CIV1131 of 2006 never having been filed on time by David Taylor and also to Associate of Registrar Powell to tell the latter eupheministically that he could not act for Nancy Hall that was caused by the fraud of David Taylor. (See Annexure: MFL-57)	79
14.	3.5.2006	Registrar Powell responded to Mr. Chin’s letter dated 2.5.2006.  The malice of Registrar Powell is clear because the learned Registrar insist on backing up David Taylor who is falsifying the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 that it was commenced on 10.2.2006.  Clearly, he is referring to CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 but Mr. Chin is referring to CIV 1131 of 2006.  Mr. Chin has completed his job for the former case and if the court were to do something wrongful by not acknowledging the fraud of David Taylor, then Mr. Chin wants to get away from it.  Mr. Chin is not going to run his head against the wall and Registrar Powell is the wall that he had to bash his head against.  Mr. Chin did not have to get the recognition of the court to get out of CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 because Nancy Hall agreed to file a Notice to Act in Person and she did. It is Nancy’s privilege to release Mr. Chin as her solicitor on good grounds (See Annexure MFL-58 to MFL-59).	80 - 81
15.	4.5.2006	Mr. Chin’s explanation in his letter to Registrar Powell cannot be clearer and yet Registrar Powell ordered the false costs order against Mr. Chin at the instigation of David Taylor on 12.6.2006. (See Annexure MFL 60)	82
16.	5.5.2006	Ms. Lynch of the Supreme Court Registry acknowledges the receipt of the NOTICE OF CEASING TO ACT dated 2.5.2006.  This is very clear to Registrar Powell.  Unless there is malice, Registrar Powell cannot go on to order the unlawful costs order against Mr. Chin that was the result of the malice of David Taylor ( See MFL-61).	83
17.	16.5.2006	After Registrar Powell had maliciously ordered the lawful costs order against Mr. Chin on 12.6.2006 at the instigation of David Taylor, the learned Registrar illogically and without a finding of fact stated that Mr. Chin is still on record acting for Nancy Hall.  If CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 is still subsisting at that time, that may be the case. But that Case has been completed.  This is despite the fact that Nancy Hall has filed her NOTICE TO ACT IN PERSON (See Annexure: MFL-62).	84
18.	18.5.2006	Mr. Chin responded to Registrar Powell’s letter dated 16.5.2006 copied to David Taylor.  This makes Mr. Chin’s position much clearer (See Annexure: MFL-63).	85
19.	18.7.2006	If David Taylor is fair dinkum, he would not have written this letter to demand Mr. Chin to continue to represent Nancy Hall in CIV 1131 of 2006 which case had been abdicated by Mr. Chin protesting the fraudulent conduct of Registrar Powell acting in conspiracy with David Taylor ((See Annexure: MFL-64).	86
20	21.6.2006	Despite having been told that it was Mr. David Taylor’s fault in causing Mr. Chin not to be able to continue to represent his client Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005 No.2 and in CIV 1131 of 2006, the former tried to serve the Statement of Claim of CIV1131 of 2006 on Mr. Chin without success. (See Annexure: MFL-65)	87
21	31.7.2006	Mr. Chin sent an email to David Taylor copied to the Associate of Registrar Powell to explain the whole situation.  If there is honesty amongst them, then they would have understood the whole situation that was clearly explained in that email letter (See Annexure: MFL-66 to MFL-68).	88-90
22	1.8.2006	David Taylor did understand the contents of the email letter of Mr. Chin as explained in item 11 above and he did not deny its contents which means that he had fully admitted to them. This is signified by his last statement that he has nothing further to add. (See Annexure: MFL-69)	91
23	8.8.2006 14.8.2006	Mr. Chin gave a detailed explanation of the malice of Mr. David Taylor in coercing Mr. Maurice Frederick Law to do the wrong thing by Mr. Chin because the former paid for the court fees of $399.00 into the Supreme Court Registry for which the Midland Court is now confusing Mr. Maurice Law with a receipt of $66.20. (See Annexure: MFL-70 to MFL-75))	92- 97
24	17.8.2006	Mr. David wrote to the LPCC to complain against Mr. Chin.  This letter contains the falsehood in material particulars that are being negated by Mr. Chin’s letters dated 31.7.2006 referred to above and 1.9.2006 as indicated below (See Annexure: MFL-76-MFL-79).	98-101
25.	28.8.2006 29.8.2006	The LPCC though its Ms. Coombs wrote to Barrister Alan Camp enclosing Mr. Chin’s letter dated 31.7.2006.  The contents of Mr. Chin’s letter of that date is being acknowledged as correct by Barrister Alan Camp in his response letter to the LPCC(See Annexure: MFL-80- MFL-81)	102-103
26.	1.9.2006	Mr. Chin wrote to the LPCC responding to its letter dated 28.8.2006 and gave a comprehensive account of all things that had happened with regard to the improper complaint of David Taylor and the malicious manner in which he had treated Mr. Chin. (See Annexure: MFL-82 to MFL-82 to MFL-88)	104-111
27.	21.9.2006, 23.9.2006, 26.9.2006. 27.9.2006.	Mr. Chin wrote four letters to the Chief Magistrate Mr. Steven Heath as well as to the Registrar of the Midland Magistrate Court regarding the improper manner in which his case in CA 2475 of 2006 had been conducted and the malicious conduct of Mr. David Taylor against Mr. Chin. (See Annexure: MFL-89 to MFL-98)	112-122
28.	29.3.2007	Barrister Alan Camp had to withdraw because Registrar Powell would not agree to acknowledge the fact that CIV1131 of 2006 was not filed in compliance with Jenkin’s J Order in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1. Nancy in her frail mental condition was representing herself before Simmonds J with David Taylor in attendance in CIV1142 of 2005 No.2.  Mr. Chin was requested by Ms. Nancy Hall to come to court in the presence of Simmonds J to give evidence concerning the fraud upon the court by David Taylor regarding the commencement date of CIV1131 of 2006.  David Taylor, in the absence of Simmonds J during the lunch break did indirectly prevented Mr. Chin from giving evidence through the court usher. This event is recorded in Mr. Chin’s letter to the Secretary of the Legal Practice Board because David Taylor’s complaint against Mr. Chin had by 12.9.2006 resulted in the Regulator through Her Honour Judge Eckert in VR137 of 2006 taking away the professional independence of Mr. Chin. ((See Annexure: MFL-99 to MFL-100)	123-124
29.	17.6.2007	The Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC stated to the Australian that WA judicial complaint system lacks transparency and that His Honour does not have any processes or procedures available to him that are open and transparent (See Annexure: MFL-101 to MFL-103).	125-127
30	3.11.2011	1) Paragraph 1 of the submission of David Taylor states that the SAT President had questioned Maurice Law as to whether Mr. Chin had assisted with the application in VR158 of 2011 and this was confirmed by Mr. Law.  1.1. Was Complaint Nos. 6 and 7 dismissed by President Chaney because Mr. Chin had helped Mr. Law in that Application? 2) Sub-paragraph 2.3: Why were complaints 6 and 7 unreasonable and how does His Honour define Unreasonableness?  2.1. This issue of Unreasonableness must be defined and re-decided as there is no basis for such a decision. 2.3. Does the concept of unreasonableness advanced by David Taylor and accepted by President Chaney fit in with the law as expressed by Lord Green M.R: It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting "unreasonably." Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington LJ in Short v Poole Corporation[1926] Ch. 66, 90, 91 gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all these things run into one another. 2.4.             Is President Chaney acting in bad faith? That is a question we must consider. 3.  Sub-paragraph 2.4: The issue of Owen JA decision in WASCA 216 is a mood point that has already been dealt with extensively with Commissioner’s Sleight Judgment in CIV 1877 of 2010.  It has been debated at the blogspot of Mr. Chin. 3.1. In CIV1142 of 2005 No.2 or SPUNTER PTY LTD -v- HALL [No 2] [2007]  WASC 239,  (sic WASCA 239) is the case where Mr. David Taylor is in conflict of interests: He is reasonably found to have misled Simmonds J as to the filing date of CIV 1131 of 2006 and to the Affidavit sworn and dated 19.3.2007.  He is reasonably found to be misleading President Chaney again. 3.4. As a result, President delivered an unsound prejudgment in VR158 of 2011 on 24.2.2012 which is both illogical and unfounded on the facts of the case. (See Annexure: MFL-104-107)	128-130

1.                  I,  MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the authorized non-lawyer legal

2.                  representative of Spunter Pty Ltd (Retired Builder) of No. 87, Herne Hill, MIDLAND WA 6056 or PO Box 399, MIDLAND WA 6936, do make oath and say as follows:

2.1.      The facts herein as contained in the Tables of CHRONOLOGY as indicated above in the thirty numbered items are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct.

2.2.      I am filing this Affidavit in support of my Application by way ORIGINATING MOTION dated 7^th day of March, 2012 in Form 64 pursuant to RSC O 54 r 5, for the purposes of STOPPING his Honour President Chaney of SAT from hearing VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012 and I wish the Supreme Court to inform him of this so that he could not continue to FAIL TO DO JUSTICE to me.

2.3.      These proceedings have connection with my Joint Application with Mr. Ni Kok Chin in CIV1275 of 2012 and in CIV 1323 of 2012.  The latter is the Application by Mr. Ni Kok Chin alone is with regard to his setting aside the Order of Murray J that Mr. Chin is a Vexatious Litigant.  These matters ought to be consolidated pursuant to RSC O.83 for the purpose of quieting all claims as they related to one subject matter, transaction or event, or to substantially similar subject matters, transactions or events, which is confined to the issue of the SINGLE page DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY DAVID TAYLOR TO SAT ON 29.11.2011 AND IT WAS VIEWED BY ME ON 30.11.2011 AS SHOWN TO ME BY MS. JACQUI OF SAT BUT WAS REFUSED TO BE GIVEN TO ME BY JACQUI OR TONI SHERWOOD UPON MY REQUEST AS PROMISED BY PRESIDENT CHANEY.  That is the bank statement with five entries which shows that the Court Fees of $654.20 was paid by David Taylor to Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 (which is the time when Registrar Powell was being requested by Mr. Chin and myself to produce the bank statement).  It is very strange that that payment was withdrawn on the same day.  Upon reflection, it would be reasonable to conjecture that the entry in the bank statement was made for an ulterior purpose i.e. to facilitate the production of the false receipt purportedly issued by the Supreme Court Registry on 19.5.2009 bearing Invoice Number 202483 found at ( Annexure: MFL26A).  Registrar Powell in his letter dated 11.6.2006 states clearly that there was a credit card payment for which the learned Registrar has not been able to render an account for. (See Annexure MFL-26B).  Independent of Registrar Powell’s story that the payment of court fees was paid on 16.2.2006, Mr. David Taylor himself is contradicting the payment was made on 16.2.2006 but is instead stating that that the payment was made on 10.2.2006.  Where is the cheque that he drew to pay the $654.00?  Why it was still paid $654.20 by Visa Card but there is no proof of such payment at all?  Who can be telling the truth?  Who is telling the lies?

4. I would like to refer to His Honour Justice Spigelman Lecture on the  Integrity or the Honesty of the Judicial system as contained in His Honour’s Lecture entitled

4.1.  Jurisdiction and Integrity - The Second Lecture in the 2004 National Lecture Series available which is available at: http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_spigelman050804; and

4.2.  The Centrality Of Jurisdictional Error Keynote Address by The Honourable J J Spigelman Ac  Chief Justice Of New South Wales Ags Administrative Law Symposium: Commonwealth And New South Wales Sydney, 25 March 2010 found at: http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/articles/Other/spigelman250310[1].pdf

5.  The above is also in line with the most recent development in Western Australia when our Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin Q.C. announced on 22.2.2012 that the hearing of corruptions in our legal system in WA should be made public irrespective of the sacrifice it is causing to the reputation of those people in high places who are alleged to be corrupt or who have refused to carry out their duties in accordance with the law and the applicable facts of the case that are before them. 

SWORN by the First Deponent at Perth]

In the State of Western Australia   ]

This   day of FEBRUARY, 2012   ]……………………………………………..

(Signature of MAURICE FREDERICK LAW AS THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF SPUNTER PTY LTD. )

Before Me,

…………………………………..

Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme

Court for Taking Affidavit 

SWORN by the Second Deponent ]

at Perth In the State of Western      ]

Australia  on   8^th                            ]

day of  March, 2012                       ]……………………………………………..

Before me:                                (Signature of Maurice Frederick Law as the Second Deponent)

…………………………………..

Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme

Court for Taking Affidavit