Sunday, September 30, 2012
Dr. Keith Allan Noble author: FIND! FALCONIO –Dead or Alive free pdf: manuals4u.com.au/about-us/25k-reward/ Unit 72 B, Am Heumarkt 7,1030 Vienna, Austria t/f: 43-1-9712401 MARTIN.BRYANT.IS.INNOCENT@gmail.com, BIGWORMBOOKS@gmx
“Fight to Defend our Rights and Liberties”
MARTIN BRYANT
IS INNOCENT
Forthcoming book on innocent Martin Bryant who was denied a trial and who is
now imprisoned until he dies for crimes he did not commit in Tasmania, Australia.
EUREKA
STOCKADE
–s e r i e s –
Dr. Keith Allan Noble
author: FIND! FALCONIO – Dead or Alive
free pdf: manuals4u.com.au/about-us/25k-reward/
Unit 72 B, Am Heumarkt 7, 1030 Vienna, Austria t / f: 43-1-9712401
MARTIN.BRYANT.IS.INNOCENT@gmail.com, BIGWORMBOOKS@gmx.net
John AVERY, disbarred & disgraced barrister 30 September 2012
c/o Fiona REYNOLDS, ABC State Director
Hobart, Tasmania, AUSTRALIA
ARE YOU REMORSEFUL?
Based on Internet articles prepared by the ABC, The Mercury, and other
Australian news disseminators, you have just been released from prison.
So international readers of this letter will have some information about
your despicable barristerial behaviour which put you behind bars, this is
what David Killick of The Mercury (28 September 2012) wrote about you:
“[Avery] pleaded guilty in 2008 to 130 counts of stealing and dishonesty between
December 2001 and March 2006. He admitted stealing more than $500,000 from
his clients and his former law firm at Moonah to support his obsession with art
and luxury. His victims included those who had won personal injury or workers’
compensation claims and a survivor of the 1964 HMAS Voyager disaster.”
And ABC News (28 September 2012) reported this in a related report:
“[Avery] used more than $500,000 he stole from his clients and former law firm,
to fund a lavish lifestyle which included buying expensive artwork and watches....
Avery told the Parole Board he was truly remorseful and had been on a course
to assist with his addiction to acquiring artwork.”
Well, your alleged remorse is doubted – methinks you curse being caught.
(How many watches with unpronounceable Swiss-French names does a
man of greed need?) Of course people are now wondering if you have
any regrets over your unethical behaviour re the innocent Martin Bryant.
He said many times he did not kill anyone at Port Arthur or at Seascape,
and there is not a shred of hard evidence proving he did. You failed to conduct
any significant investigations, but you took his artwork. And without
his guardian being present, you persistently pressured this disturbed
mentally-handicapped 10-year-old (IQ 66), then being broken in illegal
solitary confinement, to plead guilty. Maybe you obtained another expensive
watch by doing that. Martin, however, is now being slowly murdered
at Risdon prison with the consent of Australian officials past and present.
But if you are remorseful, please let me know so that can be added to the
section on you in my forthcoming book. If you fail to reply, it can only be
interpreted to mean you are one of those murderous officials. Thank you.
Sincerely,
c. as necessary
no copyright
Friday, September 28, 2012
IF YOU THINK YOU WILL LOSE YOUR DRIVER'S LICENCE YOU CAN MAKE A S.104J ELECTION
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1974 - SECT 104J
104J . Making a s. 104J election
(1) A person who is given an excessive demerit points notice may, unless prevented by subsection (2) from doing so, avoid being disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence because of the notice by making an election under this section for the year commencing when, having regard to section 104M, the period of disqualification specified in the notice would have commenced.
(2) In order to be able to make a section 104J election a person must hold a driver’s licence other than a provisional licence and must not be a novice driver.
(3) By making a section 104J election the person elects not to commit, during the year for which the election is made —
(a) an offence for which 2 or more demerit points can be recorded under this Part against the person; or
(b) offences for which a total of 2 or more demerit points can be recorded under this Part against the person; or
(c) an offence for which the court convicting the person is required by law to disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence; or
(d) an offence the conviction of which results in the person being disqualified by operation of this Act from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.
(4) The election is to be made in writing, in the form approved by the Director General, and given to the Director General within 21 days after the day on which the Director General gave the excessive demerit points notice.
(5) A section 104J election applies for the period ending at the end of the year for which it is made or, if the period ends earlier under this Part, until the earlier end of the period.
Friday, September 21, 2012
It's an Old, Old Story
It's an Old, Old Story
Contemplations
by Peter and Helen Evans
We
find ourselves in an awkward position just now. We are shocked, saddened and
outraged by the most recent acts of terrorism which killed thousands of
innocents. At the same time, if we can lift ourselves above the red daze of
vengeance, we are shocked, saddened and outraged by the prospect of the
inevitable deaths of many more innocents in our equally inevitable attempt to
"punish" the terrorists. We don't want terrorism and we don't want
war, and one or the other or both seem inevitable. What to do!?
We
find ourselves in much the same position as did Arjuna,
the central figure of an ancient story, the Bhagavad Gita. He was a member of
one branch of a royal family which was divided over who should rule the shared
kingdom. The dispute between the opposing branches of the family had escalated
to war. Arjuna asks Krishna , his charioteer,
to take him to the middle of the battlefield to survey the two armies arrayed
to clash. Even though he feels he is on the side of righteousness (and has God
incarnated as Krishna "on his
side"), he is totally dismayed at the prospect of going to war against his
cousins, his beloved uncle, his revered teachers and countless other relatives.
He is shocked, saddened and outraged at the evil that has brought things to
this state, and at the carnage which will inevitably follow. Sound familiar?
Arjuna
is a member of the 'Kshatrya' caste in his society. This is like the Samurai,
the warrior or military class. It is his 'dharma' or duty to fight for
righteousness. Yet he refuses. He drops his weapon and sadly says that neither
for wealth or fame or kingship will he slaughter his kin. He would rather be
killed himself. This is how the first of the eighteen chapters of the Bhagavad
Gita ends.
In
the remainder of this short, but dense little book, Krishna
explains to Arjuna that he must act. But, that he must do so without fear of
the consequences, and without desire for personal satisfaction or gain. He must
consecrate his actions to the higher ideal of re-establishing Truth and
righteousness in the world.
The
Samurai operate according to the same code of honor, devotion to the will of
their lord. It is said that, if you can anger a Samurai who is coming to kill
you, he is honor- bound to desist in his attack, at least until he re-centers
himself in selfless devotion. Then... you better run!
As
we read reports of the thousands fleeing Afghanistan
We
may be tempted to fall into the too-easy duality of "us" and
"them" and pretend that if we can get rid of the terrorists this
time, then "everything will be all right" and we can go back to
business as usual. It's not that simple, and, thankfully, most of us are not that
simple- minded either. The "problem of violence" is not limited to a
few "evil terrorists". It is an aspect of humanity, and that's the
good news in this sorry scenario. We are all part of humanity, and every step
we take to rid ourselves of the evil of violence moves all of humanity toward
righteousness.
At
one level, we are simply spectators to the events unfolding now on the world
stage, and can only hope that our hired warriors will behave honorably. But at
a deeper more personal level, a level where we CAN make a difference, we are in
the chariot with Krishna , on our own
battlefield.
It
may not be easy, right away, to know what is the higher ideal, but we can all
be easily aware of when we are acting for our own, personal satisfaction.
Let
us be calm and listen to our higher guidance.
EMAIL TO LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD REGARDING STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 7291 AND REFERENCE 7075
From: Nicholas N Chin
[mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2012 4:01 PM
To: 'GENERAL@LPBWA.COM'
Subject: NNC-VR87OF2009-ACCOUNT-LPB21092012L.doc
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2012 4:01 PM
To: 'GENERAL@LPBWA.COM'
Subject: NNC-VR87OF2009-ACCOUNT-LPB21092012L.doc
Our Ref: VR87 of 2012
The Legal Practice Board
Atten: Ms. Libby Fulham, Legal Officer
5th Floor, Kings Building
533, Hay Street
Phone: 08 6211 3600;
Fax: 08 9325 2743
Dear Sir
YOUR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
DATED 31.8.2012 BEARING NO. 7291 AND REFERENCE NO. 7075
I refer to the above matter
and would like to state as follows:
1) The ludicrous and
unprecedented findings (of thirteen Professional Misconduct and two
Unprofessional Misconduct) against me as a former lawyer based on the alleged
grounds of dishonesty that does not pass the common law test of
misappropriation of property or monies nor are they ever based on deception
through fraud or a conspiracy to defraud. They are leaving me as a lawyer who
is going to be struck off the roll without a crime or an “unfitness” that
defies imagination. No reasonable person in his sane mind can ever
conceive of a lawyer being faulted under circumstances of lack of any willful
misconduct on his part. Yet the LPCC is capable of doing this and the Tribunal
is guile enough to accept its malicious persecution of me as a real
prosecution. I have asked for the forthcoming trial to strike me off the
roll to be determined by a jury and five judges but this just request has been
refused in LPD2 of 2012. The ludicrous findings are delivered by the
State Administrative Tribunal on 24.4.2012 and they have been refuted by me in
my two written submissions dated 14.5.2012 and 29.5.2012 as indicated in paragraph
12 of the final judgment by SAT dated 20.8.2012 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS
COMMITTEE and CHIN [2012] WASAT77(S). I am now despairing of making any
further efforts to put up any more fight; there seems to be no law nor any
human reasoning left in the judicial system; alas, it will sap my energy for
any more fight left within me. I will just have to resign to my fate as there
are two systems of law in our judicial system, one for the powerful and the
unrighteous and one for the poor, the oppressed and the innocent.
2) The LPCC has its own
cronies and will not cease to defend them vigorously and will continue to
protect them even when they are clear cut and crystal clear evidence before the
court and even when they are the oppressors and I am the oppressed. The
learned President can make the clear cut evidence disappear as in the case of
Maurice Law in VR158 of 2011 and their stand that I have made false allegations
against fellow practitioners in terms of Mr. Thies and Mr. Taylor will not go away
no matter what crystal clear evidence I produce before the tribunal, because
they are doomed not to accept them and there is no human reasoning for doing
so. I have fought and all the evidence of my fighting is at my blogspot and
other blogspot when you Google my name.
3) I refer to your letter
dated 19.9.2011 regarding my undertaking not to represent entitlement to engage
in legal practice. I already communicated with you through email dated
19.8.2012 and my re-emailing it to you today after I have spoken to your Ms.
Manners and spoke to her about it and leaving for you my contact numbers with
her. My response email is at the link: http://wwwnicholasnchin.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/due-compliance-with-my-undertaking-not.html.
4) In respect of the account
of $16,721.42, I am unable to pay for it as I have no means for doing so as the
Legal Practice Board had stopped me from earning any income since 12.9.2006.
Yours faithfully,
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Thursday, September 13, 2012
MY REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY BY FIVE MEMBER PANEL OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WA
Nicholas Ni Kok
Chin
- LL.B.;
B.Econs.(Business &
Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law)
Our Ref: NNC-LPCC-C108OF2012 & LPD2 OF 2012.
The Supervisor of Listings
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Barrack Street, PERTH
Fax: 92214436 Phone: 9421 5333 SENT BY FAX ON
13.9.2012 AT 6.35 PM.
ATTEN: Jamie Curley
Your Ref: LPD2/2012
The Legal Profession Complaints
Committee
2nd Floor,
55, St. Georges
Terrace
Your Ref: C108/2012. SENT BY EMAIL ON 13.9.2012 AT
6.40 PM.
Thursday, September 13,
2012
Dear Sir
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE V CHIN
Further to my letter to you bearing the above reference
dated 11.9.2012 copied to the LPCC and my telephone communication with you, I
wish to inform you as follows:
1)
I
would like to exercise my Constitutional Right to be Tried by a Jury in the
above matter as it is a very serious matter to me; I view it as a matter of life
and death struggle by me to obtain the elusive and illusive justice in Western
Australia by me, as a victim who has been oppressed and it is in the common good
that I do get this guarantee by our Australian Constitution.
2)
I
would like the empanelling of five members of the trial judges to hear my case
to determine the issue of whether I should be struck off the roll of barristers
and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Five impartial judges
is vitally important to me for the determination of my professional misconduct
in view of the fact that there is no willful misconduct on my part; there is no
dishonest appropriation by deception of any property or monies; the tests for
dishonesty is that there should have been theft or conspiracy to defraud; there
is none because there are no victims of my dishonesty or fraud.
Yours
faithfully
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
Office: 387 Alexander
Drive ,
DIANELLA WA 6059,
AUSTRALIA p h: +6189275 7440; fax: +618 92757440; mobile:
0421642735; emails: nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin@msn.com;
Skyp e:
nicholasnchin2885
LETTER BY MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW FOR MASTER SANDER'S RECUSAL FROM HEARING THEIR JOINT APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION ORDER IN CIV 2157 OF 2012
PHONE 08 9296 1555
MAURICE LAW
BOX
399 MIDLAND 6936
MOBILE
0402 002 797
EMAIL moza35@bigpond.com
NICHOLAS NI KOK PHONE: 08 92757440
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE , MOBILE
The PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
BARRACK STREET
ATTEN: ASSOCIATE TO MASTER SANDERSON.
DEAR SIRS
Ref: DISQUALIFICATION OF MASTER
SANDERSON FROM HEARING THE FRESH JOINT APPLICATION OF MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN, DATED
AND FILED 12.6.20121 FOR A SUSPENSION ORDER TO STAY THE COSTS ORDER OF SIMMONDS
J IN CIV 2157 OF 2011 DATED 12.8.2011 SCHEDULED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIS HONOUR ON
25.7.2011 AT 9.15 AM
Dear Sirs,
I refer
to the written judgment of the decision dated 18.6.2012 by EM Heenan in GANNAWAY -v- CHIN
No 2] [2012] WASC 208 or CIV 1275 of 2012 pertaining
to a joint application for a Suspension Order against Simmonds J’s costs order
in CIV 2157 of 2011 or Gannaway
v Chin [2011] WASC 252, by Mr. Law and
Mr. Chin. The First Joint Applicant was
dismissed by EM Heenan J on 5.6.2012 (the First Joint Application).
As a result of the First Joint
Application, both the Applicants made another fresh Joint Application filed and
dated 12.6.2012, which is the above subject matter (the Second Joint
Application).
The Second Joint Application is
not an abuse of process as it is not litigating matters that have already been
litigated but concerns issues which have never been litigated in the past (the EIGHT
non-res judicata issues), namely:
1) the error of law in all previous related litigations that
Spunter Pty Ltd’s Caveatable Interests in the Mt. Lawley and Hazelmere
Properties of Nancy Hall need not be founded on proprietary interests. The Proprietary Interests of Spunter is the
subject matter of Mr. Chin’s appeal against the decision of Justice McKechnie’s
dismissal of CIV 1275 of 2012 on 18.6.2012 (the Proprietary Interests of Spunter).
2) the Proprietary Interests of Spunter was never present in
CIV1775 of 2008 or in Audrey Francis Hall as Executrix of the estate of KENNETH
DUNCAN HALL v Chin [2008] WASC 255 as this should have been the reason for its
removal instead of the allegedly sham mortgage of Kenneth Duncan Hall having a
prior interests to that of Spunter Pty Ltd.
This existence of this fact of the NON-PROPRIETARY INTERESTS OF SPUNTER supports
the fact that Mr. Chin is the s.244 LPA 2005 Salvour of the Mt. Lawley
3) However, the Proprietary Interests of Spunter is present in
the case that is the subject of the error of Simmonds J in Gannaway v Chin [2011] WASC 252 and it is brought about by an
informal will that has its operative effect only in post 13.1.2008 period, and
that date is the date of the demise of the late Nancy Cloonan Hall. This is the subject matter of Appeal by
Maurice Law against the decisions of Simmonds J in his Notice of Appeal dated
3.7.2012 (the Second Caveats).
4) The validity of the Second Caveats depends on the validity of
the Informal Will of Nancy Hall as contained in the Six Deeds of Nancy Hall
which signify the integrity of the debts owing by the estate of Nancy Hall to
Spunter Pty Ltd as admitted to by Simmonds J in his judgment (the informal
will).
5) The paragraph 244 validity of legitimate debts owed by the
Estate of Nancy Hall to Spunter Pty Ltd in the judgment of DCJ Sweeney in her judgment
in LAW -v- GANNAWAY as administrator of the estate of NANCY CLOONAN HALL
[No 2] [2011] WADC 195 (the Integrity of the Debts owed
owed by the estate of Nancy Hall to Spunter as admitted by DCJ Sweeney).
6) The former s.244 LPA 2003 validity of
the Salvour Status of Mr. Chin as admitted to by Buss JA and concurred to by
McLure JA in CHIN -v- HALL [2009] WASCA 216 at paragraph 67 (the validity of
the Statutory Salvour Status of Mr. Chin) is in the following words of His
Honour:
“67 BUSS JA: I agree with Owen JA, for the reasons he gives, that the
appeal should be dismissed. It is unnecessary to decide in this appeal whether
work performed by a legal practitioner (including the prosecution of legal
proceedings), which results in the removal of a caveat lodged in respect of
land owned by the practitioner's client, constitutes work for or involving the
'recovery' or 'preservation' of the land. I assume, for the purposes of this
appeal, that work of that kind may constitute work for or involving the 'recovery'
or 'preservation' of the land in question.”
7) The hitherto-valid accusations made against David Taylor as
the former solicitor of Spunter Pty Ltd by Mr. Law that he David Taylor was in
dereliction of his duties towards it (Spunter) in that he (David Taylor) did
not comply with the orders of Jenkins J in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 to file CIV
1131 of 2006 by 10.2.2006, is rendered unnecessary by the non-res judicata
issue of the Non-Proprietary Interests of Spunter in the First Caveats (the Unnecessary
Accusations against David Taylor and Registrar Powell).
8)
The Unnecessary Accusations against David Taylor and Registrar Powell
shall render the status of the s.244 former LPA 2005 Salvour Status of Mr. Chin
valid as he is indeed the salvour of the Mt. Lawley and Hazelmere Properties of
the Estate of Nancy Hall since 10.2.2006 and this fact renders the
administrator of that estate Mrs. Gannaway liable in law to compensate Mr. Chin
for his ongoing legal work performed by him as Salvour for the Estate of Nancy
Hall until today and it is continuing (the compensation to Mr. Chin).
Although the EIGHT NON-RES JUDICATA matters as recited above has not been
the direct subject matters that came within the purview of His Honour Master
Sanderson in his judgment in AUDREY FRANCIS HALL as executrix of the estate of
KENNETH DUNCAN HALL -v- CHIN [2008] WASC 255 dated 29.10.2008, the Joint
Applicants in the Second Joint Application are apprehensive of the fact that
His Honour Master Sanderson might not bring an impartial mind as a judge in the
above matter on the following grounds:
1)
His Honour had already formed pre-judgments and personal opinions on the
matter based on his previous decision;
2)
His Honour’s impartiality might therefore be reasonably questioned;
3)
His Honour is in possession of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
these proceedings;
4)
His Honour had previously expressed an opinion concerning the same issues
that will affect the outcome of the second Joint Application;
5)
His Honour shall be reasonably seen as acting in conflict of interests or
shall be reasonably seen as a judge sitting to hear his own cause as he had
already made up his mind on the same issues in the previous proceedings;
6)
It is therefore right for his Honour to voluntarily recuse himself from
hearing this Joint Application if he were to recognize the existence of facts
leading to his disqualifications as he is the sole arbiter of this informal motion
of recusal- this recusal therefore depends on His Honour’s own knowledge,
conscience and his own discretions;
Yours faithfully,
MAURICE LAW
NICHOLAS N CHIN
REASON FOR HIS HONOUR JUSTICE HEENAN'S TRANSGRESSION
ANNEXURE B
REASONS FOR HIS HONOUR JUSTICE HEENAN’S
TRANSGRESSION IN CIV 1275 OF 2012 AND CIV
2157 OF 2011 ON 5.6.2012 BEFORE MR CHIN, MR. LAW AND
THE MR. STOKES AS SOLCITIOR FOR MRS .
GANNAWAY
1. Justice Heenan was not aware that Mr.
Chin had made an application under s.6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2004
for leave to be heard. Despite the insistence of Mr. Chin, His Honour finally
conceded that the required leave was indeed applied for.
1.1. JUSTICE HEENAN IS NOT AWARE OF THE
BRIEF OF MAURICE LAW AND MR. CHIN.
THIS IS PROOF OF THE ABUSE OF POWER, NEGLECT AND
ARROGANCE OF JUSTICE HEENAN (OUR DUE RESPECT).
1.2. IN A PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT, IN CIV 1019 OF 2010, JUSTICE HEENAN ISSUED AN ORDER TO
THE LPCC TO SHOW CAUSE BUT HIS
HONOUR RETRACTED THAT ORDER AFTER 14 DAYS WHEN HE RECEIVED UNILATERAL
COMMUNICATION FROM MS. BRAEISCH OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WA. THIS IS THE
PROOF OF THE BIAS OF JUSTICE HEENAN AND
HIS HONOUR SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE OF HIS OWN CAUSE IN CIV
1275 OF 2012.
1.3. JUSTICE HEENAN IS STATING THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA HAS NO POWERS TO SIT AND HEAR
THE PREROGATIVE WRITS REVIEW OF HIS OWN BROTHER JUDGES OF THE SAME RANK. THAT
IS THE LAW AND IS ADMITTED.
1.4. BUT JUSTICE HEENAN DOES NOT REALIZE
THAT MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW ARE MAKING A JOINT APPLICATION IN CIV 1275 OF 2012 TO ENABLE THE SUPREME COURT TO
EXERCISE ITS INHERENT JURISDICTION WITH REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 (WA) TO CASTIGATE THE ERRORS OF LAW APPARENT IN THE
COURT RECORDS BY WAY OF DECLARATIVE JUDGMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS
EXPOUNDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE SPIGELMAN WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS
IN HIS LECTURE JURISDICTION AND
INTEGRITY DATED 5.8.2004 FOUND AT THE WEBSITE OF THE NSW SUPREME COURT.
2. Justice Heenan (with great respect) was not aware of Mr. Chin's brief with regard to the fact thatCIV 1323
of 2012 is an application for declarative judgement of the Jurisdictional
Errors of His Honour Justice Murray's Decision in CIV
1689 of 2011 delivered 10.1.2012 (the Jurisdictional Errors Application for the
Vexatious Proceedings Order).
2. Justice Heenan (with great respect) was not aware of Mr. Chin's brief with regard to the fact that
3. The Jurisdictional Errors Application
for the Vexatious Proceedings Order was scheduled by the Supreme Court for
hearing before a Supreme Court Judge in Chambers on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am .
4. His Honour therefore has no jurisdictional
authority to deny Mr. Chin from being heard by him before him as there is no
frivolity or vexatiousness of the 3 three matters that was before His Honour.
His Honour did not provide any valid reason as to why Mr. Chin should not be
heard or be given leave under s.6 of the Act.
5. Justice Heenan was required by the Court
as indicated in the Court's letter dated 18.5.2012 bearing reference CIV 1275 OF 2012 to both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin that
that certain prior issues be settled on as preliminary hearing for 15 minutes
on three issues:
5.1. Immediate Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of Justice Simmonds Order against Maurice Law when it should have been against Spunter Pty Ltd.
5.2. 3 Subpoenas to be issued to settle preliminary matters before the hearing on 18.6.2012 for two hours.
5.1. Immediate Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of Justice Simmonds Order against Maurice Law when it should have been against Spunter Pty Ltd.
5.2. 3 Subpoenas to be issued to settle preliminary matters before the hearing on 18.6.2012 for two hours.
6. Justice Heenan avoided the two crucial
issues:
6.1. the proper parties in all the cases referred to inCIV
1275 of 2012 is the Estate of Nancy Hall and Spunter Pty Ltd. Therefore the
impugned costs order made by Simmonds J in CIV
2157 of 2011 and BY DCJ Sweeney in DC CIV
2509 of 2002 against Maurice Law and NOT AGAINST SPUNTER IS UNLAWFUL.
6.2. Mr. Chin is at all material times, acting in his capacity as the s.244 of Legal Practice Act, 2003 Salvour of the Estate of the late Nancy Cloonan Hall affecting the estate's dispute with Mr. David Taylor regarding the latter's falsifications of court records inCIV
1131 of 2006 which has ramifications the costs orders in CIV 1775 of 2008 and CACV 107 of 2008. Therefore
the execution of the unlawful costs orders by Mr. Chris Stokes as solicitor for
Mrs. Gannaway, the administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall is UNLAWFUL AS IT
IS THE ESTATE WHICH IS LIABLE AND
NOT MR. CHIN.
6.1. the proper parties in all the cases referred to in
6.2. Mr. Chin is at all material times, acting in his capacity as the s.244 of Legal Practice Act, 2003 Salvour of the Estate of the late Nancy Cloonan Hall affecting the estate's dispute with Mr. David Taylor regarding the latter's falsifications of court records in
7. THE ISSUE THAT WAS BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN
FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS IN CIV 2157 OF 2011 HAD BEEN AVOIDED. THE UNLAWFUL
COSTS ORDER IS BEING CURRENTLY EXECUTED THROUGH THE SHERIFF OF PERTH MRS .
GANNAWAY (THE SUSPENSION ORDER APPLICATION).
8. THE REASON FOR JUSTICE HEENAN'S JUDGMENT
TO DISMISS THE IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IS A NULLITY. THE SHERIFF OF PERTH
9. Judiciary Independence INDEPENDENCE
10. THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT PROVIDED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE COURT BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN BY MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN IS NOT MADE PUBLIC. THE COURT HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE. JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
SEEN TO BE DONE. BUT IT IS NOT.
11. THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE INHERENT JURISDICTION TO GIVE DECLARATORY
JUDGEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR
MISAPPREHENDED THE FACTS, OR THAT THE RESULT IS INEXPLICABLY INCONSISTENT WITH
THE FACTS OR THAT THE DISCRETION TO ORDER COSTS MISCARRIED INTHE MANNER
IDENTIFIED in House v The King: Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster's
Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 484
at [41] (Chesterman J), approved AGL
Sales (Queensland) P/L v Dawson Sales P/L and ors (sic) [2009] QCA 262 at [50]
(Fraser JA).
12. Spunter Pty Ltd and not Maurice Law did
not have a caveatable interests or an equitable lien cum a proprietary
interests on the Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley Properties of Nancy Cloonan Hall at
the time when Mr. Chin was the solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1.
13. Spunter Pty Ltd's solicitor as
appointed by Maurice Law is Mr. David Taylor. He was required by Justice
Jenkins in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1
to issue Writ of Summons in CIV 1131
of 2006 by the 10.2.2006, which he did not do because Spunter did not then have
a Caveatable Interests in Nancy Hall Properties.
14. The Court through Registrar Powell
corrupt act falsified the court records that Mr. Taylor complied with Justice
Jenkins Order, when that Writ was never issued on 10.2.2006, or at a later date
as claimed by Registrar Powell on 16.2.2006. It was probably issued on the
19.5.2009 some three years later because the court fees for it was never
paid.
15. The Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008
expounded the correct law with regard to the falsifications of the court
records but gave a reverse outcome that did not complied with the law. That was
an appeal from Master Sanderson decision.
16. Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 ignored the falsifications of the
Court Records by Mr. Taylor and gave judgement against the both Mr. Law and Mr.
Chin.
17. The corrupt acts of the courts caused Nancy
18. Nancy Hall promised Mr. Chin his s.244
Legal Practice Act, 2004 WA statutory Salvour of her Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley
Properties. In the aftermath of Nancy
19. When the falsifications of the court
records in CIV 1131 of 2006 is
FINALLY SOLVED, Mr. Chin shall be able to regain his Salvour Status and be paid
his just emoluments for his legal work for Nancy Hall to be recovered from
Nancy Hall estate.
20. Mr. Chin has his duty of candour to the
Court and believes that Spunter Pty Ltd did have a Caveatable Interests in the
aftermath of the death of Nancy Hall because Nancy did promised him in writing
that he would have a proprietary interests cum equitable interests for Mt.
Lawley and Hazelmere Properties after her death if the debt in the default
judgement in DC CIV 2509 of 2002
was not paid by then.
21. Therefore the costs order of Justice
Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011
against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law is misconceived because the former is not the
party to the action but Spunter Pty Ltd and the latter is a Solicitor Salvour
acting for the Estate of Nancy Hall.
22. Similarly, the costs order against both
Mr. Chin and Mr. Law in Master Sanderson Order is also misconceived for the
same reason.
24. Similarly, the costs order against Mr.
Chin alone in CACV 107 of 2008 is also misconceived.
SIGNED BY MAURICE LAW: …………………………………………….
SIGNED BY NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
……………………………………
DATED 12.6.2012.
JOINT AFFIDAVIT BY MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION ORDER HEARD BEFORE MASTER SANDERSON ON 25.7.2012.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV
2157 OF 2011
In the matter of Part
3, Division 3 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act, 2004 and Form 9
Application for Suspension Order
Judgment Creditor: MICHELE-MAREE GANNAWAY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF NANCY CLOONAN HALL
EX-PARTE: Judgment
Debtors:
- NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
- MAURICE LAW
Prepared by:
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Phone
& Fax: 08 92757440
387, Alexander Drive ,
DIANELLA Mobile : 0421642735
WA 6059 Email:
nnchin1@gmail.com;
Maurice Frederick Law Phone:
08 92961555
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS IN SUPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION
FOR A SUSPENSION ORDER PURSUANT TO S. 15 OF THE CIVIL JUDGMENTS ENFORCEMENTS
ACT, 2004: THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS MADE BY A NON-PARTY SPUNTER PTY LTD INSTEAD OF MAURICE LAW AND
THEREFORE IT WAS DISMISSED BY HEENAN J ON 5.6.2012.
1.
We,
Nicholas N Chin (currently un-certificated solicitor and seeking leave under
s.6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2004 WA) of No. 387, Alexander Drive , DIANELLA
WA William
Street , HERNE HILL WA
2.
The
matters referred to in this Affidavit are based on facts and information which
we perceive with our senses and do believe to be true and correct and where
they based on other sources, we refer to those sources and we do believe them
to be true and correct as well.
3.
The First
Judgment Debtor is not liable for the costs Order of Justice Simmonds dated
12.8.2011 in CIV 2157 of 2011
under the following circumstances:
3.1. Mr. Chin is the s.244 Legal Practice Act 2003 -
Salvour of the Mt.
Lawley CIV
1142 of 2005 N0.1 by reason of the fact that Spunter Pty Ltd did not have a
caveatable interest in the two Properties (the Spunter Non-Caveatable
Interests).
3.2. The Spunter’s Non-Caveatable Interests is based
on the principle of law as enunciated in
judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Full Court Lavery v R and I
Bank of Western Australia (CAN 050 494 454) – BC 9504163 in CIV 222 of 1993 dated 19.5.1995, 7.9.1995 in its Unreported
Decisions 950468S at 19 which indicates that merely having spent money on the
two Properties is not enough to support a Caveatable Interests but there must
be a proprietary interests in the Caveated Land following Dillwyn v Llewellyn
(1862) 4 De GF and J 517; ER 1285; and Ramsden v Dyson (1865) LR 1 HL 219 which
acknowledged the exception to the general rule that if a person spends money on the property of another, then prima
facei, he or she does not acquire a proprietary interest in or lien over the
property: Pettit v Pettit (170)AC 77. (Caveatable Interests must include a
Proprietary Interests).
3.3. The fact that the Spunter Pty Ltd has to date
not filed the CIV 1131 of 2006 in
compliance with Justice Jenkins Order in CIV
1142 of 2005 No.1 dated 20.1.2012 is no longer relevant because there is prima
facei evidence before the court of Spunter’s Non-Caveatable Intrerests by
virtue of the fact that the impugned Caveatable Interests must include a
Proprietary Interests (the Error of Law on the Court Records).
3.4. As a corollary to the above, the estate of
Nancy Hall through its administrator the Judgment Creditor is liable for all
the legal costs of the proceedings in CIV 1775
of 2008, CACV 107 of 2008 and CIV 2157
of 2011 so far undertaken by the First Judgment Debtor Mr. Chin in his capacity
as the statutory salvour of the two properties for and on behalf of the estate
of Nancy Hall: the subject matter of the impugned Caveatable Interests of
Spunter which should have been solved by the Removal of the Errors of Law on
the Court Records. This includes its liability to me as the Statutory Salvour
for all my legal works until today and continuing, which amounts to some $150k
although there is a promise through Justice Pullins of the Supreme Court in
CACV 107 of 2008 to pay me the promised sum of $20k from the estate as soon as
the problem with the Caveatable Interests of Spunter is resolved (the
Continuing Liability of Nancy Hall Estate).
4.
The Second
Judgment Debtor Mr. Law is not liable for the Costs Order of Justice Simmonds
in CIV 2157 of 2011 dated
12.8.2012 upon the following grounds:
4.1. Spunter Pty Ltd is the body corporate of Mr
Maurice Frederick Law (the corporate body).
4.2. Mr. Maurice Frederick Law has been carrying on
the legal proceedings with the Judgment Creditor who is the Administrator of
the Estate of Nancy Hall, with the permission of the courts through Justice
Murray in CACV1566 OF 2010, DCJ Sweeney in DC CIV
2509 of 2002 and Justice Simmonds in CIV
2157 of 2011 because the corporate body is un-financial and is unable to pay a
solicitor to represent it (the Litigant in person Representee of the body
corporate).
4.3. The body corporate is at all material times the
party to all these proceedings that began as the DC Civ 2509 of 2002 that
resulted in the Default Judgment given by DCJ Groves in favour of Spunter as
the Default Judgment Creditor (Spunter Pty Ltd as a party).
4.4. The subject costs order of Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011
should have been against Spunter Pty Ltd as party and not against Mr. Maurice
Frederick Law as non-party: there has been a technical mistake which the
Supreme Court should correct (The Simmonds Costs Order cannot be enforced
against Maurice Law Personally).
4.5. The Simmonds Costs Order cannot be enforced
against Maurice Law Personally on the following grounds:
5.5.1. Maurice Law is never the Second Judgment Debtor
on the ground of technical mistake as indicated above, whereas Spunter Pty Ltd
is.
5.5.2. Spunter Pty Ltd is not jointly liable to the
Simmonds Costs Order together with Mr. Chin as First Judgment Debtor because
they have separate causes of action in their respective separate Caveats that
was removed by Justice Simmonds in CIV
2157 of 2011 on 12.8.2011.
4.6. The Administrator of the Estate of Nancy Hall,
the Judgment Creditor was declared by the court to be un-financial when Spunter
Pty Ltd was trying to enforce the Default Judgment of DCJ Groves, the subject
matter of DC CIV 2509 of 2002 upon
her. By 9.8.2011, the Administrator became
flushed with funds as the administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall valued at
$2.3m that fell into the possession of Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall as a result of
the decision of Jenkins J in CIV
2073 of 2003 later came back into the possession of the Administrator of that
Estate by 9.8.2011. See paragraph 8 of the Affidavit of the Administrator (in
Annexure MFL1 dated 9.8.2011 in CIV
2157 of 20011) who exchanged the 2.3m dollar estate of Nancy Hall for $702k
(the Unjust Enrichment of the Administrator).
4.7. Master Sanderson’s judgment in CIV 1775 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 prevents the
Estate of Nancy Hall from making the payout of the legitimate debts of Nancy
Hall to the First Judgment Debtor of $20k (now estimated at $150k as a result
of the Statutory Salvour’s continuing litigation in these proceedings) and to
Spunter Pty Ltd as the Second Judgment Debtor of about $146k as indicated at
paragraph 244 of DCJ Sweeney’s Judgment in DC CIV
2509 of 2002 dated 8.11.2011. This is the reason for the deprivation of the
First and Second Judgment Debtors Rights as Creditors of the Estate of Nancy
Hall (the Reason for Deprivation of Judgment Debtors Entitlements).
5. Both
the Judgment Debtors must be reinstated to their former positions they would
been in as if the Unjust Enrichment of the Administrator had not taken place, so that the fair justice to them is reasonably
seen to be founded upon the Reason for the Deprivation of the Judgment Debtors
Entitlements.
.
SWORN at PERTH )
ON THE 12.6.2012 )
by the said First )
Judgment Debtor:
)……………………………………………………..
(Signature of NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN)
……………………………………………………………..
Name of Witness (A
person authorized to Take Affidavits)
SWORN at PERTH )
ON THE 12.6.2012 )
by the said Second )
Judgment Debtor:
)……………………………………………………..
(Signature of MAURICE FREDERICK
LAW)
……………………………………………………………..
Name of Witness (A
person authorized to Take Affidavits)
JOINT SUBMISSION OF MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW FOR SUSPENSION ORDER OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS COSTS ORDER IN CIV 2157 OF 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CIV
2157 OF 2011
In the matter of Part
3, Division 3 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act, 2004 and Form 9
Application for Suspension Order
Judgment Creditor: MICHELE-MAREE GANNAWAY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF NANCY CLOONAN HALL
EX-PARTE: Judgment
Debtors:
- NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
- SPUNTER PTY
Prepared by:
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Phone
& Fax: 08 92757440
387, Alexander Drive ,
DIANELLA Mobile : 0421642735
WA 6059 Email:
nnchin1@gmail.com;
Maurice Frederick Law Phone:
08 92961555
Date of Document: 13.6.2012.
Date of Filing: 13.6.2012
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF BOTH JUDGMENTS
DEBTORS IN THEIR JOINT APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION ORDER IN FORM 9 PURSUANT TO S. 15(2) OF THE CIVIL JUDGMENTS
ENFORCEMENT ACT, 2004 (WA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR HONOUR:
The First
Applicant humbly submits that he has been declared a vexatious litigant by His
Honour Justice Murray in CIV 1689
of 2011 on 10.1.2012 and he therefore seeks leave to make this Application
under s.6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2004 WA on the ground that there is
nothing frivolous and vexatious in these proceedings.
The First and
Second Applicants humbly submits the following:
1) Spunter Pty Ltd (NOT Maurice Law) DID
NOT have a caveatable interests or an equitable lien cum a proprietary
interests on the Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley Properties of Nancy Cloonan Hall at
the time when Mr. Chin was the solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 (SPUNTER HAD NO CAVEATABLE
INTERESTS TO COMPLY WITH JENKIN'S J ORDER).
2) Spunter Pty Ltd's then solicitor as was
appointed by Maurice Law was Mr. David Taylor. He was required by Justice
Jenkins in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1
to issue Writ of Summons in CIV 1131
of 2006 by the 10.2.2006, which he did not do because SPUNTER HAD NO CAVEATABLE
INTERESTS TO COMPLY WITH JENKIN'S J ORDER (THE UNDISPUTED FACT ).
3) The Court through Registrar Powell's (with
due respect) corrupt act falsified the court records that Mr. Taylor DID COMPLY
with Justice Jenkins Order, when that Writ was never issued on 10.2.2006, or at
a later date as claimed by Registrar Powell on 16.2.2006 OR AS LATE AS
19.5.2009, SOME THREE YEARS LATER simply because the necessary court fees for
it was never paid. ALL THE COURT
MACHINERY INCLUDING JUSTICE CHANEY (with due respect) in VR158 of 2011, as
explained in CIV 1397 OF 2012, IS
COVERING UP THE UNDISPUTED FACT
(THE COVER-UP).
4) The Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008
expounded the correct law with regard to the falsifications of the court
records but gave a reverse outcome that did not comply with the law. That
appeal case decision is the result of both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin appealing the
decision of Master Sanderson in CIV
1775 of 2008 (UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER OF JUSTICE OWEN (with due respect).
5) Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 (with due respect) ignored the
Falsifications of the Court Records in CIV
1131 of 2006 by Mr. Taylor and gave judgement against the both Mr. Law and Mr.
Chin OR MASTER SANDERSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE COVER UP OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT . THIS RESULTED IN THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER
AGAINST MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN (THE
UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDERS OF MASTER SANDERSON).
6) The errors of the court OF MASTER
SANDERSON caused Nancy AND JUSTICE OWEN
amongst the two other judges RECOGNISED THE NEW
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE UNDISPUTED FACT ,
YET HIS HONOUR DID NOT REVERSE THE OUTCOME OF MASTER SANDERSON'S DECISION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW THAT HE EXPOUNDED by him (THE ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION OF
OWEN JA).
7) Nancy Hall promised Mr. Chin his just
emolument as the s.244 Legal Practice Act, 2004 WA statutory Salvour of her
Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley Properties. In the aftermath of Nancy 's
death, Mr. Chin is still acting as the Statutory Salvour for Nancy Hall and all
associated costs are to be borne by Nancy
8) When the falsifications of the court
records in CIV 1131 of 2006 is
FINALLY SOLVED (and this will happen when the judiciary system is IMPARTIAL,
INDEPENDENT AND HAS INTEGRITY), Mr. Chin shall be able to regain
his Salvour Status and be paid his just emoluments for his legal work performed
for Nancy Hall and such is to be recovered from Nancy Hall’s estate.
9) Meanwhile, the UNCOVERING OF THE FRAUD
OF THE ESTATE OF NANCY HALL IN THE
AFTERMATH OF HER DEATH BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THAT ESTATE MRS . GANNAWAY THROUGH HER SOLICITOR MR. CHRIS
STOKES FROM MRS . AUDREY HALL IN CIV
2073 OF 2003 HAD CAUSED NANCY'S ESTATE TO BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL OWNER
I.E. THE ADMINISTRATOR (THE RETURN OF NANCY'S ESTATE).
10) THE RETURN OF NANCY 'S
ESTATE TO ITS ADMINISTRATOR MRS .GANNAWAY
IS THE REASON FOR THE COURT TO GRANT THE LEGITIMATE CREDITORS OF NANCY AND MR. LAW THEIR JUST ENTITLEMENTS FROM THAT ESTATE.
11. Mr. Chin has his duty of candour to the
Court and believes that Spunter Pty Ltd did have a Caveatable Interests in the
aftermath of the death of Nancy Hall because Nancy did promise Spunter Pty Ltd
or Maurice Law in writing in their original loan agreement in 2000 that Spunter
would have a proprietary interests cum equitable interests for the Mt. Lawley
and the Hazelmere Properties after her death if the debt in the default
judgement in DC CIV 2509 of 2002
obtained by Spunter in DC CIV 2509
OF 2002 was not paid by then (SPUNTER'S CAVEATABLE INTERESTS IN CIV 2157 OF 2011).
12) Therefore the costs order of Justice
Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011
against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law is misconceived because:
(a) at all material times, MAURICE LAW since
the inception of these proceedings, has never been the party to the litigation
but his company Spunter Pty Ltd is. Therefore Spunter only is liable for any
adverse costs orders against Maurice Law.
(b) MR. CHIN had been acting for the late
Ms. Nancy Hall as the Solicitor Salvour for the Estate of Nancy Hall. His work
continues as long as the dispute regarding the Falsification of Court Records
in CIV 1131 of 2006 or the
UNDISPUTED FACT is not solved by
the Courts. His Solicitors Costs will keep running... as a result.
13.
Similarly, the costs order
against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law in Master Sanderson Order is also misconceived
for the same reason.
14.
Similarly, the costs order
against Mr. Chin alone in CACV 107 of 2008 is also misconceived.
Signed by the
First Applicant: ………………………………………………….
(NICHOLAS
N CHIN)
Signed by the
Second Applicant: ……………………………………………….
(MAURICE
FREDERICK LAW)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)