MINUTE -AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL - CACV 105 OF 2008

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CACV 105 OF 2008
COURT OF APPEAL MINUTE OF AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Parties to the NI KOK (NICHOLAS) CHIN APPELLANT
Appeal
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD, WESTERN AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT

Filed the 18th day of May, 2009

Prepared and Filed by:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN - Solicitor-litigant in person
No. 387, Alexander Drive Phone & Fax: 08- 9275 7440
DIANELLA WA 6059 Email: nnchin@msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPTIONAL MINUTE OF THE PROPOSED RE-AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OF JUSTICE PULLIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH R.32(4)(B) OF THE SUPREME COURT (COURT OF APPEAL) RULES, 2005, GIVEN ON 15.5.2009 TO BE FILED AND SERVED BY 29.5.2009.
Index Page No.
GROUND 1: 1
1.2. PARTICULARS OF THE SEVEN INHIBITIONS: 2
1.3. PARTICULARS OF PERSECUTING MALICE OF THE RESPONDENT: 3
GROUND 2: 4
2.1. PARTICULARS OF DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY APPELLANT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BEING DEFAMED BY THE BOARD: 5

The Appellant appeals the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR 107
of 2007 heard before the Panel comprising of His Honour Justice Chaney (then Judge J
Chaney and Acting President) and the Honourable Members, Ms M Jordan and Mr B
Hunt (both Senior Sessional Members). The Panel heard the Appellant on 25.9.2008
and delivered its judgment on 28.10.2008. The Grounds of Appeal are as follows:
GROUND 1:
1. The Tribunal erred in mixed law and facts by wrongly concluding that the Respondent Board had acted appropriately in the public interests under circumstances when it ought, instead, to have arrived at the reasonably legitimate conclusion that the Respondent Board had sought to trifle with the independent law practice of the Appellant on seven successive occasions (the seven inhibitions) under unjustifiable circumstances, to wit: the Board having been involved in a deliberate wrongdoing by having acted in contumelious disregard of the rights of the Appellant, as follows:
1.1. Re-constituting itself into a false Full Board by Four members acting clandestinely, to go on a frolic of its own, as the agent of the Respondent Board, without the knowledge of the rest of its members, to achieve a private purpose.
1.2. By abusing its discretionary powers under s. 40 of the LP Act for an improper and illegal purpose at the behest of some interested persons, the knowledge of which lies peculiarly within the members of False Full Board.
1.3. By denying the Appellant of his human rights to work and his freedom to choose his own profession.
1.4. By falsely labelling the appellant with the phantom deficiency syndrome which it knows would have its accompanying ostracization and discriminatory effects on the Appellant on grounds of his race, age and personal circumstances?
1.5. By failing to dispense fair economic and blind justice with objective judgments by making value pronouncements of twisted facts of trivialities such that they are taken out of context to represent half-truths and passing them as whole truths (value judgments).
1.6. By failing to use its declarative powers under s. 91 and s.18 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004 for a proper purpose when it is reasonably apparent to it that the false Full Board had acted in bad faith.
1.7. By so acting in the manner as described in the foregoing sub-paragraphs with persecuting malice.

1.2. PARTICULARS OF THE SEVEN INHIBITIONS:
1.2.1. Ms. F.H. Walter as a member of the Professional Affairs Committee (PAC) activated the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (LPCC) to make false allegations for an improper recommendation to the PAC in her ambulatory roles as judge and jury for both bodies, resulting in the PAC acting as agent of the Respondent Board, abusing its discretionary powers to trifle with the independent law practice of the Appellant through the seven inhibitions (the first inhibition).
1.2.2. Judge Eckert in the First SAT Decision in VR 137 of 2006 pandered to the whims of the Respondent Board, did unreasonably and illogically confirm the first inhibition on 12.9.2006 and based it on its value judgment, without regard to the need for the provision of a reasoned statement to the Appellant (the First SAT Decision).
1.2.3. Master Sanderson’s erred in disposing of the Appellant’s Appeal of the First SAT Decision in CIV 2110 of 2006 by an unconscionable expunging of the evidentiary materials before him followed by a “devastating” costs order that was subsequently forgiven by the real Full Board by its deciding not to enforce it (the rectifiable procedural error).
1.2.4. The rectifiable procedural error was caused by the human error of the Appellant in making that First SAT Decision Appeal through the General Division of the Supreme Court instead of its proper forum at the Court of Appeal (the latter coming into being with the introduction of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules, 2005). Master Sanderson erred in refusing the Appellant the timely chance to correct that rectifiable error which resulted in the Appellant becoming traumatised and hence his consequent delay in his subsequent achievement of a successful Leave to Extend time to Appeal in CACV 43 of 2007 (the Leave to Extend Time).
1.2.5. The Leave to Extend Time materialised into the appearance of a Consent Judgment achieved through Justice Steytler on 25.9.2007 resulting from the false Full Board being then cornered into what it could reasonably be expected to believe that it was then in an untenable situation due to the fact that its very existence as the false Full Board was then imminently at risk of being exposed or uncovered.
1.2..6. The false Full Board resurrected itself (in the aftermath of the Steytler Consent Judgment by refusing to honour that consent judgment because the implied compromise had not been properly arranged), into the Inquiry Panel which sat on 3.4.2008 for the purpose of abusing its discretionary powers again using s. 40 of the LP Act through the improper formulation of value judgments as its calumnious attacks on the Appellant by producing the Calumnious Report (the calumny).
1.2.7. Three New members amalgamated with the false Full Board to form a Six-member Approving Committee which clandestinely sat in May 2008 to “stamp its approval” on the usurping False Full Board’s Calumnious Report. They (the three new members) thus duplicate their respective roles as the tainted prosecutor and judge without realising that they also do not form an adequate quorum of the required four members to constitute the false Full Board; they therefore effectively failed to give their intended authenticity and integrity to that “stamp of approval”.
1.2.8. The Second SAT Decision in VR 107 of 2008 erred again in not reversing the calumny of the False Full Board that is reasonably apparent to it as no reasonable decision maker would have arrived at the decision it did.

1.3. PARTICULARS OF PERSECUTING MALICE OF THE RESPONDENT:

1.3.1. Ms. F. H. Walter acted with gross bias and malice at the behest of one Pino Monaco resulting in the seven inhibitions being pursued unrelentingly by the False Full Board which re-incarnated itself in its many shapes and forms, the particulars of which lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the members of the false Full Board of the Respondent.
1.3.2. The false Full Board admitted to its persecuting malice when it was not able to produce its “validating minutes” to show the bona fide of its intentions, its integrity and its authenticity, repeatedly, to the effect that it was indeed not the real Full Board that had acted with the knowledge of all the other 48 members of the Respondent Board.
1.3.3. The six- member Approval Committee of the false Full Board knew that its mission was tainted with gross bias as they do not form the required quorum but they were bent on achieving their ulterior purpose to the detriment of the Appellant.
1.3.4. The wrongs of fellow practitioners complained of by the Appellant were never investigated by the Respondent Board through the LPCC but instead was labelled by the False Full Board as “frivolous allegations against fellow practitioners”. Neither were any positive actions taken by the Respondent Board after the LPCC were intimated by the Appellant as to the falsity of their false allegations. Those false allegations are in terms of the following:
a) Mr. Pino Monaco manipulated Dr. K.S. Chan and caused her present predicament;
b) Mr. Timothy Robin Thies caused trauma to the family of the Appellant by making frivolous demands for monies that was never owed to him as vindicated in CIV 1903 of 2008;
c) Mr. David Taylor admitting to the facts that CIV 1131 of 2006 was never filed on time in accordance with the Orders of Justice Jenkins in CIV 1142 of 2005.
1.3.5. Commissioning officers of the LPCC like Ms. Coombs and Ms. Cahon to persecute the Appellant by finding faults with him on trivialities.
1,3.6. Erred by deflecting the course of the procedurally-wrong First SAT Appeal in CIV 2210 of 2006 through the General Division of the Supreme Court instead of allowing its correct course through the CACV 43 of 2007 at the Court of Appeal so as to save a lot of heartache for the Appellant.
1. 3.7. Obstruction of justice through the creation of an artificial “institutionalized wall” of the justice system by its attempts to bar rightful complaints to legitimate authorities such as the chief magistrates or the chief justice, that serves as a “substitute for a Notice of Appeal” by utilizing the value judgment of professional deficiency syndrome using the excuse of disrespect to members of the judiciary.
GROUND 2:
2. The Tribunal erred in mixed law and facts when it failed to reach the reasonably expected conclusion after it had been reasonably apprised of the factual circumstances of the Appellant’s case (by not making a declaration under s.91 of the SAT Act to the effect that the Appellant has been calumniously defamed and injured in his reputation and character by the false Full Board; the false Full Board having been reasonably found to have acted in bad faith under s.18 of the SAT Act) when it was so found to have been usurping the powers of the real Full Board for the oblique purpose of abusing the discretionary powers of the Respondent as conferred by s. 40 of the LP Act, in terms of the following:

2.0.1 By denying the Appellant natural justice through its irrelevant rationalization that it had no powers to award compensation on the defamation issue.
2.0.2. By irrationally and illogically respecting persons instead of respecting the law thereby breaching the fundamental principle of the rule of law; by refusing to tamper with the status quo thereby failing to fulfil its statutory functions to achieve an economic settlement of the issues before it, (fairly: according to the substantial merits of the case; speedily and with less formality and technicality) as required by s.9 of the SAT Act.
2.0.3. By failing to distinguish between the normal and natural “defects” of a new legal practitioners by ascribing the Appellant with the phantom professional deficiency syndrome through entertaining illusions of trivialities, in terms of the following:
2.0.3.1. The Appellant does not appreciate that he could be acting in conflict of interests-situations in his relations with his clients and potential clients.
2.0.3.2. The blurring of the distinction between monies in transit and trust monies kept by the Appellant for MTC;
2.0.3.3. Without realizing the fetish desire of the Board to inappropriately label the appellant as a professional having the proclivity to make false allegations against fellow practitioners like Mr. Timothy Robin Thies, Mr. David Taylor and Mr. Pino Monaco.
2.0.3.4. By imagining that the Appellant has the capacity to disrespect members of the judiciary who are obviously on the wrong path and thereby needs corrections by calling a “spade a spade”; which cannot be solved by mere euphemism.
2.0.3.5. Imagining that Alessandro Bertini is not a victim of the justice system as vindicated by the filed papers in CIV 1764 of 2009 for a s.36 Certiorari Review Order.
2.0.3.6. Imagining that truth and falsehoods are compatible for the ends of justice.
2.0.3.7. Imagining that the SAT Decisions are not free from prejudice and value judgments and that Judges can do away with the essential philosophy for Objective judgments.

2.1. PARTICULARS OF DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY APPELLANT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BEING DEFAMED BY THE BOARD:
2.1.1. Appellant deprived of his human right to earn his livelihood since the 19.7.2006 and this state of affairs is still continuing without abatement, the quantum of which has been established elsewhere by the Appellant and he also prays for damages for the defamation to be assessed by this Honourable Court together with such other relief as it deems fit.
2.1.2. Appellant is frustrated of his “legitimate expectations” in that his licence as a legal practitioner is reasonably expected to be re-issued to him; his licensor is not reasonably expected to act illegally or unconscionably nor is a public body like the Respondent reasonably expected to be so fickle as to be seen to be blowing “hot and cold” at the same time.
2.1.3. The Appellants suffers mental anguish and trauma for the unjust punishment of the False Full Board unconscionably abusing its discretionary powers unrelentingly using s.40 of the LP Act by requiring him to perform the impossible and yet denies him justice by not prosecuting him faithfully using s.39 of the LP Act instead; at the same time unreasonably refusing to issue him with a Certificate of Fitness for him to go away to another jurisdiction so as to avoid the calamities of having to tolerate the false Full Board deliberate wrongdoings.
2.1.4. The Appellant suffers racial and age discrimination by the false Full Board as provided for under s.42 and s.66ZB of the Equal Opportunity Act, 1984(WA) which has a traumatic scarring effect on his psyche for life.
2.1.5. The Appellants suffers the mental anguish of seeking single-handedly to unravel the calumnious untruths of the value judgments of the seven inhibitions, fearing for his life and his reputation and his maintenance of cordial relations with his professionally elite colleagues.
2.1.6. The whole gamut of sufferings: “whole truths” of rationally derived factual trivialities utilized by the false Full Board maliciously and irrationally turning them into half-truths, innuendos and wilful misrepresentations of concocted “facts”, for the purpose of their formulating value judgments such that a false picture of reality has been hitherto achieved; thus enabling the perpetrators to escape and causing the innocent Appellant to be imprisoned in a legal abyss. The Appellant shed tears many times before the SAT tribunals to appease his emotional upheaval at the grave injustice done to him by an enlightened Australia.
2.1.7. The Appellants suffers the harrowing experience of seeing innocent people around him becoming victims of the officers of the court through the justice system of WA and was forlornly expressing his sufferings through people like his son Paul and Alessandro Bertini who are being harassed by people knowledgeable in law “to no ends”, to the extent that they can be “cowering and shivering in fear” of what the courts have in store for them. The false Full Board cannot go about doing the “right thing” by doing the wrong thing first. This is simple logic that every regulator of the legal profession of integrity will understand. In the words of Mr. Bertini: “I believed in the past there was no law in WA, is mafia is the same in Italy where poor people don’t have defence, but now I believe the justices of the supreme court are there to correct the injustice.”


Signature of the Appellant: ………………………………………………..