LETTER TO STATE OMBUDSMAN REQUESTING IT TO INVESTIGATE THE GORDIAN KNOT: PSEUDO BOARD, ZERO SUM DEBT PLUNDER AND FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORDS

Your ref: C/18594 & C/18582; Tel/Email: 9220 7555; mail@ombudsman.wa.gov.au;
Fax: 08 9325 1107
Friday, July 09, 2010

Ombudsman Western Australia
Level 12, 44 St. Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000
Atten: Mr. Andrew Harvey- Assistant Ombudsman Complaint Resolution

Dear Sir FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I refer to your letter dated 14th of June, 2010 regarding the above matter.
With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of your letter, I would like to respond to you as follows:
a) There is no denying the fact that there exists a repugnance of all the courts that I have been through i.e. SAT through its President Justice Chaney in VR107 of 2008, the Court of Appeal in CACV105 of 2008, the Supreme Court judges in Justice Heenan in CIV1019 of 2010 and Justice Le Miere in CIV 1604 of 2010 and Justice Kenneth Martin in CIV1903 of 2008 and CIV1112 of 2007, to deal with the matters affecting the conspiratorial links of the members of the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board usurping the functions of the real regulator of the legal Profession of WA. There is consequently, in a practical sense, no longer any right of appeal nor any avenues left for me to seek justice through our legal system in WA or in the High Court of Australia. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman has a duty to conduct an investigation pursuant to subs. 14(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1971.
b) Although I have an outstanding appeal against the decision of Justice Heenan in CACV41 of 2010, it is not reasonable for the Ombudsman to expect that I resort to it any longer for its outcome is certain that I will be denied justice on the ground that the courts system had failed and will fail AND WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE the only three simple issues, but had gone instead gone round in circles, and came to different conclusions by willfully ignoring them and thus not litigating them at all, in the following terms :
1) The issue of the existence of the Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real regulator without the majority consent of the latter, culminating in the issue of the credibility of the trial judge, Justice Chaney in the High Court of Australia in P36 of 2009 and CIV 1019 of 2010, CIV 1604 of 2010 and CACV41 of 2010 and CACV 43 of 2007.
2) The issue of the plundering and pillaging by a lawyer Mr. Timothy Robin Thies of his former clients Paul C K Chin and Nicholas N Chin through a false claim of a ZERO SUM DEBT in FR417 of 2007, FR944 of 2007, District Court Appeal No.6 of 2007 before Commissioner Herron and ending in CIV 1903 of 2008 before Justice Hasluck and Justice Kenneth Martin and CIV 1112 of 2007 before Justice Templeman and Justice Kenneth Martin and the pending CIV 1981 of 2010.
3) The issue of the falsification of the court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in CACV107 of 2008, CIV1877 of 2010 and the High Court decision in P1 of 2010.
c) The government of Western Australia must now implement its policies through our justice system to ensure that I as its victim of racism in Australia am no longer being tortured pursuant to the provisions of the United Nation’s CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Footnotes to United States Conventions Against Torture:
For a further elucidation of all the various cases and their intricacies, please refer to my blogspot which you can Google using my name: “NICHOLASNCHIN”.
Article two of the Convention of which Australia has ratified, provides as follows:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.