LAWYER TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES THREATENS TO COMPLAIN AGAINST ME ON UNREASONABLE GROUNDS
FW: Chin v Thies CACV 75 OF 2010
Tim Thies
Dear Mr. Chin, I have previously sent you the below emails and also forwarded...
6:40 PM (14 hours ago)
Reply
|Nicholas N Chin to lpcc, Tim
show details 10:49 PM (10 hours ago)
Mr. Timothy Robin Thies
The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, WA
Dear Mr. Thies
I would like to respond to your email below recording my ANSWER IN BLOCK CAPITALS in terms of the following:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Tim Thies
Dear Mr. Chin,
I have previously sent you the below emails and also forwarded them to you by post. All of your three email addresses in your service address box details in your Appeal notice have returned delivery status notification failures (copies attached).
MY EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE WORKING. I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR EMAILS AND LETTERS.
I note that on 4 August 2010 you apparently sent an email to Mr. Stephen Sommerville the Associate to the Honourable Justice Heenan and from a different email address, namely the address to which I am now sending you this email: [2010] WASC 212 and that you have chosen to publish publicly on the internet (http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/), this email to the Associate along with submissions in the above matter which I have not received*
http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2010/07/grounds-of-appeal-in-cacv-75-of-2010.html
THIS IS CORRECT.
I reject entirely the last contention in your email to the Associate “ i) I have to be away from Perth on an emergency to be with my son Paul C K Chin in West Malaysia as my son has taken ill again as a result of the continuing intimidation of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies to ask for profit costs in CIV 1112 of 2007 which he is not entitled to by law resulting from the error of Justice Ken Martin.” I have not ever intimidated your son. CIV 1112 of 2007 was dismissed, no order as to costs. I will ask the Court to disregard any such excuses or excuses in relation to you being overseas.
YOU HAVE INTIMIDATED MY SON BY MAKING A DEMAND FOR $650.00 PROFIT COSTS FOR REMOVING YOUR UNLAWFUL CAVEAT AND FOR ALL THE TROUBLES HE HAD TO UNDERGO TO REMOVE YOUR CAVEAT WITHOUT BEING COMPENSATED FOR.
I have also today tried unsuccessfully to telephone you and fax these documents to you on 9275 7440 and 9275 5729 several times. These numbers returned recorded messages “Your call could not be connected. Please check the number and try again.”
THAT IS CORRECT.
I have not received any response from you. Please let me have the requested copy your Appellant’s Case, amended orders wanted, service certificate and any other documents filed or on which you intend to rely on.
I HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SERVE THOSE DOCUMENTS ON YOU UNLESS THE COURT OF APPEAL ORDERS OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.60 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 WA.
Please note hearing scheduled for 15 October 2010 at 10:30 am and my notice of respondent’s intention.
I AM AWARE OF THIS.
I will ask the Court to dismiss this appeal CACV 75 of 2010 at this hearing.
> YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. I HAVE INFORMED YOU ALREADY THAT THIS IS AN EX PARTE APPLICATION,
>Please urgently action my requests!
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH YOUR REQUEST REASONABLY.
>Timothy R Thies
* This seems to me improper, prejudicial and unprofessional; the matters and your comment on the internet web site published are also defamatory. Please remove these materials promptly.
NOTHING IS DEFAMATORY IF IT IS THE TRUTH. IF THE LPCC ORDERS ME TO DO, I WILL COMPLY.
- Show quoted text -
posted by Nicholas N Chin @ 6:17 PM
5 Comments:
Mr. Thies admitted that Civ 1112 of 2007 was dismisssed by Justice Ken Martin with no costs order. Yet he wrote to my son Paul to make frivolous demands for his profit costs of $650.00 which he is not entitled to in the first place to lodge that unlawful caveat on Paul's property. This is an undisputed point of law and fact. Now he is denying that he has not made that frivolous demands and is threatening defamation. He is prohibited from contacting my son Paul and yet he wrote to him to take advantage of his vulnerabilities again and again.
NICHOLAS N CHIN
There is no dispute of the fact that Paul was taken ill as a result of the unfair results of the courts being meted out to him most recently through Justice Ken Martin due to the instrumentality of Mr. Thies, either unwittingly or otherwise. We parents had to abandon all court proceedings and informed the Chief Registrar so to come to Malaysia to see our son in distress. We have six eye-witnesses to this horrendous event caused by Mr. Thies, who stopped at nothing to make frivolous demands for monies from unsuspecting victims with no compunction.
NICHOLAS N CHIN
BELOW IS THE RESPONSE OF LAWYER TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES TO MY REPLY TO HIS EMAIL AS INDICATED ABOVE:
From: Tim Thies
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:13 PM
To: nnchin1@gmail.com
Cc: nnchin@optusnet.com.au ; 'nnchin09@tpg.com.au'; lpcc@lpbwa.com
Dear Mr. Chin,
I am the party, Timothy Robin Thies named and identified by you as the first respondent on your appeal notice dated 11.7.2010 next to your signature as the appellant. Your statement that I am not a party is plainly false and your response is unreasonable.
You do not need authority of the Court of Appeal to serve a copy of your own Appellant’s Case, amended orders wanted, the service certificate or any other documents filed or on which you intend to rely on.
Please let me have a fair opportunity to respond to your appeal. Not providing the requested documents denies me any and that opportunity and fundamental right. You should know this already.
Please provide these requested documents urgently now.
Timothy R. Thies
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin1@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:50 PM
To: Tim Thies
Cc: lpcc@lpbwa.com
Subject: Re: FW: Chin v Thies CACV 75 OF 2010
Mr. Timothy Robin Thies
The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, WA
Dear Mr. Thies
I would like to respond to your email below recording my ANSWER IN BLOCK CAPITALS in terms of the following:......
NICHOLAS N CHIN
LAWYER TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES KNOWS THAT S.60(1)(f)(3) of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 WA as contained in my written submission available in this blogspot clearly states the law that the authority to have my ex-parte application for leave to appeal SERVED ON HIM lies with the court of appeal judge and not with me. I therefore no longer wish to be be further harassed by Mr. Thies in this matter.
NICHOLAS N CHIN
LAWYER TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES' EMAIL TO ME THREATENING TO COMPLAIN TO THE LPCC AGAINST ME:
From: Tim Thies [mailto:Tim.Thies@westnet.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 23 August 2010 3:10 PM
To: 'nnchin@msn.com'; 'nnchin09@tpg.com.au'; 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: Chin v Thies CACV 75 OF 2010
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear Mr. Chin,
NNK Chin v TR Thies & Anor
Supreme Court of Western Australia in the Court of Appeal
CACV 75 of 2010
I refer to my below email and note that I have not received your Appellant’s Case which you filed on 16 July 2010.
Please provide same promptly and urgently along with a copy of the “amended orders wanted” filed on 19 July 2010 and “service certificate” apparently 12 July 2010.
I reserve the right to make formal complaints in respect of your failure to provide these documents within 7 days and will do so without further notice
to you.
Attached is notice of hearing scheduled for 15 October 2010 at 10:30 am and my notice of respondent’s intention.
I will ask the Court to dismiss this appeal CACV 75 of 2010 at this hearing.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Thies
Timothy Robin Thies
Barrister & Solicitor
70 King Street
East Fremantle WA 6158
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home