CHIN V THIES: WHY REGISTRAR SUE WILDE OF THE FREMANTLE COURT IN FR 417 OF 2007 ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THIS TAINTED THE DECISION OF MAGISTRATE MUSK IN FR 944 OF 2007:

GIST OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF NICHOLAS N CHIN DATED 20.6.2015 FILED WITH THE MAGISTRATE COURT AT FREMANTLE IN FR 417 OF 2007 As per the request letter of the return dated the same day, I am required to file an Affidavit in Support of the said Form 23 Application (the request). For the purpose of complying with the request, I am swearing this Affidavit to restore the return for the court's contemplated action. 3. The Consent-Vitiated Duress Judgment of Registrar Wilde in FR417 of 2017 dated 7.6.2007 (the CVDJ) is precipitated upon the following facts: 3.1. As per Annexure NNC1 found at page 70 my Affidavit dated, filed and served 23.7.2008 in RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256 (7 November 2008): 3.1.1. Item 15 is my description of my Consent-Vitiating Duress Response to Registrar Wilde (the CVDR) alerting her to the Consent Vitiating Duress Agreement dated 8.2.2007 entered into between my son Paul Chung Kiong Chin and the First Defendant (the CVDA). 3.1.2. Item 16 is my Notice of my CVDR to the CVDA as encoded in my letter dated 31.03.2007 addressed to Registrar Wilde and copied to the First Defendant. It portrays not a commercial pressure but economic duress that was being exerted upon us by the First Defendant as per Daniel v Drew [2005] EWCA Civ 507, [2005] WTLR 807. It is contrary to the findings of Commissioner Herron in Chin v Thies [2008] WADC 71 that resulted from my appeal against Magistrate Musk Decision in FR944 of 2007 (Economic Duress and Not Commercial Pressure). 3.1.3. Items 17A, 17B, 17F & 17G explains Paul medical condition which renders him vulnerable to threats of the Economic Duress and that I as the father of Paul is also vulnerable as I am fearful of the repercussions of the Econmic Duress on Paul's mental well-being (Paul's Vulnerability). 3.1.3 The Economic Duress and Not Commercial Pressure together with Paul's Vulnerability do not empower Registrar Wilde to deliver the CVDJ as she had acted without jurisdiction or her CVDJ is a CORAM NON JUDICE or as if no judge is sitting to deliver that judgment on the ground that the jurisdictional facts of the CVDJ or the conditions for her jurisdiction are missing as per Martin CJ in STEWART -v- CITY OF BELMONT [2013] WASC 366 at para. 54: (CVDJ is a Nullity). 3.2. As per ANNEXURE NNC2 found at page 74 of my Affidavit referred to in sub-para 3.1 above: Items 20 to items 37 refer to events ranging from 12.4.2007 to 17.5.2007 during the period of 68 days deliberation when Registrar Wilde was supposed to be considering the CVDR and the CVDA when she reaches her NON CORAM JUDICE decision in the CVDJ on 7.6.2007. Any reasonable judge would have arrived at the decision that the First Defendant was operating an Equitable Fraud upon the Court thereby rendering the CVDJ a Nullity (the Missing Jurisdictional Facts of the CVDJ). 4. The CVDJ is a Nullity and is also of an Inferior Tribunal and it has no validity and need not be appealed against by the Applicant as it is a CORAM NON-JUDICE as per the judgment in Ho v Loneragan [2013] WASCA 20 at 32 which states: "32 It has long been held that a judicial order of a superior court, even if made in excess of jurisdiction, is at most voidable and has effect unless and until it is set aside...The position in relation to inferior courts or tribunals, however, is different. In Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte [1938] HCA 7; (1938) 59 CLR 369, Dixon J, ... emphasised: [T]he clear distinction [which] must be maintained between want of jurisdiction and the manner of its exercise... But, if there be want of jurisdiction, .. the matter is coram non judice. It is as if there were no judge and the proceedings are as nothing. They are void, not voidable (389)." 5. The CORAM NON JUDICE Order of Registrar Wilde in FR417 of 2007 in its train nullifies Magistrate Musk Order in FR944/2007, Commissioner Herron's Order in Chin v Thies [2008] WADC 71 dated 20.5.2008. Alas, its ramifications resulted in the Miscarriage of Justice to me which culminates in the undesirable effect of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of WA sitting in LPD 2 of 2012 on the 12.12.2012 irresponsibly arriving at an unenforceable and null decision that is insuperable for me to appeal i.e. it took away my human right to legal practice for no crimes ever committed by a duly and properly admitted barrister and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 19.12.2003. I have provided my answers to every false accusations made against me for which I have exhausted all my energies and is recuperating.