Legal Profession Complaints Committee V Chin 2012 Wasc 467

56 The allegations put forward are legally incomprehensible and it is unnecessary to set them out in full. They provide further evidence of the practitioner`s incapacity. 48 The practitioner showed a complete lack of understanding of law and practice when, on 13 September 2012, he wrote to the Chief Justice requesting a jury trial and the appointment of five Supreme Court judges for the pending case. The Chief Justice refused. (page 25) BEECH J.A.: Mr. Chin, is there a reason why you did not appeal the court`s decision until 40 minutes into this hearing? Given that the court`s decision was rendered more than three months ago. CHIN, MR: Because I believe that if SAT in the second judgment of 20. August 2012 is unable to refute all the points I raised against the decision, so its decision is null and void. It did not do so and, therefore, its decision is null and void and, therefore.. – – 5 In Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v Chin [2012] WASC 7, Murray J. ordered that a practitioner be prohibited from bringing an action in a court or tribunal in Western Australia without leave of that court. 57 We agree with the Court`s reasoning and conclusion [28] – [34] (see above) that the nature and extent of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct, taken together, require an order to remove the practitioner from the list.

Such an arrangement is not taken lightly. However, it is inevitable. Public confidence in the legal profession would be seriously undermined if the practitioner`s name remained on the list. Any member of the community who sought advice or representation from the practitioner would be in grave danger. The practitioner shows no understanding of the extent of his misconduct and his submissions before this court demonstrate a dangerous lack of knowledge of basic law and procedure. Unfortunately, the complete lack of insight on the part of the practitioner means that there is no reason to expect, or even hope, that things can improve through further education or training. WTF, there are two different pages, depending on whether or not you hit the dot in wwwnicholashin It was in the SC of WA. LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 467 54 The court refused to adjourn the proceedings. 55 At the end of the hearing, the practitioner lodged additional pleadings by e-mail. Authorization required: Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No. 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246, 258. He did not ask permission to do so.

The title of the site is „JUSTICE FOR A FORMER LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA“ HAHAHA No, I admit I was a little too flippant. it is not a matter of laughter, and Mr. Chin is obviously still upset about the decision. CHIN, MR: The reason for the delay, Your Honour, for not challenging this decision, is that I did not fully understand the importance of the law in convincing it – in terms of the rights, duties and responsibilities of this plenum. I thought the plenary had a duty to annul SAT`s decision (ts 11). The practitioner`s conduct in drafting the will revealed a significant misunderstanding of the basic principles associated with drafting and executing a will, and there was a significant lack of adequate skill. He is at the limit of the sovereign citizen. If you don`t laugh, you`ll end up in despair.

How did he obtain an internship certificate? HALLE J: That`s exactly what we can`t do. He indicated that the report should be considered conclusive. We are not free to question it. I wouldn`t say it`s funny. A suppressed practitioner is not a funny thing. Yes, the lawyer was clearly not very good. In fact, that is why it was deleted. But it`s certainly not a matter of laughter. CHIN, MR: Your Honour, this issue is of the utmost importance to me. Although I am in the last years of my life, I am – contributing to the common good of Australians – that I help them in their cases in court, that I even help them pro bono. 50 The practitioner immediately sought help from a friend of McKenzie`s: 4.2.

The reasons for this link are as follows: 4.2.1. He attacked me on 3.11.2017; 4.2.2. It probably peed on my evaporative air conditioner and we had a urine smell for a few days around 3.11.2016. 4.2.3. Nicolas Watson`s electrician improperly demanded in July 2017 funds to which he was not entitled and which were probably initiated by Ian Jack, who had contact with him. 4.2.4. My Nissan X Trail windshield was torn in July 2017 while Ian Jack was building the unauthorized front retaining wall as part of his commissioned work. In a situation where someone is clearly malicious, many people will be happy to have the lawyer fired. It is not one of those situations. 49 At the beginning of the hearing, when asked about his appearance: CHIN, MR: Yes, Your Honour. I have my friend, Mr.

Rogerio Cristovao. He is my friend McKenzie and he is aware of my case and just in case he has to defend me and tell the court what he believes to be true, and I ask permission from this honourable court to grant him the right to be my friend McKenzie (ts 2). Edit: Thinking about the title of the thread – I shouldn`t have been so frivolous. The practitioner`s intention to write the last sentence of the settlement letter was an attempt to undermine the authority of the committee.