Yap Chong Yee Says: 2009

Monday, October 12, 2009

letter to Malaysian Chief Justice charging Judge Zainon with Criminal Conduct.

File Petition Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :13th October, 2009.

To,
CHIEF JUSTICE,
MALAYSIA

Dear Sir, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, Chief Justice Malaysia

Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd

I wish to file a report to you that Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal has committed the following criminal offences arising from her action for simultaneously approving to the respondents in the above Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 of 2001; (1)she 1st approved respondents' application for security for costs and after my wife(petitioner) had paid her Rm.60,000 towards her order for security for costs, (2)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went on to further approve a 2nd order to respondent Stephen Lim for striking out my wife's petition even when no prior order for setting aside of the 1st order for security for costs had existed nor even applied at all..
This comedy of Judge Zainon's illiteracy of the LAW is astounding, but more important to me is that her ignorance of the law has caused my wife the loss of Rm.60,000 (now with interests will be more than Rm.80,000). I have set out my opinion why Judge Zainon's order for striking out of said petition IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL and unenforceable !
The facts are simple; she first ORDERED that my wife provide security for costs of Rm.60,000 to be paid into the hands of respondents' solicitors; and upon payment of said Rm.60,000, respondents applied for order that my wife's petition be struck out for showing no cause of action, AND JUDGE ZAINON APPROVED IT EVEN WHEN WHEN THERE WAS NO ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE 1ST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS nor was there ever any attempt made. to set aside the order for security for costs. This nonsense of judge Zainon having made 2 OPPOSING ORDERS IS, AND to say the least this double OPPOSING orders thrown at my wife is laughable.
It is my opinion that Judge Zainon had committed the offence of Malfeasance and she in the process also committed several other criminal offences such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, obtaining money under false pretences and many more which I will set out in this opinion.
I graduated in LAW from Uni of Singapore in 1967 and practised in KL until I & my family migrated to Australia in 1978. That Judge Zainon had approved 2 opposing interlocutory orders shows her utter ignorance of the law; but more comical than that is the fact that her ignorance relates to the fact that she does not understand the FUNCTION of an interlocutory application. She had abused her judicial powers and believed that she has the power to do whatever she liked even if what she had done constitutes NONSENSE ! The purpose of an order for striking out is to save abuse of the process, when it can be shown that Plaintiff's application will be futile and a waste of money. Therefore, the 1st application by respondents must be for an order for striking out, and if plaintiff can show that she has even a glimer of a cause of action, then IF THAT GLIMER IS SO REMOTE THAT JUDGE THINKS PLAINTIFF IS NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED, then Judge will impose security for costs. Security for costs can also be imposed if Plaintiff resides abroad. It must be borne in mind that the application for striking out ALWAYS, INVARIABLY PRECEEDS THE APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. In the case as it is here respondents 1st applied for security for costs in the sum of Rm.650,000 and Judge Zainon reduced that to the sum of Rm.60,000. This reduction by the Judge in the normal course, would indicate the judge's exercise of her judicial discretion, an indication in her BELIEF THAT PETITIONER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION(read the WHITE BOOK on this issue). This is how a judge who acts professionally will do; but Judge Zainon INVERTED THE PROCESS SO THAT MY WIFE WILL PAY HER RM.60,000 AND THEN JUDGE ZAINON PROCEEDED TO punish my wife with a 2nd LASH OF HER WHIP ! THE ACTIONS OF JUDGE ZAINON IS IN REVENGE FOR MY REPORTING HER TO THE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE TUN FAIROZ. I reported Zainon to Tun Fairoz for IMPROPERLY ASKING MY WIFE TO WITHDRAW THROUGH MY WIFE'S COUNSEL MR. DAVID HOH. It is cclear that Judge Zainon wanted my wife to loose her Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000) for my actions.
My Submission Why Zainon's Order for striking out is illegal, unlawful and unenforceable, I will set my arguements in point form :
(a)Judge Zainon made my wife pay her security for costs into the hands of respondents' solicitor and my wife's solicitor in a JOINT BANK ACCOUNT AT 5% INTERESTS. Therefore, this joint account becomes a joint trust account, and the joint holders of this trust account hold this joint account on the basis of the order for security for costs.
(b)The order for security for costs in its very nature dictates that any payment out of this joint account must be in compliance to an order fo costs. The dictum for costs is "COSTS FOLLOWS TRIAL". If there is no trial there cannot be any costs, because an order for striking out for showing no cause of action means exactly that,"THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE TO GO BEFORE THE JUDGE" and therefore there cannot be a trial. That being the case respondents cannot in any generate a bill of costs to be taxed and that follows that there can be no ORDER FOR COSTS.
(c)Judge Zainon's order for striking out is 'in terms" I suppose that means 'STRIKING OUT WITH COSTS"; but as I argued earlier, Striking out cannot generate "COSTS" since there is no issue to go before the judge. Having said that, Zainon's costs component of her ORDER TO STRIKE OUT cannot be set off against my wife's Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000)security for costs BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRIAL !
(d)Taking my submission a step further, WHAT IF JUDGE ZAINON SAYS HER ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT HAS NO COSTS COMPONENT ? If Judge Zainon advances this arguement, HER CRIMINALITY IS EVEN MORE OBVIOUS, because since THERE IS NO COSTS COMPONENT TO HER STRIKING OUT ORDER, THEN WHAT JUSTIFICATION IN LAW ALLOWS JUDGE ZAINON AND HER GANG OF THIEVES TO KEEP MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS ?
(e)It is farcically & hilariously obvious to me that Judge Zainon is also a LAW ILLITERATE, because by my wife's payment of her Rm.60,000 towards security for costs and the acceptance by all respondents, this COMPLETES A CONTRACT( said Rm.60,000 beig the consideration accepted BY PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS AND WITH JUDGE ZAINON AS THE ARBITRATOR (she having set the quantum at Rm.60,000 as the security for costs). This is a binding CONTRACT; and judge Zainon had aidded & abetted respondent Stephen Lim to breach this contract. This is not merely a matter in procedural law BUT IS ALSO AN ISSUE IN THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND JUDGE ZAINON, & ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAD PRO-ACTIVELY CONSPIRED TO BREACH THE CONTRACT; that upon payment of security for costs, the petition will be tried in open court. Is it not disgraceful that all the lawyers on both sides of the case and JUDGE OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL do not see this issue ? Do you people in Malaysia really know the ENGLISH COMMON LAW ?
CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JUDGE ZAINON AND HER ACCOMPLICES !
Dear Tun Azmi, please bear in mind that Judges do not make LAWS and by aiding and abetting the criminal actions of the Respondents, their lawyers and my wife.s solicitors(M/s Lim & Hoh) to rob my wife of the sum of Rm.60,000(now more than Rm.80,000) Judge Zainon cannot ligitimize the criminality of all said parties because of the pro-active participation of Judge Zainon herself; she is by her actions become herself a criminal and a full co-conspirator in PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND THE LAW. The Irony of Judge Zainon's order to strike out in fact confirms her part as co-conspirator in this criminal enterprise to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to conceal the perpetration of several crimes, eg, aiding & abetting Perjury& forgery, fabrication of evidence (a judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal participating in such a shameful crime). Let me ask you Dear Chief Justice, NOW THAT THE 2ND ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT EXIST, AND THE RM60,000 IN THE HANDS OF RESPONDENTS AS COSTS (held by respndents for a full 8 years), by what law gives respondents and judge Zainon the justification to LAWFULLY HOLD SAID RM60,000 ? My opinion is that the Rm.60,000 has become THE PROCEEDS OF THE CRIME OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Pray do explain how Judge Zainon CAN LAWFULLY AND LEGALLY disburse the paid up security for costs that she ordered WITHOUT A TRIAL. What could be claimed "as costs to prove WHAT ?". COSTS FOLLOW TRIAL".

Sincerely,

Yap Chong Yee

Note : I have pasted below copy of my letter of complaint to president & Secretary of Malaysian Bar.

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :9 Sept., 2009

To,
President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council,

Dear Sirs !

Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd

I refer to my letter dated 9th Sept., 2009, to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council, wherein I filed compalint against M/s Lim & Hoh, relating to their less than professional conduct in their dealings in the matter of the above said Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 of 2001, wherein M/s Lim & Hoh acted for my wife (Petitioner)as her solicitor and in particular, Mr David Hoh who was my wife's counsel.

I enclose the following letters as forming part and parcel of this letter and their contents are obvious and self evident, (a) letter from my wife, Lim Choi Yin instructing M.s Lim & Hoh as their client to withdraw the ineffectual and meaningless APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON'S ILLEGAL & UNLAWFUL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION (b)My WRITTEN OPINION to M/s Lim & Hoh, setting out my reasons why the striking out order that was approved to respondent, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is void, ineffectual and unenforceable ! (c) I also enclose copy of letter written by Mr Frank Hoh in reply to my first letter to you and Secretary OF MALAYSIAN BAR.

I am still at a lost, after reading Mr Frank Hoh's letter whether, M/s Lim & Hoh is still acting for my wife; however, My wife had instructed her solicitors TO REMOVE SAID APPEAL, AND TO FORTHWITH APPLY TO SET ASIDE ZAINON'S USELESS ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION AND TO SEND TO PETITIONER A COPY OF (1)ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT. We still have not seen those 2 opposing orders as at this date; therefore I would like to ask M/s Lim & Hoh to show us the order for striking out; WAS THERE IN FACT 2 opposing ORDERS or was that Mr David's idea of a joke ?

The contents of this letter will be sent to the following PERSONS :
(a)CHIEF JUSTICE, MALAYSIA,
(B)CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYA (JUSTICE AMALUDDIN)
(3)JUDGE DATO MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF,
(4)SOLICITORS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS,
(5LETTER-FAX TO 68 JUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND MEMBERS OF LEGAL FRATERNITY.
(6)to the media !

My complaint to the Malaysian Bar is not merely relating to the misconduct of M/s Lim & Hoh but is of a more serious nature than that. I charge all the parties and ALL the lawyers, on both sides, M/s Mathews(for 1st respondent, represented by Company Secretary, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon), Annad & Noraini (for Stephen Lim and Wong Kem Chen). M/s Teh & Co. solicitors for all the other respondents including Mr Harris bin Tun Hussein Onn.

This comical situation has arisen because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had mistakenly and arrogantly believed that, she being a High Court Judge, can act with impunity and unaccountable to anyone and hence she is empowered to abuse her judicial powers at will; I am dedicating the rest of my few years left to me to BRING JUDGE ZAINON TO JUSTICE. The reason why Malaysia is lawless is because of irresposible judges like Zainon, who lacked maturity and devoid of professional ethics AND DISGRACEFULLY ILLITERATE OF THE LAW.

Judge Zainon took umbrage for my formal complaint to the then Chief Justice, Tun Faroz of the "V.K.lingam TAPES" notoreity ! The details are recounted in my blog at http:yapchongyee.blogspot.com. Judge asked my wife to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine respondents, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for PERJURY. My wife refused to withdraw and I cmplained to Chief Justice Tun Fairoz of her misconduct, but as everything that goes on in Malaysia, this grossly improper conduct committed by a Judge of the High Court was glossed over; and Judge Zainon was allowed to go on to perpetrate MORE SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCES. Judge Zainon is a criminal; and it is my life's work to bring her to justice. True if this situation had taken place in Singapore, all these miscreants will go straight to jail including Judge Zainon; but in Malaysia, IT IS THE INNOCENTS AND WHISTLE BLOWERS WHO ARE PUT IN JAIL WHILE CRIMINALS LIKE JUDGE ZAINOON ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM FREE TO CORRUPT THE NATION'S JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SYSTEM.

I tried to retain a good Malay Lawyer to prosecute Judge Zainon for her criminal behaviour and criminal actions but no MALAY LAWYER WHO IS BRIEFED ON MY CASE WILL EVEN SO MUCH AS TALK TO ME ON THE PHONE. Raja Aziz says he is retiring, Art Harun ran away, and Zainal Abiddin is perpetually in CONFERENCE, Mr Gobin Singh Deo, gave me the run around(called him 9 times, but each time to call back later). I do not think any lawyer will have the balls to prosecute Judge Zainon. In these circumstances I will set out in detail what I want to charge this bunch of criminals and thugs with having committed UNDER THE DIRECTIONS AND LEADERSHIP OF JUDGE ZAINON, and I maintain that it is only because of the protection provided by Judge Zainon as the High Court Judge who has CHARGE OF THE COURT PROCESS OF MY WIFE'S PETITION that she had been able to PERPETRATE A CONSPIRACY PRO-ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED BY ALL THE PARTIES, RESPONDENTS, JUDGE ZAINON AND ALL THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING ALL THE LITIGANTS INCLUDING MY WIFE'S COUNSEL, MR DAVID WHO WERE EMBOLDENED BY THE PROTETION OF JUDGE ZAINON TO COMMIT THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT I HAVE RECOUNTED ABOVE.

I SAY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL THE LAW OFFICERS AND JUDGES WHO HAVE RECEIVED MY LETTER-FAX; THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS, YOU WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT SELF RESPECT TO CHARGE ME FOR SEDITION OR CRIMINAL DEFAMATION. I give to you all, my assurance that if you will charge me under the Penal Code and not detain me under the ISA, I will come at my own expense to defend myself in KL.

Today is 13th of Oct., 2009 and I have allowed a lapse of about 4 weeks since my wife last wrote to Mr Frank Hoh and obtained from Mr Frank Hoh indication that M/s Lim & Hoh still acts for her; whereupon my wife gave the following instructions to Mr Frank Hoh :
(a)to REMOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY M/S LIM & HOH AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON'S NONSENSE, ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL ORDER TO STRIKE, while Petitioner had already paid up the whole of Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000 with interests)
(b)forthwith apply for the setting aside of that illiterate nonsense order approved by Judge Zainon to STRIKE OUT PETITION, while the order for security for costs had been duly COMPLIED WITH IN EVERY WAY.
(3)make available to Petitioner the two nonsense, illegal, illiterate and unlawful OPPOSING ORDERS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS & ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT !

To date of this letter there has been complete silence from M/s Lim & Hoh. I write to the Malaysian Bar Council because the complete silence from M/s Lim & Hoh CONSTITUTES HOLDING PETITIONER HOSTAGE AND FOR LIM & HOH ACTING AGAINST INTRUCTIONS. My wife's letter in response to the letter of Mr Frank Hoh tells it all very plainly, that they hald up proceedings in the progress of said petition for 2 and a half years by holding themselves incommunicadoe. My wife will write to M/s Lim & Hoh that their silence to her instructions for the period of the month constitutes a UNILATERAL DISCHARGE by M/s Lim & Hoh of their retainer to represent Petitioner as her solicitors and counsel.

The silence of M/s Lim & Hoh begs the following questions :
(a)has M/s Lim & hoh kept for themselves and had criminally converted Rm.60,000 for their own use ? And that they had not paid said Rm.60,000 towards the approved security for costs that M/s Lim & Hoh informed us that Judge Zainon had approved to respondents; hence this is the reason for Judge Zainon approving the order for striking out of the petition.
(b)that there was no order for security for costs approved to respondents. That Judge Zainon had only approved an order for striking, and that M/s Lim & Hoh had criminally OBTAINED MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 under false pretences;
(c)did Judge Zainnon in conspiracy with all the parties, all respondents, all the lawyers and Judge Zainon ENTICED my wife to give up Rm.60,000, thinking that she will have the right for a trial of the issues of her petition UNDER A PRETEND ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, and instead kept said Rm.60,000 because PAYMENT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS MEANS THAT A TRIAL IS TO FOLLOW AS A MATTER OF COURSE; but in my wife's case the petition was instead struck off; this makes no sense and is unprovided for by the law. To date we only have the verbal representation of what has gone on from M/s Lim & Hoh but to more meaningful questions and when asked for evidence (such as the court orders approved by Judge Zainon)M/s Lim & Hoh hold themselves INCOMMUNICADOE ! Is this evidence of criminal behaviour on the paart of M/s Lim & Hoh ?

To the Malaysian Bar Council, on the questions raised above, they are issues of professional ETHICS, and I have to emphasize that M/s Lim & Hoh, as Petitioner's SOLICITORS HAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING their CLIENT HOSTAGE. The conducts of Judge Zainon, all the parties that I have named above CONSTITUTES THUGGISH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, AND IT IS ONLY RIGHT THAT THEY BE PROSECUTED AS CRIMINALS.

I SAY TO THE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY OF MALAYSIAN BAR THAT YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO MY OFFICIAL COMPLAINT. This is the way official matters are dealt with in the civilized world.

Sincerely,

yapchongyee

Note : I will be writing to the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi and will send to you a copy of the letter within the next couple of days.

Yap Choi Yin
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale,
Western Australia, 6156,

To, M/s Lim & Hoh,

Dear Sirs !

Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd

The content of your letter is most surprising to me, considering that my husband has been dealing with all matters relating to my said Petition against M/s McLarens Saksama Sdn. Bhd. However, there is no need to split hairs, but I need to make respond to your letter on these
issues :

(1)did you withdraw my application to cross examine respondents, (a)Mr. Stephen Cheng Ban,
(b)Mr. Wong Kem Chen (c)Mr Kwong Sea Yoon(representing M/s McLarens)as their company Secretary ?

(2)Did you not by letter inform me that every time my husband writes to the Chief Justice, or to the public at large by letter-fax, either insulting Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali or complaining to the Chief Justice, of the conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali the latter (Dato Zainon) would haul up Mr David for chastisement; at this point, will you confirm that Mr David's withdrawal of my application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents mentioned above, on the contents of their supporting affidavits ANNEXED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, was not withdrawned as a consequence of pressure applied by Dato Zainon ?
I want to confirm that my husband had admitted to me that he had consented to Mr David's suggestion that we withdraw my application to cross examine said Respondents( BY THE WORDS OF MR DAVID, "TO CLEAR THE DECKS") mentioned above, because Mr David believes that the continued existence of my application to cross examine said respondents is the cause of Judge Zainon's persistent and continued postponement of the hearing of my petition for over a period of at least 2 years, FROM THE DATE OF MY PAYMENT OF RM.60,000 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, APPROVED BY JUDGE ZAINON and for no reason at all since the respondents nor I as petitioner had ever asked for any postponements. Let it be said that although my husband had endorsed Mr David's action to withdraw my application, he (Mr David) must realise that he is my counsel and not my husband, who has not practised law for 40 years. Mr David holds total professional responsibility for his actions relating to the conduct of my petition.

(2)now that by your letter, dated 7 Sept., 2009, received this morning, I AM TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU STILL ACT FOR ME, AND I ACCEPT and wish to thank you very much for your kindness and I wish to confirm that you are still acting for me on the terms, endorsed by me "as the contractual terms of our retainer" on the back of the copy of my petition and kept by you as evidence of the basis of our retainer.

(3)I now instruct you as my solicitors TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN FILED BY YOUR FIRM ON MY BEHALF WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT; and to instead apply to set aside the ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF MY PETITION. My husband has written an opinion that Judge ZAINON'S order for striking out of my petition is illegal and unlawful. I enclose a copy for your consideration. You are free as my solicitors to accept his opinion or dismiss it as you wish. However, my husband had spoken to Dato Mohd. Raus Sharrif, on the comedy of Judge Zainon's APPROVAL of 2 opposing orders for security for costs and even without so much as an order to set aside said order for security for costs WENT ON TO APPROVE AN ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT.
Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff had asked me to apply for the setting aside of Zainon's Order for striking, but I told him that Dato Zainon may have put in place A DETENTION ORDER UNDER THE ISA and that I will be detained and my effort will be in vain; Dato Mohd. Raus. Shariff, then suggested that I ask our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh to go see him; BUT WHEN ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY MY HUSBAND TO CONTACT M/S LIM & HOH, my husband was kept incommunicado.

It is good and I thank you that you have stated that you "act and will only take instructions from me", so by that acknowledgement, please do act according to my instructions UNLESS YOU HAVE STATED REASONS WHY MY INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT produce the best legal out-come for my case; in which case please write to me and state your objections.

I wish to say to Mr Frank Hoh that my husband bear him no ill will. My husband find the pervertion of the course of justice abhorrent, and will not shrink from pursuing JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. I say to Mr Frank Hoh, WHAT HAS JOE YAP DONE TO YOU. You can write to me and we will publish it to the public at large by letter-fax, EXACTLY AS YOU WILL WRITE IT.

Please be kind enough to send to me copy each of (1) SECURITY FOR COSTS, (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF PETITION.

Yap Choi Yin,

Copy to President Malaysian Bar,

Saturday, September 19, 2009

LETTER FROM YAPCHONGYEE TO PRESIDENT & SECRETARY MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :9 Sept., 2009
To,
President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council,
Dear Sirs !
　
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I refer to my letter dated 9th Sept., 2009, to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council, wherein I filed compalint against M/s Lim & Hoh, relating to their less than professional conduct in their dealing in the matter of the above said Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 of 2001, wherein M/s Lim & Hoh acted for my wife (Petitioner)as her solicitor and in particular, Mr David Hoh who was my wife's counsel.
I enclose the following letters as forming part and parcel of this letter and their contents are obvious and self evident, (a) letter from my wife, Lim Choi Yin instructing M.s Lim & Hoh as their client to withdraw the ineffectual and meaningless APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON'S ILLEGAL & UNLAWFUL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION (b)My WRITTEN OPINION to M/s Lim & Hoh, setting out my reasons why the striking out order that was approved to respondent, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is void, ineffectual and unenforceable ! (c) I also enclose copy of letter written by Mr Frank Hoh in reply to my first letter to you and Secretary OF MALAYSIAN BAR.
I am still at a lost, after reading Mr Frank Hoh's letter whether, M/s Lim & Hoh is still acting for my wife; however, My wife had instructed her solicitors TO REMOVE SAID APPEAL, AND TO FORWITH APPLY TO SET ASIDE ZAINON'S USELESS ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION AND TO SEND TO HER COPY OF (1)ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT. We still have not seen those 2 opposing orders as at this date; therefore I would like to ask M/s Lim & Hoh to show us the order for striking out; WAS THERE IN FACT 2 fucking opposing ORDERS or was that Mr David's idea of a joke ?
The contents of this letter will be sent to the following PERSONS :
(a)CHIEF JUSTICE, MALAYSIA,
(B)CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYA (JUSTICE AMALUDDIN)
(3)JUDGE DATO MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF,
(4)SOLICITORS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS,
(5LETTER-FAX TO 68 JUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND MEMBERS OF LEGAL FRATERNITY.
(6)to the media !
My complaint to the Malaysian Bar is not merely relating to the misconduct of M/s Lim & Hoh but is of a more serious nature than that. I charge all the parties and ALL the lawyers, on both sides, M/s Mathews(for 1st respondent, represented by Company Secretary, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon), Annad & Noraini (for Stephen Lim and Wong Kem Chen). M/s Teh & Co. solicitors for all the other respondents including Mr Harris bin Tun Hussein Onn.
This comical situation has arisen because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had mistakenly and arrogantly believed that, she being a High Court Judge, can act with impunity and unaccountable to anyone and hence she is empowered to abuse her judicial powers at will; I am dedicating the rest of my few years left to me to BRING JUDGE ZAINON TO JUSTICE. The reason why Malaysia is lawless is because of irresposible judges like Zainon, who lacked maturity and devoid of professional ethics.
Judge Zainon took umbrage for my formal complaint to the then Chief Justice, Tun Faroz of the "V.K.lingam TAPES" notoreity ! The details are recounted in my blog at http:yapchongyee.blogspot.com. Judge asked my wife to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine respondents, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for PERJURY. My wife refused to with draw and I cmplained to Chief Justice Tun Faroz of her misconduct, but as everything that goes on in Malaysia, this grossly improper conduct committed by a Judge of the High Court was glossed over; and Judge Zainon was allowed to go on to perpetrate MORE SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCES. judge Zainon is a criminal; and it is my life's work to bring her to justice. True if this situation had taken place in Singapore, all these miscreants will go straight to jail including Judge Zainon; but in Malaysia, IT IS THE INNOCENTS AND WHISTLE BLOWERS WHO ARE PUT IN JAIL WHILE CRIMINALS LIKE JUDGE ZAINOON ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM FREE TO CORRUPT THE NATION'S JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SYSTEM.
I tried to retain a good Malay Lawyer to prosecute Judge Zainon for her criminal behaviour and criminal actions but no MALAY LAWYER WHO IS BRIEFED ON MY CASE WILL EVEN SO MUCH AS TALK TO ME ON THE PHONE. Raja Aziz says he is retiring, Art Harun ran away, and Zainal Abiddin is perpetually in CONFERENCE, Mr Gobin Singh Deo, gave me the run around(called him 9 times, but each time to call back later). I do not think any lawyer will have the balls to prosecute Judge Zainon. In these circumstances I will set out in detail what I want to charge this bunch of criminals and thugs with having committed UNDER THE DIRECTIONS AND LEADERSHIP OF JUDGE ZAINON, and I maintain that it is only because of the protection provided by Judge Zainon as the High Court Judge who has CHARGE OF THE COURT PROCESS OF MY WIFE'S PETITION that she had been able to PERPETRATE A CONSPIRACY PRO-ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED BY ALL THE PARTIES, RESPONDENTS, JUDGE ZAINON AND ALL THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING ALL THE LITIGANTS INCLUDING MY WIFE'S COUNSEL, MR DAVID WHO WERE EMBOLDENED BY THE PROTETION OF JUDGE ZAINON TO COMMIT THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT I HAVE RECOUNTED ABOVE.
I SAY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL THE LAW OFFICERS AND JUDGES WHO HAVE RECEIVED MY LETTER-FAX; THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS, YOU WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT SELF RESPECT TO CHARGE ME FOR SEDITION OR CRIMINAL DEFAMATION. I give to you all my assurance that if you will charge me under the Penal Code and under that fucking NONSENSE OF ISA SHIT ! I will come at my own expense to defend myself in KL.
　
Sincerely,
yapchongyee
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Letter from Yapchongyee to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :9 Sept., 2009
Letter to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council
　
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
Dear Sirs,
I believe my earlier letter to President, Secretary and members of Malaysian Bar and sent by Email had ONLY HALF of my letter because of a glitch in my computer at the time when I Emailed the letter; however, I am now Emailing the redrafted letter of the earlier letter.
I am making a complaint charging Mr David Hoh of M/s Lim and Hoh for Professional misconduct. Mr David Hoh acted as Counsel for my wife in her Petition cited above, Trouble began when Judge Zainon asked Mr. David Hoh to enquire off my wife if my wife would agree to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine, Respondents, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Banfor perjury. My wife had applied for leave to cross examine these parties for PERJURY, annexing to her application police reports that I had made at the Balai Polis, Jln.TUN HS Lee.. I instructed Mr David Hoh not to withdraw the application to cross examine. I discussed Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's IMPROPER CONDUCT WITH JUDGE MOKHTAR SIDIN (prior to his retirement) because I wanted someone with credibility to know of the misconduct of Judge Zainon. Inspite of our refusal to withdraw to accommodate Judge Zainon's criminal interference in the court process of said Petition, JUDGE ZAINON went on to approve Respondents application.
My complaint against Mr David Hoh are the following :
(a)Mr David Hoh has over 2 and a 1/2 year consistently REFUSED TO RESPOND to our many attempts to communicate with him (by all means). He has refused to state his position vis-a-vis his continued retainer as our solicitor or Counsel. He has refused to respond to our request to surrender the file of said Petition IF HE HAS DISCHARGED HIMSELF.
(b)He filed an appeal against my instructions. I had instructed him to apply to set aside the illegal & unlawful order made by Judge Zainon INSTEAD OF A USELESS APPEAL. Only a LAW illiterate in the circumstances would appeal against an illegal & unlawful order. Judge Zainon had ABUSED HER POWERS BY APPROVING 2 FUCKING OPPOSING ORDERS; therefore, begs the question, NOW THAT THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT HAS TAKEN EFFECT, what is to become of the order for security for costs, which my wife had complied by payment of Rm.60,000 ? Considering that Petition having been struck out, THE FUCKING TRIAL NEVER BEGAN, therefore where is the costs; and by the same token, Respondents are now holding money OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCES, and Mr David is one of the "trustee" of the joint A/c holding money obtained under false pretences; the Rm.60,000 plus Rm.20,000 paind by my wife towards SECURITY FOR COSTS.
(c)What is the justification for Mr David Hoh to hold on to the file HAVING DE FACTO DISCHARGED HIMSELF BY REFUSING TO RESPOND TO OUR ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM PROFESSIONALLY ? NOTE :I will paste below two letters, whose contents are self evident in the context of my official complaints, (1) by my daughter Yap Ai-Mei and power of attorney of Petitioner (2) Letter to Mr SF Leow.
I had discussed my problem with Dato Mohd. Raus and he had suggested that my solicitors take the matter up on appeal; I said that Mr David Hoh, my wife's counsel had already done that, AGAINST MY INSTRUCTION NOT TO APPEAL . I said that this was wrong because IF THERE IS ANY APPEAL IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONDENTS WHO SHOULD APPEAL, because it was respondent, Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, HAVING ACCEPTED HIS SHARE OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, WENT ON TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT; and of all the IMPROBABLE INSANITY, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali APPROVED Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's application to strike out even before any application to set aside the earlier ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS MADE OR EVER MADE. Such is the law illiteracy of Judge Zainon.
THIS NONSENSE perpetrated by Judge Zainon has now created, A FARCE, and a Malaysian Judicial precedent (being a high Court decision) that if a litigant who is dissatisfied or unhappy with the High Court's award of the quantum for security for costs, CAN PROCEED TO OBTAIN A 2ND ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT FOR SHOWING NO CAUSE OF ACTION; that being the case, there are now 2 opposing orders being (a) order for security for costs and Petitioner having paid Rm.60,000 pursuant to order for security for costs (b) Order to strike out said Petition; BOTH ORDERS ARE LIVE ORDERS AS THEY NOW STAND. Quite apart from such a "belly aching farce" as perpetrated by Judge Zainon arising from her obvious LAW ILLITERACY, her actions DISPLAY a total absence of both common sense and a total absense of logic. Judge Zainon has the common sense to think that it is both feasible TO FUCKING HAVE TO CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
Judge Zainon being a Judge serving on the Bench of the Court of Appeal, and displaying such a disgraceful absense of any learning of the LAW, has made the Malaysian Judiciary, the laughing stock of all of English Common Law jurisdictions in the world. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Aliin these circumstances for Judge Zainon to approve his application for striking out. Dato Mohd. Rause then suggested that our solicitor should make an application to set aside the order for striking out on the grounds that it was an illegal order. I SAID I HAD ALREADY INSTRUCTED MR DAVID HOH TO APPLY TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL ORDER, but that Mr David Hoh HAD MADE HIMSELF INCOMMUNICADO to my instructions and any attempt to communicate with him or his firm of M/s Lim & Hoh drew no response.
I also stated for a fact that Dato Zainon had applied pressure on Mr David Hoh and the actions of Mr David Hoh has been all calculated to disadvantage the prospect of my wife's petition. I also stated for a fact that because of the personal involvement of Judge Zainon, no lawyer in KL will represent our Petition.
　
Sincerely
　
Yap Chong Yee
　
　
　
　
Letter to Mr SF Leow !
Hello SF !
I wish to thank you for speaking to Frank and removed the log jam existing between him and me; and for the life of me I still am mystified as to what has caused this umbrage. I believe that I have no issues that need to be settled between him and me and I shall be very happy for him to state what it is that has made suficiently unhappy to the extent that he is willing to sacrifice his professional reputation to damage my wife's case.
I will be glad if this message can be forwarded to him and invite his comment.
I will have to assume that my frequent attacks on Judge Zainon is the cause of friction, but as he had stated to you, Lim & hoh's client is my wife, therefore, under what basis CAN FRANK HOLD HOSTAGE MY WIFE'S INTERESTS FOR MY PERSONAL CONDUCT. I have written enough to argue charges against Judge Zainon with perpetrating criminal conduct and to have by her judicial actions participated, in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, obstructing to police investigation, obtaining money under false pretenses and much more.
Judge Zainon had committed criminal offences in abusing her judicial office IN ORDER TO PROTECT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN, WONG KEM CHEN, AND KWONG SEA YOON FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for fabricating evidence, forgery, perjury and much more.
I do not quite understand why, Lim & Hoh have held themselves "incommunicado" because to my thinking, the path to final judgment in our favour in already indisputable on this basis :
(1)Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit by HAD DISCLOSED a legal defense; that in and of itself means there is a defense in the opinion of the respondents; that being the case, Judge Zainon has no judicial powers to over-ride the opinion of Stephen Lim. I recommend that Frank Hoh read the "WHITE BOOK" on the issue of "strike out for showing no cause of actions.
(2)the correct application in this situation is to apply to "SET ASIDE" Zainon's illegal and unlawful ORDER.; illegal because Judge Zainon as a High Court Judge, must know that Stephen Lim's affidavit CAN BE CONTRUED AS EVIDENCE(they are inadmissible as evidence and Judge Zainon approved the application with knowledge that they are not admissible accroding to the law of evidence).
(3)Stephen Lim alledged that my wife sold the alledged shares. Petitioner's pleading says no company resolutions nor any share certificate had ever been issued ever; that means no share of any kind, EXCEPT FOR THE TWO PROMOTERS' SHARE EXIST IN THE COMPANY. That being the case THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH STEPHEN LIM TO PROVE THAT HIS ALLEDGED SHARES ISSUED TO MY WIFE "EVER EXISTED AT ALL AS VALID SHARES. ( refer to case of Kelapa Sawit, (Telok Anson 1991 Ct of App).
(4) This means that Stephen Lim will have TO TRACE THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ALLEDGED SHARES FROM THE VERY BEGINING. I know that Stephen Lim fabricated the evidence; therefore respondents' case cannot be proven.
(5)I wish both Frank & David to read this message.I have thought through this issue and I say to David THAT MY WIFE HAS NO NEED TO DISPROVE THAT THE ALLEDGED SIGNATURE IS NOT HERS, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR PLEADING. The true issue is WHETHER THE ALLEDGED SHARES THAT STEPHEN LIM HAD DEPOSED TO AS BELONGING TO MY WIFE WAS IN FACT REAL AND VALID SHARES AT ALL. We know that they are not !
I confess that I do not understand what it is behind the conduct of Lim & Hoh. At this point there is no Judge Zainon to pervert the course of justice, THE END GAME IS STARING LIM & HOH IN THE FACE, and why is it that they will destroy our victory.
Just based on the 30% retainer, my security for costs will have reached Rm.80,000 and on 30% there is already a cool Rm.24,000 fees due to Lim & Hoh. THROW IN OUR CLAIM IN DAMAGES AGAINST ALL THE 6 RESPONDENTS FOR WRONGFUL RETENTION OF MONEY OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES (I have all along stated as true that I borrowed Rm.60,000 from my daughters at 30% compound interests over 10 years plus); not to mention what will come out of taking over McLarens !
WHY DOES LIM & HOH WANT TO THROW AWAY ALL THAT OVER A ROW THAT EVEN TILL TODAY, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT HAS MADE FRANK SO MAD !
I am sending this message to you hoping that you will forward this to Frank Hoh & his son.
I have emailed my draft and I will have Ai-Mei, Email her letter that was sent to Lim & Hoh after she had added her correction. I never like to read my draft _too lazy ! La !
Joe Yap
　
Hello Frank Hoh, The above letter had been Emailed to Siak Fah. I hope for us to least speak to each other. I hear Stephen Lim is on his last legs; and by that I believe it is urgent to decide what to do.
Frank read my letter and think about it. We will win because Respondents cannot change their defense. Joe Yap
　
Letter from Yap Ai-Mei to M/s Lim & Hoh
Yap Ai-Mei,\par
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale,\par
PERTH,\par
Western Australia.\par
Dated\par
M/S Lim & Hoh,\par
Solicitors,
Ming Building,
Jalan Bukit Nanas, KL.
Dear Sirs,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; \par
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd \par
\par
I am power of attorney for Petitioner, and I refer to the telephone conversation discussion between, your Mr Frank Hoh and Mr Leow Siak Fah, dated Thurs.14/Aug./2009,a mutual friend of Frank Hoh and my father Joe Yap, on the above matter. For the purpose relevant to issues arising from the above matter set out above, it is sufficient to state the following \par
facts :\par
(1)that M/s Lim & Hoh does not want to represent Petitioner, Mrs. Yap Choi Yin.\par
(2)that M/s Lim & Hoh had communicated their intention or tried to communicate their intention TO DISCHARGE THEMSELVES FROM ANY FURTHER REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER. No date was given as to their withdrawal of legal representation.\par
(3)that M/s Lim & Hoh will RETURN THE CASE FILE TO PETITIONER.\par
(4)that M/s Lim & Hoh will only speak to my father on condition that my father has a power of attorney, from my mother.In response to the above facts I wish to state that it is only relevant to make the following statements :\par
(1)that both my father and I, as power of attorney for my mother/Petitioner had written, faxed and telephoned countless times to attempt to find out the status of both the progress of the said petition and the ongoing OR LACK OF FURTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY YOUR FIRM; BUT BOTH OF US DREW NO RESPONSE; and that this comedy has gone on for at least 2 and a half years. It is only now that Mr Leow Siak Fah is able to tell us that M/s Lim & Hoh has discharged themselves and will return the case file to us. We had no prior communication of any kind on this development.\par
(3)My father and I had instructed M/s Lim & Hoh NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, When MY MOTHER HAD COMPLIED with jUDGE's Order to pay Rm.60,000 towards SECURITY FOR COSTS AND WHEN THIS ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS HAD NOT BEEN SET ASIDE BEFORE jUDGE MADE SECOND AND OPPOSING ORDER TO STRIKE OUT; but inspite of our many desperate attempts to stop you from filing any appeal, you went on to file an Appeal against our instruction and in so doing and your firm's NON RESPONSE TO OUR MANY ENTREATIES to apply INSTEAD to "SET ASIDE" THE ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, YOU HAVE BY YOUR ACTIONS OBSTRUCTED THE PROGRESS OF SAID PETITION FOR THE SAID PERIOD.\par
(4)I am a practising solicitor in Perth, and wish to add that if what Mr Leow Siak Fah told to my father is true (and there is no reason to doubt him), then your actions are professionally questionable. In the situation that we find ourselves in, as my mother's solicitors, you are professionally required to settle the issue of your legal representation and return the case file if you no longer want to represent us. Let me be clear on any issue that you might to claim to have a solicitor's "LIEN" ON THE CASE FILE, IT WAS AGREED THAT FEES PAYABLE TO M/S LIM & HOH IS BASED ON 30% OF ALL MONEY RECOVERED (NO MONEY RECOVERED MEANS NO FEES CHARGABLE). In this situation, it is my opinion that on the day that you decide NOT TO WANT TO FURTHER REPRESENT US YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE OF SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, AND YOU HAD FAILED TO ACT RESPONSIBLLY.\par
(5)I wish to advise you that my father intends to send copies of my letter to (a)Mr Leow Siak Fah, President and secretary of Malaysian Bar; and you can please confirm with Mr Leow if what I state here, which at this point can only be allegations and are subject to correction. I will accept without conditions if Mr Leow will correct what has been represented by my father as what was said by Mr Leow as the truth.\par
(6)IF M/S LIM & HOH HAS DISCHARGED THEMSELVES, THIS IS THE TIME TO WRITE TO ME BY REGISTERED POST STATING THAT YOU NO LONGER WANT TO ACT FOR US. IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE STILL ACTING FOR US, THEN TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THAT YOU HAD FILED "AGAINST OUR EXPRESSED INSTRUCTIONS.\par
(7)Take notice that you have not sent any copy Of Judge Zainon's ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT; I WANT A COPY OF THE ILLEGAL ORDER AND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT; HOW DO YOU APPEAL WITHOUT JUDGMENT ? For my own peace of mind, will you also send to me a copy of the APPEAL THAT YOU HAVE FILED.\par
(8)ALL ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE STATED BY MY FATHER CAN BE VARIFIED BY HIS WEBSITE AT http://yapchongye.blogspot.com, because the dates of logging in cannot be changed on the blog. \par
\par
\par
Your's sincerely,\par
\par
\par
Yap Ai-Mei.\par
\par
COPY\par
(1)LEOW SIAK FAH,\par
(2)PRESIDENT & SECRETARY, MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL.\par
\par
\par
\tab\par
}
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

LETTER FROM YAPCHOIYIN TO M/S LIM & HOH

Yap Choi Yin
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale,
Western Australia, 6156,
To, M/s Lim & Hoh,
Dear Sirs !
Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
The content of your letter is most surprising to me, considering that my husband has been dealing with all matters relating to my said Petition against M/s McLarens Saksama Sdn. Bhd. However, there is no need to split hairs, but I need to make respond to your letter on these
issues :
(1)did you withdraw my application to cross examine respondents, (a)Mr. Stephen Cheng Ban,
(b)Mr. Wong Kem Chen (c)Mr Kwong Sea Yoon(representing M/s McLarens)as their company Secretary ?
(2)Did you not by letter inform me that every time my husband writes to the Chief Justice, or to the public at large by letter-fax, either insulting Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali or complaining to the Chief Justice, of the conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali the latter (Dato Zainon) would haul up Mr David for chastisement; at this point, will you confirm that Mr David's withdrawal of my application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents mentioned above, on the contents of their supporting affidavits ANNEXED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, was not withdrawned as a consequence of pressure applied by Dato Zainon ?
I want to confirm that my husband had admitted to me that he had consented to Mr David's suggestion that we withdraw my application to cross examine said Respondents( BY THE WORDS OF MR DAVID, "TO CLEAR THE DECKS") mentioned above, because Mr David believes that the continued existence of my application to cross examine said respondents is the cause of Judge Zainon's persistent and continued postponement of the hearing of my petition for over a period of at least 2 years, FROM THE DATE OF MY PAYMENT OF RM.60,000 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, APPROVED BY JUDGE ZAINON and for no reason at all since the respondents nor I as petitioner had ever asked for any postponements. Let it be said that although my husband had endorsed Mr David's action to withdraw my application, he (Mr David) must realise that he is my counsel and not my husband, who has not practised law for 40 years. Mr David holds total professional responsibility for his actions relating to the conduct of my petition.
(2)now that by your letter, dated 7 Sept., 2009, received this morning, I AM TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU STILL ACT FOR ME, AND I ACCEPT and wish to thank you very much for your kindness and I wish to confirm that you are still acting for me on the terms, endorsed by me "as the contractual terms of our retainer" on the back of the copy of my petition and kept by you as evidence of the basis of our retainer.
(3)I now instruct you as my solicitors TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN FILED BY YOUR FIRM ON MY BEHALF WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT; and to instead apply to set aside the ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF MY PETITION. My husband has written an opinion that Judge ZAINON'S order for striking out of my petition is illegal and unlawful. I enclose a copy for your consideration. You are free as my solicitors to accept his opinion or dismiss it as you wish. However, my husband had spoken to Dato Mohd. Raus Sharrif, on the comedy of Judge Zainon's APPROVAL of 2 opposing orders for security for costs and even without so much as an order to set aside said order for security for costs WENT ON TO APPROVE AN ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT.
Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff had asked me to apply for the setting aside of Zainon's Order for striking, but I told him that Dato Zainon may have put in place A DETENTION ORDER UNDER THE ISA and that I will be detained and my effort will be in vain; Dato Mohd. Raus. Shariff, then suggested that I ask our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh to go see him; BUT WHEN ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY MY HUSBAND TO CONTACT M/S LIM & HOH, my husband was kept incommunicado.
It is good and I thank you that you have stated that you "act and will only take instructions from me", so by that acknowledgement, please do act according to my instructions UNLESS YOU HAVE STATED REASONS WHY MY INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT produce the best legal out-come for my case; in which case please write to me and state your objections.
I wish to say to Mr Frank Hoh that my husband bear him no ill will. My husband find the pervertion of the course of justice abhorrent, and will not shrink from pursuing JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. I say to Mr Frank Hoh, WHAT HAS JOE YAP DONE TO YOU. You can write to me and we will publish it to the public at large by letter-fax, EXACTLY AS YOU WILL WRITE IT.
Please be kind enough to send to me copy each of (1) SECURITY FOR COSTS, (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF PETITION.
Yap Choi Yin,
　
　
　
Copy to President Malaysian Bar,
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Thursday, September 10, 2009

jUDGE zAINON PARTICIPATED IN A CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Dear Art Harun !
I paste below my opinion why "NO COSTS CAN ATTACH TO MY SECURITY FOR COSTS ARISING FROM A STRIKE OUT, because security for costs is paid contingent to Petitioner loosing at a trial ! This payment BY US of security for costs is tied up to a TRUST and the trust requires that payment can only be disbursed AGAINST A PROPERLY TAXED BILL OF COSTS !
I wrote this opinion in preparation if an application to set aside the order for striking out is to be made.
Opinion on the issue whether Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had participated in a conspiracy to OBTAIN MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.
I submit that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretenses. At the first hearing of our petition Judge Zainon had improperly interfered in the proceedings by asking my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine, KC Wong, Kwong Sea Yoon and Stephen Lim for PERJURY.
I submit that Judge Zainon had from the very begining intended to strike out my wife's petition by asking my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine the respondents listed above; and when we refused, judge Zainon disregarded our submission supporting our application for leave to cross examine. She went on to award security for costs inspite of our charge against the above 3 respondents for perjury.
It is important to bear in mind that Respondents had applied for security for costs in the sum of Rm.650,000, but that Judge Zainon had reduced of her own accord to the sum of Rm.60,000. which my wife had paid into the hands of Respondents' solicitors. It must also be borne in mind that respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had made his application to strike out said petition AFTER MY WIFE HAD PAID UP RM.60,000. This point is crucial because Respondents had 1st applied for security for costs and only later did they apply for order to strike out. I say this point is important because, by their earlier application for security for costs, RESPONDENTS HAD ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAVE A CASE TO ANSWER AND THEIR SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT DECLARED THAT PETITIONER HAD TRANSFERED HER ENTIRE SHARE PORTFOLIO.
At this point there is a dispute because my wife's cause of action IS THAT NO SHARES WERE EVER ISSUED EXCEPT FOR THE 2 SINGLE PROMOTERS' SHARE ISSUED TO PETITIONER AND MR STEPHEN LIM AS PROMOTERS.
Having set out the background conditions that will define the actions of Judge Zainon and her co-conspirators as PERPETRATORS OF THE OFFENCE OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES; I will move on to submit my opinion based on the following points of arguements. :
(1)As stated at the opening of this submission, The actions of Judge Zainon is evidence that she had already made up her mind to strike out, hence she crafted her order for security for costs to be paid into the hands of solicitors for respondents INSTEAD OF PAYMENT INTO COURT AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. My submission is that from this point on, every step of the way that Judge Zainon had taken show and constitutes "the hand cuffs" that will convict Judge Zainon for having perpetrated the following crimes :
(a) Conspiracy to commit "Judicial" Malfeasance in office,
(b) Aidding and Abetting and pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to commit both perjury & forgery,
(c) Pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice,
(d) Pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to fabricate evidence,
(e) Pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences.
I will begin with my charge that Judge Zainon had committed "judicial " Malfeasance, aidded and abetted by the solicitors for the Respondents in particular the solicitors' firm of M/s Annad & Noraini, of Jln. Yap Ah Shak, KL, and solicitors for Petitioner, namely M/s Lim & Hoh of Ming building, Jln. Bt. Nanas, KL.
SUBMISSION
I will leave out (for the moment) my charge against Judge Zainon putting undue and illegal PRESSURE on my wife's solicitors, M/s Lim & Hoh to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine, KC Wong, Stephen Lim and Kwong Sea Yoon for Perjury. I will come to this later.
I come now to my main issue to support my submission that Judge Zainon and the parties named above for jointly perpetrating the crime of Malfeasance, Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice together with the other criminal offences that were set out above. I submit that Judge Zainon had fallen into the grave that she had dug for herself out of sheer IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND ALSO BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT HAVE THAT REQUIRED MINIMUM OF LOGICAL THINKING. She has been elevated to the highest level of the Malaysian judiciary OVER HER FUCKING HEAD.
MY SUBMISSION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT JUDGE zainon HAD 1ST APPROVED SECURITY FOR COSTS AND WHEN RM.60,000 WAS PAID PURSUANT TO HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, SHE WENT ON TO APPROVE A 2ND AND CONTRADICTING ORDER TO STRIKE OUT EVEN WITHOUT AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE 1ST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS..At this point pray tell me Mr Yap Chong Yee, why do you say Judge Zainon had committed the several criminal offences ?
To understand my arguements JUST CONSIDER THE LOGIC, LAW AND THEIR INTER-RELATIONSHIPS. :
(a)Order for security for costs is paid and accepted by all Respondents through their solicitors to BE HELD IN A JOINT ACCOUNT IN THE NAMES OF M/S ANNAD & NORAINI AND MY WIFE'S SOLICITORS M/S LIM & HOH. Remember that this joint account is held jointly by Respondents' solicitors and my wife's solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh. Remember THAT THIS IS A FUCKING TRUST ACCOUNT AND THE MONEY IS TO BE DISBURSED BY AND ACCORDING TO A FUCKING TAXED BILL OF COSTS ! The Rm.60,000 is not fucking costs, IT IS INSTEAD "SECURITY FOR COSTS" and their disbursement is for costs ARISING FROM A FUCKING TRIAL ONLY AND NOTHING ELSE.
(b)I believe Judge Zainon (through her own ignorance of the law and having no fucking logic) thought she can hand this security for costs AS FUCKING COSTS, hence her order to strike out is made "IN TERMS" meanig to declare that Petitioner had lost and hence Respondents can FUCKING KEEP THE SECURITY FOR COSTS AS COSTS.
As I said Judge Zainon has no logic and knows no fucking law. I made it abundantly clear that the Rm.60,000 is held in trust to disburse COSTS ARISING OUT OF A TRIAL, and therefore no trial NO FUCKING COSTS. At this point a very prominent lawyer said to me that the striking can incur costs. Yes, that is possible but if the adage relating to costs IS "COSTS FOLLOWS TRIAL" then a strike out cannot attract disbursements out of security for costs. He says that a STRIKE OUT MEANS PETITIONER HAS LOST ! This cannot be right because TO LOOSE IS TO LOOSE ON A POINT OF LAW, BUT A STRIKE OUT MEANS THERE ARE NO POINTS OF LAW; THEREFORE HOW CAN ANY LITIGANT SAY HE WON OR LOST. The Petition is a nullity there is nothing for the court to decide, HOW CAN THAT BE SAID TO BE A LOST ? However, the crux of my submission is that the JOINT ACCOUNT CAN ONLY BE ACCESSED BY A BILL OF COSTS ARISING OUT OF A TRIAL THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND PETITIONER HAS LOST TO THE RESPONDENTS. Such is not the case here. I say to Respondents and to Judge Zainon that if you want to get at my security for costs now Rm.80,000 with interests accrued. THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOW MY A BILL OF COSTS INCURRED IN A TRIAL. CAN YOU FUCKING DRAW A BILL OF COSTS WITHOUT trial ? Remember there is a TRUST TIED TO THAT SECURITY FOR COSTS, AND CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES IF YOU ABUSE YOUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
(b)THIS IS THE INTERESTING PART.
While Judge Zainon's order to strike out remains FUCKING ACTIVE and it is, it will mean that respondents WILL BE CRIMINALY LIABLE FOR HOLDING MONEY OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. WHY ? It is so because I have instructed M/s Lim & Hoh not to accept the refund of said security for costs; and that being the case, M/s Annad & Noraini CANNOT PAY THEMSELVES PURSUANT TO THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT AND SINCE THERE IS NO TRIAL THERE CANNOT BE ANY ORDER FOR COSTS ! NO BILL OF COSTS CAN BE TAXED BECAUSE NO FUCKING TRIAL ! It all comes down to this one conundrum, Annad & Noraini and M/s Lim & Hoh are holding FUCKING "HOT BRICKS" and there is no way out except for a trial.
At this point of the case Judge Zainon and the respondents are holding money Rm.80,000 UNSANCTIONED BY LAW. OR SANCTIONED BY THE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWERS OF JUDGE ZAINON BY HER APPROVING 2 FUCKING OPPOSING ORDERS ! FUCKING MEANLESS.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

LETTER TO PRESIDENT & SEC. MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL

Monday, March 23, 2009

MALAYSIAN JUDGES ARE ABOVE THE LAW

Malaysian Judges Are Above The Law

I was in Kuala Lumpur to process my wife's application for the dissolution of her company Relionus Adjusters, Sdn. Bhd. and our solicitors had filed our application; and while there I read a news report of Tun Fairoz leaving on a trip to distant lands of Muslim nations to discover how they (Muslim nations) dispense justice that will negate the advantage that litigants will reap for retaining high priced and excellent lawyers. I thought at that time that this was very brave of our Chief Justice Tun Fairoz; who was my class-mate in Law School at University of Singapore. We were not friends but being class-mates we know of each other's existence. I thought this was very brave because it took English Common Law over 1,300 years to evolve and here we have a Chief Justice, who like me obtained a 3rd class (Hon.),
although it is no shame to obtain 3rd class because about 80% of then graduates from the University of Singapore obtained 3rd class. The University only awarded one 1st class (Hon.) in 10 years I believe. Anyway, I thought this was very brave to make such a claim. What on earth was Tun Fairoz talking about ? To say the least English Common Law admit of very little change, and I would even add that its interpretation is very logically and almost mathematically precise, like 2 + 2 + 4; because if you add the numbers and you fail to get 4 it just means you do not know how to add.
At this point I like to make an observation, in most cases our Malaysian Judges do not understand the meaning of the word "JUDICIAL DISCRETION", and my observation is that Malaysian judges think they can "find a yawning wide gulf" to attach to the words "judicial discretion" to mean any of their personal whim or to allow them a latitude to interpret those words to mean anything that fits their whim. I use the word whim because "whim" is distinct and different from the meaning of the words "Judicial discretion". The word judicial discretion is well defined by the law of equity and it means that the judge has a 'degree of latitude to interpret AN ISSUE IN A POSITIVE WAY SO THAT THE LITIGATION CAN PROCEED SEAMLESSLY; but judicial discretion DOES NOT ALLOW a judge to willy nilly admit any thresh as evidence. To be more concise Judicial discretion MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE STRICT CONFINES OF THE LAW; in other words the law of evidence, law of procedure and substantive law all must be adhered to strictly.
My wife's case (spare the details) TURNS ON THE ISSUE whether the only 2 promoters and only 2 same share holders had ever AUTHORIZED THE COMPANY TO ISSUE ANY SHARES TO ANY 3RD PARTY OR EVEN TO THEMSELVES OTHER THAN THE 2 PROMOTERS SHARES. My wife had pleaded in her supporting affidavits that SHE NEVER EVER SINGED ANY RESOLUTION WHATSOEVER, and that she never ever disposed of in any shape nor form nor sold her single promoters share. In short she at all times held only one single promoter's share in the company. Respondent's power of attorney Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, alleged that my wife had transfer "her entire share holding" and that he witnessed as Company Secretary my wife sign the transfer documents. In the context of my statement in this paragraph, THIS ALLEGATION BY KWONG SEA YOON IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE, because to transfer share, there must exist a share certificate, and transfer is achieved by surrendering the old share certificate and the issue of the share in a new share certificate, and since no share certificate was ever issued because my wife affirmed that she never ever issued any resolution no share certificate can be issued without a company resolution. This is because to issue share certificate in the company the only 2 promoter directors will have to sign a resolution that the company will issue share certificates to them and in what numbers; how can that be achieved if my wife had stated that she never EVER SIGNED ANYTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER ?
Pursuant to this allegation made by Respondent Kwong Sea Yoon, Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Mr Wong Kem Chen; I made a police report at the Balai Police Jl. Tun HS Lee. I charged Mr Kwong Sea Yoon and the other 2 respondents for perjury. In the meantime, Mr David Hoh, my wife's counsel proceeded to apply for leave to cross examine respondents; but Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, had ABANDONED HIS DEFENSE. Mr Kwong Sea Yoon realising his criminal conduct for affirming perjury NEVER AGAIN SHOW UP AT ANY OF THE COURT APPEARANCE, Kwong Sea Yoon never ever again show up at court hearings.. This hiatus lasted for at least 18 months and when all attempts by respondents to get Mr Kwong Sea Yoon to show up had failed, Mr Stephen Lim Cheng ban filed an application for striking out said petition. At this point I like to state that I had asked Mr David Hoh to defend against the application for striking out, but it was a mystery to me why he only applied for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim, he knowing that Judge had already previously refused my wife's application for right to cross examine. However, what is more a mystery is why knowing that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had ABADONED HIS DEFENSE, Mr David Hoh did not ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT MR KWONG SEA YOON BEING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF 1ST RESPONDENT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS PETITION HAD ABANDONED HIS DEFENSE ? Mr Stephen Lim had no locus standi to apply IN HIS OWN RIGHT FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT in substitution for Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, without a proper resolution by the said Company (resolution which required the joint endorsements and signatures of Stephen Lim and Petitioner as the only two promoters and share holders of the company).
I have stated very briefly the relevant facts to judge Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali's performance as a Judge who adjudicated my wife's case. The biggest flaw and the most incriminating evidence of Judge's criminal conduct is the fact that my wife had stated in stark, precise conclusive terms, THAT SHE HAD ONLY ONE SINGLE PROMOTER'S SHARE; and the respondents by the statement of Mr Kwong Sea Yoon HAD AFFIRMED THAT HE HAD WITNESSED MY WIFE SIGN TRANSFER OF HER "ENTIRE SHARE HOLDING"; and add to this discrepancy, both my wife and I had made 3 police reports to charge respondents for PERJURY ! more incriminating than the charge of perjury is the fact that MR KWONG SEA YOON HAD ABADONED HIS DEFENSE AND THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD COLLUDED WITH RESPONDENTS BY ACCEPTING RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT.
Did Judge Zainon in these circumstances (3 police reports of pejury & forgery plus the admission into evidence of fabricated documents that were obviously & visually forged ) NOT HOLD SUCH OBVIOUS DISCREPANSIES SUFFICIENT REASON FOR APPROVING LEAVE TO PETITIONER TO CROSS EXAMINE ? Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had no CONCEIVABLE support in Law or Equity to EVEN ENTERTAIN SUCH A APPLICATION for an order for striking out. This is no mere mistake, IT IS EVIDENCE OF COLLUTION. Respondents had filed their application with CRIMINAL SUPPORT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.
There is the other issue that is even more damning to the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali. She approved to respondents security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 which my wife promptly paid into hands of respondents' solicitors. This payment of Rm.60,000 was accepted by respondents and they are still keeping our Rm.60,000 UP UNTIL EVEN TODAY ! The acceptance of my wife's security for costs by respondents constituted a contract that upon acceptance of such security for costs the respondents undertook to defend their case.
Another reason that makes a lie of Judge Zainon's reason for approving respondents' application for striking out is the FACT THAT RESPONDENTS HAD ALREADY PLEADED A DEFENSE TO PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION. Respondents had already pleaded their defence that Petitioner had sold her shares, therfore she did not have locus standi to pursue her petition. In these circumstances, how can the judge award to respondents an order for striking out ON THE GROUNDS THAT PETITIONER HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION ?
This morning I read in the AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW )March, 21-22nd, 2009 the STORY OF THE JAILING OF AUSTRALIAN FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE MARCUS EINFELD; I QOUTE FROM THE Australian Financial Review at Page 5, :

The charge of perjury arose after Einfeld --who became a barrister in 1962, a silk in 1977, and a Federal Court Judge in 1986 before retiring to return to the bar in 2001 --denied he was behind the wheel of his LEXUS WHEN IT WAS SNAPPED FOR SPEEDING in Sydney on Jan. 8th, 2006, The offence carried a $77 fine and 3 demerit points. He swore a statury declaration and later told a local court the car had been driven by a friend, Teresa Brennen, and the charge was dismissed by the Magistrate. However, the police started a perjury investigation when it emerged that Professor Brennen had dies in a car accident three years earlier, and after Einfeld changed his story in an attempt to explain. 2 weeks later, Einfeld made a 20 page statement asserting he was not drining the car at the time of of the speeding offence, and he had lent it to another woman he originally met in Bangladash whose name was also brennen.
This statement, which Justice James said included "knowingly false assertions" formed the basis of the second and,in Justice James's opinion, more serious charge. He sais Einfeld's pervertion of the course of justice was clearly premediated ' and that "considerable planning had gone into the statement :The motive for committing the second offence was simply to escape conviction for perjury", Justice James said.
Einfeld's "deliberate, premediated perjury" was "PART OF A PLANNED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY" and "clearly committed by by Mr Einfeld for his own benefit"

Here we see a retired Judge of the Australian Federal Court, a QC., go to jail for trying to avoid a fine of $77. He was convicted for perjury and imprisoned for 3 years." This is what rule of law, that requires Judges to enforce the rule of law WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR".

In my wife's case Judge Zainon committed, the most obvious criminal transgression for an offence for MALFEASANCE, (2) perverting the course of justice (3) Participated in a Comspiracy to obtain money under false pretences (Aidin & abetting perjury & forgery (4)Obstructing police investigation and many more.
I had phoned the President of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Alluaddin at his office but he was not in, so his secretary told me to phone Judge's SPECIAL OFFICER AT PH. NO. 603 8880 3711 and his name is Mr "Nithi", and when I phoned as instructed, there was no response; and the curious thing is, LIKE MY PREVIOUS CALLS TO CHIEF JUSTICE TAN SRI ZAKI AZMI AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, to who I stated plainly WHAT MY ISSUE WAS FOR PHONING THEM, ALL OF THEM JUST RAN AWAY AND THEY DARE NOT ANSWER THE PHONE AT ALL KNOWING THAT I WAS AT THE OTHER END BECAUSE I TOLE THEIR SECRETARY THAT I WOULD CALL AT THOSE TIMES.

THESE TOP JUDGES JUST RAN AWAY FOR FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE DEEMED TO BE ACCESSARIES AFTER THE FACT.

+60388884522,ChiefJusticeTanSriZakiAzmi,+60388884522,AppealsCourtPresidentTanSriAlauddinMohdSheriff,
+60388803726,,DatoZainonbintiMohdAli,+60388884522,ChiefJudgeofMalayaDatukArifinZakaria,
+60388884522,DatukZulkefliAhmadMakinudinFederalCourtJudge,+60388889362,TunAbdulHamidMohamad,
+60823115515,TanSriSteveShimLipKiong,+60823115515,DatukAmir,+6082313400,ClementAllenSkinner,
+6082313400,LauBeeLan,+60388884522,TanSriLCVohrah,+60388884522,DatukSeriAinumMohdSaaid,
+60388884522,JudgeAugustinePaul,+60388884522,JusticeMohamadAriffYusof,+60388889362,DatukKamaludinMdSaidAGchambers,
+60388889362,SeeMeeChunseniorfederalcounsel,+30688889562,SaifulHazmiMohdSaadMalaysianAntiCorruptionCommissiondeputypublicprosecutor, +60326943950,judgeNoradidahAhmadAmpangSessionsCourt, +60388884522,JusticesNikHashimNikAbRahman,
+60388884522,JusticeZulkefliAhmadMakinudin,+60388889362,DPPTunAbdMajid,+60388884522,FederalCourtJusticeNikHashimNikAbRahman,+60388884522,DatukAziahAliNazriHighCourtjudge,+60326943950,JusticeRozinaAyobSessionsCourtjudge,
+60823115515,TanSriRichardMalanjumandSabahandSarawakChiefJudge,+6052417070,MrSpeakerSiva,+60388889377,PegawaiKhasKpdPeguamNegara,+60388889377,PegawaiKhasKpdPeguamCaraNegara,+60388889377,TimbalanKetuaBahagianIPolisi,
+60388889377,TimbalanKetuaBahagianIIOperasi,+60388889377,KetuaUnitPenyelidikan,+6088233690,DeputyPublicProsecutorSabah,
+6072232995,DeputyPublicProsecutorJohore,+60355101775,DeputyPublicProsecutorSelangor,+6082243446,DeputyPublicProsecutorSarawak,+6042285644,KetuaUnitPendakwaanPejabat,+6097447160,DeputyPublicProsecutorKelantan,+60388889562,KetuaPengarahAhmadSaidHamdanDatoHj,+60388889560,TimbalanKetuaPengarahIAbuKassimMohamed,+60388889558,TimbalanKetuaPengarahIIZakariaHjJaffarDatoHj,+60388889489,PengarahMohdShukriAbdullHj,+60388889536,MohamadHidayatAliOmar,
+60388889527,PengarahShamsunBaharinMohdJamil,+60388889552,PengarahNordinHasssan,+60388889508,PengarahShaharuddinKhalid,+60388889545,PengarahChuahChangMan,+60388889568,PengarahSutinahSutanHjh,+60388893064,PengarahAhmadSabriMohamed,+60362016197,PengarahRRathakirushnan,

LET ME END MY COMMENT WITH A FINAL JOKE ON JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ! WHEN ZAINON APPROVED THAT RIDICULOUS ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, SHE TOLD MR DAVID HOH (my wife's counsel) "that if your client does not like it, he can appeal, my decision". CAN YOU IMAGINE THE ABSOLUTE HILARITY OF THIS COMMENT ? The appeal process requires the respondents(being the party who are dissatisfied with the award of RM.60,000, when they applied for security for costs of RM.650,000 to prove just one document, the non existent company resolution) which should be in their possession, since they are managing the company),to appeal the quantum of the award of security for costs. My wife was happy to pay the security for costs of Rm.60,000). The logic requires respondents to appeal not my wife ! JESUS !
This shows very positively that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali does not even know what the appeal process mean, whatsoever. This is the level of competance OR MORE CORRECTLY TO SAY THE LACK OF COMPETENCE OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI. SUCH A GLARING IGNORANCE OF A BIT OF TRIVIA ! She does not know what the Appeal Process mean and she is a judge of the Court of Appeal. In these days of electronic wonderment at the click of the mouse, NO ONE CAN HIDE THEIR SINS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SECRETS that can remain secrets. Zainon thought she could hide my wife's claim in the Malaysian graveyard of appeals that can never see the light of day, but she is wrong; SHE HAS BEEN COUFHT OUT, the question is whether all of you listed herein will ENFOREC THE LAW or more likely WILL YOU CONTINUE TO PROTECT CRIMINALS AND UNCONVICTED CRIMINALS. The respondents perjured, forged documents, fabricated documents and conspired to pervert the course of justice and the law; and you AUGUST JUDGES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE JUDICIARY WILL AID AND ABET THE PERPETRATION OF CRIMES AGAINST PROVISIONS OF THE PENAL CODE ?

DO YOU 49 JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL FRATERNITY WILL AID AND ABET THE PERPETRATION OF CRIMES ! yOU ARE A FUNNY LOT !

yapchongyee@gmail.com Blog : Http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

JUDICIAL EXPOSE' J

YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
TO, Dato Mohd. Raus Shriff; Judge Manager,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I wish to express my thanks to you, Dato Mohd. Raus Shriff for being very accommodating on the two or three occassions that I was fortunate to speak to you. In our discussions I had argued that Judge Zainon's 2nd order for striking out my wife's petition was illegal and made in abuse of her powers. She having made her 1 st order for security for costs CANNOT again go on to approve a 2nd order for striking out because the two orders are conflicting ones and the existence of one CANCELS OUT THE OTHER LOGICALLY. For the two to exist at the same time makes NONSENSE of decision. The most important point that developed upon respondents ACCEPTANCE OF MY WIFE'S PAYMENT OF RM.60,000 towards providing said security for costs pursuant to Judge Zainon's order IS THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF A DE FACTO CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENTS ON ONE SIDE AND PETITIONER ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PETITION. This de facto contract binds respondents upon accptance to go to trial of the issues of said petition.
In these circumstances, I hold the order for striking out as illegal, unlawful and void absolutely. I had forbiddened Mr David Hoh from making an appeal but he had gone on to file an appeal disregarding my instructions. However, I have decided to act in a most unconventional manner; and I intend to take on Judge Zainonin a free for all bar fight. I shall vocally charge judge Zainon in public foyer or open court of the High Court in KL. My intention is to have Judge Zainon defend her reputation in court, a one on one in Court.My criminal charges against Judge Zainon will be for the following : (1)conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (2)obstrating a police officer from properly conducting a police investigation (3)conspiracy to obtain money undr false pretences (4)aiding & abetting perjury & forgery (5)abuse of judicial powers (6) MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE...and more.
I am still trying to understand what form of pervertion lurks in the mnd of Judge Zainon in this situation, Respondents Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon all perjured in their supporting affidavits and Lim Cheng Ban submitted forged and fabricated documents and when Petitioner applied for leave to cross examine the respondents for perjury & forgery, Judge Zainon refused leave for Petitioner to cross examine, while at the same time she stopped police officer Inspector Fawzi of Balai Polis Jln Tun HS Lee from conducting his investigation into both Petitioner's and my 2 police reports charging said respondents for perjury & forgery. Judge told Inspector Fawzi that he can investigate only after the trial of the said petition, but after the petition was struck off Judge Zainon did not instruct Insp. Fawzi to RESUMME HIS POLICE INVESTIGATION. Is this not OBSTRUCTION on the part of Judge Zainon to stop police investigation ? I WANT TO ASK JUDGE ZAINON WHY PETITIONER IS NOT ALLOWED TO PROVE THAT RESPONDENTS PERPETRATED PERJURY & FORGERY ? Is this not hindering the court process in favour of respondents ?
I am now laying my game plan and nothing more; I demand that Judge Zainon repair the damage she had done to stop Insp. Fawzi from performing his police duties. I want Judge Zainon to keep her word that my wife's and mine 3 police reports be investigated as was represented by Judge Zainon when she alledged to Insp. Fawzi that he could resume his police investigation after the trial of said Petition. My purpose in perpetrating my unconventional method is to obtain maximum bad publicity for the reputation of Judge Zainon if Insp. Fawzi is not given the opportunity to resume his police duties. Judge zainnon had unlawfully helped his friends who are the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen, because these 2 respondents are friends of Mr Vincent Tan who was/is a friend of Chief Justice Tun Fairoz. It is my belief that UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE was brought to bear to cause Judge Zainon to throw out my wife's Petition "with the bath water; because no judge in her right mind would have done what Judge Zainon had done in all innocence. She has unfinished business and that is to keep her word that police investigation will resume AFTER THE CASE IS DISPOSED OFF AS IT IS HERE.
The police investigation is the most simple to achieve the required positive results, I had in an earlier post STATED PLAINLY THAT the supporting affidavit of Stephen Lim CANNOT, by its very nature itself, be DEEMED to be EVIDENCE in any shape or form ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, because (even if they are not fabricated AND THEY ARE IN FACT FABRICATION) as stated even if they are not fabrication, THEY CANNOT, in the form as exhibited, in Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit, ACHIEVE THE ALLEDGED TRANSFER OF MY WIFE'S ALLEDGED NON EXISTENT share holding (because my wife held only the one promoter's share that had no share certificate, and that being the case her share CANNOT BE TRANSFERED FOR LACK OF A SHARE CERTIFICATE ); WHAT WAS SWORN AS FACT IN STEPHEN LIM'S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT WAS PERJURY. POLICE INVESTIGATION WILL BE COMPLETE BY THE MERE DETERMINATION IF CERTIFICATE "2" & "4" AS ALLEDGED BY STEPHEN LIM TO BE THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING MY WIFE'S SHARE HOLDING IN SAID COMPANY. IF CERTIFICATE 2 & 4 CAN BE PROVEN TO EXIST THEN MY WIFE AND I HAVE PERJURED, IF NOT THEN IT IS NAUGHT ! If as alledged by Stephen Lim, certificate 2 & 4 can be proven to exist, then RESPONDENTS WILL HAVE PROVEN THEIR CASE. If certificate No. 2 & 4 exist then by the requirements of the Company's Act, RESPONDENTS MUST HAVE THEM IN THEIR POSSESSION BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME, because a transfer of a share in a registered company is by surrendering the share certificate to be transfered accompanied with the share transfer form duly completed by the vendor FOR CANCELLATION, in exchange for a freshly issued replacement share certificate with a new certificate number ISSUED TO THE PURCHASER AND NEW HOLDER OF THAT SHARE SOLD. IT IS THAT SIMPLE !
"Judge Zainon "broke it", Judge Zainon fix it ! This is how I SHAME THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA. The Order for strike-out is illegal and an abuse of judicial powers of Zainon; hence it is void. That leaves the order for security for costs that had been fully complied with by my wife's payment of RM.60,000 and duly accepted by respondents WITHOUT ANY CONDITION WHATSOEVER ! Here is where the SHAME OF THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA LIES, it is conceptually the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA THAT NOW HOLDS MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS (not the respondents' solicitors because that sum is by normal practise paid INTO COURT and it was not only by the order of Judge Zainon). The High Court cannot disburse the RM60,000 because there was no trial and hence respondents CANNOT GENERATE A VALID BILL OF COSTS TO BE TAXED ! Petitioner will not accept RETURN OF SAID RM60,000 (NOW RM.80,000) because there is no order TO FUCKING SET ASIDE THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. THE SHAME TO THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA IS THAT THE COURT PROCESS HAS BEEN HELD HOSTAGE BY AN ILLEGAL & UNLAWFUL & SHAMEFUL ILLITERATE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT ! HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA IS CAUGHT IN A QUAKMIRE; because it was brought about by a judge of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia who is a LAW ILLITERATE !

I & my wife are HARD UP FOR THE RETURN OF OUR RM,80,000, but to shame the High Court of Malaysia, we decided that it is more than worth its weight in gold for the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA TO RETAIN OUR HARD UP MONEY (which we borrowed)and be known to be HOLDING MONEY THAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED UNDER DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES ! Under False Pretences ? To my mind, and I discussed this with dato Mohd. Raus Shriff, THERE IS ONLY ONE COURSE OPEN TO THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA, and that is to ORDER A POLICE INVESTIGATION OF STEPHEN LIM'S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT FOR PERJURY & FORGERY AMONG OTHER CRIMES. Let me assure you, they are forgery ! and after prosecution of Stephen Lim, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon for their crimes, THEN PETITIONER WILL TAKE JUDGEMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR DEFENCE ! THIS IS THE LAW AND WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE. High Court of Malaysia KEEP OUR RM80,000 AND LIVE WITH YOUR SHAME ! This letter will go out as fax to 380 legal practitioners in KL & Selangor AND TO 49 SENIOR JUDGES AND COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES (including Judge Zainon for laughs! ), Public Prosecutors, MACC directors etc.. Hey ! High Court of Malaysia you are illegally retaining STOLEN MONEY ! SHAME !
+60388884522,ChiefJusticeTanSriZakiAzmi,+60388884522,AppealsCourtPresidentTanSriAlauddinMohdSheriff,+60388884522,DatoZainonbintiMohdAli,+60388884522,ChiefJudgeofMalayaDatukArifinZakaria,+60388884522,DatukZulkefliAhmadMakinudinFederalCourtJudge,+60388889362,TunAbdulHamidMohamad,+60823115515,TanSriSteveShimLipKiong,+60823115515,DatukAmir,+6082313400,ClementAllenSkinner,+6082313400,LauBeeLan,+60388884522,TanSriLCVohrah,+60388884522,DatukSeriAinumMohdSaaid,+0892214436,ChiefJusticeWA,

Monday, October 12, 2009

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Monday, March 23, 2009

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Blog Archive