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
Monday, March 23, 2009
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,
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,
Sunday, March 15, 2009
JUDICIAL EXPOSE' I
YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.comDear Sir, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, Chairman Judicial Appointments Commission, Dated 17/Feb.,?2009 Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.To Editor of Malaysians unplugged, Re : Comments to article on the dismal performance of J Commissioner Ridswan. My comments that are stated here will also be the same one that I will fax to 46 Judges, Prosecutors and anti-corruption senior officers. If J. Commissioner Ridswan can be sacked for such obvious lack of knowledge of the law as a judge then will this call for the sacking of any such similar cases of judges who have demonstrated a similar gross lack of learning of the law be also sacked for the same reason ? It does not take an Einstein to appreciate that a judge of any high court of any nation has to be a person who is well versed in the law and that only such learned lawyer deserves to serve at the highest level of the judiciary. In Malaysia, judges who have just a mere and very elementary knowledge of the law do get appointed to the bench at the highest level and in most of these cases, it is more acceptable to their ego to be known to be corrupt than to be discovered to be fools on the bench. It is not too difficult to understand why cases in our courts take on an average 10 years to 15 years to end and in most of the cases there is found to be miscarriage of justice and the law. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IF THE LAW IS MISAPPLIED ! Judges upon appointment to the bench TAKE AN OATH of office and affirm that they shall carry out the enforcement of the law without fear or favour; and by the oath if they are discovered to be acting with intention to pervert the course of the law, then by their oath they must be found to be in breach and therefore must by law be dismissed ! Why has the contract of this errant judge been extended ? Do the oath of a judge to observe and enforce the law not mean anything to the Chief Justice ? This is what the state of the law has become, even the Chief Justice can aid and abet the abuse of power of one of his judges and be rewarded for acting with obvious disrespect for the law and to serve both a narrow and partisan interests. This is not an honest to goodness administration of the law; this is in fact a joke ! I too have the misfortune to be the victim of another errant judge of the High Court of Malaysia and now she sits on the bench of the Court of Appeal; her name is Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Court of Appeal. She too like this judge Ridsawn, had disrespected the law and abused her powers as a judge. She approved to the respondents of my wife’s Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001;Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. A order for security for costs and when my wife had paid the sum of RM.60,000 into the hands of respondents’ lawyers as pursuant to her order for security; JUDGE Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went promptly on further to approve to respondents a 2nd and conflicting order to strike out petition. This 2nd order for striking out was made even without a preceding order to set aside the 1st order for security for costs. Therefore, as a consequence the RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE’S RM. 80,000 (being original Rm.60,000 plus at 5% interests accruing to reach now at Rm.80,000). Money which I borrowed from my daughters at 30% interest per year compound. Here is another case of a judge who is an illiterate in the law because approving both a order for security for costs and then to follow up with another order for striking out (without having cancelled the 1st order for security for costs) is like HAVING THE CAKE AND EATING IT TOO. A judge at the highest level of judicial office who does not know the simple mechanics of the judicial process IS NOW SITTING ON THE BENCH OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL, is this not SCARRY to you ? I will come to the High Court in KL to confront Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as having committed the several offences : (1) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, (2)Malfeasance in office (3)co-conspirator to respondents OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES (4)Abuse of judicial powers and many others; anyway these few should by law put Judge Zainon away in prison for a very long time. I have on many occasion tried to provoke Judge Zainon to sue me in Perth but that is not going to happen because our judges in Perth are honourable men of impeccable learning and ethical beyond question. I fear to take action against Judge Zainon in Malaysia because the judges there are of questionable ethical standing and learning of the law; I will most likely be thrown into jail under a detention order under the ISA. NOT WISE ! However I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali if I can be assured by Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff, to whom I had on 3 occasions discussed my case against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I find that Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff a reasonable and accommodating man. I TOLD JUDGE MOHD. DARIUS SHARIFF that it is absolute nonsense that my wife’s case should be struck out, when the process had reached the stage when our counsel Mr David Hoh had attended 2 appointments for CASE MANAGEMENT ! HOW COULD JUDGE STRIKE OUT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES; and in addition other more damaging issues against her striking out exist as well. As I said I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon IF JUDGE MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF WILL ASSURE ME THAT NO SUCH DETENTION UNDER THE ISA WILL ISSUE AGAINNST ME FOR DISPARAGEMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON. I will come to KL and repeat my criminal charges against Judge Zainon and the Judge will have cause to charge me under the criminal defamation law and we will then fight it out in court. NO ISA DETENTION PLEASE ! YAPCHONGYEE
JUDGES OF MALAYSIA'S HIGH COURT & COURT OF APPEAL+60388803724,TanSriAlauddinMohdSheriff,+60388803724,DatoArifinZakaria,+60388803724,TanSriRichardmalajum,+60388803724,DatoZulkefliAhmadMakinudin,+60388803724,TunAbdulHamidMohamad,+60388803724,TanSriSteveShimLipKiong,+60388803724,TanSriLCVohrah,+60388803724,DatoSriAinumMohdSaaid,+60388803724,DatoMohddariusShariff,+60388803724,DatoJamesFoong,+60388803724,JusticeMohamadAriffYusof, Email :ychongyee@yahoo.com.au Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
JUDGES OF MALAYSIA'S HIGH COURT & COURT OF APPEAL+60388803724,TanSriAlauddinMohdSheriff,+60388803724,DatoArifinZakaria,+60388803724,TanSriRichardmalajum,+60388803724,DatoZulkefliAhmadMakinudin,+60388803724,TunAbdulHamidMohamad,+60388803724,TanSriSteveShimLipKiong,+60388803724,TanSriLCVohrah,+60388803724,DatoSriAinumMohdSaaid,+60388803724,DatoMohddariusShariff,+60388803724,DatoJamesFoong,+60388803724,JusticeMohamadAriffYusof, Email :ychongyee@yahoo.com.au Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
JUDICIAL EXPOSE' G(1B)
Judicial Expose' G(1b)
YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Dear Sir, Ketua Pengarah Ahmad Said Hamdan Dato Hj Dated 23 /Feb.,2009
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
This morning I received again a copy of covering letter enclosing, appeal papers, described as per :
Dalam Makamah Rayuan Sivil No: W-02-612-2006
(Makamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Guaman Sivil No: D2-26_41-2001)
Lim Choi Yin -v_ McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. & 5 Lagi
I fear the only words that I can read is the title of the petition; WELL I SUPPOSE THE JOKES ON ME. No matter, I had forbiddened Mr David Hoh to appeal that SHAMEFUL order for striking out in the 2 CONFLICTING ORDERS THAT WERE APPROVED BY JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI in a fit of rage by Dato Zainon to wreak revenge on me for reporting her to the former Chief Justice Tun Fairoz; but alas her learning of the law was so inadequate that she did not know that she had acted criminally and incriminating herself in the breach of several criminal offences in so doing. A judge of the Court of Appeal, who does not know enough law TO SAVE HER OWN LIFE. The one criminal offence that I like best is the fact that in her absolute illiteracy of the law, SHE APPROVED STEPHEN LIM'S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT THAT WERE IN FACT AND IN LAW OF EVIDENCE AMOUNTED TO A PILE OF DOG SHIT, just bloody ordinary toilet paper. No lawyer, not even one who may have been trained in Malaysia, can accept as evidence, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's affidavit (the alleged company share transfer (forgery) forms were not stamped and the alledged share certificates allegedly said by Stephen Lim to be share certificate No. 02 and 04 were not annexed to his supporting affidavit as exhibits ). Obviously judge Zainon thought she could accept tham as evidence even though she must have known that they were utter trash, and her errant action here IS EVIDENCE THAT SHE INTENTIONALLY ADMITTED TRASH AS EVIDENCE and this serves as evidence that Judge Zainon KNEW THAT SHE WAS PARTICIPATING IN A CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND THE LAW. I had submitted in my many fax letters exposing Judge Dato Zainon's UTTER ILLITERACY OF THE LAW & her actions amounted in law to her participation in the respondents' conspiracy to commit fraud, perverting the course of justice and the law, that by her actions she participated in a conspiracy to commit FORGERY AND PERJURY and by her actions she had pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences; and by lord almighty, SHE IS A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEAL BENCH. "SHAME OR NOT ?"
I can see with sniggers and glee that Judge had no idea what she was doing on the Bench of the High Court adjudicating my wife's Petition. A Judge who has no idea what the difference is between "ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS" and an "ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT" is a danger to society. Hey Judge the difference is, in one order it is the 'front face of the coin" and the other is the "arse hole of the coin"; they do not look the same BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 SIDES OF THE SAME COIN and a judge who knows her law will know that you, JUDGE ZAINON CAN ONLY BUT APPROVE ONE ORDER OR THE OTHER ORDER, but not two fucking orders together and at the same time ! It is best expressed as a math equation thus (-) + ( +) = 0 Hey Judge Zainon your 2 opposing order equals a big fat ZERO like your head, knock your head with a piece of metal and you get the noise "PING" ! JUDGE ZAINON ! YOU STILL GOT MY WIFE'S RM60,000 PLUS RM20,000 INTEREST ACCRUED !
I want everyone to know that Mr David Hoh, counsel for my wife had kept himself incommunicado for 3 years, AND THAT MY WIFE HAD NOT AT ANYTIME received any of Dato zainon's JUDGMENT for the 2 conflicting orders; and that in spite of my countless request made to Mr David Hoh to send to me a copy of Judge Zainon's judgment, I nor my wife had ever received any such judgment. I have no idea what are the grounds of Mr David Hoh's appeal and I do not know what were the grounds for Judge Zainon's audacious approval for striking out, my wife's petition BECAUSE I DEARLY WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR CONTENT TO ALL MALAYSIAN PRACTICING LAWYERS, so they can know the quality of Judge Zainon's knowlege of the law or indeed the lack of it. DAVID HOH I WNT YOU TO SEND TO ME JUDGE ZAINON'S JUDGMENT SO I CAN FAX THEM TO THE PUBLIC for a hoot and a belly aching laugh !
YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Dear Sir, Ketua Pengarah Ahmad Said Hamdan Dato Hj Dated 23 /Feb.,2009
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
This morning I received again a copy of covering letter enclosing, appeal papers, described as per :
Dalam Makamah Rayuan Sivil No: W-02-612-2006
(Makamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Guaman Sivil No: D2-26_41-2001)
Lim Choi Yin -v_ McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. & 5 Lagi
I fear the only words that I can read is the title of the petition; WELL I SUPPOSE THE JOKES ON ME. No matter, I had forbiddened Mr David Hoh to appeal that SHAMEFUL order for striking out in the 2 CONFLICTING ORDERS THAT WERE APPROVED BY JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI in a fit of rage by Dato Zainon to wreak revenge on me for reporting her to the former Chief Justice Tun Fairoz; but alas her learning of the law was so inadequate that she did not know that she had acted criminally and incriminating herself in the breach of several criminal offences in so doing. A judge of the Court of Appeal, who does not know enough law TO SAVE HER OWN LIFE. The one criminal offence that I like best is the fact that in her absolute illiteracy of the law, SHE APPROVED STEPHEN LIM'S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT THAT WERE IN FACT AND IN LAW OF EVIDENCE AMOUNTED TO A PILE OF DOG SHIT, just bloody ordinary toilet paper. No lawyer, not even one who may have been trained in Malaysia, can accept as evidence, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's affidavit (the alleged company share transfer (forgery) forms were not stamped and the alledged share certificates allegedly said by Stephen Lim to be share certificate No. 02 and 04 were not annexed to his supporting affidavit as exhibits ). Obviously judge Zainon thought she could accept tham as evidence even though she must have known that they were utter trash, and her errant action here IS EVIDENCE THAT SHE INTENTIONALLY ADMITTED TRASH AS EVIDENCE and this serves as evidence that Judge Zainon KNEW THAT SHE WAS PARTICIPATING IN A CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND THE LAW. I had submitted in my many fax letters exposing Judge Dato Zainon's UTTER ILLITERACY OF THE LAW & her actions amounted in law to her participation in the respondents' conspiracy to commit fraud, perverting the course of justice and the law, that by her actions she participated in a conspiracy to commit FORGERY AND PERJURY and by her actions she had pro-actively participated in a conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences; and by lord almighty, SHE IS A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEAL BENCH. "SHAME OR NOT ?"
I can see with sniggers and glee that Judge had no idea what she was doing on the Bench of the High Court adjudicating my wife's Petition. A Judge who has no idea what the difference is between "ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS" and an "ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT" is a danger to society. Hey Judge the difference is, in one order it is the 'front face of the coin" and the other is the "arse hole of the coin"; they do not look the same BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 SIDES OF THE SAME COIN and a judge who knows her law will know that you, JUDGE ZAINON CAN ONLY BUT APPROVE ONE ORDER OR THE OTHER ORDER, but not two fucking orders together and at the same time ! It is best expressed as a math equation thus (-) + ( +) = 0 Hey Judge Zainon your 2 opposing order equals a big fat ZERO like your head, knock your head with a piece of metal and you get the noise "PING" ! JUDGE ZAINON ! YOU STILL GOT MY WIFE'S RM60,000 PLUS RM20,000 INTEREST ACCRUED !
I want everyone to know that Mr David Hoh, counsel for my wife had kept himself incommunicado for 3 years, AND THAT MY WIFE HAD NOT AT ANYTIME received any of Dato zainon's JUDGMENT for the 2 conflicting orders; and that in spite of my countless request made to Mr David Hoh to send to me a copy of Judge Zainon's judgment, I nor my wife had ever received any such judgment. I have no idea what are the grounds of Mr David Hoh's appeal and I do not know what were the grounds for Judge Zainon's audacious approval for striking out, my wife's petition BECAUSE I DEARLY WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR CONTENT TO ALL MALAYSIAN PRACTICING LAWYERS, so they can know the quality of Judge Zainon's knowlege of the law or indeed the lack of it. DAVID HOH I WNT YOU TO SEND TO ME JUDGE ZAINON'S JUDGMENT SO I CAN FAX THEM TO THE PUBLIC for a hoot and a belly aching laugh !
JUDICIAL EXPOSE' G
YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com. Dated Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd Dear Tan Sri Zaki Azmi,Chairman Judicial Appointments CommissionI have written to you many times complaining the criminal conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, but you have never ever replied nor even so much as acknowledged receipt of my letters. I have written to you officially and it is only normal courtesy that you at least reply to my letters as Chief Justice to my complaint that charges one of your senior Judges with criminal conduct. Do you not respect the dignity of your office as the Chief Justice of Malaysia ? Do you not want to prosecute me for publicly charging (because I fax all my letters to all legal practitioners in KL)one of your senior judges, Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of your COURT OF APPEAL with having committed several serious criminal offences like aidding & abetting Perjury, Forgery and fabricating documents etc. ? I too graduated law from the University of Singapore in 1967 and practised law in Malaysia. I just want you to know that I am no crank ! I have spoken to your Judge Manager Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff on the same complaint. My wife filed an application to wind up her company but respondents PERJURED & FABRICATED DOCUMENTS and my wife was refused her application for leave to cross examine respondents ALTHOUGHT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT RESPONDENTS HAD LIED AND FABRICATED DOCUMENTS; I can prove this charge if I am allowed opportunity to prove they fabricated those documents. My complaint is very simple, we(wife & I ) are naturalised Australians and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had APPROVED TO RESPONDENTS SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000 AND MY WIFE PAID THIS SECURITY FOR COSTS INTO RESPONDENTS HANDS by the terms of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order (not into court as normal, IS THIS NORMAL IN MALAYSIA ?). The respondents after having received said RM 60,000, went on to apply for a 2nd order to strike out said petition AND BY THE BEARD OF JESUS, JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI APPROVED RESPONDNTS 2nd APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT EVEN BEFORE ANY APPLICATION HAD BEEN MADE TO SET ASIDE HER FIRST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. No Order to set aside Judge Zainon’s 1st Order for security for costs was ever made. Just like the politics of Perak there are now two valid and OPPOSING ORDERS; never in the history of the English Common Law had there been a JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RANK to have approved an order for security for costs and then go on and approved a 2nd order to strike out. This is awfully shameful ! Quite apart from such NONSENSE, Judge has caused the respondents to retain illegally and unlawfully my RM.80,000 (Rm.60,000 capital plus RM.20,000 interest accruing up until now. I am a retiree and I borrowed this security for costs from my daughter at 30% interest/year compound. It is just nonsense that Judge is allowed to keep my money after having struck out our petition. I have spoken to Dato Mohd. Raus Shriff of my complaint twice on his hand phone. I told him as I tell you that it is just nonsense to ask me to sit on my hands loosing this RM80,000 at 73 years old and soon to meet my maker, What do you expect me to accept that this RM,80,000 is most likely to be shared by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali M/s Lim & Hoh (my wife/s solicitors,) and M/s Annad Noraini, Solicitors for resondents). Do you not have sufficient respect for the Malaysian Judiciaryto want to protect the reputation of Malaysia ? I call Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali AN UNCONVICTED CRIMINAL. WANT TO EXTRADICT ME ON A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR BREACH OF CRIMINAL DEFAMATION ACT ? My defense is TRUTH !
Copy :Malaysian Insider, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Datuk Arifin Zakaria and Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Judge Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong,Tan Sri L.C. Vohrah, Datuk Seri Ainum Mohd Saaid. Dato Mohd. Darus Shariff, Dato James Foong.
Copy :Malaysian Insider, Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Datuk Arifin Zakaria and Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Judge Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong,Tan Sri L.C. Vohrah, Datuk Seri Ainum Mohd Saaid. Dato Mohd. Darus Shariff, Dato James Foong.
JUDICIAL EXPOSE'
YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com12:17 PM 16/01/2009
TO,
DEAR Dato Mohd. Rause Shariff,
Dato James Choong,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I spoke to Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff, Judge Manager, this morning and discussed my letter Judicial Expose' (special A ), but Judge Manager Dato James Foong dared not take my call and his secretary told me to refer the matter to the Chief Justice, that is as good as saying "forget it", because I had on several occassions tried to talk to the Chief Justice on the phone but C J Tan Sri Zaki just RAN AWAY and I wrote to him and drew no response whatsoever.
The most imporatant issue that was argued in my letter (judicial Expose A, and the issue that I raised in this discussion with Dato Mohd. Rause on the phone was the issue that I charged Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MALFEASANCE in APPROVING STEPHEN LIM'S APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION AFTER STEPHEN LIM HAD ACCEPTED MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60.000 and no Order was ever applied nor did Dato Zainon ever made any order to set aside HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS The rationale for making my charge against Dato Zainon for breach of Malfeasance was the acceptance by all respondents of said SECURITY FOR COSTS. This acceptance finalised a de facto contract for all the litigants to go to trial on the petition. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES JUDGE ZAINON'S APPROVAL FOR STRIKING OUT caused her to breach the criminal offence of Malfeasance, BECAUSE BY HER STRIKING OUT SHE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE BREACH OF THIS de facto contract by Stephen Lim. Zainon's Order to strike out had SET STEPHEN LIM FROM HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION and this Order to strike out had PROTECTED Stephen Lim from his breach of this contract. In addition Dato Zainon on these facts had PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and conspiracy to obstruct police investigation by her instruction not to investigate my 3 police reports charging Respondents with PERJURY & FORGERY.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT Dato Zainon is still retaining Rm.60,000, money that was obtained under false pretences and Dato Zainon HAD PARTICIPATED IN OBTAINING SECURITY FOR COSTS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.
Dato Mohd. Raus 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, HAVING ACCEPTED HIS
SHARE OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, WENT ON TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT. THIS IS NONSENSE, in 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 any 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.
Dato Mohd. Rause asked me to have Mr David Hoh call on him, and this morning I had tried on 3 occassions to contact Mr David Hoh or his father (senior Partner) Mr Frank Hoh but on all 3 occassions I was told they were not available. I had also mentioned to Dato Rause that Lim & Hoh will not and have not responded on all attempts to contact them.
I had suggested that I will attend the meeting with him for an appointment to be finalised; and it was agreed that I go to KL for this meeting. I WISH TO THANK DATO MOHD. RAUSE FOR AGREEING TO GIVE ME HIS TIME ON THIS ISSUE.
I had attempted to contact Mr David or Mr Frank to confirm that up to today NO COURT ORDER IS/HAS BEEN EXTRACTED TO ORDER THE STRIKING OUT OF MY WIFE'S PETITION. I have received from Mr David Hoh copy of letter to M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors for Stephen Lim) ASKING THEM TO APPROVE MR DAVID HOH'S DRAFT FOR AN ORDER BUT UP TILL TODAY (2 YEARS FROM ALLEDGED ORDER TO STRIKE OUT) No Order to strike out has been sent to me or my wife. DOES IT MEAN THAT NO ORDER TO STRIKE OUT WAS EVER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? It was for this reason that I had made 3 attempts to contact M/s Lim & Hoh to find out but drew no response; therefore my meeting with Dato Mohd. Rause will be discussed on this basis.
It is ridiculous and laughable that more than 2 or 3 years have passed since it was alledged by our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh that my wife's Petition had been struck off and no ORDER FOR THE STRUCKING OUT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED. Is it because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali IS TOO EMBARRASSED HAVING APPROVED THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, in such dubious circumstances and that the order to strike out will show her up to be ignorant of the law and a law illiterate ?
I WANT DATO MOHD. RAUSE TO KNOW THAT DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT INCLUDES HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE AND THAT SHE STILL ILLEGALLY RETAINS MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000 INTEREST ACCRUED SINCE PAYMENT MADE.IS THIS NOT ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW by a Judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal; you do not need to be a lawyer to know that it is BLOODY CRAZY AND LAW ILLITERATE TO RETAIN SECURITY FOR COSTS WHEN ZAINON HAS STRUCK OUT ! WHERE IS THE TRIAL TO DISBURSE THE SECURITY FOR COSTS ? CAN RESPONDENTS CREATE A BILL OF COSTS TO BE TAXED IN THE ABSENSE OF ANY TRIAL ?
HERE IS MY DILEMMA ! Is Dato Mohd Raus serious to want to solve this obvious embarrassment to the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA in a case that arises from the obvious CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? I say it is prudent to be cautious, I HAD RAISE MY DOUBTS BY ASKING IF HE WILL PUT AN I. S. A. order of detantion on me to muzzle me from exposing the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon.
What has to be discussed if I meet with Dato Mohd. Raus to solve this embarasment ? (a)To set aside Zainon's illegal order to strike out, I will have to depose to Judge Zainon's criminal conduct in my supporting affidavit; WHICH MEANS THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON MUST FOLLOW,
(b)My solution is to ORDER THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS, as normally required by LAW, that were annexed to my wife's supporting affidavit, WHICH POLICE INVESTIGATION WAS KILLED OFF BY JUDGE ZAINON'S INSTRUCTION TO INSPECTOR FAWZI NOT TO INVESTIGATE. My charge that documents exhibited by Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit alledging them to be true documents ARE ALL FORGERIES AND ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN HIS SAID AFFIDAVIT WERE PERJURED; therefore police investigations will prove this ! THAT BEING THE CASE RESPONDENTS STEPHEN LIM, WONG KEM CHEN, AND KWONG SEA YOON WILL BE PROSECUTED ON THE ABOVE CRIMINAL CHARGES. The conviction of these 3 respondents WILL FORM THE GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION on the grounds that Judge Zainon's illegaal order to strike out was obtained by Stephen Lim by fraud My solution WILL SAVE DATO ZAINON FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND EMBRASSMENT.
If Dato Mohd. Raus is serious TO WANT TO SOLVE THIS EMBRASSMENT TO THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA, THEN HE DOES NOT NEED ME TO ATTEND HIM IN K.L. HE CAN INSTRUCT POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS. WILL DATO RAUS DO THIS OR IS IT MY ATTENDANCE IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE SERVICE ON ME OF A POSSIBLE ISA DETANTION ORDER ? However, caution is the better part of valour ! I think I will wait for the new government that will be formed by Pakatan Rakyat and being a NEW BROOM THE AG OF A PAKATAN RAKYAT GOVERNMENT WILL BE MORE RECEPTIVE TO ENFORCING THE LAW.
I sincerely THANK Dato Mohd. Raus for his kind response, but I will wait for the next government of Pakatan Rakyat to come to KL and to sue Judge Zainnon binti Mohd Ali, the firm of M/s Lim & Hoh for professional negligence for not opposing Stephen Lim's application for striking out petition in the circumstances, to sue M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors) for pro-active participation in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. conspiracy to fabricate evidence by forgery and perjury, participate in a conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and conspiracy to retain stolen money obtained by false pretences.
Copy : President of Bar Council, Chief Justice of Malaysia, Judge Managers, Dato Mohd. Raus, Dato James Foong, Dato Zainon and 500 lawyers in KL randomly selected with FAX NUMBERS.
TO,
DEAR Dato Mohd. Rause Shariff,
Dato James Choong,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I spoke to Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff, Judge Manager, this morning and discussed my letter Judicial Expose' (special A ), but Judge Manager Dato James Foong dared not take my call and his secretary told me to refer the matter to the Chief Justice, that is as good as saying "forget it", because I had on several occassions tried to talk to the Chief Justice on the phone but C J Tan Sri Zaki just RAN AWAY and I wrote to him and drew no response whatsoever.
The most imporatant issue that was argued in my letter (judicial Expose A, and the issue that I raised in this discussion with Dato Mohd. Rause on the phone was the issue that I charged Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MALFEASANCE in APPROVING STEPHEN LIM'S APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION AFTER STEPHEN LIM HAD ACCEPTED MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60.000 and no Order was ever applied nor did Dato Zainon ever made any order to set aside HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS The rationale for making my charge against Dato Zainon for breach of Malfeasance was the acceptance by all respondents of said SECURITY FOR COSTS. This acceptance finalised a de facto contract for all the litigants to go to trial on the petition. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES JUDGE ZAINON'S APPROVAL FOR STRIKING OUT caused her to breach the criminal offence of Malfeasance, BECAUSE BY HER STRIKING OUT SHE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE BREACH OF THIS de facto contract by Stephen Lim. Zainon's Order to strike out had SET STEPHEN LIM FROM HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION and this Order to strike out had PROTECTED Stephen Lim from his breach of this contract. In addition Dato Zainon on these facts had PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and conspiracy to obstruct police investigation by her instruction not to investigate my 3 police reports charging Respondents with PERJURY & FORGERY.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT Dato Zainon is still retaining Rm.60,000, money that was obtained under false pretences and Dato Zainon HAD PARTICIPATED IN OBTAINING SECURITY FOR COSTS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.
Dato Mohd. Raus 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, HAVING ACCEPTED HIS
SHARE OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, WENT ON TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT. THIS IS NONSENSE, in 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 any 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.
Dato Mohd. Rause asked me to have Mr David Hoh call on him, and this morning I had tried on 3 occassions to contact Mr David Hoh or his father (senior Partner) Mr Frank Hoh but on all 3 occassions I was told they were not available. I had also mentioned to Dato Rause that Lim & Hoh will not and have not responded on all attempts to contact them.
I had suggested that I will attend the meeting with him for an appointment to be finalised; and it was agreed that I go to KL for this meeting. I WISH TO THANK DATO MOHD. RAUSE FOR AGREEING TO GIVE ME HIS TIME ON THIS ISSUE.
I had attempted to contact Mr David or Mr Frank to confirm that up to today NO COURT ORDER IS/HAS BEEN EXTRACTED TO ORDER THE STRIKING OUT OF MY WIFE'S PETITION. I have received from Mr David Hoh copy of letter to M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors for Stephen Lim) ASKING THEM TO APPROVE MR DAVID HOH'S DRAFT FOR AN ORDER BUT UP TILL TODAY (2 YEARS FROM ALLEDGED ORDER TO STRIKE OUT) No Order to strike out has been sent to me or my wife. DOES IT MEAN THAT NO ORDER TO STRIKE OUT WAS EVER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? It was for this reason that I had made 3 attempts to contact M/s Lim & Hoh to find out but drew no response; therefore my meeting with Dato Mohd. Rause will be discussed on this basis.
It is ridiculous and laughable that more than 2 or 3 years have passed since it was alledged by our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh that my wife's Petition had been struck off and no ORDER FOR THE STRUCKING OUT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED. Is it because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali IS TOO EMBARRASSED HAVING APPROVED THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, in such dubious circumstances and that the order to strike out will show her up to be ignorant of the law and a law illiterate ?
I WANT DATO MOHD. RAUSE TO KNOW THAT DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT INCLUDES HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE AND THAT SHE STILL ILLEGALLY RETAINS MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000 INTEREST ACCRUED SINCE PAYMENT MADE.IS THIS NOT ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW by a Judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal; you do not need to be a lawyer to know that it is BLOODY CRAZY AND LAW ILLITERATE TO RETAIN SECURITY FOR COSTS WHEN ZAINON HAS STRUCK OUT ! WHERE IS THE TRIAL TO DISBURSE THE SECURITY FOR COSTS ? CAN RESPONDENTS CREATE A BILL OF COSTS TO BE TAXED IN THE ABSENSE OF ANY TRIAL ?
HERE IS MY DILEMMA ! Is Dato Mohd Raus serious to want to solve this obvious embarrassment to the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA in a case that arises from the obvious CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? I say it is prudent to be cautious, I HAD RAISE MY DOUBTS BY ASKING IF HE WILL PUT AN I. S. A. order of detantion on me to muzzle me from exposing the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon.
What has to be discussed if I meet with Dato Mohd. Raus to solve this embarasment ? (a)To set aside Zainon's illegal order to strike out, I will have to depose to Judge Zainon's criminal conduct in my supporting affidavit; WHICH MEANS THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON MUST FOLLOW,
(b)My solution is to ORDER THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS, as normally required by LAW, that were annexed to my wife's supporting affidavit, WHICH POLICE INVESTIGATION WAS KILLED OFF BY JUDGE ZAINON'S INSTRUCTION TO INSPECTOR FAWZI NOT TO INVESTIGATE. My charge that documents exhibited by Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit alledging them to be true documents ARE ALL FORGERIES AND ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN HIS SAID AFFIDAVIT WERE PERJURED; therefore police investigations will prove this ! THAT BEING THE CASE RESPONDENTS STEPHEN LIM, WONG KEM CHEN, AND KWONG SEA YOON WILL BE PROSECUTED ON THE ABOVE CRIMINAL CHARGES. The conviction of these 3 respondents WILL FORM THE GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION on the grounds that Judge Zainon's illegaal order to strike out was obtained by Stephen Lim by fraud My solution WILL SAVE DATO ZAINON FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND EMBRASSMENT.
If Dato Mohd. Raus is serious TO WANT TO SOLVE THIS EMBRASSMENT TO THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA, THEN HE DOES NOT NEED ME TO ATTEND HIM IN K.L. HE CAN INSTRUCT POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS. WILL DATO RAUS DO THIS OR IS IT MY ATTENDANCE IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE SERVICE ON ME OF A POSSIBLE ISA DETANTION ORDER ? However, caution is the better part of valour ! I think I will wait for the new government that will be formed by Pakatan Rakyat and being a NEW BROOM THE AG OF A PAKATAN RAKYAT GOVERNMENT WILL BE MORE RECEPTIVE TO ENFORCING THE LAW.
I sincerely THANK Dato Mohd. Raus for his kind response, but I will wait for the next government of Pakatan Rakyat to come to KL and to sue Judge Zainnon binti Mohd Ali, the firm of M/s Lim & Hoh for professional negligence for not opposing Stephen Lim's application for striking out petition in the circumstances, to sue M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors) for pro-active participation in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. conspiracy to fabricate evidence by forgery and perjury, participate in a conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and conspiracy to retain stolen money obtained by false pretences.
Copy : President of Bar Council, Chief Justice of Malaysia, Judge Managers, Dato Mohd. Raus, Dato James Foong, Dato Zainon and 500 lawyers in KL randomly selected with FAX NUMBERS.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored
Malaysians Unplugged UncensoredTo
Editor of Malaysians unplugged,
Re : Comments to artice on the dismal performance of J Commissioner Ridswan.
My comments that are stated here will also be the same one that I will fax to 46 Judges, Prosecutors and anti-corruption senior officers.
If J. Commissioner Ridswan can be sacked for such obvious lack of knowledge of the law as a judge then will this call for the sacking of any such similar cases of judges who have demonstrated a similar gross lack of learning of the law be also sacked for the same reason ?
It does not take an Einstein to appreciate that a judge of any high court of any nation has to be a person who is well versed in the law and that only such learned lawyer deserves to serve at the highest level of the judiciary. In Malaysia, judges who have just a mere and very elementary knowledge of the law do get appointed to the bench at the highest level and in most of these cases, it is more acceptable to their ego to be known to be corrupt than to be discovered to be fools on the bench. It is not too difficult to understand why cases in our courts take on an average 10 years to 15 years to end and in most of the cases there is found to be miscarriage of justice and the law. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IF THE LAW IS MISAPPLIED !
Judges upon appointment to the bench TAKE AN OATH of office and affirm that they shall carry out the enforcement of the law without fear or favour; and by the oath if they are discovered to be acting with intention to pervert the course of the law, then by their oath they must be found to be in breach and therefore must by law be dismissed ! Why has the contract of this errant judge been extended ? Do the oath of a judge to observe and enforce the law not mean anything to the Chief Justice ? This is what the state of the law has become, even the Chief Justice can aid and abet the abuse of power of one of his judges and be rewarded for acting with obvious disrespect for the law and to serve both a narrow and partisan interests. This is not an honest to goodness administration of the law; this is in fact a joke !
I too have the misfortune to be the victim of another errant judge of the High Court of Malaysia and now she sits on the bench of the Court of Appeal; her name is Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Court of Appeal. She too like this judge Ridsawn, had disrespected the law and abused her powers as a judge.
She approved to the respondents of my wife’s Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001;Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. A order for security for costs and when my wife had paid the sum of RM.60,000 into the hands of respondents’ lawyers as pursuant to her order for security; JUDGE Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went promptly on further to approve to respondents a 2nd and conflicting order to strike out petition. This 2nd order for striking out was made even without a preceding order to set aside the 1st order for security for costs. Therefore, as a consequence the RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE’S RM. 80,000 (being original Rm.60,000 plus at 5% interests accruing to reach now at Rm.80,000). Money which I borrowed from my daughters at 30% interest per year compound.
Here is another case of a judge who is an illiterate in the law because approving both na order for security for costs and then to follow up with another order for striking out (without having cancelled the 1st order for security for costs) is like HAVING THE CAKE AND EATING IT TOO. A judge at the highest level of judicial office who does not know the simple mechanics of the judicial process IS NOW SITTING ON THE BENCH OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL, is this not SCARRY to you ?
I will come to the High Courtthe respondents to my wife’s Originating Petition, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has committed the several offences : (1) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, (2)Malfeasance in office (3)co-conspirator to respondents OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES (4)Abuse of judicial powers and many others; anyway these few should by law put Judge Zainon away in prison for a very long time.
I have on many occasion tried to provoke Judge to sue me in Perth but that is not going to happen because our judges in Perth are honourable men of impeccable learning and ethical beyond question. I fear to take action against Judge Zainon in Malaysia because the judges there are of questionable ethical standing and learning of the law; I will be most likely be thrown into jail under a detention order under the ISA. NOT WISE !
However I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali if I can be assured by Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff, to whom I had on 3 occasions discussed my case against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I find that Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff a reasonable and accommodating man. I TOLD JUDGE MOHD. DARIUS SHARIFF that it is absolute nonsense that my wife’s case should be struck out, when the process had reached the stage when our counsel Mr David Hoh had attended 2 appointments for CASE MANAGEMENT ! HOW COULD JUDGE STRIKE OUT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES; and in addition other more damaging issues against her striking out exist as well.
As I said I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon IF JUDGE MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF WILL ASSURE ME THAT NO SUCH DETENTION UNDER THE ISA WILL ISSUE AGAINNST ME FOR DISPARAGEMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON. I will come to KL and repeat my criminal charges against Judge Zainon and the Judge will have cause to charge me under the criminal defamation law and we will then fight it out in court. NO ISA DETENTION PLEASE !
Editor of Malaysians unplugged,
Re : Comments to artice on the dismal performance of J Commissioner Ridswan.
My comments that are stated here will also be the same one that I will fax to 46 Judges, Prosecutors and anti-corruption senior officers.
If J. Commissioner Ridswan can be sacked for such obvious lack of knowledge of the law as a judge then will this call for the sacking of any such similar cases of judges who have demonstrated a similar gross lack of learning of the law be also sacked for the same reason ?
It does not take an Einstein to appreciate that a judge of any high court of any nation has to be a person who is well versed in the law and that only such learned lawyer deserves to serve at the highest level of the judiciary. In Malaysia, judges who have just a mere and very elementary knowledge of the law do get appointed to the bench at the highest level and in most of these cases, it is more acceptable to their ego to be known to be corrupt than to be discovered to be fools on the bench. It is not too difficult to understand why cases in our courts take on an average 10 years to 15 years to end and in most of the cases there is found to be miscarriage of justice and the law. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IF THE LAW IS MISAPPLIED !
Judges upon appointment to the bench TAKE AN OATH of office and affirm that they shall carry out the enforcement of the law without fear or favour; and by the oath if they are discovered to be acting with intention to pervert the course of the law, then by their oath they must be found to be in breach and therefore must by law be dismissed ! Why has the contract of this errant judge been extended ? Do the oath of a judge to observe and enforce the law not mean anything to the Chief Justice ? This is what the state of the law has become, even the Chief Justice can aid and abet the abuse of power of one of his judges and be rewarded for acting with obvious disrespect for the law and to serve both a narrow and partisan interests. This is not an honest to goodness administration of the law; this is in fact a joke !
I too have the misfortune to be the victim of another errant judge of the High Court of Malaysia and now she sits on the bench of the Court of Appeal; her name is Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Court of Appeal. She too like this judge Ridsawn, had disrespected the law and abused her powers as a judge.
She approved to the respondents of my wife’s Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001;Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (M)Sdn. Bhd. A order for security for costs and when my wife had paid the sum of RM.60,000 into the hands of respondents’ lawyers as pursuant to her order for security; JUDGE Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went promptly on further to approve to respondents a 2nd and conflicting order to strike out petition. This 2nd order for striking out was made even without a preceding order to set aside the 1st order for security for costs. Therefore, as a consequence the RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE’S RM. 80,000 (being original Rm.60,000 plus at 5% interests accruing to reach now at Rm.80,000). Money which I borrowed from my daughters at 30% interest per year compound.
Here is another case of a judge who is an illiterate in the law because approving both na order for security for costs and then to follow up with another order for striking out (without having cancelled the 1st order for security for costs) is like HAVING THE CAKE AND EATING IT TOO. A judge at the highest level of judicial office who does not know the simple mechanics of the judicial process IS NOW SITTING ON THE BENCH OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL, is this not SCARRY to you ?
I will come to the High Courtthe respondents to my wife’s Originating Petition, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has committed the several offences : (1) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, (2)Malfeasance in office (3)co-conspirator to respondents OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES (4)Abuse of judicial powers and many others; anyway these few should by law put Judge Zainon away in prison for a very long time.
I have on many occasion tried to provoke Judge to sue me in Perth but that is not going to happen because our judges in Perth are honourable men of impeccable learning and ethical beyond question. I fear to take action against Judge Zainon in Malaysia because the judges there are of questionable ethical standing and learning of the law; I will be most likely be thrown into jail under a detention order under the ISA. NOT WISE !
However I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali if I can be assured by Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff, to whom I had on 3 occasions discussed my case against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I find that Judge Mohd. Raus Shariff a reasonable and accommodating man. I TOLD JUDGE MOHD. DARIUS SHARIFF that it is absolute nonsense that my wife’s case should be struck out, when the process had reached the stage when our counsel Mr David Hoh had attended 2 appointments for CASE MANAGEMENT ! HOW COULD JUDGE STRIKE OUT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES; and in addition other more damaging issues against her striking out exist as well.
As I said I will come to KL to face off against Judge Zainon IF JUDGE MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF WILL ASSURE ME THAT NO SUCH DETENTION UNDER THE ISA WILL ISSUE AGAINNST ME FOR DISPARAGEMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON. I will come to KL and repeat my criminal charges against Judge Zainon and the Judge will have cause to charge me under the criminal defamation law and we will then fight it out in court. NO ISA DETENTION PLEASE !
Sunday, March 8, 2009
MALAYSIA SLIDING INTO UMNO DICTATORSHIP
UMNO perpetrated a coup d'tate and there is no other way to say it; only the single word COUP D'TATE ! The government of Nizar was formally constituted by elected members of Parliament and having said that, how did this elected government which was properly constituted and had operated the Perak Government prior to the coup d'tate for a year, been locked out of office ? THERE IS NO WAY TO DENY THAT NIZAR'S PROPERLY ELECTED AND LIGITIMATELY FUNCTIONING FOR A YEAR GOVERNMENT WAS LOCKED OUT OF THEIR OFFICES BOTH FIGURATIVELY AND SPEAKING PLAINLY. What would you call such a situation ? COUP D'TATE !
I would say that the Peral constitution had properly provided for such a situation. The constitution had stated that the Perak Ruler had power to appoint but there is no power to SACK the Mentri Besar; and the situation was exactly that in this on going crisis; the Sultan had no powers to sack and for that reason HE ASKED FOR THE RESIGNATION OF NIZAR WHICH HE DID NOT GET BECAUSE NIZAR WAS TOO GUTSY TO ACCEPT CAPITULATION WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND FOR THAT ALL MALAYSIANS MUST DEMONSTRATE THEIR VOTE OF THANKS TO NIZAR AND GIVE HIM 100% SUPPORT.
What do you call the REVOLT BY THE POLICE AND THE WHOLE OF PERAK STATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, if such rebellious actions is not a straight forward COUP D'TATE ? I believe every one is walking on egg shells because it was the Sultan of Perak who precipitated this constitutional crisis, when he refused to accept the CONSTITUTIONALLY AND CONVENTIONALLY MANDATED PRACTISE OF THE RULER ACCEPTING IN THESE SITUATIONS, THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIS CHIEF MINISTER. It is sheer disingenuity for the Sultan to say that he had spoken to the three government frog MPs and had duely ascertained that they WERE UMNO FRIENDLY INDEPENDANTS. I say again that Sultan Azlan Shah did not DISCHARGE HIS OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT OF THE PERAK CONSTITUTION, because the 3 defactors were from the Pakatan benches and they had campaigned on the Pakatan platform, and since they were voted into parliament on the back of a Pakatan ticket, the Sultan should have returned to the PEOPLE THE POWER TO ELECT THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE. WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE SULTAN WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG BECAUSE BY HIS ACTION HE HAD BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AN UNELECTED GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHOICE AND THAT BY ANY LANGUAGE IS COUP D'TATE.
The Sultan too is subject to the Constitution and he holds office by the powers vested in him by the Perak State constitution; and he can only act within the powers that the constitution vest in him and nothing more. What Sultan Azlan Shah did was unconstitutional and is an abuse of his powers.
I am merely spelling out in the context of the topic of this article that reality has bitten the Pakatan Rakyat, and that by showing the extent and the depth that UMNO has infected the whole of the Malaysian culture. I hope to tell the people that UMNO has clenched their IRON FIST around the Malaysian machinery of government and that UMNO will not stop to consider what their actions will do to the prestige and stature of the ROYAL HOUSEHOLD so long as they get the short term support of the Sultan. Politics is all about perception and the actions of the Perak Royal Household is not shining too bright after this imbroglio.
UMNO has no qualms about perpetrating coup d'tte if it will perpetuate their everlasting stranggle hold on power. In this context I even doubt that UMNO will care to be seen to be open and fair in the next election because aafter that election, my take is that umno will take dictatorship powers. I say this because Pakatan has already taken a stranggle hold on the people's perception that Pakatan HAS THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE. It is true that there is no going back to pre308, and that the Malaysia that will take the stage following the next general election will be formed by the Pakatan. The events that dog the Perak state government will be repeated by the intransigence of the UMNO and as I said earlier, the Malaysian political culture is distorted to the extend that the whole of the government machinery cannot think of a government that is not UMNO led.
The only way to defeat this malaise is to give Pakatan Rakyat overwhelming support, go out and tell all that you come into contact to give absolute support to the Pakatan and that if we allow the UMNO to win this time again then all is lost; THERE WILL BE NO NEXT TIME FOR AN ELECTION; Malaysia will by then be a dictatorship by UMNO ! Only a mass movement that give absolute support to the Pakatan Rakyat will save Malaysia !
REMEMBER THERE IS MORE THAN JUST THE NEED FOR reformasi ! out there! There is an urgent and dire call for PEOPLE DEFENSE FOR DEMOCRACY ! It is the final call to defend democracy by massive people power in defense of FREEDOM AND TO REPEL CREEPING DICTATORSHIP !
I would say that the Peral constitution had properly provided for such a situation. The constitution had stated that the Perak Ruler had power to appoint but there is no power to SACK the Mentri Besar; and the situation was exactly that in this on going crisis; the Sultan had no powers to sack and for that reason HE ASKED FOR THE RESIGNATION OF NIZAR WHICH HE DID NOT GET BECAUSE NIZAR WAS TOO GUTSY TO ACCEPT CAPITULATION WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND FOR THAT ALL MALAYSIANS MUST DEMONSTRATE THEIR VOTE OF THANKS TO NIZAR AND GIVE HIM 100% SUPPORT.
What do you call the REVOLT BY THE POLICE AND THE WHOLE OF PERAK STATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, if such rebellious actions is not a straight forward COUP D'TATE ? I believe every one is walking on egg shells because it was the Sultan of Perak who precipitated this constitutional crisis, when he refused to accept the CONSTITUTIONALLY AND CONVENTIONALLY MANDATED PRACTISE OF THE RULER ACCEPTING IN THESE SITUATIONS, THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIS CHIEF MINISTER. It is sheer disingenuity for the Sultan to say that he had spoken to the three government frog MPs and had duely ascertained that they WERE UMNO FRIENDLY INDEPENDANTS. I say again that Sultan Azlan Shah did not DISCHARGE HIS OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT OF THE PERAK CONSTITUTION, because the 3 defactors were from the Pakatan benches and they had campaigned on the Pakatan platform, and since they were voted into parliament on the back of a Pakatan ticket, the Sultan should have returned to the PEOPLE THE POWER TO ELECT THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE. WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE SULTAN WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG BECAUSE BY HIS ACTION HE HAD BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AN UNELECTED GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHOICE AND THAT BY ANY LANGUAGE IS COUP D'TATE.
The Sultan too is subject to the Constitution and he holds office by the powers vested in him by the Perak State constitution; and he can only act within the powers that the constitution vest in him and nothing more. What Sultan Azlan Shah did was unconstitutional and is an abuse of his powers.
I am merely spelling out in the context of the topic of this article that reality has bitten the Pakatan Rakyat, and that by showing the extent and the depth that UMNO has infected the whole of the Malaysian culture. I hope to tell the people that UMNO has clenched their IRON FIST around the Malaysian machinery of government and that UMNO will not stop to consider what their actions will do to the prestige and stature of the ROYAL HOUSEHOLD so long as they get the short term support of the Sultan. Politics is all about perception and the actions of the Perak Royal Household is not shining too bright after this imbroglio.
UMNO has no qualms about perpetrating coup d'tte if it will perpetuate their everlasting stranggle hold on power. In this context I even doubt that UMNO will care to be seen to be open and fair in the next election because aafter that election, my take is that umno will take dictatorship powers. I say this because Pakatan has already taken a stranggle hold on the people's perception that Pakatan HAS THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE. It is true that there is no going back to pre308, and that the Malaysia that will take the stage following the next general election will be formed by the Pakatan. The events that dog the Perak state government will be repeated by the intransigence of the UMNO and as I said earlier, the Malaysian political culture is distorted to the extend that the whole of the government machinery cannot think of a government that is not UMNO led.
The only way to defeat this malaise is to give Pakatan Rakyat overwhelming support, go out and tell all that you come into contact to give absolute support to the Pakatan and that if we allow the UMNO to win this time again then all is lost; THERE WILL BE NO NEXT TIME FOR AN ELECTION; Malaysia will by then be a dictatorship by UMNO ! Only a mass movement that give absolute support to the Pakatan Rakyat will save Malaysia !
REMEMBER THERE IS MORE THAN JUST THE NEED FOR reformasi ! out there! There is an urgent and dire call for PEOPLE DEFENSE FOR DEMOCRACY ! It is the final call to defend democracy by massive people power in defense of FREEDOM AND TO REPEL CREEPING DICTATORSHIP !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)