Wednesday, March 18, 2009


YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth,
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 !

No comments: