YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com12:17 PM 16/01/2009
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.