Monday, March 23, 2009


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.


+60388889362,SeeMeeChunseniorfederalcounsel,+30688889562,SaifulHazmiMohdSaadMalaysianAntiCorruptionCommissiondeputypublicprosecutor, +60326943950,judgeNoradidahAhmadAmpangSessionsCourt, +60388884522,JusticesNikHashimNikAbRahman,

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 ?


No comments: