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