Letter from Yapchongyee to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :9 Sept., 2009
Letter to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council
　
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
Dear Sirs,
I believe my earlier letter to President, Secretary and members of Malaysian Bar and sent by Email had ONLY HALF of my letter because of a glitch in my computer at the time when I Emailed the letter; however, I am now Emailing the redrafted letter of the earlier letter.
I am making a complaint charging Mr David Hoh of M/s Lim and Hoh for Professional misconduct. Mr David Hoh acted as Counsel for my wife in her Petition cited above, Trouble began when Judge Zainon asked Mr. David Hoh to enquire off my wife if my wife would agree to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine, Respondents, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Banfor perjury. My wife had applied for leave to cross examine these parties for PERJURY, annexing to her application police reports that I had made at the Balai Polis, Jln.TUN HS Lee.. I instructed Mr David Hoh not to withdraw the application to cross examine. I discussed Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's IMPROPER CONDUCT WITH JUDGE MOKHTAR SIDIN (prior to his retirement) because I wanted someone with credibility to know of the misconduct of Judge Zainon. Inspite of our refusal to withdraw to accommodate Judge Zainon's criminal interference in the court process of said Petition, JUDGE ZAINON went on to approve Respondents application.
My complaint against Mr David Hoh are the following :
(a)Mr David Hoh has over 2 and a 1/2 year consistently REFUSED TO RESPOND to our many attempts to communicate with him (by all means). He has refused to state his position vis-a-vis his continued retainer as our solicitor or Counsel. He has refused to respond to our request to surrender the file of said Petition IF HE HAS DISCHARGED HIMSELF.
(b)He filed an appeal against my instructions. I had instructed him to apply to set aside the illegal & unlawful order made by Judge Zainon INSTEAD OF A USELESS APPEAL. Only a LAW illiterate in the circumstances would appeal against an illegal & unlawful order. Judge Zainon had ABUSED HER POWERS BY APPROVING 2 FUCKING OPPOSING ORDERS; therefore, begs the question, NOW THAT THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT HAS TAKEN EFFECT, what is to become of the order for security for costs, which my wife had complied by payment of Rm.60,000 ? Considering that Petition having been struck out, THE FUCKING TRIAL NEVER BEGAN, therefore where is the costs; and by the same token, Respondents are now holding money OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCES, and Mr David is one of the "trustee" of the joint A/c holding money obtained under false pretences; the Rm.60,000 plus Rm.20,000 paind by my wife towards SECURITY FOR COSTS.
(c)What is the justification for Mr David Hoh to hold on to the file HAVING DE FACTO DISCHARGED HIMSELF BY REFUSING TO RESPOND TO OUR ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM PROFESSIONALLY ? NOTE :I will paste below two letters, whose contents are self evident in the context of my official complaints, (1) by my daughter Yap Ai-Mei and power of attorney of Petitioner (2) Letter to Mr SF Leow.
I had discussed my problem with Dato Mohd. Raus and he had 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, Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, HAVING ACCEPTED HIS SHARE OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, WENT ON TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT; and of all the IMPROBABLE INSANITY, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali APPROVED Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's application to strike out even before any application to set aside the earlier ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS MADE OR EVER MADE. Such is the law illiteracy of Judge Zainon.
THIS NONSENSE perpetrated by Judge Zainon has now created, A FARCE, and a Malaysian Judicial precedent (being a high Court decision) that if a litigant who is dissatisfied or unhappy with the High Court's award of the quantum for security for costs, CAN PROCEED TO OBTAIN A 2ND ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT FOR SHOWING NO CAUSE OF ACTION; that being the case, there are now 2 opposing orders being (a) order for security for costs and Petitioner having paid Rm.60,000 pursuant to order for security for costs (b) Order to strike out said Petition; BOTH ORDERS ARE LIVE ORDERS AS THEY NOW STAND. Quite apart from such a "belly aching farce" as perpetrated by Judge Zainon arising from her obvious LAW ILLITERACY, her actions DISPLAY a total absence of both common sense and a total absense of logic. Judge Zainon has the common sense to think that it is both feasible TO FUCKING HAVE TO CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
Judge Zainon being a Judge serving on the Bench of the Court of Appeal, and displaying such a disgraceful absense of any learning of the LAW, has made the Malaysian Judiciary, the laughing stock of all of English Common Law jurisdictions in the world. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Aliin 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 no 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.
　
Sincerely
　
Yap Chong Yee
　
　
　
　
Letter to Mr SF Leow !
Hello SF !
I wish to thank you for speaking to Frank and removed the log jam existing between him and me; and for the life of me I still am mystified as to what has caused this umbrage. I believe that I have no issues that need to be settled between him and me and I shall be very happy for him to state what it is that has made suficiently unhappy to the extent that he is willing to sacrifice his professional reputation to damage my wife's case.
I will be glad if this message can be forwarded to him and invite his comment.
I will have to assume that my frequent attacks on Judge Zainon is the cause of friction, but as he had stated to you, Lim & hoh's client is my wife, therefore, under what basis CAN FRANK HOLD HOSTAGE MY WIFE'S INTERESTS FOR MY PERSONAL CONDUCT. I have written enough to argue charges against Judge Zainon with perpetrating criminal conduct and to have by her judicial actions participated, in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, obstructing to police investigation, obtaining money under false pretenses and much more.
Judge Zainon had committed criminal offences in abusing her judicial office IN ORDER TO PROTECT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN, WONG KEM CHEN, AND KWONG SEA YOON FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for fabricating evidence, forgery, perjury and much more.
I do not quite understand why, Lim & Hoh have held themselves "incommunicado" because to my thinking, the path to final judgment in our favour in already indisputable on this basis :
(1)Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit by HAD DISCLOSED a legal defense; that in and of itself means there is a defense in the opinion of the respondents; that being the case, Judge Zainon has no judicial powers to over-ride the opinion of Stephen Lim. I recommend that Frank Hoh read the "WHITE BOOK" on the issue of "strike out for showing no cause of actions.
(2)the correct application in this situation is to apply to "SET ASIDE" Zainon's illegal and unlawful ORDER.; illegal because Judge Zainon as a High Court Judge, must know that Stephen Lim's affidavit CAN BE CONTRUED AS EVIDENCE(they are inadmissible as evidence and Judge Zainon approved the application with knowledge that they are not admissible accroding to the law of evidence).
(3)Stephen Lim alledged that my wife sold the alledged shares. Petitioner's pleading says no company resolutions nor any share certificate had ever been issued ever; that means no share of any kind, EXCEPT FOR THE TWO PROMOTERS' SHARE EXIST IN THE COMPANY. That being the case THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH STEPHEN LIM TO PROVE THAT HIS ALLEDGED SHARES ISSUED TO MY WIFE "EVER EXISTED AT ALL AS VALID SHARES. ( refer to case of Kelapa Sawit, (Telok Anson 1991 Ct of App).
(4) This means that Stephen Lim will have TO TRACE THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ALLEDGED SHARES FROM THE VERY BEGINING. I know that Stephen Lim fabricated the evidence; therefore respondents' case cannot be proven.
(5)I wish both Frank & David to read this message.I have thought through this issue and I say to David THAT MY WIFE HAS NO NEED TO DISPROVE THAT THE ALLEDGED SIGNATURE IS NOT HERS, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR PLEADING. The true issue is WHETHER THE ALLEDGED SHARES THAT STEPHEN LIM HAD DEPOSED TO AS BELONGING TO MY WIFE WAS IN FACT REAL AND VALID SHARES AT ALL. We know that they are not !
I confess that I do not understand what it is behind the conduct of Lim & Hoh. At this point there is no Judge Zainon to pervert the course of justice, THE END GAME IS STARING LIM & HOH IN THE FACE, and why is it that they will destroy our victory.
Just based on the 30% retainer, my security for costs will have reached Rm.80,000 and on 30% there is already a cool Rm.24,000 fees due to Lim & Hoh. THROW IN OUR CLAIM IN DAMAGES AGAINST ALL THE 6 RESPONDENTS FOR WRONGFUL RETENTION OF MONEY OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES (I have all along stated as true that I borrowed Rm.60,000 from my daughters at 30% compound interests over 10 years plus); not to mention what will come out of taking over McLarens !
WHY DOES LIM & HOH WANT TO THROW AWAY ALL THAT OVER A ROW THAT EVEN TILL TODAY, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT HAS MADE FRANK SO MAD !
I am sending this message to you hoping that you will forward this to Frank Hoh & his son.
I have emailed my draft and I will have Ai-Mei, Email her letter that was sent to Lim & Hoh after she had added her correction. I never like to read my draft _too lazy ! La !
Joe Yap
　
Hello Frank Hoh, The above letter had been Emailed to Siak Fah. I hope for us to least speak to each other. I hear Stephen Lim is on his last legs; and by that I believe it is urgent to decide what to do.
Frank read my letter and think about it. We will win because Respondents cannot change their defense. Joe Yap
　
Letter from Yap Ai-Mei to M/s Lim & Hoh
Yap Ai-Mei,\par
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale,\par
PERTH,\par
Western Australia.\par
Dated\par
M/S Lim & Hoh,\par
Solicitors,
Ming Building,
Jalan Bukit Nanas, KL.
Dear Sirs,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; \par
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd \par
\par
I am power of attorney for Petitioner, and I refer to the telephone conversation discussion between, your Mr Frank Hoh and Mr Leow Siak Fah, dated Thurs.14/Aug./2009,a mutual friend of Frank Hoh and my father Joe Yap, on the above matter. For the purpose relevant to issues arising from the above matter set out above, it is sufficient to state the following \par
facts :\par
(1)that M/s Lim & Hoh does not want to represent Petitioner, Mrs. Yap Choi Yin.\par
(2)that M/s Lim & Hoh had communicated their intention or tried to communicate their intention TO DISCHARGE THEMSELVES FROM ANY FURTHER REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER. No date was given as to their withdrawal of legal representation.\par
(3)that M/s Lim & Hoh will RETURN THE CASE FILE TO PETITIONER.\par
(4)that M/s Lim & Hoh will only speak to my father on condition that my father has a power of attorney, from my mother.In response to the above facts I wish to state that it is only relevant to make the following statements :\par
(1)that both my father and I, as power of attorney for my mother/Petitioner had written, faxed and telephoned countless times to attempt to find out the status of both the progress of the said petition and the ongoing OR LACK OF FURTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY YOUR FIRM; BUT BOTH OF US DREW NO RESPONSE; and that this comedy has gone on for at least 2 and a half years. It is only now that Mr Leow Siak Fah is able to tell us that M/s Lim & Hoh has discharged themselves and will return the case file to us. We had no prior communication of any kind on this development.\par
(3)My father and I had instructed M/s Lim & Hoh NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, When MY MOTHER HAD COMPLIED with jUDGE's Order to pay Rm.60,000 towards SECURITY FOR COSTS AND WHEN THIS ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS HAD NOT BEEN SET ASIDE BEFORE jUDGE MADE SECOND AND OPPOSING ORDER TO STRIKE OUT; but inspite of our many desperate attempts to stop you from filing any appeal, you went on to file an Appeal against our instruction and in so doing and your firm's NON RESPONSE TO OUR MANY ENTREATIES to apply INSTEAD to "SET ASIDE" THE ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, YOU HAVE BY YOUR ACTIONS OBSTRUCTED THE PROGRESS OF SAID PETITION FOR THE SAID PERIOD.\par
(4)I am a practising solicitor in Perth, and wish to add that if what Mr Leow Siak Fah told to my father is true (and there is no reason to doubt him), then your actions are professionally questionable. In the situation that we find ourselves in, as my mother's solicitors, you are professionally required to settle the issue of your legal representation and return the case file if you no longer want to represent us. Let me be clear on any issue that you might to claim to have a solicitor's "LIEN" ON THE CASE FILE, IT WAS AGREED THAT FEES PAYABLE TO M/S LIM & HOH IS BASED ON 30% OF ALL MONEY RECOVERED (NO MONEY RECOVERED MEANS NO FEES CHARGABLE). In this situation, it is my opinion that on the day that you decide NOT TO WANT TO FURTHER REPRESENT US YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE OF SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, AND YOU HAD FAILED TO ACT RESPONSIBLLY.\par
(5)I wish to advise you that my father intends to send copies of my letter to (a)Mr Leow Siak Fah, President and secretary of Malaysian Bar; and you can please confirm with Mr Leow if what I state here, which at this point can only be allegations and are subject to correction. I will accept without conditions if Mr Leow will correct what has been represented by my father as what was said by Mr Leow as the truth.\par
(6)IF M/S LIM & HOH HAS DISCHARGED THEMSELVES, THIS IS THE TIME TO WRITE TO ME BY REGISTERED POST STATING THAT YOU NO LONGER WANT TO ACT FOR US. IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE STILL ACTING FOR US, THEN TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THAT YOU HAD FILED "AGAINST OUR EXPRESSED INSTRUCTIONS.\par
(7)Take notice that you have not sent any copy Of Judge Zainon's ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT; I WANT A COPY OF THE ILLEGAL ORDER AND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT; HOW DO YOU APPEAL WITHOUT JUDGMENT ? For my own peace of mind, will you also send to me a copy of the APPEAL THAT YOU HAVE FILED.\par
(8)ALL ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE STATED BY MY FATHER CAN BE VARIFIED BY HIS WEBSITE AT http://yapchongye.blogspot.com, because the dates of logging in cannot be changed on the blog. \par
\par
\par
Your's sincerely,\par
\par
\par
Yap Ai-Mei.\par
\par
COPY\par
(1)LEOW SIAK FAH,\par
(2)PRESIDENT & SECRETARY, MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL.\par
\par
\par
\tab\par
}