File Petition Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :13th October, 2009.
To,
CHIEF JUSTICE,
MALAYSIA
Dear Sir, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, Chief Justice Malaysia
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I wish to file a report to you that Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal has committed the following criminal offences arising from her action for simultaneously approving to the respondents in the above Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 of 2001; (1)she 1st approved respondents' application for security for costs and after my wife(petitioner) had paid her Rm.60,000 towards her order for security for costs, (2)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went on to further approve a 2nd order to respondent Stephen Lim for striking out my wife's petition even when no prior order for setting aside of the 1st order for security for costs had existed nor even applied at all..
This comedy of Judge Zainon's illiteracy of the LAW is astounding, but more important to me is that her ignorance of the law has caused my wife the loss of Rm.60,000 (now with interests will be more than Rm.80,000). I have set out my opinion why Judge Zainon's order for striking out of said petition IS ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL and unenforceable !
The facts are simple; she first ORDERED that my wife provide security for costs of Rm.60,000 to be paid into the hands of respondents' solicitors; and upon payment of said Rm.60,000, respondents applied for order that my wife's petition be struck out for showing no cause of action, AND JUDGE ZAINON APPROVED IT EVEN WHEN WHEN THERE WAS NO ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE 1ST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS nor was there ever any attempt made. to set aside the order for security for costs. This nonsense of judge Zainon having made 2 OPPOSING ORDERS IS, AND to say the least this double OPPOSING orders thrown at my wife is laughable.
It is my opinion that Judge Zainon had committed the offence of Malfeasance and she in the process also committed several other criminal offences such as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, obtaining money under false pretences and many more which I will set out in this opinion.
I graduated in LAW from Uni of Singapore in 1967 and practised in KL until I & my family migrated to Australia in 1978. That Judge Zainon had approved 2 opposing interlocutory orders shows her utter ignorance of the law; but more comical than that is the fact that her ignorance relates to the fact that she does not understand the FUNCTION of an interlocutory application. She had abused her judicial powers and believed that she has the power to do whatever she liked even if what she had done constitutes NONSENSE ! The purpose of an order for striking out is to save abuse of the process, when it can be shown that Plaintiff's application will be futile and a waste of money. Therefore, the 1st application by respondents must be for an order for striking out, and if plaintiff can show that she has even a glimer of a cause of action, then IF THAT GLIMER IS SO REMOTE THAT JUDGE THINKS PLAINTIFF IS NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED, then Judge will impose security for costs. Security for costs can also be imposed if Plaintiff resides abroad. It must be borne in mind that the application for striking out ALWAYS, INVARIABLY PRECEEDS THE APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. In the case as it is here respondents 1st applied for security for costs in the sum of Rm.650,000 and Judge Zainon reduced that to the sum of Rm.60,000. This reduction by the Judge in the normal course, would indicate the judge's exercise of her judicial discretion, an indication in her BELIEF THAT PETITIONER HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION(read the WHITE BOOK on this issue). This is how a judge who acts professionally will do; but Judge Zainon INVERTED THE PROCESS SO THAT MY WIFE WILL PAY HER RM.60,000 AND THEN JUDGE ZAINON PROCEEDED TO punish my wife with a 2nd LASH OF HER WHIP ! THE ACTIONS OF JUDGE ZAINON IS IN REVENGE FOR MY REPORTING HER TO THE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE TUN FAIROZ. I reported Zainon to Tun Fairoz for IMPROPERLY ASKING MY WIFE TO WITHDRAW THROUGH MY WIFE'S COUNSEL MR. DAVID HOH. It is cclear that Judge Zainon wanted my wife to loose her Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000) for my actions.
My Submission Why Zainon's Order for striking out is illegal, unlawful and unenforceable, I will set my arguements in point form :
(a)Judge Zainon made my wife pay her security for costs into the hands of respondents' solicitor and my wife's solicitor in a JOINT BANK ACCOUNT AT 5% INTERESTS. Therefore, this joint account becomes a joint trust account, and the joint holders of this trust account hold this joint account on the basis of the order for security for costs.
(b)The order for security for costs in its very nature dictates that any payment out of this joint account must be in compliance to an order fo costs. The dictum for costs is "COSTS FOLLOWS TRIAL". If there is no trial there cannot be any costs, because an order for striking out for showing no cause of action means exactly that,"THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE TO GO BEFORE THE JUDGE" and therefore there cannot be a trial. That being the case respondents cannot in any generate a bill of costs to be taxed and that follows that there can be no ORDER FOR COSTS.
(c)Judge Zainon's order for striking out is 'in terms" I suppose that means 'STRIKING OUT WITH COSTS"; but as I argued earlier, Striking out cannot generate "COSTS" since there is no issue to go before the judge. Having said that, Zainon's costs component of her ORDER TO STRIKE OUT cannot be set off against my wife's Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000)security for costs BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRIAL !
(d)Taking my submission a step further, WHAT IF JUDGE ZAINON SAYS HER ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT HAS NO COSTS COMPONENT ? If Judge Zainon advances this arguement, HER CRIMINALITY IS EVEN MORE OBVIOUS, because since THERE IS NO COSTS COMPONENT TO HER STRIKING OUT ORDER, THEN WHAT JUSTIFICATION IN LAW ALLOWS JUDGE ZAINON AND HER GANG OF THIEVES TO KEEP MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS ?
(e)It is farcically & hilariously obvious to me that Judge Zainon is also a LAW ILLITERATE, because by my wife's payment of her Rm.60,000 towards security for costs and the acceptance by all respondents, this COMPLETES A CONTRACT( said Rm.60,000 beig the consideration accepted BY PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS AND WITH JUDGE ZAINON AS THE ARBITRATOR (she having set the quantum at Rm.60,000 as the security for costs). This is a binding CONTRACT; and judge Zainon had aidded & abetted respondent Stephen Lim to breach this contract. This is not merely a matter in procedural law BUT IS ALSO AN ISSUE IN THE LAW OF CONTRACT AND JUDGE ZAINON, & ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAD PRO-ACTIVELY CONSPIRED TO BREACH THE CONTRACT; that upon payment of security for costs, the petition will be tried in open court. Is it not disgraceful that all the lawyers on both sides of the case and JUDGE OF THE MALAYSIAN COURT OF APPEAL do not see this issue ? Do you people in Malaysia really know the ENGLISH COMMON LAW ?
CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JUDGE ZAINON AND HER ACCOMPLICES !
Dear Tun Azmi, please bear in mind that Judges do not make LAWS and by aiding and abetting the criminal actions of the Respondents, their lawyers and my wife.s solicitors(M/s Lim & Hoh) to rob my wife of the sum of Rm.60,000(now more than Rm.80,000) Judge Zainon cannot ligitimize the criminality of all said parties because of the pro-active participation of Judge Zainon herself; she is by her actions become herself a criminal and a full co-conspirator in PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND THE LAW. The Irony of Judge Zainon's order to strike out in fact confirms her part as co-conspirator in this criminal enterprise to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to conceal the perpetration of several crimes, eg, aiding & abetting Perjury& forgery, fabrication of evidence (a judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal participating in such a shameful crime). Let me ask you Dear Chief Justice, NOW THAT THE 2ND ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT EXIST, AND THE RM60,000 IN THE HANDS OF RESPONDENTS AS COSTS (held by respndents for a full 8 years), by what law gives respondents and judge Zainon the justification to LAWFULLY HOLD SAID RM60,000 ? My opinion is that the Rm.60,000 has become THE PROCEEDS OF THE CRIME OF OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Pray do explain how Judge Zainon CAN LAWFULLY AND LEGALLY disburse the paid up security for costs that she ordered WITHOUT A TRIAL. What could be claimed "as costs to prove WHAT ?". COSTS FOLLOW TRIAL".
Sincerely,
Yap Chong Yee
Note : I have pasted below copy of my letter of complaint to president & Secretary of Malaysian Bar.
Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, WA. 6156
Email : yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)6161 3661
Date :9 Sept., 2009
To,
President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council,
Dear Sirs !
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I refer to my letter dated 9th Sept., 2009, to President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council, wherein I filed compalint against M/s Lim & Hoh, relating to their less than professional conduct in their dealings in the matter of the above said Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 of 2001, wherein M/s Lim & Hoh acted for my wife (Petitioner)as her solicitor and in particular, Mr David Hoh who was my wife's counsel.
I enclose the following letters as forming part and parcel of this letter and their contents are obvious and self evident, (a) letter from my wife, Lim Choi Yin instructing M.s Lim & Hoh as their client to withdraw the ineffectual and meaningless APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON'S ILLEGAL & UNLAWFUL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION (b)My WRITTEN OPINION to M/s Lim & Hoh, setting out my reasons why the striking out order that was approved to respondent, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is void, ineffectual and unenforceable ! (c) I also enclose copy of letter written by Mr Frank Hoh in reply to my first letter to you and Secretary OF MALAYSIAN BAR.
I am still at a lost, after reading Mr Frank Hoh's letter whether, M/s Lim & Hoh is still acting for my wife; however, My wife had instructed her solicitors TO REMOVE SAID APPEAL, AND TO FORTHWITH APPLY TO SET ASIDE ZAINON'S USELESS ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION AND TO SEND TO PETITIONER A COPY OF (1)ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT. We still have not seen those 2 opposing orders as at this date; therefore I would like to ask M/s Lim & Hoh to show us the order for striking out; WAS THERE IN FACT 2 opposing ORDERS or was that Mr David's idea of a joke ?
The contents of this letter will be sent to the following PERSONS :
(a)CHIEF JUSTICE, MALAYSIA,
(B)CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYA (JUSTICE AMALUDDIN)
(3)JUDGE DATO MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF,
(4)SOLICITORS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS,
(5LETTER-FAX TO 68 JUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND MEMBERS OF LEGAL FRATERNITY.
(6)to the media !
My complaint to the Malaysian Bar is not merely relating to the misconduct of M/s Lim & Hoh but is of a more serious nature than that. I charge all the parties and ALL the lawyers, on both sides, M/s Mathews(for 1st respondent, represented by Company Secretary, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon), Annad & Noraini (for Stephen Lim and Wong Kem Chen). M/s Teh & Co. solicitors for all the other respondents including Mr Harris bin Tun Hussein Onn.
This comical situation has arisen because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had mistakenly and arrogantly believed that, she being a High Court Judge, can act with impunity and unaccountable to anyone and hence she is empowered to abuse her judicial powers at will; I am dedicating the rest of my few years left to me to BRING JUDGE ZAINON TO JUSTICE. The reason why Malaysia is lawless is because of irresposible judges like Zainon, who lacked maturity and devoid of professional ethics AND DISGRACEFULLY ILLITERATE OF THE LAW.
Judge Zainon took umbrage for my formal complaint to the then Chief Justice, Tun Faroz of the "V.K.lingam TAPES" notoreity ! The details are recounted in my blog at http:yapchongyee.blogspot.com. Judge asked my wife to withdraw my wife's application to cross examine respondents, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for PERJURY. My wife refused to withdraw and I cmplained to Chief Justice Tun Fairoz of her misconduct, but as everything that goes on in Malaysia, this grossly improper conduct committed by a Judge of the High Court was glossed over; and Judge Zainon was allowed to go on to perpetrate MORE SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCES. Judge Zainon is a criminal; and it is my life's work to bring her to justice. True if this situation had taken place in Singapore, all these miscreants will go straight to jail including Judge Zainon; but in Malaysia, IT IS THE INNOCENTS AND WHISTLE BLOWERS WHO ARE PUT IN JAIL WHILE CRIMINALS LIKE JUDGE ZAINOON ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM FREE TO CORRUPT THE NATION'S JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SYSTEM.
I tried to retain a good Malay Lawyer to prosecute Judge Zainon for her criminal behaviour and criminal actions but no MALAY LAWYER WHO IS BRIEFED ON MY CASE WILL EVEN SO MUCH AS TALK TO ME ON THE PHONE. Raja Aziz says he is retiring, Art Harun ran away, and Zainal Abiddin is perpetually in CONFERENCE, Mr Gobin Singh Deo, gave me the run around(called him 9 times, but each time to call back later). I do not think any lawyer will have the balls to prosecute Judge Zainon. In these circumstances I will set out in detail what I want to charge this bunch of criminals and thugs with having committed UNDER THE DIRECTIONS AND LEADERSHIP OF JUDGE ZAINON, and I maintain that it is only because of the protection provided by Judge Zainon as the High Court Judge who has CHARGE OF THE COURT PROCESS OF MY WIFE'S PETITION that she had been able to PERPETRATE A CONSPIRACY PRO-ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED BY ALL THE PARTIES, RESPONDENTS, JUDGE ZAINON AND ALL THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING ALL THE LITIGANTS INCLUDING MY WIFE'S COUNSEL, MR DAVID WHO WERE EMBOLDENED BY THE PROTETION OF JUDGE ZAINON TO COMMIT THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT I HAVE RECOUNTED ABOVE.
I SAY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ALL THE LAW OFFICERS AND JUDGES WHO HAVE RECEIVED MY LETTER-FAX; THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS, YOU WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT SELF RESPECT TO CHARGE ME FOR SEDITION OR CRIMINAL DEFAMATION. I give to you all, my assurance that if you will charge me under the Penal Code and not detain me under the ISA, I will come at my own expense to defend myself in KL.
Today is 13th of Oct., 2009 and I have allowed a lapse of about 4 weeks since my wife last wrote to Mr Frank Hoh and obtained from Mr Frank Hoh indication that M/s Lim & Hoh still acts for her; whereupon my wife gave the following instructions to Mr Frank Hoh :
(a)to REMOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY M/S LIM & HOH AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON'S NONSENSE, ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL ORDER TO STRIKE, while Petitioner had already paid up the whole of Rm.60,000 (now Rm.80,000 with interests)
(b)forthwith apply for the setting aside of that illiterate nonsense order approved by Judge Zainon to STRIKE OUT PETITION, while the order for security for costs had been duly COMPLIED WITH IN EVERY WAY.
(3)make available to Petitioner the two nonsense, illegal, illiterate and unlawful OPPOSING ORDERS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS & ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT !
To date of this letter there has been complete silence from M/s Lim & Hoh. I write to the Malaysian Bar Council because the complete silence from M/s Lim & Hoh CONSTITUTES HOLDING PETITIONER HOSTAGE AND FOR LIM & HOH ACTING AGAINST INTRUCTIONS. My wife's letter in response to the letter of Mr Frank Hoh tells it all very plainly, that they hald up proceedings in the progress of said petition for 2 and a half years by holding themselves incommunicadoe. My wife will write to M/s Lim & Hoh that their silence to her instructions for the period of the month constitutes a UNILATERAL DISCHARGE by M/s Lim & Hoh of their retainer to represent Petitioner as her solicitors and counsel.
The silence of M/s Lim & Hoh begs the following questions :
(a)has M/s Lim & hoh kept for themselves and had criminally converted Rm.60,000 for their own use ? And that they had not paid said Rm.60,000 towards the approved security for costs that M/s Lim & Hoh informed us that Judge Zainon had approved to respondents; hence this is the reason for Judge Zainon approving the order for striking out of the petition.
(b)that there was no order for security for costs approved to respondents. That Judge Zainon had only approved an order for striking, and that M/s Lim & Hoh had criminally OBTAINED MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 under false pretences;
(c)did Judge Zainnon in conspiracy with all the parties, all respondents, all the lawyers and Judge Zainon ENTICED my wife to give up Rm.60,000, thinking that she will have the right for a trial of the issues of her petition UNDER A PRETEND ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, and instead kept said Rm.60,000 because PAYMENT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS MEANS THAT A TRIAL IS TO FOLLOW AS A MATTER OF COURSE; but in my wife's case the petition was instead struck off; this makes no sense and is unprovided for by the law. To date we only have the verbal representation of what has gone on from M/s Lim & Hoh but to more meaningful questions and when asked for evidence (such as the court orders approved by Judge Zainon)M/s Lim & Hoh hold themselves INCOMMUNICADOE ! Is this evidence of criminal behaviour on the paart of M/s Lim & Hoh ?
To the Malaysian Bar Council, on the questions raised above, they are issues of professional ETHICS, and I have to emphasize that M/s Lim & Hoh, as Petitioner's SOLICITORS HAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING their CLIENT HOSTAGE. The conducts of Judge Zainon, all the parties that I have named above CONSTITUTES THUGGISH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, AND IT IS ONLY RIGHT THAT THEY BE PROSECUTED AS CRIMINALS.
I SAY TO THE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY OF MALAYSIAN BAR THAT YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO MY OFFICIAL COMPLAINT. This is the way official matters are dealt with in the civilized world.
Sincerely,
yapchongyee
Note : I will be writing to the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi and will send to you a copy of the letter within the next couple of days.
Yap Choi Yin
5a Prinsep Road, Attadale,
Western Australia, 6156,
To, M/s Lim & Hoh,
Dear Sirs !
Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
The content of your letter is most surprising to me, considering that my husband has been dealing with all matters relating to my said Petition against M/s McLarens Saksama Sdn. Bhd. However, there is no need to split hairs, but I need to make respond to your letter on these
issues :
(1)did you withdraw my application to cross examine respondents, (a)Mr. Stephen Cheng Ban,
(b)Mr. Wong Kem Chen (c)Mr Kwong Sea Yoon(representing M/s McLarens)as their company Secretary ?
(2)Did you not by letter inform me that every time my husband writes to the Chief Justice, or to the public at large by letter-fax, either insulting Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali or complaining to the Chief Justice, of the conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali the latter (Dato Zainon) would haul up Mr David for chastisement; at this point, will you confirm that Mr David's withdrawal of my application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents mentioned above, on the contents of their supporting affidavits ANNEXED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, was not withdrawned as a consequence of pressure applied by Dato Zainon ?
I want to confirm that my husband had admitted to me that he had consented to Mr David's suggestion that we withdraw my application to cross examine said Respondents( BY THE WORDS OF MR DAVID, "TO CLEAR THE DECKS") mentioned above, because Mr David believes that the continued existence of my application to cross examine said respondents is the cause of Judge Zainon's persistent and continued postponement of the hearing of my petition for over a period of at least 2 years, FROM THE DATE OF MY PAYMENT OF RM.60,000 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, APPROVED BY JUDGE ZAINON and for no reason at all since the respondents nor I as petitioner had ever asked for any postponements. Let it be said that although my husband had endorsed Mr David's action to withdraw my application, he (Mr David) must realise that he is my counsel and not my husband, who has not practised law for 40 years. Mr David holds total professional responsibility for his actions relating to the conduct of my petition.
(2)now that by your letter, dated 7 Sept., 2009, received this morning, I AM TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU STILL ACT FOR ME, AND I ACCEPT and wish to thank you very much for your kindness and I wish to confirm that you are still acting for me on the terms, endorsed by me "as the contractual terms of our retainer" on the back of the copy of my petition and kept by you as evidence of the basis of our retainer.
(3)I now instruct you as my solicitors TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN FILED BY YOUR FIRM ON MY BEHALF WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT; and to instead apply to set aside the ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF MY PETITION. My husband has written an opinion that Judge ZAINON'S order for striking out of my petition is illegal and unlawful. I enclose a copy for your consideration. You are free as my solicitors to accept his opinion or dismiss it as you wish. However, my husband had spoken to Dato Mohd. Raus Sharrif, on the comedy of Judge Zainon's APPROVAL of 2 opposing orders for security for costs and even without so much as an order to set aside said order for security for costs WENT ON TO APPROVE AN ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT.
Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff had asked me to apply for the setting aside of Zainon's Order for striking, but I told him that Dato Zainon may have put in place A DETENTION ORDER UNDER THE ISA and that I will be detained and my effort will be in vain; Dato Mohd. Raus. Shariff, then suggested that I ask our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh to go see him; BUT WHEN ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY MY HUSBAND TO CONTACT M/S LIM & HOH, my husband was kept incommunicado.
It is good and I thank you that you have stated that you "act and will only take instructions from me", so by that acknowledgement, please do act according to my instructions UNLESS YOU HAVE STATED REASONS WHY MY INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT produce the best legal out-come for my case; in which case please write to me and state your objections.
I wish to say to Mr Frank Hoh that my husband bear him no ill will. My husband find the pervertion of the course of justice abhorrent, and will not shrink from pursuing JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. I say to Mr Frank Hoh, WHAT HAS JOE YAP DONE TO YOU. You can write to me and we will publish it to the public at large by letter-fax, EXACTLY AS YOU WILL WRITE IT.
Please be kind enough to send to me copy each of (1) SECURITY FOR COSTS, (2) ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF PETITION.
Yap Choi Yin,
Copy to President Malaysian Bar,
Monday, October 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)