Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
20 January 2010
Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Bar
9th & 10th Floor
50050 K. L.
Complaint Against Mr. David Hoh of M/s Lim & Hoh
Respondent : Mr David Hoh
M/s Lim & Hoh,
8th Floor, Ming Building,
Jalan Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur,
Re: Originating Petition No. :D2-26-41 OF 2001 in the High Court at
Kuala Lumpur (COMM.DIV. )
I am making formal complaint to the Advocate & Solicitors Discipliary Bar against my wife’s solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh, Solicitors for the Respondents, M/s Mathews & Co., representing 1st Respondents McLarens Saksama Sdn. Bhd., M/s Annad & Noraini, representing 2nd & 3rd respondents, and finally M/s Teh & Co. representing the rest 4th, 5th & 6th respondents.
For the purpose of keeping my letter brief, I direct your good selves, SIR, to read the facts that are set out in my wife’s letter of complaint; except when facts that are known to me only, I will then set then out. The most important fact that by themselves would be sufficient to ground the criminal charges that I will set out below are the farcical act of Judge Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali to approve both (a)Order for security for costs of Rm.60,000 as security for costs and said sum was in fact paid in time and duly accepted by all 6 respondents (b) followed by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s APPROVAL of a 2nd Order for striking out said Petition. WITHOUT A PRIOR APPLICATION & ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE 1ST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. My criminal charges against all the parties named therein, arise mainly based on this particular development. My case that they have committed these criminal offences is the fact that, the payment by my wife of said Rm.60,000 and the acceptance by all said 6 respondents FORMED A DE FACTO CONTRACT/AGREEMENT THAT ON RECEIPT OF SAID SECURITY FOR COSTS, RESPONDENTS WILL GO TO TRIAL. However, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in her illiterate ignorance of the LAW STRUCK OUT MY WIFE’S PETITION WHILE THE CONTRACT TO GO TO TRIAL IS STILL IN PLACE AND VERY MUCH ALIVE.
JUDGE ZAINON HAS NO IDEA THAT SHE CANNOT STRIKE OUT BECAUSE, THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW IS THAT A JUDGE CANNOT ENDORSE/AFFIRM AN ILLEGALITY; and the act of Stephen Lim (2nd respondent) in APPLYING TO STRIKE OUT PETITION WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT/AGREEMENT because he is bound by the contract/agreement upon accepting my wife’s security for costs. JUDGE ZAINON THEREFORE HAS NO POWERS TO ENTERTAIN MR STEPHEN LIM’S APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION. It is farcical that a Judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal was so illiterate of the LAW that she acted in the way that she did and in so doing COMMITTED NUMEROUS CRIMINAL OFFENCES.
I charge the above named respondents and their solicitors(including M/s Lim & Hoh) for acting in concert & in A CONSPIRACY led by the presiding judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, to commit the following crimes :
(1)TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE,
(2)ALL THE SOLICITORS NAMED ABOVE TOGETHER WITH THEIR CLIENTS (excluding said Petitioner of course)ABOVE AIDED AND ABETTED JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI TO ABUSE HER JUDICIAL POWERS WHILE SHE ADJUDICATED MY WIFE’S PETITION,
(3)ALL SAID SOLICITORS & THEIR CLIENTS(excluding Petitioner of course) LED BY THE PRO-ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF JUDGE ZAINON TO FABRICATE EVIDENCE, TO COMMIT FORGERY OF MY WIFE’S SIGNATURE AND TO COMMIT PERJURY,
(4)ALL THE NAMED SOLICITORS & THEIR RESPECTIVE CLIENT RESPONDENTS (excluding Petitioner of course)LED BY THE PRO-ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI COMMITTED THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF STEALING MY WIFE’S RM.60,000 ON THE PRETENSE THAT SAID RM.60,000 WAS TO BE PAID INTO THE HANDS OF MR. DAVID HOH AND ONE OTHER SOLICITOR OF THE RESPONDENTS, TO BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISBURSEMENT TOWARDS COSTS OF THE TRIAL, UNDER AN ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, APPROVED BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.
THE SAID RESPONDENTS, THEIR SOLICITORS AND THE LEADERSHIP OF JUDGE DATO ZAINON HAD INTENDED ONLY TO ILLEGALLY RETAIN SAID RM.60,000 ALLEDGE UNDER JUDGE ZAINON TO BE FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, WHEN IT WAS THEIR INTENTION TO RETAIN SAID RM60,000 ILLEGALLY AND FOR THEIR OWN USE.
(5)I CHARGE MY WIFE’S SOLICITORS, M/S LIM & HOH FOR COMMITTING CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST.
(6)I CHARGE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI FOR COMMITING THE COMMON LAW OFFENCE OF MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE.
Finally, it remains for me to set out the facts that I rely to charge Judge Zainon for criminal conduct in the performance of her duties. At the first hearing of said petition, JUDGE ASKED MR DAVID TO ASK MY WIFE IF SHE WILL WITHDRAW HER APPLICATION TO CROSS EXAMINE THE AFFIDAVITS OF MR WONG KEM CHEN, MR STEPHEN LIM AND MR KWONG SEE YOON FOR PERJURY. Mr David Hoh conveyed Judge Zainon’s request to my wife, but advised my wife, correctly in this instance not to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine said respondents for perjury. My wife therefore refused Judge Zainon’s request to withdraw.
I believed that Judge Zainon in this instance had acted totally inappropriately by her request. I spoke to Dato Mokhtar Sidin, who was my classmate in University of Singapore, NOT TO INFLUENCE HIM IN ANYWAY, BUT MERELY TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE JUDICIARY KNOW OF THE INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT OF JUDGE ZAINON WHEN HER CONDUCT DECOMES RELEVANT IN ANY PROSECUTION OF MY CHARGE AGAINST HER FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE. Dato Mokhtar Sidin advised me not to withdraw. We therefore refused Judge Zainon’s request to withdraw. However, I had, following the inappropriate behaviour of Judge Zainon, written to the then Chief Justice, Tun Fairoz of the inappropriate conduct of Judge Zainon and the events that developed deserve detail mention because from this event we can see the pro active participation of both Judge Zainon and Mr David Hoh in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Following the events that developed above, I went to KL but I did not want Mr David Hoh to know that I had come to KL. That was the day that I had written to Tun Fairoz complaining of the inappropriate conduct of Judge Zainon. I had personally HAND DELIVERED my letter of complaint to the office of Tun Fairoz., on the morning of my arrival in KL. I delivered the letter to Tun Fairoz’s office at 10 am on the day of my arrival. At 5pm of the same day I received a phone call from Mr David Hoh at my sister’s house where I stayed whenever I was in KL and that was my contact address for Mr David Hoh to reach me. He asked me to call at his office the next morning and I did. At this meeting, Mr David Hoh called Judge Zainon in my presence, but I was invited to “CHIT CHAT” with Mr Frank Hoh, WHILE DAVID SPOKE TO JUDGE ZAINON. I did not hear the conversation because I was ‘chit chatting” with Frank Hoh in another room in the office; and after a lapse of 1 hour, Mr David Hoh came into Mr Frank Hoh’s room and asked me to sign a letter which was I believe drafted by the joint effort of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and Mr David Hoh. I was told that the letter was an apology to Judge Zainon for mis-interpreting the request of Judge Zainon in asking my wife to withdraw her application. I told David Hoh that I will not read the contents of the letter but I will sign it anyway, but that when the letter becomes evidence I will relate the whole event without any reservations.
This incident sums up the whole sordid development, the full participation of an adjudicating judge, solicitors of Petitioner acting in concert and in conspiracy with lawyers representing all respondents and the judge acted criminally to rob my wife of her legal rights and money to the sum of Rm.60,000. In the list of annexed documents is the letter that Mr David Hoh complains to my wife that every time that I write and make public my expose’ of the criminal behaviour of Judge Zainon, he Mr David Hoh had to attend Judge Zainon’s chambers for a dressing down.
After 3 years of repeated postponements, I received a phone call from Mr David Hoh, who asked my consent to withdraw my wife’ application for leave to cross examine. He argued that since my wife had applied for leave to cross examine for perjury to counter the application for security for costs and now that Judge Zainon had approved respondents’ application without giving any consideration for our defense that respondents had lied in their supporting affidavits and hence VOID THEIR APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; that was our intention, and Respondents had applied for security for costs of Rm.650,000 or thereabouts. Mr David Hoh told me that those postponements were because Judge Zainon had wanted us to withdraw our application to cross examine and since SECIRITY FOR COSTS HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED OUR APPLICATION HAS BECOME superseded and irrelevant; his exact words to convey his argument was “LETS CLEAR THE DECK” so as to get the trial going. I consented to his persuasion and agreed for him to withdraw our application to cross examine. On this issue again we see the illiteracy of Judge Zainon. She had pressured Mr David Hoh to get our consent to withdraw the application AS INDICATION THAT PETITION HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION, because her judgment to support her strike out were only two words PETITIONER HAD “APPROBATED & REPROBATED”, but as I said the reason for the withdrawal was initiated by Judge Zainon and she had pressured Mr David Hoh to get our consent to withdraw. You are likely to say to me that this is my speculation, but I will say that all the evidence demonstrates this to be. However, as I have maintained at all times Judge Zainon is very weak in the LAW. Her Approbate and her Reprobate Judgment will only serve to hang her. All the earlier circumstances that I had recounted indicated in so many ways that Judge Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali had from the very beginning of the hearing of the case had only intended to strike out said Petition. She had pressured Mr David Hoh to obtain my apology for writing to the Chief Justice. The truth is Mr David had conveyed Judge Zainon’s request to withdraw; and therefore facts underlining the whole relationship between Judge Zainon and myself was one that challenged the authority of Judge Zainon and made her loose face and she wanted to punish me in every way possible. Little did she know that all her actions and the fact that she lashed onto our withdrawal as a fig leaf cover and for legal justification for striking out shows her ignorance. Her MALFEASANCE ARISE FROM her approving BOTH (1)ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS and (2)followed by her approval for striking out; it is sheer legal nonsense for the 2 orders to exist together because the existence of one opposes the existence of the other. JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD NO IDEA THAT THESE TWO ORDERS CANNOT EXIST TOGETHER. Therefore judge Zainon’s abuse of power lies in her approving the 2 orders, which had the force of negating both the orders because they cancelled out each other. BLOODY LAW ILLITERATE NONSENSE,
Zainon had PRESSURED POOR CASTERATED Mr David to persuade me to consent to the withdrawal of my wife’s application. I had consented to Mr David’s argument; however, my consent only goes to prove that Mr David Hoh was running with the hare and hunting with the hound. Mr David Hoh is the solicitor and Counsel and he has a professional duty to protect his client, AND WITHDRAWING HIS CLIENT’S APPLICATION IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD EXPOSE his client’s case; BUT LUCKY FOR PETITIONER THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF JUDGE ZAINON REALLY STRENGTHENED PETITIONER’S CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND MORE AS SET OUT ABOVE.
I can see the reason why M/s Lim & Hoh has made themselves incommunicado; the facts prove the whole bunch of them acting and behaving as a gang of THUGS, AND THIEVES, JUDGE ZAINON INCLUDED AND INDEED SHE WAS THE FACILITATOR, and without the participation of Judge Zainon all these crimes cannot have taken place.
There are three issues that the Bar Council has to settle in this complaint :
(1)IS M/S LIM & HOH STILL ACTING FOR MY WIFE ?
(2)IF THEY ARE STILL ACTING FOR MY WIFE, “then will M/s Lim & Hoh withdraw their unauthorized filling of an appeal to remove that nonsense ORDER TO STRIKE OUT ? The proper cause of action is to apply to SET ASIDE THAT ILLITERATE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT BECAUSE THAT ORDER IS VOID FOR ILLEGALITY.
(3)WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE SECURITY FOR COSTS POSTED BY MY WIFE PURSUANT TO JUDGE ZAINON ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. It is now 8 years or 9 years since my wife posted that Rm.60,000. Does Mr David Hoh even know that if ever there was any reason for the respondents to claim that security for costs, THEIR CLAIM IF NOT ALREADY PAID WILL NOW BE “time barred”; so the question is who has the money and where is the money. THIS ISSUE WILL GROUND MY CLAIM THAT JUDGE ZAINON AND HER MERRY MEN HAVE STOLEN THIS RM60,000 UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.
In the events that had been running for a period of 10 years almost, I can say without any reservations that the Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi does not want to know of my complaints that CHARGE JUDGE ZAINON WITH CRIMINAL CONDUCT; neither will Mr Justice Alluddin, Chief Judge of Malaya, neither will the A-G act to enforce the LAW which in any other jurisdiction in the former British Commonwealth, would mean the criminal prosecution of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and her gangster, thug co-conspirators, but not in Malaysia.