Complaint To Advocates Disciplinary Board Against M/s Lim & Hoh for Unprofessional Conduct.

UPDATE ON YAP’S COMPLAINT TO ADVOCATES DISCIPLINARY BOARD AGAINST M/S LIM & HOH FOR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND FOR PARTICIPATING IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT THEIR CLIENT;S CLAIM !!
　
FW: An update on the status of your complaint Melisa-----Original Message----- From: Melisa [mailto:melisa@asdb.org.my] Sent: Fri...
May 4 (1 day ago)
chongyee yapHello Miss Melissa Pang ! Thank you Miss Pang, you are the first Official of ...
8:39 AM (21 hours ago)
melisaDear Mr. Yap, Thank you for your email. I have noted the contents of your ema...
7:16 PM (10 hours ago)
Reply chongyee yap to melisa
show details 11:43 PM (6 hours ago)
　
Hello Miss Melissa !
Thank you for your quick response. I had enclosed a National Australia for AU$32/ and I had also stapled cash AU$5 in case me bank Cheque was insufficient. Ths problem arose because the bank clerk did not know how to convert AU$ into Rm. I based by calculation on Rm.3 to Au$1. The bank cheque was attached to my application.
I will arrange for a photo-copy of my wife's passport. I did not think that anyone will misappropriate Au$32 plus cash of AU45/ however it looks like that has happened. Please confirm that your office did not received my remittance in the form that I ststed above. The National Australia Cheque was drawn in favour of The Advocates & Solicitors disciplinary Board. However it is a very small sum and if it has gone missing, then I will replace the sum. The cheque and cash were stapled to one of the letters that was sent in my courier pouch. Please confirm that you are missing Rm.100 and I will have another re-issued.
I will send them to you next week.
Thank you very much, yapchongyee
　
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:16 PM, melisa wrote:
Dear Mr. Yap,
Thank you for your email.
I have noted the contents of your email, and would advise you that, since all matters (and complaints) dealt with by us, the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (Malaysia) are treated as highly private and confidential, you may wish to refrain from displaying or sharing any of our correspondences in a public forum. Further since details relating to a complaint are only disclosed to parties privileged to the complaint, it may to your detriment to disclose any details relating to your complaint to any third party.
In respect of your complaint, I have noted that we have not received:-
(i) a copy of your wife (the Complainant’s) passport or National Registration Identity Card; and
(ii) payment in respect of our RM100.00 processing fee.
In respect of the:-
(a) required copy of your wife’s passport, you DO NOT need to send a hard copy to me by post or courier service. You may just scan and email to me a copy of the same;
(b) payment of the RM100.00 processing fee, I note that there was no cheque attached to you letter (despite such mention of a cheque in your letter of complaint) and there was no cheque number detailed in your letter of complaint. You DO NOT need to send me a cheque in the post, instead, you may wish to forward us the said sum by way of telegraphic transfer. Our bank account details with the relevant swift code are as appended below:-
Bank Name: AmBank (M) Berhad
Bank Address: 28, Ground Floor, Wisma Maran, Medan Pasar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur.
Bank Swift Code: ARBKMYKL
Account Name: Bar Council-Discipline Fund
Account No: 023-201-200087-6
Kindly proceed to let us have the above said outstanding documents and payment to enable us to proceed to process your complaint expeditiously.
Please do feel free to contact me if you require any further assistance.
Thank you and regards,
Melisa Pang
Legal Officer
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board
-----Original Message-----
From: chong yee yap [mailto:yapchongyee@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:39 AM
To: Melisa
Subject: Re: FW: An update on the status of your complaint
Hello Miss Melissa Pang !
Thank you Miss Pang, you are the first Official of the Malaysian Government who has shown some degree of conscientiousness and I thank you for that. I wish to inform you that I have published your letter in today's edition of Malaysia Today. You have done your official duties well and the public must be told that not all in the government MAKAN GAJI BUTA ! Thank you Miss Pang and have a good day.
- Show quoted text -
I look forward to reading your next letter.
yap chongyee
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Melisa wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Melisa [mailto:melisa@asdb.org.my]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:58 PM
To: 'yapchoyyin@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: An update on the status of your complaint
　
　
-----Original Message-----
From: Melisa [mailto:melisa@asdb.org.my]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:35 PM
Advocates Disciplinary Board Is Investigating M/s Lim & Hoh
Dear Mr. Yap,
Thank you for your email.
I have noted the contents of your email, and would advise you that, since all matters (and complaints) dealt with by us, the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (Malaysia) are treated as highly private and confidential, you may wish to refrain from displaying or sharing any of our correspondences in a public forum. Further since details relating to a complaint are only disclosed to parties privileged to the complaint, it may to your detriment to disclose any details relating to your complaint to any third party.
In respect of your complaint, I have noted that we have not received:-
(i) a copy of your wife (the Complainant’s) passport or National Registration Identity Card; and
(ii) payment in respect of our RM100.00 processing fee.
In respect of the:-
(a) required copy of your wife’s passport, you DO NOT need to send a hard copy to me by post or courier service. You may just scan and email to me a copy of the same;
(b) payment of the RM100.00 processing fee, I note that there was no cheque attached to you letter (despite such mention of a cheque in your letter of complaint) and there was no cheque number detailed in your letter of complaint. You DO NOT need to send me a cheque in the post, instead, you may wish to forward us the said sum by way of telegraphic transfer. Our bank account details with the relevant swift code are as appended below:-
Bank Name: AmBank (M) Berhad
Bank Address: 28, Ground Floor, Wisma Maran, Medan Pasar, 50050 Kuala Kumpur.
Bank Swift Code: ARBKMYKL
Account Name: Bar Council-Discipline Fund
Account No: 023-201-200087-6
Kindly proceed to let us have the abovesaid outstanding documents and payment to enable us to proceed to process your complaint expeditiously.
Please do feel free to contact me if you require any further assistance.
Thank you and regards,
Melisa Pang
Legal Officer
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: chongyee yap [mailto:yapchongyee@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:39 AM
To: melisa
Subject: Re: FW: An update on the status of your complaint
Hello Miss Melissa Pang !
Thank you Miss Pang, you are the first Official of the Malaysian Government who has shown some degree of conscientiousness and I thank you for that. I wish to inform you that I have published your letter in today's edition of MalaysiaToday. You have done your official duties well and the public must be told that not all in the government MAKAN GAJI BUTA ! Thank you Miss Pang and have a good day.
I look forward to reading your next letter.
yapchongyee
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, melisa wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Melisa [mailto:melisa@asdb.org.my]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:58 PM
To: 'yapchoyyin@gmail.com'
Subject: FW: An update on the status of your complaint
　
COMMENTS BY YAPCHONGYEE
Hello !
To all Malaysians who, I hope will follow these developments, I am happy to respond to the comments of Miss Melissa Pang and her advice that my actions to expose JUDICIAL & LAWYER ABUSE OF THEIR privileged status, will attract adverse consequences; I thank Miss Melissa for her good intentions and her advice !
I set out some 6 years ago to expose Judicial corruption and abuse of power by judges like Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Court of Appeal. I think if anyone who has read my letters published to the public at large knows what the case is and I will save you the boredom of repetition.
As a lawyer, I find the corruption and blatant abuse of power of judges of the Malaysian Judiciary repulsive and outrageous. My wife’s petition is an example of the total & absolute disrespect, & disregard of the law by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. She totally PISSED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANY’S ACT OF MALAYSIA. To think that I have written countless letters to the Chief Justice, Tun Zaki Azmi, Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Lauding (or whatever is his true name) and faxed to 68 other public prosecutors & judges and the public at large, AND YET HAD ATTRACTED NO ACTION AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON and her corrupt practises IS JUST SO UNBELIEVABLE ! It has absolutely escaped Malay intellectuals (who ought to know better) that a Malaysia in this environment IS LAWLESS ! It is just trait to state that the administration of LAW in any modern democracy ADMITS OF NO EXCEPTION. You either enforce the LAW or ACCEPT A STATE OF ANARCHY, and Malaysia is in a state of Lawlessness ! The Attorney General prosecutes at his whim and provisions of the law are routinely set aside at the convenience of prosecutors and judges alike. I truly believe that LAW OFFICERS (judges, lawyers & prosecutors) really do not know their law. These Law Officers get appointed for just being MALAY ! Why is it good to have Law Officers who are appointed for just being Malay ? WHERE IS THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW ?
I set out on my project to NAME & SHAME JUDGES WHO ABUSE THE LAW AND THOSE WHO BY THEIR DECISION IN KNOWN CASES EXPOSE THEIR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND ABUSE OF POWER. It so happens that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali FIT’S THE CRITERIA TO A “T”. Judge Zainon did not merely make a mistake in LAW, but she made ALL THE FUCKING MISTAKES AND FROM THE TOTALITY OF HER “MISTAKES” WE CAN SAFELY THAT SHE KNEW THAT SHE WAS COMMITTING ABUSE OF POWER, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, PARTICIPATED IN A CONSPIRACY TO STEAL RM.60,000 which she obtained from my wife when she represented to my wife by the terms of her order for security for costs, that upon payment of Rm.60,000, my wife’s petition will go to trial. Judge Zainon is a thief in Judge’s robes because she had no intention whatsoever at anytime at all TO SET THE PETITION FOR TRIAL; and that she ordered that said Rm.60,000 was to be paid into the hands of all the respondents; and then when my wife had paid said sum, WENT ON TO FUCKING STRIKE OUT PETITION. HER ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT was communicated to us by Mr David Hoh. Was there in fact such a nonsense ever perpetrated by Judge Zainon ? This is the main issue that I have complained to the Advocates Disciplinary Board because if Judge Zainon did not make such a nonsense ORDER, then we can say that M/s Lim & Hoh had FUCKING EMBEZZLED MY WIFE’S RM60,000. Over a 7 year period since it was represented to me that Judge had struck out said petition I HAVE CONTINOUSLY ASKED FOR THE STRICK OUT ORDER, and M/s Lim & Hoh have not been able to produce the said STRIKE OUT ODER. Do I not have cause to FUCKING DOUBT M/S Lim & Hoh, and am I not reasonable to think THAT M/S LIM & HOH have embezzled my wife’s Rm.60,000 !
Miss Melissa Pang claims that such enquiry are SECRET and that I am not to disclose any communication that is sent to me; BUT I SAY MISS PANG IS MIS-INFORMED AND MISCONCEIVED ! Let us assume that Miss Melissa is correct and that information made available to the Disciplinary Board are privileged and cannot be disclosed. I say that if such a provision exists in the constitution of the Disciplinary Board, then that can only relate to the actions of the Disciplinary Board; and that any communication that is communicated to me as complainant IS MY BUSSINESS ALONE ! I am not accountable to the Advocates Disciplinary Board because I am not a member of the Malaysian Bar. If I am to be accountable, THEN I CAN ONLY BE ACCOUNTABLE TO M/S LIM & HOH AND NOT TO THE ADVOCATES DISCIPLINARY BOARD.
This brings me to raise another question, CAN THE ADVOCATES DISCIPLINARY BOARD REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE TO ME OF DEVELOPMENTS RELATED TO THE PROGRESS OF THIS ENQUIRY ? No! They definitely cannot ! I am one of the formal complainants and it is the duty of the “BOARD” to inform me of every development that has occurred. This is called INDEPENDENCE OF THE ADVOCATES DISCIPLINARY BOARD. How can the Disciplinary Board claim to be independent if they keep me in the DARK ? Whether I refrain from making public or not the information that they send to me, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD TO INFORM ME OF ALL DEVELOPMENTS.
My project is to expose transgressions of the law by BOTH LEGAL & JUDICIAL OFFICERS, so what is the fun if I keep silent ? WHAT IS THE POINT ? I say to Miss Melissa Pang that I shall continue to publish any communication that I received on developments of my complaint. I ask that the Advocates Disciplinary Board DO THEIR DUTY WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR. MALAYSIA HAS A DYSFUNCTIONAL JUDICIARY, SO LET US ALL HOPE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE AN EQUALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL ADVOCATES DISCIPLINARY BOARD. Only time will tel because I will be publishing every bit of information that the Board sends to me and LET THE PUBLIC JUDGE THEM AS WE JUDGE THE JUDGES ! However, I do not hold too much hope for that to happen. In the meantime (fucking 10 years already) Judge Zainon has FUCKING CONTRIVED THE LOSS OF (on a compound interests computation) at least Rm.130,000. 5% per year on compound interests will get you there !
　
　
　
　
　

Complaint Against Petitioner's Solicitors, M/S Lim & Hoh

Yap chong yee
Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, WA6156,
Western Australia
Email :yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)61613661
　
　
31 March, 2010
Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Bar
9th & 10th Floor
Wisma Maran
Medan Pasar
50050 K. L.
Dear Sir,
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,
Dear Sirs,
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,
I submit that Judge Zainon’s 2nd Order for Striking out is illegal because Judge Zainon had prior knowledge that Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for an order for striking out CONSTITUTES BREACH OF CONTRACT TO GO TO TRIAL UPON PAYMENT OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, all the three elements that forms a contract are there the application for security for costs forms the “OFFER”, and the payment by my wife of the Rm.60,000 forms the “CONSIDERATION” and acceptance by my wife, and the said Rm.60,000 was PAID into the hands of respondents and they accepted the Rm.60,000. I said before and I say it now that Judge Zainon by her prior knowledge of the facts of the contract had acted ILLEGALLY by entertaining and striking out my wife’s petition.
I take issue with Mr David Hoh because he is deemed to know the law and that being said he should have applied to strike out Mr Stephen Lim’s application, which he had been professionally negligent in failing to do so. At this point my charge against Mr David Hoh is that HE HAD CONTRIVED THE SITUATION FOR JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION BY WITHDRAWING MY WIFE’S APPLICATION TO CROSS EXAMINE FOR PERJURY ! This is evidence that Mr David Hoh had acted in this manner to avail Judge Zainon the PRETEXT TO STRIKE OUT. In the circumstances Judge Zainon should have recused herself and Mr David Hoh should have applied for her recusal, which he did not.
I LIKE TO SHAME JUDGE ZAINON FOR WHAT AN INCOMPETENT LAW ILLITERATE THAT SHE IS; it is obvious that Judge Zainon has no idea WHAT A DEFENSE IS ! The joke is that Mr. Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit IS A DEFENSE IN IT’S OWN RIGHT---”his affidavit is his defense” and his defense is that my wife sold her shares to him ! Judge Zainon does not know that that constitutes a defense ! WHAT A JOKE ! I ask Judge Zainon and all of you members of this disciplinary committee IS NOT STEPHEN LIM’S AFFIDAVIT NOT A DEFENSE; AND IF IT IS THEN WHO COME JUDGE CAN SAY THAT THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION ?
Zainon had PRESSURED POOR CASTERATED Mr David Hoh 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 DESTROY 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 like 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.
These are thre 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 why did M/s Lim & Hoh not withdraw their unauthorized appeal against Judge Zainon’s illegal Order to strike out when an appeal in these circumstances is totally inappropriate cause of remedy .
When the correct application in the circumstances is to apply to set aside the order to strike out for the reasons advanced above 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.
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
(4)We have tried in so many ways to contact Mr David & Frank Hoh but to date we have failed to achieve this with our lawyers no less. WE HAVE ON MAY OCCASSIONS REQUESTED THAT M/S LIM & HOH SEND TO US A COPY OF JUDGE ZAINON’S ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS AND THE 2ND ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION AND TO DATE WE HAVE FAILED. The 2 orders belong to my wife and she wants them back; why is it that we cannot obtain said 2 copies ? WHERE ARE THE 2 ORDERS ? WE WANT THEM !
Sincerely,
Yap Chong Yee
　
STATUTORY DECLARATION
　
I, Yap Chong Yee Australian VISA DEBIT CARD No. 4017954021351961
Of 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, Perth, W. Australia, Solemnly and Sincerely in Affirm as follows :
!. The contents of my letter of complaint dated ………………………. To the Advocates &
Solicitors Disciplinary Board, Kuala Lumpur against Mr David Hoh of M/s Lim & Hoh of Ming
Building, Jalan Bukit Nanas K.L. are true to the best of my knowledge.
2. I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the
provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act,
　
　
Subscribed and Solemnly
Declared by the abovementioned
at PERTH, W.AUST.
On this day of……………..
　
Before me,
　
(Signature of Malaysian Counsel to Perth, WA..
　
　
　

MALAYS IN NATION BUILDING

MALAYS AND NATION BUILDING

I believe it is no exaggeration to say that in the 53 years of Malaysia’s independence, there has not been any article written that truthfully analysed and sincerely critical of the path of Malaysian nation building and national development. It is not difficult to understand why this is so; and it is no secret that fear of government reprisal; meaning that “UMNO” will strike down any criticism with an iron fist. I regret that it is for this reason that Malaysia has retarded the nations evolution towards a modern state; and I am saying this with the least of malice; MALAYSIA HAS NOT MATURED INTO A MODERN NATION STATE, and for the purpose of framing the progress of Malaysia metaphorically, I say if Malaysia is a human being, then at this particular point of our history, Malaysia is a child of 10 years old in a lifespan of 75 years old. We are 53 years old as an independent nation but our maturity is that of a 10 year old.

I regret that to this point in our history no one for fear of punishment under that ISA curse dared to criticise the Malays. It is utterly disgraceful that the Malays have no qualms about and careless about what their actions will unleash; quite apart from the occurrence of the many pogroms that took place in Penang, until in 1969, when Chinese memory is etched with the trauma of “516”; and if TIME MAGAZINE is correct 2,800 mostly Chinese Malaysians were killed by the fury of the Malays; and if the truth be told, no one has dared to mention this fact; and as events come to past, I dare say that 1969 was indeed an eye opener, and from my very own perspective I believe some good had come of it, in a very cynical sort of way. I took stock of the situation after the riots of 519 and decided that it was better for my family to migrate to Australia. I can sincerely say that that was the best decision that I had ever made. I think most of you reading my response will say that I am a traitor, but that remark will be made and made unthinkingly ! I am not any traitor because in the Malaysia environment when I was Malaysian, we Chinese were not ever respected as Malaysian citizen, so why say that those who, like me chose to leave Malaysia, TRAITORS ? By the same consideration, our fore-bares migrated to Malaya. We Chinese were born to withstand hardships; and you can almost say that Chinese are born with genes that carry the hardy DNA because the many waves of Chinese migrants came from the very bottom of China’s society. Our fore bares came with nothing but the cloths on their back, and they climbed up from zero.

There is no reason for the Malays to grudge the Chinese for what many of us worked hard to achieve, At this point the issue that I want to raise is, “what can justify the Malays to discriminate against Chinese ? Are the Chinese not equal citizens as are the Malays or the Indians or whatever and wherever we had come to make Malaysia home ? We all did it our own way and there are as many poor Chinese as there are poor Malays. I say to my Malay friends that we had not at any time while we lived in Malaysia derived any government support, nor did we at anytime grudged the government largess that for 53 years had all gone to the Malays. What is the difference between Ahmad (who works as a mata mata) and another “Shaffie” who gets rich from taking millions of Ringgit in bribes as a UMNO minister ? What is the difference between Ah fatt who works as car “DRIVER” and a Robert Kuok, the billionaire ? The point that I want to make is that they are all “stand alone” one is not the same as the other; each is only worth as much as he can achieve, and not because one is Malay and the other is Chinese. In a population of 28 million, a Malay is not beholden to another Malay nor is a Malay beholden to a Chinese, and that is because we are only responsible for ourselves. This therefore begs the question “ IT IS UMNO POLICY TO BENEFIT ALL MALAYS” but there are 23 million Malays and as I said earlier how will UMNO share Malay privileges among the Malays ? Even if there are 10,000 Malay scholarships given out per year, what about those Kampong Malays who have no political influence, how will UMNO reach out to them ? Therefore we have to ask the question, IS UMNO’s SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR THE MALAYS REALLY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE MALAYS ; or is it more in point for the preservation of UMNO and their power elite ? I argue that Malay special privileges is a construct of Mahatir’s to entrench his own megalomaniac power grab. I read 2 very well written articles in the Malaysian Insider.com, by Art Harun and the other by Muaz Omar “MAHATIR YOU ARE THE PROBLEM”; both articles are well argued, but what is more important is they are affirmation of Mao Tze Tung’s famous quote “TO CONQUER A CITY YOU NEED TO CONVINCE 2 BELIEVERS LIVING IN THAT CITY”. There is hope yet, because at last after 53 years of BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, we have at last 2 believers who can see that the KING WEARS NO CLOTHS AT ALL. It is not too flattering at all to Mahatir, that while he is still living to read comments from Malays who has seen through him, NOT AS SAVIOUR OF THE MALAYS BUT AS A TROUBLEMAKER !

I always believe that better than to say a 1000 words, point a finger at a thriving example is the best argument. I ask the Malays, will you like Malaysia to remain backward and un-competitive or will you prefer a Malaysia that is like gleaming Singapore ? You do not have to answer me, just ask yourself and answer to yourself. The solution to Malaysia’s problem is outright reform and remove the SPECIAL PRIVILEGES POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION ! The discriminatory policy of the present UMNO government is all about the politics of remaining in power. UMNO has never in true spirit protected the rights of the Malays. I refer you to the article of Mr. Muaz Omar and his listing of the total and dismal failure of all the projects that were launched by Mahatir while he was in office (Rm100 billion) IN OLD MONEY and in today’s terms a couple of USA$ easily a couple of trillions, when you take into account lost earnings from that Rm.100 billions over the long haul; just off the top of my head, the 1st loss of a couple of Rm.billion was in that CRAZY LONDON TIN SPECULATION, a totally amateurish effort, a total ignorance of the operation of the workings of the “COMMODY EXCHANGE” AND TRADING ON THE FUTURES MARKET. Mamak Mahatir thought that since Malaysia at that time produced 75% of the world’s tin production, he cannot go wrong because he can always ‘deliver physical tin” that was what got his balls wrenched in a vise. Malaysia lost billion dollars or even more who knows ? Another glaring example was the loss of another billion or more dollars in the dealings with a Hong Kong’s notorious con-man,(forget his name) in short “the Perwaja” project. Anyway Mahatir’s many amateurish and frequent tilt at the windmills of world commerce ended with losses of Rm.100 billion and makes excellent reading of plain farce and for a belly full of laughs ! To sum it all, “MALAYSIA AT TIME OF INDEPENDENCE HAD EVERYTHING AND SINGAPORE HAD NOTHING; and today Singapore has everything and Malaysia is left “gaga”.

However, depending on who you are, Malaysia can expect GOOD TIMES IN THE NEAR FUTURE ! It is said that the percentage of Chinese remaining in Malaysia in the year 2020 will drop to 14% of population and I will say that that is good news for UMNO; on the other side of politics, there is every chance that the government of Malaysia will fall into the hands of Pakatan Rakyat and Dato Seri Anwar will become the next Prime Minister and that will be good news for the PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA ! Good for UMNO equals bad for Pakatan Rakyat but good for Pakatan Rayat equals good for all the people of

COMPLAINT TO ADVOCATE & SOLICITOR DISCIPLINARY BOARD

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, WA6156,
Western Australia
Email :yapchongyee@Gmail.com
Tel. (08)61613661



20 January 2010

Director of the Complaints Secretariat
Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Bar
9th & 10th Floor
Wisma Maran
Medan Pasar
50050 K. L.

Dear Sir,

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,

Dear Sirs,

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.

letter to Malaysian Chief Justice charging Judge Zainon with Criminal Conduct.

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,

LETTER FROM YAPCHONGYEE TO PRESIDENT & SECRETARY MALAYSIAN BAR COUNCIL

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 dealing 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 FORWITH APPLY TO SET ASIDE ZAINON'S USELESS ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION AND TO SEND TO HER 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 fucking 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.
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 with draw and I cmplained to Chief Justice Tun Faroz 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 under that fucking NONSENSE OF ISA SHIT ! I will come at my own expense to defend myself in KL.
　
Sincerely,
yapchongyee
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

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
}