Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali Aided & Abetted Perjury & Forgery

Date : 7th Feb., 2007
E-mail:yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au


The Editor,
Straits Times,
Federation of Malaysia,

Dear Sir,

Re Charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for CRIMINALLY
ABETTING RESPONDENTS IN THE COMMISSION OF THEIR
CRIMINES.
KL. High Court Originating Petition No: D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia)Sd, Bhd. &5 others.

I was a registered member of the Malaysian Bar (1967 to 1978). In 2001, My wife took out a petition to wind up her company, but her petition was opposed by parties who are “trespassers” or total “strangers”; alleging ownership of share that were void according to the law laid down in the case of Kelepa Sawit (Telok Anson)Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeah Kim Leng (1990), Court of Appeal, quoted below. Judge Zainon J, the presiding judge acted pro-actively; and in a manner that made her abet the criminal actions and criminal conduct of the respondents. I hold Zainon J personally liable and accountable for her own criminal conduct and actions.

I have written to all the parties listed below.

(1)
I am charging Zainon J with abetting the respondents in their perpetration of the crimes of perjury and forgery and abetment of related offences as listed below in the performance of her duties as the presiding judge; I charge her for protecting the respondents from prosecution by acting in opposition to the requirements of the law of evidence, procedure, and substantive law. Judge Zainon at all times acted in a manner that extended her protection to the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon from prosecution of the Laws; and that at all times she knew that her actions concealed the criminal conduct of said respondents, and their crimes. In Malaysia it is not what the laws are, but it is always WHO you know, and in this context I will give my right arm to know if Zainon J had acted so shamelessly because Inche Haris Onn bin Hussein Onn son of former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn and brother to one of the serving Minister in the present government cabinet, and is one of the respondents.

(1a)
Zainon J delivered a one line judgment supporting her striking out of said petition on the grounds that petitioner did not plead “forgery”; as stated below Zainon J affirmed the forgery of Stephen Lim’s affidavit dated 17 Sept., 2004, by her judgment; irony of it all, she aimed to legitimize the forgery and perjury of Stephen Lim’s affidavit by striking out said petition. Her judgment is legal nonsense because if the affidavit carried “FORGERIES” the affidavit is an illegal document and therefore cannot be used in any manner whatsoever. This amply demonstrate that Zainon J is only half literate in the law (half baked, she don’t know the law, la ! ). She cannot support her judgment by an illegal document. I annex exhibits copied from Stephen Lim’s affidavit dated 17 Sept., 2004 under the heading “ANNEXURE” at the bottom of this letter. Please take note that the forgeries were executed by at least 4 different FORGERS; this is apparent when you compare them visually. In all the almost 8 years of the tooing and frooing of this case, Zainon J has not written nor ever delivered one intelligible WORD to justify her one line judgment. Remember this that Zainon J affirmed that the affidavit of Stephen Lim’s dated 17th Sept., 2004 annexed forged documents AND IN SPITE OF THAT SHE GOES ON TO STRIKE OUT PETITION as showing no cause of action; while FORBIDDING petitioner the right to apply for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim for perjury and forgery. Can you believe that ?

I refer to my wife’s petition registered under the title and Parties named in the Petition as reproduced at the bottom of this letter; and for convenience, hereinafter referred to as the said Petition.

(2)
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was the presiding judge of the case at first instance.
On Respondents’ application for security for costs Judge Zainon refused Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine Respondents on their supporting affidavits to prove perjury. Content and substance of Respondents’ Perjury were reported by myself to the POLICE; and the police reports were annexed to the affidavits of Petitioner.

(3)
Zainon J. criminally and dishonestly CONTRIVED the withdrawal of Petitioner’s application to cross examine Respondents as aforesaid above; in circumstances that reveal her character flaws as a DISHONEST, DISSEMBLING AND MANIPULATIVE woman.

(4)
Her Ploy :
Petitioner had pleaded that she never signed any company resolution nor signed any share transfer nor ever sold her promoter’s share. Respondents alleged that she did; and Petitioner applied for leave to cross examine Respondents for perjury.
(5)
Zainon J. asked petitioner’s solicitor to request that Petitioner withdraw her application to cross examine Respondents; but Petitioner REFUSED to withdraw. Zainon J. then approved Respondents’ application for security for costs and denying Petitioner leave to cross examine; but Petitioner’s application to cross examine was not dismissed. Petitioner paid RM60,000 security for costs. Upon such payment, Respondents applied to STRIKE OUT said Petition.

(6)
FACTS OF Zainon J. DISSEMBLING :
Zainon J. postponed at least 8 times repeatedly the hearing dates set for the application for security for costs, and over a period of 3 and ¼ years; after that length of time, she awarded judgment in favour of Respondents in total disregard of Petitioner’s insistence that respondents’ affidavits were perjured; and upon Petitioner’s payment of RM60,000 Respondents quickly applied to STRIKE OUT said Petition..

(7)
On this application to strike out it was again supported by affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (Respondent) and by his affidavit he again PERJURED and in addition to his perjury he annexed documents that were in fact FORGERIES. Petitioner again applied to cross examine for PERJURY.

(8)
Zainon J. kept repeatedly postponing the hearing of the application to strike out over a period 3 years. Petitioner’s solicitors felt that the reason for Zainon’s continuous postponement was because she wanted to force Petitioner to withdraw her application for cross examination in respect of the application for security for costs, and in our discussion with our solicitors we decided that since security for costs was in fact already awarded, our application to cross examine having been refused by her and therefore had become redundant; and in these circumstances Petitioner was persuaded to withdraw her application to cross examine respondents in respect only of application for security for costs.

(9)
Zainon J DISHONESTY and DISSEMBLING :
Immediately upon the withdrawal of Petitioner’s application for cross examination in respect of the application for security for costs only, ZAINON J. approved respondents’s applications to
both :
(a)dismiss Petitioner’s 2nd application to cross examine Respondents
for PERJURY in respect of their application to strike out
petition with costs in favour of Respondents; on the grounds
she alleged that the 1st and 2nd affidavits were the same and therefore
That Petitioner “had approbated and reprobated,” because Petitioner had
withdrawn the first application, this is nonsense because the two affidavits
were as different as “CHEESE” & “CHALK” as will be proven. 1st
application was deposed by Kwong Sea Yoon; 2nd was deposed by
Stephen Lim, contents & substance were different.
(b)AWARDED judgment to Respondents’ application to strike out
said petition on the grounds that petitioner had not pleaded forgery. Her
judgment is further evidence that Zainon J had acted to conceal the crimes
of the said 3 respondents; her judgment will prevent petitioner to ever
prove that respondents had perjured.

(10)
I charge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali J with abetting the following criminal offences under the penal code namely :

(1)ABETTING PERJURY
(2)ABETTING FORGERY
(3)ABETTING CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD
(4)ABETTING FRAUD
(5)ABETTING CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
(6)ABETTING PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
(7)ABETTING CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

(11)
I enclose true copies of the documents that carried the forged signatures of petitioner and are the ones that Zainon J had declared in open court that Petitioner had not pleaded FORGERY to and as a consequence of Petitioner’s failure to plead forgery Zainon J. ordered the striking out of said Petition. I am also enclosing true signatures of petitioner’s for comparison of Petitioner’s true signature against the forgeries that Stephen Lim had annexed to his supporting affidavit; and alleged by Stephen Lim as the signatures of petitioner’s.
Zainon J. was the only person to indicate that the signatures affixed to the documents that were annexed to the affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s dated the 17th Sept., 2004 and were alleged by Zainon J as forgeries. The issue of forgery was never raised by Petitioner at anytime, because it was sufficient for Petitioner to ground her case under the rule in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. vs. Yeoh Kim Leng (1990) CSLR VIII|2|; (1991) 1MJL301; a decision of the Court of Appeal. In these compelling circumstances, common sense dictates that Zainon J had to grant leave for Petitioner to cross examine. Her refusal is indication that she intended to exclude cross examination to protect respondents from exposure as liars and perjurers.

(12)
Her refusal to give petitioner leave to cross examine respondents to prove perjury and forgery and coupled to her “belief” that the documents were forged made the act of her refusal to give leave to petitioner the act of abetting the respondents in the perpetration of their crimes.

(13)
On the issue of whether to grant Petitioner leave to cross examine Stephen Lim, Zainon J had pro-actively contrived the denial to the petitioner her right to cross examine respondents by her refusal to apply the law that requires that the party making the allegation must bare the primary burden of proof. The issue rest on one of the pillars of the law of evidence; which prescribes that he who alleges bears the burden of proof. It is Stephen Lim who alleged that petitioner sold to him her promoter’s share; and therefore it is Stephen Lim who has “ALLEGED” and it is Stephen Lim who bears the burden of proof. Zainon J refused to apply this rule of evidential law (although petitioner has strenuously argued the point) and instead, she not only refused Petitioner leave to cross examine, but in addition to her refusal she imposed penalty on petitioner and awarded cost of the application in favour of respondents. This is evidence that proves Zainon J was partisan and was VINDICTIVE and set out to damage the interests of Petitioner in retaliation or revenge against me for making compliant against her to the CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYSIA for interfering in the conduct of petitioner’s case.
At this point Petitioner’s application constitutes the joining of issues by the respondents and petitioner, and the cross examination of Stephen Lim will conclude the trial of the case (petition). The cross examination will inevitably turn to the forgery of petitioner’s signatures, and the finding of this fact will conclude the trial. AT THIS POINT Zainon J does not have any discretionary powers vis a vis the issue whether to give leave to petitioner to cross examine; because procedurally the pleading has come to the END and the cross examination will end the case. Zainon J had to give leave to cross examination, but she chose instead to dismiss the petition on the grounds that pleading showed no cause of action because petitioner did not plead FORGERY. This dismissal was a ploy to avoid giving leave to petitioner to cross examine Stephen Lim. Zainon J has sufficient knowledge of the law to know that dismissal on that ground is disingenuous, but she decided the petition on that basis knowing that her decision did not make sense in law. In this sense Zainon J had acted CRIMINALLY because she will also know that her action will serve to assist and facilitate the respondents from CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for forgery and perjury; this constitutes AIDING AND ABETTING the respondents in the perpetration of their crimes as listed above.
I charge Zainon J with abetment and criminal conduct in the performance of her duties. She abused her office as judge of the High Court of Malaya. I say to Zainon J that if she is worth 2 cents worth as a lawyer, I invite her to come to Perth and sue me, and I will prove how criminal she had been in the conduct of this case. It will be crazy for me to defend myself in Malaysia where the judiciary has no respect for their own law. Come to Perth and we will fight it out before judges who really know and respect the law.

(14)
More importantly, Zainon’s J. refusal to grant leave to Petitioner to cross examine Stephen Lim in COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES demonstrates that she refuses to apply the law that compels her in the circumstances to grant leave to petitioner to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban. Her action in refusing leave to Petitioner in the said circumstances constitutes abetment.

(15)
Petitioner had accordingly appealed the decision of Zainon J. but more appropriately, this MISCARRIAGE OF THE LAW AND JUSTICE needed to be examined by a formal Parliamentary commission because a judge of the HIGH COURT OF MALAYA and now she is a judge of the COURT OF APPEAL, who is unethical, dishonest, unprofessional cannot be allowed to remain in such high office. It is only right that she be removed from office.

(16)
It is utterly disgraceful that Zainon J in open court states that she ORDERS STRIKING OUT because Petitioner had not pleaded FORGERY; she grounded her judgment to strike out said petition on the documents tendered by Stephen Lim (respondent) as evidence that supports his lie/perjury that petitioner sold and transferred her promoter’s share to Stephen Lim. This statement of hers translates to mean that without pleading forgery Petitioner has no cause of action, hence the striking out.

(17)
COMPELLING REASON FOR JUDGE TO ORDER
CROSS EXAMINATION :
Far from Zainon J’s finding that petition shows no cause of action because petitioner did not plead forgery, the evidence tendered by respondents show that respondents have no defense whatsoever to said petition. Stephen Lim tendered documents that were forgeries as proof of their allegation. Since forgeries are nullity it means that Petitioner’s statement that she is still promoter and share holder of respondent company remains un-refuted. The issue whether respondents have adequately defended or refuted petitioner’s claim has never ever been addressed by respondents.

(18)
Respondents had no defense nor has proven any relevant and admissible evidence that petitioner had disposed off her share. The pleading of the respondents whose only defense is GROUNDED on their allegation that petitioner had disposed off her share by sale to Stephen Lim, and in proof of the alleged sale, respondents tendered documents that were to Zainon J’s belief or suspicion, and to all observers visually and obviously alike were in fact forgeries. At this point it is the duty of the presiding judge to allow cross examination to prove the issue whether the documents tendered by Stephen Lim were forgeries or not. The finding of fact at this point will conclude the trial and the case won or lost depending on the outcome. It is also at this point that we can also conclude my claim that Zainon J had from the very outset had intended to pro-actively contrive the dismissal of said petition.

(19)
At this point the core issue has crystallized by the tender of documents by Stephen Lim as evidence of alleged sale and transfer by petitioner. The decision as to the authenticity of the tendered documents is the final and conclusive evidence that will decide the case one way or the other, thus the question “WERE THE DOCUMENTS TENDERED BY STEPHEN LIM SIGNED BY PETITIONER ?”
At this point of the trial Zainon J has no discretion on the issue because the pleadings and evidence has drawn to the conclusion stage in the trial. The issue whether the documents are authentic and genuine or are they fabrication. Petitioner says they are fabrication.

(20)
At this point instead of putting the issue for trial (ordering cross examination of Stephen Lim), Zainon J proceeded to strike out petition. It is my claim that Zainon J had been pro-active in contriving the dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioner had not pleaded “forgery”. She had pro-actively interfered in perverting the course of justice and therefore abetted the respondents in the perpetration of their crimes. This is evidence that Zainon J had pro-actively contrived the striking out of said petition to protect respondents from cross examination and hence expose themselves as perjurers and liars. She pro-actively abetted their crimes and is thus, herself become a criminal.




Your”s Faithfully,


Yap Chong Yee


IN THE HIGH COURTOF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
( COMMERCIAL DIVISION )
ORIGINATING PETITION NO: D2-26-41 OF 2001

In the Matter of McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (formerly) known as Relionus Adjusters Sdn Bhd)
And
In the Matter of Section 181 of the Companies Act, 1965
And
In the Matter of Order 88 Rules of the High Court , 1980

Between

Lim Choi Yin ...Petitioner

And

1. Mc Laren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
2. Wong Kem Chen (Nric No. 500807-06-5077)
3. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (Nric No. 3912914)
4. Leong Yee Fook (Nric No. 560727-10-5651)
5. Lum Siew Wai (Nric No. 4734145) ... Respondent-
6. Haris Onn bin Hussein Onn (Nric No. 661124-10-5727) Respondent


COPIES :

(1)Chief Judge Federation of Malaysia
(2)Chief Judge Malaya
(3)Zainon J. Court of Appeal
(4)Chairman, Bar Council Malaysia
(5)Secretary, Bar Council Malaysia
(6)Prime Minister, Malaysia
(7)Secretary General, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF MALAYSIA
(8)SECRETARY GENERAL, JUSTICE PARTY
(9)PRACTISING ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS, MALAYSIA (randomly)
10)EDITOR THE STAR MALAYSIA
(11)EDITOR STRAITS TIMES(MALAYSIA & SINGAPORE)
(12)EDITOR THE WEST AUSTRALIAN, PERTH
(13)DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER TUN NAJIB BIN ABDUL RAZAK
(14)EDITOR FINANCIAL TIMES AUSTRALIA
(15)EDITOR THE AUSTRALIAN
(16)CHINADAILY AND www.chinadaily.com.cn
(18)AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER TO MALAYSIA
(19)HEAD CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, A.-G’S DEPARTMENT.
(20)100 copies will be sent to randomly chosen legal practitioners KL
(21)Secretary General DAP,
(22)Secretary general, Justice Party.