Letter to Attorney General

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

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.

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.

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.
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.

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..

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.

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 AND THEREFORE HAD BECOME REDUNDENT. In these circumstances Petitioner was persuaded to withdraw her application to cross examine respondents IN RESPECT ONLY OF APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS.

Zainon J DISHONESTY and DISSEMBLING :
Immediately upon the withdrawal of Petitioner’s application for cross examination, ZAINON J. APPROVED RESPONDENTS application 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”.
(b)AWARDED judgment to Respondents’ on their application to strike out
said petition ON THE GROUNDS THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT
PLEADED FORGERY.

I charge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali J with ABETTING THE FOLLOWING criminal OFFENCES UNDER THE PENAL CODE OF MALAYSIA namely :

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

I enclose TRUE COPIES of the documents that Zainon J declared in open court that Petitioner had not pleaded FORGERY to and as a consequence of Petitioner’s failure to plead forgery Zainon J. orders the striking out of said Petition.; I am also enclosing a CD that will show in slide format comparisons of Petitioner’s true signature against the forgeries of Petitioner’s signature that were annexed to the affidavit dated 17th Sept., 2004 by STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN.

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 were forged. 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.

The most incriminating evidence that Zainon J. had abused her office and had intentionally perverted the course of justice WAS THE ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY SUPPORT HER JUDGMENT TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. There was no evidence AND THERE WAS NO LACK OF A CAUSE OF ACTION.

In addition to the above, for Zainon J to award judgment in favour of the Respondents for striking out, Zainon J had to REFUSE TO APPLY THE LAW THAT WAS BINDIBG ON HER AND DECIDED BY A SUPERIOR COURT OF APPEAL (re: Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd.’s case), and in so doing she had intentionally and with knowledge of a BINDING AUTHORITY preventing her from acting in opposition to said binding authority, awarded judgment in favour of Respondents; this constitutes AIDING AND ABETTING THE RESPONDENTS for the purpose of concealing the listed crimes committed by the respondents which would be easily exposed if Zainon J. had given leave for Petitioner to cross examine the deponents.To further add to this point is the fact that underpinning her rationale to strike out Zainon J. alleged that failure to plead Respondent’s forgery caused petition TO SHOW NO CAUSE OF ACTION. This is red herring because Petition need not plead all possible causes of action; only one cause of action is necessary.

That being the case, Zainon J having knowledge that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit annexed documents that were to her knowledge FORGERIES COMMITTED ABETMENT OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES LISTED ABOVE because she knew that by refusing petitioner leave to cross examine respondents for PERJURY AND FORGERY her judgment directly and with her knowledge CAUSED THE CONCEALMENT OF SAID FORGERIES AND PERJURIES. Zainon J has ABETTED THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT I HAVE LISTED ABOVE.

I will illustrate the issues posed by the criminal act of Zainon J. for her grounding of her judgment ON THE FORGED annexed documents to the affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban dated 17th of Sept., 2004.

ILLUSTRATION of her criminal act :
I come through KL International Airport and in front of me a “CHINESE” passenger’s luggage is inspected by “CHINESE” custom officer; and when said luggage is opened I see in his said opened luggage a plastic bag with word “HEROIN” printed on it; the “CHINESE” custom officer closes the luggage and lets the CHINESE PASSESNGER clear to pass through inspection. I THEN PROTEST TO THE CHINESE CUSTOM OFFICER THAT THE PASSENGER CARRIED HEROIN IN HIS LUGGAGE. The Chinese custom officer says “ I KNOW” but I will nevertheless let the HEROIN courier clear custom. The Chinese Customs officer in this case has abetted the Chinese passenger for smuggling heroin. Zainon J. action is similar to that of the custom officer and constitutes abetment.
In terms of legal issues involved, the said Chinese custom officer has committed abetment to smuggling of heroin (and other criminal offences); IT IS IN THE SAME WAY THAT ZAINON J. HAS COMMITTED ABETMENT BY ACTING AGAINST THE LAW UPHELD IN THE CASE OF Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) v. Yeoh Kim leng (1990) and her knowledge that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s Affidavit dated 17th Sept., 2004 was in fact forged.
It is not relevant nor required for us to prove a nexus between the Respondents and Zainon J. IT IS ONLY IMPORTANT TO PROVE THAT ZAINON J. acted in a manner that AIDED the Respondents to EVADE PROSECUTION. The action of Zainon J. served TO CONCEAL THE PERJURY AND FORGERY AND OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENCES LISTED ABOVE. She has abetted the Respondents for the crimes listed above.

The foremost issue that incriminates Zainon J. for a prosecution of abetment is the total and absolute absence of any kind of evidence that will support her judgment to dismiss both of Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine respondents for Perjury and Forgery, and any basis for striking out. In these circumstances Zainon J cannot claim that she acted on her powers of judicial discretion BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE COULD CLAIM SHE HAD EXERCISED HER JUDICIAL DISCRETION.

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.


Yours Faithfully,
Yap Chong Yee


Commentary :

I have written this letter to the ATTORNEY GENERAL (Malaysia), with copies to the relevant Malaysian authorities and media around the world (hopefully) TO CAMPAIGN FOR A MALAYSIAN system for the administration of the LAW & JUSTICE that is LAW BASED as opposed to what is now the prevalent method of administration of Law in Malaysia that is a parody of the ENGLISH COMMON LAW. The English Common Law that is claimed to be the foundation of Malaysian LAW has been administered with great abuse and “CREATIVITY” by the Judges of Malaysia according to their own agenda.

My wife’s case is in point. I graduated in Law from the University of Singapore and practiced Law in Malaysia from 1967 to 1978, when I migrated to Australia.
I therefore know what I am talking about. I want the Malaysian authorities to apply to extradite me from Australia so that an Australian Court will try the issues that I have defined. I do not trust a Malaysian Court to apply and to respect the law.

IT IS UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL THAT ZAINON J., while in open court states that she ORDERS STRIKING OUT because Petitioner had not pleaded FORGERY; this statement of hers translates to mean that without pleading forgery Petitioner has no cause of action, hence the striking out. Her statement in this context MAKES HER LOOK LIKE A DAMNED FOOL, because what she has said equates with saying (by logical construction or by implication), “I believe that the documents annexed to affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban are forgeries and being forgeries they are nullity in law (in other words they do not exist in Law) THEREFORE, it is my belief that the sworn affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in fact AFFIRMS Petitioner’s sworn statements that she did not sell, in any way transferred her promoter’s share, nor has she ever signed any Respondent Company’s resolutions whatsoever; BECAUSE STEPHEN LIM’S AFFIDAVIT TENDERED DOCUMENTS THAT HE ALLEGES IS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PETITIONER HAD SOLD AND TRANSFERED HER PROMOTER’S SHARE, AND THESE ALLEGED DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE FORGERIES BY ZAINON J. That being the case Zainon J. had in fact POSITIVELY AFFIRMED THE AFFIDAVITS OF PETITIONER AS PROVEN, that Petitioner had not sold nor in any way disposed off her promoter’s share, whatsoever; since the documents tendered by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban AS EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF SALE AND TRANSFER ARE BELIEVED BY THE STATEMENT OF ZAINON J. TO BE FORGERIES.

The foregoing analysis is evidence and proof that Zainon J. had intended to strike out said petition no matter what. It is something to laugh at that Zainon J. WILL STRIKE OUT (as in this case) even when she is in agreement with the Petitioner, in fact.

My wife stands to lose RM60,000 that my wife had provided to the Respondents as security for costs (except for the RM.10,000 security for costs to the Respondent Company, all the rest of RM50,000 that Zainon J awarded to the other 5 respondents were clearly awarded to bump up the security of costs thinking that it will be too much for a pensioner to raise, therefore the case cannot proceed further. MY REASON FOR THUS THINKING IS THAT THE 5 OTHER RESPONDENTS WERE ONLY FORMAL RESPONDENTS AND WERE IN NO DANGER OF ATTRACTING ANY FORM OF LIABILITY EVEN IF THE COMPANY LOSE THEIR DEFENSE).

Here again is evidence that shows that Zainon J. was “creative” in her action to cause Petitioner to abort her Petition.

NOTE :

To those in the Media that have received my letter by E-mail; I will send my personally signed copy of the letter, and any comments or details that is required.

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
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
(17)all the judges of WESTERN AUSTRALIA
(18)HIGH COMMISSIONER AUSTRALIA.
(19)HEAD CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, A.-G’S DEPARTMENT.