The Environment for the Legal Profession and the judiciary in Indonesia is the same as that in Malaysia.

+ Yap Chong Yee
Date : 26th April, 2007,
Sent by Fax.
E-mail:yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com


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
CRIMES.
KL. High Court Originating Petition No: D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia)Sd, Bhd. &5 others.


(1)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s judgment delivered in open court were in these words, “Petition is dismissed because Petitioner did not plead FORGERY”; and Petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine respondents for PERJURY is dismissed because she withdrew her first application for leave to cross examine said 3 respondents, Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban; and the first affidavit of Respondents are the same as the second supporting affidavit of the Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban. This is not true because the second supporting affidavit affirmed by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, and dated the 17 of September, 2004, had annexed FORGED DOCUMENTS and the forgery of the documents drew the attention of.Judge Zainon binti Mohd Ali since she made the alleged non pleading of forgery the GROUNDS for dismissal of Petitioner’s application for showing no cause of action. Stephen Lim’s Application to strike out Petition was made in his own capacity as 3rd respondent, and not merely as witness for the Company; in these circumstances he does not have any legal standing to make that application to strike out, because Petitioner has no claim against Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in his personal capacity; THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HIM WHATSOEVER. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban by his misconceived application to strike out said Petition sought to DENY petitioner her right to cross examine HIM for PERJURY and FORGERY (FORGERIES were annexed to his supporting affidavit dated 17th September, 2004).
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali can see, by a comparison of my wife’s true signature and those of the FORGERIES that Stephen Lim had annexed to his supporting affidavit, FABRICATED DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FORGERIES.

(2)Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s annexing of the forged documents to his supporting affidavit dated the 17 of September, 2004 made his application to strike out said Petition null & void because his supporting affidavit (17th September, 2007) carried documents that were forgeries and he perjured in his affidavit; these FACTS support a CHARGE against Stephen Lim for OBTAINING A JUDICIAL JUDGMENT BY FRAUD.

(a)Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application to strike out said Petition was both in fact and in law A 3RD PARTY APPLICATION, given that there was never ever a claim of any kind made by Petitioner against Stephen Lim, and further that Petitioner has always MAINTAINED HER STAND THAT SHE HAD NEVER SOLD NOR EVER TRANSFERRED HER SOLE PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. to anyone whatsoever; and that being the case Stephen Lim’s application to strike out petition ON THE GROUNDS THAT PETITIONER HAD SOLD HER PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN.BHD., TURNED him (Stephen Lim) into “the Plaintiff” in his 3rd party claim; and TURNED Petitioner into “the defendant” to Stephen Lim’s 3rd Party application. AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AN ACTION FOR SHOWING NO CAUSE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT AND IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF; because only a Plaintiff can initiate a cause of action or a legal claim. Stephen Lim’s legal counsel had misconceived the nature and rationale for the existence of the PROCEDURE FOR STRIKING OUT, which is intended to dismiss any action that has no cause of action in law, hence there could not be any claim at all in law. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had used Stephen Lim’s application to strike out as cause for establishing the quality and credibility of the evidence. THIS IS NOT WHAT STRIKING OUT MEANS. Zainon binti Mohd. Ali too does not understand the workings of the procedure for striking out.

TO BE SURE THE ONLY APPLICATION TO INVOKE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR A PLAINTIFF IS AN APLICATION UNDER Ord.14 and to avail this procedure Plaintiff will have to show that his claim is for a liquidated sum, AND THAT DEFENDANT HAS NO DEFENCE WHATSOEVER.

That being the law, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s judgment has NO LEGAL BASIS OR LEGAL FOUNDATION. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s judgment is an insult to the COMPETENCE OF MALAYSIAN JUDGES. In the circumstances her judgment is both BAD & WRONG because both the law and the PROCEDURAL RULES OF THE HIGH COURT does not give a PLAINTIFF the right to apply for striking out, because a defense is a mere denial of the Plaintiff’s claim or cause of action.

(b)TO ADD INSULT TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’s INCOMPETENCE and her simplistic attempt to PROTECT THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF STEPHEN LIM, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon, the annexed documents, being FORGERIES, were at all times, ILLEGAL DOCUMENTS, and it was the duty of the presiding judge to IMPOUND the documents. The judgment of the learned judge, having been constructed upon the foundation of illegal forged documents, and the judge having reasonable grounds to believe and to observe the obvious discrepancies in all 5 forgeries compared against the true signatures of Petitioner in her many supporting affidavits, made her judgment to strike out said Petition AN ILLEGAL JUDGMENT. This submission proceeds on the assumption that paragraph (a) above GIVES STEPHEN LIM THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION, which in law he has no right to apply because he is (by his application to strike out) in fact become the Plaintiff in his 3rd Party application against petitioner; and PETITIONER has (by Stephen Lim’s Application ) turn to become defendant to Stephen Lim’s 3rd PARTY APPLICATION.

Stephen Lim Cheng Ban was served as a formal respondent only and there was no claim against him of whatever kind as formal respondent. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is represented by a separate and different counsel from that of the COMPANY.

Stephen Lim Cheng Ban FILED AND INITIATED his application for striking out said Petition IN HIS OWN RIGHT and he supported his application by his own affidavit affirmed by himself. This makes his application his own claim against Petitioner and reinforces Petitioner’s claim that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s claim is one between STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN as Plaintiff v. Lim Choi Yin as defendant. That said, the application by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to strike out said Petition and in the open & obvious INCOMPETENCE AND PROFESSIONAL IGNORANCE OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD ALI, cannot be available to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as Plaintiff, because an application to strike out is only available to a DEFENDANT.

As you can see it is plain that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application to strike out said petition has no basis in law, and is TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali shows that she is absolutely & totally unable to define legal issues, and she was unable to see that she had acted totally outside of the law and she has no judicial powers of any kind whatsoever to allow Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application to strike out said Petition.

Yours faithfully,


Yapchongyee


PS.
(1) As stated above, both the Petition for winding up of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. (the original petition), and the 3rd PARTY ACTION initiated by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, by his claim that Petitioner had sold to him (Stephen Lim) petitioner’s promoter’s share or whatever alleged Petitioner’s share or shares, whatsoever; are still two pending actions there are filed in the HIGH COURT and still have not been ADJUDICATED AS YET. The two actions are live actions and the misconceived conduct, actions and whatever that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali thought that she had DONE TO pass for judicial adjudication HAS TURNED OUT TO BE BLANK SHOTS fired by the BLIND; sort of like doing a MASTERTURBATION that fired “BLANKS” and nothing can happen because it is a figment of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s imagination. She had no power to award both security for costs because Respondents had supported their applications with perjured affidavits; nor did she have the powers to allow the application of Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to strike out said petition because from her reason for striking out said petition she had indicated that she had very strong reason to believe that Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit annexed documents that were forgeries.

(2) I anticipate from my preceding analysis that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will raise her right to exercise judicial discretion; and that will be the sort of nonsense that will come from the likes of a “Zainon binti Mohd. Ali type judge.” In the analysis above THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CLAIMING JUDGE’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS, BECAUSE JUDGE ZAINON HAD very high degree of belief that respondents had perjured & had annexed forged documents to support their allegations in their supporting affidavits; and with such high degree of belief judge Zainon cannot refuse to give leave to petitioner to cross examine the respondents for perjury & forgery. It is evidence that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had intentionally denied petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine.

(3) Now comes the interesting part of the whole sorry mess created by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, through her obvious ignorance of the law or that she had acted complicity with the perpetrators of the crimes of Perjury & Forgeries, To lend her PROTECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR PERJURY & FORGERIES.

(4) The Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s 3rd PARTY CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN TRIED YET and the normal course for the judge to do is to put the case up for trial, AND IT IS AT THIS STAGE THAT THE RESPONDENTS CANNOT ESCAPE THEIR CRIMINAL INCRIMINATIONS. All the parties, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon & my wife (Petitioner) ALL KNOW FOR A FACT THAT ALL THE NAMED RESPONDENTS HERE LIED, FABRICATED DOCUMENTS AND DESTROYED PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. The hearing of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s THIRD PARTY ACTION will reveal their crimes & criminal behavior.
What justifiable reason for the Attorney General’s Department not to investigate Petition’s & mine 3 POLICE REPORTS ?

(5) Will the judiciary of Malaysia REFUSE TO TRY THIS CASE, WHEN THEIR OWN MOST SENIOR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS SO SCANDALOUSLY INVOLVED IN PRO-ACTIVELY ACTING IN A MANNER TO PROTECT THE CRIMINAL RESPONDENTS FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

(6) Take my wife’s application by said petition for winding up of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd., Respondents sought to disqualify my wife by alleging that she had sold and transferred her sole promoter’s share, therefore has no legal standing to apply for the relief sought by her; Petitioner defended against respondents’ allegation by an outright denial and charged respondents for PERJURY and she applied to Judge Zainon for leave to cross examine for perjury. Judge Zainon dismissed Petitioner’s application for right to cross examine respondents.

(7) It is important following my statement above(para. 6) that at all times the Respondent Company was represented by their alleged company secretary Mr. Kwong Sea Yoon BUT WHEN PETITIONER APPLIED FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE FOR PERJURY, MR KWONG SEA YOON, REFUSED AND DID NOT FURTHER PARTICIPATE IN THESE proceedings any further whatsoever, and at all. The application to strike was made by Mr Stephen Lim AND NOT BY MR KWONG SEA YOON. In every way Mr Kwong Sea Yoon has from the day of our application for right to cross examine him, ceased to represent the company.

(8) The issue that I wish to raise following para. (6) & (7) is that at the earliest stage of these proceedings(at their application for security for costs, RESPONDENT COMPANY HAD JOINED ISSUE WITH PETITIONER AT IN ALL NORMAL CASES THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE GONE ON TO TRIAL, because the “contest” between the respondent company and Petitioner was one that questioned the right of Petitioner to initiate legal redress under the provision of the Companies Act. ONLY ONE ISSUE. That judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali REFUSED TO PROGRESS THE PETITION TO THE TRIAL IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD ABUSED HER OFFICE. In any way that one would care to look at this case, IT IS A ONE ISSUE CONTEST, based on the defense raised by respondent company.

(9) The subsequent proceedings were TOTALLY IRRELEVANT and do not in any way contribute to change respondent company defense whatsoever. As argued in all my previous articles, the application by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban TO STRIKE OUT PETITION was a THIRD PARTY ACTION AND HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SAID PETITION. ON this issue again it is very obvious that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali HAD ABUSED HER OFFICE. ABUSE OF OFFICE BY A PRESIDING JUDGE IS WORSE THAN TAKING BRIBE.


May I suggest that those of you who have received my email or fax be so kind as to either draw the attention of your friends to my BLOG or ask them to EMAIL to me in blank if they so wish so that I can have their email ADDRESS to post to you my articles. I invite all to post your comments. If you do not dare to be identified by name, then email to me at www.yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au and I will publish your comments minus your name. Corruption is a SHY MAIDEN, and she cannot Stand THE SUN’S RAY (or maybe more like DRACULAR); the more exposure we publish of judges corruption & conduct unbecoming of a judge, the more we chip away at the foundation of JUDGES ABUSING THEIR OFFICE.

The prevailing environment in Malaysia for the legal profession is bleak to the extent that THERE REALLY HAS NO REQUIREMENT TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO BRIBE JUDGES TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE OUTCOME; JUSTICE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. Litigants do not need competent lawyers when all that is fundamental to success in practice is WHO YOU KNOW AND not what you really know. Competency is not a basic qualification in the legal profession in Malaysia; all that is required is HOW MANY JUDGES YOU KNOW, and how much you are willing to pay to obtain an outcome. The environment for the legal profession in MALAYSIA IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN INDONESIA; and the fact is that in both jurisdictions THERE IS NO LAW. MONEY TALKS !