I was in KL at the time when Tun Fairoz, the Chief Judge, was interviewed at KL International Airport about the purpose of his TOUR of several cities in the world. He was asked why he was embarked on this expensive ODYSSEY ? The Chief Judge answered that he was going to several national capital like Cairo, Lahore, Ankara, to cut a long story short, he was going to visit all the national of Muslim nations TO FIND a new formula for dispensing “JUSTICE”. I thought to myself, “what an extraordinary thing to say and to embark upon.” Here is a man who heads the Malaysian judiciary WHO WANTS TO REDEFINE “JUSTICE” in his own IMAGE and by his definition. I have no quarrel that he wants the SHARIAH LAW TO REPLACE THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW THAT PREVAILS IN MALAYSIA TODAY; but until you replace THE SHARIAH LAW FOR THE COMMON LAW, IT IS STILL THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW THAT IS THE LAW OF MALAYSIA.

There is little doubt that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was implementing this crazy POLICY that Tun Fairoz planed to put in place after his “CRAZY ODESSEY”. I remember reading in that same report his crazy idea that JUSTICE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BECAUSE SOMETIMES A LITIGANT WHO RETAINS A SMART LAWYER WHO CAN TWIST THE LAW TO WIN HIS CLIENT’S CASE. This is the most extraordinary claim by a Chief Judge, because a smart lawyer is the one who can interpret the correct law; not like the MISS-interpretation of the law that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has put on my wife’s case and thereby giving judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali NOT EVEN A FIG LEAF COVER; judge Zainon did not even have a legitimate fig leaf cover, because her MISS-interpretation of the Law was INVERTED, and she did not even know that her interpretation was in fact INVERTED . I did make this comment in my letter to the following :

(a)Chief Judge, Malaysia; Chief Judge Malaysia; Attorney General, Malaysia; Chief, Criminal Prosecutions, AG’s Dept.,
(b) PM, DPM, CHAIRMAN MALAYSIAN BAR, SECRETARY MALAYSIAN BAR..

It was to no avail. Waste of Time !

I am again displaying the forgeries that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban annexed to his affidavit supporting his application as 3rd respondent and a mere formal respondent to seek the striking out of my wife’s petition. You will want to ask me what is a formal respondent, I used this word to mean a respondent who is not intended to be a respondent; “he is one, the petition names BUT NO CLAIM OF WHATSOEVER nature IS MADE by the Petitioner; in short he had no business to stick his nose into, it was non of his business.

Here is the most important point that I want to make. The 1st respondent is the company that my wife had sought to dissolve. In the Company’s first application to seek ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, their application was applied by Mr Kwong Sea Yoon (who it was alleged was the company secretary), He sought to disqualify Petitioner (in his application for security for costs) by alleging in his supporting affidavit that HE HAD WITNESSED PETITIONER SIGN THE TRANSFER FORM TO FACILITATE TRANSFER OF HER PORTFOLIO OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY; this was and is untrue because Mr Kwong Sea Yoon has never met my wife ever. My wife thereupon applied for leave cross examination on the grounds of PERJURY by Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Mr Wong Kem Chen & Mr Kwong. The point to bare in mind is that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had ever since disappeared from the case; and it is for this reason that Mr Stephen Lim applied for an order to strike because Mr Kwong Sea Yoon will not risk prosecution, and as submitted in earlier posts, Stephen Lim Had no standing as 3rd respondent to apply to strike out petition WHICH IS DIRECTED AT 1ST RESPONDENT ONLY.

Petitioner applied to cross examine Mr Kwong Sea Yoon for PERJURY, and thereafter for a period of about 3 YEARS AND A BIT MORE, judge ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI kept postponing the hearing of respondent’s application for security for costs, AT THE BEHEST OF THE RESPONDENTS or on her own accord. At the end of the 3 years, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali MERELY AWARDED the respondents security for costs but refused to give leave to Petitioner to cross examine Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, Mr Stephen Lim, and Mr Wong Kem Chen for PERJURY. Petitioner and I as witness, made 3 police reports relating the perjury(and the police reports were annexed to the supporting affidavits by my wife at the Balai police, Jln. Tun SH LEE, and in spite of these police reports judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali still will not give leave for petitioner to cross examine. PERJURY & FORGERY ARE CRIMINAL OFFENCES CARRYING LONG TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT, and yet Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali sees it fit for the respondents to apply for a court order SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS THAT Petitioner CLAIMS TO CONTAIN STATEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTED PERJURY & FORGERIES and yet she refused to give leave.

At this very moment three criminals, Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Mr Wong Kem Chen and Mr Kwong Sea Yoon ARE WALKING FREE, because judge knowing or having strong reason to believe Perjury were perpetrated must be deemed to be complicit Look at the display of the forgeries displayed above and you tell me if they are not forged ? Among all the signatures displayed above, only one is the true signature of Petitioner, and I do not even need to tell you which is the one. You will know just looking at them.

MALAYSIA IS LAWLESS because my wife did not perjure, did not forge any documents, but Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Mr. Kwong Sea Yoon, and Mr Wong Kem Chen, all three PERJURED & FORGED DOCUMENTS, but only my wife will lose ringgit 60,000 in the way of costs. THIS IS THE STATE OF THE LAW IN MALAYSIA.

Let me define the main issues in my wife’s case so it will be judged by all lawyers who read this article, how IMPOSSIBLE FOR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI to make claim that she any did not or could not have seen them as forgeries :

(1)Application for security for costs preceded the application for striking out;
(2)Petitioner applied to judge Zainon for cross examination for “stated” perjury; leave denied FOR WHAT REASON NOT FORTHCOMING !
(3)Security for Costs of riggint 60,000 was paid by petitioner.
(4)payment of security for costs was followed by application for striking out. This application was taken out by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as 3rd respondent. Affidavit was perjured and annexed documents supported his application and they were all forgeries. Petitioner applied for cross examination ! Leave denied ! Why ? not stated.
(5)Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit for striking out was in fact and in law a THIRD PARTY CLAIM against my wife AND NOT IN ANY WAY WHARSOEVER TO BE AN APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT OF PETITION. See earlier submission.
(6)The issue that is most damning against judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and demonstrate most glaringly that she had acted with impunity is her award of judgment to Stephen Lim for striking out said petition WHEN THE COMPANY HAD NOT AT ANY POINT APPLIED TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. On this issue vis a vis Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s capacity or right to act for and on behalf of the company, STEPHEN LIM can only act as witness, BUT HE CANNOT IN HIS OWN RIGHT APPLY AS PRINCIPAL. He cannot in his own right as 3rd respondent apply to strike out said petition for winding up of the company; ONLY THE COMPANY CAN APPLY TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION.

In all the above issues there is no way that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has the slightest legitimate reason or sanctioned by law to award striking out to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban. Striking out procedure is only available to DEFENSE and not to a PLAINTIFF; and as argued in an earlier post, STEPHEN LIM’s APPLICATION was in fact A THIRD PARTY CLAIM AGAINST MY WIFE AND THAT MAKES HIM THE PLAINTIFF.

The irony of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for awarding to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban order for striking out for showing no cause of action is that according to the law laid down in the case of :

KELEPA SAWIT(Telok Anson)Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim Leng (1990) COURT OF APPEAL case;

Respondent Company had no defense, because there was never ever (literally means there never ever was passed) any company resolutions, by the company in its original existence as RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. The company never ever passed any company resolution of any kind whatsoever since its first day of registration as a company; this fact was pleaded in my wife’s pleading therefore the issue is “WHEN COULD THERE BE ANY OTHER SHARE HOLDER OF ANY DESCRIBTION THAT COULD LEGITIMATELY BE ISSUED WITH ANY SHARE IN THE RESPONDENT COMPANY WHATSOEVER ? The point that I want to emphasize from all the pleadings and from all the facts that were laid before Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is that RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. AT ALL TIMES TIL TODAY IS THAT IT HAS FOR ALL TIMES EXISTED ONLY AS A 2 RINGGIT COMPANY, with only two legitimate share holdersof Yap Choi Yin and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, and all other alleged shares that were purported to be issued, were void according to the rule set in court of appeal case, “KELEPA SAWIT(Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim Leng (1990). Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was and is bound by the law laid in that case.

I ask all the Lawyers who have received my email of this article, IS THIS NOT A CASE OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ABUSING HER OFFICE. Why would Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali behave in such an outrageously and disgraceful manner and to what purpose ?

My wife’s case faced another problem. Yesterday, I received a phone call from my wife’s solicitors (name will not be disclosed at this stage), and he asked (in confirmation of his letter by fax sent earlier) that if my wife does not have knowledge and if my wife does not endorse my views that were an attack on the character of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, she was to revoke her appointment of me as her power of attorney. My wife promptly sent to her solicitors that she does not in any way have knowledge nor in any way endorse my views of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali., and this message was faxed to her solicitors. He later wanted my wife to revoke her power of attorney by registration of her revocation in the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA AT KL. We do not know what “FORM” was required for this purpose and my wife asked that he draw up a draft for her to complete. I believe that my wife’s “P.A.” being only limited to sign papers that were required for her signature to court documents IS PRECISELY LIMITED FOR THAT PURPOSE and therefore, her revocation to her solicitors will be sufficient. I am going to inform him not to draft that document because we do not have the money to pay for his services.

There is a further problem that has arisen from my constant stream of insulting letters directed at judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; my wife’s solicitors have asked to be discharged from further acting for her. He communicated his wish to me that he wished to cease from further acting for my wife, and that I was to appoint somebody else. I have since found another solicitor to act for my wife and when I told my wife’s solicitors that this new solicitor will be only able to act from after 1st September, 2007. My wife’s present solicitors thereupon claims to want to charge for work done. THIS IS TOTALLY NOT WHAT WE HAD AGREED ON. The terms of my wife’s retainer was that he is to receive 30% of all sums of any money RECOVERED, and if nothing is recovered then he is to get nothing. I believe that from our original agreement the only fair and just solution is that if and when (if ever)any sum is recovered from the changed situation is for the “file to be taxed” under whatever rule is prevailing under any law that controls the practice of layers in Malaysia. With due respect to my wife’s solicitors, I can see from his behaviour that judge Zainon binti Mohd Ali will be taking me to court, and I can see that my wife’s solicitors are working against my wife’s interests.

Finally, I want it to be known (since my wife’s revocation of her power of attorney to me) that from my analysis, the THIRD PARTY ACTION, WAS INTIATED BY STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN’S supporting affidavit dated the 17th of SEPTEMBER, 2004; setting the grounds for his application for striking out said petition formed the complete and total foundation for his THIRD PARTY CLAIM AGAINST MY WIFE. This CLAIM AGAINST MY WIFE HAS GONE UN-NOTICED by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, my wife’s solicitors and by the solicitors of STEPHEN LIM’S, this 3RD PARTY ACTION IS LYING DORMANT. I believe it is the professional duty of my wife’s solicitors to set the case down for trial. The pleadings are complete; Plaintiff Stephen Lim Cheng Ban has alleged his annexed documents to conclusively prove that he had purchased my wife’s shares; AND MY WIFE HAS DENIED THAT ALLEGATION. And stated that she had at all times owned only ONE PROMOTER’S SHARE OF ONE RIGGIT Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had refused my wife leave to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon, unjustly so.

The whole case has been crystallized by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application to the trial of Stephen Lim’s 3rd Party Action as it should be as a matter of Law. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban will bear the primary burden of proof of a PLAINTIFF. IF STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN IS CORRECT THEN IT IS MY WIFE WHO HAS PERJURED AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED; BUT IF MY WIFE IS CORRECT THEN KWONG SEA YOON, WONG KEM CHEN AND STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN WILL HAVE PERJURED & GUILTY OF FORGERIES ! Will the judiciary of Malaysia not ACT ACCORDING TO THEIR LAWS AND RESPECT THEIR LAWS AS SACRED ?