CRIMINAL JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI COMMITTED MALFEASANCE

I have reprinted from wikipaedia the relevant section relating to “MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, “ for which I charge Judge Zainon for having committed; as you can observe from the quote, ignorance of the law is also grounds for MALFEASANCE. The performance of judge Zainon bimti Mohd. Ali fits snugly into the requirements of this criminal offence. I charge judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for all my earlier arguments that she aided & abetted the the 3 criminals of forgery, perjury, conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and conspiracy to obtain money by fraud and several criminal offences to be listed later.
FOR RESEARCH MATERIAL DRAWN FROM WIKIPAEDIA Log into www.google.com and type in “English common law”, then followed by typing in “malfeasance”. I have extracted relevant sections for your convienience below


Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
The court then went onto use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which he has no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses his powers, he is guilty of malfeasance."
Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity--under the color of office. Finally, that that act some how interferes with the performance of official duties--though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
Under English law malfeasance in public office is also a tort.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office"
Categories: Public law | Crimes