EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD AIDED & ABETTED THE 3 CRIMINALS

Saved the best for last !

I had saved my strongest argument for last and this is my strongest ground that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had intentionally and with malice, struck out my wife’s petition for no other reason than for a personal and unlawful agenda of her own, which was to save the three criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon from criminal prosecution for Perjury & Forgeries and for a host of other related criminal offences; and her action makes judge Zainon binti Mohd, Ali a criminal herself for aiding and abetting the said three criminals mentioned above.

Petitioner had through out these proceedings pleaded that she had NEVER AT ANYTIME WHATSOEVER either signed any company resolution, or signed any share transfer form of any kind whatsoever for the purpose of transferring her sole promoter’s share to anyone whatsoever, nor in any way caused the disposal of her single promoter’s share in the company. This pleading in whatever form that one may choose to read her pleading MEANS A TOTAL DENIAL OF ANY LEGITIMATE DISPOSAL OF HER PROMOTER’S SHARE. Her denial taken into context of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit dated the 17th of September, 2004, set the ground for judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to test the truth of the two statements of both Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Petitioner, AS TO WHO WAS LYING AND WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH; any judge in the normal course would have taken this course, because only one of these deponents would be telling the truth. JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ACTED ON THE STATEMENT OF STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN, and refused the application of petitioner for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to prove that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban was in fact lying I believe judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in a fit of arrogance and misguided sheer ignorance, thought that the situation gave her the right to exercise her discretion as the presiding judge; in the situation stated above judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali did NOT HAVE ANY JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO COVER HER ARSE; there was missing in Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit (17th September, 2004) the ONE AND ONLY MOST IMPORTANT MISSING EVIDENCE, PROOF OF THE SHARE CERTIFICATES THAT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN HAD ALLEGED BELONGED TO MY WIFE. NOT HAVING PROVED THE ALLEGED SHARE CERTIFICATES THAT STEPHEN LIM HAD ALLEGED WAS MY WIFE’S MADE THE WHOLE OF STEPHEN LIM’S SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT (dated 17th September, 2004) VALUELESS (like a port of SHIT). Without the alleged share certificates that Stephen Lim alleged was my wife’s, THE WHOLE OF HIS SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT had as much probative value as a pile of shit paper. These alleged share certificates were never ever exhibited in ALL OF THE PERJURED SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS OF STEPHEN LIM, WONG KEM CHEN & KWONG SEA YOON.

In the circumstances that I stated above, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali KNOWS that Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit(dated 17th September, 2004)DID NOT & cannot sufficiently CONSTITUTE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. They do not in any way show that Petitioner was the owner of the alleged 3001 shares in the company when she had at all times denied that she ever had more than that sole promoter’s share. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ACTED TO DENY PETITIONER HER RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE 3 CRIMINALS AND IN SO DOING JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ABETTED AND AIDED THE 3 CRIMINALS INPERTRATING THEIR CRIMES.

I have emailed this submission to all the lawyers that can be reached by email. I tried to fax to the AG. The Chief Judge. The President & Secretary of the Bar Council; but the fax just cannot get through. I WILL SEND TO THESE VIP BY POST.

yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au OR http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com.