JUDGE ZAINON AIDED & ABETTED THE 3 CRIMINALS TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES & BY FRAUD

Winning or loosing in a legal action must not depend on our counsel “sucking up to judges” or to use a Malaysian expression, “NO NEED TO CARRY THE JUDGES BALLS”; but of course in judge Zainon’s case “do not suck up to her nough nough”.

My wife’s counsel seems to want to tie me to my wife’s case “legally” by trying to “CONTRIVE THE EXISTENCE OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY between my wife and I; but as fortune would have it, I did not register the power of attorney. Well readers, as I said in my earlier posts, the Malaysians cannot GET AT ME because so far as the issue of jurisdiction goes, I cannot have committed any criminal offences in Malaysia because I wqs not within their jurisdiction. Now I find my wife’s counsel working very hard to tie me to her case by contriving a connection through a fictitious power of attorney. I went to KL but I decided not to register the power of attorney. Read my wife’s counsel’s insidious letter; he wants to hang me AND PROFIT RM.1,300 IN THE PROCESS.

There is no need for my wife’s counsel to suck up to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and in any proper common law jurisdiction, for all the trouble that I stirred up, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has by rules of ETHICS RECUSE HERSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. In MALAYSIA, where the SHARIA LAW CAN SUPERCEED THE MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION, it will only be a 50% to 50% chance that such ethical practice will be observed, law of the wild west, as in BILLY THE KID’S DAYS.

My wife’s counsel seems to be a man who believes that carrying the balls of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ensures his own place in the good books of the judges, who can fault him for thinking like that. On my part, I believe the law has to be enforced even as in our case all the judges in Malaysia would like to hang me from the nearest flag pole as soon as they lay eyes on me. The strong point in my wife’s case is that the CORE ISSUE that supports my wife’s case is the VERY MEANING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COMPANY LAW ITSELF; it is the concept of the separation between the “COMPANY” as a separate person (a separate persona from the share holders) distinct and separate from the share holders. If the court of appeal AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI, then what the court of appeal has done is to DESTROY THE MALAYSIAN COMPANIES ACT by their affirmation of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. The court of appeal will have entrenched a judicial precedent that allows the share holders in their own right commit the company to their own machinations. This will make nonsense of Malaysian Company law itself. I really do not think the court of appeal will do that; but in Malaysia as the case of Lena Choy shows ANYTHING GOES IN MALAYSIA.

Two issues that I had earlier defined in an earlier posts will force the court of appeal to tackle and if they know their company law, they will have no other escape than to allow the appeal :
(a)Stephen Lim has no capacity to apply to strike out said petition; only
the company can apply to strike out, and the company did not apply to
strike out.

(b)The application of Stephen Lim supported by affidavit dated 17th
September, 2004 was in every way a 3rd party action suing my wife
For alleged specific performance of an alleged sale of her solitary
promoter’s share in the company; because my wife (petitioner) has
through out these proceedings maintained that she had the one and
only promoter’s share and no other share in the company whatsoever.
THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI TO
STRIKE OUT said petition had in fact “TRANSFERRED BY HER
JUDGMENT THE PROMOTER’S SHARE OF PETITIONER
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. This “JUDICIAL TRANSFER BY
THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI
CREATED AN ESTOPEL BY HER JUDGMENT.
This analysis is too basic to even laugh at, but in the case of
judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali it is rocket science.

Let us see what the court of appeal will come up with. I will publish their judgment on this blog. I hope in my life time! I heard commentators discuss on the McNeal Lerehr Show that “SCOOTER LIBBY” was given a 30 months prison term for PERJURY per se; he was not jailed for leaking Valery Plame’s identity nor for anything else. He was jailed for PERJURY. “Scooter” was one of the most powerful men in Washington in the Bush Administration and in world politics, he is 100 times more powerful than your PM Dato Badawi, and yet he was jailed for 30 months for Perjury. Kwong Sea Yoon, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen did not merely PERJURE, they FABRICATED EVIDENCE, FORGED MY WIFE’S SIGNATURE AND DESTROY PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AT THE REGISTRY OF COMPANIES. The perpetration of these criminal offences were CONSTRUCTIVELY KNOWN TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.

I charge Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for “Aiding & Abetting” the 3 criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen in the commission of the several criminal offences of OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES & Obtaining money by Fraud; in addition to my previous charges of “aiding & abetting” the said 3 criminals in their perpetration of the crimes of :

(a) PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
(b) OBSTRUCTING POLICE IN THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES MADE BY MY WIFE (1 REPORT) AND MYSELF(2REPORTS MADE BY ME)

I put forward my arguments based on Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit dated the 17th September, 2004 (hereinafter I will refer to as Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit) as my evidence to support my charges against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali.

The judge who sentenced Scooter Libby declared that “senior administration and cabinet officials in public office bear a much higher burden of responsibilities than those who hold minor positions. Scooter Libby was held to a higher level of responsibility than others therefore he should have known better; Scooter was held accountable constructively to have knowledge because as a senior public official he is deemed to be accountable to a higher level of accountability. Applying this test to the actions and conduct of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in her treatment of the “evidence” (which were in their very nature, TRASH AND CANNOT BE IN ANYWAY TO BE passed off as “EVIDENCE”), judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is deemed to have known that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit annexed documents that were in fact forged. She is judge of the High Court of Malaysia and when she is confronted with “evidence” that she has reason to believe to be “ILLEGAL”( as in forged documents and Perjury) IT IS HER DUTY TO ACERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATION. Judge Zainon binti Mohd Ali had insurmountable reason to SUSPECT THAT Stephen Lim’s supporting affidavit MUST BE FORGERY, because of the following reason :

(1)Petitioner had pleaded at all times that she had never ever signed any transfer form to achieve transfer of her sole & only promoter’s share in the company,
(2)Petitioner had at all times pleaded that she had never ever attended any company meeting/meetings,
(3) Petitioner had pleaded at all times that she had never ever signed any company resolution/resolutions,
(4)Petitioner had at all times pleaded that she had never ever sold nor disposed in any shape or form her single and sole promoter’s share in the company.
(5)Any kampong fish monger comparing the forgeries with the true signatures of Petitioner will come to the inevitable opinion that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit annexed FORGERIES OF PETITIONER’S SIGNATURES.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali confronted with the array of the 5 reasons stated above must by DUTY OF HER OFFICE AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE allow Petitioner her application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim for PERJURY & FORGERY on the allegations that he had affirmed in his supporting affidavit. As in Scooter’s Libby’s case JUDGE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ABETTING & AIDING THE 3 CRIMINALS IN THE PERPETRATION OF THE CRIMINALS THAT I HAVE SET OUT ABOVE.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali confronted by the 5 reasons stated above, HAS NO ROOM FOR CLAIMING TO EXERCISE HER JUDICIAL DISCRETION. Given these circumstances, judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali must be held accountable for having AIDED & ABETTED THE 3 CRIMINALS IN THE PERPETRATION OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES OF PERJURY & FORGERY.