Judge Zainon committed MALFEASANCE, but what's the fucking good, MALAYSIA IS LAWLESS.

Malaysia’s lawlessness is well known through out the world and I have searched & discovered this fact on the “wikipaedia” website for legal research; and I have published the relevant portions that has bearing on my wife’s case. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed the most heinous of criminal conduct in trying my wife’s case AND “THE MAHATIR AMENDMENTS” TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAS REMOVED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT FACILITATES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH CRIMINAL ACTIONS AND CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JUDGES SUCH AS JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.
In all jurisdictions (except Malaysia) of the former colonies of the British Commonwealth, JUDICIAL REVIEW is part of the legal & judicial process. To describe Malaysia as a nation that practices ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMON LAW IS A TRAVESTY in terms. Here in my discussions I have laid out bare the PERVERSATIONS OF THE LAW that was perpetrated by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and when I reach for solutions to find legal justice, I find that THERE IS NONE IN MALAYSIA.
MALAYSIA IS LAWLESS ! Malfeasance with which I charge Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is a criminal offence in any other jurisdiction than Malaysia, but in Malaysia (THE PARADISE ON GOD’S EARTH) this remedy is not available. Am I not correct to say that Malaysia is lawless ?
It was my original intention to go to KL after the Beijing Olympic Games, to openly charge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with committing the criminal offences of aidding and abetting the 3 criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon & Wong Kem Chen; because for the Prosecution to Charge & prosecute me, JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE CHARGES AND IT WILL BE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WHO WILL HAVE TO BE THE MAIN WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION; THIS IS MY INTENTION TO CROSS EXAMINE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ON HER PERFORMANCE AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN MY WIFE’S PETITION.
MY DEFENCE TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S CHARGES FOR SEDITION AND LIBEL WILL BE THE DEFENCE OF TRUTH OF MY CHARGES & PUBLIC POLICY. My research into MALFEASANCE IS USELESS BECAUSE MALAYSIA IS LAWLESS; and in any case my cause of action is to shame judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for what she really is A CRIMINAL & AN AIRHEAD ! It is true that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is protected by the lawlessness of Malaysia but my purpose is to shame this criminal judge. LET THE MALALSIAN PUBLIC KNOW & IF HOPE IS POSSIBLE, LET THE WORLD KNOW WHAT THIS CRIMINAL JUDGE DOES. But then by the article in the “ECONOMIST” the world already knows that Malaysia is lawless !
Yes ! Sir, I STILL HAVE MY MIDDLE FINGER STUCK UP JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S BIG FAT UGLY ARSE.
See you in Kuala Lumpur after the Beijing Olympics !

Reversible error
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Reversible error is an error by the trier of law (judge) or the trier of fact (the jury or the judge if it is a bench trial) or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless error that do not rise to a level that bring the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.
Reversible errors include, but are not limited to:
· Seating a juror who manifested impermissible bias to one party or the other
· Admitting evidence which should have been excluded under the rules of evidence
· Excluding evidence which a party was entitled to have admitted
· Giving an incorrect legal instruction to a jury
· Failure to declare a mistrial when continuing with trial amounts to a denial of due process
· Conversely, granting a mistrial in a criminal case if the defendant objects, unless the grant was necessary to correct manifest injustice
If an appellate court determines that reversible error occurred, it must reverse the judgment of the lower court and order a new trial on such terms and conditions as are found to be just.
Technically, attorney misconduct is not reversible error. Failure of the judge to remedy it during the trial is reversible error. In cases such as unfairly or illegally concealing evidence, there is no error on the part of the court but the court's decision may still be vacated and the matter returned for a new trial, because there is no other way for justice to be granted.
This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_error"
Categories: Law stubs | Court systems | Legal terms
Judicial review in Malaysia
Although Malaysia inherited the political system of British India based on the Westminster system which made no provision for judicial review, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia instituted a system based on that of the India which was in turn influenced by other constitutions including that of the United States. Judges are empowered to declare laws or executive actions ultra vires if they clashed with the Constitution and/or the parent legislation. However, this power was curbed after the 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis by then Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad through amendments to the Federal Constitution. [1] A particularly significant amendment was the removal of the judicial power and subjecting the judiciary to such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law. [2] The merits of detentions made under the Internal Security Act are also not subject to judicial review, but the procedures are [3]
The independence of the judiciary has been curbed
The Malaysian judicial system still resembles the UK system inherited from the colonial period. The independence of the judiciary was effectively curbed by Dr Mahathir in 1987-88 in response to a court ruling declaring the April 1987 UMNO leadership elections invalid. The High Court was stripped of the power of judicial review and the separation of executive and judicial power was terminated. Judges were given a code of conduct, the breaching of which could result in dismissal. In the years that followed the powers of the executive were increased further. The legal framework leaves little room for the judiciary to reassert its independence. The acquittal by the High Court of Mr Anwar in September 2004 is widely viewed as a sign that Mr Abdullah will allow the judiciary greater independence, but there has been no sign of judicial reform.
Malaysia’s lawlessness is well known through out the world