CALL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali committed Malfeasance and her
criminal conduct made her judgment illegal.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali made an ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, and subsequently, when Petitioner had paid her Rm.60,000 security for costs, the respondents (upon such payment made by the petitioner, the respondents made a latter application to strike out said petition); AND judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (while the first ORDER for security for costs was still in place & while the first Order is still “ALIVE”) Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali made a second and contradicting ORDER TO STRIKE OUT said Petition with costs.; these two contradicting orders made by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali made her judgment illegal because she had judicial powers to only make one of two ORDERS (this issue will be discussed in length herein), depending on the nature of the interlocutory application pursued by respondents (the respondents’ 1st interlocutory application was an application for security for costs ), and having made the Court Order (awarding respondents security for costs to the combined sum of Rm.60,000) pursuant to respondents’ FIRST application being for security for costs, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali does not and cannot have judicial authority to go on to award to respondents a 2nd and contradicting court order for striking out said petition and made pursuant to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s latter application for striking out said petition, because such an order that is made while the first order is still “alive and current will constitute an order made by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. This is the SUBJECT THAT I SHALL DISCUSS HEREIN. I believe, such a nonsense could not have been made in all of legal history; and this nonsense, which she expect to pass for a valid exercise of judicial discretion IS MADE UNPRECEDENTED IN ALL OF LEGAL HISTORY IN ALL OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH; such glaring and illiterate DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE BY A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA IS UNMITIGATED DISGRACE. This will not ever happen in Singapore.

To emphasize my point made above, I will illustrate it in this manner; JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAVING REDUCED THE SUM ASKED BY RESPONDENTS from the respondents’ request for security for costs in the sum of Rm.625,000 to the reduced sum of Rm.60,000, and the sum ordered was paid by Petitioner becomes “AN AGREEMENT” MADE BY THE JUDGE, THE RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER as a condition for PROGRESSING THE SAID PETITION to a trial of the petition, because the application for security for costs were made by respondents, the judge having reduced the sum is therefore DEEMED to have agreed that the propective costs of the hearing was to be no more than Rm.60,000, and the subsequent payment by petitioner was her agreement to the judge’s order.. THIS PAYMENT MADE BY PETITIONER COMPLETES AND FULFILLED THE COURT ORDER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINONBINTI MOHD. ALI, pursuant to respondents application for security for costs. This “transaction” binds both the respondents and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to try the cause of action as pleaded by said petitioner. The second interlocutory application submitted by respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, being a CONTRADICTION OF THE ORDER EARLIER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI, makes no sense, because by petitioner’s payment of the sum awarded to respondents as security for costs, the court & by judge Zainon binit Mohd. Ali’s ORDER has UNDERTAKEN TO TRY THE CAUSE OF ACTION THAT IS PLEADED IN SAID PETITION. Let me gloat a little at the utter ignorance of the law that is so disgracefully displayed by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Let it be said (tongue in cheek) Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali “if you wanted to screw me front & back simultaneously (Malay joke “dua kali main”), at least have the minimum intelligence to “KILL OFF THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS”). You just cannot screw me twice.

I am posting this letter “REGISTERED” to the Attorney General & the Chief Judge of MALAYSIA because I want all the lawyers to know that I have laid my complaint against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali at the doorstep of the A.-G and the Chief Judge of Malaysia for perpetrating Malfeasance, Aiding & Abetting the 3 criminals, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoou and generally for acting in a manner that constitutes CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. I politely request the A.-G & The Chief Judge to restore the RIGHT of my wife to PROGRESS her Petition to a speedy trial because her right to her day in Court was denied to her by the CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE; and my charge that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali AWARDED to the respondents an illegal judgment and indeed an illegal court order for striking out said petition without any judicial powers to do so, for the reasons argued above. I declare that THE RESTORATION of my wife’s petition is not a matter that rightfully belong to the appeal process BECAUSE THE DENIAL OF MY WIFE’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS PERPETRATED BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE, namely by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Another issue that needs to be noticed is that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE ISSUES THAT UNDERLIE THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF MY WIFE’S PETITION WERE EVER CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE. The petition was NEVER ever adjudicated upon.

MY SOLUTION FOR THE RESTORATION OF MY WIFE’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS FOR THE A.-G &/OR THE CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYSIA DO THEIR DUTY UNDER THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, namely to uphold and enforce the laws and the Constitution of Malaysia; and bearing in mind their oath of office and the duty imposed on them by their oath of office, and to politely REQUEST THAT THEY DO THEIR DUTY AND GO ON TO PROSECUTE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI FOR HER breaches OF THE LAW; because by her conviction my wife can go on and set aside those disgraceful and illegal judgment, and 2 illegal court orders (1) for security for costs (2) order for striking out of my wife’s petition. This is what I want and because of the criminality of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, it is my wife’s right to expect that she be restored in that manner.
My charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (in addition to my earlier charges of AIDING & ABETTING the 3 criminals, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon & Wong Kem Chen for PERJURY & forgeries) is also for MALFEASANCE. I have reproduced the relevant paragraphs from Wikipaedia relating to the offence of Malfeasance, below. I will only comment where it is necessary to add clarity to our discussion. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had clearly committed the offence of Malfeasance in my submission as argued herein.; I will quote the section that directly answers the issue :
,”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.” And Wikipaedia goes on to define the nature of Judge Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT :
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.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, having awarded to the 3 criminals their first application for security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 does not have any judicial authority thereafter to go on and approve the said 3 criminals second application for striking out of said petition. THIS IS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND 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. “
Following from the above quotation on the matter of Malfeasance in office, the point I want to make that Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed malfeasance is set out herein; In the normal course of litigations, an application “TO STRIKE OUT” for showing no cause of action is made preceding an application FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS” (note :first application, then followed by second application “for security for costs )and there is a logic and reason for this sequence of applications. The reason and logic for the need to apply for an order “to strike out” to be made ahead of the application for security for costs is because the judge presiding the case has to assess THE MERIT OF PETITIONER’S CASE for the purpose of deciding whether there is a legal issue ( a consideration that is different from a consideration whether petitioner had a VIABLE CASE OR NOT) to tried by the court. This distinction had been misconceived by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. I will distinguish their differences in the manner herein provided :

(1)The issue in dispute in my wife’s petition is whether the respondents had been truthful in claiming that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had purchased petitioner’s single promoter’s share, or indeed whether Stephen Lim Cheng ban had purchased all of petitioner’s share (which petitioner claimed she had but one single promoter’s share and NO MORE THAN ONE SHARE AT ALL TIMES); Petitioner had pleaded that she never ever sold nor signed any share transfer form for the transfer of her promoter’s share, nor signed any “company resolutions” EVER, since the date of the company’s registration; therefore by the rule decided in the case of Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v, Yeoh Kim Leng (1990) Court of Appeal NO SHARES ALLEGED BY THE RESPONDENTS COULD VALIDLY BE CREATED. That said the company had at all times only two share holders, the original two promoters and share holders, and directors namely Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Petitioner. All the other alleged share holders (by the rule in Kelapa Sawit, (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v Yeoh Kim Leng) are BOGUS and all the supporting “papers allegedly supporting respondents allegations ARE FABRICATION.

(2)In the above para. (1) the issue before the court is the “fact of ownership of petitioner’s share, or indeed “shares” as alleged by respondents, THIS FORMS THE ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE TRIED BY THE COURT; and at this stage of the hearing to decide whether to strike out petition ONLY THIS QUESTION NEED BE ANSWERED, is there an issue in the petition that needs to be decided by the court ? At this early stage of the court proceedings THE VIABILITY OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES’S CLAIM ARE MERE ALLEGATIONS AND THEY NEED TO BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE, and therefore at this early stage of the court proceedings, IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE JUDGE TO DECIDE WHOSE CLAIM IS THE STRONGER. The judge’s function at this stage IS ONLY to decide whether said Petition has a course of action is the same question as to decide whether THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT. Remember that question of viability of the parties allegation is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali sought to fudge the functions of the presiding judge; because her two contradicting ORDERS reflected her misconceived consideration of the viability of the respondents’ allegation that petitioner had sold & transferred her “SHARES”, which by the pleadings of petitioner, SHE HAD BUT ONE SINGLE PROMOTER’S SHARE AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT ONE SINGLE PROMOTERS SHARE. It is this viability of the competing claims of the petitioner versus the competing claim of the respondents that needs to be tried by the court and EVIDENCE AND NOT MERE ALLEGATIONS THAT NEED TO DETERMINED BY THE COURT.

(3)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had an issue to be tried BUT SHE WENT ONE STEP TOO FAR, and went on to decide that by the “ALLEGATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS” petitioner had no cause of action and her petition must be struck off.

(4)IT IS FOR THIS REASON AS SUBMITTED ABOVE IN PARA. (1) THROUGH TO (3) THAT AN APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT MUST PRECEDE THE APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; for the reason that the judge must decide in the application to strike out, whether said petition even had an issue that need be tried by the court.

An order to strike out said petition is intended to save the respondents from being put to court costs when in all probability the CAUSE OF ACTION OF THE PETITION IS SO OBVIOUSLY AND HOPELESSLY WITHOUT ANY MERIT THAT IT IS BOUND TO FAIL, and therefore Petitioner is bound to loose at the end of the trial. The reason for the existence of a provision for striking out is that the Court must not be made to waste its time dealing with FRIVOLOUS & VEXATIOUS court litigation, and respondents are not unjustly put to expense defending a claim that had no merit. Therefore, an application for striking out and an application for security for costs GO IN TENDUM ( FIRST application for striking out, then followed by SECOND application for security for costs IF THE JUDGE finds that petitioner has a cause of action), because if the instigator(plaintiff) of the action has no merit to the action he brings against the defendant, then he would unjustly put the defendant to court costs, AND THAT WILL BE UNJUST; on the other hand if there is an issue that needs the court to decide according to the evidence, then it will be unjust to deny the litigant his right to his day in court.

Bearing this consideration in mind, the fact that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had made a prior ORDER awarding to the respondents SECURITY FOR COSTS in the sum of Rm.60,000 and this Rm.60,000 was in fact paid by Petitioner and now held by the respondents in their hands of Rm.10,000 each, constitutes the statement that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had by her assessment already found, from a preliminary consideration of the legal issues that are posed by petitioner’s and respondents’ pleading and evidences that were available at the time of her consideration of the merits of the said petition, THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION, AND THAT THE LIKELY COURT COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE RESPONDENTS IS NO MORE THAN Rm.60,000.

At this point, I like to comment on the bloody mindedness of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. I had as stated previously that I had complained to the Chief Judge that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had, in the course of the hearing of said petition, unethically and unprofessionally interfered in the court proceedings by asking our legal counsel if petitioner will withdraw her application for leave to cross examine the said 3 criminals. She of course will deny this as she would deny it to the chief judge because I was persuaded by our counsel to sign a letter that was drafted by our counsel to say that there was a misinterpretation of what Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had in fact said. This is the usual evasion to nullify what was said; in this respect Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is shown as not even an honest person, denying what was clearly what she had said. NO CLASS ! THIS WAS THE “BEEF” (bone of contention), and cause for the hatred that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali held for my interests, as I will show.

TAKE NOTICE THAT RESPONDENTS (ALL 6 OF THEM ) HAD APPLIED FROM THE VERY OUTSET, FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS FOR A COMBINED SUM OF RM.625,000. There is only one issue in dispute between Petitioner against respondents, ONLY ONE ISSUE; and that issue was earlier defined as the question WHETHER PETITION HAD SOLD AND TRANSFERRED HER SOLE PROMOTER’S SHARE IN THE COMPANY to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban. To determine this single issue respondents wanted security for costs of Rm.625,000. Anyway, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali reduced this sum to Rm.60,000.

Please take notice that IT WAS THE RESPONDENTS WHO APPLIED FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; and their application was allowed by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Take notice that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had APPROVED THE BLOODY RESPONDENTS APPLICATION FOR THE DAMNED SECURITY FOR COSTS. It was when it became clear to the respondents that we were able to pay the Rm.60,000, THAT RESPONDENTS WENT ON TO MAKE A SECOND AND FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT OF THE PETITION; and judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went on to APPROVE STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN’S 2ND APPLICATION. IS THIS NOT HILARIOUS ! This is a bloody JOKE !

I had earlier vehemently argued that the award of an Order for security for costs IS STATEMENT THAT THERE WILL BE A TRIAL TO FOLLOW AND THAT THE SECURITY FOR COSTS IS TO INDEMNIFY THE RESPONDENTS FOR COSTS IN THE CASE IF PETITIONER LOOSES THE CASE IN COURT. Security for costs is to cover actual costs INCURRED in court proceedings by the wining respondents. The respondents’ application for security is an ADMISSION THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRIAL AND THEY WANT INDEMNITY IN THE EVENT THAT THEY SHOULD WIN THEIR CASE.

I had earlier vehemently argued that logic and common sense and the issues relating to issues of justice for defendants for having to defend frivolous & Vexatious claims make it necessary to provide for security for costs from plaintiff who reside abroad. That being the case therefore, all the underlying reasons for exacting security for costs is ALREADY MET BY THE AWARD BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WHEN SHE IMPOSED SECURITY FOR COSTS IN THE SUM OF Rm. 60,000. This constitutes a statement by her that she will hear the petition when the sum of Rm. 60,000 is paid forthwith, which petitioner had complied to the letter. Therefore by the Order made by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, she had seen it sufficient to secure the indemnity of the respondents by the payment made by petitioner of Rm. 60,000. THIS IN LAW HAD ALREADY ABCHORED BOTH JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI & THE BUNCH OF 3 CRIMINALS TO DELIVER TO PETITIONER “HER DAY IN COURT”. This marks the end of that process. The fact that respondents applied for security for costs to precede the application for STRIKING OUT OF SAID PETITION CONSTITUTES ADMISSION BY RESPONDENTS THAT THERE IS A COURSE OF ACTION AND THAT THEY JUST NEED SECURITY FOR COSTS TO INDEMNIFY THEM IN CASE PETITIONER LOOSES HER CASE.

Anyway that you care to look at the contradiction that exist in Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali awarding of two contradicting COURT ORDERS (one contradicting the other), it can be demonstrated that ONE OF THE TWO ORDERS MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL. The illegality of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will be discussed in the context of her committing the criminal offence of MALFEASANCE.


Having made an ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali cannot then go on to make a subsequent and second ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION, because the ORDER TO STRIKE OUT means THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A TRIAL and that being the case THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY NEED FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS because NO TRIAL MEANS NO COURT COSTS. This translates into the proposition that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has judicial powers to order only ONE OF TWO OPTIONS on this issue. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali having made two contradicting orders (1) for security for costs, (2)Order for striking out said petition; THEREFORE THESE TWO CONTRADICTING NONSENSE COURT ORDERS MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ARE “JUDICIAL NULLITIES”, they are nonsense and has no legal value.

Having set out the NONSENSE that pass for the two COURT ORDERS MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI; I wish to ask all members of the Malaysian Bar Council, to judge if what I will set out below is fair & reasonable in the light of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s criminal & disgraceful conduct.

Let me state it here & in no uncertain terms, that if GOD had set out to help my wife WIN HER CASE, GOD could not have done a better job of drafting the pleadings for the respondents TO LOOSE the case. THAT BEING THE CASE, I will refute Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s findings & judgment that said Petition has no reasonable cause of action, by my proposition THAT PETITIONER WILL WIN HER CASE BY THE PRESENT STATE OF PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE THAT IS ALREADY PLEADED “ON THE RECORD”. To emphasize my point; I want the court to let the pleadings & evidence, up to this point, to remain as they are, AND FOR THE COURT TO ORDER THE TRIAL OF THE SAID PETITION AS THE MATTER STANDS TODAY. I have in my earlier postings stated that respondents & petitioner HAD CROSSED ISSUES 2 TIMES and on both occasions Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had refused to allow the court process to “GO FORWARD” because it is OBVIOUS THAT IF THE RESPONDENTS WERE ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED, THEIR CASE WOULD HAVE FALLEN APART AND THEY WOULD HAVE LOST THEIR CASE; therefore by the law of Malfeasance or Misfeasance, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed the criminal offence of Malfeasance or misfeasance. TAKE NOTICE ! That my wife’s petition was STRUCK OFF BECAUSE OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI and for no other reason.

I am sending this letter to the Malaysian Attorney General, the Chief Judge of Malaysia by REGISTERED POST, with copies to judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, President of Malaysian Bar Council, all the practicing Lawyers who have their EMAIL address in the yellow pages; and randomly by fax. I am giving this proposition the widest coverage.

Here is a case where the judge, ZAINON BINTI Mohd. Ali had abused her office and by the trial of this case we can expose her criminal conduct AND TO PROVE TO OTHER JUDGES IN MALAYSIA & THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IN MALAYSIA, that judges conduct are accountable and that if a judge like Zainon binti Mohd. Ali thinks that she can act with impunity, than it is time for the Bar Council to support my campaign to demonstrate that judges can be made to be accountable.




h