JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS A CRIMINAL Part 2

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

JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS A CRIMINAL Part 2

It is embarrassing all around to :
(a)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, foremost of all the “know nothing shit”
(b)solicitors and counsel for respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen, M/s Anad & Noraini (Advocates & Solicitors) of Jalan Yap Ah Shak, KL.
(c) I had some time ago raised this issue with my wife’s counsel but drew no response; because the whole bunch of them did not at any time realize THAT THE FUCKING 1ST RESPONDENT (respondent company) HAD ABANDONED THEIR FUCKING DEFENSE. Pardon me for using the FUCKING word for emphasis only.

I had earlier and on a few occasion stated that KWONG SEA YOON representing 1st respondent (said company); and in his FIRST AND ONLY AFFIDAVIT filed in support of respondents’ claim for security for costs, AFFIRMED that he (Kwong Sea Yoon) had personally & as company secretary of the respondent company WITNESSED PETITIONER SIGN the transfer form for the purpose of transferring her entire “share holding” in the company”. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen both also alleged that “Petitioner had transferred her share or shares”. Please take notice that Kwong Sea Yoon, AFFIRMED that he had witnessed Petitioner sign the transfer for the purpose of “TRANSFERRING HER ENTIRE SHARE HOLDING”. Take notice that Kwong Sea Yoon even at that early stage failed to realize that we are talking about Petitioner “having only one single promoter’s share in the respondent company.” This discrepancy was sufficiently significant for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to want to clarify the exact nature of these inconsistencies; it is her duty in these circumstances to allow cross examination of the respondents.

My wife’s counsel then applied to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for leave to cross examine Kwong Sea Yoon, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen FOR PERJURY; whereupon Mr Kwong Sea Yoon who represented the respondent Company KEPT MUTE (he did not respond in any shape or form whatsoever from then on until EVEN TODAY. I have to congratulate solicitors representing 1st respondent, M/s Methews & Co. because I AM OF OPINION that M/s Mathew & Co. upon realization that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had committed PERJURY by Mr Kwong Sea Yoon’s allegation that Petitioner “had signed alleged transfer form” CEASED TO FURTHER PARTICIPATE in any further proceedings whatsoever. Here is the rub, THE CEASURE BY KWONG SEA YOON TO FURTHER PARTICIPATE IN ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT PROCESS TRANSLATES INTO OUTRIGHT ABANDONMENT OF THEIR (respondent company) DEFENSE.

Petitioner, therefore has the right to take DEFAULT JUDGMENT against 1st Respondent for their abandonment of their defense; because said Petition had only one issue, that being, “THAT AT ALL TIMES 1ST RESPONDENT HAD BUT ONLY TWO SHARE HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS.”; each holding only one promoter’s share, and Kwong Sea Yoon had alleged that Petitioner had transferred her entire shares holding, meaning that petitioner had transferred more than her claim that at all times she only had but one promoter’s share, THE VERY NATURE OF THESE DISCREPANCIES, makes it mandatory for judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to allow cross examination. This was not a matter that she can claim to be exercising her judicial discretion; she is under obligation to determine the truth of such a major discrepancy, a matter that goes to the very heart of Petitioner’s claim that the 3 criminals lied in their supporting affidavits.

Take notice that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, representing 1st Respondent company had only “APPEARED BUT ONCE” through out the whole of the court process & court proceedings ie. When he filed his PERJURED affidavit supporting 1st respondent’s claim for security for costs; and thereafter he did not at any time at all further made any appearance whatsoever. Mr Kwong Sea Yoon did not DENY ANY OF THE CHARGES LAID BY PETITIONER in her affidavit in reply to the supporting affidavit of Mr kwong Sea Yoon, which alleged that Petitioner had transferred her “entire shares holding” and Petitioner’s CHARG that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had lied, in concert with the other two criminals, namely, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Wong Kem Chen. TAKE NOTICE that the participation of Mr Kwong Sea Yoon stopped at the filing of his FIRST & ONLY AFFIDAVIT and there was never ever any denial of Petitioner’s charges that he had lied. THIS MEANS THAT FROM THAT POINT ON, THE FAILURE OF MR KWONG SEA YOON TO APPEAR FOR 1ST RESPONDENT AND TO DENY PETITIONER’S CHARGES MADE AGAINST HIM IN PETITIONER’S AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY, that Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had lied, constitutes respondent’s ABANDONMENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE TO PETITIONER’S CLAIM IN SAID PETITION.

PART TWO
Having argued above and in my earlier posts, that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, having awarded to respondents their group application for security for costs, AND PETITIONER HAVING PAID said Rm.60,000 pursuant to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s Order for security for costs; MADE HER SECOND AWARD TO RESPONDENTS FOR LEAVE TO STRIKE OUT PETITION ILLEGAL, because the payment by Petitioner of the Rm.60,000 for security for costs is meant to guarantee the respondents their court costs in the event that they should win against Petitioner; this was the agreement & undertaking by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali by her making her award in favour of respondents, and similarly accepted by respondents upon their acceptance of the payment by Petitioner of the sum of Rm.60,000, the security is in the possession of the respondents. ALL THE THREE PARTIES(judge Zainon, Respondents & Petitioner) HAVING SUBSCRIBED TO THE AWARD of security for costs by judge Zainon (in the manner that is described above), cannot, while the ORDER for security for costs IS STILL ALIVE and already anchored by petitioner's payment of said Rm.60,000 , to go on and make a second & contradicting Order to strike out said petition. To top it all the award made by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for security for costs preceded the application for striking out of petition. PETITIONER NEED ONLY PROCEED TO ACT ON THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE EARLIER & FIRST AWARD BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; AND UPON PAYMENT BY PETITIONER OF SAID SUM OF RM.60,000 which petitioner has complied with the court must proceed to A TRIAL OF THE PETITION. Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali second Order for striking out said petition has no legal content. It is mere trash !

Having set out the circumstances that today prevails in respect of my wife’s petition I WISH TO SUGGEST TO MY WIFE’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED AS FOLLOWS :

(1)My wife’s solicitors must now treat the 2nd order made by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for striking out of said petition as VOID and made by judge Zainon binti mohd. Ali without judicial authority and absolutely wrong in law, because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali HAD ALREADY ACKNOWLEGED BY HER AWARD OF SECURITY FOR COSTS TO RESPONDENTS THAT THERE WAS A CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE SAID PETITION. After having acknowledged that said petition had a cause of action by her award of said security for costs SHE CANNOT WILLY NILLY GO ON AND APPROVE TO RESPONDENTS A SECOND APPLICATION MADE BY THEM FOR STRIKING OUT OF PETITION.

That GOOF UP by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in subsequently approving to respondents a CONTRADICTORY Order for striking out AFTER HAVING ADMITTED IN HER AWARD TO RESPONDENTS OF SECURITY FOR COSTS makes the judge’s conduct an act of Malfeasance (discussions already posted earlier). It is the duty of the Attorney General of Malaysia to prosecute Judge Zainon for Malfeasance and abuse of her office; she had acted in this outrageous manner to protect the said 3 criminals from cross examination and for protecting said 3 criminals from criminal prosecutions.

.
(2)My wife’s solicitors must then apply as a second part, THAT THE COURT SET DOWN FOR HEARING, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out of petition as A 3RD PARTY CLAIM AGAINST MY WIFE. Please take notice that Stephen Lim’s application to strike out IS DIRECTED AT MY WIFE; claiming that my wife had sold to him, her promoter’s share, WHICH MY WIFE DENIES. This therefore is in every respect a 3rd PARTY CLAIM AGAINST MY WIFE. Having defined the true nature of Stephen Lim’s claim as a THIRD PARTY claim, this will turn Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in the 3rd Party claim into THE PLAINTIFF, while Petitioner becomes the DEFENDANT in the 3rd Party claim; having said that an application for an Order for striking out of petition IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT AND NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is the Plaintiff in his 3rd Party claim; therefore, on all counts Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali DID NOT HAVE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO AWARD TO STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION.

PART THREE

I charge solicitors M/s Annad & Noraini of Jalan Yap Ah Shak, KL with criminal conduct arising from their perpetration of the crime of SUBORNATION OF PERJURY; and in so doing they have also committed the following criminal
offences :

(1)SUBORNATION OF PERJURY,
(2)CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD,
(3)CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE,
(4)CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY.
(5)CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES.

For the solicitors firm of M/s Annad & Noraini & Co. you can say that the criminal charge of SUBORNATION OF PERJURY is the mother of all criminal charges against them and I make the charges as set out below against their firm; because from that charge other charges will arise, as I have enumerated below.

NOTES EXTRACTED FROM WIKIPAEDIA :
Florida (US) statutesSubornation of perjury is a legal term describing the act of an attorney who presents testimony (or an affidavit) the attorney knows is materially false to a judge or jury as if it were factual. Generally, the knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what a reasonable attorney would have believed in the circumstances. For example, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that their witness is giving false testimony. An attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is clearly guilty of suborning perjury. It can occur in either a civil or criminal case.
Subornation of perjury is a crime. It is also an offence for which an attorney can be disciplined, disbarred or jailed. Subornation is the circumstance where an attorney gets, or allows, another party to lie. If an attorney makes a false representation in court, that is also a crime and he could be subject to similar punishment as subornation.
Under American criminal law, subornation of perjury occurs when anyone--not just a lawyer--encourages a witness to perjure her/himself. Violators can face a maximum of five years in prison.[citation neis the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
The rules for perjury also apply to witnesses who have affirmed they are telling the truth. Affirmation is used by a witness who is unable to swear to tell the truth. For example, in the United Kingdom a witness may swear on the Bible or other holy book. If a witness has no religious beliefs, or does not wish to swear on a holy book, the witness may make an affirmation he or she is telling the truth instead.
The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the mens rea to commit the act, and to have actually committed the actus reus.
I will follow up to print a full analysis of the reasons why I hold M/s Annad & Noraini & Co. culpable for having committed the offence of SUBORNATION OF PERJURY; and from thence it is just a whisper away from lumping the rest of the offences on them.
SEE YOU NEXT WEEK OR SOONER !
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
( BAHAGIAN DAGANG )
PETISYEN PEMULA NO: D2-26-41 TAHUN 2001

Dalam perkara McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (nama lamanya) dikenali sebagai Relionus Adjusters Sdn Bhd)
Dan
Dalam Perkara Seksyen 181 Akta Syarikat, 1965
Dan
Dalam perkara Aturan 88 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi , 1980


Antara

Lim Choi Yin ...Pempetisyen

Dan

1. Mc Laren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
2. Wong Kem Chen (No. K/P: 500807-06-5077)
3. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban (No. K/P: 3912914)
4. Leong Yee Fook (No. K/P: 560727-10-5651)
5. Lum Siew Wai (No. K/P: 4734145) ... Responden-
6. Haris Onn bin Hussein Onn (No. K/P: 661124-10-5727) Responden