MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE !

IT IS ONLY ETHICAL,MORAL AND DECENT THAT THE CHIEF
JUDGE GIVE MY WIFE’S APPEAL AN EARLY HEARING.

I put my case to the public at large, and ask them if it is not mere decency, and a call for a minimum standard of justice & ethics in the administration of Malaysian Law that one can expect of a MODERN NATION for the chief Judge of Malaysia to seek to correct the travesty of the LAW & JUSTICE as was perpetrated by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali on my wife’s case. Let it be said at the outset that I am asking that the Chief Judge MERELY SET AN EARLY FATE FOR THE HEARING OF MY WIFE’S APPEAL. We do not need any interferences from the Chief Judge in any form or shape; only that he, out of the need to be descent and fair correct the miscarriage of law & justice and to set an early date for the hearing of the appeal so that the merits of the case can be corrected and the truth of my wife’s case can be JUDGED AGAINST THE LAW THAT IS PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. The situation at this moment of the case is that the true issues of my wife’s petition has still to be ADJUDICATED UPON, because the CRIMINAL conduct & behaviour of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had so corrupted the hearing that her judgment has become A JOKE.

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had COMMITTED SEVERAL OFFENCES THAT DESERVES CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, and if convicted she faces jail time for her criminal conduct & behaviour and they are :

(1)MALFEASANCE,
(2)Aiding & abetting the 3 criminals, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon & Wong Kem Chen,
(3)Perverting the course of justice,
(4)Obstructing of Justice,

These are all criminal offences that carry very generous JAIL TIME. I reproduced relevant sections of Wikipaedia for your attention, As you can read; “The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general”. The nature of the commission of the crime is “It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors and attorney generals however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
As you can see, from my earlier, the CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI fits snugly into the definition of, Malfeasance in office, Obstruction of justice, Perverting the course of justice, Aiding & Abetting the 3 criminals in their perpetration of the crimes of PERJURY, FORGERY, AND FABRICATING EVIDENCE.




Obstruction of justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors and attorney generals however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person who is questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court) It is not relevant if the person lied to protect a suspect (such as setting up a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from an investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime). Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if they were under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.

It is no exaggeration to say that in Malaysia, important officials NEVER FACE PROSECUTION even in cases where their officials are openly SINFUL AS HELL. I have stated very openly that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminals in the course of her ABUSE OF HER OFFICE in her pro-active efforts to PROTECT THE 3 CRIMINALS FROM PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY & FORGERIES.

I have written to the following on this issue :
(1)ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MALAYSIA
(2)CHIEF JUDGE, TUN FAIROZ,
(3)PRESIDENT OF BAR COUNCIL,
(4)SECRETARY OF BAR COUNCIL,
(5)JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI

Malaysia is Lawless and nothing will come of it. They will all sit on their arses. Administration of Law in Malaysia is selective; they have no respect for their laws; but I will keep writing and someday the world will stumble upon on my letters.

Hey Attorney General & Chief Judge, your judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is a criminal and you need to prosecute her.