Hi ! David do your job & set the petition for hearing.

Blogg. :http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Email:yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
Dated :

To,
M/s Lim & Hoh,
Solicitors

Dear Mr David Hoh,

Re: Lim Choi Yin -V- McLaren Saksama Sd, Bhd.

I refer to my several letters to you, contents of which I also had published on my blogg. Requesting that you openly state your present status ( as our solicitors in our application by petition for the winding up of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd), whether you are still our Solicitors; and that if you are still our solicitors, then we will appreciate it very much if you will apply to the court to set my wife’s petition down for hearing, because the Judgment of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for an order, awarded to the said 3 criminals FOR STRIKING OUT of said Petition is unenforceable for reasons that I had argued in my several letters that I sent to you and which I had published in my blogg. Copies of all my letters were always sent to the President & Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, the Hon. Attorney General of Malaysia, The Chief Judge of Malaysia and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
The Order awarded to the said 3 criminals for striking out petition CANNOT BE LOGICALLY ENFORCED BECAUSE respondents have all already unconditionally accepted Rm.10,000 each as their security for costs.


The order that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali awarded to said all 6 respondents for security for costs PRECEDED her award to the criminal Stephen Lim Cheng Ban FOR STRIKING OUT. This is the important point, that security for costs preceded order to strike out. Petitioner’s payment of Rm.60,000 was made pursuant to the order of security for costs and the order awarded by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali TOTALLY INDUCED PETITIONER TO PAY THE SAID RM.60,000 ON THE BELIEF THATMUPON PAYMENT OF THE RM.60,000 PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO HAVE HER “DAY IN COURT”.


The Payment by Petitioner of the said Rm.60,000 has already been accepted by all 6 respondents and with the concurrence of the Presiding judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. REMEMBER also that Rm.60,000 had been accepted and put into the pockets of all the 6 respondents.

The fact that all 6 respondents & the presiding judge had all accepted the payment of Rm.60,000 without any reservations is all the reason that my wife need to put the petition down for hearing.

Therefore Mr David Hoh, WHAT ARE YOU APPEALING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI :
(A)ARE you appealing against her order to secure the costs to the respondents of Rm.60,000; which by my opinion you cannot do because the sum has been paid in full and in time. More than that appealing against the order for security for costs ABSOLUTELY WORKS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF MY WIFE’S PETITION

OR

(B)ARE YOU APPEALING AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION ? Here again Mr David Hoh you are BLOWING IN THE WIND; THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT IS UNENFORCEABLE; so Mr David Hoh what are you appealing against the judgment of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ? Is this not a case of the blind leading the blind ?

The only course that you can take is to set the petition down for hearing. The respondent Lim Cheng Ban had pleaded everything that he is likely to ever plead; and since the order to strike out is unenforceable, there is only setting down the petition for hearing.

My family will not be in Perth until the middle of November, so you have all that time to think of the issues. I had faxed to you my wife’s supporting affidavit together with my opinion why Judge Zainon’s order to strike out is unenforceable. Please proceed to apply to set the petition for hearing.


Yap Chong Yee


COPIES FAXED TO :
(a)Attorney General, Malaysia, (b)Chief Judge, Malaysia, (c)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (Court of Appeal, ) M/s Lim & Hoh, (Mr David Hoh, President & Secretary of Bar Council, Malaysia.


PS. Judge Zainon's ORDER TO STRIKE OUT is sheer masturbation, "SHOOTING EMPTY" all the fun and excitement is in her head alone !
Joe Yap

IS DAVID HOH STILL REPRESENTING PETITIONER ?

Yap Chong Yee,
19 th September, 2007
http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Email :yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
To,
Mr David Hoh,
M/s Lim & Hoh,
Solicitors

Dear Mr David Hoh,

Re Lim Choi Yin -V- McLarens Sdn. Bhd.

I have not received any response from you in spite of my several fax to your firm requesting that you forthwith proceed to apply for the following :

(1) that Petitioner be given leave to enter default judgment, on the grounds that 1st respondent company had abandoned their defense;
(2) alternatively, that petitioner be given leave to set this petition down for hearing;
(3) that petitioner be given leave to treat the supporting affidavit of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng ban, dated 17th September, 2004, as THIRD PARTY ACTION and to make Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as Plaintiff against Petitioner as Defendant in the THIRD PARTY ACTION.

I had earlier faxed to you the basis of my opinion. The order to strike out said petition that was awarded to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will not change the status of the earlier order that was also awarded to respondents by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali that a security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000 be made available to the respondents. Petitioner had paid the sum ordered to the respondents as ordered by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; and that being the case, the order to strike out petition is unenforceable and the trial of the petition must go on.

Mr David Hoh, you have not responded to my many attempts to communicate with you on this matter; ARE YOU STILL ACTING FOR US ? This case has been going for almost 8 years. Let me impress upon you that there is no issue that is suitable for you to take to the COURT OF APPEAL because the security for costs has been paid. Striking out is meant to save costs; and since respondents each having been paid their Rm.10,000 each their costs in already in their pocket; not to mention that such irregularity is unprecedented in all of commonwealth history where English Common Law is practiced. Remember that the cash for the security for costs was ORDERED BY judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to be paid into the hands of the respondents (each receiving Rm.10,000). This would make respondents liable for obtaining money under false pretenses or obtaining money by fraud and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in right in the middle of such a ridiculous situation for aiding & abetting the perpetration of this criminal offences by making her order that petitioner PAY HER RM.60,000 DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS’ LAWYERS when there was no intention from the judge, & the respondents to try the said petition.

Mr David Hoh, ARE YOU STILL ACTING FOR OUR FAMILY, or have you discharged yourself unilaterally, AS YOU DID ONCE BEFORE because as you alleged that my letters that complained of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali unethical, dishonest, and criminal behaviour had caused you many problems because each time you were summoned before the judge to explain to her MY PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR; please respond to my enquiry on this matter ( I MEAN THE ISSUE WHETHER YOU ARE STILL REPRESENTING MY FAMILY.

Please remember that as the Petition stands today IN THE FACE OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S RIDICULOUS TWO CONTRADICTING COURT ORDERS, There is nothing to appeal against and your effort to have judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to strike out SET ASIDE is a whole lot of nonsense, because the order to strike out is unenforceable; that being the case the order for security for costs PREVAILS. The only correct cause of action for your to pursue is to apply for the orders that I have set out above.

LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT CANNOT BE ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID THEIR SECURITY FOR COSTS; AND THEY CAN ONLY RETURN THE SECURITY FOR COSTS UNDER AN ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO AN ORDER AWARDING THE COSTS THAT HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER A BILL OF COSTS. That being the case YOU DAVID HOH HAVE NO REASON FOR APPEAL. Only the order for security for costs remains alive; but the order to strike out cannot be enforceable, so what are you appealing from; there is nothing that stands in your way.

My wife and I will not be available from 20th September, 2007 for a period of 2 months; will you please clarify your position before that time ? I will post your response on this blogg, because there is no way that I can communicate with you. Your kind co-operation will be greatly appreciated. Let me make it clear to you that as from now all communication of whatever nature between us will be published on this blogg.


Yapchongyee


Copy fax to President & Secreatry of Malaysian Bar Council, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Email to all lawyers in my email list.

Instruction to M/s Lim & Hoh to make application for setting down petition for hearing

Blogg :http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com
Email: yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
13th August, 2007
To Rt. Hon. Attorney General,
Malaysia.

Re: DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
( BAHAGIAN DAGANG )
PETISYEN PEMULA NO: D2-26-41 TAHUN 2001

Until now it did not ever register in my mind that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had awarded security for costs to 1st respondent company, WHILE 1ST RESPONDENT HAD TECHNICALLY (by the rule of pleading, “that what is not denied is deemed to be admitted) ADMITTED THAT KWONG SEA YOON HAD PERJURED by the rule of PLEADING, “that what is not denied is deemed to be admitted”; and Kwong Sea Yoon had disappeared, “scootezed” or “shot through”(an Aussie expression), when challenged by Petitioner that he had PEJURED. Kwong Sea Yoon for the whole of the period SINCE did not file any DENIAL, whatsoever, AS HE IS REQUIRED by the aforesaid rule of pleading OR BE DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT HE PERJURED as so claimed by Petitioner. Mr Kwong Sea Yoon DID NOT EVER DENY THAT HE HAD LIED, he merely did not appear to petitioner’s charge that he had perjured; therefore by the rules of pleading, he is deemed to have admitted that he had PERJURED. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, 3rd respondent sought to replace Kwong Sea Yoon’s ABANDONMENT by making his application for an order to strike out said Petition. After Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had approved to respondents their application for security for costs.
The criminal behaviour of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is scandalous and a miscarriage of the law & Justice. The basis of Petitioner’s claim is that Relionus Adjusters Adjusters Sdn, Bhd. had at all times but only two promoter share holders; and by this pleading alone IT IS SELF EVIDENT THAT ALL OTHER ALLEDGED SHARE THAT ARE HELD TODAY OTHER THAN THE TWO PROMOTER SHARES ARE VOID at their fabrication. Therefore, the inquiry into the legitimacy of their issue must arise from the first day of registration of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. and from then the enquiry proceeds on to the first issue of the second trench of share/shares; and in our case the inquiry must begin with the issue of share/shares to Wong Kem Chen, who alleged that he was issued with the third share. Petitioner had at all times charged that Wong Kem Chen WAS NEVER EVER BEEN ISSUED WITH ANY SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had closed off inquiry into this most important area of inquiry by criminally and with a total rejection of all logic, WRONGFULLY ORDERED THAT PETITION BE STRUCK OFF, even though she was by operation of law, logic and common sense, WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HER TO MAKE SUCH AN ORDER TO STRIKE OFF SAID PETITION.

Petitioner’s whole case is that all other share/shares that were allegedly issued other than the 2 promoters’ shares WERE FABRICATION BY STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN & WONG KEM CHEN, therefore, how could judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali possibly justify her judgment for striking out said petition by saying that her judgment is that Petition shows no cause of action because petitioner did not plead “FORGERY”. The inquiry into the legitimacy of the issue of the shares lies at the “head” in THE AFFAIRS OF WHAT WENT ON OR DID NOT GO ON IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. and not into THE NON EXISTENCE OF SHARES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN FACT.

I have set up this blogg because I want to expose the criminal conduct of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in her professional performance of her duties. In every aspect of the adjudication of this petition judge has shown that either she had been grossly INCOMPETENT OR INTENTIONALLY CRIMINAL. I have written as many letters as I have published these letters on my http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com, to the following OFFICIALS :

(1)The Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
(2)The Hon. CHIEF JUDGE, MALAYSIA,
(3)The Hon. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
(4)The President Malaysian Bar Council.
(5)The Secretary Malaysian Bar Council,
(6)M/s Mathews & Co.
(7)M/s The & Partners,
(8)All legal practitioners with Email addresses,
(9)Random fax to law firms in KL.

It surprises me why non of these officials have the sense of professional responsibility to cause an investigation of my charge of criminality of those who I have openly charged with criminal conduct and crimes. I set out to prove that Malaysia is LAWLESS and here is the evidence. I will be instructing our solicitors, M/s Lim & Hoh of Ming Building, Jln. Bukit Nanas, Kl to make the necessary applications for setting the petition down for hearing BECAUSE MY WIFE HAD PAID Rm.60,000 FOR HER DAY IN COURT; therefore Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order is unenforceable for that reason alone.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT WE WILL NOT BE HOME FROM 20 SEPTEMBER,2007 FOR A PERIOD OF 6 TO 8 WEEKS. This is notice to respondents that they should not sneek up to us between those dates.

Yap Chong Yee



(1)The Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
(2)The Hon. CHIEF JUDGE, MALAYSIA,
(3)The Hon. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
(4)The President Malaysian Bar Council.
(5)The Secretary Malaysian Bar Council,
(6)M/s Mathews & Co.
(7)M/s The & Partners,
(8)All legal practitioners with Email addresses,
(9)Random fax to law firms in KL.

SUBMISSION FOR SETTING PETITION DOWN FOR TRIAL

Yap Chong Yee,
Email:yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au
Blogg :http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com
President Bar Council,
Malaysia


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


SUBMISSION

Submission is divided into 3 ISSUES namely :

(1)The case for an order to set said Petition down for trial in accordance with the order approved by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in favour of the application made by respondents for an order for security for costs.

(2) The case for an order for default judgment on the grounds that 1st Respondent (represented by Kwong Sea Yoon as secretary for 1st respondent) had ABANDONED THEIR DEFENSE.

(3) That the supporting affidavit of 3rd Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, dated the 17th September, 2004, be set down for trial as a 3rd PARTY ACTION against Petitioner in respect of Petitioner’s ownership of her sole and single promoter’s share in 1st Respondent company as ORIGINALLY known as RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD.

SUBMISSION : Part (1)

On the issue posed in Part (1) IT IS CHILD’S PLAY for the legal practitioner worth his salt, although it may be ROCKET SCIENCE TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI. Let me spell it out in elementary law in these simple terms:

Petitioner applies for leave to set down Petition for hearing underpinned by COURT ORDER approved by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to Respondent applicants for security for costs (Rm.60,000 paid in cash INTO the hands of Respondents 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th; each to take Rm.10,000 ). The facts of the case relating to the award of two conflicting orders awarded only to the respondents & pursuant only to respondents’ TWO TOTALLY CONFLICTING applications alone, by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali are already set out in Petitioner’s supporting affidavit to this application; therefore, if respondents move to strike down petitioner’s application ( by proof of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to strike out said petition for allegedly showing no course of action) to set down said petition for hearing pursuant to the court order awarded to respondents by Judge Zainon biti Mohd. Ali for security for costs, then any such application by respondents’ will be struck down by Petitioner’s RIGHT TO SET THE PETITION FOR HEARING pursuant to the ORDER for security for costs, and by payment by Petitioner in full & in time OF THE SAID RM.60,000. Put simply, both, respondents AND JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI cannot hold the security for costs AND DENY PETITIONER HER RIGHT TO TRY THE PETITION under the order for security for costs. THEY ARE CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

The Question that will stop respondents dead in their tracks if they try to ENFORCE THEIR ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION IS “do you respondents still hold in your possession the Rm.60,000 ?” THAT IS ALL THE QUESTION THAT PETITIONER NEED TO ASK RESPONDENTS, “do you still have the Rm.60,000 in your possession paid by petitioner for SECURITY FOR COSTS ?” Of course they still hold the Rm.60,000 as SECURITY FOR COSTS and therefore, IS IT NOT TIME FOR PETITIONER’S DAY IN COURT ? Petitioner paid Rm.60,000 for the trial and IT WAS AGREED BY ALL RESPONDENTS, JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AND PETITIONER, that upon payment by petitioner of the said Rm.60,000, they will go to trial of the Petition.

THEREFORE, TONGUE IN CHEEK I ASK RESPONDENTS “do you still have the Rm.60,000 ?” YES ? Then lets go to trial. It is not rocket science, the business of STRIKING OUT; in every trial one side must win and the other side must lose. The security for costs in our case already ASSUMES THAT IN THE EVENT THAT PETITIONER LOSES her security for costs will be paid to respondents to cover their bill of costs, and if respondents can prove that their costs is more than Rm.60,000 then Petitioner will be liable to pay more than Rm.60,000. On the other hand if respondents lose in the trial then they will have to refund petitioner’s security for costs of Rm.60,000 and respondents will be made to pay Petitioner’s bill of costs. Therefore the only way for respondents to RETURN PETITIONER’S SECURITY FOR COSTS is to go to trial and the respective party’s BILL OF COSTS will decide who gets WHAT and HOW much. For the respondents this is a CHECK MATE !

After Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had awarded to respondents their application for security for costs IT WAS NEVER ON THE CARDS FOR THE JUDGE TO MAKE ANOTHER ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT of petition. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali awarded to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban his order to strike out said petition only out of ignorance of the law, and above everything else IT SHOWS THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT COMMON SENSE.

The logic is all so very elementary, not rocket SCIENCE that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali seems to think it is.

I will prove herein; that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had a very high degree of belief that the supporting affidavits of Stephen Lim Cheng ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen in their application for security for costs WERE PERJURY. Petitioner stated in bland terms that they were perjury; and I knowing the facts first hand made 2 police reports at the Balai Pois at Jln. Tun HS Lee setting out the facts of the perjury. These police reports were annexed to the supporting affidavits of my wife’s that were duly filed in these court process. In spite of the police reports that were annexed to petitioner’s supporting affidavits, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali CHOSE NOT TO GIVE ANY VALUE OR WEIGHT TO THEIR CONTENTS. This recalcitrant action of the Judge indicates that Judge Zainon had a very high degree of belief that said respondents had perjured in their supporting affidavits; and it came as no surprise to me that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had rejected petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine respondents for perjury. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT UPON PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE RESPONDENTS ON THEIR SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, KWONG SEA YOON “RAN AWAY” or “scootez” or “SHOT THROUGH” or disappeared from further participation in the court process of this petition. This conspicuous DISAPPEARANCE of Kwong Sea Yoon is sufficient evidence to suggest to judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali that respondents had perjured in their supporting affidavits. Further to this is the PLOY THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI had used to reject petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban on his supporting affidavit in his application for leave to strike out said petition; her grounds for rejection was that the two supporting affidavits were the same and therefore petitioner cannot “APPROBATE & REPROBATE”; an obvious piece of nonsense. This also indicate that judge Zainon had a very high degree of belief that Stephen Lim had perjured in his supporting affidavits. It is only natural in these circumstances for judge to have asked herself why Kwong Sea Yoon had so suddenly disappeared, and left Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, who si 3rd respondent and not representing 1st respondent to apply for leave to strike out said petition ? Judge Zainon CHOSE to turn a blind eye; this alone would naturally suggest that Judge Zainon had a very high degree of belief that Stephen Lim had Perjured.

SUBMISSION Part (2)

(2)It is already set out above that Kwong Sea Yoon had ABANDONED 1ST RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE WHEN HE RANAWAY FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION WHEN HE HAD TO FRON CROSS EXAMINATION FOR PERJURY.

SUBMISSION (3)

Petitioner had pleaded and affirmed in several supporting affidavits that she had only but ONE PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS SDN. BHD,; while respondents alleged that petitioner had sold her “entire share holding of 3001 shares to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban. Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had filed his alleged supporting documents to prove that petitioner had signed 6 documents to evidence her sale of her entire share holding, and by their very nature (petitioner’s claim that she never ever signed any documents that caused the disposal of her ownership of her sole and only promoter’s share in Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd.) IS STATEMENT THAT THE 6 ALLEGED DOCUMENTS WERE FABRICATION (a criminal offence ). Therefore, the affidavit dated 17th September, 2004 (hereinafter to be called “the Stephen Lim affidavit) that supported Stephen Lim ‘s application for leave to strike out said petition CONSTITUTES STEPHEN LIM’S CLAIM AGAINST PETITIONER FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF HER PROMOTER’S SHARE. This Stephen Lim’s AFFIDAVIT, therefore constitutes a THIRD PARTY ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER.

Petitioner therefore apply to this court for leave to set Stephen Lim’s Affidavit down for hearing against Petitioner as a 3rd PARTY ACTION, with Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as 3rd Party Plaintiff and Petitioner as 3rd PARTY DEFENDANT.

I have posted on my blogg many times that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had aided and abetted the 3 respondents, Kwong Sea Yoon, Lim Cheng Ban and Wong kem Chen TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES AND TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD. The basis of my charge against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is that she knew that Petitioner’s charges of PERJURY had a very high degree of probability that they were true, and therefore she CHOSE TO REJECT PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE the 3 respondents.

To buttress my claim that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had aided & abetted Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALES PRETENSES OR TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD; I need to only state that the Order for security for costs was awarded to respondents AHEAD OF THE AWARD FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION; that being the case it is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had no intention at all times to allow Petitioner to go on to try said petition. IF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD NO INTENTION TO ALLOW THE PETITION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL THEN SHE WILL BE AIDING & ABETTING THE SAID THREE TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES; AND SINCE THEIR SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS WERE AND ARE PERJURY, THIS WILL ADD ON TO HER CIMINALITY AND CONSTITUTES JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD AIDED & ABETTED THE THREE CRIMINALS TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD.

If this application is REJECTED by this court, then by this court’s rejection, IT IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD COMMITTED THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES OF AIDING & ABETTING THE SAID THREE CRIMINALS FOR OBTAINING MONEY BY FRAUD & OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENCES; because by this court’s judgment to reject petitioner’s application for leave to set down petition for hearing it will also mean that petitioner’s security for costs will become unrecoverable. It is therefore by this court’s judgment that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had put THE THREE CRIMINALS, STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN, WONG KEM CHEN & KWONG SEA YOON OUT OF THE REACH OF THE LAW. Any such court order will be made OUTSIDE THE RULES OF THE LAW.

Subnission was written by Yap Chong Yee




Note :
It is perfectly understandable that Mr David Hoh will not want to make such a daring submission as I have set out herein; but the law follow the facts and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali did act in the ways that I have stated and she must be held responsible for her actions.

I recommend to Mr David Hoh to write his own version but as he had once said to me “there are many ways to write the same thing, meaning that I had been disrespectful to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali; and in all ways I say “yes” David but write your own polite version that includes all the ‘ingredients” that I have set out in my version of this submission.

May I suggest to Mr David Hoh to ANNEX my submission (I will sign on all the pages so as to declare that my submission is just my submission. I will bear full responsibility for my own submission. This submission will be faxed to the people that I have listed below.

It is also my intention that all who committed criminal offences arising from respondents’ criminal conspiracy to EARN A MENTION in this paper. The 3 main perpetrators of “the original sin”, namely, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon committed PERJURY, FORGERY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, fraud, obtaining money under false pretences and all in conspiracy.

The Law firms of :

(1)Mathews & partners committed the criminal offences subornation of perjury, perverting the course of justice;

(2)M/s ANNAD & NORAINI, solicitors for 2nd & 3rd respondents committed the offences of subornation of Perjury, perverting the course of justice conspiracy to fabricate evidence & conspiracy to obtain money under false pretences

(3)M/s Teh & Partners, solicitors for 4th, 5th & 6th respondents committed the offence of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences.

(4)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali committed MANY CRIMINAL OFFENCES, her number criminal offence is the crime of MALFEASANCE for which if Malaysia is governed by law will be grounds for removal from judicial office. If a court accepts that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had sufficient knowledge or is deemed to have such a sufficiently high degree of belief that any ordinary judge must ACT ON SUCH BELIEF, then Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali will have committed the criminal offences of AIDING & ABETTING the respondents in the perpetration of their PERJURY, FORGERY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE; and she will also be committing the offence of perverting the course of justice.

COPIES :
Fax :
(1)ATTORNEY GENERAL, MALAYSIA
(2)CHIEF JUDGE, MALAYSIA,
(3)JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI,
(4)PRESIDENT BAR COUNCIL,
(5)SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL,
(6)M/s LIM & HOH, SOLICITORS FOR PETITIONER
(7)Email to several lawyers,
(8)Fax to several lawyers chosen randomly picked.

Lim & Hoh, solicitors for petitioner is instructed to apply to court for default judgment or trial

Yap Chong Yee
30th July, 2007

M/s Lim & Hoh, solicitors,
Ming Building,
Jln. Bukit Nanas, KL.

Dear Sirs,

Re Lim Choi Yin Vs McLarens Sdn. Bhd..

I wish to inform Mr David Hoh, my wife’s counsel, that he is NOT TO ACCEPT IF OFFERED BY RESPONDENTS, ANY RETURN OF HER Rm.60,000 paid by her pursuant to a court order awarded to Respondents for security for costs.

The reason for my advice is set out in detail in my fax that is sent as an annex to this letter; or you can read it posted on blogg, http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com.

Yours truly,


yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au


I had faxed the above instruction to our solicitors on 30th July, and I later instructed M/s Lim & Hoh to apply for either a default judgment or to set our petition for hearing on the grounds that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s Order to strike out is unenforceable. I had drafted the affidavit for my wife’s affirmation and sent it to our solicitors for their consideration and amendment out of respect for them as our solicitors; but to date there had not been any response.

I have net been able to speak to Mr David Hoh, our counsel and therefore I asked to speak to Mr Frank Hoh, who told me that I am to speak to Mr David Hoh. I told him that I am unable to contact Mr David Hoh; and that IF THIS SITUATION CONTINUES I WILL HAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM THROUGH MY BLOGG. He told to do what I pleased. I therefore is forced to post all my instructions and other communication through this blogg.


I post the draft of the affidavit that I want to form the foundation of my wife’s application for the relief sought therein. I will post my supporting affidavit that will support my wife’s application in a follow up posting. Among the issues that I will discuss is the NATURE OF THE UNENFORCEABLE COURT ORDER THAT APPROVED THE RESPONDENT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION.

My argument is that the order to strike out approved to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban AFTER THE PAYMENT OF RM.60,000 amounts to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ABETTING STEPHEN LIM TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENSES AND TO AID AND ABET STEPHEN LIM TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD; because there was no intention in Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to ALLOW THE PETITION TO PROGRESS WHATSOEVER. My whole submission is reduced to the question, NOW THAT BOTH ORDERS ARE ALIVE & KICKING, what is the nature of the Rm.60,000 that is paid by order of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali into the hands of the 6 respondents, NOW THAT THERE IS NO COURT HEARING OF THE
PETITION ? As is evident my wife is not going to accept the return of the Rm.60,000 WHATSOEVER ! Respondents have taken THE CAKE AND EATEN IT AS WELL.

My wife’s DRAFT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT :


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


AFFIDAVIT

Saya, LIM CHOI YIN (dulunya memegang Malaysia No. K/P: 4840999) dan sekarang seorang warganegara Australia yang memegang Pasport Australia No. L0030383 (dimana nama saya dinyatakan sebagai Yap Choi Yin mengikut surname suami saya) dan mempunyai alamat tinggal saya di 5A, Prinsep Road, Attadale (Perth) WA 6156 Australia sesungguhnya berikrar dan menyatakan seperti berikut :-

(1)ACCORDING to the facts deposed by me and also pleaded in my petition my statements are SET OUT FROM paragraph (2) below & onwards; and further IN ACCORDANCE with the rule in the COURT OF APPEAL case of Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim Leng (1990)CSLR; [1991] 1 MLJ 301; for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to have the JUDICIAL POWERS in the circumstances of my petition, TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION, respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban must prove by evidence in court the following 2 FACTS :
(a)that 2nd respondent WONG KEM CHEN was a share holder of M/s Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. (the original name of 1st respondent at the time of registration); BY EVIDENCE of the existence of the Company Resolution authorizing M/s Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. to issue to WONG KEM CHEN any such shares;
(b)to prove in accordance with rules of evidence required by the law of evidence, THE EXISTENCE OF Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s allegation that I held combined shares of 3001 shares in 1st respondent company, UNDER SHARE CERTIFICATES No. “2” & “4”

Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in breach of her duty as the presiding Judge DID NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF the above (a) & (b) and she similarly, in breach of her duty REFUSED TO GIVE ME LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for PERJURY. .

(2)I, Yap Choi Yin the Petitioner had pleaded to the following facts in my petition and my supporting affidavits in reply to the several affidavits deposed by the respondents Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong kem Chen & Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in reply to my petition :-
(a)that at all times, from the time of registration of said 1st Respondent Company(M/s Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd., now known as McLarens Saksama Sd, Bhd., hereinafter refered to as the said 1st Respondent) through to today, 1st Respondent had but only two share holders directors & promoters, namely Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & myself, Yap Choi Yin ;
(b)that at all times, said 1st Respondent Company had never ever held any company meeting whatsoever.
(c )that at all times whatsoever, I had never ever signed any transfer form for the purpose of transferring my sole promoter’s share in said 1st Respondent Company,
(d)that at all times whatsoever, Wong Kem Chen was never ever a share holder nor a director of said 1st respondent Company,
(e)that at all times I had never ever sold nor in any way whatsoever, cause the transfer of my sole promoter’s share in said 1st respondent Company,
(f)that neither Stephen Lim Cheng Ban nor I, Yap Choi Yin was ever issued with any share certificate in 1st Respondent Company. There were NO share certificates issued by said 1st Respondent Company ever.
(g)that all the allegations that were alleged by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in his supporting Affidavits alleging that I had sold my several thousand shares in said 1st Respondent Company are/were lies and the alleged documents annexed to his affidavit dated 17th, September, 2004, and supporting his application for an order for striking out said petition were fabrications by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban.

(3)I solemnly state the following facts relating to the adjudication of said petition before, YAB. Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali :
(a) Respondents first applied to Judge Zainon bimti Mohd. Ali for an order FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, and the learned Judge approved Respondents’ application; and she awarded to respondents security for costs in the sum of Rm.60,000, which was duly paid by me as petitioner.
(b) Upon my complete payment of said sum of Rm.60,000, Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban followed up said payment of said Rm.60,000 BY A SECOND and subsequent application for an order for striking out of petition as showing no cause of action. The presiding Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went on and approved this second application AS WELL and ordered that said petition be struck out in terms; notwithstanding that her first order awarding to respondent SECURITY FOR COSTS which was duly paid into the hands of respondents was still alive. No application by respondents to set aside ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali did not at anytime set aside said security for costs;
(c) For reasons as submitted by my counsel, and as set out in detail in the submission ANNEXED HEREIN and marked “SUBMISSION”, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s 2nd ORDER AWARDING to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban leave to strike out said petition is UNENFORCEABLE.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER :
(1)that petitioner be allowed to set the petition down for trial pursuant to the order awarded to respondents and since petitioner has already paid in full and in time said Rm.60,000 on the terms of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order awarding security for costs to respondents.
(2)alternatively that petitioner be given leave to enter default judgment, because 1st Respondent had abandoned it’s defence upon the failure of Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, as representative of 1st Respondent Company, had failed to further participate in the progress of this petition for the last 7 years and Mr Kwong had since those 7 years has not participated in the defence of the 1st Respondent Company.
(3)that the application of Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, said 3rd respondent, for leave to strike out said petition be set down for hearing as 3rd Party action against Petitioner.


DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
( BAHAGIAN DAGANG )
PETISYEN PEMULA NO: D2-26-41 OF 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


Diikrarkan oleh LIM CHOI YIN di , Australia ]
pada haribulan 2007 pada pukul pagi/petang ]
melalui terjemahan Lee Bee Bee dari Bahasa Malaysia ke ]
ke Bahasa Inggeris setelah mula-mula sekali berikrar bahawa dia ]
telah dengan sebenarnya dengan nyatanya dan dengan dan dapat ]
didengar menterjemahkan isi kandungan afidavitnya kepada ]
deponen LIM CHOI YIN dan bahawa dia akan sebenarnya dan ]
jujurnya menterjemahkannya yang sedang hendak dikendalikan ]
keatas dirinya LIM CHOI YIN yang tersebut itu ]
--------------------------------------
LIM CHOI YIN


Di hadapan Saya





--------------------------------------------------
Kounsel Malaysia / Nortari Awam


AFIDAVIT JAWAPAN LIM CHOI YIN (Membatalkan) ini diikrarkan dan difailkan pada oleh Tetuan Lim & Hoh, Peguamcara bagi pihak Pempetisyen yang mempunyai alamat penyampaiannya di #08-02, Tingkat 8, Bangunan Ming, Jalan Bukit Nanas,50250 Kuala Lumpur
(Tel : 03 207 23113) (Fax : 03 207 80906) (Ruj : DH/1110.2/LCY/MS(M)SB) (No Perkataan : )

JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AIDED & ABETTED STEPHEN LIM TO FRADULENTLY OBTAIN TRANSFER OF PETITIONER'S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. WITHOUT

rd. RESPONDENT, STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN OBTAINED TRANSFER OF PETITIONER’S PROMOTER’S SHARE BY FRAUD AND JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AIDED & ABETTED HIM TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS !3

(1)

My wife’s petition sought to wind up 1st respondent company, on the grounds that Wong Kem Chen & the other respondents, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea
Yoon, Leong Yee Fook, Lum Siew Wai, and Harris Onn bin Hussein Onn ARE OPERATING the business of M/s Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. AS TRESPASSERS and that the only true share holders of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd are and had always been only Petitioner, Yap Choi Yin & Stephen Lim Cheng Ban.; and that the true share holders have, by the UNLAWFUL control of the trespassers, lost CONTROL OF Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. Therefore it is by liquidating the company Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. THAT THE TRUE SHARE HOLDERS WILL BE SEPARATED FROM THE TRESPASSERS.

(2)

Going directly to the crucial issue Petitioner pleaded that Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. at all times since first day of registration HAD BUT ONLY YWO SHARE HOLDERS & DIRECTORS, and that all the others are BOGUS SHARE HOLDERS because their alleged shares are VOID ON ISSUE, by the rule of company law that is enunciated in the case of Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim Leng (1991) MLJ.

(3)

Respondents Wong Kem Chen, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Kwong Sea Yoon, alleged company secretary of McLarens Saksama Sdn. Bhd. and therefore REPRESENTING 1st respondent company, applied for security for costs and their supporting affidavits were PERJURED. Petitioner applied to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for leave to cross examine all three lying criminals ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEIR SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS WERE PERJURED. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali AWARDED to respondents security for costs BUT SHE DID NOT COMMENT ON WHY SHE REFUSED PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE. At this very point, I wish to comment on Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s almost illiterate belief THAT THE SCOPE OF HER JUDGE’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS IS UNFETTERED; and that she is free to do as she so pleases, unrestricted, by any consideration for the limits of Law, Justice & Equity.

(4)

A judge’s role in any trial process is to MODERATE the adjudication between opposing litigants, and their discretionary powers ARE INTENDED TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE IN FAIRNESS so that neither party will be procedurally disadvantaged. In my wife’s case, HOW WILL LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE A DEPONENT OF A CRUCIAL AFFIDAVIT TO EXPOSE PERJURY BE SAID TO PROCEDURALLY DISADVANTAGE THE LIAR ? There is absolutely no reason for Zainon’s refusal for leave to cross examine the said three lying criminals. It is blatantly obvious that Judge Zainon GAVE HER assistance to the three lying criminals. Respondents collectively applied for the sum of Rm.625,000 for security for costs; but judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, I believe would have approved Rm.625,000 IF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI believed for one moment that Petitioner could afford that gigantic sum; but Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, knew that my wife was a PENSIONER and that therefore it will be more likely that Rm.60,000 is the limit of her affordability. My claim in these terms sound paradoxical, but it is not because I told the Chief Judge in my letter of compliant to him about the MISCONDUCT of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and I did mention in that letter that my wife and I are pensioners.

WHYWOULD JUDGE ZAINON BEHAVE IN SUCH A CHILDISH WAY ? She was ANGERED by my audacity to dare to complain to the Chief Judge of her misconduct. The reason why she wanted my wife to pay in the Rm.60,000 was so that my wife will suffer a DOUBLE BLOW. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had all along wanted to STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION, therefore by making my wife pay Rm.60,000 AND THEN ADD ON THE FURTHER PAIN OF STRIKING OUT OF THE PETITION WILL GIVE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI DOUBLE SATISFACTION; a case of “buy one get one free”.

The grounds for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to dismiss BOTH OUR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE FOR PERJURY, was that she claims that we withdrew (we withdrew only because judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali asked us “IF WE WILL WITHDREW” ) our first application for leave to cross examine and since contents of the first and second affidavits of respondents are the same, the second affidavit was by implication WITHDRAWN”. This Pretext by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is NONSENSE as the nature of their contents are as dissimilar as cheese & Chalf.

(5)

I have set out only the relevant facts that contribute to my submission that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali ACTED CRIMINALLY IN, REFUSING MY WIFE’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE 3 LYING CRIMINALS; and her abuse of her judicial powers FOR ORDERING THE STRIKING OUT OF MY WIFE’S PETITION. THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF MY SUBMISSION TODAY.

(6)

JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD AIDED & ABETTED 3rd.. RESPONDENT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN TO OBTAIN TRANSFER OF PETITIONER’S OWNERSHIP OF HER ONE, SOLE PROMOTER’S SHARE IN 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY BY FRAUDULENT MEANS. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had AIDED & ABETTED Stephen Lim Cheng Ban when she(judge) knowingly OBSTRUCTED Petitioner from PROVING by cross examination of Stephen Lim that in fact Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had PERJURED in his supporting affidavit. JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI KNOWINGLY REFUSED to give leave for Petitioner to cross examine Stephen Lim, and this refusal HAD shut the door on Petitioner from ever proving that petitioner is still the OWNER OF HER PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to strike out said petition had by law created AN ESTOPPEL against any claim that could ever be made against Stephen Lim or any other subsequent owner of said Petitioner’s sole promoter’s share in said Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. by petitioner. Therefore, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order to strike out said petition (unsupported by law) CAUSED THE TRANSFER OF PETITIONER’S SOLE PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The action of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali constitutes aiding & abetting Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to cause the transfer of my wife’s promoter’s share in Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. by FRAUD. I use the word fraud intentionally because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had every reason to believe that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s supporting affidavit annexed documents that were fabrications by FORGERY and PERJURY. I charge Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for aiding & abetting Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s fraud by intentionally choosing NOT TO DEAL WITH THE TRUE ISSUE UNDERPINNING SAID PETITION, a case of Lord Nelson TURNING A BLIND EYE. Such a cynical abuse of her judicial powers CONSTITUTES KNOWLEDGE by the presiding judge.
A senior judge of any HIGH COURT cannot intentionally TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE TRUE ISSUE OF THE CASE. On the facts of the case pleaded and supported by her several affidavits, Petitioner had PROVEN THAT SHE IS STILL THE OWNER OF HER PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. by reference to Petitioner’s promoter’s subscription share ENDORSED on the MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION of Relionus Adjusters Sdn. Bhd. Therefore, the burden of proving that petitioner had transferred by sale as so alleged by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban lies by the law of EVIDENCE “on he who alleges” and in our case IT IS STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN WHO ALLEGES AND THEREFORE IT LIES WITH STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN TO PROVE THAT HE BOUGHT PETITIONER’S PROMOTER’S SHARE IN RELIONUS SDN. BHD. AND IT LIES WITH STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN TO PROVE THAT PETITIONER HAD TRANSFERRED TO HIM SAID SHARE.
The “mother of all issues” that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was called on to adjudicate was the question “HOW DID WONG KEM CHEN BECOME A SHARE HOLDER OF RELIONUS SDN. BHD.?” This is the mother of all issues AND THIS ISSUE WAS THE ISSUE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI CHOSE NOT TO WANT TO DEAL WITH because to EXPOSE THE FACT THAT WONG KEM CHEN WAS NOT AND STILL TODAY IS NOT A SHARE HOLDER OF THE COMPANY RELIONUS ADJUSTERS SDN. BHD. WOULD HAVE UNREVELLED THE TRUTH. And this from the actions and conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, she (judge) CHOSE NOT TO WANT TO DEAL WITH.

I had in my first posts said that MALAYSIA IS LAWLESS and I have taken a solid case of my wife's petition to illustrate that MALAYSIA IS INDEED LAWLESS. I have sent by fax all my posts that have been published on this my blogg, but so far the Malaysian government (ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MALAYSIA)has still to do anything about my ATTACK ON JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI. I have said that I will be happy to defend my self from any charge of sedition or libel in an Australian Court of law where our judges are of the highest caliber in terms of scholarship of the law and professional integrity; and practiced the highest degree of professional ethics. I have given Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali every possible legal reason to charge me CRIMINALLY & in any civil court IF INDEED SHE IS ABLE TO SUCCEED ! MY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENSE OF TRUTH & PUBLIC POLICY. It is easy enough for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to succeed if indeed she has cause to succeed, because I have not read a single law book for the last 40 years and what I have is my memory of what I studied almost a half century ago. It is also easy enough for judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because all I have to say is all in these several posts.

If I can trust Malaysian Judges to exercise the minimum degree of professional and ethical standard and to hold the minimum degree of legal learning of the law, I WILL BE WILLING TO FRONT A MALAYSIAN COURT, but I do not and it is common knowlege among members of the Malaysian Bar Council, that I should not; why go into a LION'S DEN where angels fear to tread.



















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