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.