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