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.