Letters to Chief Judge (Malaya), President & Secretary Malysian Bar, Mr David Hoh

Yap Chong Yee
Dated :

The Honrable Chief Judge,
High Court, Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur,


Your Honour, (YAB)

Re :KL High Court Originating Petition No. : D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. & 5 others.


Why does it not surprise me in the least that in spite of my frequent letters written to the Chief Judges, Malaysia and my previous letter to you as Chief Judge of Malaya, that the criminals Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen and Kwong Sea Yoon committed FORGERY, PERJURY AND FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, and several criminal offences with the obvious COMPLICITY of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (the presiding Judge) who aided and abetted the three criminals to achieve their criminal objective and by the criminal behaviour of judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and her interventions in abuse of her judicial powers while sitting as the presiding judge. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali acted outside her judicial powers, acted without any judicial authority FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THESE THREE CRIMINALS FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

I will spell out my reasons why it is so easy to demonstrate Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s criminal behaviour.and further to show how very IGNORANT OF THE LAW SHE IS. I was informed by letter written by M/S Lim & Hoh, my wife’s solicitors that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had told Mr David Hoh (my wife’s counsel) that “IF YOU CLIENT DOES NOT LIKE MY JUDGMENT TO STRIKE OUT HER PETITION, THEN SHE CAN GO ON APPEAL”. By the way there is no use for either Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali nor Mr David Hoh to deny this charge, because I will publish the letter on my blogg.

I need to rely exactly on the words of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s alone to prove that she has “mud”(Lumpur) for brains or in English we say “SHE HAS SHIT FOR BRAINS”. Consider this situation; Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, pursuant to all 6 respondents applying for security for costs of 650,000 riggint for the 6 respondents. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali APPROVED RESPONDENTS’ APPLICATIONS FOR 60,000 ringgit. This sum was paid and RECEIVED BY ALL THE 6 RESPONDENTS WITH ANY APPEAL BY ANY OF THE LITIGANTS (including my wife). This therefore constitutes ENFORCEMENT BY THE 6 RESPONDENTS And JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI’S ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS.

TAKE NOTICE LADIES & GENTLEMEN, the Order for security for costs has been enforced by the respondents and complied by petitioner. These circumstances are the conditions that mandate a hearing of the petition. As quoted from Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, “if the litigant is not happy with the decision, he can appeal.” Therefore the remedy for Stephen Lim lies in appeal against the award for security for costs. Let me pose the issue again from the respondents perspective, IF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD AWARDED TO RESPONDENTS THE RM650,000 AS SECURITY FOR COSTS THE SUM THAT RESPONDENTS ASKED ? The will Stephen Lim also go on to make his application for striking out ? There you have the crux of the matter. It is not the cause of action that Stephen Lim gripes about, IT IS THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY DEFENCE AND WORSE THAN THAT THEY PERJURED AND THEY FABRICATED THE PAPERS THAT THEY PASS FOR EVIDENCE; and Judge knows of respondents’ ploy. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is complicit in all this conspiracy.



Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, WA6156
Dated 20 Nov. 2007
Email :yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au.
Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com,

To,
President & Secretary,
Malaysian Bar Council,

Re :Public Com-plaint against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for abuse of her judicial powers and criminal behaviour in the performance of her judicial duties.


Dear Madame/Sir

I read on your Malaysian Bar Council website that on the 22nd of Nov., a meeting of your members will be held to discuss reforms in the Malaysian judiciary to make the system more accountable and the position of judges more independent and less corrupt, in the light of the “ lawyer & Chief Judge Bar Council webcam scandal”.

I have been writing to you, the AG. All & sundry of members of the Malaysian Bar both by fax & by email of the case of my wife’s PETITION (reproduced at the bottom of this letter.) Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali HAD ABUSED HER POWERS ON THE BENCH, and in so doing EXPOSED HER ABUSE OF HER JUDICIAL POWERS and in her ignorance of the law had produced two interlocutory orders, namely (a)an Order for security for costs (b) a simultaneous and later order to strike out my wife’s petition of the same petition. PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE FIRST ORDER AWARDING SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS ALREADY ENFORCED BY ALL THE RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONER HAD ALREADY PAID INTO THE HANDS OF ALL THE RESPONDENTS THE RM.60,000 ORDERED BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI. This is the nonsense that even a 1st year law student is incapable of making, but here EVEN A SENIOUR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS THE “LEGAL” ILLITERACY TO MAKE; Judge Zainon biinti Mohd. Ali made this her CLOWING GLORY.

The point that I make in this letter is that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly and with definite intention acted TO PROTECT THE THREE CRIMINAL RESPONDENTS, KWONG SEA YOON, WONG KEM CHEN AND STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, by making her ORDER TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE’S PETITION, because all three criminal respondents had PERJURED IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS and petitioner had applied for leave to cross examine said 3 criminals on their supporting affidavits; (judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had refused leave to cross examine for no reason at all) and if leave had been granted to petitioner to cross examine, the PERJURY OF SAID CRIMINALS WILL BE EXPOSED. It was to prevent petitioner from cross examination that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had awarded applicant Stephen Lim Cheng Ban his request for an order to strike out so that my wife’s petition will be sent to LIMBO & BURIED IN THE MALAYSIAN GRAVEYARD OF LEGAL APPEALS. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali knows that both my wife and I are retirees and most probably will not see the appeal heard. I WILL SAVE THE DETAILS AND I REFER THOSE WHO WANT THE FULL STORY TO READ MY BLOGG.

I NEED TO SET MY CASE FOR CHARGING JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI WITH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR ON THESE COUNTS :

(1)My wife’s and my police reports (3 police reports) charged FORGERY & PERJURY. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had a duty before refusing my wife’s application for leave to cross examine said 3 criminals for PERJURY & FORGERY, to compare the signatures affixed to her affidavits and those forgeries appearing on the supporting AFFIDAVIT THAT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN because my wife’s supporting affidavits had ANNEXED SAID 3 POLICE REPORTS. This is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had known that the trash that was alleged by Stephen Lim as documents that were executed by my wife were FORGERY. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had before her both the forgeries and the true signatures of my wife, she cannot turn a blind eye to what she is required to see.

(2)Judge had committed the criminal offence of MALFEASANCE, WHICH IS ALSO A TORT and I assure that whatever happens, I will pursue a claim for damages against her for damages.

(3)I was in Beijing, China when I read in “THE CHINA DAILY” a report of the “LAWYERS’ DEMONSTATION” asking for reform to the JUDICIARY. Why bother with the misbehaviour of a retired Chief Judge, when my wife’s case deals directly an incumbent who can be easily proven to have acted with impunity, unethical behaviour and who acted in FURTHERANCE OF OBJECTIVES THAT ARE CRIMINAL UNDER THE PENAL CODE. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali committed clear criminal offences that CARRY SERIOUS JAIL TIME.

The Malaysian Bar professes to want reforms to bring about an independent & credible judiciary; therefore why not show the world that you serious and support me, yapchongyee, to BRING IN A PRIVATE PROCUTION OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI, WONG KEM CHEN, KWONG SEA YOON AND STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN. If the Malaysian Bar will send me an invitation to initiate criminal proceedings to prosecute the above criminals, then I know that I have the support of the Bar and I will do it. I draw your attention to the case of O.J.. Simpson. It will involve a bit of research but IS THIS NOT WHAT THE MALAYSIAN BAR
NEEDS ? The police will not act, the judges are corrupt and will not ENFORCE THE LAW. Is it not time that instead of futile and symbolic gestures, GO FOR WHAT THERE IS LAW THAT WILL ENPOWER THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO SEE A CREDIBLE AND HONEST JUDICIARY & POLICE.

Read Details :

Blogg. : http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com.

I email & fax this letter and I will post the original. I stand by what has been said by me anywhere and I will defend myself. IF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AND THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY ARE CREDIBLE INSTITUTIONS IN MALAYSIA, THEN WHY IS IT THAT FOR ALL THESE PROTRACTED TIME THAT I HAD BEEN POSTING MY CHARGE AGAINST JODGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI AS A COMMON CRIMINAL’ THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT & JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAVE NOT HAD THE stomach to defend the good name of Malaysia. Here I am calling one of your most seniour judges, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as a common criminal and yet no attempt is made by the Malaysian government to defend your Judge. Judge Aided & Abetted the said 3 criminals to commit PERJURY & FORGERY. Judge is a FACILITATOR FOR THESE 3 CRIMINALS TO COMMIT CRIMES.



Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date : 12th Nov.,2007
To,
Mr David Hoh,
M/s Lim & Hoh,
Solicitors,

Dear Mr David Hoh,

Re :KL High Court Originating Petition No. : D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. & 5 others.

I refer you to my wife’s above petition and to my several letters regarding your conduct of said petition; and to date I still have not received any reply from you.

The first question that I want answered from you is, “are you still our solicitors ?” This question has to be determined because you had written to my wife in terms that stated unilaterally that you had discharged yourself from further acting as our solicitors.

The secodnd point that I want you to know and I hereby give you formal notice that you had acted professionally negligently in response to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out said petition. In the following manner :

(1)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had awarded to all the 6 respondents their application for security for costs in the sum of RM.60,000 being set at RM.10,000 each respondents;
(2)My wife had borrowed this sum(RM.60,000) from our daughters at the rate of interest of 30%/annum(compound interest) and had paid this sum into the hands of M/s Mathews (solicitors acting for 1st respondent) who accepted said sum to hold in trust for all the 6 respondents. That being the facts you must also know that the payment and acceptance of the security for costs pursuant to Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s Order CONSTITUTES enforcement by the respondents of their order for security for costs.
(3)The most important point that you ought to have acted on was the fact that NONE OF THE LITIGANTS (all 6 respondents & my wife) had appealed against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s Order awarding to the respondents the sum of RM60,000. THERE WAS NO APPEAL whatsoever, therefore in law Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order was accepted by all litigants.
(4)Having stated the aforesaid facts, I formally & publicly charge you for conducting my wife’s application by the above petition in a manner that is professionally negligent. It was your duty in the circumstances as stated aforesaid TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN’S APPLICATION because Stephen Lim Cheng Ban as one of the respondents HAD ENFORCED HIS AWARD OF SECURITY FOR COSTS. You, Mr David Hoh did not apply to strike out Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application to strike out.

It was indeed unfortunate for you that the presiding judge was Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali who as all my letters had proven does not have sufficiently A PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW.

The respondents having ENFORCED THEIR AWARD FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, cannot go on and also apply for another order for striking out of said petition.

I now instruct you to act in the following manner :
(a)Apply for an order TO SET ASIDE judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order “for striking out of said petition.
(b)Apply to the court in the same application for setting down of the petition for trial on the grounds that Respondents had accepted (by the fact no respondents nor petitioner) had appealed the order made for security for costs.

I had written to you before that the conflicting orders made by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali IS UNSUPPORTED BY LAW OF PROCEDURE NOR BY ANY SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN EXISTENCE. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali awarded the “double farce” by sheer ignorance. Above all Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has no common sense and do not have the most basic sense of logic.

Mr David Hoh, I am writing to you for the purpose of defining our professional standing for the purpose of civil suit which I shall pursue in due course. This letter will form the basis of my complaint to the Malaysian Bar Council. It is my wish that you answer this letter so that we know where we stand.



Yours Faithfully,




Yap Chong Yee.
FAX :

President & Secretary, Bar Council, Malaysia, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, Chief Judge, High Court Malaya, Members of the Malaysian Bar (randomly chosen). Email to many and sundary.

Email : yapchongyee@yahoo.com.au

Blogg. http://www.yapchongyee.blogspot.com