LETTER TO PRESIDENT, MALAYSIA COURT OF APPEAL,

Dear Friends (reporters of Singapore ST.Times)

I am sending to all of you copy of my latest letter to the CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYSIA to draw his attention to the sort of nonsense that pass for their administration of the judicial & legal process. I have a grivence against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal. I set up my own blog site at http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com to NAME AND SHAME this judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, because she acted criminally. READ MY BLOG because my story is too long.

I hope you all will help to spread my letters to show every one how shameful and comical the Malaysian judiciary is.

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date :
To,
The President,
Court of Appeal,
Putra Jaya, Malaysia,

Your Honour (YAA),

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


I charge Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal for acting in conspiracy with my wife’s solicitors, M/s Lim & Hoh of Ming Building, Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur to cause my wife’s said above petition to be CONDEMNED & CONSIGNED to the legal limbo of the Court of Appeal.

My charge against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for acting in conspiracy with my wife’s solicitor M/s Lim & Hoh to pervert the course of justice, and for the purpose of protecting three criminals respondents of the said petition namely, Wong Kem Chen, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Kwong Sea Yoon from Prosecution for PERJURY & FORGERY, perverting the course of justice, fraud, obtaining money by false pretenses, fabricating evidence and other criminal offences.

Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali perpetrated these criminal offences by knowingly refusing leave for the petitioner to cross examine said 3 criminal respondents for perjury, AND THEN TO AWARD TO RESPONDENTS TWO ORDERS (1) ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS AS THE FIRST ORDER and then (2)ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION AFTER THE RESPONDENTS HAD EXECUTED & ENFORCED THEIR ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS, by the respondents accepting the payment of RM.60,000

Please take note that Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali HAD AWARDED THE ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS AHEAD OF THE ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT. This fact confirmed the execution & enforcement of the order for security for costs BY THE RESPONDENTS & by JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI. Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali knowing that after petitioner had paid the sum of RM.60,000 being the security for costs she ordered, an open court hearing of the petition will follow as a matter of course and this hearing will cause the said 3 criminals to be cross examined FOR perjury & forgery, and hence face criminal prosecution. It was upon payment by petitioner of the security for costs that caused the respondents to apply for striking out of said petition; and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, being fully aware of these circumstances proceeded to prevent this from developing by awarding to respondents THE FURTHER ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION. Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali knows that although she had no power to award her 2nd order for striking out, the respondents having executed & enforced their order for security for costs, awarded the order for striking out anyway, KNOWING THAT HER ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT WILL CONSIGN & CONDEMN THE FATE OF SAID PETITION TO THE LIMBO OF TIMELESSNESS.

My charge against my wife’s solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh is that they did not oppose respondents’ application for striking out of petition. My wife’s solicitors wrote to us complaining that every time I wrote officially to complain of the misconduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali , SHE WOULD haul up Mr David Hoh, my wife’s counsel to her office to face her. It is for this reason that I conclude that Mr. David Hoh had been instructed not to oppose respondents’ application for striking out said petition. I do not believe that all the parties namely, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, together with the criminal behaviour of Stephen Lim & Wong kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon, the lawyers of M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors) respondent applicants’ solicitors who represented respondents in their application for the order for striking out, and who committed subornation of perjury in their preparation of the affidavit of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban that supported their application for striking out of petition because the signatures on the documents that were annexed to the affidavit of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng ban even merely at a glance when compared to my wife’s true signature affixed to her many affidavits will show obvious & glaring differences and therefore cannot be taken to have been the true signature of my wife’s..

The ACTION OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI to award her order for striking out to the respondents was not due to her obvious professional INCOMPETENCE. She had to have encouraged M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors for the respondents), to proceed to apply for striking out with her obvious support, and to instruct Mr David Hoh not to oppose respondents’ application for striking out said petition. For the respondents to succeed in their application to strike out, it COULD ONLY be achieved by the conspiracy of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali leading the other co conspirators of M/s Annad & Noraini committing SUBORNATION OF PERJURY & abetting forgery & fabrication of evidence, and for Mr David Hoh, under the influence of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali TO NOT OPPOSE RESPONDENTS’ APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT. It is too much to ask me to believe that all of these PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS CAN OVER LOOK THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL & I MEAN ALL THESE LAWYERS CAN TOGETHER NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING ?

The two opposing orders for an order for security for costs followed by an order for striking out cannot be made by any SANE JUDGE hearing the petition because a COURT OF JUSTICE OF LAW & EQUITY JUST CANNOT MAKE SUCH NONSENSE ORDERS; one order says “YES”, and at the same time the other ORDER says “NO”.

There is the not so often used criminal offence & of tort OF MALFEASANCE, I have already written on this offence in my blog. However, an officer of the court commits malfeasance when he/she omits to do WHAT IS REQUIRED OF HIM/HER TO DO BY LAW AND SUCH omission CAUSE DAMAGE OR LOSS TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali committed malfeasance BECAUSE SHE IS BOUND BY LAW,(having first enforced her order for security for costs at the behest of the 3 criminals Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon & Wong Kem Chen.) AND UPON PETITIONER HAVING PAID SAID RM.60,000 WAS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE HIGH COURT TO ORDER A HEARING OF THE PETITION AND SHE OMMITTED TO ALLOW THE HEARING OF THE PETITION. The penalty for malfeasance is dismissal from her judgeship and of course open to be sued in tort.

My research tells me that proof of intention to commit malfeasance is not required. The fact that defendant omitted to do what is required by law for her to do constitutes the offence. Having discussed the point, I will charge Mr David Hoh with Malfeasance because he too omitted to apply to strike out respondents’ application for striking out said petition; not to mention that I will sue him for damages for negligence & malfeasance.

Yours faithfully

Yapchongyee

Copy :
(1)Attorney General’s Dept., (2) President & Secretary Malaysian Bar Council
(3)M/s Lim & Hoh (by fax) (4)Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (Ct. of App.)
(5)E-mail to all and sundry of the Malaysian Bar