REPLY TO MR DAVID HOH'S COMMENT ON MALAYSIA TODAY DATED 1 JULY

I am yapchongyee and I will respond to Mr David Hoh's comment, dated 1 of July and which I missed. However this is my response.

THE SHORTEST MESSAGE IS THE BEST MESSAGE.

David Hoh was professionally NEGLIGENT because he did not enter a defence to Respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban"s criminal and NONSENSE APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AFTER STEPHEN lIM & JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ENFORCED HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS and after the respondents had taken possession of PETITIONER'S RM60,000.

In law the approval of the application for striking out by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali constitutes the criminal offence of MALFEASANCE, because her order for striking out caused her to OMMIT THE HOLDING OF THE HEARING OF THE TRIAL OF THE PETITION; this ommision constitutes the offence of Malfeasance and this equally also applies to the OMMISSION BY DAVID HOH FOR NOT COMPETANTLY OPPOSING STEPHEN LIM's Application for striking out. Therefore in addition to the criminal behaviour of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (many crimes) Mr David Hoh too has committed the criminal offence of Malfeasance in addition to his civil liability of NEGLIGENCE.

I have written a letter to the President of the Malaysian Court of Appeal complaining the criminal behaviour of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. A fat lot of good that will do me; but all the same the judges are incompetent and I will expect nothing except that criminal offences were committed by no less a Malaysian dignitary than A MALAYSIAN FEDERAL JUDGE. I HAVE SAID IT TO DAVID THAT I AM GIVING TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ALL THE CRIMINAL CAUSES OF LEGAL ACTION TO SUE ME OR TO EXTRADICT ME SO WHY DO THEY (JUDGE ZAINON & DAVID HOH) not come to Perth to take legal action to clear their good name ?

I will not be seen dead in a Malaysian court but in Australia our Judges are of the highest calibre in learning of the law and hold the highest degree of professional ethics. I WILL NEVER GET JUSTICE IN ANY MALAYSIAN COURT.

TO ALL LAWYERS IN THE WORLD BELIEVE ME THIS, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali approved
(1) an order for security for costs RM.60,000 and she at the behest of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban ENFORCED HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS and later after having taken possession said RM60,000 Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali went on further to APPROVE TO STEPHEN LIM his second (2) order for striking out said petition. For those who know the law, THESE TWO FUCKING ORDERS ARE LIKE TWO like-poles of two magnets, THEY FUCKING REPEL EACH OTHER. An order for security for costs means that when petitioner (my wife) pays her RM.60,000 she in entitled to go to trial AS A MATTER OF COURSE; on the other hand an order for striking out means there cannot be any trial because there is no cause of action. Stephen Lim & his "MERRY MEN" (bloody gansters & swindlers ) Applied for security for costs ahead of their application for striking out. This means in law they had already RECOGNISED IN MY WIFE'S PETITION A CAUSE OF ACTION. There was no way that a proper Judge will even entertain any application in such circumstances; and yet we have this kampong fishwife ordering both orders for security for costs & another order for striking out AFTER HAVING ENFORCED THE 1ST ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS. This ladies & Gents is the level of the legal learning of a FEDERAL COURT JUDGE OF MALAYSIA. This is shameful.

HAVE YOU GENTLEMAN & WOMEN OF THE WORLD BAR (if there is such a body)ever in your career HEARD OF SUCH "BAFOONERY" here is a judge of the Malaysian FEDERAL COURT who does not know the law AND SHE SHOWS IT BY HER IGNORANCE BY AWARDING TO THE SAME APPLICANTS TWO OPPOSING ORDERS THAT MAKES FUCK ALL SENSE. Such legal nonsense was deemed acceptable to my wife's counsel Mr David Hoh; CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS ? Is this not a case of the BLIND LEADING THE BLIND ?

If Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali & David Hoh thinks that I have libelled them I ask them to come to a court of law that is fair and ethical; come to Perth and fuck me here.

I am publishing my letter to the President of the Malaysian 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