NOTICE TO JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI OF CIVIL SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date : Jan., 2008
FAX:0011603 8888 4522
To,
Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali,
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 wish you to know that I will both sue you for damages & prosecute you for Malfeasance, conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and for aiding & abetting respondents Kwong Sea Yoon, Wong Kem Chen and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban to commit PERJURY, FORGERY and for fabrication of evidence.

However, I have to work out for myself what ought to be my attitude towards the certainty of my imprisonment in Kuala Lumpur when I land there. It will be after the Olympics. I know for certain that I will not face justice before a Malaysian Court, but what the fucks, who cares at my age ?

I have from now until September, 2008. I will see you in KL.(maybe from the inside of my prison. Like they say if Zainon binti Mohd. Ali Will not come to me, I will have to go to Zainon binti Mohd. Ali (since by Malaysian law one of non Muslim faith cannot use the word. “MOHAMMAD”). And of course my wife will have to sell to me her ownership and all her proprietary rights arising from her ownership of her promoter’s share in Relionus Adjusters Snd. Bhd.

Consider this Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, you had awarded to the 6 respondents their application for 6 orders for security for costs, which my wife paid pursuant to your 6 orders in the combined sum of RM.60,000; and after the 6 respondents had received their respective security for costs of RM.10,000 each even after Mr Kwong Sea Yoon had ABANDONED 1st respondent’s application for security for costs (by his continued refusal to further participate in the court process in refusing to answer my wife’s application for leave to cross examine him for PERJURY), and consequently he must be deemed by law to have abandoned 1st respondent’s claim to defend 1st respondent.

I have already factored into my calculation that Malaysian judges are mostly (99%)UNETHICAL, dishonest, COMPLICIT and will not enforce the law even if the law bit them in their arses. From my perspective only ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE COUNTS AND THAT IS THAT YOU HAVE AWARDED AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION AFTER RESPONDENTS HAD RECEIVED THEIR RM.60,000 PURSUANT TO YOUR ORDER GIVING RESPONDENTS SECURITY FOR COSTS. You awarded to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban his application supported by his sole affidavit which annexed FABRICATED DOCUMENTS ALLEGEDLY SIGNED BY PETITIONER for an order to strike out. The issue that I will pursue is not that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban forged the documents BUT THAT YOU HAD AWARDED TWO CONTRADICTING ORDERS THAT , read together amounted to a fucking ZERO, the two orders that you made ONE FUCKING ORDER CANCELLING OUT THE OTHER (as for example
( + 1) + ( - 1 ) = 0 FUCKING ZERO. You are a joke Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because you had tried to FUCK ME but because you are soooo stupid YOU WENT AND FUCKED YOURSELF instead; HOW THE FUCKS DID THE MALAYSIA RULER IN COUNCIL APPOINT SUCH A CLUELESS LEGAL IDIOT ? That being the case for my wife, I only need to prove evidence that you had in fact made those two FUCKING CONTRADICTING COURT ORDERS (1) one for fucking security for costs (2) another for fucking strike out petition.

TAKE NOTICE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI DO NOT FUCKING DESTROY YOUR NOTES AND ABOVE DO NOT DESTROY THOSE TWO FUCKING COURT ORDERS.


Do you think that I can sue you for RM.10 million ? or maybe RM. 20 million, and let the world’s press report it.

Sincerely,

Yap Chong Yee.

Take notice my Email now is yap.chongyee@yahoo.com and my blogg is at,http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com.

Dear Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, I have extracted from Wikipidea a section on the criminal offence of Obstruction of Justice that you committed among several other criminal offences that you committed in your blissful ignorance of the law.

Yapchongyee

Obstruction of Justice
The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors and attorneys general however commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office.
Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of Perverting the course of justice.
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers. However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person who is questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court) It is not relevant if the person lied to protect a suspect (such as setting up a false alibi, even if the suspect is in fact innocent) or to hide from an investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their involvement in another crime). Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if they were under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.
In United States v. Binion, malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence.[1]

The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
Misfeasance is determined in relation to privity of contract. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, the parties can do one of three things: (1) perform the duty fully; (2) perform the duty inadequately or poorly; or (3) fail to perform the duty at all. When a party fails to perform at all, it is nonfeasance. When a party performs the duty inadequately or poorly, it is misfeasance. Malfeasance is used to denote outright sabotage which causes intentional damage.
Example: A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering company doesn't show up, it's considered nonfeasance. If the catering company shows up but only provides drinks (and not the food, which was also paid for), it's considered misfeasance. If the catering company accepts a bribe from a competitor to undercook meat and give those present food poisoning, it's considered malfeasance.
The rule of law laid down is that no action lies for nonfeasance, for failure or refusal to perform the obligation, but that an action does lie for misfeasance or malfeasance, for negligently and improperly performing the obligation. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly (see R. v. Kilderby, 1669, 1 Will. Saund. 311, 312 c).
At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.
This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways; but in other cases the courts are astute to find evidence of carelessness in the discharge of public duties and on that basis to award damages to individuals who have suffered thereby.
Misfeasance is also used with reference to the conduct of directors and officers of joint-stock companies. The word malfeasance is sometimes used as equivalent to mala praxis by a medical practitioner.