JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS AN ARSEHOLE

Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date : 8th, August, 2008
To,
President of the Malaysian Court of Appeal,
HIGH COURT,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,

Dear Tan Seri Zaki Azmi,

Re :KL High Court Originating Petition No. : D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. & 5 others.
Costs follows trial ! MY DAUGHTER, WHO IS NOW MY WIFE'S ATTORNEY HAS INSTRUCTED HER COUNSEL, MR DAVID HOH TO WITHDRAW HER APPEAL I HAD OPENLY ARGUED IN AN EARLIER POST PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET THAT APPEALING A STUPID AND NONSNSE COURT ORDER MADE BY A JUDGE WHO ABUSED HER JUDICIAL POWERS AS A JUDGE IS A NONSENSE AND AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY BECAUSE THAT JUDGE'S ABUSE OF HER JUDICIAL POWERS WAS AN ACT OF CRIMINAL BEHAVOUR; SHE COMMITTD A CRIME IN MAKING THAT ILLEGAL ORDER. THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN MALAYSIA. THE JUDGS DO NOT KNOW THE LAW AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT ABUSE OF THEIR JUDICIAL POWERS CONSTITUTES A CRIME.
I HAD REQUESTED THAT MY DAUGHTER INSTRUCT MR DAVID HOH TO WITHDRAW MY WIFES APEAL SO THAT 'to use Mr Hoh's own words, to clear the decks as it were. Now that the appeal has been removed, all 6 respondents can file their bill of costs because judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's order awarded to them "in terms" (including costs). At this point, I wish to make public what my intentions are that moved me to terminate this foolish nonsense APPEAL that has been perptratd by judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, with the co-operation of Mr David Hoh.
I have argued that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's earlier order awarding security FOR costs is still alive and active because Judge Zainon binti Mohd Ali's 2nd order was void and illegal, BECAUSE THE 2ND ORDER THAT APPROVED STRIKING OUT IS NOT ACHIEVEABLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FIRST ORDER WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY PETITIONER'S PAYMENT OF THE SECUIRYT FOR COSTS AS ORDEED BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI, and further the order for security was never SET ASIDE.The two opposing court orders that were approved by JUDGE ZAINON CANCELLED EACH OTHER OUT and as a result my WIFE'S PETITION REMAINS ACTIVE AND ALIVE. The logic of a positive adding on a negative returning a zeroe is a mathetical process and you cannot dispute a mathematical result. ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI'S SIMPLE MIND MUST HAVE THOUGHT THAT HER ORDER APPROVED COSTS TO RESPONDENTS, THEREFOR RESPONDENTS CAN REACH INTO THE SECUIRTY FOR COSTS AND TAKE OUT WHAT THEY THINK IS THEIR COSTS. THIS SIMPLE MINDEDNESS IS JUST DEMONSTRABLY WRONG BECAUSE THE STRIKING OUT ORDR MEANS THERE WAS NO TRIAL BEING LACKING A CAUSE OF ACTION. HOW THEN CAN YOU TAX A BILL OF COSTS IF THERE HAS NOT BEEN A TRIAL ? EVEN AN IDIOT LIKE THIS jUDGE ZAINON BINTI mOHD. ALI CANNOT BELIEVE SHE CAN APPROVE A FICTATIOUS BILL OF COSTS THAT WAS NOT GENERATED BY A TRIAL ?

The discussion at this point brings us to the next issue that exposes the nonsense that had been perpetrated by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, in her approving 2 opposing court orders. The relevance of pursuing this issue bears directly on the validity and legality of her 2nd order to strike out. Petitioner had paid Rm.60,000 to comply with the order to secure security for costs, into the hands of M/s Mathews & co as STAKE HOLDERS, to hold in trust for all 6 respondents; and the appointment of M/s Mathews & Co. to serve this position was made under the direction of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. Having said that the following relationships had developed : (a)Mathews & Co. had become a stake holder for holding the Rm.60,000 to be disbursed among each and every one of the 6 respondents and therefore he has assumed the position of a constructive trustee, (b)the security for costs that was paid by my wife is now STAMPED WITH A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, that Mathews & Co.holds said Rm.60,000 strictly AS SECURITY FOR COSTS AND NOTHING ELSE. (c) Mathews & Co. being bound by said constructive trust CAN ONLY DISBURSE SAID SECURITY FOR COSTS STRICTLY TOWARDS DISBURSING COSTS THAT HAD BEEN PROPERLY TAXED UNDER A BILL OF COSTS. m/S MATHEWS & cO. as trustee for the security for costs MUST DIFFERENTIATE what is a properly taxed bill of costs and what could be the Judge's hallucination and willful FANTASY. If Mathews & Co. Pays to pamper Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's wilfulness then Mathews & Co.will be held accountable for criminal breach of trust, since Mathews from my letter is aware that they need to watchful for their actions.
I said earlier that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s 2nd order quite apart from the sin of illegality is also logically unenforceable for the reasons that are argued herein. Judge because she suffers from a great deficiency in her English language skills DOES NOT understand the meaning of “STRIKE OUT” for want of a cause of action. The words “no cause of action” means exactly what they mean, THAT THE FUCKING PETITION has no triable issues of law of any kind; hence THERE IS NOTHING THAT REQUIRE THAT JUDGE TO DECIDE. That being the case, if there are no issues of law to be tried then there IS NO FUCKING TRIAL ! and since there is no fucking trial then there is NO FUCKING COSTS !
My strategy is to focus on the total silliness and total illogic of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s childish nonsense and to demonstrate that she had openly and foolishly exposed her actions as ABUSE OF HER JUDICIAL POWERS. My argument advanced herein is that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s 2nd order is fucking unenforceable, demonstrably an abuse of her judicial powers and due to her ignorance of the law and her lacking of commonsense logic, IS UNENFORCEABLE to boot. Her 2nd order to strike out is unenforceable because as argued above, if petition is struck our for no cause of action, then there is no trial because there IS NO FUCKING TRIABLE ISSUES IN LAW TO GO BEFORE THE COURT; hence no trial. The saying for costs arising from a case is “costs follows the trial” and if there is no trial there is no costs. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s award to Stephen Lim Cheng Ban is “ORDER IN TERMS” ( sure sounds judicial ); anyway, that means the order is for striking out of petition plus costs to be taxed. That being the order to strike out, the order relating to costs cannot be achieved because NO FUCKING TRIAL MEANS NO COSTS !
My submission above therefore leave ONE FUCKING BIG HOLE (no pun please); it leaves the security for costs FUCKING UNRESOLVED ! The Rm.60,000 security for costs already paid by my wife IS STILL SITTING IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT OF M/S MATHEWS & CO. I have instructed our Solicitors that they are not authorized to accept any attempt to return the undisbursed balance or any part of those Rm.60,000. This is what equity means when it is said that a court of law cannot make a dubious and ambiguous ORDER ! The fact that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s 2nd order to strike out MAKES HER FIRST ORDER INCAPABLE OF ANY RESOLUTION and therefore MAKES HER FUCKING 2ND ORDER UNENFORCEABLE as well, is an indictment of her as an uneducated and non English speaking illiterate kampong fish monger.
THE ONE SINGLE FACT THAT DEMONSTRATES WHAT AN ARSEHOLE IGNORAMOUS THIS JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IS, IS THE FACT THAT SHE HAD 1ST APPROVED TO THE RESPONDENTS THEIR APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS; this in law means that she had already 1st approved that my wife’s petition had A FUCKING CAUSE OF ACTION. Nothing had changed and my wife had not at any time amended her pleading, THEREFORE WHAT ON EARTH CAN JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI justify in LAW to take a subsequent and opposing decision to make to approve respondents’s application for striking out ? To use Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s own fucking words “this is fucking approbating & reprobating at the same time” . You ask the fucking judge if she used those words and in what circumstances.
WATCH THIS SPACE ! I will add a 2nd part to this opinion ! THERE IS A FUCKING 2 ND PART TO THIS sequel !
I am reproducing copy of my wife’s power of attorney (pasted below), Yap Ai Mei so that it will be on the public record when the need to prove this letter arises.
Sincerely,Yap Chong Yee,
Copy : President & Secretary of Bar Council, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, Lim & Hoh (Solicitors), copies sent randomly to practising lawyers.

Yap Ai-Mei,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date : 10th July, 2008
To,
M/s Lim & Hoh,
Solicitors,
Ming Building
Jalan Bukit Nanas,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,

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 write as power of Attorney for my mother, Md. Yap Choi Yin, and I instruct you to withdraw the Appeal that you have lodged in respect of the Court Order to strike out above said petition.

My father, Mr Yap Chong Yee, wants to pursue another course of action than to appeal. I am sending to you my instruction by registered post and I will be grateful if you will reply likewise so that there will be evidence on both sides of the receipt and reply to my instructions.

This letter will appear in my father’s blog at http://yap.chongyee.blogspot.com/. Your co-operation will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,


Yap Ai Mei.