Judicial Incompetence and Criminal Conduct of Judge zainon.
COPY : To, JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.
Email :ychongyee@yahoo.com.au
Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
To,
Pres. & Sec. Malaysian Bar,
Malaysian Chief Judge,
Pres. Court of Appeal,
Attorney Gen.
Members of Malaysian Bar,
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen,
Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I have been writing to the President Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Malaysia, President & Secretary of Malaysian Bar Council, copies randomly to Practising lawyers but drew no response; BUT NOW I HAVE A NEW WEAPON TO BROADCAST MY MESSAGES TO MEMBERS OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR AND PUBLIC, that Court of Appeal Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is a criminal sitting on the bench of the Court of Appeal.
I now take a more pro-active campaign to EXPOSE to the Malaysian public WHO, AMONG MALAYSIAN JUDGES WHO ARE OPENLY INCOMPETANT AND DO NOT DESERVE TO RETAIN THEIR APPOINTMENTS.
I will begin my expose’ of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali on related issues arising from her judicial performance in my wife’s Originating Petition as stated above. I will outline in barest facts but sufficient to phrase the issues I want discussed in the public forum. I shall call this forum, “FORUM TO EXPOSE INCOMPETENCE OF SERVING JUDGES”. This forum is only open to legal practitioners. I shall pose the issues and name the judge whose work is debated, and why he/she is incompetent and does not deserve to remain in office. I invite the following “LEGAL MINDS” because I believe they are competent lawyers and their professional integrity is proven. :
(1)Mr Parma Cumarasamy (UN reporteur ) (2)Karpal Singh DAP (3)Dato Zaid Ibrahim (4)Mr Shankar (Royal Commissioner) (5)Raja Adrus Aziz (of Rithauddin &Aziz. (6)Miss Ambiga Srinevasan(Pres. Malaysian Bar)
My invitation is open and they can raise comments on my blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com., or write their opinions in Bar Council publications; the purpose is to state publicly that the actions & Court Orders that were approved by her ( (1)Order for security for costs (2) followed by Order to strike out )has no underpinnings in LAW and that her actions ARE AN BUSE OF HER JUDICIAL POWERS. Here is an opportunity for lawyers who are competent and ethical, to tell their members of the Bar that the Malaysian judiciary are unethical and are, more than often, do not know their law. It is my opinion that Malaysian Judges hold themselves above the LAW and think they can behave with impunity and no one dares to hold them accountable. I SEEK TO DESTROY THIS MYTH. My belief is that if criminal judicial conduct is publicly EXPOSED, no judge will dare to be chevalier of his or her actions on the bench. It is as simple as SHOWING WHAT THEY HAD DONE WRONG WHEN AND WHERE. This is my campaign. FOR THIS MESSAGE I WILL SEND OUT 400 FAX. I will send 18 fax to Malaysian NEWSPAPERS. 43 fax to the courts in Malaysia.
My first point of debate relates to above Originating Petition, High Court, KL D2-26-41-2001 Lim Choi Yin vs. McLaren Saksama Sdn. Bhd. & 6 others. Due to cost pressures (fax cost), I need only prove that judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had acted criminally in the most obvious instance. JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ACTED CRIMINALLY IN APPROVING (1)Order for security for costs and Petitioner had paid INTO THE FUCKING HANDS OF RESPONDENTS’ SOLICITORS Rm.60,000 as security for costs, (2)upon receipt of Rm.60,000 by respondents, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali followed up by approving ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT PETITION.
Judge Zainon’s Order for striking out juxta positioned against the fact that petitioner had paid her Rm.60,000 makes her approval for an order to strike out criminal on the following grounds :
(a)by the maxim of Equity “he who comes to equity must come with CLEAN HANDS, respondent Stephen Lim Cheng (applicant for striking out)HAD ACCEPTED AND TAKEN POSSESSION OF His share or portion of said Rm.60,000. In layman’s terms “he can’t fucking have the fucking cake and fucking EAT IT TOO.” Therefore Stephen Lim did not come before Judge Zainon with fucking clean hands.
(b)Judge Zainon knows this most basic rule of Equity, therefore, she is criminal for REJECTING TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE TO THIS RULE OF EQUITY. Bear in mind that ignorance of the law is no defence ! THAT SHE APPROVED ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT IN DEFIANCE OF the rule of equity “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” therefore CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF HER OATH OF OFFICE AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT; because upon acceptance of her appointment as a judge SHE HAS TO “SWEAR” OR AFFIRM THAT SHE WILL UPHOLD THE LAWS OF MALAYSIA”. She has, in rejecting to uphold this particular rule of Equity in the most COMPROMISING MANNER breached her FUCKING OATH OF OFFICE.
My wife will not accept any compromise to restore her legal rights. The order for striking out is fucking ILLEGAL, but there is no Court Order to set it aside; therefore I am going to relish the FUCKING LEGAL EMBARRASSMENT THAT PUTS THE REPUTATION OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY AS THE FUCKING LAUGHING STOCK OF THE COMMONWEALTH WHERE ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS PRACTICED. My wife will not apply to set aside the Order to strike out, and we will not accept back the Rm.60,000, and since the Order for setting aside has not been removed, the fucking petition cannot go to trial. THIS SITUATION MEANS THAT THE MALAYSIAN HIGH COURT IS RETAINING MONEY THAT WAS OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCES (because at the time of approving order for security for costs Judge Zainon had no intention to let the petition go to trial and yet she approved security for costs).
THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR THE HIGH COURT TO ORDER THE POLICE INVESTIGATION OF THE 3 POLICE REPORTS THAT WERE MADE BY MY WIFE AND ME AT THE BALAI POLIS JL. TUN H.S LEE. The police will find that our charges against respondents Wong kem Chen, Stephen Lim Cheng and Kwong Sea Yoon that they PERJURED, FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND COMMITTED FORGERY are true; and it will be upon their conviction for the crimes that my wife and I charged them with will my wife apply for the order for striking out be set aside.
Under this present UMNO government, nothing can be achieved, later under a Pakatan Rakyat government is a good time.
yapchongyee@Gmail.com
posted by Yap Chong Yee @ 11:06 AM
5 Comments:
I think Madam Justice Zainun is correct and u have abuse the net. Security for costs will be ordered against a foreign plaintiff who filed her suit in malaysia to ensure that if your wife lost, the defendant need not be trouble to execute the order for costs in other jurisdiction which might no even covered by the receprical act and even if so covered, might attemot to evade enforcement.
Striking out will only be excercised if it is obvious that the case is hopelessly have any chance of success and in this case the defendant have security over the said money to recover thier costs.
Please atleast check your law before making a fool of yourself and start call people criminals which include your own counsels.
If you are not happy there's a place in putrajaya called palace of justice where the court of appeal is situated
Please read this carefully,
In Polini v Gray [1879] Ch D 714 Jessel, MR held that, “the plaintiffs alleged that success will be useless to them unless an interim order is made preserving the fund…the question is whether this court has the jurisdiction to prevent such a consequence. It appears to me as principle that the court ought to possess that jurisdiction because the principle which underlies all orders for the preservation of property is that the successful party is to reap the fruits of that litigation, and not obtain merely a barren success.”
Lord Denning, MR in Aeronave SPA and another v Westland Charters Ltd and others [1971] 3 All ER 531 held that, “It is the usual practice of the courts to make a foreign plaintiff give security for costs. But it does so, as a matter of discretion, because it is just to do so. After all, if the defendant succeeds and gets an order for his costs, it is not right that he should have to go to a foreign country to enforce the order. It is to be noted that Italy is not within the provisions as to the recognition of foreign judgments under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. But even if it were, Kohn v Rinson & Stafford (Bord) Ltd [1947] 2 All ER 839 shows that it is not a ground for refusing security.”
In New Malaya Co. Ltd v Abu Bakar (1961) 27 MLJ 151 his Lordship Mr. Justice Adams, J held that, “Since therefore it has been established that the plaintiff is resident in Singapore out of the jurisdiction and since the normal practice where the plaintiff is resident abroad is to order the plaintiff to give the defendant security for costs the application must be granted and the plaintiff must pay the costs.”
Now maybe you will understand what security for costs is all about. My advise, seek a lawyer's advise before simply accusing people. Even in England, there is such thing call "security for costs"
You have sick mind, man. I pity your lawyer!
still no balls?
Hello to all of you who have so kindly posted comments, Well I have been posting my criminal charges against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for two plus years and nobody ever read them; so for that reason I have not been prompt in my moderation. I see that now that I use the faxEmail format I get enough responses to respond.
However I will respond to those that have some intelligent comments to make. None of you have the guts to post your name, so what does that say for your own BALLS ? Do you have balls or are you all women ? I at least post my name and if Judge Dato Zainon knows her law, she can always come to Perth at my address APPLY TO OUR COURTS TOOBTAIN AN ORDER FOR MY EXTRADITION TO MALAYSIA. I as a matter want her to come to Perth and sue me or obtain my extradition to KL.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is like all of you fucking LAW ILLITERATES !
I will take the case of that smart alack, who goes on about foreign litigants giving security for costs. This is a good example of most Malaysian Lawyers and that is just like Judge Zainon; all of you fucking LAW ILLITERATES do not know the meaning of "DEFINING LEGAL ISSUES". I have already paid security for costs of Rm.60,000 so it is not an issue whether Zainon has or has not ordered security for costs.
The legal issue relating to Judge Zainon's criminal conduct and action is whether she has committed any crime in making that 2nd order for striking out. Read my post today.
Then there is the comment by the one who cited the case of Polini v Gray; and this smart alack went on and on about why a foreign litigant must provide security for costs. There you go again, you fucking totally missed the point. I have already paid the fucking security for costs.
All of you are like Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, you are all fucking blindmen trying to practice LAW. Arseholes who do not know that issues of LAW is very easy if you know what it means and are the key of legal problems; but for those of you an all of you who have posted comments do not know what it means. To you, fuckers you do not have any business to practise LAW.
Another thing all of you are like Judge Zainon, you write atrocious English. LAW is all about LOGIC AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE. You just cannot undertand English Common Law if you have English like what I read in your comments.
By the way do not rubbish Judge Mokhtar Sidin because he graduated from University of Singapore and not fucking Univeristy of Malaya.
By the way our solicitors are M/S Lim & Hoh, Tel.20723113 Ming Building, KL,
Frank Hoh is father and senior partner and son is David Hoh.
Post a Comment
<< Home