CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI

To, FROM,Malaysian Chief Judge, YAP CHONG YEE,Pres. Court of Appeal, 5a Prinsep Road,Attorney Gen. Attadale, 6156Pres. & Sec. Malaysian Bar, Perth, WA.Members of Malaysian Bar, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com/ Dear Ladies & Gentlemen, Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
Let it be said that every post that I have sent on the "fax-Email" format has been to 500 practising lawyers, Judges, Law Prof. of Malaysia, Singapore and Australia; legal officers of the A-G's Dept. and every one of those who have received my fax are practicing professionals in the legal profession in Malaysia.
My wife had been wronged by the irresponsibility & criminal conduct of Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali., who had abused her judicial powers and she dispensed her personal favours as if she held Royal Prerogative powers; that she is free to favour her friends or clients who may have bribed her to deal the outcome of this Petition in their favour. On the very first day of the first court appearance of this Petition, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly requested Mr David Hoh (my wife's counsel) to ask my wife if she will consider withdrawing her application for leave to cross examine Mr Kwong Sea Yoon,secretary of 1st Respondent and appearing as representative of 1st respondent, Mr Stephen Lim & Mr Wong Kem Chen (both 2nd & 3rd respondents ). I DISCUSSED THIS IMPROPRIETY WITH MY FORMER CLASSMATE AT UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE LAW SCHOOL, MR JUSTICE DATO MOKHTAR SIDIN of the Court of Appeal, and he advised me NOT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION TO CROSS EXAMINE respondents. My wife informed Mr David Hoh not to withdraw the application;
I decided to report the above impropriety to the then Chief Justice, Tun Fairoz. I did not tell Mr David Hoh that I was coming to KL to hand my letter of complaint to the office of Tun Fairoz. I handed my letter at 11 a.m. In the evening around 5 p.m. Mr David Hoh telephoned and asked to speak to me at my sister's house, where I always stayed when I was in KL. and on this visit no one knew that I was in KL. except Chief Judge Tun Faroz (who was my class-mate at Law School at Uni. Singapore & Judge Zainon because I had handed my letter to Tun Faroz office in the morning, therefore the only way that David could possibly know that I was in KL was when told by Judge Zainon binti MOhd. Ali.
Mr Hoh told me to attend his office the next morning under the pretext that he wanted to discuss with me the contents of an affidavit. I said that he can say on the telephone what he wanted to say. He insisted that I went to his office; at this meeting, Mr David Hoh told me that I had broken his rice bowl and that my letter of complaint had antagonised Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali towards him and that I should withdraw my complaint . To cut the matter short, I agreed to withdraw. I was then engaged in small talk by David's father, Frank who was my classmate at Law School at Uni. of Singapore; while Mr David Hoh engaged Judge Zainon on the telephone to draft "my letter explaining away the issue of my complaint." Mr David & Judge Zainon took more than an hour to finalise their draft. When David asked to sign their letter of withdrawal of my complaint, I TOLD MR HOH THAT I WILL NOT READ THE CONTENTS OF HIS LETTER, AND THAT i WILL SIGN IT, BUT IF THE CONTENTS OF HIS LETTER EVER CAME UP, I WILL RELATE THE TRUTH, AND HE WILL HAVE TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY.
In the above circumstances, HOW COULD JUDGE ZAINON NOT RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRESS OF THE PETITION? I observe that from this incident, Mr David Hoh BEGAN TO KICK HIS OWN GOAL; SO TO SPEAK. The events that followed my wife's payment of her security for costs is very indicative of the complicity of Mr David Hoh in Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali's manipulation of the parties to achieve her aim to strike out my wife's petition and course of action. After my wife had paid her Rm.60,000 as security for costs, Judge kept continually postponing the hearing of the Petition over a period of 3 years, putting me to great expense to travel to KL for the hearing that never came.
One morning after 3 years of frustration, I got a phone call from Mr David Hoh to ask me if it is OK if we withdraw our application to cross examine, because it appears that the delay was caused by Judge Zainon's wish to have us withdraw our application for leave to cross examine. He argued that our application was for the purpose of defending against respondents' application for security for costs and now that Order for security for costs is approved our application has become redundant. I agreed to his proposal because I saw that the failure of appearance of Mr Kwong Sea Yoon as secretary of 1st Respondents entitled us to enter judgment in default BECAUSE THE NON PARTICIPATION OF MR KWONG SEA YOON CONSTITUTES ABANDONMENT OF HIS DEFENCE. I had raised this point with Mr David Hoh but he "poopoofed" at my suggestion. Mr Kwong Sea Yoon still has not appeared to deny my wife's allegations that she had never ever signed any company resolution nor ever signed any transfer form of any kind relating to matters of her company. On this issue the rule of evidence & procedure still requires that "he who alleges bears the burden of proof" and the petition still requires Mr Kwong Sea Yoon to proof the impossible because the 1st respondent company never ever issued any valid share certificate whatsoever because other than the original two promoters share holders of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban & Petitioner, there were no other shares ever issued to anyone else.
We see that at this point Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had blatantly abetted the respondents Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen & Kwong Sea Yoon in that it was declared by petitioner that 1st respondent had never ever issued any share certificate of the company because no other shares were ever issued. The three respondents said that my wife had transfered her share but by the rules of the company law no transfer is possible unless the duly executed transfer form is accompanied with the relevant share certificate to be surrendeded to the company secretry for cancellation and the share re-issued to the transferee; Judge Zainon knew that the FUCKING FABRICATED EXHIBITS THAT WERE ANNEXED TO STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN'S APPLICATION WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED FABRICATIONS.
THEREFORE in the context of these circumstances the acceptance of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali at the mere allegation that there was a tranafer of petitioner's promoter share in circumstances that is impossible to be true MAKES JUDGE ZAINON binti Mohd. Ali an accomplice for helping respondents to FUCKING FALSELY establish a false allegation that underpinns respondents' case. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali by her criminal conduct has turned her action on the bench of the High Court, in the hearing of this petition, to become a co-conspirator with the respondents TO FUCKING PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES, CONSPIRACY TO RETAIN STOLEN MONEY OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCES AND MANY OTHERS. WHY BOTHER TO MENTION MORE BECAUSE THESE FEW CRIMINAL CHARGES ALONE WILL PUT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI IN JAIL FOR AT LEAST 7 YEARS !
IT IS REALLY A SHAME THAT UP UNTIL TODAY THESE CLOWNS, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, Mr David Hoh, Annad & Noraini (solicitors) still think that they had gotten away WITH perverting the course of justice because Judge Dato Zainon Binti Mohd. Ali IS A FUCKING CO-CONSPIRATOR AND AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE COMMISSION OF THESE MANY CRIMINAL OFFENCES.