RETENTION OF SECURITY FOR COSTS IS RETENTION OF STOLEN MONEY, OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

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
Take notice that my wife's above petition is still left un-adjudicated despite the failed attempt by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to strike out said petition. She is irretrievably INCOMPETENT; her attempt to strike out was FUCKING INEFFECTUAL on the following grounds (1)1st Respondent (the Company), represented by Kwong Sea Yoon, as SECRETARY, had applied for security for costs supported by Mr Kwong Sea Yoon's affidavit and when Petitioner applied to cross examine Mr Kwong Sea Yoon for perjury on his supporting affidavit to his application for security for costs, Mr Kwong Sea Yoon permanently ABANDONED his defence of 1st Respondent (he ran away). (2)based on the rule of pleading, "that an allegation that is not specifically denied is deemed to be ADMITTED". therefore by this rule of pleading Kwong Sea Yoon has by his withdrawal from any further participation in defence of 1st Respondent and not having denied Petitioner's charge that he lied in his supporting affidavit IS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED HE LIED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AND THAT BEING THE CASE MY WIFE'S COUNSEL, MR DAVID HOH HAD THE DUTY TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF DEFENCE, but he did not, inspite of my request to enter judgment in default. I believe David had acted under pressure from Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali not to enter judgment in default because she had planned to STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION WHEN PETITIONER PAID HER RM.60,000. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali wanted to punish me twice for reporting her unprofessional conduct, to the then Chief Justice, Tun Fairoz, in rquesting my wife to withdraw petitioner's application to cross examine respondents for PERJURY. Letters written to me from Mr David Hoh will indecate this unprofessional conduct. However, because the above Petition is still ACTIVE and because the Strike Out is ineffectual Mr David Hoh can still ENTER JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT at this time. This is my opinion and I wrote this to him in a POST which can be read if you scroll down my blogg. @ http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com/, 6 months earlier. (3)Mr Kwong Sea Yoon, having pleaded a defence in his supporting affidavit and having abandoned his defence without having denied specifically my wife's charge that he pejured, is reason why Respondent Stephen Lim cannot then foolishly attempt to come in Mr Kwong Sea Yoon's place to deny the charge against Mr Kwong for perjury and then to apply for an order for striking out, because by this same rule of pleading ONLY Mr Kwong Sea Yoon can come in to resumme his defence or he will be held to have PERJURED BY REMAINING INCOMMUNICADO. The rationale being, Perjury is a crime that is committed by the person making such statement and if he is found to have perjured, only he can be punished. The liability lies with Mr Kwong Sea Yoon alone. Only a law illiterate, in this case Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali can accept the affidavit of Mr Stephen Lim as sufficient substitute denial of the perjury of Mr Kwong Sea Yoon this is fucking bullshit ! Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen all three perjured but Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali accept their affidavits as FUCKING PROVEN FACTS AND REFUSED TO GIVE PETITIONER LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE, EVEN WHEN PETITIONER'S APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY 3 POLICE REPORTS THAT CHARGED THEM WITH PERJURY. However, Mr Kwong's continued default of defence still gives Petitioner the RIGHT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF DEFENCE RIGHT UP TO TODAY. (4)It is sufficient to say that this last point PUTS THE CREDIBILITY, (both ETHICALLY AND COMPETANCY-WISE OF THE MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY on trial; THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT COMING AFTER RM.60,000 HAD BEEN paid TO RESPONDENTS AS SECURITY FOR COSTS, MAKES THE RETENTION OF RM.60,000 by the Respondents, under Judge Zainon's Order the crime of retaining stolen money obtained under false pretenses; because money for security for costs is a contingency deposit to secure the costs of the trial only in the event that Petitioner looses her case;, and therefore where there is no trial (because of strike out) the respondents cannot generate an acceptable "BILL OF COSTS". That being the case the RM.60,000 cannot be ligitimately DISBURSED. Therefore, the retantion of this security for costs IS NOT FUCKING SANCTIONED BY LAW. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has by her ciminal conduct become a co-conspirator IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY UNDER FALSE PRENETCES. Will the Malaysian Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal not do their duty under their oath of office and UPHOLD THE LAW ? (1)she aided & abetted perjury, forgery, fabrication of evidence; A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, whose conduct is just outright CRIMINAL. (2)the Malaysian Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, many judges informd by my faxes sent to them randomly, 400 legal precticing lawyers informed by my fax messages; and be assured that nothing will be done. It is laughable that a COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE NOT ONLY PRO-ACTIVELY CONDONED PERJURY, FORGERY, FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, BUT IS ALSO A CO-CONSPIRATOR TO OBTAING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. The most obvious problem with Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is that she is not fluent in English and she just cannot understand what is written in English. How is it possible therefore for a High Court Judge to understand the issues in the case before her ? In my wife's case there is only 1 "ONE" issue (as defined by the rule established in the COURT OF APPEAL (1991) case of KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) Sdn. Bhd. VS YEOH KIM LENG (1991) 1 MLJ 301. I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali did not read that case or if she did read that case DID NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THE RULE ESTABLISHED IN THAT CASE. which was cited by Mr David HOH because I bought Prof. Walter Woon's book on COMPANY LAW, and marked out the pages for Mr David Hoh to include in his WRITTEN sumission. THE ONE FUCKING ISSUE IS THAT ALL SHARES OF COMPANIES MUST BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE APPROVAL GIVEN BY SUCH COMPANY IN A VALID WRITTEN COMPANY RESOLUTION, specifying the number of shares to be issued to such persons. This resolution defines the validity of the shares that are alledgedly issued. This fucking resolution was never ever produced by the respondents.
Email :ychongyee@yahoo.com.au Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com/