Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.comTO,Yang Ariff Judge Raus ShariffThe Judge Manager, Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd Dear Yang Ariff, Please accept my appology for writing in English and not in Bahasa because I am illiterate in Bahasa. I wish to make my complaint to you as the newly appointed 'Judge Manager" to reform the Malaysian Judiciary going forward to achieve a judiciary that is independant and can win the respect of the People and the world at large. My complaint arises and directly relates to the above Petition D2-26-41 of 2001. I am formally making criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal. for (1)abuse of her judicial powers (2) pro-actively participating in a Criminal Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (3) actively participated in a conspiracy to commit perjury and actively participated in committing FORGERY, AND actively participated in fabricating forged documents that were criminally affirmed by deponent and respondent Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban who criminally alledged to be TRUE ORIGINAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT DEPONENT STEPHEN LIM ALLEDGED as proof of his ALLEDGED DEFENCE TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM. I charge Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as an active participant in Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's said action to deceive the court by the tender of these forged documents as true documents knowing that said documents were in truth and in fact forged documents. Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's criminal actions to deceive the court were AIDED AND ABETTED BY THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF Judge Dato Zainon because she acted in the following manner fully aware of the fact that the documents that were tendered by respondent Stephen Lim were in fact forged documents; I charge Judge Dato Zainon had full knowledge that the tendered documents were forged on the following grounds (1)the forged documents visually did not in any meaningful way resemble Petitioner's signature and Judge Dato Zainon could have compared the forgeries against Petitioner's true signature that appeared in Petitioner's many sworn supporting affidavits that were filed in the court files of the case, (2)Petitioner and I as her husband had made 3 police reports (one by my wife and 2 by me) that charged respondents Stephen Lim. respondent Wong Kem Chen and power of attorney of 1st respondent, M/s McLaren Saksame Sdn. Bhd. Mt Kwong Sea Yoon. When Petitioner through her counsel applied to Dato Zainon for leave to question the said 3 respondents for perjury and forgery, Judge Zainon refused leave and INSTEAD STRUCK OUT PETITION UNDER VERY ILLEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES ( facts will be set out later). (3)Petitioner in her supporting affidavit had all along stated and emphasised vehemently THAT PETITIONER HAVE NEVER EVER SIGNED ANY COMPANY RESOLUTION NOR ANY TRANSFER DOCUMENT OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER; AND THAT PETITIONER HAD AT ALL TIMES ONLY ONE SINGLE PROMOTER'S SHARE AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD NEVER EVER ISSUED ANY SHARE CRTIFICATE TO THE ONLY 2 SHARE HOLDERS AND PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY. Petitioner's counsel Mr David Hoh submitted from the very outset that based on the Court of Appeal decision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim leng (1991) 1 MLJ 301 all issue of shares by directors that are not supported and endorsed by company resolution IS VOID AB INITIO. Therefore, the only relevant issue that Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is duty bound to TRY THE ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER IS TRUTHFUL OR RESPONDENTS ARE TRUTHFUL; because by the dcision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sd, Bhd. V. Yeoh Kim leng quoted above, then if Petitioner is truthful then except for the 2 promoters' shares belonging to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, ALL OTHER SHARES ARE VOID UPON ISSUE. Dato Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had pro-actively comspired with respondents through her approval of Stephen Lim's application to strike out said Petition, fully knowing that the RULE SET IN THE DECISION OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) (1991) WILL GIVE PETITIONER THE VICTORY THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO BY RULE OF LAW, decided to frustrate Petitioner's RIGHT TO VICTORY BY ILLEGALLY STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION. THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ILLEGALLY AND WRONGLY ACTED TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION ON THE APPLICATION OF RESPONDENT IS because of the following facts :- (1) Judge Zainon had approved Respondents' application for security for costs of Rm.60,000 and now plus Rm.20,000 interests accrued AND MY WIFE HAD PAID INTO THE HANDS OF 6 RESPONDENTS THE SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000 and accepted by respondents, (2)following my wife's payment of said security for costs respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban made a second application for striking out of said Petition AND JUDGE ZAINON WENT ON TO APPROVE THIS SECOND APPLICATION BY STEPHEN LIM AND JUDGE ORDERED THE STRIKING OUT OF SAID PETITION; EVEN AS ALL 6 RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000 INTEREST. The reason why I say these two orders made together by Judge Zainon is ILLEGAL is because upon receipt by respondents of said security for costs, this payment by my wife and the acceptance by respondents of said security for costs SEALED A CONTRACT AND THE RM.60,000 BEING THE CONSIDERATION. The contract that arose out of this transaction is a matter of contract law AND IS NOT A MATTER OF procedure nor is it that of judge's discretionary powers. The contract that arose is that if my wife pays her security for costs the court will try or hear my wife's petition. On the other hand Stephen Lim upon receipt of security for costs IS BOUND BY HIS ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH SECURITY FOR COSTS TO ABIDE BY HIS AGREEMENT TO GO TO TRIAL; and as a consequence HE DID NOT COME TO COURT IN EQUITY, with clean hands. On the basis of these facts Judge Zainon had abused her judicial powers by approving Stephen Lim's application for striking out said petition In this instance her illegal behaviour was to pro-actively release Stephen Lim from his obligation to go to trial BY JUDGE ZAINON'S ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. In addition to her illegal actions to order striking out, is that upon approving said security for costs SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWERS TO ORDER STRIKE OUT because security for costs MEANS THAT THE SECURITY FOR COSTS IS A MERE GUARANTEE TO THE RESPONDENTS THAT IN CASE PETITIONER LOST HER CASE, RESPONDENTS WILL HAVE CLAIM ON THE SECURITY FOR COSTS. IF THERE IS NO TRIAL IT ALSO MEANS THERE IS NO COSTS and respondents have no claim on the security for costs already paid by petitioner. These two orders are logical opposites and ONLY ONE ORDER CAN EXIST AT A TIME. respondents cannot have their cake and eat it too. The conduct and actions of Judge Zainon amounts to PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and the second application by Stephen Lim for an order to strike out petition after taking said security for costs constitutes OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES BECAUSE BY HIS SECOND APPLICATION, STEPHEN LIM HAD SHOWN THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO GO TO TRIAL but that he wants to retain his security for costs; and Judge Zainnon having knowledge that Stephen Lim had accepted his security for costs and that the retention by Stephen Lim of his security for costs in these circumstances, when he had no intention to go to trial, the actions of Judge Zainon in these circumstances amounts to AIDING & ABETTING STEPHEN LIM TO commit the offence of obtaining money under false pretences. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminal offences while adjudicating as the judge in my wife's petition, the question whether she acted out of ignorance of the law or not, she acted and conducted herself in breach of the law and has to suffer the full force of the law. I will be writing an identical letter to the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, your other JUDGE MANAGER, and I will send copy of this letter to President & Secretary of Bar Council, and 500 copies as fax to 500 legal professionals. to USA ambassador, High Commissioners o Australia, and Great Britain, Ambassadors of France, People's Republic of China etc.