Wednesday, December 24, 2008
LETTERS TO 2 JUDGE MANAGERS ! ADTOS JAMES FOONG & MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF

YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com/TO,Yang Ariff Judge Dato Mohd. Raus ShariffYang Ariff Judge Dato James FoongThe Judge Managers, 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.
signedyapchongyee

posted by Yap Chong Yee @ 10:35 PM 0 comments