your are floored pussy licking bastard Gopal Raj Kumar get your asshole up face this taxidriver for round 2

your are floored pussy licking bastard get your asshole up face this taxidriver for round 2

THE KARMA OF KILLING PREGNANT ALTANTUYA WE WILL SENT THEM TO HELL ALLAH IS WATCHING EVERY STEPS THEY TAKE TO HIDE THEIR SIN PART 1THE TAXIDRIVER’S STORY NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH RPK SPEAKS HIS MIND – MEETING ALTANTUYA’S FATHER

ASSHOLE Gopal Raj Kumar THIS TAXIDRIVER THINKS YOUR ASSHOLE ALREADY ENLARGE BY NAJIB SO DONT TRY TO SELL IT YOU SMELLY THIRT

this is the asshole of ASSHOLE Gopal Raj Kumar THIS TAXIDRIVER unmasked

readmore click thissays journalist Arnaud Dubus( Linking Najib to Altantuya “Missing”LINK BALA WAS BOUGHT FOR MILLONS

readmore click thisWHY DID RAZAK BAGINDA HAS WAIT FOR THE A.G OFFICE prosecution NOT follow thru with an appeal BEFORE HIS FIRST MEET PRESS? WHAT WAS HIS MESSAGE TO THE MALAYSIANS WHO ARE THE SUCKERS

Gopal Raj Kumar is the asshole said this 'of A typical example of the point made here and an example of the character of this new “ ins (the first of two) is a spired” class is, one Balasubramaniam anak laki Perumal. His Statutory Declarationtatement purportedly of fact and first hand knowledge of facts where relayed to him otherwise by third parties.'after licking rosmah's pussyIf Najib is a responsible Prime Minister, he should have felt duty bound under his oath of allegiance to the country to clear his name through a proper inquiry by an independent and reputable panel, now that the perception of his involvement has been so entrenched and pervasive nationally as well as internationally.

By Kim Quek

When questioned by reporters regarding private investigation P Subramaniam’s latest revelations implicating the family of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder scandal, Najib snapped “I will not entertain any frivolous statement” and asked reporters to move on to the next question.

This curt reply to crassly cut reporters off from asking further questions sounds to me more like a reflex in panic, rather than a responsible answer from the prime minister of a supposedly democratic country. For it was a totally inappropriate reply to Bala’s serious accusation, made in circumstances that commanded respect and credibility.

What can be more serious than accusing Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor and his brother Nazim of having used the “carrot and stick” meneuver to force Bala to retract his first affidavit which implicated Najib in the murder scandal?

And what can be more respectable than having his revelations made in an interview conducted and witnessed by three senior lawyers of the country?

Bala alleged that Rosmah’s close associate Deepak Jaikishan offered him RM5 million and Nazim threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak’s instructions. This happened on the day he disclosed his first affidavit on 4th July 2008. Fearing the safety of his family, Bala retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia-today.net and later relayed by other websites including Malaysiakini and Youtube.
In the interview, Bala described how he was forced into retraction and how he and his family embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak. That journey was a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Katmandu, Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.
Bala exuded confidence with his detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pin point the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, cheques, bank accounts, etc.
Against these formidable allegations, all we have from the alleged culprits is deafening silence, despite the news being circulated in the Internet for more than two weeks. Until, of course, when Najib dismissed these as “frivolous” and not worthy of his response, during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting on Dec 4. This effectively means that Bala has cooked up a pack of damned lies, according to Najib.
So, one of them must have lied. Was it Bala, or was it Najib?

FACTS FAVOUR BALA
A cursory glance at the facts and circumstances surrounding the latest controversy would enable one to readily conclude that Bala has the upper hand, for the simple reasons that Bala’s accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusation.
If Bala’s statement is false, and with the immense power and resources at the disposal of the Prime Minister, there is no possible reason for Najib not to have instantly ordered an investigation, and bring Bala to face the consequences for having so openly and repeatedly defamed the Prime Minister and his family.
If Najib could have Raja Petra Kamarudin - webmaster of Malaysia Today - charged for criminal defamation for the publication of an article in his website that said Rosmah was present at the crime scene, why can’t he do the same on Bala?
In fact, Bala’s case is even more serious, as he has signed two contradictory affidavits – a clear offence of false declaration – besides accusing the Prime Minister and his family of involvement in murder.

And why should the Prime Minister, his family, and the various law-enforcement agencies be so kind and forgiving to Bala as to leave him untouched, while the nation suffers the humiliation of its Prime Minister being openly defamed and ridiculed?
FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the case from another angle – Bala’s perspective, it appears even more compelling that Bala was not likely to have lied.

Why should a family man like Bala falsely accuse the Prime Minister of involvement in the most heinous of crimes, knowing its serious consequences as an ex-police officer? What possible gain could he get, keeping in mind that he couldn’t have extorted any money, since the allegation is untrue?
Even if it is true that Bala had falsely accused Najib, that he had repented and retracted his allegations in a second affidavit, and ran away to another country to escape retribution, there is no conceivable reason for him to make a come-back to invent another pack of lies, thereby exposing himself for the second time to the risk of serious punishment. Unless, of course, he is a lunatic, which is clearly not the case.
GROUNDS OF SUSPICION ABOUND
Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that had occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder.

Why was Najib not investigated since the first two accused, who were his body guards and took orders from him, had no apparent motive on their own to commit the murder, and the third accused was his confidante?

Why were the judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial?

Why was the motive for murder never raised during the trial?

Why did prosecutors and defence lawyer join forces to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court such as a certain photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together and the mysterious erasure of immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions?

Why was Bala’s affidavit barred from the court without credible reasons?

Since the third accused, who was charged for instigating the murder, was released without his defence being called, then who had ordered the killing?

It is clear that unless these troubling questions are dealt with satisfactorily, there is no way Najib can clear himself of suspicions that have surrounded him, least of all by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like what he did in the said press conference.

In fact, such conduct only betrays his weaknesses. For it is plain commonsense that if Najib is on the side of truth, he would have welcomed reporters to ask questions – instead of crudely shutting them up – so that he has a chance to exonerate himself. And he would also have taken action against Bala ages ago, instead of inaction for so long – perhaps with the hope of the scandal fizzling out in due course?

The latest Bala revelations have constituted a solemn challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib’s premiership, for which he must now solemnly account to the nation.

And the only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation.

the taxidriver dare the barisan jail DS Anwar Ibrahim. Pakatan Rakyat will appreciates your help. The least we can do is to win the GE13 from you.

A number of senior lawyers are leading the charge against the Chief Justice for allegedly compromising the judiciary’s independence in his bid to clear a mountain of backlog cases and bump up his KPI ratings.

Unhappiness over the Chief Justice is likely to come to a head next Saturday when Malaysian lawyers huddle up to decide what to do next about Tun Zaki Azmi’s push to clear the backlog of cases which they say is warping the court system.

Earlier this week, constitutional expert Tommy Thomas submitted a four-point motion to the Bar Council to be raised at the lawyers’ extraordinary meeting (EGM) on December 12.

The seasoned lawyer is challenging Zaki’s extreme order to all judges and judicial commisioners to “fast-track” all cases in an effort to clear the backlog that has plagued the courts for decades.

Thomas proposed that the Bar Council vote to send a team to tell Zaki to immediately cancel all “administrative” orders that run counter to the principle of individual judicial independence because lawyers are to “undue reliance on KPI and statistics as the principal criterion in the disposal of cases by judges of all Courts.”

He also suggested that lawyers and judges work together to come up with a better system to dispose of cases fairly and not based on speed.

Lastly, Thomas suggests that the Bar Council get litigation lawyers to sit in a “specialist court committee” for all five levels of court as a go-between with the Bench to improve the “quality of justice” in the country.

The prominent lawyer’s proposal were seconded by senior lawyers Raja Aziz Addruse, a former multiple-term Bar Council president and Karpal Singh, who is also the federal lawmaker for Bukit Gelugor.

Thomas’ motion comes of the back of fellow litigation lawyers who complain of being overworked beyond reason as a result of running from court to court and being forced to argue cases — which also involve the personal liberties and life of their clients — within a short span of time.

In a strongly-worded statement put up on the Malaysian Bar’s website yesterday, Thomas condemned the Chief Justice (CJ) for telling judges and trainee judges how to conduct cases in court, which is against the principle of judicial independence.

“It is a critical part of the individual independence of a judge/judicial commissioner that he has sole control and management of the cases before him, including the discretion how to dispose them, the time to be taken for each case and the conduct of counsel,” he added.

Thomas also pointed out that there are not enough lawyers available to argue cases in court, which is made up of five levels – magistrate, sessions, high court, appeals and the federal court.

There are less than 3,000 litigation lawyers even though the Bar totalled more than 13,000 people, he said, and stressed on a person’s right under the law to have a counsel of his choice represent him in court.

read this Kevin Brown Financial Times hearthis, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon the implosion of BN is near umno is the dark and vile evil syaitan as umno

Anybody wants to put their life savings on what would be the verdict of this Umno-headed Malaysian Judicary (ie Zaki Azmi) ?Even an untrained dog will guess correctly how these panel of judges will rule.

By Kevin Brown, Financial Times

relatedarticleSteadyaku47says ANWAR THE MAN can be conceptualised in two words:True.... the reformasi movement he created is the political enlightment FOR MALAYSIA

The last time Anwar was convicted, the people were behind him but could do nothis. Thigs have changed since. If this time he is convicted, expect the full response from the people with no holds barred. BN- be prepared. YOU MAKE YOUR BED, YOU LIE IN beEND /umNO do not recognize evidence. They only accept and follow blindly their bosses command. If they want to, they can even get the court to pass a judgement that a female who just delivers a baby is still a VIRGIN.

Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader facing a criminal trial for sodomy, says the government has miscalculated if it thinks that jailing him will keep it in power at the next election.

Mr Anwar faces his second trial for sodomy in January following the High Court's rejection of an attempt to have the charges struck out on the grounds that medical evidence showed them to be false and that the prosecution was biased.

The court's decision is a setback for Mr Anwar, a former deputy prime minister and finance minister, who spent six years in prison on similar charges before Malaysia's Federal Court overturned his conviction in 2004.

However, in an interview with the Financial Times Mr Anwar said the fresh charges were part of a conspiracy by the Barisan Nasional (National Front) government to undermine the three-party Pakatan Rakyat (People's Alliance) coalition, which made spectacular gains at the last general election in 2008.

"I am resigned to the fact that I am dealing with this oppressive system and I must be prepared for the worst," Mr Anwar said in his office in Malaysia's federal parliament building in Kuala Lumpur.

"It is not the courts, it is [the government]," he said. "Their political masters will instruct them that I be convicted. Then they have to be prepared for the grand battle; I am not taking it hands down. I will do what it takes; we will see."

Mr Anwar said the Alliance leaders had agreed a strategy for running the coalition if an election - due by 2013 - is called while he is in prison. "I am optimistic that my incarceration would not necessarily put them in a sure victory; I think probably to the contrary," he said.

Malaysia, a multi-racial state of 28m people, has been in political turmoil since the unexpected election result, which opened the possibility of a transfer of power between competing parties for the first time since independence from the UK in 1957. The National Front, a 13-party coalition of mainly regional and race-based parties, won 140 of the 222 seats, but for the first time lost its two-thirds majority in parliament, which had allowed it to change the constitution.

Its three main components - the United Malays National Organisation, the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress - have been rocked by leadership disputes. Umno dumped Abdullah Badawi, its election-winning leader, in favour of Najib Razak, his deputy, in April last year.

Mr Najib has sought to stabilise the coalition, ordering Umno's Chinese ally to resolve its festering leadership dispute and signalling to the MIC that the National Front might encourage other Indian-based parties if it fails to revitalise itself.

He has campaigned effectively against Mr Anwar, whose successive political careers have drawn accusations of inconsistency and opportunism.

The prime minister has also sought to re-engage minority voters through economic reforms intended to dilute discrimination in favour of ethnic Malays, who make up about 53 per cent of the population.

However, tensions have continued to flare, with Muslim protesters publicly trampling on a cow's head, sacred to Hindus, and a government minister claiming that Indian demonstrators wrapped an Umno flag around a severed pig's head, regarded by Muslims as unclean.

The three-party opposition coalition also has troubles, though, with few ideological links between its three parties - Mr Anwar's multi-ethnic Parti Keadilan Rakyat(People's Justice party), the mainly ethnic Chinese Democratic Action party and the Islamist Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS).

Some PAS leaders favour an alternative alliance with Umno, which would bring the two mainly Malay Muslim parties together, while others have clashed with DAP leaders over issues such as the sale of alcohol - especially in the four of Malaysia's 13 states where the opposition parties are in power.

The Alliance hopes to resolve these issues at a convention on December 19.

Here’s the RM500,000 “Who Wants to be a Milionnaire Question”

Question: In the ruling of the Federal Court on Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking case , which of the following statement is correct:

a) Federal Court rules Anwar’s Sacking is Unlawful

b) Federal Court asks the High Court take over the case because it wants to be seen neutral

c) Federal Court rules it cannot interferre with the decision of the Executive

d) Federal Court rules Anwar’s sacking is lawful.

My cat got the right answer.Looks like the Malaysian Judiciary headed by its Umno lackey is more interested in what Anwar does on the sack !The new legislation meant to cure any defect in procedure was given retroactive effect. It was unlawful then. It is lawful now.

After 11 years, Anwar Ibrahim’s final chance to challenge his unlawful dismissal as deputy prime minister is being heard at the Federal Court today. Three judges at the apex court would decide two questions of law and most importantly, should it decide in favour of Anwar, his application for damages.

The two questions are:

• Whether Article 43(5) of the federal constitution specifically require the Agong to be the authority which revokes the appointment of the deputy prime minister and finance minister, or whether the cabinet has the right to revoke any appointment it makes; and

• Whether the deletion of Anwar’s name as deputy premier and the substitution of Mahathir’s name as finance minister by virtue the Federal Government (Amendment) Order 1998, could in anyway cure the complete absence of the former premier complying with the explicit provision of the said Article 43(5).

Court of Appeal president Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, along with Federal Court judge Abdull Hamid Embung, will hear the appeal after it was postponed on Monday following justice Hashim Yusoff had decided to recuse himself.

Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh said since Hashim had heard Anwar’s sodomy matter at the Court of Appeal, he should be removed from the bench as his presence may prejudice the trial.

Following this, Hashim said, “If you want me to recuse myself, I will”.

The third judge hearing this appeal is justice Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff.

Anwar was unsuccessful in the suit at the High Court when it struck out the matter. The Court of Appeal has also dismissed his appeal and ruled Anwar’sdismissal as lawful.

related article

MACC should had used The ultimate mood enhancer Padma instead of Norliza Musa,

Filed under: Uncategorized — taxi2driver @ 9:52 am Edit This

Norliza Musa, was even willing to follow wrongful orders, inorder to make najib dream of delivering perak to umno

IPOH, Dec 4 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officer who worked in an anti-graft sting operation involving two former Perak PKR state executive councillors last year told the court today that she had been willing to go undercover as a married man's girlfriend in the case even though it brought her adverse publicity.

The officer, 26-year-old Norliza Musa, who yesterday testified in court that she was even willing to follow wrongful orders, said that she had posed as MACC agent provocateur Mohamad Imran Abdullah's girlfriend in the sting operation “for the sake of her duties”.

In fact, Norliza also admitted to the court that prior to this case, she had also posed as another man's second wife in another corruption matter in 2007, which had led to the arrest of former Perak Syariah High Court Judge Hassan Basri Markum.

Defence counsel S. Muthu, in cross-examination of the prosecution's witness today, was quick to pounce on this bit of information, accusing Norliza of being willing to go to any length in order to secure an arrest for the commission.

His questions also left the courtroom in stitches when he declared that by posing as someone's second wife and someone's girlfriend, the attractive officer was ruining her chances of securing her own partner for marriage.

Muthu: When you make false representation as someone's second wife, you are jeopardising your chances at finding your own life partner, agree?

His answer drew a blank look from the witness who kept silent when MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa stood up to object.

“This is totally irrelevant to the case, Tuan,” Abdul Razak told the court.

Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh agreed and asked Muthu to explain how his line of questioning was relevant to the present graft case.

“It is relevant because if she would go to the extent of posing as someone's wife even though she is still single, then what else is she capable of?” Muthu explained.

Judge Azhaniz Teh interjected and said that as an MACC officer, Norliza had been asked to play the role as someone's wife.

Muthu however said that for the purpose of securing a conviction for the MACC, it was clear that Norliza would go to all extent.

“There is a difference between lying and acting under instruction of senior officers,” said Judge Azhaniz Teh.

Muthu then said, “She is relinquishing all prospects of getting married (by doing this).”

His statement, which caused laughter in the court, however resulted in Judge Azhaniz Teh's decision to overrule the question.

Muthu: How many people did you inform that you were a second wife (to one Mohd Jefri Afandi Ahmad)?

In the case of the former Perak Syariah High Court judge, Norliza had posed as Mohd Jefri Afandi's second wife.

Norliza: The MACC officers, Mohd Jefri Afandi. I have not yet given my evidence in court (for the case of the former Syariah Court judge).

Muthu: Have you filed your papers to the Syariah Court, stating that you are the second wife?

Norliza: No. Only documents were prepared.

Muthu: In this case (involving the two former Perak PKR state executive councillors), how many people did you tell that you were Mohamad Imran's fiance?

Norliza: I only told them that I was his girlfriend. It was (another accused PKR politician) Usaili (Alias) who assumed I was his fiance.

Muthu: How many people did you say that you were Mohamad Imran's girlfriend to?

Norliza: Six.

She was referring to the present five accused in the case – the two former PKR men Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, Usaili, former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail – and former Perak Development Corporation technician, the late Ruslan Sahat, who was initially an accused but had passed away in August this year.

The group is accused of receiving bribes in exchange for helping Mohamad Imran obtain a RM180mil housing development project in Seri Iskandar last year.

Muthu: Are you married?

Norliza: No.

Muthu: When you told to Zul that you were Mohamad Imran's girlfriend, what do you think that he thought of you?

Norliza: I do not know. I did not bother to find out.

Muthu: What is your perception (understanding) of being Mohamad Imran's girlfriend?

Norliza: By always accompanying him around.

Muthu: How old are you?

Norliza: 26 years old.

Muthu: Do you agree that when you pose as Mohamad Imran's girlfriend, you are limiting your choices of men you can marry?

Abdul Razak, amidst the laughter in court, stood up again to object.

Muthu however argued, saying that it was a fair question.

“It is a fair question. She is prepared to sacrifice her personal interest for the sake of securing an arrest,” he said.

Judge Azhaniz Teh however overruled he question.

Muthu: Do you agree you have received a lot of publicity in this case?

Norliza: Yes.

Muthu: In the past few days, you have received a lot of coverage in the media.

Norliza: I have not read the papers. (Pause) I agree.

Muthu: You agree that it is adverse publicity for you to be regarded as Mohamad Imran's girlfriend, seeing as he is already a married man?

Norliza: I did it for the sake of my duties.

She then disagreed that she had made false representation but contradicted her statement when she agreed that she had lied to the accused by acting as Mohamad Imran's girlfriend.

Muthu pointed out to her that since she had already admitted that she had “lied” to the accused, she was very well capable of lying to the court as well.

“Under such circumstances, am I wrong to say that you would go to any length to secure an arrest or conviction? You would lie, say or do anything to affect the arrests of the accused?” he said.

“I disagree. I am already under oath. Why should I lie?” she retorted.

Later, Norliza's testimonies caused yet another round of laughter in the court when she said that she had identified the three Chinese nationals that were offered to the accused for “sexual favours” by the way they dressed.

At the time, Muthu had queried the witness on how she and Mohamad Imran had picked up the three supposed Chinese nationals from the lobby of the Ipoh City Hotel on Aug 14 last year and brought them to Penang where they were offered to three of the accused in the case.

Norliza said that she had managed to identify the three prostitutes as MACC officer Mohd Firdaus Idris had already given instruction to pick them up from the lobby of the hotel.

“But how did you know that they were the three Chinese nationals that Firdaus was referring to? You did not speak with them – you could not speak the same language. Yet you simply took three girls from the lobby and went off to Penang with them,” said Muthu.

Looking irritated, Norliza replied, “Firdaus already told us they would be there and there were only three of them at the lobby at the time. Also, I could tell from the way that they were dressed.”

Her testimony drew shocked looks from the defense panel and Muthu immediately said, “Oh? From the way they dressed you could tell? What, were they naked or something? Luckily the Chinese ambassador is not here to hear you say that.”

Giving an embarassed look, Norliza explained that the girls were garbed in “sexy attire.”

“So that's why they must be Chinese nationals – because they were dressed sexily,” Muthu said.

The trial continues on Monday.

PART 1 Najib to anwar your finish “The judge tried to buttress the evidence.SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM

we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

Fernando: Did you provide limousine services to Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Jamal: Yes, every time he visited Washington DC.

Fernando: Did you yourself drive these VIP’s around?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: In September 1998 did you go to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington?

Jamal: Yes, I did.

Fernando: Did you meet a Malaysian diplomat by the name of Mustapha Ong?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: During that meeting what transpired?

Jamal: He asked me to go to New York for business.

Fernando: When?

Jamal: The following day, at 6.00 am.

Fernando: In your limousine?

Jamal: No, in my private car, a Cadillac.

Fernando: What transpired during the journey?

Jamal: We drove off and just before the Delaware Bridge, he asked me if Dato’ Seri Anwar had made any sexual passes at me. I told him, "You must be joking!" Then he said, "You can make some money."

He told me, "If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

I said, "Look here Mr Ong, leave me alone; I don’t care about Malaysia, I don’t care about nobody right now. We are going to New York for business. Let’s finish the business and I don’t want to hear the subject no more!"

When we drove on New York, he tried to convince me further and in the meantime I was thinking to myself, do I know two Anwar Ibrahim? He (Ong) told me, "There is a videotape in Malaysia everybody by now knows Anwar Ibrahim from the videotape; why don’t you say so."

I said if you have a videotape, why the heck do you want me for?" He replied, "So that the Americans will know too!

When we arrived in New York, I dropped him off at a diplomat’s apartment. I think it was on the 13th street, East Side. The Malaysian diplomat came down holding a very small booklet and passed it on to Mustapha Ong and they were talking in Malay. I did not understand them. Ong put his hand on my shoulder, trying to convince me to spend the night there. I refused. I wanted to go back to Washington. Mustapha showed me the booklet and asked, "Why dont’t you sign this and we can make up to US$ 200,000. Don’t be crazy."

I said: "You are looking at the most crazy man in the world. That’s me." And I told him: "You change the name from Jamal to Mustapha Ong and say that Anwar Ibrahim made sexual passes ... made love to you. Say anything and you make the money!" I then said, "Have a good day!"

I left and went back to Washington DC ... straight. Then I went to see the Malaysian Ambassador, one Dato’ Dali.

I told Dato’ Dali what transpired during the journey. He was very upset. He said, "Jamal, I assure you I have nothing to do with it. The Embassy has nothing to do with it." And he was very upset; I could see the fire on his face. He said, "You should have slapped him on the face." I said, "I should have done that."

He told me to forget the whole thing. Three months passed and the whole thing kept coming to my mind. I wanted to get if off my chest. I went to see one Sheikh Thahar, a friend of Dato’ Seri Anwar.

He is the president of an Islamic University in Northern Virginia. Leaders from all over the world go to see him. He is a friend of Faruqi (a world-reknown Islamic scholar). I made three attempts to see him but was not successful. Then I made a phone call. I told him I wanted to see him. He said, "What for." I told him, with respect to Dato’ Seri Anwar. "How fast can you come?" he said.

Subsequently I drove down from Washington and met him at 2 pm. I told him what happened. He told me, "Why don’t you see the Malaysian Ambassador." I told him I had seen him (the Ambassador) three months previously. He said, "I will get in touch with you tomorrow". The next day, he phoned me and asked me if it was okay with me, I could make an affidavit before a lawyer about what happened.

Then I said to him, "What you want me to do, I will gladly do." I went with his son to see a lawyer and told the lawyer what happened and he wrote it down. The lawyer asked me if I was prepared to take a lie-detector test. I said, "If you want me to take a lie-detector test, I take a lie-detector test, if you want to put me to sleep I’ll go to sleep."

Fernando: Did you sign an affidavit?

Jamal: Yes. Then I left.

Fernando: Then what happened?

Jamal: I think Sheikh Thahar got in touch with somebody in Malaysia subsequently. Then Sheikh Thahar asked me, "Are you willing to go to Malaysia if you can." I said, " I am willing, if I can." Sheikh Thahar thought I was afraid. I said, " I am not afraid of anyone. I have fear only for God."

Fernando: Did Sheikh Thahar say anything about religion?

Jamal: He said, "If you shut out the truth, you are the devil’s brother!"

Fernando: Did Dato’ Seri Anwar make any passes at you or sodomise you at any time?

Jamal: No sir, he did not, he never did and never will!

Fernando: So this man wanted you to fabricate this evidence, did he not?

Jamal: I think so.

Fernando: On the way to New York from Washington, did Ong ask you to meet anybody or propose to meet anybody?

Jamal: Yes, he did.

Fernando: What did he say to you?

Jamal: He asked me to meet somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff so that I can collect the money but I refused.

Fernando: Why did he want you to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff?

Jamal: I understood, by that, if I say what they wanted me to say, I will get the money.

Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The burden of proof is on the prosecution but was shifted to the defence instead

An accused person is not required to prove his innocence. Instead, his accusers have to prove his guilt. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, however, he was placed in an unenviable position of having to prove his innocence.

Anwar was charged for ‘committing sodomy one night, at 7.45pm, between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’. Even with such a wide and vague charge, Anwar still managed to provide alibis for all those 90 days except one.

Yet, the judge still insisted that Anwar had not established his alibi. But the judge was not able to say which one of those 90 days Anwar’s alibi had not been established.

“All an accused person has to do is to create reasonable doubt,” said Christopher Fernando. “He does not have to prove anything or establish his defence beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“He is not required to prove anything conclusively with respect to his defence of alibi. But the judge held he had to and the he had not proved it 'conclusively'.”

“Conclusive proof is a standard even higher than beyond reasonable doubt.”

Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

“This is most unusual; alien to the law,” argued Fernando

“All Dato’ Seri Anwar had to do was to raise reasonable doubt.”

“Between 4 February and 31 March 1993, Dato’ Seri Anwar managed to establish his alibi, except for 19 February 1993, said the judge.”

“There was no rebuttal at all by the prosecution to counter Dato’ Seri Anwar’s alibi.”

“The prosecution failed to observe this very basic principle of law.”

“Dato’ Seri Anwar had to prove he was not in the Tivoli Villa in the 90 days between 1 January and 31 March 1993.”

“Instead, it should have been the prosecution’s task to prove that he was there.”

The burden of proof was on the prosecution, argued Fernando. But in Anwar’s case it was the other way around.

“In spite of the monumental task to prove Dato’ Seri Anwar was not there (Tivoli Villa) the defence still managed to do so.”

“Yet the judge still insisted the defence did not establish his alibi.”

“But the judge did not say which one day over the 90 days the alibi was not established.”

“From 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993 the apartment was under renovation.”

“So, from 4 February 1993 onwards, the alibi needs to be proven, and it was proven.”

“Witnesses were brought to testify and documents submitted to support the alibi.”

“The judge’s mind was cluttered. He was very confused and could not see the wood for the trees.”

“Tivoli Villa was not occupied. It had no furniture and was under renovation and the prosecution never rebutted this alibi.”

“The prosecution said Sukma had free access to the apartment but this was never proven.”

Azizan Abu Bakar had testified that he had been sodomised in the Tivoli Villa and that the act had taken place on a bed in a fully-furnished apartment, complete with carpets and all. He further testified that the act had taken place prior to 1993.

The defence, in turn, managed to prove that the apartment was under renovation from 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993, and that from 4 February 1993 to 31 March 1993 Anwar was never in the apartment.

“The judge tried to buttress the evidence. He was trying to prop up a case that was so weak and unconvincing.”

“He said Azizan’s evidence is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar.”

“Preposterous is too mild a word to use.”

“No judge in the history of this nation has gone this far to build up the credibility of a witness such as this – a witness who has no credibility whatsoever.”

Fernando explained that if there is any benefit of the doubt, it should have been given to the accused, not the prosecution. Instead, it was the opposite in Dato’ Seri Anwar’s case.

“This is a basic fundamental principle of law.”

“Azizan should have been impeached. This is not difficult as clearly he lied.”

“If Azizan had been impeached, the hearing would have ended then and there as the entire trial hinged on Azizan’s testimony.”

Shafee Abdullah: Fixing Anwar Ibrahim and Finishing Off Raja Petra

SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings.

Very troubling reports have been published, which reveal the existence of a medical report of an examination done by a doctor on Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan a few hours before Saiful lodged a police report that he had been sodomised. The medical report apparently shows that there is no evidence that he had been sodomised by anyone.

Such reports raise some very serious questions that require immediate answers:

(1) Are the police in possession of such a medical report?

(2) Was the doctor concerned interviewed by the police and was he detained for any length of time?

(3) Is the doctor concerned facing any form of intimidation and, if so, by whom?

(4) Is there a medical report by another doctor that either confirms or contradicts the first medical report?

(5) If it is true that the medical report exists showing a lack of prima facie evidence, what then could have been the justification for the vigorous actions taken against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as well as the public call by the authorities for his DNA sample?

The answers to these questions are of paramount importance, as they bring into focus the integrity of our law enforcement system.

These latest disclosures regarding the investigations into the sodomy allegations are not the only ones to raise questions that need answering. There is, for example, also the issue of P. Balasubramaniam’s abrupt “disappearance” that has yet to be satisfactorily explained. No one can deny that the circumstances of his first and second statutory declarations are highly unusual. All these show a pattern of events that cause much disquiet to right-thinking members of the public.

The Malaysian people are deeply troubled. A country that truly believes in the rule of law should not be faced with so many disturbing developments and unanswered questions.

The credibility of the Malaysian justice system as a whole is therefore at stake. The integrity of professionals, be they doctors or lawyers, must never be interfered with. The public must be left in no doubt that the criminal justice system in this country will not be misused or abused. There must be nothing less than an open and thorough investigation into these cases. This calls for the courage and professionalism of all those involved to do the right thing no matter the consequences. And those who have shown such courage and integrity must know that they live in a country where it is safe to do so.

Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan

President

Malaysian Bar

*************************************************

What Ambiga said in her press statement above is certainly true and she has cause for concern. But she would be even more concerned if she knows what we know about this whole matter.

A special police operations centre was set up some time ago to coordinate all activities related to the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy crisis. No, the special police operations centre was not set up AFTER the alleged sodomy act took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up way before 26 June 2008.

Why the need to set up a special police operations centre BEFORE the date of the alleged sodomy act? Are they clairvoyant and did they peep into their crystal ball and ‘see’ the crime happen before it actually happened? Was the special police operations centre set up so that they could solve the crime? Or was the special police operations centre set up BEFORE the date of the ‘crime’ so that they could invent the so-called crime?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But this is not yet the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is that this special police operations centre is not located in the police headquarters. It is located in the meeting room of the office of prominent Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah who possesses a notorious reputation for fixing cases such as those involving the people implicated in murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu or those alleged to have pinched the bottoms of cigar girls in the Havana Club in Kuala Lumpur.

Name me any questionable case and you will find the hand of Shafee Abdullah behind that case. And this same person is coordinating the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy allegation from the meeting room of his law office in Kenny Hills.

There are four police officers headed by an officer name Aziz who are based in this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. But why are they based in an Umno lawyer’s office instead of in the police headquarters? Is this an official police operation or is this a rogue operation? Yes, we have watched many Hollywood movies about the CIA’s Dirty Tricks Department. Have Shafee Abdullah and the Royal Malaysian Police also seen the same movie? It appears so because the special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm looks like a plot out of these movies.

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings. There are also charts and strategies on how both Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin can be implicated in various crimes and incarcerated until their teeth fall out of their gums.

Yes, the police report to Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah. And Shafee Abdullah coordinates this special police operation with the IGP and AG. And the purpose of this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is to explore how to incarcerate Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. And the special police operations centre has to be in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s office and not in the police headquarters because, officially, the IGP and AG are not involved in the Anwar sodomy case, as announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Shafee Abdullah is no ordinary man. In fact, he is not even a man; he is a devil. But he is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist, a specialist in crimes of sodomy. And that is why the Pusrawi doctor’s report was rejected. He is just a normal doctor, a GP, argued the government. The prognosis of a normal doctor can’t be accepted as evidence in a sodomy case, never mind if he has been practicing medicine for two decades or more. They need the prognosis of a sodomy specialist, a sodomologist, and Shafee Abdullah is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist.

That is why Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof did not meet Saiful in the police station or at the police headquarters. The special police operations centre is not in the police station or at the police headquarters. It is in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. So it would be dangerous to meet Saiful in this law firm lest someone finds out. That is why Rodwan met Saiful in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

Okay, so Rodwan met Saiful one day before the alleged crime took place. But then maybe Rodwan is clairvoyant or he has a crystal ball and he ‘saw’ that a crime of sodomy was going to take place the following day. Some people do have this gift of ‘foresight’. Nevertheless, whether the timeline appears a bit out of sync or not, they still have the ‘evidence’ to work on to ‘prove’ that Anwar did sodomise Saiful the day AFTER Saiful met Rodwan in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

One such crucial evidence was supposed to be the doctor from Pusrawi’s medical examination of Saiful at 2.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the doctor said that he had examined Saiful and found no evidence of sodomy. This report has since surfaced and the doctor has gone missing so, now, there is no way they can use this evidence.

The next evidence was supposed to be the second medical examination done at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the outpatient department of the HKL was closed at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. So how could a second medical examination have been done? Yes, that’s right. No second medical examination was done and the doctors at the HKL refuse to doctor a medical report to say that the second medical examination had been done, when none had been done, or to say that they did find evidence of sodomy, when they did not.

Since none of the doctors at Pusrawi or HKL are cooperating with the police, the last piece of ‘evidence’ will have to be Saiful’s underwear. Okay, Saiful’s underwear does not really have Anwar’s semen stains on it. But this is a small matter. As long as someone from the Chemistry Department is prepared to testify that they did examine Saiful’s underwear and they did find Anwar’s semen stains on it, then that would be good enough. They will be able to build their case against Anwar and charge him for sodomy based on this ‘evidence’ from the Chemistry Department.

No, the Chemistry Department has NOT come out with their report yet. There is no report from the Chemistry Department that says they found Anwar’s semen stains on Saiful’s underwear. This is because they first of all need Anwar’s specimen so that they can plant it on the underwear and so that the Chemistry Department can then ‘discover’ it.

But Anwar is being bloody silly. He is being extremely pigheaded and stubborn. He refuses to hand over his specimen. How can they plant Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear when Anwar refuses to let them take his specimen? The Chemistry Department can’t prepare its report saying that it found Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear until the police are able to plant it there. But Anwar does not want to voluntarily hand over his specimen so this plan is being upset a bit.

But never mind. As soon as Parliament convenes later this month they will rush through a new law that will make it mandatory for you to hand over your specimen if the police demands that you do so. Refusing to hand over your specimen when the police demand you do so will soon become a crime and you can be sent to jail. They will try to pass this law before Merdeka Day of 31 August 2008 and they will try to backdate the law and make it retrospective so that any ‘crime’ committed before the passing of this law will also be covered.

Soon they will get Anwar once the DNA Act becomes law and Anwar can no longer refuse to hand over his specimen. Then, once they have obtained Anwar’s specimen, the Chemistry Department will be able to ‘discover’ it on Saiful’s underwear. Then they will be able to arrest and charge Anwar. And, who knows, they might even be able to convict him as well.

Yes, this Shafee Abdullah the sodomologist is good. He has names, charts, notes, scribbling and etchings all over his whiteboard in the meeting room of his law firm. This meeting room has been the special police operations centre for quite a while now. It was set up long before the alleged sodomy crime took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up not to solve the sodomy crime. It was set up to create the crime.

But, thus far, they lack one very crucial piece of evidence. They lack Anwar’s specimen that they need to plant on Saiful’s underwear. But they will get it as soon as the new DNA Act becomes law and they can use this law to force Anwar to hand over his specimen. Then Anwar is finished and they can close down the special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm and once again use this meeting room for fixing legal cases.

*************************************************

Lawyer: Abdul Razak Baginda ‘is completely unimplicated’

Abdul Razak Baginda, a prominent political analyst, knew the murdered Mongolian model. His lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, said he wouldn’t “go so far to say” that Abdul Razak had a relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu, but would say that “he knows the lady.”

He said he met his client Wednesday morning and heard his side of the story. “I am extremely relieved from my conversation … I am totally convinced of his innocence .. he is completely unimplicated.” [Associated Press via International Herald Tribune]

*************************************************

Anwar verdict puts Malaysia’s justice system on trial

Report by Tim Lester

ABC Online; 14 April 1999

MAXINE MCKEW: Well, to our own region now and the most publicised trial in Malaysia’s history ended today, with Anwar Ibrahim — the man once groomed to lead the nation — jailed for six years, after a judge found him guilty on four counts of corruption.

Asian leaders have joined human rights groups in denouncing the severity of the sentence. In Malaysia, there have been clashes between police and protesters in the wake of the judgment, suggesting widespread scepticism with the verdict. So, did the system succeed in catching a wayward politician, or did it dance to the tune of an opportunistic leader who wants a political enemy behind bars?

TIM LESTER: Conviction day for Anwar Ibrahim.

As his supporters took to the streets around Kuala Lumpur’s High Court, few doubted the outcome of the marathon corruption trial. For seven months now, they’ve watched Anwar battle to keep alive his shot at the country’s top job.

They’ve heard him say repeatedly the system was being used against him. Many Malaysians, perhaps most, believe it. They believe Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction was orchestrated to suit the PM and several of his close colleagues.

BRUCE GALE: There is a feeling among a large number of Malaysians that the trial wasn’t fair.

TIM LESTER: Singapore analyst Bruce Gale sees this perception — whether right or wrong — as a problem for the Mahathir Government.

BRUCE GALE: If you have large sections of the population believing that somehow the judiciary is not fair or impartial, then this is a very serious situation. It’s an undermining of a major national institution.

GURBACHAN SINGH: We could have easily shown by irrefutable evidence the involvement of several top politicians to bring Anwar Ibrahim down politically.

TIM LESTER: Among Anwar’s nine defence lawyers, there is deep frustration that many witnesses, documents, even tapes they had ready didn’t make it to evidence, because the judge wouldn’t allow them.

GURBACHAN SINGH: There was evidence of the involvement of the PM, as well, that he knew this process of political conspiracy was going on — he did nothing to stop it.

MAHATHIR MOHAMAD: I wish he hadn’t done this and he should have succeeded me and everything would be fine.

TIM LESTER: Political conspiracy — it was Anwar’s claim the moment Dr Mahathir dumped him as Deputy PM and his lawyers say it was vital to their defence of the four corruption charges. But Judge Augustine Paul ruled as irrelevant the suggestion that government ministers and officials cooked up the sex claims to ruin Anwar.

GURBACHAN SINGH: Most of the rulings where the judge could exercise discretion, went against us.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: When the trial first started, I think at least for the first two months or three, there were often times, I thought, where the judge was giving a lot of leeway to the defence.

TIM LESTER: Former prosecutor Shafee Abdullah praises Judge Paul for refusing to hear Anwar’s conspiracy argument in relation to the four corruption charges.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: Whether or not he committed those sexual offences have got nothing to do with the present charges.

TIM LESTER: So was Anwar’s trial fair?

Yes, says Shafee Abdullah. But even he admits Malaysians don’t see it that way.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: There are a lot of individuals out there who feel that the whole trial has gone completely bonkers. Many individuals think that Anwar did not receive a fair trial.

TIM LESTER: The damage from the trial goes beyond perceptions about Government influence over the judiciary to the police force.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: They hit me physically and they stripped me naked and asked me to dance in the room, with my hand handcuffed.

TIM LESTER: Anwar Ibrahim’s private secretary of 11 years was among hundreds arrested at the height of anti-government protests last year. He’s now making a disturbingly common claim in Kuala Lumpur — that police used brutality and humiliation in the hope of recruiting him as a witness against Anwar.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: Oh, yeah, they asked me to admit that I was sodomised by Anwar.

TIM LESTER: Three of five people cited in sex charges pending against Anwar have now withdrawn their claims and turned on police.

GURBACHAN SINGH: And they were picked up and forced — tortured by the police — to make allegations against Anwar, to admit to sodomy, which they repeatedly said never happened. And they’ve gone on affidavits, they’ve gone on statutory declarations to that effect.

TIM LESTER: Add in Anwar’s black eye — Malaysia’s highest-ranking officer at the time hit him while he was blindfolded and handcuffed. In the process of convicting Anwar, Malaysia’s police have earned themselves an image crisis.

Among other claims that didn’t make it to court — the Washington limousine driver who says a Malaysian embassy official asked him to accuse Anwar of sexual misconduct while visiting the US.

JAMAL AMRO: Then he asked me — he said “Relax”. Then he told me, “Anwar — did you ever bring girls for him, or boys or anything like that?”

I said, “No”.

He said “C’mon, if you say ‘Yes’, we can make some money”.

TIM LESTER: Jamal says he was told he could make more than $250,000 by going along with the sex claims against the then Deputy PM. Public anger over Anwar’s treatment has helped his wife, Wan Azizah, win backing for a new political party and an opposition alliance to fight Dr Mahathir at the next election.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: The hatred against the present leadership is swelling because they can not believe the manner they handled this issue against Anwar.

TIM LESTER: This trial and the events around it have thrown up challenges the Mahathir Government didn’t anticipate. Now, there’s the possibility of a united opposition at the next national election due within 12 months.

A powerful threat for Dr Mahathir, but it’s still not likely. The groups Anwar’s supporters need to bring together would make unusual partners.

BRUCE GALE: It seems extremely difficult for me to believe that post-election, that this alliance could hold. The policies of these parties are so diametrically opposed to one another. Islamic fundamentalists want an Islamic State. To the Chinese, this is an anathema — something they would never accept.

TIM LESTER: Many Malaysians don’t like the way their government and judicial system dealt with Anwar Ibrahim. Today’s verdict will only fuel their suspicions.

But Dr Mahathir is still in the middle ground of Malaysian politics. His enemies have a giant task — trying to bring together opposition parties into an alliance needed to capitalise on anti-government sentiment.

SYED NADZRI your common sense goes into rosmah mansor'spussythis taxidriver's seriously troubling questions in NST mother illusionist OF ALL TIME

HOW do we explain this? Malaysia fell to an all-time low of No. 56 on Transparency International's latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and yet we have voices taking advantage of a court ruling, ridiculously seeking to turn the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission into a nine-to-five agency. if you a real anak jantan answae taxidriver's

Not only that, this group is also looking at a similar softening of police operational methods. They want the police to stop questioning suspects and witnesses at odd hours, forgetting that crimes are aplenty and criminals ever so slippery.

Why, just four days ago we read the same painful script -- housewife Fatimah Salleh, 66, died of head injuries after she fell off her motorcycle while trying to fight off snatch thieves in Pendang, Kedah. Note: the incident happened at 10.30pm and it was everyone's wish at the time that the culprits be arrested and interrogated immediately.YES SIR YOU CORRECT,,CORRECT,CORRECT CLICK THIS NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH the New Straits Times group managing editor Zainul Ariffin Isa.the sugar daddy ofUmno-controlled newspapers Meaning, at night. And it must still be everyone's wish now that when the culprits are caught, the questioning is done all night long until they are prosecuted.But not so for some people who are rejoicing at the decision handed down by the High Court last week that the MACC can only interrogate witnesses during office hours, between 8.30am and 5.30pm.This is cause for concern -- not only because the court interpreted the phrase "day-to-day" in Section 30(3)(a) of the MACC Act to mean "normal working hours". (Day-to-day to me is just a figure of speech and there is no such thing as night-to-night, is there?) But more than that, the sense of jubilation expressed by some people following the ruling is rather worrying.The cheers from them extended to suggestions that police, too, were bound by such an interpretation and ruling, meaning they can only question suspects and witnesses during daytime working hours. CLICK THISTell YOUR PEOPLE the true Malaysian story, beginning with the story of Altantuya C4 murder YOUR SMS THAT CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN What balderdash.What next? Room service facilities for suspects during questioning? Massage chairs? Executive toilets? Or in the case of poor Fatimah above, start questioning the snatch thieves only in the morning even if they are caught immediately? Oh, please.CLICK THISSLEEK PREVIEW Rosmah Mansor has launched her own website for Malaysians to get to know her better in her role and duties as the Prime Minister’s wife

SAISHITFULL The last thing we need is to officially turn policemen and graft-busters into clock-watchers and create the mother of all backlogs in the system.That is the trouble when politics and self-interest get in the way. Common sense just goes out the bloody window.Sure, those in favour of clipping the wings of the enforcement agencies have thrown in the Lock-Up Rules to support their arguments.What's that again? Lock-up Rules that are now part of the Prisons Act? So, what are we talking about here? What is a lock-up? The questioning of suspects and witnesses in the police station or MACC office -- are these places considered lock-ups? And look at the whole spirit of these rules -- surely they are not meant to curb the most basic functions of the enforcement agencie.CLICK THIS

Americk said Anwar Ibrahim is not involved in the latest twist in the Bala versus Najib Altantuya Rumbl

If that is being too legalistic, then the politics of it all should be shut out in the first place. It has to be admitted that all this came about following the death of Teoh Beng Hock, an aide to a Selangor politician. His body, believed to have fallen from a higher floor, was found sprawled at the Selangor MACC headquarters where he was being questioned as a witness not long before that.The death was most unfortunate and the cause of it is still being decided by the coroner's court.With all due respect to his kin, it should not be used or abused by anyone to throw stones at the very core and foundation of our criminal justice system.Yes, admittedly there is much discontent over some of the things done -- or not done -- by the law enforcement agencies or the perceived lack of independence of the police and the MACC in some cases.But to remedy this by making the interrogation process, and hence investigation operations, a nine-to-five job is a bit too much. It is akin to burning the mosquito net to kill a mosquito.Human rights? Tell that to the family of Fatimah Salleh and thousands of others who have fallen victim to criminals who are not brought to justice.Sadly, some people think otherwise. Not stopping at curbing the powers of the police and the MACC, there is also a suggestion that those who have been questioned as witnesses beyond office hours consider filing suits against the police and government for false imprisonment. Sometimes I wish there is a Dirty Harry in our midst.

SYED NADZRI if you a real anak jantan ANSWER THIS taxi driver's ARTICLE

OR YOU DON'T EVER SPIN AGAIN

The sources and deep level of knowledge about the covert inside affairs which RPK seem to know about is laudableThe past cannot be held against present. NAJIB THE MURDEROUS PRIME MINISTER ,a tainted leader indulging in murder, money laundering, womanizing? such wonderful traits to lead a nation. Malaysians into hall of shame for their collosal stupidity. in fact, justifiably feel that he should have been PRIME MINISTER before he was finally sworn in. Is he certainly one of the more competent prime ministers.clickthis najib ask yourself are you fit for job?

The question is about his portfolio, which he has held since he joined the cabinet. He takes decisions that affect the most substantive part of KELANTAN inheritance. NAJIB believes in the Caesar's Wife principle: in public life, you must be above suspicion. Would Caesar's Wife PRIME MINSTER portfolio if she had SENT THAT SMS

TO HER FRIEND WHO BECOME THE BOGEY MAN IN THE MURDER ATTANTUYA HE SHOULD REOPEN THE MURDER TRIAL OF ATTANTUYA WITH IMPORTED PROFESSIONALS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE MYTH OF HER DEATH.

We have one of the best human rights commissions in the world sorry guys you are dead wrong

click this The infringement on human rights in Malaysia and at times its total and complete denial is justified by the BN MPs due to the uniqueness of Malaysian the UN says so. Our human rights commission comprises men and women BUT THE REAL CULPRIT OF ALL OF is this man key to all the misgiving click thisShafee Abdullah: Fixing Anwar Ibrahim and Finishing Off Raja Petra from every part of the establishment — if they don’t know what law and order is, nobody does. And they have always been unequivocal: .HOW STUPID CAN THIS BE click this Narrow-minded judgment coming out from the Malaysian Federal CourtWHAT DO EXPECT FROM THECHILD lewd materials PEDDLER'S FATHER TO COME UP WITH ASK YOUR HUMBLE SELF, WILL ANYONE JUST BLOW UP SOMEONE USING GOVORNMENT WEAPONRY FOR NO APPARENT REASON why could the click this Public Prosecutor has deceptively merely manufacturing evidences against Anwar

on your wife demand COME ON, DO NOT DISSAPOINTED OUR AGONG WHO HAS CHOSEN YOU TO CLEAN THE MESS OF OUR JUDIACIARY SYSTEM. IN THE CASE OF THIS MURDERED FOREIGN BEAUTY, THE MORE TRANSPARENCY OF COURT PROCEEDING NEED TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC AND THE WHOLE WORLD THAT IT IS BASED ON UNBIASED EVIDENCE TO RELEASE RAZAK.. click thisTHE KARMA OF KILLING A PREGNANT WOMAN NAJIB &ROSMA HAUTED BY THE GHOST SO THERE GOES YOUR INFLATED 65%

The Paradox of Retribution is Justice is an illusion?

Art Harun describes himself as a non-governmental organism, intent on infecting the conscience.

Exactly like 10 years ago Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today failed to escape trial for sodomy.

High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah here tossed out the PKR adviser's bid to strike out the sodomy charge against him and fixed the trial to be from January 25 to February 25 next year.

The judge said that the High Court has “inherent powers” to set aside the charge against Anwar but ruled that the latter must prove his claims of bad intent and political conspiracy on the part of the Attorney-General's office.

Zabidin added that it was up to the prosecution to decide how they wanted to prove penetration occurred.

The 62-year-old grandfather stands accused of sodomy for the second time in his life; this time, it is with a former male aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 24.

Anwar's defence lawyers had earlier argued that the charge was a baseless political conspiracy because several government and private doctors had in their reports not found any signs of forced penetration on Mohd Saiful.

But the public prosecutor, led by Solicitor General II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden, had last week claimed they had extra medical evidence to show Mohd Saiful had been sexually involved with his ex-boss.

Yusof drew the court's attention to a government-run Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) report which noted finding “a mixture of male DNA from two individuals” through a swabbing of Mohd Saiful's anus.

The senior lawyer from the Attorney General's Chambers added that it had more such forensic and oral evidence to support the sodomy charge.

Anwar was arrested and subsequently charged with committing sex against the order of nature on August 7 last year, just before he bounced back into Parliament after taking back his old Permatang Pauh

seat in a by-election.

The former deputy prime minister had spent six years behind bars for the crime a decade ago before the conviction was reversed.

Despite having assembled some of the finest legal eagles in the city, such as Raja Aziz Addruse, 73, to challenge this second charge against him, Anwar failed to stop the case before it goes to trial.

If the ambitious Anwar is found guilty and convicted this time, he may spend up to 20 years behind bars, which would really snuff out his bid to take over Putrajaya with political allies DAP and PAS.

Anwar will appeal against the High Court's rebuff at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya tomorrow, his lawyer, Sankara Nair, told reporters later.

“We're quite in a quagmire,” Nair said, looking disturbed.

“How can we craft our defence unless we have all our data?” he added, noting that the High Court judge had chosen to brush aside the defence team's request to stay the trial until the Federal Court had disposed

of Anwar's related appeal to get extra evidence he claims is key to proving he is innocent.

Sankara said that a normal appeal takes about two months to be heard.

He was also upset that Zabidin had ticked off Karpal's call to push the trial to a later date.

Sankara said Anwar's chosen lead counsel, Raja Aziz Addruse, is currently abroad and was only due to return in February.

Sankara added that the defence may also try to rope in the Federal Court to stay the start of trial if their appeal for more proof is not heard before Jan 25.

Anwar himself was highly disgusted by Zabidin's ruling.

The federal lawmaker pointed out that the High Court judge had earlier noted an accused person's fundamental rights to fully defend himself under Malaysian law, but appeared to be pedalling backwards when he fixed trial to start despite knowing of the pending appeal.

“The judge should at least respect his own decision and allow our appeal at the Federal Court,” Anwar told reporters outside the courtroom later, surrounded by his wife and supporters.

“This is the first case in the history of modern times that you prefer a charge of sexual abuse ignoring medical evidence with a conclusive finding of no trace of penetration,” the Permatang Pauh MP pounded.

Anwar continued hitting out against Zabidin, noting the judge had showed a tendency to “protect the prosecution” and repeated his allegation that the present team of lawyers from the Attorney General's Chambers, especially the Solicitor General II who is heading the charge, was involved in cooking up sodomy evidence in Sodomy I involving Anwar's Indonesian adopted brother Sukma Darmawan.

Anwar foresees a “very tough battle” ahead but stressed that he is prepared to fight the sodomy charge to the bitter end “because we have compelling arguments and facts”.

related article

Our judges cannot differentiate between justice and law.Our judiciary and its laws are for the privileged use of our governing politicians, their cronies concessionaires, and co-criminals-conspirators in business.

Justice is an illusion

It’s really tough being a judge. Really, I think it’s a thankless job. A judge can never do any right.

I think it was in 1996 that a soon-to-be-really-famous High Court judge politely asked me and my opponent whether we would mind remaining in his chambers for some small talk after we had finished our hearing before him. As I had no other case to do, I obliged the judge. So did my opponent.

He asked both of us how long we had been practising. I told him I had practised for about 10 years. He smiled and said that I could be a judge soon (as the Federal Constitution states that a person who has been a lawyer for 10 years or more can be a judge).

I was wondering what was on the judge’s mind. He looked tired. Something was bothering him. He looked and behaved almost like he was resigned to the hopelessness of it all. He was looking at both me and my opponent intently. There was something that he wanted to say but couldn’t.

Finally he asked, “What do you think of justice?” My opponent was senior to me and so he answered first. I can’t really remember what my opponent said. After he had finished saying his piece, the judge looked at me. “What do you think?” he asked me.

I looked at him and without hesitation I said, “Judge, I don’t believe in justice!” He was petrified! I know he was going to ask why the hell I was practising law then. Before he did so, I continued, “Judge, human beings are incapable of dispensing justice. Only God can do so. Justice is subjective. The winning party will say they have got justice. The losing party will never say so.”

The Judge was unimpressed. He looked deep in thought. He was clearly ruffled by what I had just said. Finally, he said, “Could you then tell me what I and all my brother judges have been doing all this while? And what you and your learned friends have been doing appearing before us?”

“Judge, I am a law practitioner, not a justice practitioner. You and your brother judges have been dispensing the law all this while. You have been applying the law. In modern societies like ours, adherence with and applying the law brings the connotation that justice is being done. That’s it. Justice is a connotation. It is not real. It is a corollary of the application of the law by the court or judge. The real justice will only be seen when we all die.”

“The law is not always just. Take the land acquisition law for example. How just is a law which permits the government to force a landowner to surrender his land to the government? But if the law is applied and the court imposes a suitable compensation to be paid to the landowner, the perception is that justice is done, but is it really done?” I postulated.

“My God”, the Judge said. My opponent was cringing in his seat. “I have never thought about it that way, thank you for telling me,” the Judge said, his eyes brightened up a bit.

We continued to chat for a bit after that. I was telling him that jurisprudentially, I belonged to the positivist school of jurisprudence. I believe that the law and morality should be separated. After about 20 minutes, we excused ourselves. As we were going out from his chambers, the judge said, “Have a good life, both of you.”

We thanked him. That was the last time I appeared before that particular judge. Two or three months later, he rocked the judiciary with his resignation. The reason for his resignation rocked the whole Malaysia and even the world. But life goes on in this country of ours. Nothing ever changed. People like this judge just disappear from the map and from our memory.

I last met him at an event in Subang Jaya some months ago. He was still his jovial, friendly self. And he looked much happier. May God bless him with a long and healthy life as well as peace of mind.

Fast forward to the present.

When Justice Ariff Yusof (he was then a Judicial Commissioner) dismissed Gobind Singh Deo’s suit against the Speaker of the Parliament for suspending him (Gobind), many articles were written and posted on the Net about it. Justice Ariff was questioned why he did not follow the Federal Court’s decision in one of the Perak Mentri Besar constitutional circus. The Federal Court had in one of those cases held that the court could review the decision of a Speaker.

Under the law, a decision of a higher court is binding on a lower court. Thus the decision of the Federal Court (which is the highest court in the land) would be binding on the High Court (where Justice Ariff sits).

In dismissing Gobind’s suit against the Speaker of Parliament, Justice Ariff applied the clear wording of the law as stated in the Federal Constitution, which says:

“The validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.”

Justice Ariff opined that while the Federal Court recognised the power of the court to question whether an act of the Legislative Assembly has any legal basis or otherwise, any act of the Assembly which is supported by any legal basis would be immune from such scrutiny.

In all the articles written about his decision on the net, Justice Ariff was vilified by all and sundry, especially by the supporters of DAP or the Pakatan Rakyat. Some even called him stupid. Some others even questioned his impartiality.

Last week, in yet another high profile case, Justice Ariff held that MACC did not have the power to interrogate witnesses or potential witnesses after office hours. He then ruled that MACC’s action in interrogating a potential witness at night was illegal and ordered compensation to be assessed and paid to the victim.

In doing so, Justice Ariff was of course interpreting the law as it is stated in the MACC Act. That Act says any person served with an order shall attend for examination and shall continue to do so “from day to day until the examination is completed” [section 30 (3) (a) of the MACC Act].

As the words “day to day” was not defined by the Act, Justice Ariff applied the literal meaning to the word and came to the conclusion that MACC does not have the right to force any person to give statement at night. Justice Ariff applied the law as he understands it. He applied the law as it is worded.

Many articles were also written about this decision, whether in the mainstream mass media or the net. The IGP made some statement which effectively ridiculed Justice Ariff’s decision. The chief of MACC, while saying that MACC would abide by the ruling, was also sulking and whining like some small girl whose lollipop has been taken away.

This time the Pakatan Rakyat supporters hailed Justice Ariff as a hero of sorts. He was seen as a learned judge who protects fundamental liberties. All the vilifications he received just after Gobind’s case were quickly forgotten.

But, as I have said at the start of this article, there is no justice in this world. There is always one side which would say justice has not been served. My fellow blogger Rocky posted an article on his blog about Justice Ariff’s decision. He somewhat said that Justice Ariff’s decision is weird. Exactly, this is how he puts it:

“Well, I agree with blogger Syed Akbar Ali that in this case, the Court has acted really weird.”

Apparently, the Scotland Yard, ICAC and Interpol could take statements at night. So, why not MACC? I must confess I do not know whether that is true. And I do not know what the law governing those bodies provide in terms of taking witness statements. I would also refrain from analysing whether MACC is comparable to all those bodies in terms of performance and ethics.

Whatever it is, Justice Ariff’s decision will be appealed by the Attorney General. So, let’s not go into the merit of it for the time being.

The point is the comments made under Rocky’s article. This time, Justice Ariff is again vilified, especially by commentators who are obviously pro-government. One of the commentators noted that Justice Ariff was a former PAS legal advisor. He then concluded that “something is not right.” Basically he was insinuating that Justice Ariff was being dishonest.

Another commentator asked whether Justice Ariff had any problem with the MACC. Perhaps the most unfair comment was this:

“Param Tak Suara said...

So how much did Karpal pay the judge?”

A judge’s good work will only last and be appreciated until his next decision which is unfavourable to the relevant party. That is obvious. Many of us have somewhat forgotten how Justice Ariff had conducted himself in accordance with the best tradition of the judiciary. When the Nizar v Zambry case was fixed for hearing before Justice Ariff, he quickly made it known to all parties that he was a PAS legal advisor. He then invited arguments on whether he should disqualify himself. He later disqualified himself from hearing that case after listening to all parties interested.

That was how conscientious Justice Ariff was.

In Gobind’s case, he ruled against Gobind. What did that say of Justice Ariff’s impartiality, considering that he was a PAS advisor? And now in the MACC case, he applied the law as he understands it. In doing that, he held against the MACC, and consequently the government.

To half of the world, he dispensed justice in all those cases. To the other half, he was a dishonest and partial Judge.

I think I have made my point.

GHOST Altantuya SAYS THE ROPE IS AROUND YOUR NECK SAY YOUR LAST PRAYERS ROSMAH MANSOR

Its just too damned obvious that PI Bala,

WHY WAS BALA KIDNAPPED BY MUSA HASAN’MEN TAKEN TO PRINCE HOTEL IN JALAN CONLAY INSTEAD OF BUKIT AMAN?

being an experienced investigator, knew what was going on. With the DPM Najib desperately making sms messages to Razak Magainda and with hook and crook, got Razak aquitted from the murder trial, it is just that Najib all along had planned for Razak to be his fall-guy and to be paid handsomely.click this A.G OFFICE FRAME ANWAR FOR SAYING ‘GELEDAH ‘ SENT HIM TO 7YEARS NOW the sms Bala can link WITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO SENT NAJIB TO JAIL FOR ABUSE OF POWER

It does not make sense for Razak to murder Altantuya with C4, after all even he is charged with the murder, his position does not give him the authority to involve so many uniformed personnel to carry out this scenario. Thus Najib can claim to be not involve with Altantuya. Now that Razak is aquitted and he cannot be charged again with the same charge, Najib thinks that he can still get away with this cruelsome murder. If Abdul Razak Baginda didn’t order two elite cops to kill a Mongolian translator, who did?

After one of the lengthiest trials in Malaysian history, a politically well-connected insider was acquitted Friday of ordering the murder of his jilted lover, a woman whose death had the potential to reach into the highest levels of the ruling party.

With the acquittal of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, the question was left hanging of who ordered the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006, allegedly by Police Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar. After ordering Abdul Razak freed, High Court Judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ordered the two put on a defense.

Altantuya, aged 28 at the time of her death, was executed by two shots to the head in a jungle clearing near the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Shah Alam on October 19, 2006 and her body was blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military. She reportedly had come to Malaysia to confront Abdul Razak over his decision to end their affair.

The two belonged to an elite bodyguard unit under the control of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who appears likely to become the country’s next prime minister, and who was one of Abdul Razak’s best friends.

During the 151-day trial, in which 84 prosecution witnesses testified, none of them was Najib although two statutory declarations and other evidence linked him to the dead woman. According to a detailed sworn statement by P. Balasrubramaniam, a private investigator that Abdul Razak hired to keep Altantuya away from him after he had broken off their affair, the political analyst told him he had inherited the Mongolian woman as a lover from Najib because Najib didn’t want to be harassed as deputy prime minister.

However, almost immediately after Balasubramaniam made the statement public, he was hustled to the Brickfields police station in Kuala Lumpurwhere he said he had been coerced into making the statement and recanted it entirely. He and his entire family have since disappeared. Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the influential blogger who printed the statement in his Internet publication Malaysia Today, was arrested under the country’s Internal Security Act and is serving two years in prison. He is also being sued for criminal defamation over some of his reports that tied Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, to the murder. He has also been charged with sedition for publishing other articles on the murder.

Rosmah has denied Raja Petra’s allegations but said she would not sue. Asked why not, she told local media on July 1: "If you are innocent, what is there for you to address? I am not a politician and I am not running for any post. I’m just the wife of a politician."

If Najib or his wife had filed the charges, under the law they would be subject to motions for discovery and cross-examination, which presumably would not happen if the state instead filed the charges. More than once the filing of defamation charges has bounced back on the plaintiff because of that reason.

According to evidence introduced at the trial and other sources, Abdul Razak contacted Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, to ask Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah and Sirul, to “do something” about Altantuya. Musa was not required to appear as a witness. Deputy Commander Mastor Mohd Ariff, an associate of the two bodyguards, said members of the unit were required to follow all orders of their superiors without question, describing the unit’s members as “like robots” who would only take orders from their superiors. Abdul Razak, a civilian and friend of Najib’s, was not a superior officer. According to an affidavit filed by Abdul Razak, Azilah contacted Abdul Razak after Altantuya’s disappearance to say that “tonight encik (sir), you can sleep well.”
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.

Nonetheless, Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed a bid in July to call Najib as a witness in the trial. Zaki also refused to call Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib in the events leading up to the murder. In addition to other lurid details, Balasubramaniam described text messages between Najib and Abdul Razak in which the latter was asking for help to avoid arrest.

Later, a series of text messages was made public indicating that Najib had been involved in finding a lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to represent Abdul Razak. One message from Shafee to Najib said: "We provided (the police) everything, including old PDAs and notebooks and a couple of bills. Nothing incriminating." Malaysia Today said the exchange raises questions if anything "incriminating" was kept from the police.

Besides allegations that Altantuya was the lover of both men, the case has raised additional concerns of corruption at the top of the United Malays National Organisation, the leading political party in the national ruling coalition. The Mongolian woman appears to have been the translator on a controversial transaction in which Malaysia, with Najib as defense minister, paid €1 billion for French submarines, netting a company tied to Abdul Razak US$111 million in “commissions.”

A letter written by Altantuya shortly before she disappeared indicated that she was attempting to blackmail Abdul Razak for US$500,000, raising suspicions that she had inside knowledge of the transaction. The woman’s father, Shaariibuu Setev, a psychology professor in Ulan Bataar, said she had been killed because she “knew too much,” although he never elaborated on what she knew.

The trial has been rife with other irregularities. At the start, the original judge was replaced by Mohd Zaki. The prosecution was hurriedly changed so quickly that the trial had to be postponed. There were numerous attempts to limit the introduction of physical evidence. Sirul’s confession was ruled invalid because it was not cautioned.

The prosecution also sought to impeach two of its own important witnesses. One, Lance Corporal Rohaniza Roslan, was the girlfriend of the senior of the two bodyguards and said she saw Altantuya being taken away in a car by her boyfriend. Later she said her testimony had been coerced. Another was Yusri Hasan Basri, a member of the bodyguard team and a colleague of Sirul, who said he had important information on physical evidence in the home

The more he tries to elude from this unending probe into his involvement the more evidence will surface with the help of the spirit of Altantuya. On 11th October, Malaysia Today carried a post entitled ‘Abuse of power by the Deputy Prime Minister’ that laid out a series of sms’es alleged to have passed between Najib and senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah in relation to Razak Baginda’s arrest and remand in the days before Baginda was charged.

Najib was publicly asked to comment about these sms’es and he never denied the authenticity of the same.

Now, there’s one other exchange of sms’es, this time allegedly between Razak Baginda and Najib. I do not recall Najib himself having ever addressed or denied or admitted the correctness or otherwise of these sms’es directly, as he did with the series of sms’es referred to in the MT posting.

I am referring to the 2 sms’es mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the first statutory declaration of private investigator Balasubramaniam. Let me reproduce below both paragraphs 51 and 52 of that first statutory declaration.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”.

Like all of you, I am aware of Bala’s second statutory declaration contradicting the first, but we also have to acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the making and public announcement of the second statutory declaration, and the subsequent disappearance of the maker of both, might make it prudent for us to defer adjudging which of the two statutory declarations narrates the truth until such time that Bala is available to fully disclose andexplain the circumstances surrounding the making of both statutory delcarations.AS THE TAXI DRIVER SAW...ALTANTUYA'S LAST HOURS.

THIS TAXIDRIVER HAVE BEEN HELPING HER FROM DAY ONE BUT THE MAINSTREAM

MEDIA SAID THE IS HER PRIVATE P'I YOUR WRONG BUDDY SHE HAS TOLD EVERY THING TO HIM HIS LAST RESEARCHED ARTICLE HIS BLOG WAS CLOSED DOWN THEY FORGET I HAD THE HARDCOPY

Her last journey starts at night when she gives a slip to bala’s men watching her movements, she took her last taxi ride from hotel Malaya to bagindas house. What could have been the topic of her discussion with the taxi driver? Was he the one who took down the car registration no, which was used in a grab at bagindas house?.
What she told about EVERYTHING NAJIB abandon her at the last moment, she was helpless? As the taxi stop she was grabbed and bundled into that car and driven off. If only they had waited, for the taxi go then they had grabbed her, they could have pull off the perfect MURDER
With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?

The taxi driver went back to the stand at hotel Malaya to be confronted by the victim’s cousin sister to whom he gave the vital informations. The Rest is history…………………………

lastest news BALA come to visit SURESH PAID HIS DUE Will we ever know who killed Altantuya Shaaribuu and who authorised use of C4?I'm sure S'pore have the video recordings of 3 of them at the Diamond exhibition. such expensive exhibition and high tech country....or maybe just release the visitor's registration book. SCENE8 daylight sting at HIGH NOON Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew have the video recordings of 3 of them at the Diamond exhibition. such expensive exhibition and high tech country....or maybe just release the visitor's registration book. SO HE GOT THE DEAL DIRT CHEAPNajis have swore that he have never met Altantuya before in a mosque, come on S'pore, just let us have the video. we won't say it's from you. we just want the TRUTH, that's all.....proof to us you are truly Asian!

Two parts in Bala’s SD, explains PI’s lawyer: Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD

The first statutory declaration signed by controversial private eye P Balasubramaniam consists of two parts – one on what was told to him and the other involves what he personally saw himself..from a most unhlikely source, I have been reliably informed.....straight from the Steppes of Inner Mongolia comes this conversation. I was also reliably informed that this was sent to Malaysia Today as a sequel to the letter sent by Altantuya's father. Read on

The following text message correspondence is between YAB Dato' Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, and Dato' Shafee Abdullah, a Malaysian lawyer who initially represented Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda who is on trial for abeting the murder of Mongolian national, Altantuya Shaariibuu.

While it does not answer lingering questions about Najib's alleged past relations with Altantuya, the text messages show clearly Najib's active intereference in the case very early on. The messages highlight Najib's willingness to speak with both members of the Attorney General's Chambers and Inspector General of Police about the case, something that suggests an abuse of executive power.

What is particularly revealing and troubling is that the counsel, Shafee, keeps asking Najib for details indicating some political intervention that may have influenced the case. This observation is strengthened by Najib's message to Shafee on 16 November 2006: "Pls do not say anything to the press today. i will explain later. RB will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost." This message raises a lot of questions about Najib's role in this case. Why did he mention "tentative" charge and that "all is not lost" for RB (Razak Baginda)? How would Najib know this before Razak was charged? Is there already a deal in place that will see Razak aquitted? These are important questions which will have ramifications not just on this case but far beyond.

The text messages were transmitted between Najib's personal mobile phone. Those who seek the truth should challenge Najib and Shafee to deny that this correspondence took place between them. Perhaps a record of the messages still resides in the server of the relevant telecommunications company.

The truth is buried somewhere. Those who know what truly happened hope that the truth has been buried deep with Altantuya. But the funny thing is, the truth always finds its way into the hands of those who fight for justice – sometimes in the most mysterious circumstances......

WHYMUST HE GET HIS ADC INVOLVED? WHERE IS BALA?HIS SD STATE THE SAME

According to Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu , the first part involves statements that the private investigator was in a position to ascertain their truth.

“He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.”

This include where Balasubramaniam said he was told about the fact that Najib and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu had a relationship.

“The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence.”

Examples are the message Balasubramaniam saw on Abdul Razak Baginda’s mobile phone on the day the political analyst was arrested.BALA IS ONLYWITH ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND WITNESS TO LINK NAJIB

The SMS message, purportedly from Najib Abdul Razak, informing Razak Baginda that the then deputy prime minister was “seeing the IGP (inspector-general of police) at 11am that day and to be cool”.

Razak Baginda, known to be Najib’s close confidant, was later freed from the charge of abetting the murder of his former lover Altantuya.

Americk also said that the Altantuya trial raised more questions than answers and where certain evidence was not brought to court.

“As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason. This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.”

The following is the final of a three-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When you recorded Bala’s first SD, did you feel he was telling you the truth?

Americk: I have said this before. I have no reason to doubt the contents of Bala’s first statutory declaration (SD). However, it must be borne in mind that there are actually two parts to Bala’s first SD.

The first part involves statements that Bala says were told to him by third parties. Bala himself cannot verify the truth of these statements. That is why I said at the first press conference that these statements reflect exactly that.

All Bala was saying is that these statements were made to him and that he perceived them with his own senses. He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.

why didn't the prosecution follow thru with an appeal and more importantly why the courts granted the acquital to Mr Baginda in such a contradictory fASHION

this is what is left after c4 who ordered itInhumanity talks!READ THIS RELATED ARTICLEUnfair To Drag Wife Into Husband’s Politics –Najib his 2nd wife rosmah,murdered Altantuya, because she “knew too much,”

Would people believe what he was saying? Being a confidant of Najib, he is out to defense his boss as directed?! Anyway, all fair-minded people have already formed their opinions and no matter how strong the defence is, 'two wrongs cannot make one good'!

Will people be interested with the so-called new chapter of his stinking life? Not at all because he's unorthodox in human nature and cruelty and brutality is his name! We wonder how he is going to forget his old chapter when Altantuya will keep haunting him, whenever he dine, he will see his hand full of blood! Can he gracefully thanks God that he's given free tomato sauce?!

All people will be waiting to read the footnote of his new chapter - "This great man full of sins has been pardoned by God", ash to ash is the retribution! I will puke at it!

In legal parlance these statements were hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law until and unless they could be supported by other independent evidence and even if they were, the weight of this combined evidence is something a judge would have to consider before accepting or rejecting it.

Examples of statements under this category would include the following:

1) That Altantuya had a relationship with Najib.WHY DID ALTANTUYA HAVE TO DIE?Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government NOTE THIS BLOG WAS CLOSED BY ROSMAH

2) That Razak Baginda was introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

3) That Altantuya was promised a commission of US$500,000 for her services in the Scorpene submarine deal.

The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence. Examples of these statements include the following:

1) That he had contact with Altantuya on a number of occasions in October 2006.

2) That Razak Baginda hired him to keep Altantuya away from him.

3) That he saw Azilah (Hadri) and Sirul (Azhar Umar) bundle Altantuya into a car outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of Oct 19, 2006.

4) That Altantuya, at that time and place, had asked Bala to arrange for her to see Najib.

5) That Bala had, on Oct 21, 2006, received a call on his mobile phone from Musa (Mohd) Safri whilst he was outside the front gate of Razak Baginda’s house, asking to speak to the police officer who was there attempting to persuade three of Altantuya’s friends to disperse.

6) That Bala had given evidence for the prosecution in the Altantuya murder trial and had not been asked a number of very pertinent questions.

7) That Bala had himself seen a message on Razak Baginda’s mobile phone (the day Razak Baginda was arrested), purportedly from Najib, informing Razak Baginda that he was “seeing the IGP at 11am that day and to be cool”.

It is also pertinent to note that Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD, at the press conference he called after his acquittal. However, he chose not to say anything except that he had given his statement to the police.

If there is any doubt as to the veracity of Bala’s first SD, this can be tested by comparing it to two other statements recorded from him.

The first statement was recorded by the investigating officers in the Altantuya murder case. This is the statement Bala complained of in his press conference and first SD. He alleged that all ’sensitive’ information he had given the police was erased from that statement.

The second statement was given to senior federal counsel Sallehuddin (Saidin) just prior to the commencement of Altantuya’s murder trial. It must be remembered Sallehuddin was one of the prosecutors on the first prosecution team but dropped when the second prosecution team was mustered.

According to Bala, this second statement is 76 pages long and details everything that appeared in his first SD.

If the police are really keen in looking into this whole matter again to determine the truth, my suggestion would be to obtain copies of both these statements and compare them to the contents of his first SD. After all, they were prepared by the prosecuting authorities and should be readily available to the police.

What prompted Bala into making the first SD?

As Bala pointed out, he was a little frustrated that the police had not investigated the murder properly and that the prosecution had not conducted their case appropriately. He had been called to give evidence as a prosecution witness but was not asked a number or relevant questions.READ THISAn unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.

He felt the police and the prosecution were trying to cover up the possible involvement of other parties in this murder.

There is no doubt Azilah and Sirul shot Altantuya in the head and blew her body up with C4 explosives. The court has already found them guilty.

There is also available on the Internet a full confession under s.113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, signed by Sirul and dated the 9.11.2006 (Travers report no. 7380/06) in which he has detailed the circumstances in which he and Azilah committed this murder.

There is also a mention of a promise of a reward of RM100,000 for these services. This statement was recorded by one inspector Nom Phot Prack Dit at Bukit Aman. This statement was not allowed to be tendered at the murder trial.

Azilah and Sirul did not give evidence under oath in their defence and therefore avoided any cross-examination on motive.

As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason.

This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.

In his experience as a police officer attached to the Special Branch, he found it rather odd that two policemen would kill someone without receiving instructions to do so from their superiors.

In this case Azilah and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards and were supposed to take instructions from Musa Safri, Najib’s ADC (aide-de-camp).

Bala felt Musa Safri, at least, should have been called to the stand to testify.

Do you think the Altantuya murder trial was conducted in a fair manner?

Fair to who?

I think the first question that ought to be asked is why it was necessary to change all the players in this trial even before it started? No doubt this is the prerogative of the accused in their choice of counsel, and of course the Attorney General’s Chambers in the appointment of prosecutors it feels more suitable. Of course a judge can be changed as well, but all three parties at once seems a little odd.

As the trial proceeded, it became obvious that there was a concerted effort by the prosecution and the defence to prevent any highly fragile evidence from being adduced. This became even more obvious during the questioning of Altantuya’s cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, by Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family.

Burmaa, whilst being questioned by the prosecution had mentioned a photograph shown to her by Altantuya that showed Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a senior government official at a meal. The prosecution and the defence vehemently objected to the eventual answer that Burmaa gave, ie that the senior government official was Najib.

This episode begs the question as to whose interests the defence was supposed to have been protecting? Certainly not their own clients.

It is also interesting to remember Sirul’s statement from the dock at the end of the trial. He said, and I quote, “A black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning”.

I think that says it all. Mkini