They Are Still Struggling To Get Me (part 1)

[kensington]

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Raja Petra's plea allowed, court holds to quorum rule

The Federal Court yesterday (9 June 2009) set aside its earlier decision in the case of Raja Petra Kamarudin because it was heard by a two-member panel.

Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum ruled there was a "quorum failure" and this was "an appropriate case for the exercise of the inherent power of this court" to set aside the earlier finding made by Tan Sri Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman and Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin after Datuk Seri S. Augustine Paul recused himself.

Malanjum also set aside the dismissal of three applications by Nik Hashim and Zulkefli together with Paul, who subsequently joined the bench.

Yesterday's decision was related to the appeal by the Home Ministry against the release of Raja Petra from detention under the Internal Security Act.

The decision to dismiss Raja Petra's application to disqualify Paul was made by a two-member panel on February 17.

Initially, Paul, Nik Hashim and Zulkefli were supposed to hear the appeal by the ministry but before hearing began, Raja Petra, through his counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Azhar Azizan Harun, applied to recuse Paul on the grounds that he (Raja Petra) had made certain remarks in his website about Paul as the High Court judge in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's corruption trial in 1998.

Raja Petra also claimed that Paul had said in a judgment in 2001 that he (Raja Petra) was a threat to national security.

Raja Petra's application to recuse Paul was dismissed by Nik Hashim and Zulkefli on the grounds that there was no merit. They had then invited Paul to sit with them on the bench to hear Raja Petra's other applications pertaining to the appeal.

The other applications were:

- To increase the existing three-man panel to five or seven on grounds that complex and constitutional issues which have far-reaching consequences would be argued;

- To adduce fresh evidence in the Federal Court to show he was not a threat to national security after the High Court in Shah Alam allowed his habeas corpus application on November 7 last year; and

- To introduce the notes of evidence in his ongoing sedition trial at the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court that prosecution witness Superintendent Gan Tack Guan admitted that he did not investigate the truth of the article Let's send Altantuya murderers to hell, which was posted on the blogger's website.

All the three applications, however, were later dismissed.

Malik Imtiaz had then filed a review application on February 18 against the decisions of the Federal Court.

Malanjum said that a new date for rehearing of the application would be fixed later.

Deputy public prosecutor Tun Majid Tun Hamzah appeared for the home minister. – New Straits Times, 10 June 2009

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

That was what the New Straits Times reported on 10 June 2009.

Umno and the government say that Bloggers lie a lot and that most Blogs publish untruths and distorted news reports. Well, the New Straits Times is owned by Umno and we all know that an Umno-owned newspaper would never lie. So I have republished the news item above to show that this is not what I say but what the Umno-owned newspaper says. Surely, therefore, this can’t be a lie.

And this brings us to the issue in hand.

I was detained under the Internal Security Act for the second time in September 2008. The first time was in April 2001.

As soon as I was detained in April 2001, my wife filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Kuala Lumpur High Court judge, the recently deceased S. Augustine Paul, ruled my detention legal because, according to Augustine Paul, I am a threat to national security. That was what I was detained for: for being a threat to national security.

In other words, Augustine Paul ruled my detention as proper and justified.

My lawyers then appealed to the Federal Court and this time the five-member quorum ruled in my favour. The Federal Court’s opinion was that my detention was illegal. Nevertheless, I had already been freed by then so it was merely a ‘technical win’.

The government knew it could not legally continue to detain me so it released me before the court could order my release. The government probably thought it would be better to release me and ‘save face’ rather than having to release me by order of the court.

In my second detention in 2008, my wife again filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus. But the day the case was supposed to be heard in court they quickly issued a new detention order and packed me off to Kamunting. That made the application irrelevant and my wife had to start all over again and file a fresh Writ to contest the new detention order.

This time, however, the Shah Alam High Court ruled in my favour and the government had no choice but to reluctantly release me. But this time the government decided to appeal the High Court decision because they were determined to send me back to Kamunting.

The appeal went to the Federal Court in Putrajaya. Only this time it was not me but the government that was appealing the High Court decision.

We then asked for a seven-member quorum, failing which we were prepared to settle for a five-member quorum. But the court would only allow us a three-member quorum on what they said was ‘an administrative decision’. What this meant only they know and they refused to explain further who in ‘the administration’ made this decision. We can only assume it came from the top, as no one would tell us anything.

My lawyers also asked the court who the judges were going to be but they refused to reveal this information. We suspected one of the judges would be Augustine Paul and we were proven right.

On the day of the hearing, my lawyers told the court we wanted Augustine Paul to recuse because of the ‘conflict of interest’. Augustine Paul had already declared that I am a threat to national security and that my detention was legal back in 2001 but the Federal Court had disagreed with him and reversed his decision.

There is no reason to believe he had changed his opinion about me, especially considering I had written a lot of nasty things about him over all those years. Certainly he would bear a grudge against me and would be biased in his opinion. He would most likely take this opportunity to seek revenge. I would probably have done the same if I were in his shoes.

But Augustine Paul refused to recuse. And the Federal Court also refused to entertain our application for him to recuse. Finally, I had no choice but to instruct my lawyers to walk out and boycott the hearing. But this would mean the government would win by default and I would most certainly be sent back to Kamunting that very same day.

We all knew the risks involved. My wife was quite distressed but she said that if this were my decision then she would go along with it although she is extremely opposed to the idea.

My lawyers then stood up but just before they could walk out of court the judges suddenly did a U-turn and declared that they would allow my application after all. Augustine Paul was asked to leave the bench so that the remaining two judges could consider my application for him to recuse.

My lawyers protested and told the court that it goes against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia for just two judges to hear our application. Since Augustine Paul has been asked to leave the bench then he should be replaced so that we are back to three judges. The court, however, brushed off our objections and continued to hear our application with only two judges. And the two judges rejected our application and invited Augustine Paul back into court ‘to take his rightful place on the bench’.

That statement alone demonstrated bias. They had already planted in their minds Augustine Paul’s ‘rightful place on the bench’. My lawyers told the court that we protest and that we will be appealing this decision and the court replied ‘you can do what you like’.

The court did not hide the fact that it felt nothing but utter contempt for us. The court was telling us ‘we can do what we like to you and there is nothing you can do about it’. But while the court can send us to jail for contempt of court, unfortunately, we can’t send the judges to jail for contempt.

Anyway, my lawyers brought the matter before another Federal Court and this second court agreed that we were right and the other Federal Court was wrong. This means the court would need to reconvene with a three-member quorum of judges to hear our application for Augustine Paul to recuse. The court can’t ask Augustine Paul to leave the room and go for a smoke while the remaining two judges hear our application.

This was what the second Federal Court ruled on 9 June 2009.

CONT...
http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...catid=22:the-corridors-of-power&Itemid=100085

 

[kensington]

CONT...


Since then, however, the Federal Court has kept very quiet. They refuse to continue with the hearing. Apparently, the whole matter has been put on hold and it looks like the matter has died a natural death. But the government has not withdrawn its appeal. They are still appealing the Shah Alam High Court decision to release me. So why are they not proceeding?

I did a bit of probing and found out why. The government realises that its case against me is very weak. The Attorney-General and the Minister actually crossed swords on this matter. The Attorney-General blames the Minister for signing my detention order without first obtaining proper legal advice. That was why my detention order was so flawed it gave the High Court no choice but to release me.

The only solution would be to forget about appealing the Shah Alam High Court’s decision to release me, since their case is so weak anyway, and instead they should issue a new detention order -- except this time it would be done properly so that it would be impossible for me to contest it. Which means they will have to fabricate new charges against me that this time will stick.

And that was when I decided this whole thing was a non-starter and I would be wasting my time trying to fight the government through the legal process. How does one fight one’s case in court when the government keeps shifting the goalpost and keeps amending the rules every step of the way? The rules are being made up as we go along in the spirit of ‘heads I win, tails you lose’. So either way you will still lose.

The last month since before Christmas the government has been using the mainstream media to attack me. This was meant to provoke me in the hope I would retaliate and make a mistake, which would tighten the noose around my neck. But I did not do as what they had hoped I would do. So they have gone back to the drawing board to conjure a new strategy. And they hope this new strategy would be a winner compared to their failed strategies thus far.

But what they failed to take into consideration is that I have eyes and ears in Bukit Aman. And my many ‘little birds’ keep me updated on everything that is being planned. Even as the meetings are still ongoing I receive information about the steps they are taking. But this latest strategy they are working on is also a non-starter and is doomed to fail before they even launch it.

And in part two of this article I shall reveal what they are planning, supported by documents I have managed to get my hands on.



http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...catid=22:the-corridors-of-power&Itemid=100085

 

[kensington]

Re: They Are Still Struggling To Get Me (part 2)

The most damaging pieces of evidence against the IGP, Musa Hassan, are the many Statutory Declarations signed by his own police officers, two members of the Chinese underworld, plus another by his own ADC. Even ex-IGP Tun Hanif Omar and ex-PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad appear to think so. (I personally met Dr Mahathir to hand him original and signed copies of these Statutory Declarations who in turn handed them to Hanif).

And this is what Tun Hanif wrote in his article ‘Throw out the bad apples’, (which can be read in this Blog http://pointofviewtunhanifomar.blogspot.com/):

I have no time to go to the webblogs but last Thursday a friend told me about the contents of a recent blog that sent shivers up his spine. It is about the alleged extent of organised crime in gambling, loan-sharking, drugs and human trafficking in many states in the peninsula, and the authorities are allegedly ignoring the activities.

The contents are exceptionally defamatory and it won’t do for the maligned authorities to merely wish them away. Every day, more people will read them and say here is the evidence that the US State Department was right in placing us among countries with the worst human trafficking problems.

They will also believe that the extent of corruption is behind the problem. Our Foreign Minister should read them and make certain they are not true or otherwise take it up with the Cabinet.

Of course, the Sabah court Written Judgement -- which said that Musa Hassan is unreliable, inconsistent and has no credibility as a witness in the Ramli Yusuff ‘corruption’ trial -- further adds to this damage. But the only thing they can do about that would be to appeal the Ramli acquittal (which they are doing), try to win the appeal (which is not too difficult if they can ‘control’ the judge), and in that way it would appear like the court was wrong in its views about Musa (so the appeal is not actually about Ramli but about clearing Musa’s name).

What most people tend to forget is that it was Ramli and not Musa who was on trial. So how would a reversal of Ramli’s acquittal clear Musa? Well, they would spin it in such a way that since the appeal court disagrees with the trial judge, then this would also mean it disagrees that Musa is unreliable, inconsistent and has no credibility as a witness.

How easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of Malaysians.

Malaysia Today’s job, therefore, in the event they succeed in reversing Ramli’s acquittal, would be to remind the public that only Ramli’s acquittal was reversed. This does not mean the same court also reversed the opinion that Musa is unreliable, inconsistent and has no credibility as a witness. That still stands even if the appeal court may disagree that Ramli should be acquitted.

So, how do they embark on damage control with regards to the many Statutory Declarations signed by Musa Hassan’s own police officers, two members of the Chinese underworld, plus another by his own ADC?

Simple, they do what they did in the case of PI Bala’s Statutory Declaration. They make all these people do a ‘U-turn’ and force them to sign new Statutory Declarations, which will reverse what they said in the first Statutory Declarations that they signed.

And this exercise has already begun. The police officers who signed Statutory Declarations pointing to Musa Hassan as the Taiko (Mafia Don) behind the prostitution, drugs, illegal gambling and loan-shark Chinese underworld syndicate have been hauled up by Tatatertib (the police disciplinary unit) and have been interrogated by police officers to get them to declare that they never signed any Statutory Declarations and that in fact Malaysia Today published fake Statutory Declarations.

If these police officers can be frightened into changing their story and can be forced into denying that they signed all those Statutory Declarations (see below for the links to these Statutory Declarations), then action can be taken against Malaysia Today. And they plan to use the COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998 to get Malaysia Today.

And what does this Act say?

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

COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998

ACT 588

PART X

GENERAL

Chapter 2

Additional Offences And Penalties

233. Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc.

(1) A person who-

(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly-

(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or

(b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address,

commits an offence.

(2) A person who knowingly-

(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or

(b) permits a network service or applications service under the person's control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a),

commits an offence.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

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

So there you have it. They want to throw the book at me and cite me for publishing false Statutory Declarations. And this, they hope, will clear Musa Hassan’s name. But to be able to do this they must first get all those who signed these Statutory Declarations to deny ever signing them and that these Statutory Declarations are a fabrication and a figment of Raja Petra Kamarudin’s imagination.

But will they succeed? Can these police officers be frightened into doing a U-turn like how PI Bala was frightened into doing a U-turn? Or will these police officers stand firm and declare that they did in fact sign these Statutory Declarations and that they stand by what they have signed?

Ah, but that will have to be revealed in part 3 of this series. So come back tomorrow and we will reveal more about how the entire Malaysian Police Force is being used to take down one Blogger while the country burns and Malaysia is being brought to the brink of a race war that would make May 13 appear like a children’s birthday party by comparison.

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


Statutory Declaration of ASP Hong Kin Hock (G/10990)

Statutory Declaration of ASP Md. Yusof Bin Ahmad (G/10608)

Statutory Declaration of Sarjan Mohd. Yasin Bin Malik (RF/89379)


Statutory Declaration of Detektif Sarjan Raja Kumar (D/104700)

Statutory Declaration of ASP Mior Fahim Bin Ahmad (G/13237)


Statutory Declaration of Sarjan Major Manimaran a/l Palaniappan (D/94894)

Statutory Declaration of Chai Boon Chai @ Ah Wah (No K/P: 730702-04-5356)

Statutory Declaration of Chong Tzeng Hang @ Ah Han (830210-01-5407)

Statutory Declaration by the ADC of the IGP



http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...catid=22:the-corridors-of-power&Itemid=100085

 

[kensington]

Re: They Are Still Struggling To Get Me (part 3)

There are those who would brush off what I write as fantasy, figments of my imagination, or unfounded conspiracy theories. The Umno Bloggers’ response to my article about the burning of the Reichstag and how they are planning to pin the blame of the church attacks on Anwar Ibrahim is a case in point.“Where is the evidence?” they would say. However, when we produce the evidence, they would dispute the authenticity of it or cook up a story to discredit the evidence or suppress it from ever surfacing.

Let us take one example, the Statutory Declaration I signed in April 2008. I have since named the source of my information. In fact, I named him, with his permission of course, during the interrogation I was subjected to in September 2008 when the government detained me under the Internal Security Act.

The Special Branch officer (the Datuk who I have named before) who was in charge of the seven-member interrogation team that recorded my statement over ten days actually admitted that he personally knows the military officer whom I named. My statement was recorded more than a year ago. However, even though that was 16 months ago, the Special Branch has not spoken to this military officer concerned or called him in for his statement to be recorded.

They say I signed a false Statutory Declaration. But they did not charge me for the crime of signing a false Statutory Declaration. Instead, they charged me for criminal defamation. And they totally ignored the source of this information even after I had named him and even when this military officer declared he is prepared to surface and testify if need be.

Are they really interested in the truth and keen to get to the bottom of things? Or are they more concerned with ‘killing the messenger’ and with punishing the whistleblower?

Malaysia Today has published a series of Statutory Declarations signed by police officers and Chinese underworld figures clearly pointing to IGP Musa Hassan as the Don (Taiko) behind the prostitution, drugs, illegal gambling and loan-sharking underworld syndicate. The original and signed copies of these Statutory Declarations were handed to ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who in turn handed them to ex-IGP Tun Hanif Omar.

These Statutory Declarations were signed back in 2007. That is almost three years now. But what have they done about it? Other than call me a liar and accuse Malaysia Today of spinning fabricated stories, what did they do? Did they investigate the allegations? Did they call me in for interrogation and take my statement?

None of the above! Instead, they detained me under the Internal Security Act on fabricated charges, which even the Shah Alam High Court regarded as hogwash when it declared my detention illegal and ordered my release.

Then the government appealed the decision of the Shah Alam High Court and the case went to the Federal Court. Then they tried to sit with a quorum of only two judges and another Federal Court declared this wrong in law and a violation of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

So what do they do? Do they reconvene with a three-man panel of judges as what they should do? Okay, Augustine Paul has since transformed into food for worms in the ground. So the question of whether he should recuse or not is now water under the bridge. So, by Act of God, Augustine Paul has been removed after all. And this means they need to replace Augustine Paul with another Federal Court judge and continue to hear the appeal by the government.

But they are not doing this. Instead, they are pressuring the police officers that signed those Statutory Declarations into saying that they never signed them and that Malaysia Today published false documents.

That is how they now plan to get me. That is their new game plan. And if the police officers agree to say that they never signed those Statutory Declarations, and that they are in fact fakes, then they will charge me under Seksyen 256 (4) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 (Section 256 (4) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998).

How do I know this? Is this yet another figment of my imagination and an utter lie? Well, the document below proves that it is fact and not fantasy.

Parts in that statement below which should be noted are as follows:

Question: Adakah anda mendapati atau terdapat apa-apa kesilapan atau butir-butir yang disiarkan di dalam laman blog “Malaysia Today” di bawah tajuk “The Corridors Of Power” adalah tidak betul? (mungkin dari ejaan nama-nama dan pangkat dll Folio D3 iaitu Statutory Declaration bertarikh 29.08.2009 ditunjukkan kepada saksi).

Answer: Melihat D3, apa-apa yang ditulis ejaan nama-nama dan pangkat adalah seperti kelihatan betul pegawai-pegawai kanan yang saya kenali.

The police officer was asked whether there are any errors or fabrications in what Malaysia Today wrote and the officer replied that it appears correct and that he personally knows all those police officers that signed the Statutory Declarations.

The interrogation continues and basically the ’leading questions’ are an attempt to ‘corner’ the police officer into admitting that Malaysia Today lied, and with ‘seditious tendencies’ on top of that, “bertujuan menghasut sentimen prasangka buruk di kalangan pegawai polis terhadap pucuk pimpinan PDRM” (with intentions to incite the sentiments of the police officers to have a bad opinion of the leadership of the Royal Malaysian Police Force).

And the reply by the police officer was that he did not agree with this opinion: “Saya pernah membaca sebelum ini ada beberapa SD yang kononnya di tulis oleh pegawai polis kita, tapi saya dapati tidak memberi apa-apa kesan pun kepada sesiapa dan saya tidak ambil kisah tentang semua ini selagi tidak memberi kesan kepada awam. Lagi pun dalam blog tersebut bukan sahaja pegawai polis menjadi sasaran malah ahli politik terutama pemimpin negara turut menjadi sasaran mereka dan dan saya tidak nampak memberi impak kepada awam.”

They are trying to get the police officer to admit that after he read what Malaysia Today wrote he now has a poor opinion of the top leadership of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, in particular, of course, the IGP. But the police officer did not say that. Instead, he said he does not believe what Malaysia Today wrote did any harm.

So back to the drawing board! They must now call more police officers for interrogation until at least one of them will ‘admit’ that he always had a good opinion of the IGP and the top leadership of the Royal Malaysian Police Force until he read what Malaysia Today wrote. And since reading what Malaysia Today wrote, he now has a very poor opinion of the IGP and the top leadership of the Royal Malaysian Police Force.

In short, they are not concerned about the truth of the matter. They do not care whether what Malaysia Today wrote is true or false. They want to know whether what Malaysia Today wrote has managed to ‘turn’ the police officers against their bosses. And if so, then Malaysia Today has committed a crime and I should be charged for an offence under The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

And the document below proves this, whatever they may say to deny it.


Is this maybe a move to block Malaysia Today so that Malaysian readers can no longer get access to the website?



PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4


http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...catid=22:the-corridors-of-power&Itemid=100085