jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 09.02.2010 February 9, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II, Transformation in PKR.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

Dihadapan Yang Arif Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah [Tuesday]

**The full translated English version is after “+++++” in this post in BLUE.

** Versi Dalam Bahasa Melayu boleh di dapati selepas post Bahasa Inggeris dalam Warna HIJAU

Pihak-pihak seperti  terdahulu dengan ketidakhadiran Wong Chiang Kiat, AY, Khaizan Sharizat, Rajpal Singh dan Jennifer Robinson.

Permohonan Pemohon [AI] untuk YA menarik diri.

[10:05 am]

JB:      Bicara Permohonan Jenayah AI v PR

KS:      Parties as before.  I would like to apologize – the affidavit in reply was send to Tetuan SN at 3.30 pm. At this moment, there is certain denial by MY, especially at para 8 [MY affidavit]. We need to reply to the affidavit. The court can consider. The report have been lodged against Utusan Malaysia amounting to defamation to AI. There will be a police investigation. YA it is necessary for us to reply to the affidavit. We might need Notes of Proceeding (NOP) of the court.

YA:      NOP telah disediakan.

KS:      Application for NOP has been made.

MY:     I’m concern is regarding the content of the affidavit published in the newspaper. The part has not been read. Under the rules of etiquette a party cannot made available to the press unless the affidavit has been read in open court. There might be instances where an affidavit might contained scandalous matter which the party might ask for a strike out. The reporters need to be advice and guide them on accurate reporting.

KS:      I think that MY is not aware by a decision made by Eusoff Chin J. Where the affidavit is public document and can be publish by the press. We must have the affidavit to reply, we might be cross-exam MY.

YA:      When can you get the affidavit in reply ready?

KS:      By this afternoon, today. So we can start tomorrow with the application?

MY:     I agree.

YA:      If we can start by 9.30 tomorrow. I don’t want to seen as encroaching on the freedom of the press, I believe in the freedom of the press but the press cannot reported inaccurately and inappropriate. If the press reported inaccurately, there will be consequences and penalty imposed by the court.

KS:      This is to ensure the press reported accurately. A few Special Branch (SB) in the court and they are recording the proceeding of the court. SB should be outside the court not inside the court

MY:     This is an open court.

KS:      Some of them are at the back.

YA:      Member of public must be at the public gallery, for the press and the observer. Other than that must be behind there.

Adjourned to 9.30 am tomorrow.

[10:20 am]

+++++++++++++++++English Version+++++++++++++++++

Aforementioned parties with the absence of CK, AY, Khaizan Sharizat, Rajpal Singh and Jennifer Robinson.

Application of AI for YA to recuse himself.

[10:05 am]

JB:      Hearing for the application in the case of AI v PR

KS:      Parties as before.  I would like to apologize – the affidavit in reply was send to Tetuan SN at 3.30 pm. At this moment, there is certain denial by MY, especially at para 8 [MY affidavit]. We need to reply to the affidavit. The court can consider. The report have been lodged against Utusan Malaysia amounting to defamation to AI. There will be a police investigation. YA it is necessary for us to reply to the affidavit. We might need Notes of Proceeding (NOP) of the court.

YA:      NOP has been prepared.

KS:      Application for NOP has been made.

MY:     I’m concern is regarding the content of the affidavit published in the newspaper. The part has not been read. Under the rules of etiquette a party cannot made available to the press unless the affidavit has been read in open court. There might be instances where an affidavit might contained scandalous matter which the party might ask for a strike out. The reporters need to be advice and guide them on accurate reporting.

KS:      I think that MY is not aware by a decision made by Eusoff Chin J. Where the affidavit is public document and can be publish by the press. We must have the affidavit to reply, we might be cross-exam MY.

YA:      When can you get the affidavit in reply ready?

KS:      By this afternoon, today. So we can start tomorrow with the application?

MY:     I agree.

YA:      If we can start by 9.30 tomorrow. I don’t want to seen as encroaching on the freedom of the press, I believe in the freedom of the press but the press cannot reported inaccurately and inappropriate. If the press reported inaccurately, there will be consequences and penalty imposed by the court.

KS:      This is to ensure the press reported accurately. A few Special Branch (SB) in the court and they are recording the proceeding of the court. SB should be outside the court not inside the court

MY:     This is an open court.

KS:      Some of them are at the back.

YA:      Member of public must be at the public gallery, for the press and the observer. Other than that must be behind there.

Adjourned to 9.30 am tomorrow.

[10:20 am]

+++++++++ Versi Bahasa Melayu ++++++++++

Dihadapan YA Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah[Selasa]
Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu dengan ketidakhadiran CK, AY, Khaizan Sharizat, Rajpal Singh dan Jennifer Robinson.
Permohonan Pemohon [AI] untuk YA menarik diri.
[10:05 am]
JB: Bicara Permohonan Jenayah AI v Pendakwaraya (PR)
KS: Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu. Saya ingin memohon maaf – affidavit yang dibalas telah dihantar kepada tetuan SN pada jam 3.30pm. Pada ketika ini, ada sebahagian penafian oleh MY, terutama di para 8 (MY affidavit). Kami perlu membalas affidavit tersebut. Mahkamah boleh menimbangkannya. Laporan tersebut, telah dibuat terhadap Utusan Malaysia yang membawa kepada fitnah terhadap AI. Polis akan menyiasat. YA, adalah perlu bagi kami untuk membalas affidavit tersebut. Kami mungkin memerlukan nota-nota perbicaraan (NOP) oleh mahkamah.
YA: NOP telah disediakan.
KS: Permohonan untuk NOP telah dibuat.
MY: Saya mengambil berat mengenai kandungan affidavit yang dilaporkan di dalam akhbar tersebut. Bahagian tersebut masih belum dibaca. Di bawah peraturan etika, sesuatu pihak tidak dibenar menyerahkan kepada pihak media sehingga affidavit telah dibaca di mahkamah terbuka. Berkemungkinan sesuatu affidavit mengandungi perkara-perkara tohmahan di mana sesesuatu pihak meminta untuk digugurkan. Pihak wartawan seharusnya dinasihati dan ditunjukajar mengenai pentingnya membuat laporan yang tepat.
KS: Saya fikir MY tidak sedar mengenai keputusan oleh Eusoff Chin J. Di mana affidavit merupakan dokumen awam dan boleh disiarkan oleh media. Kami perlu menjawap affidavit, kami mungkin menyoal balas MY.
YA: Bila anda boleh menjawap affidavit tersebut?
KS: Pada tengah hari ini. Jadi, bolehkah kami memulakan permohonan esok?
MY: Saya setuju.
YA: Jika kita boleh memulakan perbicaraan pada 9.30am esok. Saya tidak mahu dilihat sebagai menghalang kebebasan akhbar. Saya percaya dengan kebebasan akhbar namun akhbar tidak boleh melaporkan secara tidak tepat atau tidak betul. Jika akhbar melaporkan secra tidak tepat, akan terdapat kesan sampingan dan hukuman oleh mahkamah.
KS: Ini untuk memastikan pihak media melapor secara tepat. Ada beberapa pegawai cawangan khas di mahkamah yang merakam perbicaraan . Mereka seharusnya berada di luar mahkamah dan bukan di dalam.
MY: Ini mahkamah terbuka.
KS: Ada di antara mereka berada di belakang sana.
YA: Orang ramai mesti berada di galeri awam, untuk pihak media dan permerhati. Yang lain harus berada di belakang sana.
Ditangguhkan sehingga jam 9.30am esok.
[10:20 am]

Comments»

1. Mamat - February 10, 2010

At least the judge is fairer when it comes to his integrity and we hope that will he will give his judgment based on facts and not be swayed by people’s opinion.

2. Jesse - February 10, 2010

The more delays of these the more the public thinks of DSAI has hidden motives and guilty by exploiting the court. I believe he would have the answers. Justice came with price. We’ll see whose guilty whose not if our court of law abide with integrity and accountability

LA - February 10, 2010

The lawyers should know better lah. Recounting and remembering events or incidences which you had experinced yourself is different from recounting fictitious events which are script-written.

If you have been buggered, sure you will remember the place and time of the incident for years to come and could describe it in detail even asked a thousand times. In sodomy1, Azizan could not remember the time and place. So this time around, they perfected the script. Why do you think the SB officers are in court everyday.

The longer the delay, the better are the chances that Saiful might forget the detailed written scripts which the SBs had drilled into him. Only fools believe Saiful does not shit for 2 days. and that he always carry a K jelly for him to be buggerred. If he had been buggered on 26th he would have informed Najib or Musa Hasan/Gani on that day itself who are ever ready to pounch on Anwar. Why wait for 2 days to have his arse examined?

The are too many holes in his story; big gaping holes for the lawyers to cross-examine.

lim - February 11, 2010

The what are they waiting for? Cross lah.. Dont talk so much la, do it!

3. An - February 11, 2010

Saiful says 2 days he did not ‘shit’. Now lawyer waiting to know how many days he can ‘tahan’ without shitting. they have to delay cross until he ‘shit’ first.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: