f there is no longer any evidence why waste the court’s time trying to determine if najib or rodwan Dick THAT ENLARGE SAIFULL ASSHOLE WITH penetration.
All rise.The judge Paraiyan Augustinkosong son of Asshole is prejudging
All rise. The judge walks in and takes his seat.
Duduk!
All sit down again.
Case number 1651/09, the Shah Alam High Court, Public Prosecutor versus Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf. Will all the accused please come forward and enter the dock.
The six enter the dock.
Okay. What is the charge? Please read out the charges to all the accused.
Yes, your honour. You, Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf, are accused of dragging a cow’s head after Friday prayers on…….
Hold on. What are they being charged for?
Sedition, your honour.
Sedition? How come I don’t get to hear sodomy cases? I want to hear a sodomy case. Is there any sodomy involved here?
No, your honour. Only sedition.
How did they commit sedition?
They dragged a cow’s head to the Selangor State Secretariat building.
How can they commit sedition against a cow? Dragging a cow is not seditious.
It was not a cow, your honour. It was a cow’s head.
Of course you have to drag a cow by the head. I know that. You can’t drag a cow by the tail.
It was not a live cow, your honour. It was a dead cow.
These six accused dragged a dead cow?
Not a dead cow, your honour. Just a cow’s head. They cut off the head and just dragged the head.
They needed six people just to drag one cow’s head?
No, your honour. Only two dragged the cow’s head. In fact, they carried it by the horns. Not actually dragged it along the ground.
Then how come six are being charged if only two dragged the cow’s head? Did they take turns to drag the cow’s head?
No, your honour. Two dragged the cow’s head. The other four stepped on the cow’s head and spit on it.
So this is sedition against the cow?
Not sedition against the cow, your honour. They committed sedition because their act was an insult to Hindus.
Was the cow owned by a Hindu man?
No, your honour. We have not yet established who owned the cow.
Did the owner of the cow make a police report?
No, your honour. But many Hindus did make police reports.
But none of these Hindus owned the cow?
No, your honour.
Then why are they so upset?
Because they feel insulted.
Aiyah! This case is getting very complicated even before the trial can start.
AUSTINKOSONG SON OF SCATTERBRAIN–The deceptive Judge INDEPENDENCE,IMPARTIALITY ,INTEGRITY ,EQUALITY ,COMPETENCE AND DILIGENC HE PRICE IT $$$ per kilo
Can’t we just charge them for sodomy instead? I want to hear a sodomy case. Judges become famous when they hear sodomy cases, not cases involving cow’s heads.
We can’t, your honour. There is no sodomy involved here.
I’m sure if the police investigate properly they will find someone who has been sodomised.
Well, your honour, I think Umno has been sodomised.
There you are. So there is sodomy involved. Can we amend the charges to sodomy against Umno instead?
But your honour, Umno was not literally sodomised. It’s more like figure of speech sodomised. Umno was sodomised politically.
Anwar Ibrahim did not literally sodomise anyone either. He sort of politically sodomised Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But that did not stop the government from charging him and finding him guilty of sodomy. Why can’t these six be charged for sodomy, for politically sodomising Umno? I want to hear a sodomy case.
For this particular case we can’t, your honour. But maybe we can give you another sodomy case to hear. Tiong King Sing just sodomised Ong Tee Keat by revealing the details of the RM10 million cash donation. It is now public knowledge and there is even a Statutory Declaration floating around.
Fantastic. Make sure that that case comes to my court. Where did the crime occur?
In Petaling Jaya, your honour.
Ah, then that comes under my court’s jurisdiction. Okay, let us proceed with this sedition case then. Are there any witnesses involved? How many witnesses are going to be called and how many days will we need for this case?
Initially, there were some videos of the crime.
Are the videos going to be entered as evidence? Then the accused might as well just plead guilty and save the court’s time. If there are videos then they have no defence.
The videos were available, your honour. But now the MCMC has asked Malaysiakini to remove the videos under threat. So the videos are no longer available.
So the evidence no longer exists?
No, your honour.
If there is no longer any evidence why waste the court’s time with a trial? Just drop the charges.
We can’t, your honour. We have to make the Hindus happy by at least pretending that we are putting the six on trial and then later either drop the charges or find them not guilty due to lack of video evidence.
Why later? Why not now?
We can’t, your honour. There is a by-election coming up soon in Port Dickson and there are about 20% Hindu voters there. This will make the Hindu voters very unhappy. We can only drop the charges after Umno wins the by-election. If not Umno is going to be sodomised good and proper.
Ah, if Umno loses the by-election can’t we then change the charge to sodomy since Umno was sodomised in the by-election?
Umno can’t lose the by-election, your honour.
Why not?
Because there are more than 5,000 postal voters in a total of only 14,000 registered voters.
I see. So the opposition is going to be sodomised instead then.
Sort of, your honour.
And these six people being charged are also opposition members?
They are, your honour.
I always said Anwar Ibrahim’s people are troublemakers. All opposition people are troublemakers. I have already decided to find them guilty even before the trial starts.
These six are not Anwar Ibrahim’s people, your honour.
You said they are opposition supporters.
They are Umno supporters, your honour.
But you said they are opposition supporters.
Yes, your honour. Umno is the opposition in Selangor.
related article
The Anuar Ibrahim Saga continues. Gani Patail Witness what happened to Anwarwhy Gani Patail as high ranking officier in AG office was not CHARGE
‘What can be used to penetrate but leave no conclusive evidence in regard to the anus? It must be the legendary ‘Magic Dildo’ where only the smartest people can see and feel…’.
Anwar fails to strike out sodomy charge
Changeagent: Our ruling government is pursuing a no-win strategy here with their ill-advised manipulation of the judicial system. Regardless of the verdict, the vast majority of the public are already convinced that Anwar Ibrahim is innocent, and that government machinery orchestrated this case to neutralise his threat in the next general election.
If Anwar is found guilty, the repercussions for UMNO-BN would be quite severe – it would increase the resolve of the people to oust a much disliked government that is inept, dictatorial and corrupt. May justice prevail, and may more Malaysians awaken from their slumber to comprehend the troubling state of our beloved country.
Eddy: Finally, a year after he was charged, Anwar will get the chance to defend himself in a court of law. So much time and energy have been wasted by Anwar and his battery of highly-paid lawyers to avoid a trial.
Let the trial begin. If Anwar and his lawyers think they have the evidence fully on their side, then they should not worry. Anwar should not conduct his defence in the media by giving selective statements and spins. He should choose to go to trial and meet the prosecutors head on.
Or is Anwar afraid that in the trial, his game is up because the public prosecutor, led by solicitor-general II Yusof Zainal Abiden, had last week claimed they had “extra-medical evidence” to show Mohd Saiful had been sexually involved with Anwar?
Yusof drew the court’s attention to a Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) report which noted finding “a mixture of male DNA from two individuals” from a swabbing of Mohd Saiful’s anus. So let the trial begin.
Kgan: Considering the time lag between Saiful’s report and the alleged act (more than three days), any notion of extracting Anwar’s DNA from Saiful’s anus should be laughed out of court.
One visit to the toilet would have disposed of the “evidence”. So didn’t the accuser visit the toilet during that period? However, the judge isn’t picked for his intelligence; he is picked for his obedience. So Anwar has good reason to worry.
In any rape complaint, the first action by the police is to send the complainant to a government doctor to verify penetration. If there is no evidence of penetration, the complaint will be thrown out by the police.
Only in Anwar’s case can an accuser with no evidence of penetration make it to trial. Malaysia Boleh! ‘Satu lagi projek Barisan Nasional’.
Baffled: I don’t quite understand the basis for this judgment. The judge said, “While the medical reports may ’state no conclusive evidence to suggest penetration’, this court however cannot cancel the charge,” said Mohd Zabidin, adding, “The matter has to go through full trial to also consider the forensic evidence to determine the case.”
Don’t medical reports form the crux of any forensic evidence? Are we back to determining whether Anwar Ibrahim’s DNA is present in that guy’s anus, or on his body, or on his shirt/trousers/bedroom/house or any area within 100km where that guy has been? That only proves Anwar was there at most, or that the evidence was planted.
Eric Koay: What other “forensic” evidence can there be? And what can be used to penetrate but leave no conclusive evidence in regard to the anus? Ah! It must be the legendary ‘Magic Dildo’ where only the smartest people can see and feel, people like the esteemed High Court judge.
Pete: So for all those cases where the sexual act was not concluded, the perpetrators should be set free? How many cases have we had where penetration may not have been completed, but there was intent for such acts, especially on minors by their fiend fathers. Should these people be freed too since no penetration was found?
Come on, we want to see justice done. Let’s have the trial. After all, others have been accused/charged with murder on little evidence other than hearsay.
Mamboking: Remember the first case? When asked by the late Christopher Fernando if he was sodomised, the driver replied, “No!” And the lawyer asked him twice again and (Justice) Augustine Paul asked him a third time, and he still replied “No” to a shocked court house. In the end, although the ‘victim’ said he was not sodomised, the court said there was evidence that he was indeed sodomised.
Only in Malaysia can such a thing happen. They say, “We know and understand that you were not sodomised, but our evidence showed that you were sodomised.” What a joke! I fear history is about to repeat itself.
Dr Jacob George: This is a cowardly decision and a waste of the nation’s time and resources which could be better 
spent in tackling other more pertinent issues of state. The only good thing that can result from this episode is that it will again put the nation’s institutions under the scrutiny of the international community, reminding them of the damage done by a former dictator.
No comments:
Post a Comment