Did Datuk V.K. Lingam wrote an entire legal judgment then leak it to DATO’ MOHD.ARIFF SABRI BIN HJ. ABDUL TUN DAIM ZAINUDDIN’S

Accusation is the easy exit route for UMNO. Introspection will take us back to the beginning. Betrayal is impossible without trust. We did not trust  to be honest. We trusted our political class, and it continues to search for new and inventive ways to betray us again.

Datuk V.K. Lingam's former secretary, G. Jayanti, exposed more skeletons involving her ex-boss.

Did Datuk V.K. Lingam wrote an entire legal judgment then leak it to Dato’ Mohd.Ariff Sabri bin Hj. Abdul Aziz. .  Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz want to clear  In that article, I suggested that 

HOW DID DATUK MOHD ARIFF SABRI ABDUL AZIZ  KNOW THAT THAT ANWAR WILL BE FOR SURE JAILED 

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, Free Malaysia Today

In about two months’ time Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim may perhaps be a special guest to the government.

So post 13th general election, he may not be there jumping up and down outside the Istana Negara gates.

Anwar has lost his credibility

In the absence of Anwar, who shall be the next PM?When push comes to shove, everyone must be a realist. Can a person who will probably be in jail become a PM? Can a person with an image problem be PM?

We will be defending a person who is stung by accusations of all sorts of moral depravities – all of which suggests moral weaknesses.

That alone will eat away Anwar’s credibility at this time around.

The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman and a FMT columnist. This is an excerpt from his blog sakmongkolak47

   
 …Read more

DATUK MOHD ARIFF SABRI ABDUL AZIZ LICKING NAJIB’S DICKY AND ROSMA’S DESIGNER VAGINA

A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over years; this central truth Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.It is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape
Justice did not need High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah and a thousand pages to tell us what has been public knowledge since


A mere handful of professions are honoured with an honorific that survives beyond the office. Priests, judges, armed services officers, professors and doctors, of both the medical and academic disciplines: that’s about it. Journalists, even editors, and politicians, even cabinet ministers, would invite ridicule if they handed out visiting cards marked ‘Editor X’ or ‘Cabinet Minister Y’. Indians are, at best, ambivalent about media and politics. They respect our guardians of law, knowledge and security. There is a new tendency among former envoys to add ‘Ambassador’ before their name, a practice borrowed from America, but this is a title snatched from vanity rather than bestowed by popular acclaim.

Ego sometimes persuades a pompous politician to flaunt a bogus ‘Dr’ on his nameplate. This is not a reward for academic brilliance but an upgrade to a peacock feather, the ‘honorary doctorate’, a worthless piece of paper handed out by an institution desperate for attention. However, this does not matter too much, since we do not expect a high level of honesty from our politicians. Only two letters separate use from abuse, so there will always be a quack preening himself in the garb of a doctor. But when a person held in high esteem dilutes the trust reposed in him, it affects the collective reputation of the brotherhood.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team argued that his accuser is a puppet who was coached to go “doctor shopping” for medical evidence favourable to the prosecution, as his sodomy trial drew to a close today.

The opposition leader’s lawyers told a courtroom packed wall-to-wall with his supporters that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a former aide, was the “puppet” in a sordid play directed by former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

The defence said Mohd Saiful, 26, was the star witness on whom the prosecution’s entire case rested.

“In this sordid episode, the puppeteer is SAC Rodwan and by extension behind Rodwan is Tan Sri Musa Hassan, the director. The puppet is Saiful.

“One plausible view is he was well advised by SAC Rodwan on 24th June 2008 to use a plastic instrument to cause injury to his anus — to make it seem consistent with proof of penetration,” defence lawyer Sankara Nair told the court, referring to former Malacca police chief Datuk Mohd Rodhwan Mohd Yusof.

Anwar’s team has repeatedly maintained that the sodomy charge was a political conspiracy by the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition against the opposition politician to keep him out of the race to take Putrajaya.

“This is why Saiful, after attempting to injure his anus with a plastic, did not go to HKL straight away to make the allegations but instead went doctor shopping such as Pusrawi and later HKL, with a view to first ascertain whether he succeeded in causing some injury,” Sankara added.

They noted Mohd Saiful only filed a police complaint on July 28, four days after meeting the police officer.

“Saiful was asked to find an opportunity to be seen or to be in contact with DSAI on a possible one-to-one situation to be able to make the allegation and being asked to go to unit 1151 Desa Damansara condo became the opportune moment and he seized it,” Sankara said.

In their final argument, the defence lawyers highlighted Mohd Saiful’s incongruous conduct as a victim of violent sexual assault, as he claimed.

They pointed out Mohd Saiful had not filed a complaint with the police immediately after alleging he was forcefully violated by Anwar at the swanky Desa Damansara condominium here.

They highlighted that Mohd Saiful had a 20-minute chat with his alleged perpetrator over curry puffs and coffee after the alleged act and had taken a few days before filing medical and police complaints.

They argued that Mohd Saiful had adopted the same “modus operandi” at both Pusrawi Hospital and Hospital Kuala Lumpur by complaining first about pain in passing motion and later alleging sodomy and claiming his anus had been penetrated by a “plastic” object.

The lawyers argued that their theory also gelled with Mohd Saiful’s claim to have used a lubricant, KY Jelly, after the Pusrawi doctor appeared to find no injury to the anus.

The defence said the prosecution had the legal burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and had failed, and urged the judge to acquit and discharge Anwar.

High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah set January 9 to deliver his decision.-

 Having spent six years behind bars once, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim vowed today he will continue his fight for justice whatever the sentence.
“It doesn’t make a difference, in jail or outside, I will fight for justice,” the opposition leader told reporters at the end of his Sodomy II trial today.

The former Umno politician, who helped found Keadilan, said he had undergone prison life and found it “not difficult”.

Anwar, a former deputy prime minister, was convicted on twin charges of sodomy and corruption in 1999 and was jailed for six years until the charges were reversed.The damage is already done. Due to witness and prosecution involvement, the case will be viewed as a miscarriage of justice and must be thrown out -it will proceed until DSAI is removed forever.readmoreatest updated Farah Azlina Binti Latif,

The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in Malaysia has long been a subject of debate and controversy. He is the chief legal adviser to the government and is responsible for advising ministers involved in legal proceedings in their official capacitywhy Gani Patail high ranking officier AG office was not CHARGE for not reporting the crime 

. Fabrication is one of his specialities. Have you read the Unholy Trinity related article it’s mindboggling!Public Prosecutor has deceptively merely manufacturing evidences against Anwar

WHAT PENETRATION? LET’S GET THE FACTS RIGHT, SAYS SIVARASA

In the run-up to Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial, his lawyers including senior counsel Sivarasa Rasiah had warned that in the end the government would try to nail the Opposition Leader based on fabricated DNA evidence.

And it looks like they may have guessed correctly.

On Thursday, lead prosecutor Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin managed to get Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim, one of three HKL doctors who examined complainant Saiful Bukhari Azlan, to stun the Court by agreeing that there was anal penetration.

“With all these reports I have now, there is evidence of penetration even without clinical injuries found on the complainant,” Mohd Razali said.

No, he did not reverse or overturn his own HKL medical report, which in fact, he stood by. Corroborated by two colleagues, the report had stated there were no conclusive clinical findings suggesting there was penetration of the anus nor were there any significant defensive wound on the complainant’s body.

A second medical report from Hospital Pusrawi also came to the same conclusion. Why then did Dr Mohd Razali, who has handled more than 100 cases involving the anal area, tell the Court that he “would say there was penile penetration”?

Malaysia Chronicle spoke to Sivarasa who explained that it was because Mohd Razali was making an inference based on the Chemistry Department’s report and not from his own direct evidence, which is the HKL medical report.

“Mohd Razali has no right to make such an inference as it is outside his scope. He is responsible only for his own medical examination and report, which he has confirmed. He stands by the HKL report which states very clearly there were no signs of penetration,” Sivarasa said.

“But based on the Chemistry Department’s report of having found semen on the swabs, Dr Mohd Razali put two and two together and now he claims there was penetration. Obviously, we will ask the Court to reject this inference and focus on the doctor’s direct evidence, which I repeat is the HKL medical report.

“The chemistry report is none of his business. It is the Chemistry Department which is responsible for the identification of the semen and DNA samples and not the Dr Mohd Razali. Any inference on this aspect should come from the Chemistry Department as it is their direct evidence, not Razali’s.”

During Anwar’s first sodomy trial in 1998, the Chemistry Department found semen on a mattress but the findings were so weak that during cross-examination, its testimony was discredited and had to be rejected by the Court.

Dr Mohd Razali will be cross-examined by the defense soon, while the Chemistry Department has yet to testify.

Nevertheless, the doctor’s sensational testimony has stirred up a media storm with the mainstream media quick to insinuate that the medical evidence did indeed show penetration.

“Not true at all. As I said, Razali actually confirmed the HKL medical report that there was no evidence of penetration. He only deduced there was penetration when he was asked by the prosecutor to take into account the Chemistry Department’s report and he should not do that,” Sivarasa said.

Karpal had wanted more time for preparation in light of Dr Razali’s testimony today.

Another lawyer, Sankara Nair, agreed with this.

“This is an ambush, unprofessional prosecution. I want time. What the doctor has said just now is merely an assumption during examination-in-chief.

“He is just a general surgeon. He says he’s seen many [posteriors], [it] doesn’t make him an expert. We will ask him why he didn’t know (about the swab samples),” said Sankara.

Anwar claimed “two or three semen samples” were found on Saiful.But Anwar said he was not surprised by the doctor’s testimony.

The Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader claimed that there were “two or three semen samples” found on Saiful, but did not elaborate any further.

“The question is, whose semen is this? You’d be surprised to know whose semen is it from,” said Anwar.

Earlier on in court, Karpal claimed that Anwar was in unit 11-5-2 of the Desa Damansara Condominium during the time of the alleged sodomy, not in 11-5-1 as Saiful had claimed.

This did not sit well with Saiful, who insisted that Anwar was with him in unit 11-5-1 at the time.

“No, your honour, it’s not true,” said Saiful.

Karpal also stressed that this would be the defence team’s strategy.

“Our defence is alibi,” said Karpal.

Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power”

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail told reporters today that the junior prosecutor was removed to prevent negative public perception of the Sodomy II prosecution team.

THE WEEK THAT WAS HERE

Queensland University political scientist David Martin Jones, currently working in Malaysia, says: “There is now an interesting collection of scandals dating from the first Anwar case in 1998 that coincides with the fragmentation of Umno-controlled politics.”

“For the second time,” Danby said, “the Malaysian legal system is being manipulated by supporters of the incumbent government to drive Malaysia’s best-known leader, Anwar Ibrahim, out of national politics.

“For the second time, documents are being forged, witnesses are being coerced, and evidence is being fabricated. This trial, like the first trial, is a disgrace to Malaysia, a country that aspires to democratic norms.”

Extra HERE

For Laughs HERE

 Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has vowed to continue fighting for justice even if he is put behind bars.

The PKR supremo told this to reporters after the final hearing of his Sodomy II trial. The High Court is schedueld to deliver its verdict on Jan 9, next year.

Asked how he felt about the possibility of being jailed for a second time, the defiant 64-year-old politician replied: “I’ve gone through that, it’s not too difficult.”

“It’s not a question of me volunteering to go to jail. For what reason? Just because I decided not to join Umno or rejoin Umno? That I decided to fight them for their racist unjust policies?

“Doesn’t make a difference. In jail, or outside, I will fight for justice,” he stressed.

On the charge and trial itself, Anwar, who has always maintained that it is a political conspiracy against him, said that he should be acquitted.

“We have said and I must reiterate, in the first place the charge should not have been preferred, the defence should not have been called. But now we have gone through the process, I must get an acquittal based on the facts and the law,” he added.

Anwar reiterated that the court process has not been fair but hoped that “sanity will prevail” and the judge would base his findings on facts and law.

“I’ve said it from my statement from the dock (that the court is unfair). And we’ve adduced enough cogent, compelling, and incontrovertible evidence to support that argument,” he said.

Anwar said that it would be “very difficult and ludicrous” to suggest that the defence has not raised reasonable doubt.

“It would be totally unjust and cruel for the political masters to get a conviction,” he added.

Asked on the effects of the impending verdict on Malaysia, the former deputy premier said:”I’m positive it will spearhead this clamour for reform. Whatever said and done, the general perception is that we need judicial reform.”

“It (the verdict) will strengthen the resolve of the opposition and public awareness to the need for reform. Why do people who do not share the views of the government and Najib have to endure this abuse, insult and intimidation?” he added.

Anwar said he expected a later date for the decision as there was a lot of evidence to go through.

“(Lead counsel) Karpal (Singh) had said in a normal criminal trial, three weeks can be a reasonable time. But in this case, we have thousands of pages of evidence, it would require somewhat a longer time. I am a bit anxious to know why we have to rush…

“I would have thought it would have come after the general election,” he added.

'Lingam wrote judgment for RM10m

by Anis Ibrahim • 'ACA officer gave me RM3,000' • 'Lingam asked me to remove the evidence' • Ex-secretary: I arranged Kiwi trip • Mahadev is 4th commission member asked to step down • ISA detainee must make declaration first KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam wrote an entire legal judgment for a civil suit in which the presiding judge awarded the litigant RM10 million in damages. This was the latest shocking testimony delivered at the inquiry yesterday. The star witness yesterday was G. Jayanti, a former secretary of Lingam, the lawyer at the heart of the royal commission of inquiry into alleged brokering of appointment of judges. Jayanti, 45, testified that some time between November and early December 1994, Lingam had asked her and two other secretaries, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman, to do some "confidential typing". "I soon discovered that this (confidential typing) was about preparing and typing the judgment in relation to civil suit number S5-23-23-94 between Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun vs Hassan Hamzah, Soh Eng Lim, M.G.G. Pillai and four others," she said. "Datuk Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes the draft judgment for Sumanti to type. "Every now and then, he would order me to get various reported cases in the library to be incorporated in the judgment. "He completed dictating the full judgment at about 3am." In 1994, former High Court judge Datuk Mokhtar Sidin presided over a much-publicised defamation suit registered as 'Civil case No. S5-23-23-94' filed by businessman Tan in respect of four articles about him in the Malaysian Industry magazine. Mokhtar's written judgment, which awarded Tan RM10 million in damages, was read out on Dec 5, 1994. The quantum awarded to Tan was seen then as setting the trend for multi-million ringgit defamation suits. Most of Jayanti's testimony was in the form of a written statement admitted as evidence by the five-member panel headed by Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor. In the statement, Jayanthi stated: "I must stress here that when Datuk V.K. Lingam was dictating the judgment that night, he was aided by his brother V. Sivaparanjothi, Encik Adam Bachek (a lawyer then) and W. Satchithanandan (a former Industrial Court chairman)." She added that she kept the handwritten corrections of the draft judgment until handing them over, together with the corresponding formal judgment, to her lawyer Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah. Appearing in court yesterday in a white Punjabi suit and dark green jacket, she presented her answers clearly and calmly. Jayanti, who worked with Lingam for 13 months from April 1994, said her former employer read through the first printed copy of the judgment he had dictated. "He corrected the draft judgment in red ink on certain pages. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly and made a copy of the draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given by Datuk Lingam to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin. I later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge," she said. When asked by her counsel Shafee as to when she resigned, Jayanti said she tendered her resignation in May, 1995. Shafee: Why did you leave the firm? Jayanti: I was accused of taking his shares in Berjaya Group. Shafee: V.K. Lingam accused you of stealing his shares? Jayanti: Yes, he had one million shares. Shafee: V.K. Lingam had one million Berjaya shares? Jayanti: Yes. I used to deliver (the share certificates) to the securities company, it was two floors below in the same building. They went missing for a while. Then he called me two weeks later and said they had been recovered. He asked me if I wanted to come back. I said I wanted to leave. Jayanti, who is also represented by R.S.N. Rayes, will continue her testimony today. 'ACA officer gave me RM3,000' KUALA LUMPUR: G. Jayanti also testified on the documents she handed over to Shafee. "During the course of my employment at V.K. Lingam & Co, I took possession of a group photograph of Vincent Tan and his wife, (former attorney-general) Datuk Mohtar Abdullah and his wife and Lingam and his wife. "I also took possession of a photocopy of a Bank of Nova Scotia cheque for payment to Holiday Tours. These documents were given to Shafee to keep," she said. Shafee asked whether Lingam had a direct communication line to Tan. "Yes, there is a direct intercom from his room to Tan," replied Jayanti. Further evidence on the ACA also came to light when she answered questions by her second counsel R.S.N. Rayes. When Rayes asked Jayanti how many times she had given statements to the ACA, she said she had done so on three occasions in April 1998. Rayes: Was this in respect of V.K. Lingam's alleged close relationship with judges? Jayanti: Yes. Rayes: After they concluded their investigations, did they tell you anything? The courtroom was silent when Jayanti replied: "They told me about three months later that the file had to be closed because it involved high-ranking officers in the government. They then gave me RM3,000 cash." Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor interjected: "You took the money?" "Yes, I took it," replied Jayanti. Rayes asked whether she knew the name of the ACA officer who had spoken to her. "It was a Chinese gentleman, I don't remember his full name but it was Wong." "Was his name perhaps Wong Chee Kong?" asked Rayes. "Yes," replied Jayanti. Rayes: The RM3,000 that was given to you, was it a reward or was it to quieten you? Jayanti: Nothing was mentioned. It was just given to me. 'Lingam asked me to remove the evidence' KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam instructed his brother, V.K. Thirunama, to remove several documents from Thirunama's safe deposit box in London. Thirunama said the documents were on Lingam's payment of several judges' cellphone bills. He said the bills were those of former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin, former High Court judge Datuk K.L. Rekhraj, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mokhtar Sidin and Court of Appeal judge Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, among others. Thirunama told the inquiry on its 15th day that his deposit box was located at Knightbridge Safe Deposit, near the Harrods department store. Replying to questions from his counsel Wee Choo Keong, Thirunama said he made the trip in late 1997. Wee: What were the documents retrieved? Thirunama: I retrieved the travel manifest to New Zealand and cellphone bills which Lingam had paid for several judges like Eusoff, Rekhraj, Mokhtar, Low and also the inspector-general of police. Besides that, I also retrieved the poison-pen letter on the judiciary. Wee: What did you do with the documents? Thirunama: I gave them all to Lingam and I saw him tearing the poison-pen letter. The other documents, he kept with him. Wee: Did you give the phone numbers, including that of Eusoff, to the ACA when you reported the matter in March 1998? Thirunama: Yes, I told the ACA of Eusoff and Rekhraj's numbers as stated in my black diary. Earlier, when questioned by counsel Christopher Leong from the Bar Council, Thirunama agreed that he was pressured by Lingam and his other siblings to withdraw his report with the ACA. Leong: Did the ACA come to your house on March 8, 1998? Thirunama: Yes, they came about noon. Subsequently, I lodged a report against my brother Lingam over his relationship with the judges. An ACA officer by the name of Sazali recorded my first statement. Leong: What happened next? Thirunama: When I returned home, my sister Kanakalashimi was there. She went hysterical after discovering that I lodged a report with the ACA. She contacted anai (Lingam) and said Lingam and his wife cried on knowing this. Later, Lingam came with Kanakalashimi and my other siblings. Kanakalashimi said: 'Do you want to see anai (Lingam) in jail? He has built up his reputation.' They asked me to see psychiatrist Datuk Seri M. Mahadevan to say that I was crazy and suicidal, and referred me to a Dr Devadass and Dr Mahadevan, asking me to act as if I was crazy. Leong: What did you tell Dr Mahadevan? Thirunama: I told him everything about the judges, corruption and my brother. Dr Mahadevan said he had heard about this but could not believe it was to this extent, and that Lingam was involved. Leong: What happened next? Thirunama: Mahadevan asked me to write all the bad things about myself for 19 pages, where I stated I was violent to my wife, suicidal, and mentally depressed. However, none of the things I wrote were true as I was told by Mahadevan and Kanakalashimi to do so. Leong: What happened next? Thirunama: I went to the ACA to retract my earlier statement. I also told the ACA that their officer had assaulted me. As a result, I was remanded for six days. Leong: Throughout your visit to Mahadevan, did he ask you to be warded at a hospital? Thirunama: No, he said 'I do not know what to do about you as you are not mad but bad'. However, my sister Kanakalashimi managed to obtain my written statement. When questioned by Lingam's counsel R. Thayalan, Thirunama agreed that Lingam helped him to set up a limousine business by paying a downpayment to buy a Mercedes. "Eventually, I withdrew from the business and the bank repossessed the car." Thirunama also agreed that Lingam had helped to pay a portion of the cost of his RM95,000 home. Ex-secretary: I arranged Kiwi trip KUALA LUMPUR: All flight tickets for the New Zealand holiday that Datuk V.K. Lingam, former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin and their families took in 1994 were arranged by the lawyer's secretary. G. Jayanti's testimony yesterday flew in the face of Lingam and Eusoff's testimonies that they had either "bumped" into one another or "tagged" along when they had been questioned about the holiday. Jayanti said Lingam told her in December 1994 to make travel bookings for his family, as well as Eusoff's with Holiday Tours & Travel Sdn Bhd. Jayanti said everyone in the party travelled on identical flights with the exception of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore sector. "The flight to Singapore for (then) Tan Sri Eusoff Chin was different from that of Datuk Lingam by half an hour, as required by Datuk Lingam." Jayanti's testimony, most of which was tendered in a written statement, directly challenged evidence given by Lingam and Eusoff that they had met by accident at Changi Airport in Singapore. Eusoff had also told the inquiry that Lingam had "tagged along" when asked about the trip. Jayanti, the 19th witness in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam's alleged brokering of appointment of judges, said she received two pages of handwritten itiner-aries from Holiday Tours for both Eusoff and his family and Lingam and his family on Dec 14, 1994. "I was the one who personally received these documents," she said. Her counsel Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah referred to the itineraries, which had already been admitted as exhibits and asked: "The name 'Jayanti' which is written at the top, is that you?" "Yes, that's me," she replied. Last month, although Lingam admitted that his secretary in 1994 was called Jayanti, when asked whether the name on the itinerary referred to her, Lingam had replied: "I cannot think of any reason why her name is there. There are many Indian women called Jayanti." Holiday Tours, Jayanti said, had also sent her all the flight tickets for the trip, including those for the internal New Zealand flights. "On or about Dec 20, 1994, I received tickets for Eusoff, Puan Sri Rosaini Mustaffa, Zubaidah Eusoff, Johan Eusoff, Lingam, Datin K. Suppiah Gnanajothy, Sivashahkti, Sivajothy and Tan Chong Paw, who is Tan Sri Vincent Tan's bodyguard, for the flights of KL-Singapore, Singapore-Auckland, Auckland-Christchurch, Christchurch-Auckland, and Auckland-Singapore. "All these flights commenced on Dec 22, 1994 and ended on Dec 30, 1994," she said. Upon his return, Lingam handed her three rolls of film to be developed. "I developed all three rolls, which were about the New Zealand holidays of the two families but Lingam collected only two rolls of negatives and photographs. One of the rolls remained with me. He also handed some of the ticket stubs of the trip." Jayanti also testified that former Industrial Court chairman W. Satchithanandan had told her to keep the holiday itineraries, the photographs and negatives and the ticket stubs "for future use". "He told me, 'V.K. Lingam is a dangerous and vengeful person. You better keep these documents for your safety'. "Satchithanandan had also complained that Lingam had not kept his word of recommending him to be appointed as a judicial commissioner by proposing his name to the chief justice." Shafee, seeking clarification, asked how Satchithanandan had mentioned it to her. Jayanti: After I resigned in May 1995, he told me that Lingam did not get him the judicial commissioner position, but that he had instead helped Rekhraj get it. Shafee: Did Satchithanandan talk as if he knew about the statement you gave to the Anti-Corruption Agency then, when they were investigating this matter? Jayanti: Yes. Satchithanandan asked me why I had mentioned his name in my ACA report. He said Lingam had managed to get a copy of my report from the ACA and told him about it.