NAJIB’S MOST ROMANTIC LOVE SONG EVER! WITH MONGOLIAN GHOST ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU

MALAYSIAN VOTERS JAI HO VICTORY CELEBRATION CONTINUES WE  ARE  FOR CHANGE we care for Altantuya Shaariibuu

NAJIB’S MOST ROMANTIC LOVE SONG EVER! WITH MONGOLIAN GHOST ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU

  

French lawyer William Bourdon, who represents Suaram in the Scorpene case, has indicated that he is willing to brief the Malaysian parliament on the matter.

   NAJIB’S ROMANTIC DREAM WITH MONGOLIAN GHOST ALTANTUYA SHAARIIBUU

Young Malaysian Journalists Club president Dzulkarnain Taib question Suaram interest in scorpene submarine?What is Suaram’s locus standi? Well its members are all taxpayers just like the rest of us who want to know the whole truth about the Scorpene submarine purchase since it cost us billions of ringgit together with the kickbacks of RM500 million to Perimekar. Our own government is not interested to get to the truth so we need to rely on the French. If Najib and Razak Baginda have nothing to hide please testify in France or Baginda should come back from the UK and answer these allegations. Frankly, most Malaysians do not care if Suaram is funded by Soros or the Devil provided we get to the truth. Since we have purported journalists like Dzul who are not interested in finding out the truth but more willing to defend the BN government’s version hook, line and sinker, the public have a right to know from an independent and impartial source like the French courts.

He question Anwar’s motive. He also said scorpene submarine is a domestic matter and should be kept internally. I know he is great shoe polisher. But is he stupid or what? Of course Suaran has the right to bring this matter to Malaysians attention. The country loss huge tax payer money in this deal. We paid much more than we should. Of course Anwar and opposition leader has the right to question this otherwise we will be questioning him for keeping quiet like the rest of the BN MPs. Suaram has no choice but to go international as domestically none of the authorities are doing anything about it.THIS TAXIDRIVER HAVE BEEN HELPING HER FROM DAY ONE BUT THE MAINSTREAMMEDIA 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 HARDCOPYHer 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……

French lawyer William Bourdon, who represents Suaram in the Scorpene case, has indicated that he is willing to brief the Malaysian parliament on the matter.

It looks like Prime Minister Najib Razak, at the centre of the Scorpene-Altantuya corruption and murder scandals, is hitting the panic buttons. readmorehttp://lawmattersjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-did-judge-mohd-zaki-dismissed-to.html

  

DCNS is now on trial in Paris for corrupt dealing in the Malaysian Scorpenes purchase. French police have uncovered hundreds of documents which are still being assessed by the French court. So far, the money trail established for the payment of the Scorpenes bribe has led to Baginda, whom many regard as Najib’s front man, and Umno.

Nonetheless, Malaysian authorities including current Defense minister Zahid Hamidi and top military officials have denied naval secrets were sold. And although such an act is high treason, no one in the Malaysian government has dared to call for an investigation. Their nonchalant sweeping of the dirt under the carpet has sparked public indignation and anger.
Some political watchers say Najib and Umno will have to keep closing an eye and repeating their denials because the country’s 13th general election is due to be held soon. To Altantuya’s dad, that might be trivializing his daughter’s murder, but by sitting on both the Scorpene and Altanutya cases, Najib is courting serious trouble and loss of voter confidence in his personal integrity.readmorehttp://lawmattersjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/bare-truth-unloads-dishonest-zaki-lied.html

readmore http://lawmattersjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/can-elusive-abdul-gan-patail-beat.html

In modern-day Mongolia, apartment blocks have replaced tents, Hyundais have taken over from horses and businessmen walk where nomads once roamed.We jump into the thriving alternative music scene in the Mongolian capital Ulaanbaatar and follow three young rappers as they record new tracks and draw inspiration from their fast-changing environment.While many rappers aspire to make it in the West, some are inspired by their elders, and hope that traditional values and cultures will not be lost in their fast-changing society. 

!

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

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