Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Tuesday, 2 June 2020

The law is an Hydra - its a many headed monster.

I listened to the commentaries of Apek Cina and believed they must not go unchallenged.  I too leave it to the public to judge.

Let me give you a real story, not a fiction.  One day in Negri Sembilan, before an assembly of UMNO division heads- Zahid Hamidi tells them if your father gives you  money you don't question  where  the money comes from. Later the  government  says the money is stolen.

Are you a thief? No!. You can always say you believed the money is legitimate and you  return a portion, not all of the money.

You are  not  a thief but you are guilty of receiving stolen money.  And returning a portion of the money absolves you.  The sin is erased! Hooray!

Using the same fallacious argument you declare  that Riza Aziz is not a thief.

1) He believes the money came from  legitimate resources  and 2) he returns a portion, not all of the money.  In any case who the fuck is the government?

Isn't that what Apek Cina is saying?

If he can dispute anything what's stopping  him from  questioning  the  legitimacy of government ?

First, the  one giving the money is not  our father and does not enjoy filial  relationship. Second, returning  a portion, not all the  money does not erase  the original  wrong. Savvy?

That being the case, the thief of the powdered  milk can plead he honestly believed what he did was correct, and  he volunteers to return a portion of the money equivalent  of the powdered milk. He has  no  criminal  record  of stealing.

Charge  him  for using excessive force.

The law permits you  to  use force but feather-light force. That so?

The law charges Riza for  money  laundering.  The money  came from  1mdb through  Aabar investment limited. That's too difficult  to understand?

So Tun Mahathir does not need lawyers to clarify things to  him. I from sekolah atap can. A lawyer is like a painter. He can turn black into white.

Of course that is just a fiction.  But if I were to see a snake and a lawyer it's prudent to kill the lawyer first.

The  tape released by sprm has Najib saying so that it would appear-it implies  that Najib  actually  knows the truth.  Would appear and appears  are two  different  things you know.

When Najib  says 'would appear' it means Aaba PJS investment Ltd is farcical.  It launders some hot  money.

The head of Aabar maybe a crown prince, but he's not our crown prince. Unless we are to believe  he doesn't go to the toilet to shit.

Tommy Thomas  says he agrees in principle. To me this means he can agree if there are more evidence,  qualifications and conduct from the plaintiff. He may also not agree.  To read acquiescence  into 'agree in principle  is presumptive.

There  is an assumption  that Riza believes that by returning  a portion of the money he can avoid going in and out of court.

That's Balderdash. Riza agrees because that's an admission  of guilt.


  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP