Tuesday, November 04, 2008

How should a judge endear him/herself to the Bar?

A holiday together, Lazar?
NST's chief Dewan dispatcher Azmi Anshar is not letting the Salleh Abas vs Bar Council issue die just yet. I must thank him for reminding me about Robert Lazar's comment to my disclosure here on Salleh's predicament: "If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 ....".
I'm not sure why I didn'tn pin Robert Lazar there and then. Am glad Azmi's asking these questions in his latest despatch:

"But to “endear as a friend to the Bar”? How should Salleh endear himself to the Bar as a friend? Play golf with lawyers? Lunch or dinner together? Go for holidays together? Rule everything in favour of the lawyers of the Bar?"

Read Azmi's piece If you have to sock Salleh Abas ..... The new CJ should take serious note of Robert Lazar's response ...

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bro,

http://tukartiub.blogspot.com easily get one million visitors in three months. this blogger beat mahathir easily yaeh!

sahak

Omong said...

endear as in "angkat, curry flavour, kipas"

or "turn a blind eye, close one eye, look the other way"

or simply play by the "rules of the law" (bar council's version)

or indulge in double standards (esp colour conscious types)

as a last resort - play the favourite game - technicalities

Damansara said...

Kita hanya membuang masa jika kita berharap orang-orang ini akan menceritakan perkara sebenar mengenai bayaran kepada para hakim tersebut.

Kita juga hanya membuang masa jika kita berharap orang-orang ini akan menceritakan perkara sebenar mengenai apa yang berlaku sebenarnya pada tahun 1988.

Orang-orang ini jugalah yang kini begitu lantang melaungkan azam pembaharuan termasuk didalam bidang kehakiman walaupun mereka enggan secara ‘adil dan saksama’ menyelongkar perkara yang sebenar.

Mereka adalah pendakwa dan, mereka juga hakimnya.

Musuh mereka sudah bersalah.

Jangan sanggah mereka. Anda akan dihina dan ditertawakan.

Undang-undang adalah hak untuk orang-orang yang berkuasa.

Ketika ini hak dan kuasa ditangan mereka. Adil dan amat saksama itu adalah mereka.

Teruskanlah.

Anonymous said...

Rocky,

For all its cries for "legal and constructive" arguments to be put forth on the Tun Salleh's consultant issue, members of the Bar appear to have great difficulty to understand this simple call.

Instead, they are quite happy to trash the former Lord President on his grammar, his past judgements etc.

Incidentally, where is Bar Council member, EDMOND BOND? Why is he so quiet suddenly. Wasn't he the one who appealed for "legal and constructive" suggestions to be made and lamented that members of the general public were quite vicious in their comments bordering on racism and bigotry when engaging on this topic.

I suppose Bar members have a special waiver to be vicious, bigots etc as the are "legally trained" and so eloquent unlike ordinary people.

And mind you, all this personal attacks are happening without any reprimand from senior lawyers, including Ambiga who not long ago was quite happy to sing praises for Tun Salleh on his "flawless years of service on the bench".

This episode however could be one of the reasons why members of the public doubt the Bar's sincerity when it talks of justice, the rule of law, freedom of religion etc.

The fact is, the Bar is SELECTIVE at what it champions and who it endorses.

And Dr. Badariah, if you are reading this, I think it's time you endear yourself with the Bar lest you wish to have a flawed career on the bench.


Against Hypocrisy

Anonymous said...

Actually, looking back, its one of your readers, who commented on the Lazar statement, and NST under Brenden and now Lionel Morais, are doing the same...COPYING without attributing.

4942 Jalan Bangau said...

Hi Rocky,

I congrats you for championing the effort to search justice for Tun Salleh Abas.

Anyway, I wonder why you choose not to comment further on Tan Lian Hoe's statement that Malays are immigrants too - same as the Chinese and Indian?

I hope you can put some writing on this issue so as to put some pressure on Gerakan to take action on Lian Hoe - as what did previously to Ahmad Ismail.

This issue must not be let die, as as Ahmad Ismail, Lian Hoe's action must be punished too so that no others people dare to play this sensitive sentiment again!

Looking forward for response.

Keep blogging.

Anonymous said...

Bro Bru
Secondly it was not Tun Salleh's personality that drove the Bar in 1988. If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 and neither did many of his actions and judgements.
"Lizard" Lazar

Its not only the "endear" part that is revealing and troubling, more so, like Lazarus rising from the dead, is the portion "pre-1988.....judgements".

So pre-1988 = pro government no good and no uselah for the Bar especially when Lazar self revealingly parrots:

.....neither did many of his actions and judgements.(emphasis on the last word)

which means, you people tried to meddle with admin of justice and did not get your way with him unlike with certain others, u know who..oh please dont go.. (KC and the Sunshine Band). i am not saying anything............:)

but post- 1988 = pro opposition..good, good wan. can make uselah to tibai the govt, after all the Bar is performing its version of CSR right, always on the lookout for anti-govt issues to fight for since its peopled by erudite and intellectual Con(stitutional)men and women ever ready to defend the human and civil rights of dead peons, second wives and other wastrels. Moreover, Tun was out of the way so less hassle of losing cases!!. In fact, the said personality also ran and won on the PAS ticket in Jertih..am i right Bru? so must make maximum use wanlah to hantam but when "common cause" returned and race-tinted glasses came on, a different tune was hummed and Tun S was humiliated beyond dignity. Then, the Trojans moved in to spite the other Tun and the rest is history...but what else do you expect from equivocators, arseholes who cant hold their drink much less an argument!

The Bar sucks..it is about time the govt disband this group of parasites and investigate each and every scum starting with Lazar for anti-govt and seditious activities and for suborning justice.Once found guilty, their ill gotten wealth should be confiscated and returned to the public till, Then, the scum should be thrown into a dungeon with the keys tossed into the moat for good measure.Then try them again under syariah law, to hell with double jeopardy, and give Zul.N the cane to flog them to eternity.

After all, the world over, this freemasonry is known to be the extended arm of Mr Johnson.

Warrior 231

Anonymous said...

whats the problem. can always bump into each other in a foreign land? you forgotten, rocky?
correct, correct, correct!

Fair Play

Anonymous said...

One comment from the Bar over the NST article:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

written by Tan Peek Guat, Tuesday
November 04 2008 12:41 am

The Bar being the bar that it is, the Bar had acted in favour of justice; and justice means 'being just' to all.

The Bar being strict as it is, the members had 'screamed' for justice to be brought to Salleh's case.

It is the present set of Bar Councillors, we must not forget, that had supported and helped in the restoration of Salleh's lost 'face'.

With Salleh being so unthankful to the Bar for all that the Bar had done for him positively, it sounds like "Makan Kacang Melupakan Kulit".

Salleh needs to be at least thankful to the present Bar for having done 'that which other previous Bar councillors' had not successfully attempted.

Tan Peek Guat]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It does not appear that members of the Bar wish to provide us ordinary people with some layman explanation on the consultant issue other than Tun Salleh must not forget his kulit kacang.

Wow, coming from lawyer, that must legal and constructive.

Just curious, did Tun Salleh ever DEMANDED to be made a consultant?

Yes it was reported that he was angry with the apparent double standards but was he not concern more with why for over 2 years no official explanation was ever given to him on the KC Vohrah precedent UNTIL all this appeared on Rocky's Bru?

You just have to love lawyers though I doubt Shakespeare would share my sentiments. Probably he too forgot his kulit kacang when he wrote:

'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'.



Mr. Ordinary Seeking Answers

bacardi said...

rocky,
after reading your posting on Tun Salleh's predicament, and the comments by yr blog readers as well as the Bar Council's response and responses from LAWYERS, I am totally stumped.

If these are our legal minds, the legally-trained, learned counsel blah blah blah...then i have one word...BULLSHIT. perhaps they can understand this word.

cut out the crap, please. don't be defensive.

he bar council has been unfair to Tun Salleh. Never mind that he was our Lord President, or that he was nicked off from his post and was in the wilderness from 20 years. NEVER MIND ALL THAT.

there is no iota of decency from the bar council. and from the lot of you lawyers.

ok. if you don't have that...what about fairness?

boy.. you guys are a real crappy lot. you're bloody good at attacking others.

now...on Mr Lazar's remarks. Whoa...Mr Lazar, you just showed yourself up.

I ask you, why should judges endear themselves to the bar??

Are you mad?

I have the greatest regard and respect for Tun Salleh for not endearing himself to the bar/and lawyers.

Bully for you, Tun.

Judges should be detached and certainly NOT endear themselves to the bar. They have to safeguard, maintain and preserve their credibility, integrity and dignity.

ilovebudu said...

hope our country will be good not digg ownself

profit said...

Dear Rocky,
I for one never,never,never endear myself to these bunch of LIARS.
Is that bloke Lazar who was mentioned in the inquiry by our Mr.correct,correct,correct about lobbying him for being a judge.What a despicable man he is.
Shoo,shoo,shoo Lazar and also our stupid Datuk Ambigious.

eddy said...

Bar Council's Council sucks for acting like the Council is their own private property.

Anonymous said...

Saya hairan dengan pendirian Majlis Peguam, yang setelah mengakui kesilapan dalam memberikan status ‘consultant’ kepada Dato’ KC Vohrah, telah memilih untuk ‘cuci tangan’ dan tidak berbuat apa-apa atas alasan kononnya keputusan ahli Majlis yang terdahulu adalah ‘res judicata” dan tak boleh disentuh lagi.

Majlis Peguam nampak hilang punca dalam mempertahankan keputusannya. Isu ini sangat mudah. Apa yang Tun Salleh minta hanyalah satu status ‘consultant’ pada masa beliau masih belum layak, sama seperti yang dipohon dan telah diberikan kepada Dato’ KC Vohrah tanpa banyak soal. Dan jika ‘waiver’ di bawah Rule 62, tidak boleh diberikan kepada beliau, kenapa pula ia boleh diberikan kepada Dato’ KC Vohrah?

Jadi, dengan mengaku kesilapan, dan memilih untuk ‘cuci tangan’ dan tidak berbuat apa-apa, Majlis Peguam telah dilihat sebagai ‘memilih bulu’ dan ada yang mencadangkan kemungkinan keputusan itu didorong prasangka perkauman.

Inilah isu yang saya rasa En Allaudin cuba bangkitkan. Pada pendapat saya, untuk menyelesaikan isu ini Majlis Peguam perlu membuat pendirian yang jelas, dan membersihkan diri dari segala tanggapan ‘pilih kasih’ dan perkauman dengan membuat keputusan samada untuk menarik balik status ‘consultant’ Dato’ KC Vohrah atau menarik balik keputusan untuk tidak meluluskan permuhonan Tun Salleh.

Kegagalan Majlis Peguam untuk mengambil tindakan hanya mengundang pandangan serong masyarakat dan mungkin merosakkan kedudukan moralnya. Sedang Majlis Peguam begitu lantang mempersoalkan kesilapan orang lain, ia mesti juga lantang dan cepat memperbetulkan kesilapan sendiri

Raja Petra Kamarudin said...

you are writing crap now rocky,total crap!~

blogreader said...

Childish post!

Not only a hypo, but also a crybaby, complaining and commenting on something you dont fully, truly and wholly understand about.

donplaypuks® said...

Dear Rocky

We are aware you are c-authoring SA's biography and that Controversies=Cheap Publicity=$$$ moolah in Sales !!

Why pick on Robert Lazar, who, as Sr partner in Shearn, probably earns not less than $1 million a year, and therefore makes Lingam's scurrilous assertion in the RCI that Lazar courted him for a post in the Federal Court, seem imbecelic?

Robert Lazar is a long-standing member of the Bar par excellence and one of the nicest person one is ever likely to have the pleasure of knowing!

The fact remains that SA has always been a controversial character. It takes a certain snot-nosed 'prickly' character to complain to a King about the noise from renovations at the Palace affecting his work-proceedings.

And do remember that he did pass the buck in adjourning controversial cases sine die and did moot the idea of syariah replacing civil legal system.

But for all that, SA did not deserve what Firaun did to him and while AAB maintained the facade of 'no apology', the monetary compensation awarded (in which the Bar Council had a big hand) was in line with the rules of equity and natural justice.

How should a judge endear himself to members of the Bar (and therefore the legal fraternity in its entirety)? Why, simple!! Integrity, Integrity, Integrity.

Certainly SA would know what that means.
http://donplaypuks.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Dude,

Haris Ibrahim's response to your article has appeared in the Bar Council's website. See the article below.

Looks like you might have to find another lawyer to act for you.

Don't worry mate. He ain't indispensable.

Stick to your belief and don't let anyone bully you into submission.

Budak Kg Pinang


"Let me tell you, Rocky

Contributed by Haris bin Mohd Ibrahim
Tuesday, 04 November 2008 02:58pm

Haris Ibrahimfrom The People's Parliament by Haris Ibrahim

In his post today entitled ‘How should a judge endear him/herself to the Bar?’, Rocky associated with Azmi Anshar’s response to Robert Lazar’s “If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 ….” and reproduced in his post, the following excerpt from Azmi’s piece :

“But to “endear as a friend to the Bar”? How should Salleh endear himself to the Bar as a friend? Play golf with lawyers? Lunch or dinner together? Go for holidays together? Rule everything in favour of the lawyers of the Bar?”

Since you asked, let me tell you, Rocky.

The greater number of the 12,600++ lawyers at the Bar, most of whom are not tainted by any connections with UMNO or any BN politicians, wouldn’t know one end of a golf stick from the other.

Not that they wouldn’t like to take up the game. It’s just that they can’t afford it.

What most of them would not do, though, even if they could afford it, is to wine and dine with judges.

Holidays together?

Don’t insult all the lawyers and judges, Rocky! Not every judge is a Chin and every lawyer a Lingam whose slimy tentacles reach into every corrupted crevice in UMNO.

You know the sort I mean, Rocky.

Why, some lawyers can’t even afford a holiday with the family!

You think I fib?

Go on, ask the missus next time you see her.

Of course, some of these lawyers are the authors of their own circumstance, foolishly hanging on to ideals of a free and unshackled press, free speech and free expression and, for less than a peppercorn, defending the same in court. More on these lawyers in a forthcoming post.

Let me tell you how these lawyers would want a judge to endear himself / herself to the Bar.

Treat lawyers with the same courtesy that the judges themselves expect be shown to them, hear impartially and devoid of any bias, and decide according to the law, without fear or favour.

No more, no less.

Don’t get me wrong, Rocky.

I am not for one moment suggesting that everything is hunky dory with the Bar and the Bench.

Just as there are slimeballs amongst the journos, editors and bloggers in the media business and blogosphere, respectively, who would pawn their souls in exchange for position, power and the posh lifestyle, so too, sadly, in the Bar and on the Bench.

And we know who they are, don’t we, Rocky?"

Pengemis Pakai Hugo Boss said...

Rocky,

You have been slammed by Haris Ibrahim!

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/let-me-tell-you-rocky/

Enjoy reading his piece!

wakmempelam said...

Tuan Rocky,

Saya nak menyatakan bahawa terdapat hanya satu peguam yang jujur di Malaysia dan beliau merupakan 'Towering Malay' atau Melayu Glokal yang dilaung-laungkan oleh Dato Seri Najib. Beliau merupakan Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, kalau hang tak percaya tanya sahajalah kepada our beloved Tun!

Anonymous said...

bro,

TS said closed case because Bar Council aka lazar/ambiga were favour those endear. make the world known their color.

now next posting bro discuss about Tan Lian Hoe's statement that Malays are immigrants too - same as the Chinese and Indian?

actually chinese all 100 times racist then others.



antiracist

Anonymous said...

exhibit 321:

Haris Ibrahimfrom The People's Parliament by Haris Ibrahim

In his post today entitled ‘How should a judge endear him/herself to the Bar?’, Rocky associated with Azmi Anshar’s response to Robert Lazar’s “If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 ….” and reproduced in his post, the following excerpt from Azmi’s piece :

“But to “endear as a friend to the Bar”? How should Salleh endear himself to the Bar as a friend? Play golf with lawyers? Lunch or dinner together? Go for holidays together? Rule everything in favour of the lawyers of the Bar?”.....


Rocky, let me have a go at this slimeball who thinks he is God's gift to Lady Justice:

A Commision of Enquiry was set up by His Majesty, the King of Canland to investigate allegations of misconduct and attempts to pervert and suborn the course of justice by a certain organisation. Chief Justice Adil Sak Sama was appointed the Commission head. Here are excerpts from the first day's proceedings.

The Cross examination of Wakil, a lawyer implicated in the allegations begins.(Remember, this being a cybercourt, legal niceties and courtroom decorum are dispensed with)


Counsel : Mr Wakil, would you deny that the term "endear" according to numerous online and offline dictionaries means= to make somebody or something affectionately loved or greatly liked (Encarta World Dictionary)

Wakil(squirming in his seat): er..yes.. i guess.. that s a correct definition..but

Counsel(bellowing): yes or no... and no ifs and buts my dear man

Wakil (trembling) : yes, i agree, counsel

Counsel: Now to my point, if such a term was used in a phrase like this:
"the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988..." it would clearly impute that the said individual(henceforth to be refered in the male gender, my honour) did not go out of his way to, i paraphrase, to make himself,affectionately loved or greatly liked. Would you agree to this assertion?

Wakil:(wiping away a bead of perspiration) = Yes, my honour.

Counsel: And would you agree that the term endear used in the to infinitive together with the noun"friend" within the same phrase clearly signifies the double force of the intended meaning, that is he did not make himself loved as a friend to the said organisation prior to the specific period of time as contained in the charge sheet (exhibit 1)

Wakil:(burping) : yes but that was not the implied meaning of the phrase...

Counsel : stop equivocating Mr Wakil, a straight yes or no will do.

Judge (peering over his owlish glasses at witness, growls): witness, i am warning you, you are under oath. Just give a yes or no answer.. no speculation of motive is neccessary here

wakil: I apologise your honour. er...eemm.... yes, that is right, counsel.

Counsel (fiddling with a pencil) : Now, i put it to you that the said statement indeed refers to a state of affairs prior to 1988 and that the strictly professional relationship, the said individual maintained, extended to all his dealings with the said organisation be it in a court of law or beyond

Wakil: (crossing and recrossing his legs, his bony fingers feverishly tapping the witness stand ) : Yes, i agree, counsel.

Counsel: Now extending the argument further, i put it to you that, the said organisation in exasperation had tried or attempted or attempted to try or tried to attempt or attemptedly tried or tried attemptedly to coerce or badger or persuade or influence or cajole or implore or use whatever means whether verbal or non-verbal to do their bidding in course of administrating and .........

Counsel for Organisation (jumping up and down like a monkey) : Objection, counsel is speculating, putting words into the mouth of witness. this is all conjectural....this is beyond the purview of Section 231 of the Courts and Judicature Act..i object

Judge:Hold your tongue, scum (to the other counsel):what are you driving at, counsel? is it within the ambit of this commission not some arsehole Act that idiot is shouting about?

Counsel : Yes, sir..i was trying to establish the facts within the brief of our enquiry.Article 2 of the powers vested in this commision ,calls for and i quote
"to establish whether the said organisation used any means whatsoever to suborn the course of justice in His Majesty's realm."

Judge: objection overruled, counsel, you may proceed but tread carefully within the ambits of the brief ........

Counsel for Organisation (goes berserk): Fuck, the world, what is this.. a kangaroo court.. eh.. counsel.. stoplah.. u pun nak cari makan..

Counsel( conducting enquiry): no way, man, the truth must be outed... Judge (over the bedlam) : Enuff, Mother fuckers, approach the bench
..(whispering to them): Not another word from you, slimeball (lawyer for the Organisation).And you may proceed counsel but tread carefully...
as he whispers, a loud fart breaks the pindrop silence and a chair keels over as the strapping figure of the witness, collapses in heap. Pandemonium breaks out as some one screams = "get some toilet paper, quick, the witness has soiled his pants

as a whiff of the pong, reaches his smarting nostrils, the judge screams: Hearing adjourned to tomorrow!

Warrior 231

Anonymous said...

Biaq pi dengan hakim-hakim tu,,banyak lagi yang lebih penting untuk di bincangkan,,

Lihat di Parlimen ari ini,,Si Najis dengan sikap bongkak,dan kuasa yang ada pada nya menipu rakyat dengan bagi gula-gula "a revision Budget' tapi tidak mengaku,,!!!

Sial punya NAJIS BABI menipu aja kerjanya,D'ont let us FUCK your grand mother in front of you,,BASTARD..!!!

Belum menjadi PM,,dah berlagak,,,dasar kuku Besi,,!!!

A real MOTHER FUCKER,,!!!!



-SIALAN-

DARI HULU said...

I thank you in my posting and i take this opportunity to thank Azmi too.

Thanks. We are all with you all the way.

tengku muna said...

haha, raja petra kamaruddin (or whoever you are)

YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT CRAP IS, wouldn't you? thta's your speciality.

and why is this crap?

Just curious said...

Can anyone confirm whether Harris Ibrahim is not a paid (directly or indirectly, financial or otherwise) bloggers?

What about RPK, not paid (directly and indirectly) as well?


Who finance the lawyers fees to prepare he numerous statutory declarations? Free service ah:)


Did Robert Lazar lobby to be judge before?

Anonymous said...

You wouldnt want my comment, rocky...

just a quick question, are you a paid blogger run by govt?

Anonymous said...

The greater number of the 12,600++ lawyers at the Bar, most of whom are not tainted by any connections with UMNO or any BN politicians, wouldn’t know one end of a golf stick from the other.

Not that they wouldn’t like to take up the game. It’s just that they can’t afford it.

Comment 1: yeah, the guys are all hockey players while the gals play lacroose. Come onlah, Mr Haris you think we are stupid enough to believe that white lie. Anyway, thanks for reaffirming the obvious: we dont hobnob with the Bn but cavort with the other end. so now business must be goodlah what with 5 states in hand and golf projects and pig farms coming online.


What most of them would not do, though, even if they could afford it, is to wine and dine with judges.Holidays together?Don’t insult all the lawyers and judges, Rocky! Not every judge is a Chin and every lawyer a Lingam whose slimy tentacles reach into every corrupted crevice in UMNO.You know the sort I mean, Rocky.Why, some lawyers can’t even afford a holiday with the family!You think I fib?Go on, ask the missus next time you see her.

comment 2:yeah, you just happen to bum into them at social galas.other times, you sit together in private rooms in expensive clubs and drink Old man tea to while the days away. Dont give me this craplah, wakil..u and i know what is going on. and while Lingam has tentacles everywhere within UMNO, those wakil wallahs in PKR, DAP are all angels who never appear in court on behalf of Mr johnson's boy. no wonder, they have to ride the donkey to death cos Johnson pays handsomely, i gather. Accusing UMNO of suborning justice ah wakil, a case of sedition here.. get Zaid to look at it, will ya Rocky.

Lingam got caught out for bragging to a punk (saw his pix today with cig in hand in the lobby..looking like a little punk lost...how he got there..go figure). i bet you law gangsters were smart enough to keep things under wraps until Lazarus rose from the grave.......

back to holidays..ptui..liar, liar, liar. was at the airport to send away a relative to Mekah for the haj..and guess who, i bumped into with families in tow..., a couple of boys who are practicing equivocators, destination :a winter holiday in LA....the less said the better. You wouldnt brag about summer hols in London and winter sojourns to the Gold Coast and Queenstown, in any case, on your website dedicated to the marhaen's cause so why should i bother to ask your wife..she would give the same answer, right. What a stupid way to adduce evidence.


Of course, some of these lawyers are the authors of their own circumstance, foolishly hanging on to ideals of a free and unshackled press, free speech and free expression and, for less than a peppercorn, defending the same in court. More on these lawyers in a forthcoming post.

Let me tell you how these lawyers would want a judge to endear himself / herself to the Bar.

Treat lawyers with the same courtesy that the judges themselves expect be shown to them, hear impartially and devoid of any bias, and decide according to the law, without fear or favour.


Comment: Aiyoyo, paavam (pity)..holding onto ideals of free speech.... (let me puke first, ah there..now where was I..)my foot, throwing a cowboy out when he asks troubling questions is the epitome of free speech, right mr bartender.. i think you heard bout this one already, Rocky..no need to explicate further, this was the culprit who threw me out in the name of free speech. Less than a peppercorn...ur jokes are as inane as your assertions, wakil. Try better the next time.

Yeah be treated courteously as much as you treat your clients contemptously..bungling their cases, seeking endless and unwarranted postponements, MIA when case is called..in short, use the whole shit at your disposal and then accuse the judges of delaying justice...Humbug.

Hear2...everyone far and near... to deliver unbiased judgements acccording to the law without fear or favour. What a joker..is this guy for real or is he on some substance.. the same guy who lambasts the outcomes of cases like Altantuya and many other ayahs and who always has a pet theory in hand to massage the jungle court to the direction he wants.......

Just as there are slimeballs amongst the journos, editors and bloggers in the media business and blogosphere, respectively, who would pawn their souls in exchange for position, power and the posh lifestyle, so too, sadly, in the Bar and on the Bench.

And we know who they are, don’t we, Rocky?"

Comment 3: Fuh lamak such high falutin expressions :pawn their soul" no less..tsk, tsk, tsk.. can u give me names Mr Haris..i am speechless by the gumption, men have, to stoop to such levels. Finally, what's the last question for? Subtle innuendo at this blog owner..ah?, well a look in the mirror will give you the answer. so scram back to your shithole and emerge to talk stuff like this after you dettol yourself....

i think i will go for a walk in the dusun and whistle in the dark for awhile.

Revert

Correction for warrior 231: "not the to infinitive verb form" but rather as the main verb of main clause...
otherwise your spot on, my friend

anti-hypocrite said...

A friend was relating frustration and disillusioned to me the other day when he try to make comment on Haris Ibrahim on the thread " Bala lied?" Did Burmaa Oyunchimeg lie too?"

This friend are die hard DAP supporter. BUt recent events where Anwar hide in Turkey embassy upon the sodomy allegation and the numerous statutory declaration made by Pakatan Rakyat and no-action by Anwar on the Kulim Wonder MP, has him doubting the truth and credibility of Anwar, RPK and gangs.

He knows Anwar and RPK are influential but that does not prohibit my friend's conscience to question of doubt the truth and credibility


So he try to post comment asking whether Haris has ever thought whether Anwar and RPK are credible persons to believe in the reform agenda.

You know what Harris told him. He start to accuse him as 'cybertrooper', 'go get stipend by your political master' and blah blah blah. Can you imagine how angry is this friend!!!! He is long time DAP supporter and yet Harris taruk him kau kau!!!! Just because this friend attempt to question the credibility of Anwar and RPK.

I mean if we can question BN all this while, cant we for a moment as a matter of good conscience question Anwar and RPK and gang. Is this not healthy? Are they saints? I thot that is what opposition role, so that we have check and balance.

Even since that moment, this friend say "f*rk this kind of bloggers who purportedly champion for press freedom , anti ISA, anti UMNO, anti whatever lah!!! You must really find out their true color, otherwise never blindly trust them!!!! These are 1st class hypocrite!

Anonymous said...

What began from nothing more than a mere application to be consultant has unfortunately permeated into an intense and irrelevant exchange on race, religion, substandard grammar, bad past judgements and what qualifies as terms of endearment.

I cannot emphasise enough on the word unfortunate as we have entered into a new dimension away from addressing the key issues surrounding this controversy.

And if I may be permitted, I believe they are:

1. Is the statement made by a current Bar Council member that the previous Bar Council was wrong in granting Datuk KC Vohrah correct from a legal standpoint?

2. Related thereto, why has no past council members come forth to provide an explanation on the KC Vohrah precedent?


It would be wonderful if we could all revert to that original discourse for the benefit of everyone, lawyers and laymen alike.

AND to Malays reading this, do bear in mind that the previous Bar Council had given a consultant status to a Malay, ie the late Dato’ Haji Abu Mansor Bin Ali. So please, do not make this a race issue. It never was.


Seeking honest and relevant responses

jeremiah cole said...

bro,

haris ibrahim has totally missed the point.

the issue here is not about crooked lawyers.

the issue here is mr lazar's criticism of Tun Salleh for his attitude -- that he never endeared himself to the bar.

mr lazar should expect criticisms (for that remark), surely.

haris, we know not all lawyers are scumbags. not all lawyers are lingams who holiday with the chins.

but what did mr lazar mean by his remark.

And is that why the bar has been cold towards tun salleh?

shame on you, haris. shame shame shame....

rocky -- i think haris is sending you a message.
he wants u to drop him as your counsellor-lah.

my advice: DROP HIM, bro! he's damaged goods.

Anonymous said...

Dear bru,

I'm not that keen to comment on what you have written as it seemed to have received exhaustive responses from both sides of the coin.
However, I do wish to comment on what Haris Ibrahim have written about the issue which was reproduced here by some of your commentators.
Firstly, I have always found Haris to be very self-righteous to the extend of being nauseating.
If you do no believe me, read his postings - they are all about how wrong everyone else are and how he is unlike them.
Even in his latest posting, he was truly trying to portray himself as the idealistic lawyer and due to that is incapable to even afford a decent holiday (this however seemed to be disputed by someone who pointed out that LA is the destination for a winter holiday or something to that effect).
But to me, ideals do not confine itself to merely fighting for universal principles of justice.
Upholding professional ethics and being honest about oneself are equally important especially when one chooses to ride the moral highhorse and pass moral judgements on all and sundry.
My point is very simple - Haris is Rocky's lawyer (regardless whether he is paid or it is a pro bono case).
If there is anything that Rocky did which he disagreed especially pertaining to freedom of speech and expression (Haris is defending Rocky on a libel case) he (Haris) should not publicly dispute or criticise Rocky.
If he did, obviously Haris felt that Rocky's version of freedom of expression and speech is flawed.
If Haris finds Rocky's version of these freedoms flawed, then he has already cast doubt as to Rocky's standing pertaining to his understanding of freedom of speech and expression.
If Haris doubts Rocky's commitment to these freedoms and implied that Rocky may be flawed in practising them (or Rocky is one of the slimeballs that Haris mentioned in his postings and he seemed to imply that Rocky is one going by the last line of his posting) then obviously Haris should no be defending Rocky in the defamation case he is facing.
Of course it can be argued that the worst criminal have a right to a defence counsel, but the defence counsel should not be one who had publicly denounced or cast aspersion to his client.
This is exactly the situation - Haris has publicly cast aspersion to Rocky's character and standing in a public domain and yet he continues to be Rocky's counsel.
If Haris is so self-righteous and ethical, he would have disqualified himself from representing Rocky before he ventured into public domain to cast aspersion on Rocky.
Probably this is what Haris is trying to lead to - to get Rocky to sack him instead of disqualifying himself.
After all, it is a pro bono case and Haris will not lose anything but instead a lot to gain as he can now focus on cases which he collect fees and probably help in paying his future holidays.
If Rocky sacks him, then Rocky would look the ungrateful one and Haris the martyr.
Many will then forget or ignore the fact that Haris was the one who had been unethical and should have had the moral conviction to disqualify himself in the first place whether Rocky agrees with it or not.
After all, when Haris offered himself to take up Rocky's case pro bono, it was with the awareness that the case was something which would make him popular (lest people forgot, nobody was even aware that such a self-righteous pri@$* existed nor did anyone care. He rode on Rocky's populaity, started blogging, obviously with Rocky's encouragement and started getting attention in the public domain).
Now that he has managed to gain public attention and a following of among an undiscerning flock who failed to see Haris for what he actually is, it was time to abandon Rocky. What better way than taking potshots leading to an untenable situation which would force Rocky to sack him.
Haris's way of doing things reminds one of the Karpal/Anwar legal liaisons which raised some questions to Karpal's understanding of professional and personal ethics as a lawyer.
It had been written in numerous blogs about how Karpal had, prior to the sacking of Anwar in September 1998, accused the latter of sexual indiscretions and claimed that he had proof in his hand of Anwar's sexual misdeeds.
It was said tha Kapal made these revelations during a DAP convention in early 998 and challenged the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir to act against his deputy.
Finally when Anwar was sacked and subsequently charged in court for sodomy, Karpal came to the fore, taking up the defence role and presented himself as the champion of Anwar's cause.
Again, it can be argued that Anwar have every right to be defended and Karpal was merely extending such services, the fact remains that Karpal was among those who had publicly accused Anwar of the very act he is now defending.
By right, Karpal should disqualify himself as there ae those who believed what he had said about Anwar.
But obviously for Karpal, why should he think about ethics and values and miss out on a case that would propel him to the popular public front.
The situation between Haris and Karpal are probably on the reverse - Haris took up Rocky's case and became popular and then when he had no more use of Rocky, went public and cast aspersion on Rocky and hoping that Rocky would eventually sack him.
In Karpal's case, he publicly cast aspersion on Anwar, pushed for his prosecution and when Anwar did get prosecuted, Karpal came forward as the hero, rode on Anwar's popularity to the hilt (and still doing so) and latched on to him for as long as he could. And Karpal can be expected to abandon Anwar when he (Anwar) is of no consequence.
Such is the likes of Haris and Karpal, both very self-righteous and would go to whatever end to gain that popularity.
Karpal discovered and perfected the art a long time ago and Haris is fast learning.
Haris may be a hero to some but for those who care to discern - he is nothing but a mediocre lawyer who needed to play to the gallery and pretend to be the beacon for values and ethics. It is done to gain an extra inch or two so that he get noticed.

He who will never engage Haris even if being paid to do so.

Anonymous said...

rocky,

wondering whats going on with you. voters are crossing racial lines with their votes in united states. here, this country is regressing where it is even difficult for a non-malay to head a state agency. and those who espoused far right racial stances are taking pole position in the ruling party.
while the country regresses and racial fault line widens, you seem to care more that Obama is half black or mixed, whatever category you want to label him.



Bangsa Malaysia

Anonymous said...

Anon 10.57am
1. Is the statement made by a current Bar Council member that the previous Bar Council was wrong in granting Datuk KC Vohrah correct from a legal standpoint?

2. Related thereto, why has no past council members come forth to provide an explanation on the KC Vohrah precedent?

These are superflous to the argument. Like it or not, Lazarus has lifted the lid of the mildewed coffin and the bones within are rattling in fright under the moonlight.

Haris' puerile attempt to shield his fellow cajuns has backfired as more skeletons emerge from the closet and are dressing and titivating themselves up for a stroll in the sunshine. The questions now revolve around these 2 statements both, I stress, were made by members of the legal fraternity:

1.If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 and neither did many of his actions and judgements.

Simple comment: Not merely personal endearment but professional too as the second portion of the statement clearly implies. Question : Has the Bar always been receipients of such favours from others? Is the Bench obligated to grant the Bar such favours in keeping with an unwritten rule? Was Salleh,in not obliging to indulge in the same, going against accepted convention. Did he break a precedent well established in the legal fraternity, hence his social ostracisation by the Bar? To what extent was justice suborned pre-1988 by members of the bar in cahoots with slimeball judges? What about the collateral impact of such collusion and what about restitution for the aggrieved parties? Since, there is a possibility that many judgements could have been fixed (operative words:could have) can their arguments be used as case precedents?who were the prime movers behind the whole scam? and many more mind boggling and troubling questions that need quick answers...

add to that the words that haris spewed: The greater number of the 12,600++ lawyers at the Bar, most of whom are not tainted by any connections with UMNO or any BN politicians,

and another pandora flies her box, generating these queries:
To what extent did the Bar connive with anti-govt elements to besmirch the admin of justice in Malaysia?

were the Bar's recent shenanigans a carefully orchestrated manouvre to destabilise the country? If so, who are the dalang and who is the sponsor?mr johnson, lok chee bai, muniandy chettiar?


Now, u see anon, i just gave u a sample..you better scram, boy and dont confute the issue further by dangling that red herring again..throw it back into deep blue where it belongs...

Its time to institute a commission to study the import of both statement. the commission sholud sub-peona these two wakils for starters and other prominent members of the fraternity. then indict, the two fools and whoever else is involved if there is sufficient basis. Pre 1988 judgements need to be scrutinised again and the relevant judges and lawyers need to subpeonaed to testify. if case fixing is proven, then the full weight of the law should be made to bear on these corrupts and their ill-gotten wealth be confiscated. such wealth be the basis of any restitution fund to indemnify victims.The Bar be formally dissolved and a new one reconstituted under the purview of the law ministry.
it is the least we can do to those who suffered under the miscarriage and suborning of justice. We, the citizens DEMAND it to be so.

Warrior 231

Damansara said...

Dear Rocky,

Why do I smell lots of hatreds within the legal community?

Despite their apparent motive to seemingly right the wrongs, they have instead opening doors full of skeletons in their own backyard.

It seems that the Judges, the Bar and the Lawyers are political enemies themselves.

The more they speak up, the worst of colors are shown. It seems that belittling and insulting people is part of their basic communication skill.

No pun intended but now I understand the joke; ‘Winning cases are not about how you thoroughly understand the law, it is about how your lawyer devilishly confused the court’

The more I hear them, the more I believe let’s slows down with the judicial reform. All is definitely not as what they have painted.

Abgbent said...

Saya tertarik membaca persoalan saudara 4942 jalan bangau berkaitan orang melayu yang dikatakan sebagai pendatang di tanah melayu. Sila layari http://bajau.wordpress.com untuk memahami berkaitan masyarakat bajau yang juga dikatakan sebahagiannya sebagai pendatang di Sabah.

bent

Anonymous said...

What was Bangsa Malaysia (1.13pm) blabbering about?

"voters are crossing racial lines with their votes in united states"?

Yeah right.

They are still voting along racial lines lah. Just look at the link below:



The whole Southern Belt and the Mid West were voting for McCain!

Crossing the racial lines konon! Don't la jump into conclusion Bangsa Malaysia! Read between the lines please!

US RACIST

berak obama said...

Hi Rocky,

The following are my comments at your lawyer Haris Ibrahim's blog. I hope you don't me reproducing it here (I should have added a cc in my comment on Haris blog). I share the feeling of someone here who said your lawyer should disqualify himself before deciding to cast aspersion against you on public domain. Thank you.

berakobama Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 6, 2008 at 1:45 am

Hi Haris,

I was shocked to learn that Rocky is your client and that your are his lawyer. And then I found out that you had been kind enough to take up his case pro bono when he was sued by the newspaper company.

I wonder if you would cast aspersions on Rocky as you did freely in this posting if Rocky was a paying client? If he was paying you, say, a million bucks to represent him?

I thought so too. No shame in that, Haris. You can still do the right thing and discharge yourself.

That way, you even the playing field between the two of you.

desiderata said...

Sdr rocky:

I am reproducing here a COMMENT I left at Haris Ibrahim's blogpost which is related to your post; hence it's FOR THE RECORD chiefly.
As a fellow Blogger from an MSM background-- I have "reluctantly" but I believe I must --written what follows:

_____________________

ylchong Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 6, 2008 at 1:59 am
haris:

I know you from Blogsworld, similarly I know Rocky Better from blogsworld because I was acquainted with him when we wer both at MSM.
If you are still acting as counsel to Rcky in his defamation suit filed by NSTP, don’t you think this very public display of “adversarial” post/s (I added the ass as there was a similar adversorial Post, I stand corrected…)

and WHY should eaders of blogposts ACT as assesors of two Bloggers as if this platform were some contest ala The Amrican Idol.

I respect your writings on topics divorced from issues involving a client in your capacity as a lawyer; I too respect a fellow blogger Rocky also waearing the hat as AllBlogs President.

I was harboring this reluctance to “comment”on reading your first “spat” with Rocky, but on reading this second one, I penned this comment quite spontaeiously for what it’s worth. Reagrds, YL, Desi

desiderata said...

to anon at 12.36PM:

Your writing strikes many common chords with me, and I am only reading this after I left a Comment at Haris Ibrahim's blogpost -- which I just reproduced FOR THE RECORD at rocky's post as the two posts are related.

Thanks -- I wish I knew the READ ID behind Anon? I would like to perhaps do own post quoting your esteemed Comment here. My guess is you hail from a media-related field. If my conjecture is wrong, never mind -- pls give me the AP to reproduce your esteemed thots. Thanks in advance, no royalty fee extended, bloggers and eeaders xxchange pro bono services often enuf, whatever the motivation! -- YL