I have decided to take a short break until next month. As such I shall not be writing anything for a while.
I wanted to see for myself what exactly goes on in our courts in Sabah. One word to describe the setting – IMPOSING! The 3 Appeal court judges were sitting on high ground with many lawyers sitting in front at a lower level followed by the general public behind a small barricade.
It was solemn until some of the lawyers began to present their cases. I felt that they were there because we don’t have circuses here in Malaysia. They would have performed better in a circus. On many occasions the presiding judge had to ask a question that needed a simple answer, three times before the lawyers responded correctly. There was one lawyer who talked against her client until the presiding judge asked her if she was representing the Appellant or the Respondent.
The judges entered the courthouse at 9.30am and at 10.45am I noticed that the newly appointed lawyer for the Appellant handing a document to the lawyer representing me. I subsequently found out it was a document entitled ‘Appellant’s written submission’.
The cover and the first page had Salcon Engineering Berhad as the Plaintiff and Luqman Michel and 2 others as the Defendants. It ought to have read 'Appellant' and 'Respondent'. Perhaps this was an oversight. But surely the lawyer ought to know he cannot and should not be submitting this document at an Appeal Hearing.
The Presiding judge was noticeably upset with this clowning act of the lawyer and asked him a number of times as to how he sneaked in this document to the 3 judges.
I understand that if it had been the retired Judge Ian Chin he would have asked as to where in the world that particular lawyer had studied law.
The written submission was rejected by the judges. I shall discuss some of the matters within the next 2 weeks.
For now let us look at a few paragraphs:
Paragraph 55: On or about 16.06.2014, on the weblog the 1st Respondent published or caused to be published an article entitled “Rights to my Blog/Book”. As follows:Rights to my blog/BookI would like to sell the rights to this Web-log on Sewerage Scam in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah to whoever is interested in publishing a non-fiction book. The court case that is coming up would also form part of this book. However, I have decided not to publish the impending court case in my blog and will provide all the details of the case to whoever buys the rights to the web-log/book.I am willing to sell the rights for US50,000.00. Meanwhile, I intend to write less in my Web-log and spend my time writing the book. The purchaser of my web-log may publish the book as written by me or re-write it as long as the facts are not altered.
I fail to understand how the Appellant failed to see my article entitled ‘SOLD- Rights to my book’ dated 26.6.2014 written just a few days subsequent to the above article but managed to see the last article dated 29.6.2014?
The rights to my books have been exchanged for translation of my two books (including this unfinished book).
Paragraph 56: The 1st Respondent is lobbying for purchasers of his Weblog and/or rights to his book for UDS 50,000.00 although the veracity and truth of the Defendant’s allegations is still pending determination by this honourable. (Judges?)
The same comment as in paragraph 55 will suffice. There is no more lobbying for purchasers. How many lies does the Plaintiff want to tell? There are already too many lies in the Affidavits filed by the Plaintiff.
Anyone who has read all the articles in my Web-log will have no doubt in their mind about the veracity of the articles.
Paragraph 57: As such the 1st Respondent is not publishing the offending articles on his Weblog for public interest but solely for personal and monetary gains.The Plaintiffs submit that from the above offending article, it has become crystal clear that the 1st Respondent’s true intention in publishing the offending articles is to make money out of this scheme and Web-log, and not for public interest. The Defendant is blatantly utilizing the Weblog as a money making scheme, and in the process causing serious injury and damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation which is irreparable and cannot be compensated with damages.
My Web-log was never intended for monetary gains and to further prove it I shall publish the book in full on the internet for the benefit of the general public - FREE OF CHARGE. Very soon I shall also write what has been happening in the legal process in my 2 cases which I did not intend to write.I have already spoken to Mr. Pang and he has reluctantly agreed to my proposal. The Plaintiff probably does not know what a blog with intention to make money looks like. A blog with intention to make money has a lot of advertisements from which the Blog owner makes money through advertisements and through clicks. All my weblogs including this one has no advertisement at all. I hope this will put to rest the Plaintiff’s mind being crystal and clear about my true intention. It is best that the Plaintiff sticks to what it is supposed to do instead of delving into mind reading.Perhaps then the Plaintiff may be able to show a profit in its accounts instead of huge losses as they made for year ended 2013.