OF BURDENS AND PROOFS
For the uninitiated, prima facie is the Latin term used by the legal fraternity for “a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved”, and that “the plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent”.
In other words, for an accusation to satisfy the prima facie condition, every aspect of that accusation must be amply presented.
Only when the presented evidence is determined to be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the defendant will there be a prima facie to begin investigations, which could eventually lead to a trial, and if successful, a conviction and eventual punishment, if any.
By this definition, it can be argued that the whole of Sarawak Report is an elaborate attempt at building up prima facie cases against:-
By and large, when looked at from this angle, Sarawak Report is failing spectacularly in achieving any of these goals - at least as far as law enforcement and due processes are concerned.
Since its inception, Sarawak Report has posted countless articles containing accusations against the present Governor of Sarawak, and its legitimately-elected Government, none of which to date had been successfully determined to be prima facie against their - then - sworn enemy.
Public pressure following exposés and instigations by Sarawak Report and its sister organisation, the Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF) have triggered promptings of investigations by various authorities around the world, none of those even bore any fruit of the sort that Sarawak Report and ilk would have liked to harvest.
Presently, we are again witnessing the same methodical attempt being tested in another, wider superset of population, which is the country of Malaysia itself.
The method is nearly identical and seems genuine enough at the beginning: allege, present documentation as evidence, repeat accusations. But then something near-magical starts to happen as this extra step is secretly added: repeat accusations as fact.
This - on the surface at least - seems to be the process that Sarawak Report employs in building up prima facie against its adversaries, but they seem totally impotent when it comes to actually providing authentic and verifiable evidence that is inherently incriminating without needing even the slightest addition or omission.
These two crucial criteria are reiterated - as a universal example of their widely accepted usage - by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive,
The important line, “the same exhibit that was referred to by the witness in his or her statement, or that the exhibit has not been tampered with,” sums up the two most important things that a legitimate court of law would look for in evaluating any evidence presented: that the evidence must be the same evidence given by the witness (authenticity), and also must be untampered and pristine (integrity).
From the recent High Court decision in Singapore regarding ‘SUIT NO 783 OF 2012’, it can be firmly said that Sarawak Report does not attach these evidence-gathering and presentation criteria with any level of importance.
Furthermore, as the recently infamous and obviously contrived ‘draft’ “Waran Tangkap (Arrest Warrant) for the Prime Minister of Malaysia” solidly demonstrates, this blatant and contemptuous course of action is standard operating procedure at Sarawak Report.
Not only is it illegitimate at face value - what with the absence of, amongst others, letterheads, official seals, and watermarking of the word “DRAFT” across the page - especially, considering the claim by Sarawak Report that the document is already “in their [sic.] final draft stages”.
The said "Waran Tangkap" is hence, unverifiable in terms of its authenticity.
It also falls short in the integrity test, in which the simple paraphrased explanation of, "Such a document cannot exist while investigations are still ongoing," by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) certainly carries more reasonable appeal and weight in a democratic society than a piece of document written on a word processing program on a generic computer that any child can conjure - all this, while the matter is still under investigation.
Certainly, this is either a case of Sarawak Report and its authors deliberately exploiting this vacuum in understanding of said criteria for evidence gathering and presenting, or it could be a case of Sarawak Report themselves not putting paid these ‘meddlesome’ - for their myopic purposes, at least - criteria.
Clare's own words strengthen the suspicion that she and Sarawak Report acted recklessly prior to gathering enough prima facie evidence before making any accusations,
Considering that Clare Rewcastle Brown knew herself that the as yet-unidentified "Swiss prosecutors" told her that she had no prima facie to even begin any investigation, how is it that Sarawak Report is now able to mete out the harshest and most damaging ‘Judgments’ in their stead?
Contrived and conjured up based on the mysterious conversion of accusations into facts, these magical ‘Judgments’ are the main staple used to feed the brains of Clare’s adoring and loyal audience around the world.
Sarawak Report, for all intents and purposes, is certifiably a full-fledged ‘fact-ory’, in which facts are literally manufactured.
Only in the universe of Sarawak Report’s “alternate vision of justice” and its similar mutations, do we see how such abominable actions are consistently and unethically done.
The worrying significance is, that the effect Sarawak Report has on its victims is far from illusory.
Thus, in reflecting over these past few days - and considering the public announcements by the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that Sarawak Report will be brought in once sufficient prima facie evidence have been gathered - by hindsight, the NINE QUESTIONS Blog is of the opinion that the approach by the Government of Malaysia is - at prima facie - the correct and diligent one, as opposed to Sarawak Report’s reckless ‘conjecturing of conjured conjectures’.
The NINE QUESTIONS Blog hopes that the Malaysian Government is able to utilise the evidence presented by the NINE QUESTIONS Panel - available through the NINE QUESTIONS FACEBOOK Page - also follow us on twitter@9Q4SR for updates.
This Blog and its Panelists sincerely hope that Sarawak Report, Clare Rewcastle Brown and others like them currently lurking around masking themselves as ‘whistleblowing crusaders’ will be put out of business for all eternity.
Such a business model that makes a sheer mockery of the course of Justice is ripe for condemnation - not only on the face of it, but also in depth.
Listen to Prima Facie - The Name of the Game on SoundCloud.
For the uninitiated, prima facie is the Latin term used by the legal fraternity for “a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved”, and that “the plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent”.
In other words, for an accusation to satisfy the prima facie condition, every aspect of that accusation must be amply presented.
Only when the presented evidence is determined to be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the defendant will there be a prima facie to begin investigations, which could eventually lead to a trial, and if successful, a conviction and eventual punishment, if any.
By this definition, it can be argued that the whole of Sarawak Report is an elaborate attempt at building up prima facie cases against:-
a. initially, the then Chief Minister of Sarawak, Tun Pehin Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud and his family, and currently;
b. the Government of Malaysia, with the ‘first defendant’ (interchangeably, 'first respondent') being the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, his family, and by extension;
c. the whole country.
By and large, when looked at from this angle, Sarawak Report is failing spectacularly in achieving any of these goals - at least as far as law enforcement and due processes are concerned.
– - –
RELATED (1)
– - –
[1: BREAKING / SWISS NATIONAL GIVEN 3-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR 1MDB-LINKED BLACKMAIL – "The country’s anti-corruption agency later said the $700 million was donations, effectively clearing Razak of wrongdoing." – FultonCounty.COM, August 17, 2015]RELATED (1)
– - –
[1A: CURRENT / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL NEWSASIA REGARDING THE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST – "The Prime Minister has now finally had it announced through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that that was not anything to do with 1MDB money, which actually certainly I and I don’t know of any investigative reporters who said it was." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Channel NewsAsia, August 5, 2015]
[1B: 'SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK’S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO 1MDB MONEY TRAIL - MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE' - Sarawak Report, July 2, 2015]
[1C: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP – "Yes, we misled [Justo]. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion). All the more so when we know he will be upset with us because we will eventually not pay him what he wants." - Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat - The Straits Times, July 24, 2015]
– - –
Since its inception, Sarawak Report has posted countless articles containing accusations against the present Governor of Sarawak, and its legitimately-elected Government, none of which to date had been successfully determined to be prima facie against their - then - sworn enemy.
Public pressure following exposés and instigations by Sarawak Report and its sister organisation, the Bruno Manser Fonds (BMF) have triggered promptings of investigations by various authorities around the world, none of those even bore any fruit of the sort that Sarawak Report and ilk would have liked to harvest.
Presently, we are again witnessing the same methodical attempt being tested in another, wider superset of population, which is the country of Malaysia itself.
– - –
RELATED (1-4)
– - –
[1: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP – "Yes, we misled [Justo]. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion). All the more so when we know he will be upset with us because we will eventually not pay him what he wants." - Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat - The Straits Times, July 24, 2015]RELATED (1-4)
– - –
[1A: CURRENT / #ICYMI: CLARE ADMITS TO CONSPIRACY RING, DEFRAUDING JUSTO – "But when it emerged they were not paying Justo, I had to deal with a lot of upset from him (Justo). I did not want to have anything to do with it but offered to try and mediate. It did not come to anything." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Malaysia Chronicle, July 25, 2015]
[1B : BREAKING / JUSTO TO APPEAL 3-YEAR SENTENCE – "I am not a whistle-blower. I want people to know the real story, not just anything and everything written about me." - Xavier Justo - The Straits Times, September 3, 2015]
~
[2: BREAKING / SWISS NATIONAL GIVEN 3-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR 1MDB-LINKED BLACKMAIL – "The country’s anti-corruption agency later said the $700 million was donations, effectively clearing Razak of wrongdoing." – FultonCounty.COM, August 17, 2015]
~
[3: FOCUS / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S IGNORANCE OF HER OWN COUNTRY'S LEGAL CODES - "2– Fraud by false representation; (2) A representation is false if— (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading." - UK FRAUD ACT 2006, August 16, 2015][3A: EPISODES / DRAMATIS PERSONÆ–WHO'S WHO OF CLARE BROWN – "Therefore, it was only after strikingly similar financial information [from Cullen Johnson] was submitted in a court hearing related to Abu Bekir’s divorce and then printed in all the Malaysian media, that we too subsequently quoted what the Malaysian media reported had been said in court." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Sarawak Report, January 10, 2015]
~
[4: CURRENT / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL NEWSASIA REGARDING THE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST – "The Prime Minister has now finally had it announced through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that that was not anything to do with 1MDB money, which actually certainly I and I don’t know of any investigative reporters who said it was." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Channel NewsAsia, August 5, 2015][4A: 'SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK’S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO 1MDB MONEY TRAIL - MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE' - Sarawak Report, July 2, 2015]
[4B: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP – "Yes, we misled [Justo]. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion). All the more so when we know he will be upset with us because we will eventually not pay him what he wants." - Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat - The Straits Times, July 24, 2015]
– - –
This - on the surface at least - seems to be the process that Sarawak Report employs in building up prima facie against its adversaries, but they seem totally impotent when it comes to actually providing authentic and verifiable evidence that is inherently incriminating without needing even the slightest addition or omission.
These two crucial criteria are reiterated - as a universal example of their widely accepted usage - by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive,
“You must ensure that all exhibits are kept safely and that there is a clear, identifiable audit trail from the moment that exhibits are seized to the moment they are presented in evidence. This is because the prosecution may have to prove that the exhibit before the court is the same exhibit that was referred to by the witness in his or her statement, or that the exhibit has not been tampered with illicitly while being retained for court proceedings.”
(Health and Safety Executive of the UK - Collecting physical evidence - Preparing evidence for court.)
The important line, “the same exhibit that was referred to by the witness in his or her statement, or that the exhibit has not been tampered with,” sums up the two most important things that a legitimate court of law would look for in evaluating any evidence presented: that the evidence must be the same evidence given by the witness (authenticity), and also must be untampered and pristine (integrity).
From the recent High Court decision in Singapore regarding ‘SUIT NO 783 OF 2012’, it can be firmly said that Sarawak Report does not attach these evidence-gathering and presentation criteria with any level of importance.
Furthermore, as the recently infamous and obviously contrived ‘draft’ “Waran Tangkap (Arrest Warrant) for the Prime Minister of Malaysia” solidly demonstrates, this blatant and contemptuous course of action is standard operating procedure at Sarawak Report.
Not only is it illegitimate at face value - what with the absence of, amongst others, letterheads, official seals, and watermarking of the word “DRAFT” across the page - especially, considering the claim by Sarawak Report that the document is already “in their [sic.] final draft stages”.
The said "Waran Tangkap" is hence, unverifiable in terms of its authenticity.
It also falls short in the integrity test, in which the simple paraphrased explanation of, "Such a document cannot exist while investigations are still ongoing," by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) certainly carries more reasonable appeal and weight in a democratic society than a piece of document written on a word processing program on a generic computer that any child can conjure - all this, while the matter is still under investigation.
Certainly, this is either a case of Sarawak Report and its authors deliberately exploiting this vacuum in understanding of said criteria for evidence gathering and presenting, or it could be a case of Sarawak Report themselves not putting paid these ‘meddlesome’ - for their myopic purposes, at least - criteria.
Clare's own words strengthen the suspicion that she and Sarawak Report acted recklessly prior to gathering enough prima facie evidence before making any accusations,
“I did attempt earlier this year to present details of the fraudulent activities of PetroSaudi International to Swiss prosecutors, in order that they should be alerted over this criminal matter in good time.
“We informed the prosecutors, through the services of a prominent anti-corruption lawyer, that I had evidence with respect to the money laundering of funds from the Malaysian development fund 1MDB, through named Swiss banks.
“At the time the prosecutors responded they did not judge that my evidence was sufficient to proceed with enquiries.”
- Clare Rewcastle Brown
(‘An Open Letter to the Swiss Foreign Ministry in Bern’ - Sarawak Report, June 23, 2015)
– - –
RELATED (1-4)
– - –
[1: BREAKING / SWISS NATIONAL GIVEN 3-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR 1MDB-LINKED BLACKMAIL – "The country’s anti-corruption agency later said the $700 million was donations, effectively clearing Razak of wrongdoing." – FultonCounty.COM, August 17, 2015]RELATED (1-4)
– - –
~
[1A: CURRENT / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL NEWSASIA REGARDING THE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST – "The Prime Minister has now finally had it announced through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that that was not anything to do with 1MDB money, which actually certainly I and I don’t know of any investigative reporters who said it was." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Channel NewsAsia, August 5, 2015]
[1B: 'SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK’S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO 1MDB MONEY TRAIL - MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE' - Sarawak Report, July 2, 2015]
~
[2: CURRENT / JUSTO AND THE EDGE MEDIA GROUP – "Yes, we misled [Justo]. But that was the only way to get hold of the evidence to expose how a small group of Malaysians and foreigners cheated the people of Malaysia of US$1.83 billion (S$2.5 billion). All the more so when we know he will be upset with us because we will eventually not pay him what he wants." - Datuk Tong Kooi Ong and Ho Kay Tat - The Straits Times, July 24, 2015]
~
[3: FOCUS / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S IGNORANCE OF HER OWN COUNTRY'S LEGAL CODES - "2– Fraud by false representation; (2) A representation is false if— (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading." - UK FRAUD ACT 2006, August 16, 2015][3A: EPISODES / DRAMATIS PERSONÆ–WHO'S WHO OF CLARE BROWN – "Therefore, it was only after strikingly similar financial information [from Cullen Johnson] was submitted in a court hearing related to Abu Bekir’s divorce and then printed in all the Malaysian media, that we too subsequently quoted what the Malaysian media reported had been said in court." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Sarawak Report, January 10, 2015]
– - –
Considering that Clare Rewcastle Brown knew herself that the as yet-unidentified "Swiss prosecutors" told her that she had no prima facie to even begin any investigation, how is it that Sarawak Report is now able to mete out the harshest and most damaging ‘Judgments’ in their stead?
Contrived and conjured up based on the mysterious conversion of accusations into facts, these magical ‘Judgments’ are the main staple used to feed the brains of Clare’s adoring and loyal audience around the world.
Sarawak Report, for all intents and purposes, is certifiably a full-fledged ‘fact-ory’, in which facts are literally manufactured.
Only in the universe of Sarawak Report’s “alternate vision of justice” and its similar mutations, do we see how such abominable actions are consistently and unethically done.
The worrying significance is, that the effect Sarawak Report has on its victims is far from illusory.
Thus, in reflecting over these past few days - and considering the public announcements by the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that Sarawak Report will be brought in once sufficient prima facie evidence have been gathered - by hindsight, the NINE QUESTIONS Blog is of the opinion that the approach by the Government of Malaysia is - at prima facie - the correct and diligent one, as opposed to Sarawak Report’s reckless ‘conjecturing of conjured conjectures’.
– - –
RELATED (1-2)
– - –
[RELATED: EPISODES / DRAMATIS PERSONÆ–WHO'S WHO OF CLARE BROWN – "Therefore, it was only after strikingly similar financial information [from Cullen Johnson] was submitted in a court hearing related to Abu Bekir’s divorce and then printed in all the Malaysian media, that we too subsequently quoted what the Malaysian media reported had been said in court." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Sarawak Report, January 10, 2015]RELATED (1-2)
– - –
[3: FOCUS / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S IGNORANCE OF HER OWN COUNTRY'S LEGAL CODES - "2– Fraud by false representation; (2) A representation is false if— (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading." - UK FRAUD ACT 2006, August 16, 2015]
[RELATED: BREAKING / SWISS NATIONAL GIVEN 3-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR 1MDB-LINKED BLACKMAIL – "The country’s anti-corruption agency later said the $700 million was donations, effectively clearing Razak of wrongdoing." – FultonCounty.COM, August 17, 2015]
~
[RELATED: CURRENT / CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN'S INTERVIEW ON CHANNEL NEWSASIA REGARDING THE WARRANT FOR HER ARREST – "The Prime Minister has now finally had it announced through the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that that was not anything to do with 1MDB money, which actually certainly I and I don’t know of any investigative reporters who said it was." - Clare Rewcastle Brown - Channel NewsAsia, August 5, 2015][RELATED: 'SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK’S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LINKED TO 1MDB MONEY TRAIL - MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE' - Sarawak Report, July 2, 2015]
– - –
The NINE QUESTIONS Blog hopes that the Malaysian Government is able to utilise the evidence presented by the NINE QUESTIONS Panel - available through the NINE QUESTIONS FACEBOOK Page - also follow us on twitter@9Q4SR for updates.
This Blog and its Panelists sincerely hope that Sarawak Report, Clare Rewcastle Brown and others like them currently lurking around masking themselves as ‘whistleblowing crusaders’ will be put out of business for all eternity.
Such a business model that makes a sheer mockery of the course of Justice is ripe for condemnation - not only on the face of it, but also in depth.
– - –
– - –
– – –
– - –
The NINE QUESTIONS Blog will return with more facts.
– - –
– - –
The NINE QUESTIONS Blog will return with more facts.
– - –
