"We have additionally perceived yesterday the minute from [lawyer-activist] Haris Ibrahim requesting the Bar Council to launch an review to brand the lawyer (s) concerned, when it appears to us which Haris may know the temperament of these lawyers."
"This has caused nonessential conjecture as well as confusion": Bar Council president, Lim Chee Wee, as reported inFMT.
Really, my role in promulgation the minute was not to means conjecture as well as confusion.
Quite the contrary.
you merely asked which the Bar Council examine to (1) brand the solicitor(s) concerned, as well as (2) discern if there was any impropriety in the credentials of SD2.
It now appears to the Bar Council which you know the temperament of the lawyer(s)?
In my"Who is the Tan Sri lawyer?"post, this is what you pronounced :
"I have perceived confirmation from 3 independent as well as arguable sources as to who this scumbag is".
Surely the Bar Council will not read this to meant you have direct believe of the acts in question, rsther than than believe of informants, albeit, in my opinion, reliable, relating to these acts.
In my minute to the Bar Council, you had narrated 17 sets of contribution prior to you posited two questions which you felt were of importance.
1. Did the solicitor(s) who drew up SD2 take instructions from Bala prior to drafting the same ! which wa s eventually endorsed by Bala?
2. Given which by the terms of SD2, Bala would be revelation to an corruption of irreverence out the prior false orthodox declaration, was it not obligatory upon the solicitor(s) endangered in the credentials to have taken instructions from Bala as well as to have warned him of the consequences of affirming the orthodox declaration which was being drawn up for his affirmation?
The second question, for me, sums up the issue of concern.
Now, prior to you say some-more upon this second question, you competence find the following report helpful.
Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA) lays out the objects as well as powers of the Malaysian Bar.
The really first role of the Bar :to defend the means of probity but regard to the own interests or which of the members, uninfluenced by fright or favour.
Now the Council boss has urged which if any the single has compelling evidence, which they step brazen to"lodge such justification together with the censure immediately with the disciplinary board".
Can the Bar Council make the complaint?
Section 99 of the LPA relates to complaints to the Disciplinary Board. Sub-section (3) states :Nothing in this territory shall be taken to preclude the Bar Council or the State Bar Committee from creation any censure of the own suit to the Disciplinary Board opposite an advocate as well as barrister or the pupil.
Of course it would be unconditionally irresponsible for the Council to lodge the censure but prior investigation.
And to discern the name(s).
And if there was any impropriety.
Which is all which my minute which caused conjecture as well as difficulty asked the Council do.
Is it unable to investigate?
The Malaysian Bar is unable to investigate?
! Do not t he decent lawyers superfluous during the Bar want to get to the bottom of this?
Back to the second subject you posed in my letter.
Section 57 of the LPA deals with specific powers of the Bar Council. 57(b) provides thatthe Bar Council shall have power to answer questions inspiring the use as well as practice of the contention as well as the conduct of members.
Hmm, maybe my minute was poorly worded as well as you should have put the second subject as the single requiring an answer from the Bar Council.
Never mind, maybe the single of you penetrating immature reporters can pose the same second subject to the Bar Council for an cordial response.
you mean, if the answer is which such conduct as is described in my subject is well in keeping with the excellent traditions of the Malaysian Bar as well as sits well with the primary role of support the means of justice, afterwards they can treat this matter as Gani Patail so often does.
Stamp my letter"NFA".
FMT additionally reports :
Lim additionally pronounced which the most critical person in the censure opposite the legal practitioner should be the plant himself, but the apparent "victim" has yet to come forward.
"Who is the plant here? Has the plant Balasubramaniam lifted concerns about anything during this point? We need some-more facts, either from the plant or somebody else."
"People contingency come brazen with the facts. I'm not going upon the fishing expedition knocking upon people's office or doors for facts. This is not the case of clients income disappearing.
"This report is revealed by someone whose own background is means for concern," pronounced Lim, referring to Deepak.
Asked if the Bar Council is demure to act, he said: "We ! cannot s ay you are not you do anything. Those with some-more facts, come forward. We will do what is necessary. Even during this time, you will demeanour in to this serve if necessary," he said.
Gosh, where have you heard the likes of this before?
MACC?
- The People's Parliament
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment