With Loretta lynch-ed, is DOJ's KARI case in limbo?

The media missed out on the August 22nd supposed appearance of Taek Jho Loh and Riza Aziz at the US court. Guess this blog can claim credit as the few that asked what happened to the anticipated bang that turned into a whimper?

Noticeably, Matthias Chang stopped sending and viralling his hour-long speech. Too long la ... brader. Sapa mahu sit and listen that long? Short soundbytes please.

Tun Dr Mahathir's repeated controversies that attracted criticism from all sides could be meant to divert not only his mistaken revelation of the three or four Tan Sri conspiracy, but could be about August 22nd.

Three days ago, MP for Kuala Selangor was reported by Sinar Harian [read here] asking what happened to the August 22nd appearance. Since June 20th announcement, there have been no development!

Investigation for criminal charges is still ongoing. Is something not going right with DOJ again?

This blog has raised issues on past poor records of Department of Justice (DOJ) in their KARI Kleptocracy cases. Others raised issue on DOJ sudden silence on a past money laundering case involving HSBC and underworld characters.

Australian based lawyer, Quinton Rozario explained at length the questionable issues of DOJ filing [read Mohd Kamal bin Abdullah's blog here].

Caught lying

If you have been following closely the US Presidential election, they campaign a lot on foreign policy and security. However, both candidate for "Chief Police" of the world are equally corrupt.

In the latest development, the Chief Police and also cum Head Prosecutor of the world via DOJ could be equally incompetent and did the despicable act of lying.

This is not a non-American talking but an American judge. Read Wall Street Journal below:

Justice Department Gave Supreme Court Incorrect Data in Immigration Case

Department won the 2003 case after understating the time certain immigrants spend in detention without bail

By Jess Bravin

Updated Aug. 30, 2016 3:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department said it provided the Supreme Court with erroneous information that helped it win a 2003 case upholding a blanket policy of denying bail to thousands of immigrants imprisoned while appealing deportation orders.

The department, in a Friday letter to the court, said it made “several significant errors” that greatly understated the time certain aliens with criminal records spend in no-bail detention. The 2003 opinion, Demore v. Kim, cited government data to hold that “the very limited time of detention” such aliens face while their appeals are pending is too short to trigger a constitutional right to a hearing to argue for bail.

The new estimate put the average detention period at more than a year, or more than three times the four-month estimate the Supreme Court relied on with the Demore ruling.

The letter by acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn is the second time in four years the government has admitted providing incorrect information on immigration policy that helped it prevail before the Supreme Court. In 2012, the Justice Department told the court that it had inaccurately asserted in a 2009 case, Nken v. Holder, that officials routinely “facilitate” the return to the U.S. of deported aliens who later win their immigration appeals.

In both instances, more accurate information emerged through Freedom of Information Act requests filed by immigrant advocates who were skeptical of the government’s claims.

The Demore case involved a challenge to the government’s practice of holding without bail aliens, including immigrants with “green cards,” who became eligible for deportation because they committed a crime. A federal appeals court in San Francisco found that the Constitution’s due process guarantee entitled such immigrants to a bail hearing.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate ruling. Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion relied on data from the government to conclude that resolving deportation appeals “takes an average of four months, with a median that is slightly shorter.”

“The conclusion the court drew is understandable, but it is incorrect,” Mr. Gershengorn wrote. He said the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review re-examined the data following records requests and inquiries and determined the average detention period was 382 days, and a median of 272 days. He added the Supreme Court “may wish to amend its opinion to delete” the error.

Mr. Gershengorn said the Demore precedent “is relevant to Jennings v. Rodriguez,” a follow-up case scheduled for the court’s next term. In that case, the government is seeking to overturn an appeals court decision entitling aliens to a bail hearing after six months of detention.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which won at the lower court, filed the records request that disclosed how the immigration-review office used or omitted certain sets of data to generate information in the Demore case.

Nancy Morawetz, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at the New York University School of Law, said the government’s admission to the court, wasn’t enough. “It’s really outrageous. They say excise this sentence that relied on the wrong data but they’re not saying look at the result you got from it,” she said.

Ms. Morawetz, who was involved in both the Demore and Nken cases, said the problem stems from the solicitor general’s unusual privilege of submitting new information directly to the Supreme Court, outside the record created by the trial court. Unlike evidence from the trial record, information provided at the Supreme Court level isn’t tested through the adversary process of discovery and cross-examination that occurs in the lower courts.

Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general, said the office rarely makes such errors and that Mr. Gershengorn took the necessary step in the Demore case.

While the solicitor general’s office lacks the capacity to verify information supplied by the agencies it represents, “officials understand that when a brief is going to the Supreme Court, it’s a solemn obligation to try to get every jot, tittle and statistic absolutely right,” Mr. Katyal said.

“I think there is an expectation that the SG get it right and not simply be a conduit of agency representations,” said Neal Devins, a law professor at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. “This has always been true and is especially true today as the internet makes it much easier to check on factual assertions.”

Wall Street Journal

Since the source is WSJ, the pro- and Pakatoon should agree with the report and not raise any doubt.

A William Lattimore wrote in WSJ's comment section:

This is the second instance of Obama Justice Department lawyers lying to the court.

I never heard of that abysmal behavior ever before in my 60 years. The other case was in a Federal court in Texas. They made the judge so mad that the Judge threw them off of the case and mandated that they take classes on integrity every year for three years, I think, and provide him the certificates of completion.

He also reminded them they had recently presented their case to the US Supreme Court and that the Justices read the paper and now know that these Justice Department lawyers are liars.

Similar theme in this administration ... lie about Bengazi, $400M ransom, Iran Treaty, Obama Care, and on and on and on.

Witholding information and denying a fair trial

Counsel to a US Senate Committee, Timothy D Neagele wrote in his blog and an extract below:

In a blistering 514-page report, Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III said Justice Department prosecutors never conducted a comprehensive review of evidence favorable to the Alaska Republican and failed to disclose to defense attorneys notes of witness interviews containing significant information.

The report also says two federal prosecutors intentionally withheld and concealed significant information from the Stevens defense team that would have seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.

Months after a jury convicted Stevens in October 2008 of accepting and concealing money for home renovations and other gifts, the report says, a new team of prosecutors discovered, in short order, that some of the exculpatory information had been withheld. At that point, it says, the Justice Department moved to set aside the verdict and dismiss an indictment with prejudice.

New prosecutors were assigned after U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in a stunning rebuke, held two prosecutors in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s order to disclose information to Stevens‘ attorneys and to the court regarding allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, which were made after trial by an FBI agent who worked on the case.

In throwing out the case against Stevens, Judge Sullivan said, “For nearly 25 years, I’ve told defendants appearing before me that in my courtroom they will receive a fair trial and I will make sure of it. In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and the misconduct I have seen in this case.”

Read on here

Innocent until proven guilty

The point, my fellow Malaysians, is DOJ filing is only the starter as any application in a Malaysian court is. The due process has yet to begin. It is still too early to presume those named as plaintiff, names mentioned and not mentioned are judged as guilty.

With respect to the filing against Red Granite (note: not 1MDB), there are few issues still hanging. The Goodstar ownership is still in limbo. Same situation as reported and spinned by Sarawak Report. Did Jho Loh own Goodstar or operating Goodstar bank account as "consultant" or as owner for Arab?

Even a simple analysis [read here] could notice the glaring DOJ mistake of describing as 1MDB money when it can be argued that 1MDB books are considered OK but it is the Arabs that allegedly got swindeled!

Another point, my fellow Malaysians, it is not about defending Najib blindly or ruling Najib is guilty or innocent. It is not about disbelieving everything presented.

All taken into consideration but we are no Ibrahim Ali who said he believe it because Mahathir said so and Ku Li was told by Ananda Krishnan. More so, Ananda has sabotaged other Malaysian businessmen in the past with ill-intent.

Any person of certain level of intellect should not swallow everything put on the plate. It must be analysed to see whether it makes sense, double checked it's validity, and ascertain it's technical feasibility.

Information from sources should be scrutinised too. Is the source reliable, consistent and credible? Do they have a good track record of being right?

If the person had before fear of meeting people / media and only now in a state of panic to go about town telling and revealing, his integrity is questionable! Did something happened on Penang? On, not in.

The DOJ filing still need be scrutinised by the judge. As happened, it could be thrown out. US Court have yet to call the accused four that DOJ intent to freeze their asset. Interestingly, US Court gave leeway to Red Granite to use funds to pay financial commitment and operations.

The four could still challenge DOJ and reveal proofs which may acquit them and it is not be known by DOJ, WSJ, SR, TDM and 1MDB officials 1, 2, 3 and Mickey Mouse. Even Jho Loh and arrogant Dato Shahrol together with Mickey Mouse are innocent until proven guilty.

So does MO1 and Lim Guan Eng. Difference is MO1 is not charged in court yet but Guan Eng is. Only conspiracy theory, prejudice and propaganda could deny this fact.

When there is political motivation, power quest and propaganda in play, especially by Master Machivellian Mahathir [read RPK here and and] and not based on the rule of law, nothing should be taken as final till the last stamp of the gavel by the judge.