Delay delay delay - Part 4

As mentioned in my previous post, I filed an application to vary my ex-wife's visitation rights. The application was filed on grounds that

1. my ex-wife had totally disregarded two court orders issued in the months of November and December 2010 to return the children to me; and
2. the dispicable acts that she committed on the children during that time.

In January 2012, the Honourable Judge had set 12 March 2012 as the date for both parties to file in their "Hujah Bertulis" or written summary. My ex-wife's legal counsel had previously delayed the case for 2 months just to confirm whether or not they have received my pleadings.

This time... their excuse is that they needed more time. Two whole months is not enough to draft and file in a written summary???

Prior to that, I had pushed my legal counsel's staff to issue a reminder to my ex-wife's lawyers to avoid any further delays. For reasons unknown to me (perhaps he was too busy with too many cases and could not focus on mine), my legal counsel kept quiet.

Thankfully, the Honourable Judge set mid-April 2012 as the date for his to deliver his judgement. My ex-wife's team of legal counsels are to file their written submissions at least 2 weeks prior to the judgement date.

Mid-April 2012 was also set for both parties to submit the written submission for the contempt case against my ex-wife. Let's see what further delaying tactics they'll throw in...

Delay delay delay - Part 3

8 February 2012 was the date that I have been waiting for. It was my 4th attempt to start the child custody hearing. All my previous attempts have been stalled by my ex-wife's team of legal counsels on frivolous grounds such as

1. the need for a written statement affidavit to expedite the hearing;
2. the contents of the written statement affidavit (after submitting the same to the Syariah High Court) is purportedly not relevant;
3. the child custody proceedings should not proceed until her application to nullify my previous marriage with her is decided; and
4. my wife has filed in an application to suspend all other case proceedings pending the outcome of the application mentioned in item 3 above (just an application... NO court order yet!)

On 8 February 2012, my ex-wife's team of legal counsel informed the Honourable Judge that my ex-wife wants to seek an out of court settlement. I was not convinced but my legal counsel was of the view that it may be worth giving them 1 week. Afterall, there was another hearing date the following week.

The Honourable Judge allowed for the hearing to be adjounred to the following week whilst both parties try to agree on a settlement.

As I had expected, my ex-wife didn't even bother to offer any settlement proposal.

Then came the next hearing date. My legal counsel explained to the Honourable Judge that no settlement proposal was tabled and in response mex-wife's team of lawyers suggested to the Honourable Judge that the case be decided by the children. Let the children themselves decide who they want to be with.

Again I was not too comfortable. What are they up to? Why are they trying to avoid the hearing at all cost???

In order to cut short the lenghty legal process, my legal counsel agreed to the request. Then came the curve ball.

My ex-wife's lawyers requested for the children to spend time with my ex-wife for a week and for the children to make their decision immediately after that. They also requested for the Honourable Judge to read a child psyciatric report which they attached in their pleadings.

The Honourable Judge then decided that the children are to stay with my ex-wife during the 1 week shool holidays, and thereafter with me. He will then see the children at the end of March.

Looks like there will be no hearing afterall...

Delay delay delay - Part 2

As previously mentioned, my ex-wife's husband had obtained an ex-parte injunction against me, my mother and his 2nd ex-wife from going anywhere near him and his children.

We subsequently filed in an application to set aside the injunction and the matter was fixed for verbal summary by both parties on 7 December 2011.

All partied turned up on the date, but the opposing legal counsel tried to postpone the proceedings by claiming that the pleadings have not been served to him. My legal counsel presented to the Syariah High Court the proof of delivery of documents and the Honourable Judge decided that the matter should proceed.

After my legal counsel had delivered his verbal summary, the opposing legal counsel requested for another date for him to deliver his verbal summary on grounds that he needs to review the pleadings.

The matter was then fixed for 18 January 2012. However, the matter was again delayed (the Honourable Judge was scheduled to attend a course) with the next date set for April 2012.

Delay delay delay - Part 1

As mentioned in my previous post, I filed an application to vary my ex-wife's visitation rights. The application was filed on grounds that

1. my ex-wife had totally disregarded two court orders issued in the months of November and December 2010 to return the children to me; and
2. the dispicable acts that she committed on the children during that time.

The Syariah High Court had fixed a mention date on 10 November 2011 for me to file in my Affidavit Balasan. The affidavit have been read prior to that and was to be served on my ex-wife's legal consel on the mention date. For reasons beyond my knowledge, my Syariah Lawyer's legal assistant failed to turn up in Court that morning.

That being the case, I told the Honourable Judge that the affidavit will be sent to my ex-wife's legal counsel. My ex-wife's legal counsel took advantage of it by asking for another mention date to confirm receipt of the affidavit. Much to my disgust, the next mention date was set for January 2012. Two months to confirm receipt of affidavit???

Fifth attempt to resume hearing

As mention in my previous post (titled "The answer"), my ex-wife had filed an application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya to declare that my previous marriage with her null and void. This was made on grounds that she had purportedly only recently became aware that her parents only got married 1 year 3 months after she was born (in other words she is claiming that she is an illegitimate child).

Subsequent to that, in June 2011 she filed an application at the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam to suspend all other proceedings between me and her at both the Syariah High Court in Shah Alam and the Syariah Lower Court in Shah Alam until her application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya is decided. Her argument is that should the case at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya is decided in her favour, all the other existing proceedings would be moot. If there was no marriage, hence there would be no matrimoial assets (harta sepencarian) claims, declaration of nusyuz etc. Furthermore, my ex-wife was of the view that the children would also be deemed to be illegitimate, and custody would go to her pursuant to Section 86 of the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

She also claims that her application for suspension of all case proceedings would purportedly "save the Court's time".

In my defence I pointed out that

1. My ex-wife's application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya was done in bad faith (mala fide) to deny me my rights to child custody;
2. My ex-wife had never raised the issue of her being an illegitimate child prior to this, and in fact had in several affidavits affirmed that our previous pernikahan was "sah dari segi hukum syarak";
3. My ex-wife only raised this issue in the Selangor Syariah Courts 9 months after raising the same in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts; and
4. There is no effect whatsoever to the child custody proceedings even if the Mahkamah Rendah Syairah Petaling Jaya were to declare that my previous marriage null and void. Pursuant to Sections 2 and 114 of the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003, the child's "nasab" or lineage would still be with me.

On 25 October 2011, the Honourable Judge decided that

1. My previous marriage if nullified would be deemed a "pernikahan fasid" and not "pernikahan bathil". A pernikahan would be deemed "fasid" if it was discovered that one of the "rukuns" or pillars was not adhered to AFTER the pernikahan took place, whereas a pernikahan would be deemed "bathil" if it was known at the time of the pernikahan that one of the "rukuns" was absent;
2. As the marriage was deemed "pernikahan fasid", hence Sections 2 and 114 of Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 would apply. Hence the childrens "nasab" would still be with me;
3. The child custody proceedings and all related proceedings shall proceed with immediate effect; and
4. The matrimonial assets case proceedings and other non-child custody related proceedings shall be suspended.

My ex-wife was seen very unhappy and devastated after the judgement was read. I trust she and her unsavoury legal advisor's focus now would be the battle at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya.

My focus now would be on the child custody hearing, which is scheduled to resume for the fifth time early next year.

I really wonder what will they think of next...

Inconsistency at its glory

What happened in court last week was shocking! My confidence level on the Syariah judicial system nose dived and I began to seriously doubt its ability to deliver justice.

Last week was the "tarikh keputusan" or decision date on my ex-wife's husband's application to extend his injunction against me, my mum and his 2nd ex-wife.

As mentioned in my previous post, my previous injunction against him was set aside on grounds that

1. my previous injunction against him was only valid for 30 days; and
2. he is not a party to my child custody proceedings

In our reply to his application for extension, we argued that

1. there are material inconsistencies as to the validity period of his injunction. One clause in the injunction states that it is valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded, whilst another clause in the same injunction states that it is valid unless the courts issue an order stating otherwise. So which clause is to be used? Further to that, the application for extension also puts to question the validity of the two inconsistent clauses.
2. my mum and I are not parties to the child custody proceedings.

However, in making his decision the Honourable Judge stated that

1. my ex-wife's husband's application to extend the injunction was merely a precautionary measure and does not cast doubt as to the validity period of the injunction. It is therefore valid until his child custody proceedings are concluded; and
2. it is not clear that my mum and I are not parties to his child custody proceedings.

Is the Honourable Judge saying that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings??? Pardon my language but is it a joke?

First of all, why on earth would I want to claim custody over HIS children? Secondly, even if we wanted to, where does it say in the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 that my mum and I have rights to claim custody over his children? Finally, how is it that my mum and I are parties to his child custody proceedings when our names don't appear as parties in the case and no interveners have ever been filed. How is that NOT clear? How much clearer can it get?

How can the same judge make two contradictory decisions? How can justice be served if the courts are inconsistent with their decisions? All those hard earned monies spent on legal costs goes to nothing???

Hadhanah trial delayed again

Yesterday, my hadhanah or child custody trial at Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Shah Alam was supposed to resume after no less than 3 postponements since December 2010.

As expected, my ex-wife's lawyers (3 of them!) made a meal of the Honourable Judge's decision at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya on 14 September 2011 to deny my Bantahan Awal.

After several rounds of exchanges between the lawyers from both sides, the Honourable Judge concluded that he will make a decision on the matter at the end of October 2011.

Yet another postponement...

Keputusan Bantahan Awal

Last week, 14 September 2011 was the "tarikh keputusan" for my preliminary objection or "Bantahan Awal" at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya.

As previously mentioned, on 21 March 2011 my ex-wife filed an application at Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Petaling Jaya to invalidate my previous marriage with her.

Her application is based on fact that she purportedly "suddenly became aware" that she is an illegitimate child, hence her father cannot be the wali for our marriage. Her ultimate aim is to prejudice my child custody and matrimonial asset claims.

I filed in my Bantahan Awal on 21 June 2011.

On 14 September 2011, the Honourable Judge rejected my Bantahan Awal on grounds that the issue put forth by my ex-wife is a serious one that has material consequences on the issue of lineage and inheritance. Therfore the matter should be tried. Both parties were ordered to complete their pleadings and to proceed with a full trial.

After the event, I learned that the case had attracted the interest of the press. Even the members of staff at the courts were following the case. Whilst walking out of the court, I noticed the presence of reporter(s) and a cameraman. My ex-wife's legal counsel alerted her, and as a result, she refused to step out from the court building for almost an hour. Her unsavoury advisor even tried to chase the cameraman away.

In the end, she came out with a newspaper covering her face. As the Malays say "tahu pun malu"!

The contempt

During a case mention 16 November 2010, my ex-wife put in an oral request before the Honourable Judge to be with the children for Hari Raya Aidil Adha. The Honourable Judge granted the request and ordered for the children to be surrendered to my ex-wife on 16 November 2010 at 3:30pm and to be returned on 17 November 2011 on or before 5:30pm.

To cut a long story short, after surrendering my children to her, my ex-wife refused to return them as ordered by the courts.

The courts subsequently issued an order for my ex-wife to return the children to me, to which she continued to totally disregarded.

On 16 December 2011, with the help of the police, the children were subsequently surrendered to me at 4:00am at IPD Shah Alam. Yes 4:00AM!

Whilst all this was happening, we put in an application to cite my ex-wife for contempt pursuant to Section 229(1) of the Enakmen Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syairah (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

The hearing for the case was initially set for 5 July 2011, but was subsequently postponed to 8 September 2011.

On 8 September 2011, we informed the Honourable Judge that we were ready to proceed with the hearing. In response, and to our surprise, the Honourable Judge referred to a recent Syariah Court of Appeal case in Negeri Sembilan, where it was decided that only the courts have the power to commence contempt proceedings pursuant to the equivalent of Section 229(1) of the Enakmen Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syairah (Negeri Selangor) 2003.

This has a direct impact on all ongoing contempt proceedings... including the one that I have just filed.

As the Syariah Court of Appeal case was relatively new, the Honourable Judge ordered that both lawyers are to study the case and present to the Honourable Judge on 25 October 2011 on whether the contempt proceedings can continue.

The supposed end of the injunction

On 10 January 2011 my ex-wife's husband applied for an ex-parte injunction to prevent me and my mum from going within 100 metres of him and his two children and to prevent his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum.

Part of the terms of the injunction is that it must be served to the respondents within 14 days.

The order was served to me and the guy's 2nd ex-wife within that 14 day period, but not to my mum.

In February 2011, the guy files in an application to extend the validity of the injunction order. We found this rather strange as the terms of the injunction states that it is valid until his child custody proceedings have been concluded. So which is which?

My mum subsequently filed in a preliminary objection on grounds that the order was not served to her within the 14 day period. I filed in an application to set aside the injunction on grounds that all the allegations made by the guy is all fabricated and I am not a party to his child custody proceedings (hence no kes induk).

We also filed our affidavits to challenge the guy's application to extend the validity of the order.

After about four (4) months of affidavits flying around, on 15 June 2011 the courts determined that it would make a decision on the extension of the injunction on 3 August 2011.

On 3 August 2011, the Honourable Judge was on emergency leave. The replacement judge was willing to read out the court's decision, but to our horror, he said that the case file cannot be found anywhere in the Honourable Judge's room.

So it was decided that the courts will instead read out the decision on 19 October 2011.

The lawyers are also ordered to give an oral summary on the respondents' application to set aside the injunction.

We shall see what happens on 19 October 2011.

The injunction story continues

In October 2010, I obtained an injunction from the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam preventing my ex-wife's husband from being with my children.

In response, in December 2010 my ex-wife's husband applied for an ex-parte injunction to prevent me and my mum from going within 100 metres of him and his two children and to prevent his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum. I just cannot understand the logic of his actions as it is obviously clear that he and his team of lawyers were overreacting (at best) and didn't put much thought into such actions.

Sadly, (being an ex-parte application) the injunction was granted on 10 January 2011.

Even worse, the injuction that I obtained in October 2010 was subsequently set aside in February 2011. To put it bluntly, I reckon it was something that my legal advisors may have overlooked. Pursuant to an Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Syariah, ex-parte injunctions are only valid for 30 days, unless granted otherwise by the courts. The injunction order was silent on the validity period, hence my ex-wife's husband's lawyers pounced on this ommision and got the injunction swiftly set aside. I was also made to understand that the injucntion was also set aside on technical grounds, i.e. the injunction was premised on my child custody proceedings and he is not a party to the said proceedings.

In February 2011, my mum, the 2nd ex-wife and I immediately filed an application to set aside my ex-wife's husband's injuction order. At the same time, he also filed in an application to extend the validity period of his injunction order. We were rather surprised by his action as the said injunction says that the it is valid up to

1. the date his child custody proceedings are concluded
2. the date another order is obtained to the contrary

The nonsensicle charade got bigger, messier and even more complicated...

The injunctions

As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, my ex-wife's boyfriend (now husband) is under investigation by the police for child sexual abuse (Section 377E Penal Code).

At one time my children complained that he had hit them in the past. It happaned when my then wife (when I was still married to her) took them out on dates with him. I was rather concerned but I needed proof.

My ex-wife and her boyfriend got married in May 2010.

After they got married, naturally my ex-wife took the children home (during visitations) to stay with her and her new husband. As expected, I was worried. My worry turned out to be a nightmare when my daughter complained that her step father let her see him naked.

My family and I were worried sick. I was faced with the situation where my ex-wife brings my children home to stay with a guy who is under investigation for child sexual abuse and he subsequently lets himself be seen naked by my daughter. Should I just keep quiet and hope for the best and that nothing will happen? Or shall I do something about it?

After lengthy discussions with my legal counsels, we then decided to obtain an injunction on grounds of safety for the children. On 14 October 2010, the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam granted the said injunction.

Natural a guy with such an unsavory character and with something to hide (well... loads actually) would be extremely illusive. The injunction was finally served on him sometime around 3rd November 2010.

I have absolutely no words to describe the events that followed. It was probably one of the most ridiculous short term brain-disengagaed knee-jerk rection one could have ever undertaken. Till today I am still in a state of shock!

About 4 days after being served with the injunction order, my ex-wife and her husband started to make video recordings of HIS two children (from his previous marriage with his 2nd ex-wife). In the videos, the eldest of the two (5 years old at that time) was seen guided by the guy asking the boy to say that

• my mum had molested the boy;
• the boy's mum (the guy's 2nd ex-wife), my mum and I were practicing black magic; and
• the boy's mum, my mum and I constantly taught him to say that the guy had molested him.

In another video, the youngest of the two (3 years old at that time) was filmed by my ex-wife, naked from waist down, with an erection and saying "nenek buat... nenek buat".

I wish I can display the videos here to show how blatantly obvious that the whole thing was doctored. The poor children were inconsistent with their answers and had to be blatantly guided to produce the (prejudicial) answers that my ex-wife and her husband wanted. Look at the timing too! How is it that these events were to "suddenly" surface out of the blue after the injunction was served on him? Come on lah! Who are you trying to kid here?

On 15 November 2010, the guy

1. used the videos in his application to set aside the injunction; and
2. lodged a police report against my mum.

Once again, we were hauled up and had to make several trips to IPD Shah Alam to have our statements taken.

It didn't stop there.

At the end of November 2010, my ex-wife did exactly the same thing... but this time on my two children. Her own flesh and blood!

My 6 year old son was interviewed on video (by my ex-wife) naked on bed and being asked to play with his private parts and describing how my mum purportedly touched his genetials.

My ex-wife swiftly brought my children and the video to a child psychiatrist. Being an experienced child psychiatrist, she immediately knew it was all fabricated and gave my ex-wife a good telling off.

Not satisfied with that, my ex-wife lodged a police report against my mum. That was the second time she did that against my mum, alleging the same offence. I was told that the police could see that it was all fabricated and was reluctant to open up an investigation paper. My ex-wife was obviously unhappy and proceeded to lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of the Police. The police had no choice but to reopen the case.

At the same time, the guy filed in another affidavit enclosing pictures and copies of the videos of my children and at the same time applied for an ex-parte injunction to

1. prohibit me and my mum from seeing his children; and
2. prohibit his 2nd ex-wife from bringing his children to see me and my mum

The injuction was on grounds that

1. my mum had purportedly assaulted him in public;
2. my mum had purportedly molested his children;
3. my mum and I had purportedly brain washed his children to despise him;
4. I had purportedly engaged in sexual activities with his 2nd ex-wife in front of his children; and
5. his 2nd ex-wife, my mum and I had practiced black magic

Sadly, and ridiculously, the injunction was granted in January 2011.

Proceed as planned

On 21 March 2011, my ex-wife filed an application at the Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Daerah Petaling to declare my previous marriage with her null and void. She argued that this would have an impact on the child custody proceedings as Section 86 of Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 states that the custody of illegitimate children goes to the mother and the mother's family.

On 6 April 2011, she filed an application to suspend all existing proceedings at the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam and Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Daerah Bandaraya Shah Alam until her application to declare our previous marriage null and void is concluded.

Since then

1. The child custody bicara or hearing has been put on hold
2. The nusyuz bicara has also been put on hold
3. The kes harta sepencarian (matrimonial assets) case management has been put on hold
4. All other ongoing case proceedings have been delayed

New mention dates were set for all the above cases.

Monday 27 June 2011, was the case mention for child custody, harta sepencarian, application to vary the existing interim custody order and the application to suspend all existing cases.

The above cases were called at approximately 9:40am. It rained that morning, hence everyone was late. I was the only one present.

I stood before the Honourable Judge and informed him that my legal counsel should be up shortly as he was downstairs at the parking lot. I told the Honourable Judge that I was prepared to either have the case called again or to proceed with the mention.

The Honourable Judge asked if I had any statements to make. This was my oppurtunity. I was on air!

I notified that Honourable Judge that my ex-wife had filed an application to suspend all case proceedings. It was only an application, and not a Court Order. Therefore, it was unreasonable to suspend all the case proceedings just because my ex-wife had filed the application.

I also informed that Honourable Judge that I had filed the harta sepencarian case 9 months ago. However my ex-wife had not even filed in her pembelaan or defence despite being repeatedly ordered to do so during the last 3 mention dates. Similarly, for my application to vary the interim custody order, my ex-wife had failed to file in her affidavit jawapan over the past 5 months. I made known to the Honourable Judge my regret for such unreasonable delays.

After hearing my complaints, the Honourable Judge decided to retime the mention and wait for my lawyer.

By the time the case was recalled at 10:45am, my legal counsel, my ex-wife and her legal counsel had arrived. My legal counsel repeated what I said to the Honourable Judge, adding that my ex-wife should be given a warning to enter her defence/file in her affidavits by the next mention date, and for the child custody hearing to continue.

My ex-wife's legal counsel objected to it on grounds that such proceedings may be just a waste of time.

The Honourable Judge then decided that

1. The child custody hearing is to continue
2. Both parties are to file in their hujjah for the application to suspend all case proceedings
3. A new mention date is to be set for the remaning two cases

I was relieved. I was not only relieved that the delays have been averted, but I was glad that there was some form of justice. Justice in the sense that the cases were not unreasonably delayed without a proper court order.

Bantahan Awal

Last monday was the 2nd "sebutan" or case mention for my ex-wife's application to invalidate my previous marriage with her.

Her application was on grounds that she "has suddenly became aware" that her parents got married 1 year 3 months after she was born and that she is an illegitimate child. Therefore it was wrongful for her father to be the wali for our marriage and it should be invalidated.

Her objective of doing so is to declare that my children too were born out of wedlock. Custody of illegitimate children goes to the mother and/or the mother's family. Full stop... no questions asked.

I filed in a "bantahan awal" or preliminary objection to the application on grounds that

1. Lack of privity
2. Res judicata due to the fact that the marriage is no longer in existance
3. Her parents need to be charged for khalwat first (Hehehe!)
4. Mala fide to frustrate my child custody proceedings

The Honourable Judge ordered for my ex-wife to respond to our preliminary objection by the next mention date.

Self advocacy threat

On Monday 6 June 2011, my view of the legal profession completely changed.

Complaint 1
On 21 May 2010, my ex-wife filed an application at the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts.

As a Selangor resident, she is governed by the Enakmen Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003 (or "EUUKIS"). This is clearly stated in Section 4 of EUUKIS. Applications to the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Courts can only be made by those residing in Kuala Lumpur. This is stated in Section 4 of Akta Undang Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984.

In her application, she falsely declared that she resides in Kuala Lumpur. Making false statements in Syariah Courts is an offence under Section 30 of Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984. The application was filed by her laywer.

Only days before that, she had filed in several applications at the Selangor Syariah Courts.

It is therefore clear, that the lawyer had aided and abetted my ex-wife in making the wrongful application in the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court.

I subsequently lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


Complaint 2
In December 2009, I applied to the Courts to reduce my ex-wife's visitation rights on grounds that she had neglected the children (following the khalwat incident) and she had exposed the children to immoral acts with her boyfriend.

In March 2009, the Honourable Judge ordered that the children can only be with the parents and parents' family members.

My ex-wife secretly married her boyfriend on 29 May 2010. We only found out about the marriage in June 2010 after my children were taken by my ex-wife to live with her (now) husband. Unfortunately, my children still complained about being exposed to immoral behaviors of my ex-wife and her husband.

We complained about the matter to my ex-wife's lawyer and reminded them of the Honourable Judge's order in March 2010. In August 2010, the Honourable Judge clarified that parents' family members means grand parents of the children. This clearly excludes her sexually psychopatic husband.

On 30 June 2010, my ex-wife turned up in front of my house with her husband to take the children. This is clearly in breach of the Honourable Judge's order. I reminded my ex-wife of this fact and the children also refused to go with her.

They went off and 20 minutes later, they turned up again at my doorstep with the Police. I later learnt that her lawyer had written a letter to the Police asking them to enforce her visitation rights.

The lawyer had clearly witheld the Honourable Judge's order in March 2010. Furthermore, the lawyer failed to get an enforcement order from the Syariah Courts. It is clear that the lawyer had unethically summoned the Police to my house in order to intimidate me.

Once again... I lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


Complaint 3
On 16 August 2010, the Honourable Judge reduced my ex-wife's visitation rights.The Honourable Judge had a small voice and when gave his decision, few of us heard it correctly. Therefore there was confusion.

As expected, my ex-wife and her unsavoury lawyer-advisor were not happy. The lawyer-advisor then arranged a meeting between the Honourable Judge, my legal counsel and my ex-wife's legal counsel without the Honourable Judge's knowledge nor consent. As a result, we all imposed ourselves before the Honourable Judge on 30 August 2010.

On 1 September 2010, the Honourable Judge issued a written order reducing my ex-wife's visitation rights. She and her lawyer-advisor were obviously upset.

Then, the 4 September 2010 house tresspass took place. Her lawyer-advisor was present and instrumental in misleading the Police into thinking that my ex-wife had a valid court order. Clearly, it was their way of intimidating and punishing me for my ex-wife's reduction in visitation rights. It was also their way of getting back at me for filing in the main matrimonial assets case when they had totally overlooked it.

Once again, I lodged a complaint at the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.


In November 2010, the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board sought written clarification from my ex-wife's legal-advisor and lawyer for the unethical acts.

Between December 2010 and January 2011, they wrote to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board stating that

1. The Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board had no jurisdiction over syariah matters
2. My complaints are against the Syariah Court proceedings which has yet to be concluded (and not against their actions)
3. They had not committed any misconduct as they are not the complainant (i.e. my) lawyer 
4. They were purely acting under my ex-wife's instructions

Sadly, on Monday 6 June 2011, I received a letter from the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board stating that my complaint has been rejected. No reasons were given.

I find it ridiculous that

1. Lawyers can act unethically when it comes to Syariah matters
2. Misconduct can only occur against their client and no one else
3. Lawyers are absolved from any wrongdoings simply because they are under client's instructions

Let's put it this way, can an auditor be absolved from giving the wrong opinion simply because their client told them to do so? Is this a classic case of a lawyer protecting another lawyer and/or the profession? Classic self advocacy in full effect!

My trust and opnion of the legal profession in Malaysia has somewhat changed since.

Section 448 dropped

On 4 September 2010, my ex-wife broke into my house together with a locksmith and 6 packers. She was assisted by her lawyer and her husband. During the incident, she took away (amongst others) furniture items, electrical items and home furnishings (including curtains and flower pots).

I lodged a police report immediately after the incident.

In October 2010, I learnt that the police were investigating the case under Section 448 of the Penal Code (i.e. for house trespass). I was doubtful and not convinced but the police thought otherwise.

In March 2011, I then learnt that my ex-wife was going to be charged in court under Section 448 of the Penal Code on 15 April 2011.

The next mention date was set for 18 May 2011.

I just learnt that the case against my ex-wife has been dropped. I later learnt that the Head of Prosecution for the State of Selangor had dropped the case on grounds that there was no trespass as the house is registered under joint names.

My doubts have been proven.

Defence - Part 4

On 18 February 2010, the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam allowed my mum to be a party to the child custody proceedings.

In response, my ex-wife tried to get a wrongful conviction against my mum under Section 377E of the Penal Code, i.e. child molest, by teaching and forcing my son to lie to a child psychiatrist. She subsequently lodged a police report but police eventually dropped the case.

On 29 May 2010, my ex-wife got married to her boyfriend in Kuala Lumpur.

It was also during that period that we heard that her boyfriend (now husband) was under investigation by the police under Section 377E of the Penal Code. Her boyfriend (now husband) was even detained overnight in the police lockup during the investigation!

Due to our grave concern of the possilibity that my children will be exposed to such a person, I subsequently applied to the Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor di Shah Alam to review my ex-wife's visitation rights.

On 17 August 2010, the Honourable Judge cut my ex-wife's visitation by half! This obviously infuriated her. Her advisor even arranged a meeting for my ex-wife's legal counsel and my legal counsel to 'clarify' the Honourable Judge's decision before His Lordship without His Lordship's knowledge on 30 August 2010. As expected, the Honourable Judge was furious when we imposed ourselves upon him.

Obviously disappointed, my ex-wife lodged a complaint against the Honourable Judge at the Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia. Personally, I don't think it is a very clever thing to do.

On top of that, on 24 August 2010, I filed in my "Harta Sepencarian" or matrimonial assets case. As mentioned in my previous posts, my ex-wife had filed in an ex-parte application to freeze all my assets in October 2009. She didn't file in any "Harta Sepencarian" or "kes induk".

The "Harta Sepencarian" case notice was delivered to my ex-wife on 2 September 2010. My ex-wife (more specifically her unsavoury advisor) realised their mistake of not filing in the "kes induk". They suddenly realised that the validity of their ex-parte injunction is therefore in doubt.

Just 4 days after that, on Saturday 6 September 2010 my ex-wife and her legal advisor turned up on my doorstep with her husband, a locksmith and 6 packers. They forced their way into my house and basically emptied it, taking beds, sofa sets, cabinets, curtains, flower pots, hi-fi sets, electrical items etc. She also cut and changed all the locks and evicted me from my own home.

Her motive was clear. Firstly, she wanted to punish me and to provoke me for reducing her visitation rights. Secondly, she wanted to cause grave inconvenience to me 6 days prior to Hari Raya Aidil Fitri and before I was able to formally challenge the validity of her ex-parte injunction order. The "raid" was also conducted over the weekend, so that I had no access to legal help or support.

Much to her disappointment, I kept my cool. Instead, I lodged a police report, which to my surprise she is now charged under Section 448 of the Penal Code for house trespass.

Less than 3 weeks after the incident, my ex-wife and her husband patrolled the area near my house and saw my mum having a drink at the local mamak shop. Her husband got out of the car, went over to my mum and insulted my mum in public. My mum kept her cool and ignored him. He went away.

About 5 minutes later, he returned. This time my ex-wife followed him with a camera. Again my he insulted my mum in public. However, this time my mum could not take the dispicable vulgarities thrown at hear anymore. She splashed her drink on him and walked off.

My mum went home and subsequently drove over to the police station to lodge a report. As expected, my mum saw my ex-wife and her husband there lodging a police report against her for assault. The strange thing was that, he was bleeding on his chin. After interviewing all witnesses, the Section 323 of the Penal Code (assault) case against my mum was dropped. We later learnt that my ex-wife and her husband was at IPD Shah Alam until about 4am, trying to convince the investigation officer to throw my mum in the police lockup.

It appears that my ex-wife was trying ever so hard to get an assault (or similar) conviction against me and my mum via such provocations. She was trying ever so hard to get me and my mum a criminal record. Her efforts had not only failed, but had led to my ex-wife being charged for house trespass under Section 448 of the Penal Code.

We thought it would end there. But we were wrong...

Yet another misrepresentation

Yesterday was the 3rd mention date for my application to "Ubah Perintah" or vary the court order with regards to my ex-wife's visitation rights.

The application was made due to our grave concern over

1. my ex-wife's total disregard to court orders issued in the months of November and December 2010 to return the children to me; and
2. the dispicable things that she did to the children during that time. I plan to discuss this in a later post.

During the first case mention on 24 January 2011, as expected, my ex-wife turned up alone requesting time to appoint a lawyer. Typical delay tactics again.

During the second case mention was on 10 March 2011. My ex-wife was in court with her lawyer. However, she did not appear before the judge when the case was called for mention. Her lawyer claims that he was only just appointed and will need time to file in a response. The Honourable Judge instructed for her affidavit in response is to be filed in by the next mention date.

The next mention date was 25 April 2011. However, I was not able to attend as I was on medical leave due to foot injuries. My legal counsel's representative reported that my ex-wife's lawyers complained to the Honourable Judge that the have filed in an application to delay all court proceedings pending her application to delcare me previous marriage to her to be null and void. The next mention date was set for June 2011.

My ex-wife's lawyer went on to say that they have tried to serve the summons to me 7 times! What a liar. The process server only came to the office once and he had the audacity to tell the Honourable Judge that they tried to serve the summons to me 7 times???

As the muslims say... lawyers have one foot in hell

Wakalah

A wakalah is a document in which a person appoints a syariah lawyer to represent him/her and to act for him/her for a particular syariah court kes and to appear in all the related case proceedings.

The wakalah is usually read before a judge or a court registrar. However, in the State of Selangor, this requirement has been relaxed where wakalahs may also be read before a court officer.

Another mystery

Last Monday, when I was in a meeting, my secretary called to say that a process server from the legal firm representing my ex-wife was at the office and had some documents to serve to me.

As I was away from the office, my secretary went to see the process server. He told my secretary that he had a "wakalah" to serve to me. He had to serve the wakalah to me on that day as there was a case mention on the following day, i.e. Tuesday.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no case mention scheduled for Tuesday. It is also strange for wakalahs to be served to the defendants or respondents.

What are they up to? Why resort to deceit? Something was not right.