Archive

Archive for the ‘S45 Evidence Act 1950’ Category

MYR313,713,713,713.13 – On Self-Agitated (Self-Perturbed) Prime Numbers of My Civil Suit Dated 6.3.2014 (March 6, 2014): Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim v Attorney-General (Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail) and Government of Malaysia plus Anors (Norina Zainol Abidin, Inspektor Siti Mazira Zakaria, Inspektor Mohd Razif Md Zahid, Mazelan Jamaluddin, Nurul Ashiqin Zulkifli, Nur Wahida Md Khairuddin and Zaki Asyraf Zubir). The Philosophy of Mathematics (Mother of All Sciences and Human Thoughts) vs The Philosophy of Law (The Jurisprudence / Scientia Juris (Juristic Theories)). This Civil Suit is About Such A Totally and Purely Malicious Prosecution Had Happened with Absence of All Jurisdiction That Crowning (On Top Of It) The Criminal Trial before Super-Glamour-You-Magistrate. Method of Attack is Based On Deontological Dialectic Approaches (Used by Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Sir Karl Popper and etc.) That Related To Logic and Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Being, Absence and Nothingness (Nihilism – The Mathematical Theory of Nothing vs Absence of All Jurisdiction), (The Philosophy of Null Set Theory vs The Nullity (Void) of Malaysian Federal Constitution): Socrates, Euclid of Alexandria, Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna (Ibnu Sina – Alī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā), Ibn Arabi (Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn al-ʿArabī al-Ḥātimī aṭ-Ṭāʾī ), Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Francisco Suárez, Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Baruch Spinoza (born Benedito de Espinosa), Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, René Descartes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, John Locke FRS, David Hume, Bertrand Arthur William Russell The 3rd Earl Russell, Willard Van Orman Quine, Paul Celan, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Paul Sartre, Alfred Thompson “Tom” Denning, Baron Denning OM PC DL QC, . Want of / Lack of / Absence of Scientific Laws (or Theories / Principles) and Evidence: Scientific Evidence – Scientific Testimonies – Expert Evidence – The Logic of Scientific Discoveries – The Metaphysics of Scientific Phenomena – The Epistemology of Scientific Observations (Empirical Observations / Scientific Methodology / Scientific (or Mathematical) Induction and Deduction: Euclid of Alexandria, Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Haytham – Alhazen (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham), Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Fārābī (al-Fārābī / Alpharabius), Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Algoritmi or Algaurizin – where the word “algorithm” basically came from), Abū al-Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Bīrūnī, Abu Mūsā Jābir ibn Hayyān (Geber), Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī (Rhazes or Rasis), Roger Bacon O.F.M., The Bernoullis (The Bernoulli family), Sir Karl Popper, Jules Henri Poincaré, Charles Sanders Peirce, Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz, Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Albert Einstein, Niels Henrik David Bohr, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger, Ian Hacking CC FRSC FBA, Aleksandr Mikhailovich Lyapunov, Hilary Putnam, Pierre-Simon marquis de Laplace (Celestial Mechanics), Ernst Friedrich Ferdinand Zermelo, Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov, Andrey (Andrei) Andreyevich Markov, James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE, Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach, Bruce Schneier (The Shifu of Cryptography) – Rationalistic Theology, Skepticism, Logical Positivism, Legal Positivisim, Positivism, – Comte, (Isidore-) Auguste (-Marie-François-Xavier), “Keadilan ialah Meletakkan Kebenaran di Tempat Yang Sepatutnya”.

“Keadilan ialah Meletakkan Kebenaran di Tempat Yang Sepatutnya” – October 2011 Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim. – (In Bahasa Malaysia)

Article 145(3) Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

Article 145(3): The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

Act 620
FILM CENSORSHIP ACT 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

Prosecution
43. No prosecution in respect of any offence under this Act or
any regulations made under this Act shall be instituted except by
or with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor.

*______________________________________________________*

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR

(BAHAGIAN SIVIL)

GUAMAN SIVIL NO.                                             TAHUN 2014

ANTARA

MOHAMAD IZAHAM BIN MOHAMED YATIM                                … PLAINTIF

 

DAN

 1.                  NORINA BINTI ZAINOL ABIDIN

2.                  INSPEKTOR SITI MAZIRA BINTI ZAKARIA

3.                  INSPEKTOR MOHD RAZIF BIN MD ZAHID

4.                  MAZELAN BIN JAMALUDDIN

5.                  NURUL ASHIQIN BINTI ZULKIFLI

6.                  NUR WAHIDA BINTI MD. KHAIRUDDIN

7.                  TAN SRI ABDUL GANI PATAIL, PEGUAM NEGARA

8.                  ZAKI ASYRAF BIN ZUBIR

9.                  KERAJAAN MALAYSIA                                   … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

*______________________________________________________*

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — A former director of a computer software company today filed a suit against Magistrate Zaki Asyraf Zubir, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and seven others for false imprisonment concerning the charge of possession of 106 pornographic video clips in 2011.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 42, filed the suit through Messr A S Dhaliwal at the High Court’s Registrar Office here, and named three deputy public prosecutor Norina Zainol Abidin, Mazelan Jamaluddin and Nurul Ashiqin Zulkifli as defendants.

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ex-director-sues-a-g-magistrate-and-seven-more-for-false-imprisonment

Kuala Lumpur: Seorang bekas pengarah syarikat perisian komputer memfailkan saman terhadap seorang majistret dan lapan yang lain termasuk Peguam Negara dan Kerajaan Malaysia terhadap dakwaan memenjarakannya secara salah bagi tuduhan memiliki 106 klip video lucah, lima tahun lalu.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 42, selaku plaintif memfailkan saman itu di Pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi, di sini, semalam menerusi firma guaman Tetuan AS Dhaliwal.

Plaintif menamakan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya di Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Pulau Pinang Norina Zainol Abidin, pegawai polis Inspektor Siti Mazira Zakaria dan Inspektor Mohd Razif Zahid, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Mazelan Jamaluddin serta Nurul Ashiqin Zulkifli sebagai defendan pertama hingga kelima.

Mohamad Izaham turut menamakan Pembantu Undang-undang di Jabatan Peguam Negara Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Nur Wahida Md Khairuddin, Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail, Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 Kuala Lumpur Zaki Asyraf Zubir dan Kerajaan Malaysia selaku defendan keenam hingga kesembilan.

http://www.hmetro.com.my/myMetro/articles/Lelakisamanmajistret/Article/index_html

21.       Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

Prosecution

“43.     Tiada pendakwaan berkenaan dengan apa-apa kesalahan d bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawah Akta ini boleh dimulakan kecuali oleh atau dengan keizinan bertulis Pendakwa Raya.”

 22.       Sepanjang prosiding perbicaraan di hadapan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur, pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan izin pendakwaan secara bertulis dan ini adalah bercanggah dengan peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Ini dibuktikan dengan senarai ekshibit Jilid 2 Rekod Rayuan-izin pendakwaan tidak dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit.

23.       Walaubagaimanapun setelah menerima Rekod Rayuan pada 5.5.2011, pihak Perayu mendapati bahawa salinan izin pendakwaan telah dimasukkan ke dalam Lampiran Dokumen (mukasurat 115 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1) dan ini merupakan kali pertama pihak Perayu melihat salinan izin pendakwaan tersebut.

24.       Terdapat kecacatan material pada izin pendakwaan tersebut di mana izin pendakwaan diberi oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya yang bernama Mazelan Jamaludin tetapi ditandatangani oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya bernama Nor Aizam.

25.       Adalah menjadi hujahan Perayu bahawa izin pendakwaan mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 adalah mandatori dan ketinggalan untuk mengemukakannya menjadikan prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut satu (dengan izin) ‘nullity’.

26.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Abdul Hamid v PP [1956] MLJ 231 (di mukasurat 3 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Smith J membuat pemerhatian seperti berikut:

“There is an essential difference to my mind between a sanction and a consent. A prosecution can be sanctioned without any deep consideration of the particular case : full consideration is required for consent since “consent” is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (Stround 3rd Ediiton vol 1 page 582). The sanction was therefore no evidence of consent.”

 27.      Pihak Perayu turut bersandarkan kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok [1979] 1 MLJ 45 (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prosiding adalah terbatal apabila tiada kebenaran untuk pertuduhan yang dipinda :

“The question is whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial on the amended charge without a fresh consent by the Public Prosecutor. As the matter is res integra I proceeded with the trial to save the public expense, the witnesses and jury being present in court. It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz. section 39B(1) and both carry the same penalty. Both require the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 39B(3). The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the Public Prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. It was held in Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 231 that a consent to prosecute “is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side”. The Public Prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence. It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so. In Lim Seo v Regina [1962] MLJ 304 counsel was given sanction to prosecute undersection 379 of the Penal Code but he proceeded under section 381 of the Penal Code instead. It was held that counsel cannot depart from the specific authorisation of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to me that the same principles apply here. The facts of the case were fully before the Public Prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then. He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the Public Prosecutor has not given his consent to prosecute under the amended charge. That being so, the trial is a nullity on the authority of Lyn Hong Yap v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 226.”

https://anticyberforensics.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/my-written-submission-for-the-reversal-of-malicious-prosecution-and-recalcitrant-of-magistrate-malice-defeats-immunity-judicial-immunity-2/

ab·sence

[ab-suhns]

noun

1.

state of being away or not being present: I acted as supervisor in his absence. Your absence was noted on the records.
2.

period of being away: an absence of several weeks.
3.

failure to attend or appear when expected.
4.

lack; deficiency: the absence of proof.
5.

inattentiveness; preoccupation; absent-mindedness: absence of mind.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English  < Middle French  < Latin absentia. See absent, -ia

Antonyms
1.  presence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absence

ab·sence  (bsns)

n.

1. The state of being away.
2. The time during which one is away.
3. Lack; want: an absence of leadership.
4. The state of being absent-minded; inattentiveness: absence of mind.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


absence [ˈæbsəns]

n

1. the state of being away
2. the time during which a person or thing is away
3.the fact of being without something; lack

[via Old French from Latin absentia, from absēns a being away]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absence

Nothing is no thing,[1] denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness,[1], is also an adjective, and an object as a concept in the Frege-Church ontology.

In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.[1] Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/the-generalized-hypothetical-analysis-the-ontology-of-eternity-and-nihilism/

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/chicken-and-egg-the-anthropic-cosmologically-causality-dilemma/

The Philosophy of Null Set Theory (Empty Set {}): The Cardinality of Being the Nothingness

Edit LinkSeptember 29, 2009 in Generalized Set Theory, The Anthropic Cosmological Principles
Tags: The Philosophy of Set Theory

The Mathematical Theory of Nothing

“The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters.” – Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts

“das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume,  die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während,  die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Vereinigtes Königreich.

La théorie mathématique de rien

“l’univers, qui, si élégant et d’un seul bloc fashionably expliqué dans des dimensions plus élevées des espaces mathématiquement topologiques,  est les créations hors de néant. En effet, l’explication exige, une telle diversification d’”néant” dans la créativité. Considérant que,  la diversification du “néant” elle-même est créativité de Dieu, est fondamentalement le principe fondamental de tous les forces et sujets.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Royaume-Uni De.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstract

The mathematical theory of nothing is the theory about nihilism, which the verdicts of quantum theory, general relativity theory and grand unified field theory have concluded that the universe as Non-Existence of the universe itself. The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters. For thousands of years, philosophers have tried to clarify, “Creator” and “Creations”, just like ancient cosmological argument about “Chicken and Egg”. The philosophies of eternity and the philosophies of nothingness rebut about the mathematical concept of energy and its equilibrium in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The law, which states that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed” is absolutely twaddling. The concept of the energy equilibrium is the logic that defines energy as eternal, no beginning and no end. Metaphysically and ontologically speaking, the conceptual logic of Eternity and the conceptual logic of Nihilism (Creations), will always contradict each other, as mathematicians and scientists used the the concepts of both logic vice versa. Likely, the hypothetical analysis, that all sciences are either “Cosmology” or “Kama Sutra”. Cosmological mind or cosmological forces and matters that either will be used to define the structure of our universe, when scientists started to gain entertainment upon such vague, yet substantial evidence of the “Non-Existence of Beings” (The Universe) against “The Absolute Existence of Being” (The Creator). Most of them suffer from a form of amnesia. Thus, the mathematical logic of Eternity and the mathematical logic of Nihilism can be distinguished between. Meanwhile, the concept of energy equilibrium, which used before, will be replaced from conceptual “zero” as the point of equilibrium into an “Empty Set” as new “Absolute Point of Equilibrium” with respect to “The Absolute Static Point of Equilibrium of Universe”.

Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, and special words of thanks to Mick Mattis (of St. Leonards on Sea, Hastings, United Kingdom) for proof reading this Abstract and the whole thesis, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

Al-Quran Karim

cancelledout

From My Thesis:

For a statement P(x) that is false for every possible value of x, nothing within the universe can pass the elementhood test for the truth set of P(x), and so, therefore, this truth set must have no elements.

emptyset

Since the truth set of P(x) has no element, this result of

emptyelement

statement, which is always false.

Therefore,

Theorem 1:

Any theory T generated from this statement including basic arithmetical nihilism and  T will always contradict to almost all Physics Laws and Cosmological Principles.

(Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim , First Published January, 1992)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

(Proof of this mathematical theorem will not be shown in this blog).

This Theorem is dedicated To:

M.J. Giles, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology, Ellison Building, The University of Northumbria, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 2:

“Time present and time past

The end precedes the beginning

And the beginning were always there

Before the beginning and after the end

And All is always now”.

(“Time”, By Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, First Published September 6, 1991)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 3:

Nothingness manifests itself into the diversification of elements (how to substantiate),

Substance (Essence) reveals itself into the origination of spaces (how to materialize),

Matter corroborates itself into the emanation of time (how to curve),

Curvature oscillates itself unto the emergence of energy (how to equalibrize),

Equilibrium annihilates itself onto the Nullity of Universe (how to vanish {into Nothingness}).

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 13:

“[N]othingness is the highest dimension of mathematically topological spaces.”

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstrakte

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts ist die Theorie über nihilism, dem die Urteilssprüche der Quantentheorie, der allgemeinen Relativität Theorie und der großartigen vereinheitlichten Feldtheorie daß das Universum als Nicht-Bestehen des Universums selbst festgestellt haben. Das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume, die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während, die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten. Für Tausenden Jahre, haben Philosophen versucht, zu erklären, “Schöpfer” und “Kreationen”, gerade wie altes kosmologisches Argument über “Huhn und Ei”. Die Philosophien der Ewigkeit und die Philosophien des Nichtses widerlegen über das mathematische Konzept von Energie und von seinem Gleichgewicht im ersten Gesetz von Thermodynamik. Das Gesetz, das das angibt, “Energie machen weder wird verursacht ein, noch zerstört” twaddling absolut. Das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts ist die Logik, die Energie definiert, wie ewig, kein Anfang und kein Ende. Metaphysisch und ontologically der Ewigkeit sprechen, die Begriffs-Logik und die Begriffs-Logik von Nihilism (Kreationen), widersprechen sich immer, wie Mathematiker und Wissenschaftler die Konzepte von beiden Logik umgekehrt verwendeten. Wahrscheinlich die hypothetische Analyse, daß alle Wissenschaften entweder “Kosmologie” oder “Kama Sutra” sind. Kosmologischer Verstand oder kosmologische Kräfte und Angelegenheiten, daß irgendein verwendet wird, um die Struktur unseres Universums zu definieren, als Wissenschaftler begannen, Unterhaltung nach solchem vagem zu gewinnen, dennoch überzeugender Beweis des “Nicht-Bestehens der Wesen” (das Universum) gegen “das absolute Bestehen des Seins” (der Schöpfer). Die meisten ihnen leiden unter einer Form von Amnesia. So können die formale Logik der Ewigkeit und die formale Logik von Nihilism bemerkenswert zwischen sein. Unterdessen wird das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts, dem vor verwendete, von Begriffs”null” als der Punkt des Gleichgewichts in “leeren Satz” als neuer “absoluter Punkt des Gleichgewichts” in Bezug auf “den absoluten statischen Punkt des Gleichgewichts des Universums” ersetzt.

Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim und spezielle Wörter des Dankes Mick Mattis (von Str. Leonards auf Meer, Hastings, Vereinigtes Königreich) für Beweismesswert dieses abstrakte und die vollständige These, September 2002,  Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, CB3 9EW Vereinigtes Königreich.

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-philosophy-of-empty-set-cardinality-of-being-nothingness/

Nihili Algebra {}-Generated By Distributive Lattices in Null Set Theory (Hybridized Null Set Theory with Fuzzy Set Theory on The Application of Artificial Intelligence and Neural-Null-Fuzzy Systems)

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nihili-algebra-generated-by-distributive-lattices-in-null-set-theory/

The Prime Number for this case are 13 and 7.

Basic Lists of Prime Numbers

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997, …

*****

List of Fibonacci numbers

The first 21 Fibonacci numbers Fn for n = 0, 1, 2, …, 20 are:

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765

The sequence can also be extended to negative index n using the re-arranged recurrence relation

F_{n-2} = F_n - F_{n-1}, \,

which yields the sequence of “negafibonacci” numbers satisfying

F_{-n} = (-1)^{n+1} F_n. \,

Thus the complete sequence is

F−8 F−7 F−6 F−5 F−4 F−3 F−2 F−1 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
−21 13 −8 5 −3 2 −1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21

*****

 

The Spiral of Archimedes

Orbital Period 3 Bifurcation Diagram of Logistic Map – “Period 3 Implies Chaos”

Fibonacci Numbers

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765

The sequence can also be extended to negative index n using the re-arranged recurrence relation

F_{n-2} = F_n - F_{n-1}, \,

which yields the sequence of “negafibonacci” numbers satisfying

F_{-n} = (-1)^{n+1} F_n. \,

Thus the complete sequence is

F−8 F−7 F−6 F−5 F−4 F−3 F−2 F−1 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
−21 13 −8 5 −3 2 −1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21

The Spiral of Fibonacci

***

“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

**

“The doctrine of judicial immunity originated in early seventeenth-century England in the jurisprudence of Sir Edward Coke. In two decisions, Floyd & Barker and the Case of the Marshalsea, Lord Coke laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial immunity.” Floyd & Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607; The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (1612) were both cases right out of the Star Chamber.

Coke’s reasoning for judicial immunity was presented in four public policy grounds:
1. Finality of judgment;
2. Maintenance of judicial independence;
3. Freedom from continual calumniations; and,
4. Respect and confidence in the judiciary.

The Marshalsea presents a case where Coke denied a judge immunity for presiding over a case in assumpsit. Assumpsit is a common-law action for recovery of damages for breach of contract. Coke then explained the operation of jurisdiction requirement for immunity:

. “[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds iverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process…”

Although narrowing the availability of judicial immunity, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, Coke suggested that there was a presumption of jurisdiction and that the judge must have been aware that jurisdiction was lacking.

Thus, questions of personam, rem and res jurisdiction are always a proper issue before the court to obviate the defense that the court had no way to know they lacked jurisdiction.

**

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

If a judge acts without subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is acting unlawfully, he/she has committed an unlawful interference with one’s person, property, or rights.

Is the judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction then anything but a common criminal?

And all orders and judgments issued by a judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction are, as a matter of law, void.

http://www.clr.org/smj.html

FlightSim005

FlightSim003

FlightSim002

FlightSim010

FlightSim011

FlightSim013

FlightSim014

FlightSim016

FlightSim017

FlightSim019

FlightSim023

FlightSim022

FlightSim024

FlightSim025

FlightSim021

FlightSim026

FlightSim027

FlightSim028

FlightSim028

FlightSim029

FlightSim030

FlightSim031

FlightSim032

FlightSim034

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — A former director of a computer software company today filed a suit against Magistrate Zaki Asyraf Zubir, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and seven others for false imprisonment concerning the charge of possession of 106 pornographic video clips in 2011.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, 42, filed the suit through Messr A S Dhaliwal at the High Court’s Registrar Office here, and named three deputy public prosecutor Norina Zainol Abidin, Mazelan Jamaluddin and Nurul Ashiqin Zulkifli as defendants.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ex-director-sues-a-g-magistrate-and-seven-more-for-false-imprisonment#sthash.myi8a42E.dpuf

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

Prelude into The Greatness of Human Civilization; Mathematics is The Mother of All Sciences and Human Thoughts – Mathematics and Its Mathematical Logic Subdue (both) a priori and a posteriori Truths into the Manifestation of The Theory of Propositional Knowledge – Logic and Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology. Only The Real Pure Mathematicians Who Merely Subdue (both) a priori and a posteriori Truths (Absence of Jurisdiction and Absence of All Jurisdictions In The Sense of Evidential and Mathematical Proofs). Synthetic a priori Judgment vs Analytic Judgment; Synthetic Truth vs a posteriori – a priori Truth; Analytical Judgment vs. Synthetical Judgment; The Principle of All Analytical Judgments is The Law of Contradiction; Empirical Judgments are always Synthetical; Mathematical Judgment are All Syntheticals. The Supreme Principle of Law Was Rather Analytic Than That of Morals Is Synthetic (Thus, So-Called Jurisprudence / Scientia Juris (Juristic Theories)); Metaphysics of Ethics = (Metaphysical Elements of Laws + Metaphysical Elements of Morals) to constitute “The Fundamental” (or “Foundation”) between the Metaphysical Elements of Natural Philosophy (Physics or Scientific (Knowledge/Phenomena) / Scientific (Empirical) Observations) and Jurisprudence / Scientia Juris (The Law), Positivism, Logical Positivism – “Keadilan ialah Meletakkan Kebenaran di Tempat Yang Sepatutnya”.

“Keadilan ialah Meletakkan Kebenaran di Tempat Yang Sepatutnya” – October 2011 Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim. – (In Bahasa Malaysia)

Article 145(3) Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

Article 145(3): The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

Act 620
FILM CENSORSHIP ACT 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

Prosecution
43. No prosecution in respect of any offence under this Act or
any regulations made under this Act shall be instituted except by
or with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor.

26.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Abdul Hamid v PP [1956] MLJ 231 (di mukasurat 3 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Smith J membuat pemerhatian seperti berikut:

“There is an essential difference to my mind between a sanction and a consent. A prosecution can be sanctioned without any deep consideration of the particular case : full consideration is required for consent since “consent” is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (Stround 3rd Ediiton vol 1 page 582). The sanction was therefore no evidence of consent.”

MR. VADIVELLU: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOUR! THANK YOU…

I am doing a proper research on relations of The Mathematical Theory of Nothing vs. The Mathematical and Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of The Absence of All Jurisdictions. The Nullity that will cancel out at the end of basic algebra but actually will remain intact within the sublimation of the highest dimensional topological spaces in the nullitiness of nihilic algebra.

forex014

forex004

https://anticyberforensics.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/july-13-2012/

Akta 620
Akta Penapisan Filem 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

Seksyen 42 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002

Tiada kos atau gantirugi yang berbangkit daripada penyitaan boleh didapatkan

42. “Tiada seorang pun boleh, dalam apa-apa prosiding di hadapan mana-mana mahkamah berkenaan dengan penyitaan apa-apa filem, bahan publisiti filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain yang disita pada menjalankan atau berupa sebagai penjalanan mana-mana kuasa yang diberikan di bawah Akta ini, berhak mendapat kos prosiding itu atau apa-apa gantirugi atau relief lain melainkan jika penyitaan itu dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah.”

Act 620
FILM CENSORSHIP ACT 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

No costs or damages arising from seizure can be recovered

42. No person shall, in any proceedings before any court in respect of the seizure of any film, film-publicity material, book, document or other thing seized in the exercise or the purported exercise of any powers conferred under this Act, be entitled to the costs of such proceedings or to any damages or other relief unless such seizure was made without reasonable cause.

POLICE ACT 1967

S 3 Constitution of the Police Force

(3) The Force shall subject to this Act be employed in and throughout Malaysia (including the territorial waters thereof) for the maintenance of law and order, the preservation of the peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the collection of security intelligence.

Non-liability for act done under authority of warrant

32. (1) Where the defence to any suit instituted against a police officer, an extra police officer, volunteer reserve police officer or an auxiliary police officer is that the act complained of was done in obedience to a warrant purporting to be issued by any competent authority, the court shall, upon production of the warrant containing the signature of such authority and upon proof that the act complained of was done in obedience to such warrant, enter judgment in favour of such police officer, extra police officer, volunteer reserve police officer or auxiliary police officer.

(2) No proof of the signature of such authority shall be required unless the court has reason to doubt the genuineness thereof; and where it is proved that such signature is not genuine, judgment shall nevertheless be given in favour of such police officer or extra police officer if it is proved that, at the time when the act complained of was committed, he believed on reasonable grounds that such signature was genuine.

§First Information Report (FIR)

§The Mathematical Theory of Nothing vs. On The Absence of All Jurisdictions

- The Logic of Being, Absence and Nothingness

- The Metaphysics of Being, Absence and Nothingness

- The Epistemology of Being, Absence and Nothingness

§Principles That Governing Malicious Prosecution

§Want of Reasonable and Probable Cause

§On Malicious Prosecution and Malice Itselves

§Breach and Nullity (Void) of Malaysian Federal Constitutions

§Court of Judicature Act (Act 91) + Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (Act 92) & Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955 (Act 55) + Jurisdiction of Syariah Courts

§Breach and Misconduct of Magistrate’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Prosecution’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Investigation Officer’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Expert’s Duties

§Want of / Lack of / Absence of Scientific Laws and Evidence:

§Scientific Evidence - Scientific Testimonies – Expert Evidence – The Logic of Scientific Discoveries  – The Metaphysics of Scientific Phenomena – The Epistemology of Scientific Observations (Empirical Observations / Scientific Methodology)

§False Imprisonment

§Invasion of Privacy

§Damages in Malicious Prosecution

§Vicarious Liability

“Tragedy”

Here I lie
in a lost and lonely part of town
Held in time
In a world of tears I slowly drown
Goin’home
I just can’t make it all alone
I really should be holding you
Holding you
Loving you loving you

Tragedy
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on
It’s tragedy
When the morning cries and you don’t know why
It’s hard to bear
With no-one to love you you’re
goin’ nowhere
Tragedy
When you lose control and you got no soul
It’s tragedy
When the morning cries and you don’t know why
It’s hard to bear
With no-one beside you you’re
goin’ nowhere
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on

Night and day
there’s a burning down inside of me
Burning love
With a yearning that won’t let me be
Down I go
and I just can’t take it all alone
I really should be holding you
Holding you
Loving you loving

Tragedy
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on
It’s tragedy
When the morning cries and you don’t know why
It’s hard to bear
With no-one to love you you’re
goin’ nowhere
Tragedy
When you lose control and you got no soul
It’s tragedy
When the morning cries and you don’t know why
It’s hard to bear
With no-one beside you you’re
goin’ nowhere

Tragedy…

NIGHT FEVER
Listen to the ground, there is movement all around
There is something going down and I can feel it
On the waves of the air, there is dancing out there
If it’s something we can share, we can steal it

And that sweet city woman, she moves through the light
Controlling my mind and my soul
When you reach out for me yeah, and the feeling is bright

Then I get night fever, night fever, we know how to do it
Gimme that night fever, night fever, we know how to show it

Here I am, praying for this moment to last
Living on the music so fine
Borne on the wind, making it mine

Night fever, night fever, we know how to do it
Gimme that night fever, night fever, we know how to show it

In the heat of our love, don’t need no help for us to make it
Gimme just enough to take us to the morning
I got fire in my mind, I got higher in my walking
And I’m glowing in the dark, I give you warning

And that sweet city woman, she moves through the light
Controlling my mind and my soul
When you reach out for me yeah, and the feeling is bright

Then I get night fever, night fever, we know how to do it
Gimme that night fever, night fever, we know how to show it

Here I am, praying for this moment to last
Living on the music so fine
Borne on the wind, making it mine

Night fever, night fever, we know how to do it
Gimme that night fever, night fever, we know how to show it

Such Beautiful Korean Girls: (But This Ugly Fat Horse (PSY) is Wandering Around Those Girls)

CALL MY NUMBER MAYBE  (++60-19-2787830)

Full Definition of SYNTHETIC

1
:  relating to or involving synthesis :  not analytic <the synthetic aspects of a philosophy>
2
:  attributing to a subject something determined by observation rather than analysis of the nature of the subject and not resulting in self-contradiction if negated — compare analytic
3
:  characterized by frequent and systematic use of inflected forms to express grammatical relationships <synthetic languages>
4
a (1) :  of, relating to, or produced by chemical or biochemical synthesis; especially :  produced artificially <synthetic drugs> <synthetic silk> (2) :  of or relating to a synfuel

b :  devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities

c :  factitious, bogus

syn·thet·i·cal·ly adverb

Examples of SYNTHETIC

  1. <that organic farm doesn’t use any pesticides or synthetic fertilizers>
  2. <boots of waterproof synthetic leather>

Origin of SYNTHETIC

Greek synthetikos of composition, component, from syntithenai to put together

First Known Use: 1697

Related to SYNTHETIC

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthetic

Definition of ANALYTIC

1
:  of or relating to analysis or analytics; especially :  separating something into component parts or constituent elements
2
:  being a proposition (as no bachelor is married) whose truth is evident from the meaning of the words it contains — compare synthetic
3
:  skilled in or using analysis especially in thinking or reasoning <a keenly analytic person>
4
:  characterized by analysis rather than inflection <analytic languages>
6
:  treated or treatable by or using the methods of algebra and calculus
7
a of a function of a real variable :  capable of being expanded in a Taylor’s series in powers of x − h in some neighborhood of the point h

b of a function of a complex variable :  differentiable at every point in some neighborhood of a given point

an·a·lyt·i·cal·ly adverb
an·a·ly·tic·i·ty noun

Variants of ANALYTIC

an·a·lyt·ic or an·a·lyt·i·cal

Examples of ANALYTIC

  1. <presented a very analytical argument for the defendant’s guilt>

Origin of ANALYTIC

Late Latin analyticus, from Greek analytikos, from analyein

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analytic

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

CodeGenius V7.0.13 Neural Fuzzy of The Fuzziness: Jimmy Choronology In Da Middle… of Disco Party? – Hey! Jimmy In Da Club – Mere Zindagi Mere Hindustani = Jimmy… Jimmy… Jimmy… (Echoing), Aadja… Aadja… Aadja… (Echoing) – Zindagi Mera Gana…

I am running several tests on Instaforex demo accounts:

Please download Instaforex multiterminal or Instaforex MT4 trading software to view the results in real-time.

http://www.instaforex.com/downloads.php

Special Words of Thanx to Mr. John Bollinger for his very useful Bollinger Bands:

____________________________________________________________________

//+—————————————————————————————-+
//|                                                                   CodeGenius V7.0.1 June 23 2013 .mq4 |
//|               Copyright © 2013, MOHAMAD IZAHAM BIN MOHAMED YATIM |
//|                                                                                    http://www.qassimbaba.com |
//+—————————————————————————————-+

#property copyright “Copyright © 2013, MOHAMAD IZAHAM BIN MOHAMED YATIM”
#property link      “http://www.qassimbaba.com&#8221;

#include <stdlib.mqh>
#include <stderror.mqh>
#include <WinUser32.mqh>

//********************************************************************************************************************
// Settings and Parameters
//********************************************************************************************************************

extern bool DynamicLotSize = false;
extern double EquityPercent = 1.0;
extern int MagicNumber = 313;
extern int Slippage = 3;
double TakeProfit = 0.00;
double StopLoss = 0.00;
extern double MaxSpread = 4;
extern int NumbersOfPairs = 8;
extern double MaxEquity = 13000000;

//********************************************************************************************************************

//********************************************************************************************************************
double MinAmount = 0;
double MarginLevel = 50;
int TradeUpPoint = 17;
double MinEquityStopLossPercentage = 30;
//********************************************************************************************************************

//********************************************************************************************************************
//—- Input Initialized Parameters
//********************************************************************************************************************

int x1 = 120;
int x2 = 172;
int x3 = 39;
int x4 = 172;

color pivotColor = Blue;
color pivotlevelColor = Blue;
int ChannelPeriod = 24;
int EMAPeriod = 120;
int StartEMAShift = 6;
int EndEMAShift = 0;
double AngleTreshold = 0.32;
string note1=”Change font colors automatically? True = Yes”;
bool   Bid_Ask_Colors=True;
string note2=”Default Price Font Color”;
color  FontColorPrice=Black;
string note3=”Font Size”;
int    FontSizePrice=26;
string note4=”Font Type”;
string FontType=”Rockwell”;
int Corner=1;
color CandleTimeColor = Blue;

int XDistance=1;
int YDistance=5;
double        Old_Price;
int signalcondition = 0;
int signalcondition2 = 0;
int CrossTime;
double CrossPrice;
string dbl2str;
string str_concat;
double UpperLine[];
double LowerLine[];
double MidLine[];
double BuyBuffer[];
double SellBuffer[];
double s1[];
bool BuySignal = FALSE;
bool SellSignal = FALSE;
bool BuySignal2 = FALSE;
bool SellSignal2 = FALSE;
bool CloseBuySignal = FALSE;
bool CloseSellSignal = FALSE;

//+——————————————————————+
//| External variables                                                                      |
//+——————————————————————+

double Slw = 8;
double Pds = 13;
double Slwsignal = 9;
int    Barcount = 2000;

//+——————————————————————+
//| Special Conversion Functions                                                 |
//+——————————————————————+

int LastTradeTime;
double ExtHistoBuffer[];
double ExtHistoBuffer2[];
bool BuyAlert=false, SellAlert=false;
bool BuyAlert2=false, SellAlert2=false;
bool BuyAlert3=false, SellAlert3=false;

void SetLoopCount(int loops)
{
}

void SetIndexValue(int shift, double value)
{
ExtHistoBuffer[shift] = value;
//  Print (“ExtHistoBuffer :” ,value);    // green
}

void SetIndexValue2(int shift, double value)
{
ExtHistoBuffer2[shift] = value;
//  Print (“ExtHistoBuffer2 :” ,value);    // green
}

double GetIndexValue(int shift)
{
return(ExtHistoBuffer[shift]);
}

double GetIndexValue2(int shift)
{
return(ExtHistoBuffer2[shift]);
}

// local variables
double PipValue=1;    // this variable is here to support 5-digit brokers
bool Terminated = false;
string LF = “\n”;  // use this in custom or utility blocks where you need line feeds
int NDigits = 4;   // used mostly for NormalizeDouble in Flex type blocks
int ObjCount = 0;  // count of all objects created on the chart, allows creation of objects with unique names
int current = 0;

int Count13 = 0;

int LastTradeUpTicket48 = -1;
int LastTradeUpTicket53 = -1;

int init()
{
NDigits = Digits;

if (false) ObjectsDeleteAll();      // clear the chart

Comment(“”);    // clear the chart
}

// Expert start
int start()
{

//********************************************************************************************************************
PlaySound(“tick.wav”);
//********************************************************************************************************************

//********************************************************************************************************************
double UsePoint;
int UseSlippage;
UsePoint = PipPoint(Symbol());
UseSlippage = GetSlippage(Symbol(),Slippage);
//********************************************************************************************************************

/********************************************************************************************************************

double barvalue[1][6];
double close;
double high;
double low;
int start;
double fEndMA;
double fStartMA;
double fAngle;
int digits;
double k;
int m,s,l;

ArrayCopyRates(barvalue, Symbol(), PERIOD_D1);
if (DayOfWeek() == 1) {
if (TimeDayOfWeek(iTime(Symbol(), PERIOD_D1, 1)) == 5) {
close = barvalue[1][4];
high = barvalue[1][3];
low = barvalue[1][2];
} else {
for (int j = 5; j >= 0; j–) {
if (TimeDayOfWeek(iTime(Symbol(), PERIOD_D1, j)) == 5) {
close = barvalue[j][4];
high = barvalue[j][3];
low = barvalue[j][2];
}
}
}
} else {
close = barvalue[1][4];
high = barvalue[1][3];
low = barvalue[1][2];
}
double rangehl = high – low;
double pivot = (high + low + close) / 3.0;
double R3 = pivot + 1.0 * rangehl;
double R2 = pivot + 0.618 * rangehl;
double R1 = pivot + rangehl / 2.0;
double S1 = pivot – rangehl / 2.0;
double S2 = pivot – 0.618 * rangehl;
double S3 = pivot – 1.0 * rangehl;

int counted_indicators = IndicatorCounted();
if (Bars <= ChannelPeriod) return (0);
if (counted_indicators >= ChannelPeriod) start = Bars – counted_indicators – 1;
else start = Bars – ChannelPeriod – 1;
BuyBuffer[0] = 0;
SellBuffer[0] = 0;
for (int i = start; i >= 0; i–) {

double AA = 0;
double bb = 0;
double aa1 = 0;
double cnt1 = 0;
int shift = 0;
double cnt = 0;
double loopbegin = 0;
double loopbegin2 = 0;
double loopbegin3 = 0;
bool first = True;
double prevbars = 0;
double sum = 0;
double smconst = 0;
double smconst1 = 0;
double prev = 0;
double prev1 = 0;
double prev2 = 0;
double prev3 = 0;
double weight = 0;
double linear = 0;
double MAValue = 0;
double MAValue2 = 0;
double mavalue3 = 0;
string MAstring = “”;
double MyHigh = 0;
double MyLow = 0;
int counter = 0;
double Price = 0;
double Price1 = 0;
double tmpDevAA = 0;

SetLoopCount(0);
smconst = 2 / (1+Slw);
smconst1 = 2 / (1+Slwsignal);

loopbegin = loopbegin+1;
for(shift =Barcount;shift >=0 ;shift –)
{
prev = GetIndexValue2(shift+1);

// Yousky 15/05/2006 – Change to avoid Zero divide exception.
AA = 0;
// —

MAValue2 = smconst * (AA-prev) + prev;

SetIndexValue2(shift,MAValue2);

loopbegin = loopbegin-1;

}

loopbegin2 = loopbegin2+1;
for(shift =Barcount-Pds;shift >=0 ;shift –){
MyHigh = -999999;
MyLow = 99999999;
for(counter =shift;counter <=Pds + shift ;counter ++){
Price= GetIndexValue2(counter);
if( Price > MyHigh )
MyHigh = Price;
if( Pds <= 0 )
MyHigh = Price;
if( Price < MyLow )
MyLow = Price;
if( Pds <= 0 )
MyLow = Price;
}

prev1 = GetIndexValue(shift+1);
aa1=GetIndexValue2(shift);

// Yousky 15/05/2006 – Change to avoid Zero divide exception.
bb= 0;
if ((MyHigh-MyLow) != 0)
bb=100*(aa1-MyLow)/(MyHigh-MyLow);
// —

MAValue = smconst * (bb-prev1) + prev1;

SetIndexValue(shift,MAValue);

loopbegin2 = loopbegin2-1;
}

//Print (MAValue);  // green

loopbegin3 = loopbegin3+1;
for(shift =Barcount;shift >=0 ;shift –){
prev2=GetIndexValue2(shift+1);
prev3=GetIndexValue(shift);
mavalue3= smconst1 * (prev3-prev2) +prev2;

SetIndexValue2(shift,mavalue3);
loopbegin3 = loopbegin3-1;

}

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// BEGIN OF GENERALIZED DECISION FUNCTIONS
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// END OF GENERALIZED DECISION FUNCTIONS
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

if (Bars < 10)
{
Comment(“Not enough bars”);
return (0);
}
if (Terminated == true)
{
Comment(“EA Terminated.”);
return (0);
}

OnEveryTick28();

}

void OnEveryTick28()
{
if (true == false && true) PipValue = 10;
if (true && (NDigits == 3 || NDigits == 5)) PipValue = 10;

SpreadFilter39();
PrintInfoToChart43();
PrintToLog44();
CheckEquity46();
IfOrderExists26();
IfOrderExists25();
SpreadFilter35();
CheckMarginLevel57();
CheckEquity55();
TechnicalAnalysis56();
TechnicalAnalysis72();

}

//ANY TIMEFRAME
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double ACC()
{
double ACc = iAC(NULL, 0, 1);
return(ACc);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double RSI()
{
double rsi_sig = iRSI(NULL, 0, 14, PRICE_CLOSE, 0);
return(rsi_sig);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double CCI()
{
double CCI_SIG = iCCI(NULL, 0, 14, PRICE_CLOSE, 0);
return(CCI_SIG);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double WPR()
{
double WPR_SIG = iWPR(NULL, 0, 14, 0);
return(WPR_SIG);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double ATR()
{
double WPR_SIG = iATR(NULL, 0, 14, 0);
return(WPR_SIG);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|  The EMA50 – a function                                                                                          |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double EMA50()
{
double EMA50CLOSEPRICE = iMA(NULL,0,50,0,MODE_SMMA,PRICE_CLOSE,0);
return(EMA50CLOSEPRICE);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|  The Close Price – a function                                                                                    |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double CLOSE()
{
double CLOSEPRICE = double iClose(NULL, 0, 0);
return(CLOSEPRICE);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|  The Open Price – a function                                                                                     |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double OPEN()
{
double OPENPRICE = double iOpen(NULL, 0, 0);
return(OPENPRICE);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double DeMarker()
{
double val=iDeMarker(NULL, 0, 14, 1);
return(val);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double ADX()
{
double adxer = iADX(NULL,0,14,PRICE_HIGH,MODE_MAIN,0) -
iADX(NULL,0,14,PRICE_HIGH,MODE_PLUSDI,0);
return(adxer);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double OsMA()
{
double Osama = (iOsMA(NULL,0,12,26,14,PRICE_OPEN,1)) -
(iOsMA(NULL,0,12,26,14,PRICE_OPEN,0));
return(Osama);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double FORCE()
{
double val2=(iForce(NULL, 0, 13,MODE_SMA,PRICE_CLOSE,0));
return(val2);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double MOM()
{
double MOMENT = (iMomentum(NULL,0,12,PRICE_CLOSE,0) -
iMomentum(NULL,0,20,PRICE_CLOSE,0));
return(MOMENT);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double volume()
{
int i = 0;
double val5 = (iVolume(Symbol(),0,i));
return(val5);
i++;
}

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double PSAR()
{
double psar = (Close[0] – iSAR(NULL,0,0.02,0.2,0));
return(psar);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double MACD()
{
double macd = (iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,0) -
iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,0));
return (macd);
}
//
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double MACDMAIN()
{
double macdmain = (iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,0));
return (macdmain);
}
//
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double MACDSIGNAL()
{
double macdsignal = (iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,0));
return (macdsignal);
}
//
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double highest()
{
int bar = WindowFirstVisibleBar();
double val6 = High[iHighest(NULL,0,MODE_HIGH, bar-1, 1)];
return(val6);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double lowest()
{
int bar = WindowFirstVisibleBar();
double val7 = Low[iLowest(NULL,0,MODE_LOW, bar-1, 1)];
return(val7);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double range()
{
double ranger = MathAbs((highest() – lowest()));
return(ranger);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double ackohonen()
{
double w1 = x1 – 100.0;
double w2 = x2 – 100.0;
double w3 = x3 – 100.0;
double w4 = x4 – 100.0;
double a1 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 0);
double a2 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 7);
double a3 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 14);
double a4 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 21);
double ackohonensqrt = (w1 * a1 + w2 * a2 + w3 * a3 + w4 * a4);
return (ackohonensqrt);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double achebbian()
{
double w11 = x1 – 100.0;
double w12 = x2 – 100.0;
double w13 = x3 – 100.0;
double w14 = x4 – 100.0;
double a11 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 0);
double a12 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 7);
double a13 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 14);
double a14 = iAC(Symbol(), 0, 21);
double achebbiansqrt = (w11 * a11 + w12 * a12 + w13 * a13 + w14 * a14);
double achebbiansqr = ((achebbiansqrt*achebbiansqrt)/2);
return (achebbiansqr);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double macdkohonen()
{
double wmacdk1 = x1 – 100.0;
double wmacdk2 = x2 – 100.0;
double wmacdk3 = x3 – 100.0;
double wmacdk4 = x4 – 100.0;
double amacdk1 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,0) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,0);
double amacdk2 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,7) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,7);
double amacdk3 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,14) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,14);
double amacdk4 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,21) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,21);
double macdkohonensqrt = (wmacdk1 * amacdk1 + wmacdk2 * amacdk2 + wmacdk3 * amacdk3 + wmacdk4 * amacdk4);
return (macdkohonensqrt);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double macdhebbian()
{
double wmacdh11 = x1 – 100.0;
double wmacdh12 = x2 – 100.0;
double wmacdh13 = x3 – 100.0;
double wmacdh14 = x4 – 100.0;
double amacdh11 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,0) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,0);
double amacdh12 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,7) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,7);
double amacdh13 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,14) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,14);
double amacdh14 = iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_MAIN,21) – iMACD(NULL,0,12,26,9,PRICE_CLOSE,MODE_SIGNAL,21);
double macdhebbiansqrt = (wmacdh11 * amacdh11 + wmacdh12 * amacdh12 + wmacdh13 * amacdh13 + wmacdh14 * amacdh14);
double macdhebbiansqr = ((macdhebbiansqrt*macdhebbiansqrt)/2);
return (macdhebbiansqr);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double bearkohonen()
{
double wbek1 = x1 – 100.0;
double wbek2 = x2 – 100.0;
double wbek3 = x3 – 100.0;
double wbek4 = x4 – 100.0;
double abek1 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,0);
double abek2 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,7);
double abek3 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,14);
double abek4 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,21);
double bearkohonensqrt = (-1)*(wbek1 * abek1 + wbek2 * abek2 + wbek3 * abek3 + wbek4 * abek4);
return (bearkohonensqrt);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double bearhebbian()
{
double wbeh11 = x1 – 100.0;
double wbeh12 = x2 – 100.0;
double wbeh13 = x3 – 100.0;
double wbeh14 = x4 – 100.0;
double abeh11 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,0);
double abeh12 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,7);
double abeh13 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,14);
double abeh14 = iBearsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,21);
double bearhebbiansqrt = (wbeh11 * abeh11 + wbeh12 * abeh12 + wbeh13 * abeh13 + wbeh14 * abeh14);
double bearhebbiansqr = ((bearhebbiansqrt*bearhebbiansqrt)/2);
return (bearhebbiansqr);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double bullkohonen()
{
double wbuk1 = x1 – 100.0;
double wbuk2 = x2 – 100.0;
double wbuk3 = x3 – 100.0;
double wbuk4 = x4 – 100.0;
double abuk1 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,0);
double abuk2 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,7);
double abuk3 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,14);
double abuk4 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,21);
double bullkohonensqrt = (wbuk1 * abuk1 + wbuk2 * abuk2 + abuk3 * abuk3 + wbuk4 * abuk4);
return (bullkohonensqrt);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|                                                                                                                  |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
double bullhebbian()
{
double wbuh11 = x1 – 100.0;
double wbuh12 = x2 – 100.0;
double wbuh13 = x3 – 100.0;
double wbuh14 = x4 – 100.0;
double abuh11 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,0);
double abuh12 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,7);
double abuh13 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,14);
double abuh14 = iBullsPower(NULL, 0, 13,PRICE_CLOSE,21);
double bullhebbiansqrt = (wbuh11 * abuh11 + wbuh12 * abuh12 + wbuh13 * abuh13 + wbuh14 * abuh14);
double bullhebbiansqr = ((bullhebbiansqrt*bullhebbiansqrt)/2);
return (bullhebbiansqr);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
//|  The Slippage Function and PipPoint                                                                              |
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// Pip Point Function
double PipPoint(string Currency)
{
int CalcDigits = MarketInfo(Currency,MODE_DIGITS);
if(CalcDigits == 2 || CalcDigits == 3) double CalcPoint = 0.01;
else if(CalcDigits == 4 || CalcDigits == 5) CalcPoint = 0.0001;
return(CalcPoint);
}

// Get Slippage Function
int GetSlippage(string Currency, int SlippagePips)
{
int CalcDigits = MarketInfo(Currency,MODE_DIGITS);
if(CalcDigits == 2 || CalcDigits == 4) double CalcSlippage = SlippagePips;
else if(CalcDigits == 3 || CalcDigits == 5) CalcSlippage = SlippagePips * 10;
return(CalcSlippage);
}
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

void SpreadFilter39()//SPREAD FILTER BUY ORDER
{
if (MarketInfo(Symbol(), MODE_SPREAD)/PipValue < MaxSpread)
{
IfOrderDoesNotExist38();

}
}

void IfOrderDoesNotExist38()
{
bool exists = false;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderType() == OP_BUY && OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

if (exists == false)
{
TechnicalAnalysis2xOr37();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis2xOr37()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OPEN BUY ORDER
{
if ((0 > 0) || (0 > 0))
{
BuyOrder36();

}
}

void BuyOrder36()
{

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// Begin of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
if(DynamicLotSize == true)
{
double RiskAmount = AccountEquity() * (EquityPercent / 100);
double TickValue = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_TICKVALUE);
if(Point == 0.001 || Point == 0.00001) TickValue *= 10;
double CalcLots = (RiskAmount / StopLoss) / TickValue;
double LotSize = CalcLots;
}
else LotSize = LotSizeOnEquity;

// Lot size verification
if(LotSize < MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT);
}
else if(LotSize > MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT);
}

if(MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_LOTSTEP) == 0.1)
{
LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,1);
}
else LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,2);
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// End of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

double SL = Ask – StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) SL = 0;
double TP = Ask + TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) TP = 0;
int ticket = -1;
if (true)
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, Blue);
else
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, SL, TP, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, Blue);
if (ticket > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), SL, TP, 0, Blue);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
PrintToLog40();

}
else
{
Print(“OrderSend() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}

void PrintToLog40()
{
Print(“Open Buy”);

}

void PrintInfoToChart43()
{
string temp = “Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim – Copyright © 1990 – 2013, CodeGenius™ (United Kingdom) Limited\nCodeGenius™ V7.0 : Executed : ” + Count13 + “, SPREAD : ” + DoubleToStr(MarketInfo(Symbol(), MODE_SPREAD)/PipValue, 2) +
+ “————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-\n”
+ “TECHNICAL ANALYSES:\n”
+ “\n”
+ “RSI (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(RSI(), 4)+ “, CCI (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(CCI(), 4)+ “, WPR (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(WPR(), 4)+ “, ATR (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(ATR(), 4)+ “, ADX (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(ADX(), 4)+ “, AC ( ) : ” + DoubleToStr(ACC(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “EMA50 : ” + DoubleToStr(EMA50(), 4)+ “, MACD (12,26,9) : ” + DoubleToStr(MACD(), 4)+ “, OPEN PRICE : ” + DoubleToStr(OPEN(), 4)+ “, CLOSE PRICE : ” + DoubleToStr(CLOSE(), 4)+ “, CLOSE – OPEN : ” + DoubleToStr(CLOSE() – OPEN(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “MARKET STABILITY : ” + Symbol() + “, CLOSE PRICE – PSAR (0.02,0.2) : ” + DoubleToStr(PSAR(), 4)+ “, CLOSE PRICE – EMA(50) : ” + DoubleToStr(CLOSE() – EMA50(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “STOCHASTIC (5,3,3) : ” + DoubleToStr(Stochastic(), 4)+ “, STOCHASTICMAIN(5,3,3) : ” + DoubleToStr(StochasticMain(), 4)+ “, STOCHASTICSIGNAL(5,3,3) : ” + DoubleToStr(StochasticSignal(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “MACD (12,26,9) : ” + DoubleToStr(MACD(), 4)+ “, MACDMAIN (12,26,9) : ” + DoubleToStr(MACDMAIN(), 4)+ “, MACDSIGNAL (12,26,9) : ” + DoubleToStr(MACDSIGNAL(), 4)+ “, FORCE (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(FORCE(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “DeMarker (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(DeMarker(), 4)+ “, OsMA (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(OsMA(), 4)+ “, Volume : ” + DoubleToStr(volume(), 0)+ “, MOMENTUM (14) : ” + DoubleToStr(MOM(), 4)+ “, Equity / Balance : ” + DoubleToStr(AccountEquity()/AccountBalance(), 2) + “\n”
+ “————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-\n”
+ “NEURAL FUZZY NETS AND CHAOS THEORETICAL ANALYSES:\n”
+ “\n”
+ “Node 01      AC Kohonen :    ” + DoubleToStr(ackohonen(), 4)+ ”   Node 05 BEAR Kohonen :     ” + DoubleToStr(bearkohonen(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “Node 02       AC Hebbian :    ” + DoubleToStr(achebbian(), 4)+ ”   Node 06 BEAR Hebbian :      ” + DoubleToStr(bearhebbian(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “Node 03 MACD Kohonen :    ” + DoubleToStr(macdkohonen(), 4)+ ”   Node 07 BULL Kohonen :      ” + DoubleToStr(bullkohonen(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “Node 04 MACD Hebbian :     ” + DoubleToStr(macdhebbian(), 4)+ ”   Node 08 BULL Hebbian :       ” + DoubleToStr(bullhebbian(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-\n”
/*  + “FIBONACCI ANALYSES:\n”
+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 0.00 R %    : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace000, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 23.6 R %  : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace236, 4)+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 38.2 R %    : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace382, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 50.0 R %  : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace50, 4)+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 61.8 R %    : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace618, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 100.0 R % : ” + DoubleToStr(Retrace1000, 4)+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 61.8.0 E %  : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend618, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 100.0 E % : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend1000, 4)+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 138.2 E %  : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend1382, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 161.8 E % : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend1618, 4)+ “\n”
+ “Fibonacci 261.8 E % : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend2618, 4)+ “, Fibonacci 423.6 E %  : ” + DoubleToStr(Extend4236, 4)+ “\n”
*/  + “Lowest Peak: ” + DoubleToStr(lowest(), 4)+ “, Highest Peak: ” + DoubleToStr(highest(), 4)+ “, Range: ” + DoubleToStr(range(), 4)+ “\n”
+ “————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-\n”
+ “ACCOUNT INFORMATIONS:\n”
+ “\n”
+ “Account Name:     ” + AccountName()+ “\n”
+ “Account Leverage:     ” + DoubleToStr(AccountLeverage(), 0)+ “\n”
+ “Account Balance:     ” + DoubleToStr(AccountBalance(), 2)+ “\n”
+ “Account Equity:     ” + DoubleToStr(AccountEquity(), 2)+ “\n”
+ “Free Margin:     ” + DoubleToStr(AccountFreeMargin(), 2)+ “\n”
+ “Used Margin:     ” + DoubleToStr(AccountMargin(), 2)+ “\n”
+ “Profit/Loss:      ” + DoubleToStr(AccountProfit(), 2)+ “\n”
+ “Floatings %:      ” + DoubleToStr(AccountProfit()/AccountBalance()*100, 2)+” %”+”\n”
+ “————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-\n”;
Comment(temp);
Count13++;
}

void PrintToLog44()
{
Print(“I am Thinking Honey…”);

}

void CheckEquity46()//CHECK EQUITY TO CLOSE ORDERS WHEN REACHES 13,000,000.00
{

if (AccountEquity() > MaxEquity)
{
CloseOrderIf41();
CloseOrderIf42();

}
}

void CloseOrderIf41()
{
int orderstotal = OrdersTotal();
int orders = 0;
int ordticket[30][2];
for (int i = 0; i < orderstotal; i++)
{
OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES);
if (OrderType() != OP_SELL || OrderSymbol() != Symbol() || OrderMagicNumber() != MagicNumber)
{
continue;
}
if (OrderProfit() > MinAmount)
{
ordticket[orders][0] = OrderOpenTime();
ordticket[orders][1] = OrderTicket();
orders++;
}
}
if (orders > 1)
{
ArrayResize(ordticket,orders);
ArraySort(ordticket);
}
for (i = 0; i < orders; i++)
{
if (OrderSelect(ordticket[i][1], SELECT_BY_TICKET) == true)
{
bool ret = OrderClose(OrderTicket(), OrderLots(), OrderClosePrice(), Slippage, Red);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderClose() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
PrintToLog29();

}

void PrintToLog29()
{
Print(“Close Sell “);

}

void CloseOrderIf42()
{
int orderstotal = OrdersTotal();
int orders = 0;
int ordticket[30][2];
for (int i = 0; i < orderstotal; i++)
{
OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES);
if (OrderType() != OP_BUY || OrderSymbol() != Symbol() || OrderMagicNumber() != MagicNumber)
{
continue;
}
if (OrderProfit() > MinAmount)
{
ordticket[orders][0] = OrderOpenTime();
ordticket[orders][1] = OrderTicket();
orders++;
}
}
if (orders > 1)
{
ArrayResize(ordticket,orders);
ArraySort(ordticket);
}
for (i = 0; i < orders; i++)
{
if (OrderSelect(ordticket[i][1], SELECT_BY_TICKET) == true)
{
bool ret = OrderClose(OrderTicket(), OrderLots(), OrderClosePrice(), Slippage, Red);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderClose() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
PrintToLog30();

}

void PrintToLog30()
{
Print(“Close Buy”);

}

void IfOrderExists26()
{
bool exists = false;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderType() == OP_SELL && OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

if (exists)
{
TechnicalAnalysis24();
TechnicalAnalysis47();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis24()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CLOSE ORDER?
{
if (0 > 0)
{
CloseOrderIf41();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis47()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TRADE UP OPEN  ORDER
{
if (0 > 0)
{
TradeUp48();

}
}

void TradeUp48()
{

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// Begin of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
if(DynamicLotSize == true)
{
double RiskAmount = AccountEquity() * (EquityPercent / 100);
double TickValue = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_TICKVALUE);
if(Point == 0.001 || Point == 0.00001) TickValue *= 10;
double CalcLots = (RiskAmount / StopLoss) / TickValue;
double LotSize = CalcLots;
}
else LotSize = LotSizeOnEquity;

// Lot size verification
if(LotSize < MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT);
}
else if(LotSize > MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT);
}

if(MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_LOTSTEP) == 0.1)
{
LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,1);
}
else LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,2);
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// End of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

bool exists = false;
if (LastTradeUpTicket48 != -1)
{
for (int j=OrdersTotal()-1; j >= 0; j–)
if (OrderSelect(j, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderTicket() == LastTradeUpTicket48)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
if (exists == false) LastTradeUpTicket48 = -1;  // reset Ticket Id so trade-up would be possible

double takeprofit = 0;
double stoploss = 0;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber && LastTradeUpTicket48 == -1)
{

if (OrderType() == OP_BUY && Ask – OrderOpenPrice() > TradeUpPoint*PipValue*Point)
{
takeprofit = Ask+TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) takeprofit = OrderTakeProfit();
stoploss = Ask-StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) stoploss = OrderStopLoss();

LastTradeUpTicket48 = OrderTicket();

int ticket = -1;
if (true)
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
else
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, stoploss, takeprofit, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
if (ticket > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), stoploss, takeprofit, 0, White);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

}

}
if (OrderType() == OP_SELL && OrderOpenPrice() – Bid > TradeUpPoint*PipValue*Point)
{

takeprofit = Bid – TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) takeprofit = OrderTakeProfit();
stoploss = Bid+StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) stoploss = OrderStopLoss();

LastTradeUpTicket48 = OrderTicket();

int ticket2 = -1;
if (true)
ticket2 = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
else
ticket2 = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, stoploss, takeprofit, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
if (ticket2 > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket2, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret4 = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), stoploss, takeprofit, 0, White);
if (ret4 == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

}

}

}
}
else
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));

}

void IfOrderExists25()
{
bool exists = false;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderType() == OP_BUY && OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

if (exists)
{
TechnicalAnalysis27();
TechnicalAnalysis51();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis27()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CLOSE ORDER?
{
if (0 > 0)
{
CloseOrderIf42();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis51()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TRADE UP OPEN ORDER?
{
if (0 > 0)
{
TradeUp53();

}
}

void TradeUp53()
{

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// Begin of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
if(DynamicLotSize == true)
{
double RiskAmount = AccountEquity() * (EquityPercent / 100);
double TickValue = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_TICKVALUE);
if(Point == 0.001 || Point == 0.00001) TickValue *= 10;
double CalcLots = (RiskAmount / StopLoss) / TickValue;
double LotSize = CalcLots;
}
else LotSize = LotSizeOnEquity;

// Lot size verification
if(LotSize < MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT);
}
else if(LotSize > MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT);
}

if(MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_LOTSTEP) == 0.1)
{
LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,1);
}
else LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,2);
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// End of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

bool exists = false;
if (LastTradeUpTicket53 != -1)
{
for (int j=OrdersTotal()-1; j >= 0; j–)
if (OrderSelect(j, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderTicket() == LastTradeUpTicket53)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
if (exists == false) LastTradeUpTicket53 = -1;  // reset Ticket Id so trade-up would be possible

double takeprofit = 0;
double stoploss = 0;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber && LastTradeUpTicket53 == -1)
{

if (OrderType() == OP_BUY && Ask – OrderOpenPrice() > TradeUpPoint*PipValue*Point)
{
takeprofit = Ask + TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) takeprofit = OrderTakeProfit();
stoploss = Ask-StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) stoploss = OrderStopLoss();

LastTradeUpTicket53 = OrderTicket();

int ticket = -1;
if (true)
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
else
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUY, LotSize, Ask, Slippage, stoploss, takeprofit, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
if (ticket > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), stoploss, takeprofit, 0, White);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

}

}
if (OrderType() == OP_SELL && OrderOpenPrice() – Bid > TradeUpPoint*PipValue*Point)
{

takeprofit = Bid – TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) takeprofit = OrderTakeProfit();
stoploss = Bid+StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) stoploss = OrderStopLoss();

LastTradeUpTicket53 = OrderTicket();

int ticket2 = -1;
if (true)
ticket2 = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
else
ticket2 = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, stoploss, takeprofit, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, White);
if (ticket2 > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket2, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret4 = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), stoploss, takeprofit, 0, White);
if (ret4 == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

}

}

}
}
else
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));

}

void SpreadFilter35()//SPREAD FILTER SELL ORDER
{
if (MarketInfo(Symbol(), MODE_SPREAD)/PipValue < MaxSpread)
{
IfOrderDoesNotExist34();

}
}

void IfOrderDoesNotExist34()
{
bool exists = false;
for (int i=OrdersTotal()-1; i >= 0; i–)
if (OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES))
{
if (OrderType() == OP_SELL && OrderSymbol() == Symbol() && OrderMagicNumber() == MagicNumber)
{
exists = true;
}
}
else
{
Print(“OrderSelect() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}

if (exists == false)
{
TechnicalAnalysis2xOr33();

}
}

void TechnicalAnalysis2xOr33()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OPEN SELL ORDER
{
if ((0 > 0) || (0 > 0))
{
SellOrder32();

}
}

void SellOrder32()
{

//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// Begin of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
if(DynamicLotSize == true)
{
double RiskAmount = AccountEquity() * (EquityPercent / 100);
double TickValue = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_TICKVALUE);
if(Point == 0.001 || Point == 0.00001) TickValue *= 10;
double CalcLots = (RiskAmount / StopLoss) / TickValue;
double LotSize = CalcLots;
}
else LotSize = LotSizeOnEquity;

// Lot size verification
if(LotSize < MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MINLOT);
}
else if(LotSize > MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT))
{
LotSize = MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_MAXLOT);
}

if(MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_LOTSTEP) == 0.1)
{
LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,1);
}
else LotSize = NormalizeDouble(LotSize,2);
//+——————————————————————————————————————+
// End of LotSize Calculation
//+——————————————————————————————————————+

double SL = Bid + StopLoss*PipValue*Point;
if (StopLoss == 0) SL = 0;
double TP = Bid – TakeProfit*PipValue*Point;
if (TakeProfit == 0) TP = 0;
int ticket = -1;
if (true)
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, 0, 0, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, Red);
else
ticket = OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_SELL, LotSize, Bid, Slippage, SL, TP, “CodeGenius™ V7.0 IfGap”, MagicNumber, 0, Red);
if (ticket > -1)
{
if (true)
{
OrderSelect(ticket, SELECT_BY_TICKET);
bool ret = OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), SL, TP, 0, Red);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderModify() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
PrintToLog31();

}
else
{
Print(“OrderSend() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}

void PrintToLog31()
{
Print(“Open Sell”);

}

void CheckMarginLevel57()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CHECK MARGIN LEVEL
{

if ((AccountEquity() / AccountMargin()) * 100 > MarginLevel)
{

}
}

void CheckEquity55()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CHECK MINEQUITYSTOPLOSS
{

if (AccountEquity() < (MinEquityStopLossPercentage/100)*AccountBalance())
{
CloseOrder64();
CloseOrder63();

}
}

void CloseOrder64()
{
int orderstotal = OrdersTotal();
int orders = 0;
int ordticket[30][2];
for (int i = 0; i < orderstotal; i++)
{
OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES);
if (OrderType() != OP_BUY || OrderSymbol() != Symbol() || OrderMagicNumber() != MagicNumber)
{
continue;
}
ordticket[orders][0] = OrderOpenTime();
ordticket[orders][1] = OrderTicket();
orders++;
}
if (orders > 1)
{
ArrayResize(ordticket,orders);
ArraySort(ordticket);
}
for (i = 0; i < orders; i++)
{
if (OrderSelect(ordticket[i][1], SELECT_BY_TICKET) == true)
{
bool ret = OrderClose(OrderTicket(), OrderLots(), OrderClosePrice(), Slippage, Red);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderClose() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
PrintToLog67();

}

void PrintToLog67()
{
Print(“Close All Orders”);

}

void CloseOrder63()
{
int orderstotal = OrdersTotal();
int orders = 0;
int ordticket[30][2];
for (int i = 0; i < orderstotal; i++)
{
OrderSelect(i, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES);
if (OrderType() != OP_SELL || OrderSymbol() != Symbol() || OrderMagicNumber() != MagicNumber)
{
continue;
}
ordticket[orders][0] = OrderOpenTime();
ordticket[orders][1] = OrderTicket();
orders++;
}
if (orders > 1)
{
ArrayResize(ordticket,orders);
ArraySort(ordticket);
}
for (i = 0; i < orders; i++)
{
if (OrderSelect(ordticket[i][1], SELECT_BY_TICKET) == true)
{
bool ret = OrderClose(OrderTicket(), OrderLots(), OrderClosePrice(), Slippage, Red);
if (ret == false)
Print(“OrderClose() error – “, ErrorDescription(GetLastError()));
}
}
PrintToLog67();

}

void TechnicalAnalysis56()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CUSTOM 1
{
if (0 > 0)
{
CustomCode60();

}
}

void CustomCode60()
{
//——————————————
// Neural Fuzzy Algorithm 1 Source Codes
//——————————————
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//——————————————
PrintToLog70();

}

void PrintToLog70()
{
Print(“Custom 1″);

}

void TechnicalAnalysis72()// TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CUSTOM 2
{
if (0 > 0)
{
CustomCode74();

}
}

void CustomCode74()
{
//——————————————
// Neural Fuzzy Algorithm 2 Source Codes
//——————————————
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//——————————————
PrintToLog76();

}

void PrintToLog76()
{
Print(“Custom 2″);

}

int deinit()
{

if (false) ObjectsDeleteAll();

}

instaforex135

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

July 13, 2012: On Chaotic Ratio – We Are Preparing Our Civil Suit – Federal Constitutions as The Supreme Laws – On Absence of All Jurisdictions and Malicious Prosecution – Principle Governing Malicious Prosecution – Proofs (Mathematical and Evidential Proofs) – Want of Reasonable and Probable Cause – On Malicious Prosecution and Malice Itselves – Breach of and Inconsistent with Malaysian Federal Constitutions – Court of Judicature Act – Lack / Absence of Scientific Laws and Evidence – Scientific Evidence – Scientific Testimonies – Scientific Explanations – Expert Evidence – The Logic of Scientific Discoveries – The Metaphysics of Scientific Phenomena – The Epistemology of Scientific Observations (Empirical Observations) – Invasion of Privacy – Damages in Malicious Prosecution – Vicarious Liability – High Court Criminal Appeal 41- 21-2011 Against Magistrate Court Decision by Malicious and Misconduct of A Recalcitrant Magistrate and Prosecutions in Case : 2-83-7119-2009 – The Methods of Attack Will Be Based on Deontological Dialectic That Once Used By Immanuel Kant, W. F. Hegel, Sir Karl Popper and Previous Philosophers

Akta 620
Akta Penapisan Filem 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

Seksyen 42 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002

Tiada kos atau gantirugi yang berbangkit daripada penyitaan boleh didapatkan

             42. “Tiada seorang pun boleh, dalam apa-apa prosiding di hadapan mana-mana mahkamah berkenaan dengan penyitaan apa-apa filem, bahan publisiti filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain yang disita pada menjalankan atau berupa sebagai penjalanan mana-mana kuasa yang diberikan di bawah Akta ini, berhak mendapat kos prosiding itu atau apa-apa gantirugi atau relief lain melainkan jika penyitaan itu dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah.”

Act 620
FILM CENSORSHIP ACT 2002
Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006

No costs or damages arising from seizure can be recovered

42. No person shall, in any proceedings before any court in respect of the seizure of any film, film-publicity material, book, document or other thing seized in the exercise or the purported exercise of any powers conferred under this Act, be entitled to the costs of such proceedings or to any damages or other relief unless such seizure was made without reasonable cause.

POLICE ACT 1967

S 3 Constitution of the Police Force

(3) The Force shall subject to this Act be employed in and throughout Malaysia (including the territorial waters thereof) for the maintenance of law and order, the preservation of the peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the collection of security intelligence.

Non-liability for act done under authority of warrant

32. (1) Where the defence to any suit instituted against a police officer, an extra police officer, volunteer reserve police officer or an auxiliary police officer is that the act complained of was done in obedience to a warrant purporting to be issued by any competent authority, the court shall, upon production of the warrant containing the signature of such authority and upon proof that the act complained of was done in obedience to such warrant, enter judgment in favour of such police officer, extra police officer, volunteer reserve police officer or auxiliary police officer.

(2) No proof of the signature of such authority shall be required unless the court has reason to doubt the genuineness thereof; and where it is proved that such signature is not genuine, judgment shall nevertheless be given in favour of such police officer or extra police officer if it is proved that, at the time when the act complained of was committed, he believed on reasonable grounds that such signature was genuine.

§First Information Report (FIR)

§The Mathematical Theory of Nothing vs. On The Absence of All Jurisdictions

- The Logic of Being, Absence and Nothingness

- The Metaphysics of Being, Absence and Nothingness

- The Epistemology of Being, Absence and Nothingness

§Principles That Governing Malicious Prosecution

§Want of Reasonable and Probable Cause

§On Malicious Prosecution and Malice Itselves

§Breach and Nullity (Void) of Malaysian Federal Constitutions

§Court of Judicature Act (Act 91) + Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (Act 92) & Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955 (Act 55) + Jurisdiction of Syariah Courts

§Breach and Misconduct of Magistrate’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Prosecution’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Investigation Officer’s Duties

§Breach and Misconduct of Expert’s Duties

§Want of / Lack of / Absence of Scientific Laws and Evidence:

§Scientific Evidence - Scientific Testimonies – Expert Evidence – The Logic of Scientific Discoveries  – The Metaphysics of Scientific Phenomena – The Epistemology of Scientific Observations (Empirical Observations / Scientific Methodology)

§False Imprisonment

§Invasion of Privacy

§Damages in Malicious Prosecution

§Vicarious Liability

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

Anarchy, State and Utopia: Chaotic Ratio – The State of The Art of Holy Jihad (The Prophet’s Way) vs Sun Tzu’s The Art of War – An Epistemological Analysis – From Tactical Guerilla Warfare Towards The Formation (Immobilization of Guerilla Forces) of An Islamic State – Philosophy of War vs Philosophy of Peace (vs Philosophy of The Transition State Between War and Peace)

updating…

The Philosophy of War

The Philosophy of Peace

The Philosophy of Transition State Between War and Peace

The Arts of War

- Special Forces Tactical Guerilla Warfare

- Mao Tse Tung / Che Guavara Tactical Guerilla Methods

- Sun Tzu The Art of War (The Philosophy)

- The Battles of Prophet Muhammad SAW and Its Methodology of Islamic Jihad

- Palestinean Intifada / Chechen War / Etc.

- Conventional Warfare

Mathematical Modelling:

The Mathematical Derivations of The Theory of Conflicts

The Mathematical Equations of The Art of War

The Mathematical Equations of Tactical Guerilla Warfare (Probabilistic and Stochastic Approaches with Lanchester Theory and N-Persons Game Theory)

The Mathematical Equations of Conventional Warfare (Linear and Non-linear Approaches with Lanchester Theory and N-Persons Game Theory)

The Mathematical Theory of Warfare Strategies

The Finale of Wargaming Theory and Computational Simulation on The Predictive Equations

*******************************************************

Komunis ada kerajaan, mengapa Islam tidak boleh?

Muhammad Yusri Amin, 20 Ogs 2012

KOTA  BHARU: Menteri Besar Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata terdapat anggota masyarakat terpesona dengan ‘permainan’ Barat menyebabkan terpengaruh dengan dakwaan ‘agama lain, politik lain’.

Bahkan Islam dianggap mampu mengawal manusia dalam aspek ibadat dan urusan keluarga saja sedangkan Kerajaan Islam lebih mustahak ditegakkan di muka dunia.

“Dunia ini bukan Arab yang buat, bukan Melayu yang buat, tetapi diciptakan Allah swt.

“Namun oleh kerana kita lena dengan ‘permainan’ Inggeris, Peranchis, Itali dan sebagainya, maka ada rakyat biasa atau golongan terpelajar, bahkan di kalangan tuk guru sendiri terasa bahawa dakwaan ‘agama suku, politik suku’ itu betul,” katanya.

Malahan menganggap agama hanya untuk  menjaga manusia dalam aspek ibadat dan urusan kekeluargaan saja.

Beliau yang juga Mursyidul Am PAS berkata demikian semasa menyampaikan khutbah Hari Raya Aidilfitri di Masjid Pulau Melaka dekat sini, semalam.

“Sesungguhnya dalam perkara ‘urusan agama’ dan ‘politik’ mestilah selari.

‘“Itulah perbezaan di antara hidup ‘beragama’ dengan hidup ‘berdemokrasi’ yang tidak disebut Eropah,” katanya.

Beliau berkata, kalau komunis ada kerajaan, demokrasi ada kerajaan, maka kenapa ‘Islam’ tidak boleh ada kerajaan, selaras dengan bumi dan manusia serta segala benda di dunia ini dijadikan Allah.

Justeru, kata Nik Aziz, Kerajaan Islam lebih mustahak didirikan di muka dunia ini.

Bahkan dalam perkara agama, sangat penting bagi manusia mengikuti jalan Nabi-Nabi termasuk dalam urusan rumah tangga, peperangan dan lain-lain.

Beliau menambah terdapat manusia yang sibuk dengan ‘kebangsaan’ dan ‘Melayu’.

Justeru secara sinis beliau meminta golongan itu supaya mencari ‘Nabi Melayu’.

“Ini kerana Nabi Muhammad bukan orang Melayu tetapi orang Arab.

“(Oleh itu) carilah Nabi Melayu, jangan cari Nabi Arab.

Mengulas sambutan hari raya Aidilfitri 1433 Hijriah, beliau mencadangkan untuk tahun hadapan, kad ucapan Selamat Hari Raya ditambah ‘dunia akhirat’ pada rangkaian ucapan  ‘Selamat  Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir Batin’.

Ini penting bagi membolehkan semua kaum mengingati apa itu ‘akhirat’.

“Melayu baca teringatkan akhirat, Cina baca teringatkan akhirat.  Orang putih baca, teringatkan akhirat.

“Ini membolehkan kita berdakwah apabila mereka bertanya apa itu ‘akhirat’,” ujarnya.

Tuan Guru menambah, selepas manusia mati dihidupkan semula, mereka akan ditanya diberi Al-Quran sama ada membacanya atau tidak, diberi telinga sama ada mendengar nasihat Al-Quran atau tidak.

Demikian juga diberi kaki sama ada digunakan pergi ke masjid, diberikan tangan sama ada menggunakan untuk mengundi ke arah mendaulatkan Islam atau menjahanamkan manusia.

https://www.harakahdaily.net/index.php/berita-utama/12608-komunis-ada-kerajaan-mengapa-islam-tidak-boleh

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

Planetary Alignment: Venus Conjunction – ? Mesoamerican Long Count calendar – 13th b’ak’tun – 21 December 2012 – 13 August 3113 BC

  • December 20 – The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, notably used by the pre-Columbian Mayan civilization among others, completes a “great cycle” of thirteen b’ak’tuns (periods of 144,000 days each) since the mythical creation date of the calendar’s current era.[24][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

We Generate Money Out of Chaos and Turbulence: Tsunami – Acheh 2012 Earthquake 8.9 Magnitude Off West Coast of Northern Sumatra – This is The Beginning of The End – The End Of Fibonacci Retracement of Acheh Tsunami – The Projectile Paths of The Seismic Causality Equations are Fractals (Self-Similarity On Any Scale of Time Frames) – Data Are Everywhere, The Main Issue is How Do We Interpret and Measure The Results of Its Significance (Statistically or Using Non-Linear Dynamics – Fractal Analysis – Chaos Theory?) – Every Earthquake Had Ever Happened on Earth Shows That The Harmonic Cycles Attained Out of Chaos and Turbulence at (Regardless) Any Time Frame of Reference (Self-Similarity – Fractal – It Happens On Every Celestial Object Within The Universe – Spacetime Continuum) – Self-Perturbed Fibonacci Generalized Equations (Canonical Equations) – Going Back to Pythagoras Who Arranged The Consecutive Notes (Musical Notes-Like) of Harmonic Series (On Each and Every Octave) That Based on Trajectory Movements of Celestial Objects Within The Existence of Our Universe – Prime Number Ratio – Golden Ratio In Fibonacci Sequence – Chaos is An Order But Without Periodicity (In Which, Periodicity Is Hidden (Disolved and Disappeared Within) From Within The Sequence of Gigantic Blocks of Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers and Golden Ratio) – Incomplete Information Theory – Euclid (Euclid of Alexandria – “Elements”), Leonhard Euler, Sir Isaac Newton, Pierre-Simon marquis de Laplace (Celestial Mechanics), The Riemann Hypothesis, Jules Henri Poincaré – Again, I was Born on July 13, 1972 – July is the 7th Month of Complete Cycle Gregorian Calendar – It Happened To Be When I Was Doing My Computational Analyses and Data Simulations between Earthquake and Forex, The Earthquake Data and the Non-Linear Behaviour of The Nature Towards the Space-Time Dimensions on Null Set Theory, My Birthdate Keep Appearing Quantumly and Popped-up Just About Everywhere Within the Data, Then I Figured Out and Postulated That Something About the Coming 13th Malaysian General Election (PRU13) to Elect 7th Prime Minister, I Correlated Among the Blocks of Prime Numbers from Riemann Hypothesis That Based on Null Set Theory and Thus I Found Those Below:

I am not going to display my mathematical proofs in this blog but I presume the explanation below would be enough to sketch out what is going on in Malaysia (not to include Non-Linear Lanchester Theory and N-Persons Game Theory):

The Theory “R-A-H-M-A-N” (6 Dimensional Alphabets)  has arrived to an end towards its destination of 13th Cycle of General Election (PRU-13). The next coming Prime Minister will be the 7th Prime Minister to be elected by the power of people. Fibonacci is here to explain that this coming Malaysian General Election, The PRU-13 is to accomplish the 13th cycle by choosing their 7th Prime Minister. Chaos is an Order But Without Periodicity. The Canonical Equations – Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers – Chaos and Turbulence – This going to be the Real Chaos within the sublimation of Non-Isotropic Turbulence.

The Spiral of Archimedes

Orbital Period 3 Bifurcation Diagram of Logistic Map – “Period 3 Implies Chaos”

Fibonacci Numbers

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765

The sequence can also be extended to negative index n using the re-arranged recurrence relation

F_{n-2} = F_n - F_{n-1}, \,

which yields the sequence of “negafibonacci” numbers satisfying

F_{-n} = (-1)^{n+1} F_n. \,

Thus the complete sequence is

F−8 F−7 F−6 F−5 F−4 F−3 F−2 F−1 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
−21 13 −8 5 −3 2 −1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21

The Spiral of Fibonacci

This is the End of Fibonacci Retracement in Malaysia, The Hurst Exponent is Below 0.5 and Fractal Dimension Index is Above 1.5 – We Are now in The Region of Random Walk or Brownian Motion – The End of Chimera Tyrannical “Superpower” that to be Defeated By Bellerophon with The Help of Pegasus – The Canonical Equation is completed with the parameters and degree of freedom in equilibrium.

The Chimera (also Chimaera or Chimæra) (play /kɨˈmɪərə/ or /kaɪˈmɪərə/; Greek: Χίμαιρα, Khimaira, from χίμαρος, khimaros, “she-goat”) was, according to Greek mythology, a monstrous fire-breathing female creature of Lycia in Asia Minor, …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28mythology%29

Bersih 3.0: Bekas pendakwa kini peguam Anwar

Harakahdaily, 22 Mei 2012

KUALA LUMPUR: Bekas Ketua Pendakwaraya bagi kes liwat II, Datuk Mohd Yusuf Zainal Abiden (gambar) kini menyertai pasukan peguambela Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dalam kes Bersih 3.0.

Tindakan ini merupakan satu tamparan hebat kepada Perdana Menteri, Menteri Dalam  Negeri dan Peguam Negara kerana orang terbaik mereka selama ini menyertai pasukan pembangkang.

Anwar bersama dengan Timbalan Presiden PKR, Azmin Ali dan bekas ahli majlis pimpinan pusat, Badrul Hisham Shaharin dihadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur atas tuduhan mengambil bahagian dalam protes jalanan,  di bawah Akta Perhimpunan Aman.

http://bm.harakahdaily.net/index.php/headline/10482–bersih-30-bekas-pendakwa-kini-peguam-anwar

tyr·an·ny

[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA

noun, plural tyr·an·nies.

1.

arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.

the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.

a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.

oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.

undue severity or harshness.

******************************************************************************************************************************


Aku Memang Pencinta Wanita Namun Ku Juga Buaya

Sorry!, I am against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender)

“Strange days are these, in which, men are taught in falsehood school, and one who dares to tell the truth is at once called a LUNATIC AND FOOL”. – Socrates

Please give a look at the date April 9, 10 and 11 of 2012 (Related to Earthquake of Northern Sumatra), The Blue Shapes are Harmonic Cycles of Fibonacci Ratio (Golden Ratio)

- Anarchy, State and Utopia (A Book Written by Robert Norzick)

I received many questions from my readers about entropy, I would like to inform that ENTROPY is not the same CHAOS That We Had Discussed Over Here.

Update time = Thu Apr 12 9:42:56 UTC 2012

MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s
LAT
deg
LON
deg
DEPTH
km
 Region
MAP  4.7   2012/04/12 09:15:19   1.111   92.030 27.5  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.1 2012/04/12 08:56:29   37.478   72.008 163.4  TAJIKISTAN
MAP  4.4 2012/04/12 08:54:48   28.876  -113.188 10.1  GULF OF CALIFORNIA
MAP  4.2 2012/04/12 07:57:33   28.511  -112.954 10.0  GULF OF CALIFORNIA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/12 07:43:49   2.973   92.742 30.4  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.5 2012/04/12 07:43:04   63.555  -150.959 7.2  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/12 07:34:57   3.394   89.817 15.8  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  6.9   2012/04/12 07:15:49   28.790  -113.142 10.3  GULF OF CALIFORNIA
MAP  4.2 2012/04/12 07:14:32   59.770  -152.122 48.0  SOUTHERN ALASKA
MAP  6.2   2012/04/12 07:06:01   28.841  -113.072 10.1  GULF OF CALIFORNIA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/12 07:01:47   1.955   93.926 26.9  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.7   2012/04/12 06:48:38   28.799  -113.051 9.8  GULF OF CALIFORNIA
MAP  2.7 2012/04/12 06:47:49   19.221   -66.897 11.7  PUERTO RICO REGION
MAP  4.5   2012/04/12 06:47:37   2.895   89.463 14.7  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  4.5   2012/04/12 05:48:25   1.801   89.548 15.1  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  4.6   2012/04/12 05:34:58   -7.582   129.521 78.7  KEPULAUAN BABAR, INDONESIA
MAP  3.6 2012/04/12 05:34:53   18.172   -67.359 17.0  MONA PASSAGE, PUERTO RICO
MAP  2.5 2012/04/12 05:09:30   19.379  -155.239 3.6  ISLAND OF HAWAII, HAWAII
MAP  3.2 2012/04/12 04:48:44   61.087  -151.004 78.5  SOUTHERN ALASKA
MAP  4.3 2012/04/12 03:29:22   37.811  -112.106 0.8  UTAH
MAP  2.5 2012/04/12 03:00:28   57.227  -153.963 47.0  KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/12 02:54:45   1.223   91.774 14.8  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  4.8   2012/04/12 02:42:43   3.529   92.693 27.7  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.5   2012/04/12 02:29:41   41.998   -65.994 15.8  NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
MAP  3.4 2012/04/12 02:03:47   66.695  -143.897 0.2  NORTHERN ALASKA
MAP  2.6 2012/04/12 01:34:01   59.929  -153.250 175.6  SOUTHERN ALASKA
MAP  4.7   2012/04/12 00:50:36   2.558   92.302 10.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.7   2012/04/12 00:30:03   4.445   92.859 29.2  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.9 2012/04/12 00:07:05   38.798  -122.808 4.1  NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s
LAT
deg
LON
deg
DEPTH
km
 Region
MAP  5.5   2012/04/11 23:56:34   1.798   89.670 13.9  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  4.6   2012/04/11 23:28:44  -20.363  -177.712 535.7  FIJI REGION
MAP  4.6   2012/04/11 23:18:50   3.089   92.839 10.2  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  6.5   2012/04/11 22:55:11   18.272  -102.732 20.0  MICHOACAN, MEXICO
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 22:51:59   2.897   89.597 14.7  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.9   2012/04/11 22:41:47   43.593  -127.557 10.2  OFF THE COAST OF OREGON
MAP  4.9   2012/04/11 22:35:34   2.488   90.185 14.8  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 22:15:26   0.514   92.443 13.8  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.2 2012/04/11 22:02:50   51.508  -176.673 35.6  ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
MAP  3.0 2012/04/11 21:53:23   59.218  -154.654 197.9  SOUTHERN ALASKA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 21:36:09   1.787   90.927 15.0  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  3.2 2012/04/11 21:23:40   51.251  -178.168 18.3  ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
MAP  4.7   2012/04/11 21:02:50   0.717   92.407 15.2  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.9 2012/04/11 20:50:59   18.088   -67.480 11.6  MONA PASSAGE, PUERTO RICO
MAP  3.6 2012/04/11 20:03:14   19.075   -68.615 165.3  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP  5.5   2012/04/11 19:04:20   1.202   92.090 10.3  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 18:54:46   2.496   92.712 14.3  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.5 2012/04/11 16:32:14   18.731   -68.225 104.0  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 16:04:24   3.426   92.860 10.8  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 15:46:53   2.987   92.249 21.6  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 15:09:26   2.969   90.062 13.1  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 14:54:29   1.336   91.841 11.9  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 14:34:19   1.504   90.894 14.4  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 14:26:27   2.287   92.385 9.4  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 14:18:45   2.569   92.296 10.3  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.2   2012/04/11 14:08:41   1.147   92.158 9.6  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.5   2012/04/11 13:58:07   1.493   90.889 13.7  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 13:42:40   2.159   93.597 11.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.6   2012/04/11 13:39:56   0.600   91.889 10.0  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  4.6   2012/04/11 13:32:35   1.905   89.578 10.0  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.0   2012/04/11 13:19:38   2.345   90.302 20.4  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 13:15:28   4.614   90.764 5.3  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  4.8   2012/04/11 13:12:05  -18.479  -175.498 245.2  TONGA
MAP  4.5   2012/04/11 13:10:07   0.890   92.382 10.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  3.4 2012/04/11 13:06:31   62.560  -150.133 174.1  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 12:37:48   2.528   92.602 10.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 12:21:58   3.136   92.775 9.9  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 12:10:53   1.385   92.639 10.4  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.7   2012/04/11 11:53:37   2.929   89.534 14.9  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 11:52:29   0.989   91.942 14.9  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 11:34:02   0.743   92.865 15.5  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 11:29:00  -56.847   -27.966 259.0  SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
MAP  2.7 2012/04/11 11:08:39   64.893  -148.948 5.8  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  8.2   2012/04/11 10:43:09   0.773   92.452 16.4  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.6 2012/04/11 10:42:48   33.491  -116.425 10.6  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 10:36:55   1.072   91.943 15.5  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  2.8 2012/04/11 10:22:14   64.896  -148.880 7.1  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  5.4   2012/04/11 10:21:16   2.833   92.476 14.8  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 10:08:30   2.646   90.084 16.1  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 10:01:20   2.499   90.365 20.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 09:51:42   2.510   90.316 20.0  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  2.9 2012/04/11 09:40:57   60.098  -152.831 103.8  SOUTHERN ALASKA
MAP  3.2 2012/04/11 09:30:27   64.910  -148.934 13.9  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  6.0   2012/04/11 09:27:57   1.281   91.731 9.8  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN
MAP  2.9 2012/04/11 09:26:11   64.990  -148.887 27.8  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  3.8 2012/04/11 09:21:58   64.904  -148.888 20.7  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  5.5   2012/04/11 09:00:13   51.518  -176.312 56.5  ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
MAP  8.6   2012/04/11 08:38:37   2.311   93.063 22.9  OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
MAP  5.3   2012/04/11 07:41:46   -6.227   130.158 132.2  BANDA SEA
MAP  4.4 2012/04/11 06:54:39  -22.748   -66.387 226.3  JUJUY, ARGENTINA
MAP  2.9 2012/04/11 06:41:28   63.599  -151.404 2.9  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  5.1   2012/04/11 05:44:42  -16.900   -14.406 10.5  SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
MAP  5.2   2012/04/11 04:53:26  -16.822   -14.440 9.7  SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
MAP  2.6 2012/04/11 03:18:48   33.774  -116.112 8.6  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MAP  2.6 2012/04/11 02:21:41   62.034  -151.695 15.3  CENTRAL ALASKA
MAP  4.5   2012/04/11 01:21:18   42.200   87.908 31.7  NORTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA
MAP  4.5   2012/04/11 00:34:13  -23.896  -114.819 10.0  EASTER ISLAND REGION
Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

We Are Preparing Our Civil Suit: Stage 2 – Appointed Prominent Lawyers to Initiate the Suit – We Generate Money Out of Chaos and Turbulence – Fibonacci Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Fractal Space, Fractal Time, Fractal Time Series, Fractal Dimensional Analysis, Fractal Market Analysis, An Introduction to the Fuzziness of Neural Fuzzy in Non-Linear Dynamics of Chaotic Systems (Phase Spaces) – From Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Ibnu Haytham, Ibnu Sina, Al-Farabi, al-Khwarizmi to David Hume, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Sir Karl Popper – The Secret, That God Conceals His Secrecy Within The Gigantic (Very Huge) Blocks of Prime Numbers (Throughout The Universe), In Which, He “Encrypted” Every Single Bit of Information Clusters Acquired Just Anything About The Truth of Our Universe – Creatio Ex Nihilo – Null Set (Empty Set / { } / Ø) – The Null Set Theory (My Theory: It Is)

Forex 2012: A View of Profits (We Generate Money Out of Chaos and Turbulence)

The Beauty of Fibonacci Numbers (Golden Ratio) in Fractal Markets and Self-Similarity Behavioral Analyses (Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH) and Financial Speculation)

References:

John D. Rawls ‘Justice as Fairness’, Philosophical Review, 1958

John D. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971)

David Hume, Enquires concerning the Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, Edited by L.E. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendron Press, 1962)

Aristotle, The Metaphysics, Translated with an Introduction by HUGH LAWSON-TANCRED. (Penguin Classics, 1998)

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Bifurcation Theory, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, Fibonacci Numbers, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Jurisdictions of Syariah Courts, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Perturbation Theory, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, Self-Perturbation, Self-Perturbed Prime Numbers, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Spiral of Archimedes, The Spiral of Fibonacci, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

We Are Preparing Our Civil Suit: The Book of Universe Was Written in the Language of Mathematics – Logic and Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology – The Scientific Cognition a priori Sublimes into The Manifestation of a posteriori Truths – The Cause of Avalanche is The Avalanche Itself – Absence of All Jurisdictions (It is no longer an issue of mistake or “to err is human”, but the issue of Morality and Misconduct of a Recalcitrant Magistrate) – Basic Ingredient of Malice (Want of Reasonable and Probable Cause), Malicious Prosecution (Principles Governing to Malicious Prosecution), Damages in Malicious Prosecution and Invasion of Privacy (Vicarious Liability) – On Deontological Dialectic Approach – I am merely a Mathematician (Self-Represented during the Criminal Appeal Trial Before Criminal High Court 1, Kuala Lumpur), not a lawyer, not even a solicitor and far away from being a Barrister, who defeats Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

CHECKMATE IN 4 MOVES: Izamov’s Gambit – Criminal Appeal 41-21-2011 Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim (Appellant) vs Public Prosecutor (Respondent) – Conviction against the Appellant (Accused) is quashed, sentence is set aside and the Appellant acquitted and discharged with MERITS before The Honourable Judge of The Criminal High Court 1, Kuala Lumpur Today! – “The First Magistrate, Ever, in The History of Malaya Lower Courts ‘Overwhelmingly Shown and Proven’ To Be The Greatest Liar of All Times” – P/S: Izamov is my Russian name, technically, just like Gary Kasparov, Karpov for the World Class Chess Grand Masters. “Keadilan ialah Meletakkan Kebenaran di Tempat Yang Sepatutnya”

Updating…

************************************************************************************************

Table of Cases

************************************************************************************************

Article 145(3) Federal Constitution of Malaysia

[1997] 3 MLJ 681

REPCO HOLDINGS BHD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

GOPAL SRI RAM JCA

CRIMINAL REVISION NO W-43-7 OF 1997

2 October 1997

Constitutional Law — Constitution — Infringement of — Whether s 126(2) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 and s 39(2) of the Securities Commission Act 1993 were ultra vires art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and were void to that extent

Constitutional Law — Legislature — Infringement of Constitution — Doctrine of prospective overruling — Power of the court to apply doctrine

Criminal Procedure — Prosecution — Right to conduct prosecution — Whether any other authority apart from the Public Prosecutor may be lawfully empowered to conduct prosecution — Federal Constitution art 145(3) — Securities Industry Act 1983 s 126(2) — Securities Commission Act 1993 s 39(2)

Securities — Conduct of prosecution under the Securities Industry Act 1983 — Whether any other authority apart from the Public Prosecutor may be lawfully empowered to conduct prosecution — Federal Constitution art 145(3) — Securities Industry Act 1983 s 126(2) — Securities Commission Act 1993 s 39(2)

The applicant, Repco Holdings Bhd (‘RepcO’), was charged by the Securities Commission (‘the commission’) – a body created by the Securities Commission Act 1993 (‘the SCA’) – for infringing s 86 of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (‘the SIA’). At the hearing, counsel for Repco took a preliminary objection to the locus standi of the two officers of the commission who appeared to prosecute the case. The prosecution was conducted by the two officers pursuant to the joint operation of s 126(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA which, inter alia, allow prosecution of any offence under the Acts to be conducted by the Registrar of Companies or by any officer authorized by the Registrar or the Chairman of the commission or the commission. It was argued that s 126(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA were ultra vires art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and were void to that extent. The sessions judge, faced with the constitutional argument, acted under s 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and transmitted the record in the case to the High Court to determine the constitutionality of the two subsections.

Held, declaring both s 129(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA to be unconstitutional, null and void:

  • (1)

The only authority that is constitutionally entitled to conduct prosecutions is the Attorney General as Public Prosecutor. The adjectival vehicle contained in s 376 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) (‘the CPC’) put this beyond doubt (see p 688B); PP v Datuk Harun bin Hj Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116 and PP v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [1979] 1 MLJ 65 followed.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 682

  • (2)

Based on authorities, the expression ‘conduct’ appearing in art 145(3) and in the two impugned subsections carries the same meaning. Since the Constitution exclusively authorizes the Attorney General to conduct prosecutions, in must follow that no other authority may be lawfully empowered to exercise that function. Therefore, s 126(2) of the SIA which allows prosecution to be conducted by the Registrar of Companies or by any officer authorized by the Registrar or the Chairman of the commission is ultra vires art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution. However, if the Registar of Companies is a gazetted deputy public prosecutor and in such capacity conducts a prosecution of an offence under the SIA, that would not be caught by art 145(3) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Chairman of the commission is not placed on an equal footing and therefore not authorized constitutionally to authorize or to conduct prosecutions under the SIA. Further, although for the purpose of carrying out their duties, members and servants of the commission are deemed to be public officers, they do not fall within the scope of s 380(i) of the CPC to allow them to conduct prosecution (see p 690C—G); Long bin Samat & Ors v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152 and Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP [1977] 2 MLJ 66 followed.

  • (3)

In the same way, s 39(2) of the SCA wholly contravenes art 145(3). By reason of art 4(1) of the Federal Constitution, it being a law which is inconsistent with the Constitution, the subsection gives way and is therefore void and unconstitutional (see p 691B).

  • (4)

It would be a manifest injustice to render a retrospective ruling on the invalidity of the two impugned subsections. The declaration as to invalidity shall, therefore, be prospective only and shall include only the present case and cases registered from the date of the ruling (see p 692A—B); PP v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 and Mamat bin Daud & Ors v Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119 followed.

[Bahasa Malaysia summary

Pemohon, Repco Holdings Bhd ('RepcO'), telah dipertuduhkan oleh Suruhanjaya Sekuriti ('suruhanjaya tersebut') – sebuah badan yang ditubuhkan oleh Akta Suruhanjaya Sekuriti 1993 ('ASS') – kerana melanggar s 86Akta Perindustrian Sekuriti 1983 ('APS'). Di pembicaraan, peguam Repco membuat bantahan permulaan atas locus standi dua orang pegawai suruhanjaya tersebut yang hadir untuk mendakwa kes. Pihak pendakwa dikendalikan oleh dua orang pegawai tersebut menurut operasi bersama s 126(2) ASS dan s 39(2) APS yang, antara lain, membenarkan pendakwaan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta-Akta tersebut untuk dijalankan oleh Pendaftar Syarikat atau oleh mana-mana pegawai yang diberikuasa oleh Pendaftar Syarikat atau Pengerusi suruhanjaya tersebut atau suruhanjaya tersebut. Adalah dihujahkan bahawa s 126(2) ASS dan

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 683

s 39(2) APS adalah ultra vires perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan adalah terbatal setakat itu. Hakim sesyen, yang dihadapi dengan hujah perlembagaan, bertindak di bawah s 30 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan menghantar rekod kes ke Mahkamah Tinggi bagi menentukan perlembagaan dua subseksyen itu.

Diputuskan, mengisytiharkan kedua-dua s 129(2) APS dan s 39(2) ASS tidak menurut perlembagaan, tak sah dan terbatal:

  • (1)

Satu-satunya autoriti yang berhak di sisi perlembagaan untuk mengendalikan pendakwaan adalah Peguam Negara sebagai Pendakwa Raya. Susunan prosedur yang termaktub dalam s 376 dan seksyen-seksyen yang berikutnya dalam Kanun Acara Jenayah (NMB Bab 6) ('KAJ') meletakkan perkara ini di luar batas keraguan (lihat ms 688B); PP v Datuk Harun bin Hj Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116 dan PP v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [1979] 1 MLJ 65 diikut.

  • (2)

Berdasarkan autoriti-autoriti, ungkapan ‘menjalankan’ yang menonjol dalam perkara 145(3) dan dalam dua subseksyen yang dipersoalkan membawa maksud yang sama. Oleh kerana Perlembagaan memberikuasa kepada Peguam Negara secara eksklusif untuk menjalankan pendakwaan, ini bermakna bahawa tiada pihak berkuasa yang lain boleh mempunyai kuasa di sisi undang-undang untuk melaksanakan fungsi itu. Maka, s 126(2) APS yang membenarkan pendakwaan dijalankan oleh Pendaftar Syarikat atau mana-mana pegawai lain yang diberikuasa oleh Pendaftar atau Pengerusi suruhanjaya tersebut adalah ultra vires perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Walau bagaimanapun, jika Pendaftar Syarikat adalah timbalan pendakwa raya yang diwartakan dan dalam keupayaan demikian menjalankan pendakwaan ke atas kesalahan di bawah APS, ini tidak terperangkap oleh perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan. Sebaliknya, Pengerusi suruhanjaya tersebut tidak berada dalam kedudukan yang sama dan dengan itu tidak diberikuasa menurut perlembagaan untuk memberikuasa atau untuk menjalankan pendakwaan di bawah APS. Selanjutnya, walaupun untuk tujuan menjalankan tugas, ahli-ahli dan pekerja-pekerja suruhanjaya tersebut dianggap sebagai pegawai awam, mereka tidak dirangkumi oleh skop s 380(i) KAJ bagi membenarkan mereka menjalankan pendakwaan (lihat ms 690C—G); Long bin Samat & Ors v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152 dan Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP [1977] 2 MLJ 66 diikut.

  • (3)

Dalam cara yang sama, s 39(2) ASS pada keseluruhannya menyalahi perkara 145(3). Disebabkan perkara 4(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, ia merupakan undang-undang yang tidak konsisten dengan Perlembagaan, subseksyen itu memberi laluan dan dengan itu adalah tak sah dan melanggar perlembagaan (lihat ms 691B).

  • (4)

Adalah sungguh tidak adil untuk membuat keputusan secara kebelakangan atas ketaksahan dua subseksyen yang dipersoalkan.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 684

Dengan itu, perisytiharan atas ketaksahan haruslah menjadi prospektif sahaja dan harus termasuk hanya kes ini dan kes-kes yang didaftarkan dari tarikh keputusan (lihat ms 692A—B); PP v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 dan Mamat bin Daud & Ors v Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119 diikut.]

Notes

For a case on infringement of Constitution, see 3 Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed, 1994 Reissue) para 993.

For cases on securities, see 11 Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed, 1996 Reissue) paras 766–793.

For a case on the right to conduct prosecution, see 5 Mallal’s Digest (4th Ed, 1994 Reissue) para 2040.

Cases referred to

Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 697 (refd)

Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP [1977] 2 MLJ 66 (folld)

Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan and another appeal [1996] 1 MLJ 481 (refd)

Long bin Samat & Ors v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152 (folld)

Mamat bin Daud & Ors v Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119 (folld)

PP v Datuk Harun bin Hj Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116 (folld)

PP v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [1979] 1 MLJ 65 (folld)

PP v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 (folld)

Raymond v Attorney General [1982] 2 WLR 849 (refd)

Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261 (refd)

Legislation referred to

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 30

Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) ss 376, 380, 380(i)

Federal Constitution arts 4(1), 145(3)

Securities Commission Act 1993 s 39(2)

Securities Industry Act 1983 ss 86, 91, 126(2)

Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (Ng Aik Guan with him) for the applicant.

Azhar Mohamed and Shamsul Sulaiman (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.

GOPAL SRI RAM JCA

(delivering oral judgment): This is an application under s 30(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. That section reads as follows:

30 (1) Where in any proceedings in any subordinate court any question arises as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution the presiding officer of the court may stay the proceedings and may transmit the record thereof to the High Court.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 685

(2) Any record of proceedings transmitted to the High Court under this section shall be examined by a Judge of the Court and where the Judge considers that the decision of a question as to the effect of a provision of the Constitution is necessary for the determination of the proceedings he shall deal with the case in accordance with section 48 as if it were a case before him in the original jurisdiction of the High Court in which the question had arisen.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall be deemed to be rules of court for the purposes of Article 128(2) of the Constitution.

The matter arose in the following way.

The applicant, Repco Holdings Bhd (‘RepcO’) is a public limited company. Its shares are freely traded in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. On 27 January 1996, Repco issued a statement to the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. The statement contained certain facts which the Securities Commission considered to contravene s 86 of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (‘the SIA’). So it took steps to institute proceedings against Repco. On 21 October 1996, it applied for and obtained a summons from the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur against Repco. The charge annexed to the summons refers to the Repco’s statement I spoke of a moment ago and alleges an infringement of s 86 of the SIA and punishable under s 91 thereof.

The summons was returnable on 29 November 1996. Repco appeared before the sessions court on that day. The sessions court then fixed the case for hearing on 25 August 1997. On that date, counsel who appeared for Repco took a preliminary objection to the locus standi of the two officers who appeared to prosecute the case. These two officers were Ms Foo Lee Mei and Ms Seow Siew Mei. They were officers of the Securities Commission, a body created by the Securities Commission Act 1993 (‘the SCA’). The prosecution of the case against Repco was in the hands of these two officers pursuant to the joint operation of s 126(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA. For completeness, I will reproduce both these sections in full. They read as follows.

Section 126(2) of the SIA:

126 (1) No prosecution for any offence under this Act shall be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor.

(2) A prosecution for any offence against any provision of this Act may be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorized in writing by the Registrar or by any officer authorized in writing by the Chairman of the Commission.

Section 39(2) of the SCA:

39 (1) No prosecution for any offence under this Act shall be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Public Prosecutor.

(2) Any officer of the Commission authorized in writing by the Commission may conduct any prosecution of any offence under this Act.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 686

So far as sub-s (1) of each of the foregoing are concerned, they make it clear that the institution of a prosecution under each enactment shall be only with the consent of the Public Prosecutor. The importance of this will appear later in this judgment. However, as may be noted, sub-s (2) of each of the aforesaid sections vests the conduct of prosecutions under each enactment in the hands of persons other than the Public Prosecutor.

Accordingly, before the sessions court, counsel for Repco took the point that the two ladies I mentioned earlier had no locus standi to conduct the prosecution in this particular case. It was argued that s 126(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA were ultra vires art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and were void to that extent. The sessions judge, faced with the Constitutional argument, acted under s 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and transmitted the record in the case to this court to determine the constitutionality of the two subsections I mentioned a moment ago. That is how I, sitting as a High Court judge, have come to hear this application.

So much for the factual background.

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced in favour of the applicant before the sessions court, and repeated in substance before me this morning by its counsel En Muhammad Shafee, it is necessary to hearken to the relevant provisions of the written law that govern the subject matter at hand. These are, art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) (‘the CPC’) and s 380 of the same Code. They are as follows.

First, art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution:

145 (3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

Next, s 376 of the CPC:

376 (i) The Attorney General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code.

(ii) The Solicitor General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.

(iii) The Public Prosecutor may appoint fit and proper persons to be Deputy Public Prosecutors who shall be under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor and may exercise all or any of the rights and powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers expressed to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally.

(iv) The rights and powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by subsection (iii) and section 68(ii) shall be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally.

Third, s 380 of the CPC:

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 687

380 Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter contained –

(i) any public officer may prosecute in any Court in any case or class of cases in which he is by any written law authorized to prosecute in such Court;

(ii) in summary non-seizable cases in the Court of a Magistrate –

(a) the Public Prosecutor or a Deputy Public Prosecutor or a Police Officer may appear and conduct any prosecution;

(b) any officer of any Government department or of any local authority or statutory authority or any person employed by any local authority or statutory authority may appear and conduct any prosecution for an offence against any written law which it is the duty of the said department or authority specially to enforce;

(c) any private person may appear in person or by advocate or, in the State of Terengganu, by a pleader and prosecute for an offence against his own person or property.

It will be seem at once, from a reading of the plain language of art 145(3), that the Supreme Law, namely the Federal Constitution, has committed to the hands of the Attorney General the sole power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct and discontinue criminal proceedings. The phrase ‘institute, conduct or discontinue’ was considered by Abdoolcader J (as he then was) in PP v Datuk Harun bin Hj Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116. Of the expression ‘conduct’, his Lordship said (at p 119E—I):

‘Conduct’ in art 145(3) cannot but refer to the conduct of prosecutions in court, as it indeed appears ipsissimisverbis in s 377 of the CPC. And ‘control and direction’ in s 376(i) of the CPC is in respect of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings, and not of criminal procedure or the jurisdiction of the courts.

‘Conduct’ of criminal prosecutions and proceedings in art 145(3) cannot connote the regulation of criminal procedure or of the jurisdiction of the courts or the power or discretion to do so. Any contrary contention would in effect in my view be tantamount to the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor arrogating to himself the legislative powers vested in Parliament under item 4 and in particular para (b) there in List I (Federal List) in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, with perhaps also the not inconceptible resultant intrusion or at least a more than peripheral incursion into the sphere of art 121(1) of the Constitution which provides that the judicial power of the Federation is vested in two High Courts and in such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law – namely, the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which specifies the subordinate courts and their respective civil and criminal jurisdiction.

Pursuing its signification, ‘to conduct’ means ‘to lead, guide, manage’ (Re Bhupalli Malliah 1959 AIR AP 477; Pride of Derby v British Celanese Ltd [1953] 1 Ch 149 at p 167, per Lord Evershed MR). It conveys the idea of leading and guiding, that is to say, the person who conducts the prosecution determines all important questions of policy involved in the course of the trial and the attitude to be adopted by the prosecution towards material objections raised or demands made by the accused with respect to the evidence.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 688

Abdoolcader J’s interpretation of the phrase ‘institute, conduct or discontinue’ was approved and applied by the Federal Court in PP v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [1979] 1 MLJ 65.

It follows from the foregoing discussion that the only authority that is constitutionally entitled to conduct prosecutions is the Attorney General as Public Prosecutor. The adjectival vehicle contained in s 376 and subsequent sections of the CPC put this beyond doubt. The question then arises: Is Parliament entitled by written law to vest the power to conduct criminal prosecutions in an authority other than the Attorney General?

Encik Muhammad Shafee has argued that this question should receive a negative response. The Public Prosecutor upon whom lies a most onerous burden has considered the arguments and has come to the honest and inescapable conclusion that En Muhammad Shafee is correct in the contentions that he has advanced. Commendably therefore, the Public Prosecutor has instructed his deputy who has appeared before me today to concede that the two subsections referred to do indeed conflict with art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution. However, this being an issue of public law, the agreement between counsel before me does not absolve this court of the duty to investigate the question of its own volition and decide whether the common ground upon which the parties before me stand is indeed maintainable in law. If I come to the conclusion that the impugned subsections are not ultra vires art 145(3), I am at liberty to so declare despite the agreement arrived at between counsel. However, having given the matter my most anxious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Public Prosecutor is correct in the concession he has made.

Acting with utmost fairness, En Azhar bin Mohamed, deputy public prosecutor, has cited to me cases which he says are useful in making my determination upon the issue at hand. I think I owe it to efforts of counsel to enter upon a discussion of the case which he has cited.

The first is Long bin Samat & Ors v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152 where at p 158A—C, Suffian LP had this to say:

In our view, this clause from the supreme law clearly gives the Attorney General very wide discretion over the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions. Not only may he institute and conduct any proceedings for an offence, he may also discontinue criminal proceedings that he has instituted, and the courts cannot compel him to institute any criminal proceedings which he does not wish to institute or to go on with any criminal proceedings which he has decided to discontinue. (For the position in England, please see Viscount Dilhorne’s speech at pp 32–33 in Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] 2 All ER 21). Still less then would the court have power to compel him to enhance a charge when he is content to go on with a charge of a less serious nature.

Anyone who is dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute, or not to go on with a prosecution or his decision to prefer a charge for a less serious offence when there is evidence of a more serious offence which should be tried in a higher court, should seek his remedy elsewhere, but not in the courts.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 689

The second authority which the learned deputy has drawn to my attention is Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP [1977] 2 MLJ 66 where, at p 70A—F, Suffian LP once again said of art 145(3):

… Before Merdeka Chap XXXVII of the FMS Criminal Procedure Code and the equivalent provisions of the SS Criminal Procedure Code set out his power. Today, only the FMS Code remains. Section 376(i) thereof provides generally that the Attorney General in his capacity as Public Prosecutor shall have the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings under the Code. The next nine sections particularize his powers.

For instance, under s 381, he may enter a nolle prosequi after he has received the record of a preliminary enquiry. As noted by this court in Long bin Samat v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152, there was ample judicial authority before Merdeka to show that the Attorney General enjoyed wide discretion in regard to criminal prosecutions. As s 376(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code was already in existence before Merdeka, our constitution-makers could have been content with relying on it alone to preserve after Merdeka the Attorney General’s pre-Merdeka power, and if they had done so, then it might be arguable that after Merdeka, it must be read subject to art 8: but our constitution-makers were not content to do so. They deliberately wrote art 145(3) into our Constitution which reads:

‘The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a native court or a court-martial.’

The language of this provision is very wide, for it includes the word ‘discretion’ which means liberty of deciding as one thinks fit. In view of the deliberate decision of our constitution-makers to write this provision into our Constitution, I do not think that it can be said that it must be read subject to art 8.

The importance of the propositions formulated by the learned Lord President in these two cases is that, as a matter of public law, the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General in the context of art 145(3) is put beyond judicial review. In other words, the exercise by the Attorney General of his discretion, in one way or another, under art 145(3), cannot be questioned in the courts by way of certiorari, declaration or other judicial review proceedings.

I think that the proposition is not only good law but good policy. For, were it otherwise, upon each occasion that the Attorney General decides not to institute or conduct or discontinue a particular criminal proceedings, he will be called upon to a court of law the reasons for his decision. It will then be the court and not the Attorney General who will be exercising the power under art 145(3). That was surely not the intent on our founding fathers who framed our Constitution for us.

Encik Muhammad Shafee has drawn my attention to a passage in a leading work upon the subject. It is a textbook entitled The Attorney General: Politics and the Public Interest by Prof Edwards whose other work, Law Officers of the Crown, has been often quoted with approval by our courts. At p 91 of the text, Prof Edwards expresses the following view. The word ‘conduct’, it was stated:

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 690

… appears to be wider that the phrase ‘carry on’ and suggests to our minds that when the Director intervenes in a prosecution which has been privately instituted, he may do so not exclusively for the purpose of pursuing it by carrying it on, but also with the object of aborting it; that is to say, he may ‘conduct’ the proceedings in whatever manner may appear expedient in the public interest.

The author was there quoting from the judgment of the English Court of Appeal in Raymond v Attorney General [1982] 2 WLR 849 at p 853.

In my judgment, having regard to the authorities read before me, the expression ‘conduct’ appearing in art 145(3) and in the two impugned subsections carries the same meaning. Since the Constitution exclusively authorizes the Attorney General to conduct prosecutions, in must follow, as night follows day, that no other authority may be lawfully empowered to exercise that function. Therefore, it is my opinion, that s 126(2) of the SIA is ultra vires art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution save to the extent I shall now indicate.

Subsection (2) of s 126 of the SIA refers to the conducting of a prosecution by the Registar of Companies or by someone authorized by such Registrar in writing. As a matter of practice, the Registar of Companies is usually a senior member of the Judicial and Legal Service. He or she is normally gazetted as a deputy public prosecutor. So, if the Registar of Companies is a gazetted deputy public prosecutor and in such capacity conducts a prosecution of an offence under the SIA, that would not be caught by art 145(3) of the Constitution. But the Chairman of the Securities Commission is not placed on an equal footing. He is therefore not authorized lawfully, that is to say constitutionally, to authorize or to conduct prosecutions under the SIA.

Neither does s 380(i) of the CPC, relied on by the prosecutors before the sessions court, provide any assistance to the Securities Commission. As pointed out by the learned deputy public prosecutor, the expression ‘public officer’ appearing in that section refers to members of the public service. While for the purpose of carrying out their duties, members and servants of the Securities Commission are deemed to be public officers, they do not fall within the scope of s 380(i) of the CPC.

Encik Muhammad Shafee has very properly drawn my attention to s 126(2) as it originally appeared before the amendment. I think it useful to reproduce the section as it originally stood:

126 (2) Without prejudice to the provision of section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an advocate and solicitor may, with the previous permission in writing of the Public Prosecutor, be employed by the Government to conduct any criminal prosecution, or to appear in any criminal appeal, on behalf of the Government; such advocate and solicitor shall be paid by the Government such remuneration as may be agreed between the Government and the advocate and solicitor, and while so employed he shall be deemed to be a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of the Penal Code.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 691

Section 126(2) as originally cast did not, in my judgment, contravene art 145(3), because of the careful way in which it was drafted. On the other hand, s 126(2) as presently worded cannot be read harmoniously with art 145(3) to the extent I have earlier indicated.

Turning now to s 39(2) of the SCA, it is my judgment that this subsection wholly contravenes art 145(3). By reason of art 4(1) of the Federal Constitution, it being a law which is inconsistent with the Constitution, the subsection gives way. I would declare it void and unconstitutional.

In arriving at my decision, I have not overlooked the important principles that govern the interpretation of written constitutions. Our Federal Constitution is a living document written for all time. Its language compresses within it ideas that are manifold and concepts that are multifaceted. The task of the judicial interpreter of such a document is not to place it in a coffin and nail the lid but to breathe life into it and to give effect to the full breadth and width of its great language. That is the spirit in which our courts have approached our Constitution on previous occasions. In this context, I need only mention the decisions of our Supreme Court in Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 697; Mamat bin Daud & Ors v Government of Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119; Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia& Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261 and Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan and another appeal [1996] 1 MLJ 481.

There is, no doubt a presumption; even a strong presumption; that an Act of Parliament is constitutional. It would require much conviction to strike down a solemn act of legislation by a democratically elected Parliament. Nevertheless, once it has been amply demonstrated, as has been done in the present case, that an Act of Parliament contains provisions that are in direct conflict with the supreme law, it is the duty of this court to say so clearly and unequivocally.

For the reasons I have given thus far, I would declare s 126(2) of the SIA to be unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, save to the extent earlier indicated. In the same way I would declare s 39(2) of the SCA to be unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

At the conclusion of arguments, the learned deputy drew my attention to the fact that there has been already some prosecutions pursuant to s 126(2) of the SIA and s 39(2) of the SCA. There are also part heard cases presently pending before the subordinate courts, some of which may be well advanced or nearing conclusion.

Now, as a general rule, the declaration of invalidity of a written law on the grounds that it runs foul of the Federal Constitution has retrospective effect. But, the court is fully authorized, having regard to public interest, to make a prospective declaration so as not to render invalid convictions entered and proceedings already concluded before the challenge is taken on the ground on unconstitutionality.

1997 3 MLJ 681 at 692

In my judgment, it will be a manifest injustice to render a retrospective ruling on the invalidity of the two impugned subsections. The declaration as to invalidity I now make shall, therefore, be prospective only and shall include only this case and cases registered from today. In doing so, I act on the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in PP v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 and Mamat bin Daud v Government of Malaysia. Accordingly, the ruling that I have just pronounced shall take effect from 2 October 1997.

Order accordingly.

Reported by Loo Lai Mee

************************************************************************************************

S419 and S422 CPC

************************************************************************************************

S62 CPC

Ghani and Others v Jones

Court of Appeal

29 October 1969

29 October 1969

[1969 G. No. 2947]

[1970] 1 Q.B. 693

Lord Denning M.R., Edmund Davies L J. and Sir Gordon Willmer

Talbot J.

1969 Oct. 14, 15, 16; 29

1969 Aug. 25; 28

Police—Powers—Retention of documents—Passports—Refusal to return documents and passports handed to police—Police suspicion of murder and belief in evidential value of documents—No evidence of reasonable grounds of belief or that owners concerned in murder—Whether police entitled to retain documents and passports—Owners’ right to relief.

Injunction—Mandatory—Interlocutory—Retention of documents and passports by police claim by owners—Relief sought substantially same as claimed in action—No reason to delay enforcement of right—Whether order should be granted.

Police officers inquiring into a woman’s disappearance searched, without a warrant, the house of her father-in-law. At their request he handed to them documents including the passports of himself, his wife and daughter, the plaintiffs living in the house. The plaintiffs, who were Pakistanis, later asked for the return of the passports and documents as they wished to visit Pakistan. The police refused to return them. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant, a senior police officer, for a mandatory order for the delivery up of the passports and documents, an injunction restraining their detention and damages for detinue.

On the plaintiffs’ interlocutory application, the police gave affidavit evidence of their belief that the woman had been murdered and that they would apprehend those concerned. They said that in the event of charges being preferred some of the documents would be of evidential value and others of potential evidential value. The defendant said that the plaintiffs could help the police inquiries and that if they left the United Kingdom they might not return. No one had been arrested or charged with the murder. Talbot J. ordered the return of the documents and passports.

On the defendant’s appeal:

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the police had not shown reasonable grounds for believing that the documents were material evidence to prove the commission of a murder, nor for believing that the plaintiffs were in any way implicated in or accessory to a crime, and since their affidavits did not justify their retention of the documents, they should be ordered to return them forthwith.

Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 201; [1968] 1 All E.R. 229, C.A. distinguished.

Entick v. Carrington (1765)19 State Tr. 1029; 2 Wils. 275 and Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, C.C.A. considered.

Dicta of Horridge J. in Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164, 173 disapproved.

*694

Per curiam. There is no power to issue a search warrant for murder (post, p. 705D).

The common law does not permit the police to ransack anyone’s house, or to search for papers or articles therein, or to search his person, simply to see if he may have committed some crime (post, p. 706G-H).

Where police officers enter a man’s house by virtue of a warrant, or arrest a man lawfully for a serious offence, they are entitled to take any goods which they find in his possession or in his house which they reasonably believe to be material evidence in relation to the crime for which he is arrested or for which they enter. If during their search they come upon any other goods which show him to be implicated in some other crime they may retain them, provided they act reasonably and detain them no longer than is necessary (post, p. 706A-B).

The wish to prevent the plaintiffs leaving the country pending police inquiries is not a legitimate ground for the retention of the passports by the police (post, p. 709F).

Observations on requisites to be satisfied in order to justify the taking of an article when no one has been arrested or charged (post, pp. 708G-709C).

Decision of Talbot J., post, p. 695; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 1158; [1969] 3 All E.R. 720 affirmed.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lord Denning M.R.:

  • Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 201; [1968] 1 All E.R. 229, C.A..
  • Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164.
  • Entick v. Carrington (1765)19 State Tr. 1029; 2 Wils. 275.
  • King v. The Queen [1969] 1 A.C. 304; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 391; [1968] 2 All E.R. 610, P.C..
  • Pringle v. Bremner and Stirling (1867) 5 Macph., H.L., 55.
  • Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, C.CA.

The following additional cases were cited in argument in the Court of Appeal:

  • Boyd v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 616.
  • Chimel v. State of California (1969) U.S. (23L. Ed. 2d 685).
  • Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573; [1947] 1 All E.R. 567, H.L.(E.).
  • Crozier v. Cundey (1827) 6 B. & C. 232.
  • Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887) 16 Cox C.C. 245, Ir.
  • Gordon v. Metropolitan Police Chief Comr. [1910] 2 K.B. 1080, C.A..
  • King v. The Queen [1969] 1 A.C. 304; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 391; [1968] 2 All E.R. 610, P.C..
  • Lawrie v. Muir, 1950 S.C.(J.) 19.
  • Levine v. O’Keefe [1930] V.L.R. 70.
  • Reg. v. Barnett (1829) 3 C. & P. 600.
  • Reg. v. Lushington, Ex parte Otto [1894] 1 Q.B. 420.
  • Warden of Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 294.
  • Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Talbot J.:

  • Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 201; [1968] 1 All E.R. 229, C.A..

*695

  • Crozier v. Cundey (1827) 613. & C. 232.
  • Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887)16 Cox C.C. 245, Ir.
  • Elias v. Pasmore[1934] 2K.B. 164.
  • Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr. 1029; 2 Wils. 275.
  • Price v. Messenger (1800) 2 Bos. & P. 158.
  • Reg. v. Lushington, Ex parte Otto [1894] 1 Q.B. 420.
  • Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, C.C.A..
  • Reg. v. Waterfield
  • Canadian Pacific Railway v. Gaud [1949] 2 K.B. 239, CA.
  • Gordon v. Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1910] 2 K.B. 1080, C.A..

APPEAL from Talbot J., infra.

A summons, taken out by Abdul Ghani, the first plaintiff, Razia Begum, his wife, the second plaintiff, and Kaniz Radhma, a spinster and daughter of the first and second plaintiffs, the third plaintiff, in an action against Alan Jones, a detective chief superintendent of the Metropolitan police, the defendant, was heard in chambers and judgment was delivered in open court.

The facts are fully stated in the judgments of Talbot J. and Lord Denning M.R.

Anthony Lester for the plaintiffs.

Anthony Lewisohn for the defendant.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 28. TALBOT J.

read the following judgment. In this summons I have been asked to give my judgment in open court. In it the plaintiffs are asking for a mandatory order that the defendant, a detective chief superintendent of the Metropolitan police, do deliver up certain documents belonging to them and their passports, which they allege are wrongfully detained by him. The first and second plaintiffs are husband and wife, and the third plaintiff is their daughter. Proceedings were commenced by a writ issued on August 13, 1969, in which is made this claim for the mandatory order and also a claim for damages.

The matter arises in this way: the police are investigating the disappearance of one Mastoora Begum, the wife of Mohammed Sharif, a son of the first and second plaintiffs. This lady arrived in the United Kingdom on June 22, 1967, and has since disappeared. Inquiries lead the police to believe that she has been murdered and that the crime is believed to have been committed in 1968. No one has been arrested or detained, though the police believe they will apprehend those concerned.

On June 13, 1969, the defendant and other police officers visited the first plaintiff’s house and questioned him about the disappearance of Mastoora Begum. They searched the house, though, as I understand, they did not have a search warrant. They asked for the passports of the first plaintiff and of his wife, the second plaintiff, and he (the first plaintiff)*696 handed them to the police officers. The police officers took away the passports, and also five letters and a notebook.

On June 19, 1969, the police again visited the first plaintiff’s house and asked him for the passport of his daughter, the third plaintiff. This also was handed over to them.

Then the time came when the plaintiffs wanted their documents back, and in particular their passports. They asked for them and did not get them back. They then instructed solicitors and the solicitors wrote letters, four in all, the last being on August 14, asking for the return of these documents, but received no reply.

The plaintiffs want their passports back for a holiday in Pakistan. The police – that is the defendant and detective sergeant Laing – in their affidavits say they believe that in the event of charges being preferred, some of the documents will be of evidential value and others certainly of potential evidential value. That is set out in the affidavit of detective sergeant Laing. In the affidavit of the defendant he says he believes the documents referred to to be important documents in themselves; and he went on to add that in so far as the passports were concerned, he believed that all three plaintiffs could be of considerable assistance to his inquiries, and that if they left the United Kingdom they might not return.

Pausing there, that final reason given by the defendant, that the passports are required to prevent the plaintiffs leaving the country, is no longer relied upon as a valid reason for retaining these documents.

The letters and notebook belong to the first plaintiff, or to the first and second plaintiffs. The passports belong to the governments issuing them. The plaintiffs, however, as possessors of these passports, have a right to them.

The first point which is clear is that the defendant detains these documents and passports from the plaintiffs, and the burden is upon him to show that he lawfully detains them. The second point is this: has the defendant shown that he has a right to retain these documents? The third point is: if he has not any such lawful power, ought the court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, to order their return at this stage of the proceedings.

The first question involves a consideration of police powers to seize papers which they believe may be of material evidential value in possible criminal proceedings. It is an important consideration that police authorities should not be hindered in their investigations of a crime. It is certainly of equal importance that individual rights and liberties should not be infringed and taken away unless there is lawful reason for so doing.

Powers of the police to seize goods and documents were fully examined by the Court of Appeal in Chic Fashion:s (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299. As long ago as 1765, in Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr. 1029, it was decided that a general warrant authorising a search for seditious papers was illegal. The powers of the police in such cases must be derived either from a statute or from the common law. There is no statutory power which would authorise the defendant in this case to do what he is doing, and therefore I must determine whether the common law authorises his action.

*697

In 1800, in Price v. Messenger (1800) 2 Bos. & P. 158, seizure of goods not referred to in a search warrant was held lawful because the officer reasonably, though mistakenly, believed that they were included in the warrant.

In 1827, in Crozier v. Cundey (1827) 6 B. & C. 232, seizure of goods not mentioned in the warrant but which were likely to provide evidence of identity of those goods which were mentioned was held lawful.

In Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887) 16 Cox C.C. 245, it was decided that where a man was arrested on warrant, a constable was entitled to take property found in his possession which was likely to form material evidence in his prosecution for a crime. Similarly, in Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164, it was decided that a constable arresting a man called Harrington for sedition was entitled to seize documents which were in his possession and which would form material evidence against the plaintiff in that action, Elias, on a charge of inciting Harrington to commit the crime of sedition.

In stating the principle to be derived from these cases, Lord Denning M.R. in the Chic Fashions case [1968] 2 Q.R. 299, 313 said:

“… when a constable enters a house by virtue of a search warrant for stolen goods, he may seize not only the goods which he reasonably believes to be covered by the warrant, but also any other goods which he believes on reasonable grounds to have been stolen and to be material evidence on a charge of stealing or receiving against the person in possession of them or anyone associated with him.”

That there are limitations on police powers in respect of property which they believe to be connected with a crime is shown by Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164, decided by the then Court of Criminal Appeal in 1963. Two police constables had information about a car being involved in a serious offence and tried to detain the car, though not charging or arresting the two men in it, and it was held that though there was a duty on the constables to preserve for use in court evidence of a crime, that duty did not authorise them to prevent the removal of the car in the circumstances.

It was in Reg. v. Lushington, Ex parte Otto [1894] 1 Q.B. 420 that it was laid down that constables have a power and duty to retain for use in court things which may be evidence of crime and which have come into their possession without wrong on their part. In that case there were proceedings for extradition and the articles had been produced by the owner under a subpoena duces tecum.

How then do these decided cases assist in this case? Let us take the main points of the evidence. There is suspected the serious crime of murder; the plaintiffs’ documents came into the hands of the police because they were handed to them by the first plaintiff; no one has been arrested or detained for the crime, and the plaintiffs are not shown by any evidence before me to be concerned in that crime; the police believe that the documents will be of evidential or potential evidential value, though no grounds are shown to support this belief; the plaintiffs particularly want their passports and their detention amounts to a restriction on their free movement from this country, a restriction which is laid upon persons who are not charged with any offence or shown to be implicated in the suspected*698 offence. These are the relevant circumstances, and I hope I have not omitted anything.

The question, narrowed down, therefore, is this: have the police common law powers to detain documents, which they believe will be useful evidentially in a suspected crime, from the owners, who have not been charged or arrested or shown to be implicated in the suspected crime?

The cases I have been referred to relating to search warrants limit the powers to keep the goods or papers found on the search to those connected evidentially with stolen property and which are believed, on reasonable grounds, to be so connected in order to support a charge against the owners or those associated with them. The other cases relate to the right to retain documents in proceedings which have been begun and which may form part of the evidence in those proceedings.

Taking all these matters into account, I am persuaded that there is no right vested in the police at common law to retain documents and passports belonging to persons not shown to be concerned in the suspected crime and where no reasonable grounds of belief that these documents will be useful evidentially in some crime are shown. To decide otherwise would be to accord to the police powers to take charge of property which they believe might be of evidential value irrespective of any connection the owners might have with the crime.

The final point concerns the equitable jurisdiction which I have to exercise. It is exceptional to grant, before trial of the action, an interlocutory injunction which gives substantially the relief claimed in the action, and in particular to make a mandatory order. Furthermore, before doing so, the court must be quite clear that the right exists. In this case, my opinion being that the defendant has no right to keep these documents from the plaintiffs, and as the legality of his actions has to be tested at the time of his refusal to deliver up – that appears in the Chic Fashions case – I can see no reason to delay enforcement of what I believe to be the plaintiffs’ rights. The order will therefore go.

Order accordingly. (L. N. W. )

Representation

Solicitors: Lawford & Co.; Solicitor, Metropolitan Police.

The defendant appealed.

The grounds of appeal were: (1) that the judge was wrong in law in holding that police officers had no common law powers to detain documents which they believed would be useful evidentially in a suspected crime, unless the owners of the documents had either been charged or arrested, or had been shown to be implicated in the suspected crime; (2) that the judge was wrong in law in holding that it was incumbent on the police officers to disclose in their affidavits, sworn for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings, the grounds for their belief that the documents were of evidential value in connection with the suspected crime; (3) that the judge was wrong in the exercise of his equitable jurisdiction in granting to the plaintiffs the relief claimed upon an interlocutory application.

*699

John Leonard Q.C. and Anthony Lewisohn for the appellant defendant. This is a murder investigation by the police. The original point of taking the plaintiffs’ passports was to prevent them getting out of the country. It is conceded that this is no justification. The passports were handed to the police voluntarily. Their retention is justified by their potential evidential value. The best evidence rule requires the production of the originals.

1. Police officers who lawfully acquire possession of articles which they have reasonable grounds to believe may be of evidential value in a criminal investigation can retain them until the articles are used in evidence or for a reasonable time. 2. A bare statement that a defendant has reasonable grounds for belief is a sufficient answer to an interlocutory application for the return of articles so acquired. 3. If the police are wrong and they have no reasonable grounds for retaining the articles they are liable in damages.

Suppose A borrows a knife from B, stabs someone with that knife and having so committed murder disappears and cannot be found. The knife is traced by the police who take it away before A is discovered. B demands the return of the knife. It would be absurd if the police were bound to return the knife to B, who may be implicated as an accessory. It is sufficient if it is reasonably needed as evidence.

Articles can be taken as an incident to a search warrant although not included in it: Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299. Cases reviewed in that case establish the power of the police to retain articles which may be used in evidence, e.g., Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887)16 Cox C.C. 245. In Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164 the documents were on the premises but not in the possession of Hannington.

The statutory power of search is contained in section 26 (1) and (3) of the Theft Act, 1968. Impeding police inquiries in the case of murder could amount to an offence under section 4 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967. The right to retain articles cannot depend on whether a charge is ultimately made against anyone, or upon whether a conviction is obtained: see per Lord Denning M.R. in Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299, 312. The “best evidence” rule must be complied with; the original document must be produced if possible.

The restrictions on the powers of the police are: (1) the retention must be for a reasonable time; (2) one has to balance the interests of the individual who owns the article and the seriousness of the case. The current situation with regard to crime and the police must be regarded. The interlocutory order made means that the police have not had time to complete their investigations. Pringle v. Bremner and Sterling (1867) 5 Macph. H.L. 55 illustrates the principle of the interests of the state in prosecuting criminals.

The principle contended for does not depend on the fact that she documents were voluntarily handed over; the police obtained them lawfully. It is conceded that there must be a limit on what can be done without a search warrant. One cannot get a search warrant in a murder case.

The limitation on the powers of the police in Reg. v. Waterfield[1964] l Q.B. 164 went too far. The question there was whether the police were acting in the course of their duty. Reg. v. Lushington, Ex parte Otto [1894] 1 Q.B. 420 lays down the principle of the power of the police to*700 retain articles lawfully in their possession which may be evidence of a crime.

[Edmund Davies L.J. referred to articles by Professor P. J. Fitzgerald, "The Arrest of a Motor Car" (1965) Criminal Law Review, p. 23, and by Professor E. C. S. Wade, "Police Search" (1934) 50 Law Quarterly Review, p. 354.]

Levine v. O’Keefe [1930] V.L.R. 70 which was cited in Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299 was decided before Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164.

In summary, any discussion as to the right of the police to seize goods is irrelevant. The police could not have got a search warrant in this case. The only common law right to a search warrant was in the case of larceny. There are two functions of search warrants for stolen goods. One is to provide evidence; the other is to recover goods. The right of the police is independent of the outcome of the investigation. The right to retain possession must have a point of termination. If there is no charge or prosecution that must be at the point, which had not been reached here, when a reasonable time has elapsed.

Anthony Lester for the plaintiffs. It is conceded that the burden is on the defendant to show that he lawfully detained the plaintiffs’ goods. The detention must be justified at the time of the taking or at the time of the request for the return. The defendant here took as a bailee but lie committed a trespass when he refused to return the goods. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 38 (1962), para. 1283 defines detinue. If the detention is to be justified, the taking must also be justified. It must be the same justification in each case.

There are eight elements in this case which make it unusual: (1) there has been no prosecution; (2) no arrest; (3) no application for a search warrant; (4) no suggestion by the defendant that the documents were the fruits or instruments of any crime; (5) no allegation that they were evidence of any crime committed by the plaintiffs; (6) no suggestion that they were necessary and material evidence against anyone; (7) the passports have unique characteristics in that they affect liberty of movement and, like driving licences, they speak as to very few facts; (8) it is admitted that, in the circumstances of this case, the police would have no right to search for or seize documents. There are competing interests here: of the community through the police and of the individual citizen. It is necessary to have a clear standard at common law, especially since there are no safeguards in any written constitution.

Entick v. Carrington (1765)19 State Tr. 1029 is the basic case. At p. 1073 Lord Camden lays down the law. It is precisely this case.

As to the illustration of the knife given for the appellant, as the law now stands the police would have to return the knife. One can only search or seize by virtue of a warrant, a search warrant or warrant of arrest. A warrant of arrest would allow the taking of articles as evidence if they were in the possession of the person arrested. Warrants of search and arrest give safeguards; there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The stolen goods cases. In Price v. Messenger (1802) 2 Bos. & P. 158 a search warrant protected goods specified in the warrant and also goods reasonably believed to have been specified. Crozier v. Cundey (1827) 6B. & C. 232 shows that though the terms of the warrant can be extended this must not be unreasonable. The cases are reviewed in Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299. The Theft Act, 1968, goes beyond that case.

There are three special features at common law in the case of stolen goods: (1) ex hypothesi they may not belong to the person from whom they are taken; (2) they are stolen; (3) there is an interest in their being returned to their true owner.

The need for a search warrant provides four safeguards: (1) a sworn statement made to a magistrate; (2) a deposition of reasonable belief that the goods were stolen and were in possession of a particular person at a particular place; (3) if the warrant was improperly granted, the citizen can be protected; (4) the warrant limits the extent of search and seizure.

In warrantless searches the police must have reasonable grounds for belief that the items seized are either the fruits of a crime committed by a person from whom they are taken or instruments of such a crime or necessary or material evidence of such a crime. The principle of reasonableness is inherent in the search warrant situation.

Other search warrant cases. In Pringle v. Bremner and Stirling (1867) 5 Macph. H.L. 55, the search went beyond the warrant. Lord Chelmsford indicated that the legality of the seizure would depend upon the outcome of the proceedings. Reliance is put on Gordon v. Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1910] 2 K.B. 1080, 1094, where the coins were not shown to be material evidence. One can only search or seize by virtue of a warrant, a search warrant or warrant of arrest. These warrants give safeguards; there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The irony of the plaintiffs’ present position if the police contention is right is that they have less protection than if there were a warrant. There have been cases where the property has been returned pending the trial.

King v. The Queen [1969] 1 A.C. 304 reinforces the importance of complying with a search warrant. It shows that if the warrant is exceeded there is an illegality. It also illustrates how different is the stricter American view as to the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. As we have looser rules as to admissibility, we should have stricter safeguards as to obtaining evidence. Reg. v. Barnett (1829) 3 C. & P. 600 is one of the many cases showing that money or goods taken which are not material to the charge must be returned. The test is: is it material to the charge?

Arrest warrant cases. One can hardly imagine a clearer case than Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887) 16 Cox C.C. 245 where the doctrine of hot pursuit arises. This was the only case relied upon in Elias v. Pas more [1934] 2 K.B. 164 for a much wider proposition. It is essential that the person concerned from whom the property is taken is the suspected criminal. Parliament, as late as 1967, has addressed its mind to these problems and has set out the limits: see sections 4 (1) and 2 of the Criminal Law Act, 1967, and also section 26 of the Theft Act, 1968. This is the answer to the knife point. It is very significant that Parliament has gone no further. One must not extend the law beyond the safeguards applied to accused persons. To allow the police the wide powers which they claim, where there is no arrest or charge, is highly dangerous. Reliance*702 is put on Entick v. Carrington, 19 State Tr. 1029, where similar issues were raised.

Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164, 173, is expressed very widely and is inconsistent with Dillon v. O’Brien, 16 Cox C.C. 245. If pressed it would be contended that Elias v. Pasmore was wrongly decided. It was a case involving sedition and the documents were conceded to be relevant. If Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164 was based on the width of the principle of Horridge J., at p. 173, it was wrongly decided. Professor Wade’s article, “Police Search” in 50 L.Q.R. 354, is a valuable criticism of that case. The present case goes beyond Elias v. Pasmore in that there has been no arrest. Although Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164 is in the plaintiffs’ favour in that it is the only case in English law in which the police have taken property without a warrant and had to give it back, the reasons of the court were not fully given and it should be limited to its own circumstances. It is very far from the present case, although it is the one case where there was no warrant. The doctrine of “hot pursuit” may sometimes apply. The police would not get a search warrant here.

The American authorities. Boyd v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 616 showed that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property, such as the Fourth Amendment dealing with the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” should be liberally construed. We have the same standard as the American Fourth Amendment, although we do not go so far. If there is any doubt as to the law it should be resolved in favour of the citizen. The importance of the fundamental right secured by the Fourth Amendment was emphasised in Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383, 392, 393. No English case has been found which is inconsistent with Weeks v. United States. In The Warden of Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 294 the seizure was allowed; previously the instruments of a crime could be seized, but not the evidence. Chimel v. State of California (1969) U.S. (23L.Ed 2d 685) shows how far American law goes in protecting the accused.

All the American cases concerned the accused person. It would never have occurred to them that the same safeguards should not apply to a person not even accused, [Reference was made to Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573, per Viscount Simon at p. 584.]

In seizing goods, either one must have a warrant, or, if there is no warrant, there must be the same safeguards as if there was a warrant. The plaintiffs must be given reasonable grounds for the retention of the property at the time of the taking or the request. Retention cannot be justified without reasons being given.

In summary, the two issues of search and seizure should be kept separate. The question of the legality of searches depends upon the entry onto property. If there is no warrant, the same safeguards must be observed as are contained in actual search warrants.

As to seizure, on the cases the citizen or the police can only seize property pursuant to a search warrant or warrant of arrest or a Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573 arrest. It is essential that the legality of what has been done can be tested. The burden is on the police authority to justify. In Elias v. Pasmore [1934] 2 K.B. 164 there was a warrant. It is conceded*703 that in search and arrest cases, searches and seizures have been allowed beyond the warrant, but subject to the necessary conditions which the warrant contains. These are cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the articles seized may be material evidence for the trial in respect of a crime for which the warrant was issued or some similar crime was committed by a person from whom the article was taken. So far as third parties are concerned outside those implicated, they would be liable to produce evidence on subpoena and if they destroyed the evidence they would be liable under the Criminal Law Act, 1967. To extend the power of search and seizure to innocent third parties would be to deprive persons not accused of any crime to a greater restraint than if there were a warrant. If they cannot be seized without consent, they cannot be retained against the owner’s will. The American Fourth Amendment sets out the principle of the Entick v. Carrington position, 19 State Tr. 1029. That case has stood for two centuries. It should still stand.

The documents here relate to personal liberty. It is not suggested that they are material evidence. The police cannot unlawfully retain property on the basis of the best evidence rule. If ever there was a case which did not require an extension of police powers it is this. The documents were handed over voluntarily.

Leonard Q.C. in reply. It is fundamental to this case that the documents were handed over voluntarily. Entick v. Carrington, 19 State Tr. 1029 is very far from the present case. It is conceded that if the police had entered the house without permission, it would have been unlawful. It is a very different matter where they were given permission. The mischief that the common law has been guarding against is the entry into a man’s house and turning over his papers. As there was no trespass, provided the police have some need to retain the documents, they can keep them. Prima facie the police are committing a tort, but the documents are being kept for their evidentiary value. The police might be embarrassed by having to disclose reasons for their value as evidence.

Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299 makes it clear that provided the police have the right to go on the premises, they have the right to go beyond the warrant and seize other goods: see per Lord Denning, at p. 313. The element of criminal association is not necessary. The limitations are a reasonable belief that a felony has been committed and that it is material evidence. The interests of the citizen must be set against the seriousness of the offence.

[Lord Denning M.R. Have the police got to say why the goods or documents are reasonably required?]

No. Common sense must be relied upon. The fact that the retention of the passports immobilise the holders is an advantage to the police. It is inherent in the judgments in Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299 that the police may sometimes be justified in seizing property where there is no prosecution. A subpoena duces tecum is no help to the police where proceedings have not yet begun.

Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164 unreasonably hampers the activities of the police. It was either wrongly decided or depends on its own particular facts. In King v. The Queen [1969] 1 A.C. 304, Lord Hodson,*704 at p. 315, cited the opinion of Lord Cooper in Lawrie v. Muir, 1950 S.C. (J.) 19, 26, 27. The American cases are based on their constitution. They do not provide much help in this case.

The common law is a developing organism. Reasonable grounds for believing that a criminal offence has been committed and that the goods or documents are of reasonable evidentiary value is the test.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 29. The following judgments were read. LORD DENNING M.R.

On June 22, 1967, a woman named Mastoora Begum came from Pakistan to England to join her husband here. His name was Mohammed Sharif. They lived together in a house in Oxford with the husband’s father and mother, whose names are Abdul Ghani and Razia Begum. In November, 1968, the wife disappeared. No one has seen her since. In April, 1969, the husband left England and went back, presumably to Pakistan. The husband’s sister then came to England and stayed with her father and mother at the same house in Oxford.

The police made inquiries about the disappearance of the wife which led them to the belief that she had been murdered. On June 13, 1969, two detective officers from Scotland Yard – Chief Superintendent Jones and Detective Sergeant Laing – went to the house in Oxford where the husband’s father and mother and their daughter were living. The father asked the officers in. One of them questioned him about the disappearance of his son’s wife. The other searched the house. The police asked the father for their passports. He handed them his own and his wife’s passports. They took them away. They also took some letters received from other members of the family. On June 19, the police returned to the house and asked for the daughter’s passport. Her father gave it to them.

In July, 1969, the father instructed solicitors to ask for the return of the passports and other articles. The police refused to return them. On August 13, 1969, the father and mother and the daughter issued a writ against the chief superintendent, the defendant, and served with it a statement of claim asking for a mandatory order that the defendant do forthwith deliver up the passports and letters. Detective Sergeant Laing made an affidavit, saying:

“The information I have obtained as a result of my inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the said Mastoora Begum leads me to believe that she has been murdered and that the crime was committed in 1968 and I am of opinion that the inquiries now being undertaken will lead to the apprehension of those concerned in her murder.

In the course of the inquiries Chief Superintendent Jones and myself acquired possession (inter alia) of the passports of the three plaintiffs, two letters from Mr. Ghani’s daughter, Nassim Akhtar, and three letters from his nephew, Subba Saddique. I believe that in the event of charges being preferred some of the documents will be of evidential value and others certainly of potential evidential value.”

*705 As to the husband’s sister, the affidavit said that she “was not in the United Kingdom at the time of the disappearance of the said Mastoora Begum, but there has been conduct on her part which was designed to impede police inquiries.”

Detective Chief Superintendent Jones concurred in that affidavit, and said:

“I believe that the documents referred to therein to be important in themselves, but insofar as the passports are concerned, I also sincerely believe that all these plaintiffs can be of considerable assistance to me in my inquiries, and that, if they leave the United Kingdom, they may not return.”

Neither affidavit alleged any belief that any of the plaintiffs was implicated in the suspected murder. Talbot J., held, ante, p. 698C-E, that the police had no right to retain the passports or letters and made a mandatory order for their return. The police officers appeal to this court. The case raises matters of importance on which there is very little direct authority in our books.

The first thing to notice is that the police officers had no search warrant. The reason is simple. No magistrate – no judge even – has any power to issue a search warrant for murder. He can issue a search warrant for stolen goods and for some statutory offences, such as coinage. But not for murder. Not to dig for the body. Nor to look for the axe, the gun or the poison dregs. The police have to get the consent of the householder to enter if they can: or, if not, do it by stealth or by force. Somehow they seem to manage. No decent person refuses them permission. If he does, he is probably implicated in some way or other. So the police risk an action for trespass. It is not much risk.

The second thing to notice is that the police officers kept the passports and letters without the consent of the holders. Mr. Leonard suggested that they took them with consent. This is a little far-fetched. Here were two police officers asking a Pakistani for the passports of himself and his wife. Of course he handed them to them. It would look bad for him if he did not. He bowed to their authority. Even if he consented to their looking at the passports, he did not consent to their keeping them. Even if he did consent to their keeping them, it was only for a while: and he could withdraw it at any time. As in fact he did. So it is all the same. They detain the passports without his consent.

The third thing to notice is that no one has been arrested for the murder or charged with it. The police officers believe that the woman has been murdered. They say so. In addition, although they do not say so, they must, I think, suspect that these three may in some way be implicated in it. Otherwise they would not hold on to the passports or papers as they do. But they have not arrested anyone or charged anyone. I can understand it. It would not be right for them to make an arrest or lay a charge unless the grounds were pretty strong.

So we have a case where the police officers, in investigating a murder, have seized property without a warrant and without making an arrest and have retained it without the consent of the party from whom they took it. Their justification is that they believe it to be of “evidential*706 value” on a prosecution for murder. Is this a sufficient justification in law?

I would start by considering the law where police officers enter a man’s house by virtue of a warrant, or arrest a man lawfully, with or without a warrant, for a serious offence. I take it to be settled law, without citing cases, that the officers are entitled to take any goods which they find in his possession or in his house which they reasonably believe to be material evidence in relation to the crime for which he is arrested or for which they enter. If in the course of their search they come upon any other goods which show him to be implicated in some other crime, they may take them provided they act reasonably and detain them no longer than is necessary. Such appears from the speech of Lord Chelmsford L.C., in Pringle v. Bremner and Stirling (1867) 5 Macph., H.L. 55, 60 and Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299.

Accepting those cases, I turn to two cases where the police acted against a man without the authority of a warrant or of an arrest. The first is Elias v. Pasmore. It is reported in [1934] 2 K.B. 164, but the facts are given more fully in (1934) 50 T.L.R. 196. Police officers there entered a house in Great Russell Street, of which Elias was the tenant. The police officers had only a warrant for the arrest of a man called Hannington. They had reasonable ground for believing that he had been guilty of sedition by attempting to cause disaffection among the police. They knew he was in the house. They entered and arrested him. They had no search warrant, authorising them to search the house. No search warrant is permissible to search for seditious papers. That is plain ever since since Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr. 1029. Whilst there, however, they searched the place, seized a number of seditious papers and took them to Scotland Yard. These papers implicated, not only Hannington, but also Elias. They showed that Elias had been inciting Hannington to commit sedition. The police prosecuted first Hannington and second Elias. The papers were used at the trial of Elias. Both men were convicted. Elias afterwards said that the police had no right to take his papers and brought an action for their return and for damages for their detention. Horridge J. rejected the claim. He said [1934] 2 K.B. 164, 173: “The interests of the state must excuse the seizure of documents, which seizure would otherwise be unlawful, if it appears in fact that such documents were evidence of a crime committed by anyone.”

I confess that I think those words “by anyone” go too far. The decision itself can be justified on the ground that the papers bowed that Elias was implicated in the crime of sedition committed by Hannington. If they had only implicated Elias in some other crime, such as blackmail or libel, I do not think the police officers would have been entitled to seize them. For that would be a flat contradiction of Entick v. Carrington, 19 State Tr. 1029. The common law does not permit police officers, or anyone else, to ransack anyone’s house, or to search for papers or articles therein, or to search his person, simply to see if he may have committed some crime or other. If police officers should so do, they would be guilty of a trespass. Even if they should find something incriminating against him, I should have thought that the court would not allow it to be used in evidence against him if the conduct of the police*707 officers was so oppressive that it would not be right to allow the Crown to rely upon it: see King v. The Queen [1969] 1 A.C. 304.

The other case is Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164. Two men named Lynn and Waterfield assaulted a man in King’s Lynn. Lynn wounded another man. They drove off in Waterfield’s car. Lynn drove it dangerously and ran into a brick wall. They parked it in the Market Place and went off. The police sergeant was anxious to examine it so as to obtain evidence of the collision with the wall. He told two police constables to keep watch on it and not let it go as he wanted to examine it. He told them it had been involved in a serious offence. At 7.30 p.m. Lynn came back and wanted to drive the car off. The police constable told him it had to remain where it was. Waterfield, the owner of the car, then came up and said to the police officer: “You cannot impound my car.” He told Lynn to drive it away. One of the police officers stood in the path of the car. Waterfieid said: “Drive at him, he will get out of the way.” Lynn did drive forward. The officer jumped aside. The car was driven away.

Lynn was charged with assaulting the police officer in the execution of his duty, and Waterfield with commanding it. The jury convicted them both. They appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeal (consisting of Lord Parker C.J., Ashworth J. and Hinchcliffe J.) allowed the appeal, and said, at p. 171:

“It is to be noted that neither [Lynn nor Waterfield] had been charged or was under arrest and accordingly the decision in Dillon v. O’Brien and Davis (1887) 16 Cox C.C. 245, does not assist the prosecution.

It was contended that the two police constables were acting in the execution of a duty to preserve for use in court evidence of a crime, and in a sense they were, but the execution of that duty did not in the view of this court authorise them to prevent the removal of the car in the circumstances. In the course of argument instances were suggested where difficulty might arise if a police officer were not entitled to prevent removal of an article which had been used in the course of a crime, for instance, an axe used by a murderer and thrown away by him. Such a case can be decided If and when it arises. …”

The court did, however, go on to certify, at p. 172, that a point of law of general public importance was involved, namely,

“… whether at common law a constable, without making a prior charge or arrest, has the duty to detain as prospective evidence any property found in a public place and which he has reasonable grounds to believe to be material evidence to prove the commission of a crime.”

The police did not ask for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Lynn and Waterfield had been convicted on other grounds. No doubt the police at King’s Lynn did not wish to put the ratepayers to the expense of an appeal, simply to clear up the law.

*708

The decision causes me some misgiving. I expect that the car bore traces of its impact with the brick wall. The police had reason to believe that Lynn and Waterfield were implicated in a crime of which the marks on the car might be most material evidence at the trial. If Lynn and Waterfield were allowed to drive the car away, they might very well remove or obliterate all incriminating evidence. My comment on that case is this: The law should not allow wrongdoers to destroy evidence against them when it can be prevented. Test it by an instance put in argument. The robbers of a bank “borrow” a private car and use it in their raid, and escape. They abandon it by the roadside. The police find the car, i.e., the instrument of the crime, and want to examine it for finger prints. The owner of the “borrowed” car comes up and demands the return of it. He says he will drive it away and not allow them to examine it. Cannot the police say to him: “Nay, you cannot have it until we have examined it?” I should have thought they could. His conduct makes him look like an accessory after the fact, if not before it. At any rate it is quite unreasonable. Even though the raiders have not yet been caught, arrested or charged, nevertheless the police should be able to do whatever is necessary and reasonable to preserve the evidence of the crime. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not tell how Reg. v. Waterfield [1964] 1 Q.B. 164, is to be distinguished from such a case. The court simply said, at p. 171, that the police constables were under no duty “to prevent removal of the car in the circumstance.” They did not tell us what was the “circumstance” which took it out of the general rule. It may have been sufficient. I do not know.

Other instances were put in argument to test the position when no one had been arrested or charged. Edmund Davies L.J. drew from his unrivalled experience and told us that the great train robbers, when they were in hiding at Leatherslade Farm, used a saucer belonging to the farmer and gave the cat its milk. When seeking for the gang, before they were caught, the police officers took the saucer so as to examine it for finger prints. Could the farmer have said to them: “No, it is mine. You shall not have it?” Clearly not. His conduct might well lead them to think that he was trying to shield the gang. At any rate fit would have been quite unreasonable.

What is the principle underlying these instances? We have to consider, on the one hand, the freedom of the individual his privacy and his possessions are not to be invaded except for the most compelling reasons. On the other hand, we have to consider the interest of society at large in finding out wrongdoers and repressing crime. Honest citizens should help the police and not hinder them in their efforts to track down criminals. Balancing these interests, I should have thought that, in order to justify the taking of an article, when no man has been arrested or charged, these requisites must be satisfied:

First:

The police officers must have reasonable grounds for believing that a serious offence has been committed – so serious that it is of the first importance that the offenders should be caught and brought to justice.

Second:

The police officers must have reasonable grounds for believing*709 that the article in question is either the fruit of the crime (as in the case of stolen goods) or is the instrument by which the crime was committed (as in the case of the axe used by the murderer) or is material evidence to prove the commission of the crime (as in the case of the car used by a bank raider or the saucer used by a train robber).

Third:

The police officers must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person in possession of it has himself committed the crime, or is implicated in it, or is accessory to it, or at any rate his refusal must be quite unreasonable.

Fourth:

The police must not keep the article, nor prevent its removal, for any longer than is reasonably necessary to complete their investigations or preserve it for evidence. If a copy will suffice, it should be made and the original returned. As soon as the case is over, or it is decided not to go on with it, the article should be returned.

Finally:

The lawfulness of the conduct of the police must be judged at the time, and not by what happens afterwards.

Tested by these criteria, I do not think the police officers are entitled to hold on to these passports or letters. They may have reasonable grounds for believing that the woman has been murdered. But they have not shown reasonable grounds for believing that these passports and letters are material evidence to prove the commission of the murder. All they say is that they are of “evidential value,” whatever that may mean. Nor have they shown reasonable grounds for believing that the plaintiffs are in any way implicated in a crime, or accessory to it. In any case, they have held them quite long enough. They have no doubt made photographs of them, and that should suffice.

It was suggested that a mandatory order should not be made for their return. The case, it was said, should go for trial, and the officers made liable in damages if they are wrong. But I think their affidavits fall so far short of any justification for retention that they should be ordered to return them forthwith. I cannot help feeling that the real reason why the passports have not been returned is because the officers wish to prevent the plaintiffs from leaving this country pending police inquiries. That is not a legitimate ground for holding them. Either they have grounds for arresting them, or they have not. If they have not, the plaintiffs should be allowed to leave – even if it means they are fleeing from the reach of justice. A man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the law of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest grounds. It must not be taken away on a suspicion which is not grave enough to warrant his arrest.

I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

EDMUND DAVIES L.J.

Having already had the advantage of considering the judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls, I have to say that I agree with it and cannot usefully add anything. I accordingly concur in holding that this appeal should be dismissed.*710 Sir GORDON WILLMER. I also agree.

Representation

Solicitors: E.O. Lane; Lawford & Co.

Appeal dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal. By consent, stay of execution for 14 days. (A. H. B. )

© 2011 Sweet & Maxwell

************************************************************************************************

PS: Izamov is my Russian name, technically, just like Gary Kasparov, Karpov for the World Class Chess Grand Masters.

Categories: Absence of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Chaos Theory, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Failure of Gaussian Hypothesis, Federal Constitutions, First Information Report (FIR), Fluid Dynamics, Forensics Standards, FOREX THEORY, Fractal Market Analysis, Fractal Market Hypothesis, Fractal Time Series, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Fuzzy Sets, Game Theory, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Geological Forensics Science, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Knowledge, Laminar Flow, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Lyapunov Exponent, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Chess Strategies, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Fuzziness, Measures of Nothingness, Measures of Stochasticity, Meteorological Sciences and Analyses, My Young Padawans on The Moves, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Neural Fuzzy, Noisy Chaos vs R/S Analysis, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Padawan, Penal Codes, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, SHA-1, Solar and Lunar Calculations, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Hurst Processes, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Turbulence, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.