UMMI HAFILDA THE PROSTITUTE’S ULTIMATE FANTASY: SIZE NOT FOREPLAY BUT SHE LOVES ORAL SEX

UMMI HAFILDA THE PROSTITUTE’S ULTIMATE FANTASY: SIZE NOT FOREPLAY BUT SHE  LOVES ORAL SEX

Karima el-Mahrough isn’t letting the ongoing media frenzy over her alleged involvement with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi get her down.

 

Yes, God has sent us many signs. If not why would Augustine Paul expire at the same time as the sign above Umno’s headquarters? Was not Augustine the main scumbag in the Anwar Ibrahim trial?

Fernando then took the court through the testimony of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, a.k.a Raja Komando, who had, in fine detail, revealed how the conspiracy against Anwar originally unfolded and the role he was given in this whole conspiracy.

“Ummi Hafilda is a prostitute,” said Aziz Samsuddin Day three of Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court hit a high note today when Christopher Fernando read out transcripts of the previous trial that quoted Aziz Samsuddin as saying Ummi Hafilda Ali is a prostitute.Fernando started by recapping yesterday’s proceeding where he had told the court Ummi had been disowned by the father after she confessed to writing the letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, accusing Anwar of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, one-time driver of Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.Ummi’s father, a religious teacher, just before he died, wrote an open letter to the Harakah detailing the reasons he had disowned her and, in no uncertain terms, implicated her as the prime mover behind Azizan.“Ummi’s father died broken-hearted without ever forgiving his daughter for the role she played in framing Anwar of sodomy charges,” related Fernando.

Fernando had earlier read out Azmin Ali’s (Ummi’s brother) testimony in court that proved she played an active role in the whole conspiracy.

The prosecution never called her to testify in court to rebut this allegation, added Fernando. Instead they expected the defence to call her. The judge, in fact, even mentioned this point in his written judgment. “But Ummi would have been a hostile witness so it should have been up to the prosecution and not the defence to call her,” argued Fernando.Fernando said that the court should have invoked Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act on the prosecution for failing to call a most crucial witness to testify in court.

Fernando then took the court through the testimony of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, a.k.a Raja Komando, who had, in fine detail, revealed how the conspiracy against Anwar originally unfolded and the role he was given in this whole conspiracy.

“The evidence of this witness will show he was invited to join the conspiracy with a view to topple the Deputy Prime Minister,” said Fernando.

“The meeting was held in the office of Aziz Samsuddin, the Prime Minister’s Political Secretary, on 26 June 1998.”

In the meeting, revealed Fernando, Aziz confirmed that Ummi and Azizan would pose no problem as “Ummi is a prostitute”.Raja Komando then asked Aziz whether there was any other way to bring Anwar down.According to Raja Komando, “Aziz replied sodomy would be the best way. Other ways would have no affect.”“Raja Komando’s role was to manage the political assassination part of the exercise,” added Fernando. “The sodomy allegation was assigned to Ummi and Azizan.”

“Raja Komando was to disseminate the allegation as far and wide as possible. He was also to spread word that Anwar is a CIA agent.”From what Fernando told the court today, it was clearly established in the meeting Raja Komando had with Aziz Samsuddin that he (Aziz) was the Chief Conspirator and that, while Ummi had written the purported “Azizan” letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy, Aziz was the one who had edited and redrafted it.

The letter, Fernando said, was based on the book “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot be PM” – which somehow found its way into the attaché bags of almost 2,000 delegates at the Umno General Assembly that year.“The judge did not give this evidence the weight it deserved,” argued Fernando. “He erred, grossly.”“If he had given the evidence the weight it deserved, would he have arrived at the judgment he did?”And what about the tragedies befalling the rest of the gang of conspirators? Remember what happened to Aziz Samsuddin, Dr Ristina Majid, Megat Junid, Mohtar Abdullah, Ummi Hafilda Ali, Azizan Abu Bakar, Hamzah Zainuddin, Rahim Thamby Chik, Daim Zainuddin, etc.?

The only two remaining yet to hit the dirt are the AG and the IGP. These two are still awaiting judgment on earth. And when it comes it will come hard and brutal. So stay tuned to see how the remaining scumbags find their faces hitting the shit in time to come

Question about oral sex?

You know what this questions about, so don’t reportI’m not a virgin, but I’ve never really had sex with the same person more than like, 5 times. I’m  a whore! I sleep around a lot and I still feel pretty inexperienced. 

I’m just wondering if almost all couples (well, the female in the couple) gives the guy a bbllooww jjoobb.

Will it be expected of me to do that? If I say no, am I more likely to get dumped?

Just wondering what y’alls opinions were. Thanks!

Why did men find low class Victorian Prostitutes appealing if the women rarely washed?

Ive heard that prostitutes from the victorian era ie (the low class ones that inhabited the streets during the jack the ripper killings) were of really bad taste–most of them ive read slept with 5 or more clients a day and did this in street alleys, as they were locked out of lodgings during the day.

none of them had access to a bath in-between clients as this was thought as time consuming, so why did men find this so attractive, and why would they pay for it.

UMMI immune from the law. Since is not visible to the majority of Malay society, police turned a blind eye to their lifestyle choices.

Streetwalkers/Brothel Workers

For these women, like Fantine in Les Mis, this type of lifestyle was not done out of choice, but out of necessity. The majority of women who walked the streets or worked in brothels did so because they were impoverished, or had a family to support. Either that, or they were abandoned and alone.

Courtesans often chose their lovers, out of jealousy and rivalry with other women of their social class. These women often held small jobs already, usually in small shops. They took bourgeois lovers who were already married as a form of social climbing. There was no chance that these women would ever have to resort to walking the streets.

Lower class prostitutes did not lead a pampered lifestyle. They did not have the benefit of money, clothes and extravagant gifts from their prestigious lover. They did not have one lover who they were attached to, but hundreds of men just interested in using them for their own sexual pleasure.

Courtesans and lorettes were very pampered. They received fine clothes, jewelry and gifts from their lovers. These women usually stuck with their lover until a better offer came along, or they were just plain dumped.

These women were frequently assaulted by male antagonists. There are reports of men wreaking havoc on brothels, as well as a large number of assaults on unregistered prostitutes. (The vast majority of which going unreported.)

While domestic violence against courtesans and lorettes probably occurred during that time, courtesans were sheltered enough that they were not very vulnerable to attacks by random men like the brothel workers were.

Streetwalkers especially had to be street-smart and avoid the police at all costs for fear of being arrested. Women who worked in brothels were kept on a list which tallied all the operating brothels in the city.

She charges £600 an hour, looks great in a court wig and robes, speaks several languages, knows her tort from her barratry and can charm half the High Court.
She’s not a barrister, or a solicitor, she’s a prostitute.
Mind you, she might be arguing cases before a court of law in a few years yet. If American, there’s a good chance she’s putting herself through law school. But for the moment, she is a prostitute. Far likelier then other kinds of prostitutes to be an Ethical Slut, she might not even charge for sex. Instead she calls herself an escort and charges her fee for her company no matter if they have any sex or not.
The High Class Call Girl is the highest class of prostitute and one that is usually safer, pays more and is seen as more glamorous. It allows for highly attractive actresses to look convincing as prostitutes and do plenty offanservice. Her clientele will mostly be men in the upper echelons of society; expect at least one of them to be a politician, particularly one who is always publicly stressing good old fashioned conservative Family Values. Having said that, if these girls are anything like their real-life counterparts, they cater to a higher-class clientele because they are classy, well-educated, and smart. The nature of this clientele may also lead to them becoming involved in a Hookers And Blow situation

Ummi confesses to being the architectthe Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.

Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.

What is most interesting by this revelation is that:

1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.

2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.

3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.

This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.

Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.

Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.

The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.

Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.

Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.

Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.

It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.

However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.

Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.

Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.

Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too

“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.

Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.

One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.

Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.

The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.

Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.

At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon’s serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.

“If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared,” said Fernando. “It will be to their benefit.”

“If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence.”

Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.

“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.

Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.

In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.

“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh, it also wanted a pint of blood”

Karpal Singh continued where he left off on Wednesday, 26 March 2003, by emphasising that Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and there is absolutely no discretion in the matter.

The Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court was told that the date on the charge against Anwar was amended twice; from ‘May 1994’, to ‘May 1992’, then to ‘one day from1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’. The defence had asked for a postponement to allow it time to file its notice of alibi but the court did not grant this ten-day grace that it should have under the law.

“This violated Article 5(1) of the Constitution,” argued Karpal. “Dato Seri Anwar was deprived of his right under the law.”

Karpal said the trial judge had acted prejudicial and irredeemable and he ought not to have sanctioned the prosecution of Anwar.

Karpal then asked the court to consider setting aside the judgement against Anwar.

On the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar, Karpal said Azizan gave five conflicting statements at different points of time.

Azizan’s statement was recorded under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, under this section of the code, a person whose statement is being recorded:

1. Must answer all questions posed to him. (He/she cannot refuse to answer any question).

2. Must tell the truth. (He/she cannot lie).

3. Anything he/she says can be used against him/her. (Including cited for perjury if he/she lies).

Azizan, who had his statement recorded over five different dates from August 1997 until June 1999, however, kept changing his stand.

“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”

“Far from it!” said Karpal.

“The duty of the prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction but to administer justice.”

“The role of the prosecutor should exclude the notion of winning or losing.”

Karpal said that since Azizan made five conflicting statements at different points of time, this “made an improbability of what actually happened.”

As for the fact that Anwar was charged in 1999 for an event that was alleged to have happened in 1993, the six years delay would have reduced his opportunity of preparing a proper defence.

“Memories fail with time erasing the ability to recollect happenings six years ago,” said Karpal. “A fair trial could not be achieved with such a long time lapse.”

“Under section 402A, Dato Seri Anwar’s trial should never have taken place. This is a serious miscarriage of justice.”

“Your Lordships are bound to rule that Section 402A has been infringed.”

The Bench and Karpal then engaged in a debate as to the notice of alibi which, according to the Bench, is to the benefit of the prosecution.

Karpal argued that it did not matter as to whose benefit the notice of alibi may be. It is something mandatory and not something the judge could use his discretion to rule. The defence had made a request for a postponement but the trail judge denied the request.

“The judge did not do his duty. He should have stopped the trial and all the evidence should have been ruled inadmissible.”

Karpal then related how the defence had applied for a postponement to allow the investigating officer to investigate Anwar’s alibi. The Attorney-General then, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, stood up to say he had no objections to the postponement.

“However, after lunch, the AG turned turtle and raised an objection.”

Even the judge had declared that the police should investigate the alibi. “Then, later, he turned round and said that it is their choice, that it was their discretion if they choose to do so.

“The judge said that it was the prosecution’s own funeral if they do not challenge the defence’s alibi.”

Karpal then told the court that the judge had stated that corroboration is necessary. He then turned around and said he was prepared to accept Azizan’s testimony without corroboration though Azizan was an unreliable testimony who perjured himself many times.

“Corroboration is necessary. But, if a witness is unreliable, then, even if his testimony is corroborated, it still cannot be accepted and should be rejected.”

Karpal then took the court through Azizan’s close proximity (khalwat) case in the Alor Gajah Syariah Court. Because of this case, Azizan’s credibility as a witness had been destroyed.

Azizan said he had revealed the alleged sodomy incident because of his “duty and honour as a Muslim.”

Karpal said the defence then requested to recall Azizan as a witness to reassess his credibility. The judge, however, would not allow it.

“You can put a label of a thoroughbred on a horse,” said Karpal. “But a donkey is still a donkey.”

“The judge was not only scraping the bottom of the barrel. He was scraping the outer bottom of the barrel.”

The investigation officer had testified that Azizan’s testimony had no contradictions. “Then why amend the date on the charge?” asked Karpal.

“Was the judge judicially honest in arriving at the decision that Azizan is a reliable witness who did not perjure himself?”

Karpal then said that medical evidence is prime evidence. “Why was Azizan not sent for a medical examination? This could have corroborated Azizan’s testimony.”

“The investigation officer admitted that there was still time to send Azizan for a medical examination.”

“The judge swallowed the evidence hook line and sinker.”

“Allegations of sodomy can easily be made but are very difficult to prove. The evidence therefore must be very convincing.”

In any trial, there is the prosecution’s case and the defence’s case. But Dato Seri Anwar was denied his constitutional right to a proper defence. Anwar, therefore, had only half a trial – which means he had no trial.

Karpal then asked the court to allow Anwar’s appeal and set aside the conviction.

“Anwar’s prosecution, in fact, ought not to have commenced right from the word go. No man properly trained in the law would have done what the AG (then) had done.”

“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh. It also wanted a pint of blood.”

“Azizan’s evidence has turned to stardust.”

POSTED BY THE TAXIDRIVER786

BY CECIL FUNGKUALA LUMPUR: A High Court awarded Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim a total of RM4.5mil in his libel suit against Datuk Abdul Khalid @ Khalid Jafri Bakar Shah, the author of the book 50 Dalil Mengapa Anwar Tidak Boleh Jadi PM (50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Become PM). 

Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus awarded the former deputy prime minister RM4mil for defamation and RM500,000 for conspiracy to injure.

Khalid Jafri and his wife Datin Rozihan A. Ghani, of Media Pulau Lagenda which published the book, were named as defendant and second defendant respectively.

Justice Mohd Hishamudin also awarded costs to the plaintiff in respect of the proceedings for the assessment of damages.

“Recent cases on libel actions in this country show that the current judicial trend in Malaysia is no longer to award millions of ringgit in damages for libel.

“However, I am in agreement with Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah (Anwar’s lead counsel) that the facts and circumstances of this case are unique and hence the damages to be awarded must be reflective of the peculiarity of the case,” the judge said in his judgment.

When met after the proceedings, Anwar, 58, said he was thankful that the case was finally settled.

“I’m very pleased with the judgment. I’m completely vindicated. This is also the first judgment that made reference and affirmed the existence of a conspiracy to topple me,” he said.

The 65-year-old author was not present in court.

According to media reports, Khalid Jafri is in critical condition after being warded at a private hospital in Seremban for chronic diabetes on Aug 2.

His right leg was *CENSORED* three days later. He is now warded at Selayang Hospital  readmore Ummi Hafilda the Prostitute’s Ultimate Fantasy: Size not Foreplay but she Loves Oral Sex