30 Sept. 2017
Whether they admit it or not, the BURDEN OF
PROOF is now on the Office of the Ombudsman and Antonio Trillanes. Proof that
they DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIMINAL ACT in possessing data and copies of supposed
records of bank accounts of President Digong Duterte and his kids.
Remember, people, the Office of the Ombudsman
had claimed that it had received the records from the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC). But the AMLC DENIED having released any document to the Office
of the Ombudsmnan. The AMLC also BELIED as WRONG AND MISLEADING figures in the
supposed accounts which had been cited by Trillanes in his plunder complaint
against Duterte.
That leaves only two possibilities – the records
and data are either FAKE or had been OBTAINED ILLEGALLY.
So from where and whom did the records and
data come from? WHO AUTHORIZED THE RELEASE AND WHERE is the WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION? Trillanes and the Office of the Ombudsman should show this if
they’ll say they had not done anything wrong. The AMLC specifically said it had
not even acted on the Ombudsman’s request for an investigation of Duterte bank
records. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for them to release any record to
the Ombudsman. So how come they still got supposed copies of and data from the
records? How or by what means, and what law
or rule allowed them to have these despite the surrounding circumstances?
The Ombudsman is ignoring the AMLC denial and
has vowed to pursue its probe of Duterte’s alleged hidden wealth. If they’ll
fail to prove the LEGALITY of having possession of the records, and the authenticity
of these, what will be the LEGAL BASIS of the probe? 30
No comments:
Post a Comment