understand law thru SINCERE media... it's fun to know who telling the true facts

as i browse the net to find out about the court case for Perak impasse... i noticed that some party trying to mislead the public by giving their lame facts as THIS

and i browse somemore for the answer of that lies in THAT

but when i search for the meaning of some of the law terms such as this:

• A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute. It is commonly called a declaratory ruling, a term which also includes decisions of regulatory agencies. A declaratory judgment or ruling is binding as to the duties, rights, obligations and status of the parties. However, a declaratory judgment does not order any action or result in any award of damages to any party to the case. Unlike an advisory opinion, a declaratory judgment requires an actual case or controversy.

• Certiorari is an action taken after sentencing by a defendant who seeks relief for some perceived error in his criminal trial. There are a number of such post-trial actions, their differences being potentially confusing, thus bearing some explanation. Three of the most common are an appeal to which the defendant has as a right, a writ of certiorari and a writ of habeas corpus.

• Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

and my verdict is that someone called Datuk at young age are trying to deceived the public at large in Malaysia, per se

so... how about you... study the law, anyone