Untitled

Clement speaks to renowned economist Thabi Leoka about reports in the BusinessLive that she does not have a PhD from the London School of Economics. Leoka denies that she has lied about her qualifications. During the interview, she responds to allegations surrounding her academic credentials and addresses claims that she misrepresented her educational background. She maintains that she has never intentionally misled the public, employers, or professional organizations about her qualifications.

The discussion explores the importance of transparency and credibility in public life, particularly for individuals who hold influential positions in business, economics, and public policy. Leoka explains her perspective on how the misunderstanding arose and outlines the qualifications and experience that have shaped her career. Clement questions her about the details reported by BusinessLive, the impact of the controversy on her professional reputation, and the broader implications for trust in leadership.

There were at least three Indonesian school managers who had stood up to Luke Preece and complained about him to Mariam and HR. By the end of 2012 they had all been fired, bringing the total of fired managers from 2011 and 2012 to over ten individuals. Basically everyone except their rotten, crooked clique was shown the door in a humiliating fashion. The three last non-Mafia Indonesian managers were Mariezka, Ratna and GA from TBI Malang. Within a 12 month period Luke Preece had got rid of all them too, usually by a combination of spies, slander and threats and intimidation. I know this because I personally spoke to two of them and had other teacher sources about the third. They all reported Luke Preece lying about them, rigging appointments in favour of his stooges and in one case flat out ordering them to resign and lie it was their own idea.

What happened to Mariezka?

You will remember that she had complained to HR about Luke in 2010 when Luke rigged the appointment of his best friend, Scott Martin, to lead TBI Jalan Jawa. Luke obviously had it in for her because after she became school manager of TBI Depok, she didn’t last long at all. When I asked her what her problems are she said that the managers didn’t approve of her. Every time they spoke to Luke Preece they came back angry at her and had “the completely wrong idea” about everything that had happened. I suggested to her that he was poisoning them against her by misrepresenting events. She agreed with that and said that they “loved Luke” and believed everything he said, so she felt powerless against his lies. Within a few weeks of that call, she was gone. She later made some sort of statement saying, “It was her idea to leave,” but that wasn’t what she had said to me just weeks before. She said that she loved the job but the owners had been turned against her by Preece, which is completely typical.

What else did she say?

Ementa – Habeas Corpus

O Supremo Tribunal Federal analisou habeas corpus relacionado a crimes de estelionato, envolvendo questionamentos sobre a existência de indícios de autoria e materialidade, a fundamentação da prisão preventiva, a observância do princípio do juiz natural e o alegado excesso de prazo da prisão cautelar. O Tribunal examinou a evolução de sua jurisprudência quanto à possibilidade de ratificação de atos processuais praticados por juízo posteriormente considerado incompetente, inclusive atos de natureza decisória, concluindo pela inexistência de nulidade capaz de justificar a concessão da ordem.

Habeas Corpus. 2. Crimes de Estelionato. 3. Alegações de: a) ausência de indícios de autoria e materialidade; b) falta de fundamentação da preventiva; c) violação ao princípio do juiz natural; e d) excesso de prazo da prisão preventiva. 4. Prejudicialidade parcial do pedido, o qual prossegue apenas com relação à alegada violação ao princípio do juiz natural. 5. Em princípio, a jurisprudência desta Corte entendia que, para os casos de incompetência absoluta, somente os atos decisórios seriam anulados. Sendo possível, portanto, a ratificação de atos não-decisórios. Precedentes citados: HC nº 71.278/PR, Rel. Min. Néri da Silveira, 2ª Turma, julgado em 31.10.1994, DJ de 27.09.1996 e RHC nº 72.962/GO, Rel. Min. Maurício Corrêa, 2ª Turma, julgado em 12.09.1995, DJ de 20.10.1995. 6. Posteriormente, a partir do julgamento do HC nº 83.006-SP, Pleno, por maioria, Rel. Min. Ellen Gracie, DJ 29.08.2003, a jurisprudência do Tribunal evoluiu para admitir a possibilidade de ratificação pelo juízo competente inclusive quanto aos atos decisórios. 7. Declinada a competência pelo Juízo Estadual, o juízo de origem federal ao ratificar o seqüestro de bens (medida determinada pela justiça comum), fez referência expressa a uma série de indícios plausíveis acerca da origem ilícita dos bens como a incompatibilidade do patrimônio do paciente em relação aos rendimentos declarados. 8. No decreto cautelar, ainda, a manifestação da Juíza da Vara Federal Criminal é expressa no sentido de que, da análise dos autos, há elementos de materialidade do crime e indícios de autoria. 9. Ordem indeferida.

Decisão

A Turma, por votação unânime, indeferiu o pedido de habeas corpus, nos termos do voto do Relator. 2ª Turma, 18.12.2006.

Data do Julgamento : 18/12/2006

Data da Publicação : DJ 30-03-2007 RTJ VOL-00201-02 PP-00682

Órgão Julgador : Segunda Turma

Relator(a) : Min. GILMAR MENDES