|
|
[Tempatan]
emel loyar Bijan menjadi bahan lawak
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Changa replied at 9-7-2015 10:41 AM
kenapa tak lantik shafiee abdgullah ke apa oitu yg mamak2 sikit muka heshe.
akak syak kalau heshe ...
Kaka i rasa tu loyar humno la...cuba kaka tgk profilw law firm tuuu...akaun dah kene seal kot takut nak pakai loyar memahal niii....
Tp sbb agensi beritanya dr sana..kakak still berhati2 jg la...sbb pd kaka half may be rite half may be wrong..but thwn thwy have already dare to stir ah jib... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
memang betul dia ni loyar ameno....kroni...hari tu dapat projek kidex...tapi atas permintaan rakyat selangor, YB Azmin kensel projek tu....
...cakap omputeh pun tunggang langgang, cecuba nak ambik projek beliyon2..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peguam Negara dilantik khas utk kes2 jubo sepul je
kes2 yg melibatkan aliran duit negara
dan kes berkaitan perdana menteri
mmg takde kaitan dengan peguam negara
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that guy bukan mamak2 sikit, tapi he is in fact an indian muslim....maybe malay wannabe...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mamat ni specialization dia apa? Lawyer pun ada bidang2 yg mereka mahir contoh jenayah, juall beli, nikah kawin, mati setem juga tafsiran lebai dan aurat.. kat CI ni ada sekor..
Lawyer yg najib hire ni reti ke corporate finance/banking/scandal tak pun media/journalism affairs?
Mcm cari tukang jahit la.. kalau nak suruh kedai apek tua buat suit jahit baju kurung mmg kejung la hasilnya baju kurung tu.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
duit bilion2 tu masih ada or dh abis joli? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PM tak cakap apa apa lah...kamu yg pandai pandai mentafsir...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aku yg bodo x belajaq law pun boleh agak surat 14 hari tu dia nak p ejas akaun dia bagi cantik dulu...14 hari kenapa 14? Bukan 7?
x sampai sehari pun depa dah jawab...so kena tggu 14 gak ka? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ni dari Outsyed the box blog
PRESS RELEASE
A Wall street Journal had published an article dated 3rd July 2015, implicating our client Datuk Seri Najib. Immediately, our client had instructed us, Messrs Hafarizam Wan & .., to scrutinize the said article. The article is tainted with numerous allegations against our client which involved several companies and transactions.
My comments :
1. 'the Wall Street Journal' bukan 'a WSJ' lah.
2. 'has instructed us' bukan 'had instructed us'.
3. Structure bad - just say 'our client has instructed..'
Combing through the said article, we have concluded that the language is intentionally or otherwise has made reference to several facts and companies which are vaguely described.
4. 'has intentionally' bukan 'is intentionally'
5. 'made reference' bukan 'has made reference'
6. if they are vaguely described then you dont have a case bro.
Reference is made to the said article wherein it has been stated that our client had been directly probed into 1MDB, however contents of the article refers to indirect transactions where our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies. A clear contradiction which requires further clarification.
7. hangpa pi sekolah bawah pokok cempedak ke? 'our client had been directly probed into 1MDB' ?? It should be 'has' bukan 'had'.
8. It sounds like your client was used as a probe. Was this done at a proctologist's clinic? (A proctologist is an ass doctor - haemorrhoids etc). Perhaps 'our client has been probed with reference to 1MDB' is better.
9. Isnt your "our client has been implicated with 1MDB-linked companies" an admission of guilt?
This article by WSJ was issued, published and circulated through WSJ web portal http://www.wsj.com . Firstly, we have been instructed to identify the parties involved in the authorship, distribution and publishing, for the purpose of naming the appropriate parties in any potential actions which requires deliberation and research as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents.
10. If you have not identified them, why did you address your letter to The WSJ? The reporters names are written at the top of the articles. The paper is the Wall Street Journal.
11. 'any potential action' ?? So you are not sure? What type of letter is this?
12. 'as the article does not reflect extensive details for service of any legal letter or court documents' - if the article 'does not reflect extensive details' then there is no case. Why send the letter of demand? Why not just wait for another article which may have those desired extensive details?
Secondly, another issue of concern is, jurisdictional issues of which the publication originates from United States of America and accessible worldwide. We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter.
13. It should be "whereby the publication" bukan "of which the publication". Sekolah tang mana bro? It should be 'and is accessible worldwide'.
14. This sentence is too dumb : "We have been also instructed that a local presence of WSJ is also available and we are pursuing further clarification and details on this matter." First of all avoid using two 'also' in the same sentence. How can you shoot off the letter without seeking these basic clarifications and details? Jurisdiction tak tahu, local presence tak tahu. Why not ask Maniam the newspaper vendor dulu.
(Err..guys some clarification : Do you all know what is The Wall Street Journal?)
Since the article involves several parties, we have also been instructed to consider a joint action or an action against, in the event evidence shows a conspiracy against our client. Kindly note that the companies named as conspirators with our client, in the article are; International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd.
15. Waalaaaau-ehhh !! Not only is your client a conspirator, but the conspirators also include "International Petroleum Investment Co, Tanore Finance Corp, SRC International Sdn. Bhd, and Ihsan Perdana Sdn. Bhd." You said it ok. Ini awak cakap. Bukan orang lain cakap. I think Hafarizam Wan & co may be getting a letter of demand from these 'conspirators' as well.
16. The first sentence is hanging. It is incomplete. 'an action against' who?
Several names of companies or organizations had only been referred to as the related companies or companies belonging to certain organizations or companies, and also the sources or destinations or the alleged transactions has not been disclosed. This in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required.
17. 'have only' bukan 'had only'. And what are you trying to say here : "This in itself either intentionally or otherwise has caused further identification of facts been required."
If I repair the English : "This in itself either intentionally or otherwise requires further identification of facts". Which still does not make sense. Further identification of facts by whom? You or The WSJ? Letter of Demand pun kelam kabut. WSJ gelak tergolek sampai jatuh dalam East River di New York !!
Once we have identified the parties, the jurisdiction, and the involvement of conspirators or are they merely parties which also had been innocently imputed in the article, we can then proceed to address the third issue.
18. Then why send the letter of demand? Do you know you have disrupted my shower? Why not do all the identification first, the correct jurisdiction, the involvement of conspirators etc before you proceed. This is like Premature Ejaculato (he is a singer in the Philippines)..
And it is 'who have been innocently' bukan 'which also had been innocently'.
The third issue is to tackle all possible or plausible legal remedies of which our client shall be given advise on an action of defamation, further tortuous actions and remedies including any statutory violations by WSJ and related companies and (if any) conspirers. "upon which our client shall be advised for an action of
19. 'further tortuous actions' ?? Yo bro, watching too many jihaadi videos lately? What torture are you talking about?
This is not a straightforward legal action due to the national and international imputations. We have been instructed to identify facts and lay full facts, before our client, is able to proceed with further instructions.
20. Ya Allah. Ini pun nak sebut ke? So you are saying you dont have a case. You are saying that at this point in time your client is NOT able to proceed with giving you further instructions?
The purpose of clear explanation is to avoid unnecessary objections by WSJ on the imputations that are made. Once our client has obtained all necessary facts and the position of WSJ is ascertained, we have strict instructions to immediately exhaust legal avenues and remedies.
21. In other words you have no case.
Yours faithfully,
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MESSRS HAFARIZAM WAN & ...
My final comments have nothing to do with the contents of Hafarizam's letter of demand or their Press Release.
This whole 'letter of demand' thingy is a charade. A Red Herring to ostensibly pukau the Felda Padang Piol types (who are actually far more cleverer than what the Super Moron thinks of them).
This 'legal action' threatened against the Wall Street Journal will not go beyond the horrible grammar and the terrible sentence structure used in both the Letter of Demand as well as the Press Release.
Yo bro, this is not like writing a 55 year concession agreement for a toll highway to nowhere. Still, I think Hafarizam will get handsomely rewarded for writing this amaterurish letter.
The bottom line is the people in Felda Piol do not read English. For sure Utusan would have told them about it (in Malay, jeng jeng jeng). Mission accomplished.
The Bugis pirate sails on - to pillage yet another coast.
Conclusion : The presence of large numbers of ignorant and barefoot natives is an absolute must for things like this to prevail.
Dzek... untuk mentelaah sama sama... patutnya najib ambik loyer shafie...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ikut la nak pilih siapa
beliau ada kuasa memilih |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modngengade replied at 9-7-2015 06:59 AM
Najib is digging his own grave with c4 in his hand....
Dulu bukan ko jilat dia ke?
Abah ko joget |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nampak sangat rendahnya i.q si penjilat...... Cerita pasal Najib guna akaun dia transfer duit punya la banyak. Tp penjilat tegar tetap selit Cina Dap, keling la apa sume. Tah apa2. Apa punya bodoh perangai. Otak dah tak boleh berfikir secara normal ke??  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peguam jibby bljr uitm ke.. Nmpk mcm dr universiti sampah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lengah masa lah..atleast sampai raya..nanti perut korang dh kenyang mkn ketupat..korang lupa la kes ni dan undi BN semula pru 14 nanti..nmpk tak permainannya tu? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19. 'further tortuous actions' ?? Yo bro, watching too many jihaadi videos lately? What torture are you talking about?
ini lawak!
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
byk sgt clown 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
salah bangsa lain juga.hehehe rasanyer u ni kena gi bertapa ke apa..semua salah bangsa lain selain bangsa u hish.bawak bawak lah bertenang dgn bertafakur......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gamoknye melecet la jari jemari macai harini..
kehkehkeh  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kira ok lagi dia amik loyer ni, daripada lowyer pprt pondan hitam khairul yg tak reti apa2 tu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 9-7-2015 10:47 AM
Author
