 |
aiyah Yingluck sweetie, you've only the entire Thai army against you I OTOH have a far more powerful one-man Army against me wakakaka |
Najib’s lawyers wrote that the offending WSJ article had stated the writers were uncertain of the source and purpose of the funds, so:
“We are instructed to procure your position because the articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of the original source of ‘the money and what happened to the money’ whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the articles create a clear impression that our client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad."
“We stand behind our fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story.”
In other words, WSJ's article has lent an impression disadvantagous to Najib's reputation, to wit, Ah Jib Gor has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad, while tap dancing away by also stating they (WSJ's writers) were unsure of the original source of ‘the money and what happened to the money'?
Well, Najib’s legal eagles believe WSJ can't have it both ways, so want it to make its 'position' clear (have they been saying Najib took the money, or not?).
They are basically cornering WSJ into firm commitment on its stand vis-a-vis the story, presumably so that they can squeeze WSJ's balls kau kau in the legal suit - well, they didn't say it so crudely in the way kaytee did, wakakaka, but put it in nice legal words like "... confirmation is also necessary to enable them to then advise their client on his “appropriate legal recourse”.
“We stand behind our fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story.”
But that's NOT what Najib's lawyers ask!
WSJ was saying its responsibility thus far is just "fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story" but without taking any position on Najib's naughtiness, though its article had been written in such a way Najib has been seen to be a very naughty boy, wakakaka.
I like the word 'evolving story' meaning WSJ is hedging, and that the end is still unknown, where it may well end up with Najib emerging and smelling sweetly of bunga cempaka, wakakaka.
If Najib is eventually found guilty, it will proudly publish "I told you so" but OTOH, if Najib is found innocent, then it's all about accurate coverage of an evolving story, wakakaka.
Yes, WSJ has cleverly avoided meeting the question posed by Najib's lawyers head on. But will Najib's lawyers leave it at that? I doubt it - in the meantime WSJ hopes for another humongous 'LEAK' from you know who, wakakaka.
Najib's lawyers will make sure WSJ pay through its asses if it lost the case and after this courtcase will more or less be a supermarket tabloid like SR,The Star and The Enquirer.Eventually,the WSJ will be taken over by another group.
ReplyDeleteDow Jones is BIG! But Lee Kuan Yew had whacked it before so Malaysians though highly prejudiced against Najib shouldn't think WSJ is infallible
DeleteBut then that is lee kuan yew. But Then again by all means lor. Wsj will countersue in spore and hk
DeleteLhl will never come to najib rescue. Remember Tan kwon suan
Buddy you're an old man poor man
DeletePleadin' with your eyes gonna make you some peace some day
You got mud on your face
Big disgrace
Somebody better put you back into your place
We will we will rock you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaOlfmX8rQ
i think wsj report what was happening, without stating any opinion, express or implied. this is what most media outlets should do, reporting facts. leave the opinion to op-ed, or editors view, or readers comment. lky case is different. dun let yr prejudice blinded u. malaysian r mostly impartial, we look at issue from a factual perspective, unlike singaporean n aussie wakaka.
DeleteHy Must be tian chua brother
DeleteHY, "Malaysians r mostly impartial"?
Deletewakakaka, what have you been smoking?
WSJ has given a stupid answer to a stupid question by Ahjib's lawyer. Many top lawyers have commented that if you don't know what WSJ has alleged, go read it again instead of asking the opponent what they meant to say. WSJ is already being polite to say we stand by our report instead of saying "don't you understand English?". You want to sue or want an English lesson?
ReplyDeleteTeo,
DeleteWsj Will say
My name is sue. How do you do? Now you gonna die
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMaybe similar to the case of RPK's SD, whose escape clause the words "I was reliably
ReplyDeleteinformed ...."; and so he got away with slandering Rosmah in the Mongolian case.
My friend, who joined London's Inner Temple forty years ago, was shaking his head in disbelief at the amazingly awful legal letter to Dow Jones from Najib's lawyers.
ReplyDeleteSurely, Najib, who is rumoured to be able to easily afford (nudge, nudge , wink, wink) a battalion of the absolutely very best of the best of the best , the very most, most, most expensive top-notch legal brains in the world could have done better than send a poorly drafted letter containing lousy English to Dow Jones.
Bear in mind, he is up against one of the world's most powerful media companies, with very deep pockets, and their own battery of elite lawyers.
You many not realise it, unless you have legal training, or a senior lawyer to explain to you, that Najib's letter actually exposes his weak hand. Its a fishing expedition.
It is obvious Najib doesn't know what else the Wall Street Journal has on him, probably fears what he doesn't know about what the WSJ may or may not have, and may publish next.
The contents of the letter are not the reflection of an indignant man completely sure of his own innocence.
In fact, an effective legal demand letter has to do just that - establish up front your full, uncompromised rights as an aggrieved party.
Any negotiations or watering down is a matter for horse-trading later.
That is why, if you have been on the receiving end before, any lawyer's legal demand letter you get is likely to sound very threatening up front, even though the other side is actually willing to negotiate the issue.
On the other hand, Najib may be trying to conceal a strong hand, like playing a poker game. But that is not logical here , considering it is of utmost importance to him to repair his public image in Malaysia.
Bring out the popcorn and the Shandy....and watch the movie as it develops...
Nobody is above the law......screamed Hisham......
ReplyDeletehttp://www.malaysiakini.com/news/304515
Yeah, suck my cock la........
Now .that Najib has shown that he is the one wearing the pants,and being a betting man,my money is on Najib.
ReplyDeleteWell,now that Najib has decided to have his day in court,he is rolling up his sleeves and ready to rock and roll.He is telling his enemies that he has nothing to hide.Those insiders who leaked out confidential information and documents have to be worried,very very worried.It is just a matter of time before the full brunt of the law is applied to them.Nobody wants to be in their shoes,especially in lockup.
ReplyDeleteAllegations against Najib are just plain allegations.That is why they are called allegations.Unless hard facts/documentations are presented against Najib,or he is charged and found guilty by the court the allegations are just plain old allegations.
ReplyDeleteWhen allegations are thrown against a person and screams of resign fill the air,does that person have to resign?If he does,than we will have political opponents throwing accusations/allegations at their enemies holding public office.Then we will have presidents,PM's and ministers resigning everyday.
These screaming hyenas better jump into the nearest bushes andgo shiok sendiri.And most of all go get a life,you miserable hypocrites.
After Najib has brought WSJ down on it's knees,it will be a witch hunt for his internal enemies after that.Najib or Umno will send collectors to Mahathir's and Daim's front doorsteps to collect Umno's tens or even hundreds of billions under them and their proxies.They will even go as far as Africa to hunt Daim down in his love nest haven.
ReplyDeleteAiyoo, WSJ didn't say Najib took fund for "Personal" use lah. They just laid out a money trail for all to see. What is there to sue for? Only Najib is repeating the words "personal use". No one else. Like my son got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and exclaiming it's for adek2 only, not for himself. It is more credible if Ahjib can proof those were Umno or BN's money for the benefit of the rakyat somehow. Remember Hong Kong , Michael Chia, 20million, Umno's money, = no case. NFA.
ReplyDelete