Path-Finder
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,393
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
got his old deary involved too!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mujhay plan cancel hota hua nazar aaraha hai mian saab ka!PML-N lawyers wing press conference
haad ho gai hai!! Khada mian da te tareefan Imran di
Very rude. Posting a lawyer's arguments did not mean I "fell for it" but that I presented them for rebuttal.So you fell for it...Now Piss off...yo fell for it too -
Nevertheless, you've given a more substantial answer than @PakSword did. Yet you, too, did not answer the specific points the author raised in his op-ed.You think the corrupt keep receipts of their corruption or leave a money trail for getting caught red handed doing corruption or are there subtle ways of making a commission on the side in stacks of offshore companies to hide their dirty wealth? Which is easier to hide or get rid off, proof of corruption or ownership of Assets?
The standard applied here is, "guilty until proven innocent." I'm not sympathetic. That's not an acceptable legal standard, though of course it may be a legitimate political one. The solution is to vote the b--tard out, not a shaky conviction that could be overturned on appeal, thus creating a vindicated martyr ripe for winning the next election.Assets beyond means = crime
Yes. If you can't prove the crime it's 100% acceptable to prosecute the attempt at cover-up.Forgery = crime
???Dem feels = not a legit rebuttal
Thank you, but not quite.Hope that clears things for you
The standard applied here is, "guilty until proven innocent." I'm not sympathetic. That's not an acceptable legal standard, though of course it may be a legitimate political one. The solution is to vote the b--tard out, not a shaky conviction that could be overturned on appeal, thus creating a vindicated martyr ripe for winning the next election.
How is this guilty until proven? If you have assets beyond your income then you have to provide the source of those assets being a Govt employ.
"...Section 9 (a) (v) flips the presumption of innocence — a hallmark of the right to a fair trial — and presumes you are guilty. You, the accused, must show you are innocent. It is an absurd provision that violates the very concept of a fair trial. But even with this easy route towards conviction, the judgment falls on its face numerous times. You see, in order to trigger section 9 (a) (v) the prosecution has to prove that a public office holder owned an asset or property which was disproportionate to his means of income. Therefore, the prosecution still had to prove that Nawaz Sharif owned the Avenfield apartments. They couldn’t. The judgment itself admits this. How the judgment still manages to get to this conclusion is a tale of presumptions and gems of logic -"
Rude is actually presuming posters here to be inept instead of doing your own research first about the basics of the case rather than posting an article about the demerits of the verdict while ignoring the merits of what the case was actually about from the start. Bottom line, the article is lame and only amounts to throwing sand in the eyes of the un-awares. Just posting it, amounts to doing the same...Very rude.
Defense objected that the "proof" consisted of inferences and documentary evidence inadmissable by Pakistani legal standards and precedents. If these objections are sustained on appeal I don't see why the judgment won't be reversed.Also read the other part where it says that Nawaz also failed to provide evidence of his transaction. and It was also proven that he owns the property.
Well, I can hardly post 173 pages, can I?Don't only post the judgement parts you like.
Defense objected that the "proof" consisted of inferences and documentary evidence inadmissable by Pakistani legal standards and precedents. If these objections are sustained on appeal I don't see why the judgment won't be reversed.
Well, I can hardly post 200 pages, can I?